My commentary on “A Bar Assault in Phuket” and “A Dog Set on Fire in Songkhla” shows the poor state of Thai journalism.
Journalism in Thailand
The articles below are reproduced unedited. My commentary appears in italics.
A Bar Assault in Phuket
Two foreign women face fines of 10,000 baht each after assaulting Thai security guards at a bar on Bangla Road in Patong, Phuket, on Friday, May 5.
Footage of the Phuket bar assault circulated widely on Thai social media over the weekend. The video showed a group of foreign women approaching the venue’s security checkpoint shortly before the incident.
One woman is seen striking a guard in the face, while the guard appears confused and does not retaliate. Other security staff stepped in and attempted to move the group away from the entrance, appearing to avoid escalating the situation.
According to a report shared by the Phuket Times Facebook page, the confrontation began after the women became upset when security guards searched their belongings before entry, as part of standard checks.
The incident prompted criticism online, with Thai social media users raising concerns about foreign visitors disregarding local rules at tourist venues. Many called on police to take action, while also expressing support for the guards’ restraint during the altercation.
Patong Police confirmed the case was reported and that charges were filed against those involved, according to Channel 7. Officers charged the women with participating in a public altercation, causing disorder, an offence carrying a fine of up to 5,000 baht.
They also face charges under Section 295 of the Criminal Law for physical assault, which carries a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to 40,000 baht, or both.
Police identified two women in the footage as directly involved in the assault. Each received a fine of 10,000 baht in connection with the Phuket bar assault.
Some residents expressed dissatisfaction with the penalties, stating the incident could affect Phuket’s tourism image and that stricter punishment would be more appropriate.
Police said the case was treated as a minor offence and maintained that the penalties imposed were appropriate under the law.
A similar incident was reported last month in Pattaya, where a foreign man was filmed provoking and attacking a Thai man on a roadside. The Thai man initially avoided confrontation but later responded before bystanders intervened. No update has been provided on legal proceedings in that case.
Before commenting on the incident itself, it is worth noting how this story was reported. The journalist’s sole named source is a Facebook post from the Phuket Times. There are no named witnesses, no interviews, and no independent verification.
The figures cited are also internally contradictory — the headline states a fine of 10,000 baht, while the charge sheet mentions up to 5,000 baht for disorder and up to 40,000 baht for assault. The reporter does not address the discrepancy. This is not journalism. It is the transcription of a police press release, with a social media post added for colour.
The incident itself is straightforward enough. The guards’ restraint is entirely characteristic. Thais will absorb a great deal before retaliating publicly — losing face in front of others is considered far worse than absorbing a blow. The women almost certainly misread that restraint as weakness.
A 10,000 baht fine is not a serious deterrent for anyone who can afford to fly to Phuket. The residents who expressed dissatisfaction had a point. But Thai courts are not in the business of making examples of tourists — tourism is the economy, and the system reflects that reality.
What the report does not ask is what these women thought gave them the right to strike a security guard doing his job. The answer, in my experience, is a combination of alcohol and the mistaken belief that Thailand is a place where normal rules do not apply to visitors. It is not.
A Dog Set on Fire in Songkhla
A 56-year-old man in Thailand who was sentenced to six months in prison and fined 50,000 baht for setting a Siberian husky on fire has had his jail term suspended.
The Songkhla Provincial Court handed down this ruling in a case that has shocked animal lovers. In February, a two-year-old female Siberian husky named Molly that reportedly escaped from her home was set on fire by a 56-year-old man in Mueang district, Songkhla, in southern Thailand.
A passer-by found the injured animal and sought urgent medical treatment for it, but the animal died from severe burns.
Investigators from Mueang Songkhla Police Station later arrested the offender.
The man claimed he had carried out the act to protect his fighting cocks. He said he had heard unusual noises from the birds late at night and discovered signs that they had been bitten.
The court sentenced the offender to six months in prison and imposed a fine of 50,000 baht. However, the jail term was suspended for two years.
The animal rights group Watchdog Thailand Foundation criticised the ruling, arguing that a suspended sentence was not a strong enough deterrent for such a severe act of animal cruelty.
The foundation argued that many people had hoped such a serious animal cruelty case would be dealt with strongly by the authorities to deter similar offences.
However, it also acknowledged that the judgment confirmed an important principle: animal cruelty was not a minor matter, not a private issue and not an act ignored by the law.
Highlighting that the case reflected a wider problem in Thailand’s animal protection law, it called for Thai society to recognise the need for stronger enforcement of animal cruelty laws, as well as legal improvements to ensure penalties better reflect the seriousness of such acts.
This report has a more serious editorial flaw. The opening paragraph is repeated word for word later in the same article. No sub-editor caught it — assuming any sub-editor was involved at all. It reads as a first draft that went straight to publication.
The cockfighting detail is mentioned and then abandoned entirely. The man was protecting animals being kept for an illegal purpose. The reporter noticed that detail, included it, and then walked away from it without a word of analysis. That is a telling omission.
The suspended sentence will surprise no one who has followed Thai court proceedings. The law exists. Enforcement is another matter. The Watchdog Thailand Foundation is right that the principle has been established. Whether it translates into meaningful deterrence is a different question entirely.
In my conversations with Thais from varying backgrounds, attitudes towards animals — particularly dogs — vary enormously by class, region and generation. That gap is closing, slowly. But it is still wide.
A Final Observation
Both articles share the same underlying weakness. They rewrite what officialdom has told them and leave the harder questions unasked. That is not unique to Thailand — but it is particularly visible here, where deference to authority runs deep and challenging a police statement in print is still not something most journalists consider part of their job.
What both cases also have in common is a justice system navigating the gap between the law as written and the law as applied. Thailand is not unique in that. But the gap is wide enough, and visible enough, to draw comment.
Here’s an analysis of Press Freedom in Thailand
https://world.thaipbs.or.th/detail/61207
About Me
© Matt Owens Rees, June 2026
