Sober decision on advert ban
The Food and Drug Administration is finally backing off its error in banning all advertisements of alcoholic beverages. The FDA is properly accepting the verdict of the Council of State that the agency had no business meddling in this issue. To its credit, the FDA now says it will clear up the confusing paperwork and bow out of the controversy within a week or so. That puts matters back roughly where they were a few months ago. While it is not accepting the defeat gracefully, at least the FDA accepts it acted wrongly.
There is no shortage these days of government and non-government groups eager to tell us what to do. Lamentably, many are willing to use force to implement their views. Those behind the campaign to ban liquor advertising obviously had ulterior motives. Their objective was not to stop advertisements by makers of beer, wine and liquor, but rather to set in motion a programme to ban sales of alcoholic drinks. Such a ban is no more necessary or admirable than the proposed, illegal ban on advertising which the prohibitionists almost attained.
The anti-alcohol campaign has been brewing, one might say, for some time. Activists congregated last year, when Thailand's biggest maker of alcoholic beverages decided to list shares on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Activist leaders enlisted monks, pious people and those few politicians they could find.
They made a noisy campaign that included protests and demonstrations. Eventually, Thai Beverage gave up the fight as hopeless and possibly divisive for the country. It listed on the stock exchange in Singapore, where it became the most-traded share. It was hardly a victory for either the dries or for their country.
The Sept 19 coup brought a new government, and Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla quickly established his new priorities. Measures to control drinking would be enforced, he announced. In his speeches and interviews, he maintained his purpose was to reduce the number of deaths and health problems traceable to drinking alcohol. He emphasised the health dangers of driving after drinking, and expanded a project within the Public Health Ministry to monitor and report on holiday drink-driving statistics.
Dr Mongkol was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the anti-advertising legislation. He took it to the cabinet, where wiser and cooler ministers asked for a ruling. Simply put, they wondered if the Public Health Ministry or its FDA had a role in regulating advertising in all facets.
At one point, Dr Mongkol said that not only did he have such power, but he would insist on using it no matter what government colleagues decided. He insisted on raising the age of legal drinking to 25, and it is debatable which decision was more poorly considered.
The Council of State has ruled that Dr Mongkol and his ministry must keep their hands off advertising. The minister has meanwhile wisely backed off his inappropriate campaign to raise the drinking age. Cooler heads have prevailed. It is only disconcerting that the bitter last words of the FDA secretary-general Siriwat Tiptaradol were about the influence of big distilleries and breweries.
The problems of alcohol abuse, by children and by adults, are well known. No evidence exists that more government enforcement, in the form of a ban on advertising, would alleviate them.
Making, selling, marketing and consuming alcohol are legal activities in Thailand, by tradition and practice. Many laws deal with the subject, and give increasing attention both to the alcohol abuse, and to crimes and offences committed as a result. Advertising of alcohol is already under strict controls, including bans on broadcast media during times when children might be watching and listening.
Cigarette advertising always has been illegal in Thailand. Other than that, advertising of legal products is a question of market economics, not to mention freedom of expression and of the press.
Pressure groups, even government ministers, have no standing to rush and bully the majority into bans, prohibitions and other enforcement without careful study. Using martial law to push their agendas is even worse. At this time, the government has far more pressing issues to deal with.
Bangkok Post