Welcome everyone to this latest Media Training Session for Foreign Ministry Officials. If I could quickly recap, in previous sessions we have dealt with selecting members of the media with whom it would be useful to develop connections, or ‘Who to Woo’ [quiet chuckle]. And then what clothing is appropriate for photo ops, or ‘Dress for the Press’ [self-satisfied smile].

So today we move on to what to say to the media and we are going to use as a model the interview given by His Excellency the Minister to the Bangkok Post at the APEC meeting.

[A whisper in the back of the room suggests ‘Talk like a Dork’, which is met with ‘Speak like a Geek’. Suppressed giggling follows.]

Now, please. This is a serious issue. Our Leader is an accomplished master of this aspect of diplomacy. Could you please look at the first question on the handout?

[Like many instructors in Thailand, this one believes that his audience are all dyslexic and proceeds to read aloud so that they can listen to what he has just asked them to look at.]

‘What is your standpoint on Burma’s general election?’

Now in response, His Excellency Kasit employs the first rule of interviews. Don’t answer the question you are asked; answer the question you want to be asked. See how he brilliantly takes control of the interview right from the start:

‘First I must say that news reports saying that we received international condemnation over our handling of the Burmese refugees are not true.’

Now, look up, please. No, look up, don’t look at the handout. Let me just check something. Now without looking, tell me. What did our Dear Leader say about the way the Burmese refugees were treated? Anyone?

[A female voice from the front row] ‘He said reports were incorrect which said that the rights of the refugees were violated by Thai forces in that the Burmese were forcibly repatriated into a dangerous situation in violation of international laws on non-refoulement.’

Ah-ha! Now look again at the handout. That is not what he said. With his skill in language and strategic logic, our Maestro Minister has made you think he said that. But in fact he says that reports that we were condemned for what we did to the refugees are not true.

[A question from the audience] ‘But did we force the Burmese back into the fighting?’

What? How is that relevant? Remember that in dealing with the media, facts are secondary. What is important is the impression you create through your constructive use of language.

Take for example, our Superb Leader’s answer to this question:

[Again he reads aloud] ‘People are sceptical that Thailand's stance on Burma may be closely linked to vested business interests. For example, there are many Thai companies involved in Burma’s energy sector.’

The answer is sheer brilliance. ‘No. There's none.’

[A confused noise around the room.] ‘But there’s PTT taking gas and all those companies looking at dams on the Salween – it’s just not true.’

Ah, but the average Bangkok Post listener won’t know that.

‘So he’s lied?’

Dear me, no. That would be extremely undiplomatic. You think he’s saying ‘no, there are no companies’. But in fact he’s saying ‘no, there are no vested interests’. He then immediately talks of the very PTT involvement you mentioned:

‘If you say it is because of PTT Plc buying gas from Burma that the government has done all this …’

Of course, no one in his right mind would say that the Burmese government decided to have a fake election just because PTT buys Burmese gas. But he doesn’t say anyone does. He says ‘if’.

Then he immediately brings in something that perhaps may seem totally irrelevant, but which enhances Thailand’s prestige:

‘You need to consider our donation to Cyclone Nargis victims and the roads that we are building as well. We are giving scholarships to Burmese students and donations to its temples.’

We’ll be dealing with this in a later session on Diplomacy as PR. I think that session comes after the one on Diplomacy in Support of Patriotic Capitalism.

Now in connection with this, if you think back to our Expert Excellency’s non-answer to the first question, you may think we have to worry about international perceptions that Thailand tramples on refugee rights. But the Master Minister superbly brings up this point again, totally unconnected with what has gone before:

‘This government is the most daring to withstand [pressures from] the Western world. No other Thai government dared to send 4,000 Hmong people back to Laos. We plan to send another 600 of them back in the future. Their visas are being processed.’

This brilliant re-framing of the issue moves it away from violations of human rights to patriotic defence of the national interest. I hope you can all learn to do the same.

[A doubting voice from the back of the room.] ‘But visas? If these are Lao citizens going back to Lao, why do they need visas?’

Er, well, yes, sometimes the Minister’s ideas are so progressive and advanced that none of us know what he’s talking about.