Govt&Media:PressFreedomVanishing?

[Tettyan]

This page has been created to continue discussion of media issues originally brought up in the following forum: http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/forum/showthread.php?t=1208&page=2

I'll start by reposting my last major post from that forum on the subject of Thaksin and the media. Those of you who also opined on this topic on that thread should repost here, if you think doing so would be useful.

We've seen and lamented the control of media assets by commercial interests and now the control of media regulation by those same interests who now control the government. But they didn't get control of government simply by controlling media assets - they also did a great job of using those assets to spread carefully crafted messages intended to get peoples' support. The message was very simple: "vote for me and I'll give you money". Sure, the source of that money and the strings attached were deliberately never clearly spelled out; and sure there was the usual vote-buying, but overall, their marketing job was superb.

I couldn't agree with you more. The Democrats were basically an elite party that believed they could win elections by default without explaining their policies to the common people. Who really cares about vague ideas such as "transparency" and "checks-and-balances" when you don't have running water and a paved road going to your house? Chuan's habit of brushing off reporters by saying "I haven't received any reports yet" certainly didn't help either. The feud between Banyat and Abhisit destroyed any remaining hopes that they may have had in the last election. With Banyat out of the picture now, though, the party seems to be patching things up.

The Democrats have simply not been Machiavellian enough. They weren't nearly as agressive as Thaksin in controlling state media while they were in power. This allowed a strong political opposition (Thaksin) to develop and eventually seize power. After using democracy to win power, Thaksin is now determined to stop others from employing the same methods he once used. Basically, the environment that opposition faces today is much more severe than it was five years ago. Nevertheless, the election of Apirak as governor shows that with attractive candidates (in more ways than one) and clear policies, the Democrats can do well. Lets hope they can offer a better challenge to Thaksin the next time 'round.


, we are supposedly living through a technological revolution in communications and media where control of hard assets should be decreasing in importance and regulation of new tech-enabled media is supposed to be very difficult. I wonder if those of us who consider ourselves smarter and better educated than the "common folk" (even if modesty forbids actually saying that out loud) can use our collective intelligence to figure out how to use new media to reach people in a more effective way.

Well, the Thai government is determined to censor the internet and chat boards on the same scale as the Chinese Communist Party. Sites like pantip.com are requiring registration of citizen ID etc before you can post your opinions! Civilized countries would regard that as an invasion of privacy. I'm afraid that the "technological revolution in communications and media" may actually give the government more leeway in regulating people's thoughts.

As an American, I see very similar things happening in my own country so it's hard for me to complain to loudly about Thailand, especially when I think that whatever changes are made here need to be made by Thais, not outsiders. But I think the solution is the same here a in the US - patient dedicated outreach at the grass-roots level.

The comparison of Thaksin with Bush is very tempting, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Both operate in completely different contexts. For instance, the Bush administration's recent attempt to control content on PBS and NPR has backfired, badly ( see http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111511010002230032&dt=20051115110100&w=RTR&coview= ). American democracy is centuries-old. Thailand's situation, on the other hand, is akin to America's in the 1790s. The country's current leaders have the power to affect the shape Thailand for generations to come. And I'm not sure I want to see the result of that.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

-Tettyan

[Tettyan]

Who here is brave enough to defend Thaksin over this one? :D

http://202.60.196.117/breaking/read.php?lang=en&newsid=95243

Most people say news media not free
Published on Nov 17 , 2005

Most residents of greater Bangkok are not convinced that the Government allows Thai news media the freedom to inform the public, according to a survey conducted by Assumption University.

The university's Abac Poll found that almost 35 per cent of respondents are not sure the news media have the freedom they need because the government can intervene in their work.

Only 15.1 per cent of respondents believe the government gives the media full freedom.

The survey questioned 1,282 people in Bangkok from last Friday through to Wednesday. Fifty-five per cent of them were women and 45 per cent men.

Nearly 45 per cent of respondents said they trust Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra because he intends to develop the country. However, 19.4 per cent said they cannot trust him because he has failed to solve government-related scandals.

