From: mptj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai
Subject: Re: Bangkok Post Dec 18: Vimol wants military to be receptive to info
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:20:02 EST
Distribution: soc
Organization: Cornell University

In article <9212171805.AA05751@ipied.tu.ac.th>,
kamol@ipied.tu.ac.TH (Kamol Hengkietisak) writes: 
>  
> THE Army wants its personnel to be more open to receive and
> disseminate news to suit the modern world in the Age of Information,
> Army Chief Vimol Wongwanich said yesterday.
>  
> Gen Vimol was referring to the Army's seminar on its public relations
> work which ended yesterday.
>  
> "In the Age of Information, it is very important for us to establish
> good understanding with the people. So we want our public relations
> personnel to know how to achieve this goal," he said when commenting
> on the objectives of the seminar.
>  

All this sounds very good. I am sure it is a step in the right direction.
Now let us prcactice democracy and make sure that the path is not diverted
by following closely what the army does. In other words, they let this
information out into the media- we make sure they mean what they say.

> On the subject of the moral necessity of informing the people of news
> as opposed to preserving military secrets, Gen Vimol said: "We must be
> able to make a suitable decision about what should be made known to
> the public."
>  

Thailand is not in any external conflict right now. To prove that the intention
of secrecy is not to make the people the military's enemy, let the military
inform the people of everything they are doing. Let them start with the 
secret budget, for example.

This makes me recall the news that was posted just a few weeks ago about the
conflict with the Burmese army over a mountain in Chumpon. It seemed
as if in that case every little detail was published; even details 
that were not important for the general public but were very valuable for
the Burmese, such as the number of Thai and Burmese troops and what
the Thais know about the Burmese preparation. Such information should
have been kept secret, if the Thai military had any intention of driving
the Burmese out, since telling the enemy what you know gives him an 
advantage (and the military did present the Burmese on that hill as the
enemy. Does this mean that they did not really see it that way? Does
it mean that The Thai military still has some collaboration with the 
Burmese military?). In short, the military should stop viewing the people 
as their enemy, and they should inform them of the whole truth, as they have
demonstrated that they can do, just when it was the wrong time to do it.


> To be better informed, the Army will invite experts in various fields
> to speak at its monthly meeting, he said.
>  
> Gen Vimol joked: "We have tried to get in touch with the people for a
> long time. In fact, the signs `Military Zone. Off-limits to outsiders'
> are only old structures erected a long time ago."
>  

Then take them off. Too many people have been killed already in clashes with
the army. You can start joking after some 20 or 50 years of internal peace,
not now.

> Assistant Army Chief Gen Yutthana Khamdee, who presided over the
> closure of the seminar, said what had been learned from the seminar
> will be put into practice to better inform the public of the Army's
> affairs.
>  

"Better" meaning "more truthfully" or "so we know how to handle them better"?
I don't like this guy. The last time he was quoted by BKK Post he was trying
to seem like someone with a fragile heart and a lot of feelings that we
should be sorry for because he is about to lose his seat in the senate 
just because he is a good citizen (= a soldier). He will vhave to demonstrate
a lot of corrected behavior before I change my mind about him.


> Army deputy secretary Col Banchorn Chavalsilp said the Army's public
> relations work in the past was more like propaganda, which caused the
> people to lose faith in the Army.
>  

Very good observation! Now you understand what works and what doesn't.

> He said an adjustment in public relations methods would give a clearer
> picture of the Army's responsibilities.
>  
> The use of radio and television to disseminate information will also
> be stepped up, he said.

Good idea, bad means. Does he mean that the military should step up its 
propaganda in the media? Does he think that will lead to more trust? Take
people in the former Soviet Union: Did they believe a word Pravda said? 
No, not even if Pravda said the truth. Why? Because it was the voice of
the government. What should be done is to let the media cover more of
the military's activity. That way you know that what gets to teh people is 
not what some officer wants the to know, but something closer to the truth.
That way you can be certain that the people will feel "hey, now we know
what the military is doing. Now we can believe these guys, something
that we couldn't do for years".

I rest my case

	Abi