Pstbag
Embattled TV anchor Sorayuth Suthassanachinda and Channel 3 keep on pretending that nothing is amiss even though the National Anti-Corruption Commission decided after a four-year investigation to take criminal action against him for allegedly embezzling 138.79 million baht in advertising money and the Thai Journalists Association has decided that he violated journalistic ethics even though his case has yet to be decided by the courts.
I agree with Securities and Exchange secretary-general Vorapol Socatiyanurak statement displayed on the Post's front page yesterday: ''Ethics is critical for anyone within the media, given its influence within society.'' Yet many sponsors and viewers of Sorayuth's show are pretending that the elephant in the room doesn't exist.
I suggest that to gain the reasoned cooperation of all parties and help us fight corruption in general, the issue should be debated and the debates should be publicly televised. These debates, broadcast live, will stimulate public awareness of and involvement in this crucial issue of corruption, with the agreed-upon ground rule that each side will seek to shed light, not heat, on the issue. On the one hand, those against the motion could point out that prosecutors are still deliberating whether to accept the case against Sorayuth or not, and the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty must hold. But on the other hand, taking precautionary action to limit possible damage is not only legal but common. For example, courts routinely refuse to grant bail; Nike and many other advertisers terminated contracts with Lance Armstrong when they became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the centre of a doping ring in his legendary cycling team; and Pennsylvania State University fired its then-president Graham Spanier for allegedly covering up the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal despite the jury having not yet weighed in on Mr Spanier's guilt or innocence.
Let's learn from this case so that we may all join in fighting the scourge of corruption.
Burin Kantabutra
CHEERS FOR VORAPOL
As a Thai national, I would like to congratulate SEC secretary-general Vorapol Socatiyanurak for making the bold move of asking for listed companies to help fight corruption and for them to ''exercise caution'' in doing business with Sorayuth Suthassanachinda, as reported in yesterday's Bangkok Post. Mr Vorapol has set a precedent of placing the interests of the country ahead of short-term gains, one which I hope will be emulated by others in similar positions.
Lucy Tan-atichat
SANDY SERVES UP CONTRAST
The reports of the high praise given to President Barack Obama for his strong leadership in the disaster response to Hurricane Sandy from a previous political antagonist, Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, reminded me of what did not happen in Thailand during our flood crisis. It would have been nice if Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the Democrat governor of Bangkok, praised Pheu Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for her unselfish and bipartisan efforts to bring relief to citizens of Bangkok, instead of practising the divisive management style we Bangkokians had to endure.
Songdej Praditsmanont
Bangkok
PRO-LIFE PROVISOS
In the opinion piece the Post ran on Wednesday, The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman gave good examples of how the ''pro-life'' people are not really pro-life, and I'd like to add a few examples of my own.
No one who is pro-life could believe that starvation is better than birth control and getting Aids is better than using a condom. According to United Nations statistics, birth control helps prevent over one hundred million abortions a year.
No one who is pro-life could support the death penalty when we know innocent people get convicted of capital offences, or support war fought under false pretences.
No one who is pro-life could accept the fact that people die because they can't afford surgery or medication. And don't think that only happens in Third World countries.
No one who is pro-life could tolerate the genocide committed against billions of non-humans for food, clothes, research and other demented reasons. When the ''pro-life'' people want to address these issues, I'll be more than happy to consider the moral questions that they raise about abortion.
Eric Bahrt
Pattaya
EXECUTIONS CAN BE JUST
Recently the Bangkok Post has featured articles supporting the abolition of the death penalty for two reasons: the death penalty does not deter crime, and mistakes can occur and innocent people can be executed.
It seems as if the supporters of the abolition of the death penalty feel they own the moral high ground, but I beg to differ.
Although the death penalty may be abused by certain governments, that does not mean it is wrong in principle. After all, it is a question of justice, not deterrence.
For example, is it right that a Danish mass-murderer should be imprisoned for only 20 years or so after cold-bloodedly gunning down so many young people?
Clearly, the death penalty was the only just sentence in that case. A man who treats his fellow human beings with so much callousness has surely forfeited his right to live in civilised society, even in prison. Yes, tragically, mistakes can occur, but fatal mistakes are made all around us by doctors, pilots, drivers, etc.
I do not believe justice is best served by the total abolition of the death penalty; rather, it is undermined.
Bob Gosling
CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
Fax: +02 2403666 email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
Bangkok Post online classifieds
Try buying selling goods and properties 24/7 in our classifieds which has high purchasing power local expatriate audience from within Thailand and around the world.
Article source: http://www.thethailandlinks.com/2012/11/04/debate-media-ethics-case/
0 comments:
Post a Comment