More than 44 per cent said they have faith in Thai Rak Thai, while 36.5 per cent rely on the Democrats and 23.5 per cent trust Chat Thai.

[Scuba22]

given what's happening to Sondhi, this is a most topical thread- I hope others weigh in. Once again, thanks you Mr Tettyan for opening the thread.

I have a couple of questions about the current situation, I hope someone can enlighten me.

First, who is Sondhi? Wasn't he a friend of Thaksin's a while back? What happened? Is he really a champion of free information, which would be great, or is this a personal vendetta or an attempt to get power for himself? Sorry for sounding cynical, but it would be really wonderful if he really is the "real deal".

Second, can we start setting up repression-proof media outlets? I know any websites hosted in Thailand are vulnerable, but how about sites hosted in the US? With mirror sites constantly popping up so they can't just ban URLs? Or an informal mailing list group to bypass websites entirely?

I'm convinced that the media will become more tightly controlled, but I'm also convinced that we should be able to use new technologies to subvert this clampdown. So long as we stick to facts, stay away from egregious name-calling and insults, we should be able to spread messages in spite of government crackdowns - no? Resistance movements did it under far more stifling circumstances, we should be able to as well.

I know a little about politics, economics, business, and development, and I'm spending a lot of time these days working on how to make complex ideas and situations easily understood without specialist knowledge. Personally, I can't read or write (or speak for that matter) Thai, so I'm happy to do whatever I can in English. I do appreciate the translations of the Thai boards here - it's a great window into what people are thinking. However, much of what I see seems to be anger and insults, which at the end of the day I don't think is going to help people understand what's going on.

I would love to work with Thai people who are interested in getting messages out to people. I can help explain some things - like why the 30 B health care scheme is bound to fail, how OTOP is not working, and where the assets-to-capital scheme completely misreads Hernando deSoto's work. I really think that if we explain the situation in a factual yet entertaining way, we can start reaching people.

On that note - there have been a series of books called somethign like "keeping a step ahead of Thaksin". Were they popular? Did they make it out to the provinces? Have they had an impact?

Getting messages out to the provinces is especially critical - we shoudl be able to make comic books and CD's pretty cheaply...anyone interested?

Scuba22

[Tettyan]

Scuba22 -

You pose a number of interesting questions. Since it's getting pretty late where I am now, I'll save addressing most of your questions until later. But I do hope to get to them sometime.

One can never ask too many questions about Sondhi. He's a fascinating character. Back during Black May, he was a strong supporter of the anti-Suchinda protests. This probably had less to due with his idealogy than his close friendship with Chatchai Choonhavan, the elected PM that General Suchinda overthrew. Sondhi's friendship with Thaksin goes back almost that far. Back when Sondhi's Manager Group did its IPO in the mid-1990s, he apparantly "gave" a number of shares to Thaksin as a gift.

The 1997 crisis hit Sondhi particularly hard. A lot of this had to do with money he burned trying to set up a regional English-language paper called the "Asia Times." In any case, Sondhi declared bankruptcy and didn't emerge out of it until 2003.

Have you ever had a chance to watch Sondhi's ASTV satellite/cable channel? They have occasional English-language news briefs. I remember watching some a year ago - they sounded more like government-issued press releases than actual news reports. Anyway, yes, back to Sondhi in bankruptcy. It is said that his relationship with Thaksin helped get him out. He had been such a staunch supporter of Thaksin before he became PM that when Thaksin was elected in 2001, Sondhi and his reporters were given priveleged access to government news sources.

The government was apparently impressed with Sondhi's loyalty. So much so that two years ago, the PRD (Public Relations Department) rewarded him a concession to operate ASTV, that very satellite TV channel that Sondhi now uses to challenge Thaksin. This deal was not without controversy - since ASTV piggybacks off of the signal of Channel 11, which is not permitted to run ads, many accused the deal of being illegal, since ASTV does run ads.

