Decision of the Complaints Committee –
03315-21 Ruayrungruang v The Daily Telegraph
Summary of Complaint
1. Dr Chanchai and Ms Please
Ruayrungruang complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) in an article headlined
“Billionaire Wentworth owner accepts furlough money for staff”, published 13
January 2021.
2. The article appeared online in
substantially the same format under the headline “Wentworth's Chinese
billionaire owner receives hundreds of thousands of pounds in furlough cash”.
3. The article reported that the
“Chinese billionaire owner of Wentworth golf course has received hundreds of
thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money to furlough staff”. The article
contained a quote from a third party, who remarked that: “’a billionaire
claiming money from the state to pay his workers’ wages seems to go against the
spirit if not the letter of what the furlough scheme was set out for’”. The
article reported on the recent history of the golf course, including the fact
that “Dr Chanchai Ruayrungruang…bought Wentworth for £135 million…in 2014 [and] installed
his daughter as interim chief executive two years ago”. It also reported on the
background of the Dr Ruayrungruang, noting that he “grew up in Thailand, made
his fortune as the distributor of the energy drink Red Bull in China but has
since expanded his Reignwood group into hotels and golf courses”. Further, it
stated that “His takeover of Wentworth has not been without controversy.
Reignwood caused a rebellion among its golfers when it [required] existing
members to rejoin the club for a one-off debenture payment of £100,000 [a
named] former chat show host and a club member, accused the Chinese owners in
2016 of ignoring tradition to create a club for the ‘super rich’ with a ‘car
park full of Lamborghinis’”.
4. The complainants said the article
breached Clause 12 as it contained several references to complainants’ race,
such as the statement that Dr Ruayrungruang was a “Chinese billionaire” and that
the club had “Chinese owners”. The complainants said that such references were
unnecessary, had xenophobic and racist undertones, and could provoke
anti-Chinese sentiment. Further, they said that the article under complaint
must be viewed in context; numerous articles over the past 6 years had
referenced the complainants’ race in a gratuitous, xenophobic and unnecessary
fashion.
5. The publication did not accept that
the article breached the Code. It denied that the articles had referred to the
complainants’ “race”; it considered that instead they referred to the
complainants’ nationality in a way that was not pejorative or prejudicial.
Further, it contended that these references were genuinely relevant to the
story. Wentworth was a quintessentially English sporting venue and club. It had
always been owned by UK-based individuals. The publication argued that it was a
common journalistic convention to note the nationality of new foreign owners
when such businesses changed hands. Foreign ownership, it said, might have an
impact of the culture or direction of a business, or may give rise to concerns
about foreign influence on British institutions, economies and livelihoods.
Finally, it noted that the complainants and their club highlighted their links
to China: the Chinese flag was flown outside the club, and its website noted
that the complainants were Chinese.
6. The complainant responded that race
was not a biological concept, limited to physical traits. Rather, race was
constructed by society upon both physical and social lines of distinction. It
would therefore be overly reductionist to accept the newspaper’s definition of
race and thus exclude being Chinese from the protections afforded by Clause 12.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or
pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender
identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or
disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race,
colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental
illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
7. The Committee first noted the dispute
as to whether being “Chinese” could constitute a reference to an individual’s
race within the meaning of Clause 12. Race is an ambiguous and contested
concept with no straightforward definition. The Committee accepted that in
principle being “Chinese” could constitute a reference to race in some
circumstances. The Committee considered the complaint on the basis that Clause
12 was potentially engaged.
8. The Committee first examined whether
the references to the complainants’ race were, as suggested by the
complainants, prejudicial or pejorative. The article formed part of ongoing
reporting about changes at the club since it had acquired new owners. The
article had simply noted that the owners were “Chinese” and that Dr Chanchai
Ruayrungruang “made his fortune” in China. These were biographical and factual statements
of the complainants’ backgrounds and the ownership of the company; they carried
no inherently pejorative connotations. Furthermore, the Committee did not agree
that the cumulative effect of multiple references over a period of coverage to
the complainants’ race imbued the word “Chinese” with a prejudicial or
pejorative meaning, even where the coverage contained criticism of how the
complainants managed their ownership of the club. Critical coverage did not
necessarily equate to prejudicial coverage. There was no breach of Clause
12(i).
9. The Committee then turned to whether
the references were “genuinely relevant” to the story. The fact that the
complainants were Chinese was noted on the club’s website and a Chinese flag
was flown outside Wentworth. Additionally, large part of the report was devoted
to noting the recent history of Wentworth and the background of its billionaire
owner, who the article said had grown “up in Thailand, made his fortune as the
distributor of the energy drink Red Bull in China [and] since expanded…into
hotels and golf courses”. Dr Ruayrungruang’s acquisition of the club in 2014,
his background, and the “controversy” caused by recent changes, were important
elements of this recent history. While the complainants considered that their
nationality or race was irrelevant to business decisions taken about the
running of the club, as the new owners, the complainants’ personal histories
and backgrounds provided important context to the decisions they had taken. It
also provided context which had led to tensions with some members of the club,
who had accused the foreign owners of disregarding the traditions of a
quintessentially English institution. In these circumstances, the references to
the complainants being “Chinese” were genuinely relevant to the story. There
was no breach of Clause 12(ii).
Conclusions
10. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
11. N/A
Date complaint received: 13/4/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/09/2021
Back to ruling listing