It's difficult to pinpoint the cause of Sondhi's change of heart. A few months after the election, the tone of coverage in the Manager and on ASTV began to shed it's slavishly pro-government spin. I think Sondhi would claim that began to understand Thaksin's "true colors" after the incident where Thaksin apparently occupies the King's position during that infamous merit-making ceremony at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha. Who knows - maybe Sondhi really was genuinely outraged by his former friend and adopted the zeal of a new convert. Or perhaps he may have ulterior motives, but we can only speculate. Perhaps Sondhi felt that he wasn't getting what he expected from the relationship, or that Thaksin betrayed him somehow. I don't want to be spreading any false rumours here though.

Fighting libel charges is not new to Sondhi. A couple years ago, he lost a suit filed by former PM Chuan. Sondhi had reported that it was Chuan who instigated the corruption investigation into Sanan Kachornprasat's false assets declartion, which led to Sanan being banned from politics for 5 years. Although Sanan was Chuan's interior minister and chief electoral strategist, Sondhi claimed that Chuan was motivated by a desire to undermine Sanan's faction in the party.

Of course, my purpose here is not to try to discredit Sondhi. No matter what his views may be, I think he's within his rights to advocate them, and I don't see any evidence as to how he may have broken any laws in this current case. But given his checkered past, I am still a bit wary of trusting Sondhi completely.

BTW, have you checked out the Khorat Post's website? They have a fascinating series of related articles, including a bunch translated from the Manager. http://www.thekoratpost.com/

[Scuba22]

Dear Tettyan,

Thanks for the excellent overview of Sondhi's past. His past association with Thaksin, especially the business ties in the 80's & 90's, are troubling to me. Thaksin's business activities at that time appear quite suspect, if his own words are to be believed (quoted in Pasuk's book as bragging about giving cars to generals and standard 10-15% kickbacks). I know several reform-minded people who joined TRT in the late 90's because they honestly felt Thaksin was a force for positive change; most of these people were not in business and just about all of them have left the party in disgust. But Sondhi appears to be a different story.

It is also curious that out of all the items over which Thaksin can be legitimately criticized, that Sondhi has selected the temple ceremony issue (and now the C-130 transport issue) as his major points. At least from the newspaper accounts, the TRT seems to have its evidence in order regarding the temple ceremony. And the C-130 transport, while egregious if true, is far from the worst things that Thaksin has done in power.

I wonder why people don't start asking hard questions about the grass-roots development programs and start publicizing the results - I opened that other thread to look into this as I do have a bit of experience with the OTOP program that I'd like to share.

Why don't people make more noise about the de-clawing of all the checks and balances mechanisms in the Constitution? Or the TRT policies that favor Thaksin & his cronies? Are these issues too difficult to understand? Or is it because we haven't been able to find specific examples of these things?

I've asked those questions on other threads, but here I'd like to ask you about ASTV, Channel 11, and advertising. As you've mentioned before, broadcast media are far more important tools in Thailand than print. But I am confused about how television works here. Channels 3,5,7,9 and 11 are all government owned, but run by private companies on concession, is that correct? Do you know the terms of the concession? iTV, which is owned by Shin, also has a concession which has been the source of some controversy as I understand it - they were originally chartered as a news station, but turned into an entertainment station after being taken over by Shin, is that right? what are the issues there?

Regarding cable stations, who are the powers behind these? Where can I see ASTV? I don't think I get it on my UBC feed (which I suspect is being pirated by my apartment building, but that's a different issue). Who controls the provincial cable operators? Are they widely viewed - do a lot of people in the provinces get cable? And what's the deal with commercials not being allowed on cable? How does Channel 11 make money without ads? Is it completely government subsidized? Who makes the programming decisions and what drives them?

It seems like there's an audience for political commentary and criticism - how is it that no one's managed to make a business out of it, or is it just too dangerous?

I'm looking forward to your other comments!

Thanks

Scuba22

[Tettyan]

Scuba22,

Terrestrial TV in Thailand is controlled by the military, MCOT and the Public Relations Department (PRD) of the PM's Office. MCOT owns the rights to Channels 3 and 9 - it runs Channel 9 directly and allows BEC, owned by the Maleenont family (a member of which serves in Thaksin's cabinet) to operate Channel 3 through a concession. The frequencies for Channels 5 and 7 are owned by the army (a legacy of the Sarit days). The army runs Channel 5 directly and has granted a concession to BBTV to run Channel 7. The Prime Minister's Office holds direct authority over the ITV concession. That covers all the commercial channels. The PRD runs Channel 11, which is supposed to be a public service and education channel (equivalent to PBS in the US or BBC in the UK) - thus it is not permitted to run advertisments.

Thailand's regulation of the CATV market is a total mess. UBC (controlled by the CP group) holds a concession from MCOT to operate cable services in the greater Bangkok metropolitan area. Cable service in the provinces, however, are regulated by the PRD, in theory at least. There are several dozen provincial CATV operators that are registered with the PRD, and almost as many that are black market. Because of the numerous illegal operators, it's diffucult the measure the audience for cable tv in Thailand, but some estimates claim that as many as 5 million Thais throughout the country have access..

To add to the whole mess, a company called TTV holds a contract from the PRD to operate an MMDS service in greater Bangkok. They're allowed to offer up to 24 channels, though they currently only offer three.

With a TV market like this, it's easy why its difficult to get alternative views aired on television. Even the private concessionaires are vulnerable to government pressure, since they need to get their contracts renewed periodically and since the government retains ultimate control over their signal. Even cable TV is problematic. Look at the case of Nation TV (part of the Nation Group, not big fans of Thaksin). They originally started their 24-hour news channel 5 years ago, airing on UBC. Their tough, hard-hitting reporting became too much for UBC, which is controlled by the CP group, a staunch supporter of Thaksin. Under pressure, Nation TV left UBC two years ago and is now aired instead over the TTV network (of which it now owns 12%).

There's no chance that you'll ever see ASTV on UBC, for the reasons I just described above. The channel is free-to-air over satellite, however, so if you've got the non-UBC dish, you should be able to see it. Also, ASTV is (or has been?) broadcast over the provincial cable networks, and apparently was a big hit. It was really the first TV channel that could be seen in the provinces that took a critical line against the government (unlike Nation TV, which can only be seen in Bangkok and Chiang Mai). Maybe that's why Thaksin felt so threatened, who knows?

So I've explained the mess that is Thailand's broadcasting market. The drafters of the new constitution understood this problem, and included provisions for Thailand to have an independent broadcasting regulator that would control all frequencies - the National Broadcasting Commission. Unfortunately, the selection of NBC regulators has been bogged down from the very start by litigation - apparently focusing on accusations of unfairness in the screening process of NBC nominees. The Senate finally confirmed the list of NBC members last month, and this was upheld by the Administrative Court. Not surprisingly, like other "independent" bodies created by the constitution, the new NBC is stacked with allies of the government. We can only hope that they will show their independence now that they've been confirmed. But this is probably hoping for too much. We probably shouldn't expect too much change anytime soon in the Thai broadcasting industry.

[Wisarut]

Fortunately, Khun SOndhi has NOT mentioned how PM has presued RTAF to give him the Royal Airplane kept the reserved hangar for his son and his favorite furry pets .... durign the European trips.

This one would DWAFT even C-130 Incident and OUTRAGE
most of Thai people to such extend that ... thsoe who live at Jan Song Lah palace would use all 20 new suitacases from Italy to pack up their
belongings to live in exile at theri mansion in London after People Revolution
in the same way as Marcos and hsi familiy had to do ... ;) :p :cool: :D

[Scuba22]

Dear Tettyan,

Thanks for the excellent overview of TV in Thailand. If I may quickly recap:

1. Channel 3 - MCOT owned, operated by BEC - Maleenonts, TRT members
2. Channel 5 - Owned and operated by Thai Army
3. Channel 7 - Army owned, operated by BBTV
4. Channel 9 - MCOT owned & operated
5. Channel 11 - PRD owned & operated (under PM Office), public, no ads
6. ITV - Shin Corp owned & operated under concession from PM Office
7. UBC - Bangkok cable, owned by CP family - close to TRT, MCOT concession
8. Provincial CATV - PRD license, dozens of legit & black market operators
9. Bangkok MMDS - contract from PRT to TTV, 12% owned by Nation Group
10. ASTV - run by Sondhi/manager group

Let me add a few points:

1. MCOT - over 77% owned by the Ministry of Finance, so hardly "privatized" in any meaningful way. Interestingly, the Government of Singapore owns another 2.5% or so of MCOT. Some folks I know pitched a new show to Channel 9 recently and were told point blank that their idea did not conform to the direction set out by the government.

2. BBTV - this is associated with the Ratanarak family, the owners of the Bank of Ayutthaya (BAY). BAY is a rather mysterious group to me. The SET states they have a 95% free float, which is nonsense - a fiction maintained through a complex host of nominee companies ultimately really controlled by the Ratanarak family. The association of BAY with TRT (if any) is not clear to me.

3. There is a tight relationship with the broadcast operators and their own production companies that make it very difficult for independent producers to get shows on the air, and this results in the abysmal quality of so much Thai TV. Independent TV producers I know here have also told me that they would never present any decent idea to Channel 3 because BEC would just steal the idea and do it themselves. Similarly, a bunch of iTV shows were booted to make way for Thaksin's son, who wanted to import foreign shows into iTV. To iTV's credit, ultimately a bunch of his shows were kicked off for horrible ratings, but the earlier bunch that were booted suffered just the same.

4. Ratings - measured by AC/Nielsen, these are commonly used by advertisers for sponsorship decisions and by the broadcasters for programming decisions - or rather rationales for programming decisions. A few years ago, iTV (before the Shin takeover, I think, but I'm not sure) ran an expose on Nielsen's operations in Thailand. They found Nielsen used about 1,000 or so set-top boxes for their data, but that these were located in some very odd locations - for example there were a bunch in the Klong Toey slums, which put downward pressure on shows requiring education, such as political discussion. Nielsen may have changed their methods, but whatever their methods are, they're not at all transparent about them. Many multinational advertisers work under policies made outside Thailand that force them to base decisions on ratings, since people outside Thailand don't usually know the problems with Thai ratings.

This question of foreigners understanding what's going on here is important. TRT stakes a lot on drawing foreign investment, largely from major institutional investors like mutual funds. They make periodic "road shows" to tout Thailand and various companies. On the whole, international investors don't care much about press freedom or rule of law - they're just in it to make money for their shareholders. However, if shareholders knew where their money is going, they might think twice about it. But shareholders hardly ever get that kind of information - certainly not from the funds or the Thai govt.

This is where we can make a difference. Some of the largest investors in the US are government pension funds, such as CALPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, and university endowments - Harvard, Stanford, etc. The beneficiaries and ultimate owners of these monies - the people of California, the university students & professors - would be shocked to find where their money is going if they really knew. This became a big issue in the 1980's when there was major divestment out of Apartheid South Africa, and it helped end that system.

What's happening here is not nearly as clear-cut as South Africa, but I think we would do well to lobby the US public and universities about investing in these companies. Right now, Calpers relies on a company called Wilshire to rate countries on political freedoms and other items in order to make their investment decisions. A few years ago, Thailand was put on the "do not invest" list, but now it is back on. Wilshire spends a few days in Thailand talking to government officials and financial institutions to make their rating. I doubt they pay any attention at all to academic critics or public sentiment. But a well-organized letter-writing campaign based on facts and targetted toward key influencers in California could have substantial impact. It's definitely worth considering.

Let me end with a couple of questions: what is MMDS? Sorry I am unfamiliar. Also, do you have a guess as to how big the ASTV audience is? Is it possible to see it in Bangkok at all?

Thanks,

Scuba22

[Tettyan]

Dear Scuba22 -

MMDS = Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, also known as "wireless cable". For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multichannel_Multipoint_Distribution_Service

It's hard to tell ASTV's audience size, but it probably can't be larger than the audience for provincial CATV. I believe you can see it in Bangkok if you have a standard satellite dish, not the type designed just for UBC channels. ASTV is supposed to be free-to-air over satellite. I know my aunt in California can get it free over her satellite dish. My guess is that the channel is pretty popular among the Thai community in the US because of this.

I'm really curious about Bank of Ayudhaya (BAY) as well. The apparently have an old relationship with the founder and publisher of Matichon newspaper, Khanchai Boonpan. When Grammy made their hostile bid for Matichon, BAY was quick to come to the rescue, offering Khanchai a very generous line of credit. Without this, Khanchai wouldn't have had to money for the tender offer that he had to make after Grammy agreed to sell a large stake back to him. Perhaps there are good reasons out there for BAY to maintain a low profile

I've read about Calpers decision to put money back in Thailand a while ago. This happened when the Thai market was at its peak, so I wonder how much they actually invested in the end.

Best,

Tettyan

[Scuba22]

Thanks for the MMDS link - I wonder how many people have the microwave antenna & set-top box required to get this signal? I certainly don't see this service advertised much. Do you know who the major shareholder is in TTV?

My colleague in media tells me that TTV is not allowed to carry advertisting, so that limits its revenue, and therefore reach. Is that correct? This advertising issue seems pretty important in two other areas as well -

The first is UBC, which I understand also cannot carry ads. My understanding is that this is to protect the free-to-air channels, which as we've seen are pretty well connected politically. But as you mentioned, UBC is owned by CP group, which is well connected in its own right. They've recently been trying to test the ad-ban limits by airing ads originating outside Thailand as part of the international feed. There was some controversy about this - do you know iif it's been resolved?

The second issue is the ITV charter and concession fees you mentioned earlier. As I understand it, ITV's argument was that its original charter no longer held because other government stations (I think Channel 5 in particular) started to carry ads when they did not before. is there merit to this argument? And has the ITV concession issue been resolved? This was a major factor behind the deal with Kantana and Traiphop falling apart a few weeks ago, from what i understand.

BAY definitely is a mystery. There are lots of stories of Krit being mixed up with all sorts of dodgy folks. He keeps out of the limelight even more than CP's Dhanin or TCC's Charoen. Hard to tell if he's got political leanings at all or is just as happy to jump on any winning bandwagon. Rescuing Khanchai fom Grammy was a pretty interesting move.

This leads to a larger question about the depth of loyalty to Thaksin. There was an opinion piece in the Nation today about officials "leaving the sinking ship" (see http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2005/11/22/national/index.php?news=national_19221460.html

Is this likely to happen with business associates as well if his star starts falling?

Regarding Capers, as a state entity they need to be transparent, so their holdings are available online. The most recent set dates from mid 2004, and and they have over 1,900 international equity holdings, so I couldn't rummage through all of it, but I don't see any major Thai companies there (Siam Cement, Siam Commercial Bank, AIS, Thai Union Frozen).

It is interesting to see how they decide where to invest, check out http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/investments/assets/equities/international/permissible/home.xml

To see their rankings and methodology. One of the most interesting details of this is that their assessment of "political stability" comes largely from ratings given by Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/index.htm), and thes e ratings have not changed since 1998.

They have a program called RIGHTS (Rule of Law Initiatives/ Global Human Rights Support and Training), who I bet we could get in touch with to impact these ratings. This could then filter to the Wilshire rankings Calpers uses and could swing Thailand back into the "do not invest" column. With Calpers controlling US$200 B in investment, that would be a serious issue.

If you're interested, Tettyan, you and I could do this ourselves (though since I'm not Thai, I think it's better that I stay in the background). To make real changes, I think this is the type of thing we should be looking at - where decisions are made & how to impact them substantively.

What do you think?

Scuba

[Tettyan]

Scuba22 -

The whole controversy over who can run ads and who can't has vexed the industry for years. UBC can't run ads because it says so in their contract with MCOT. I was under the understanding that the terristrial stations, save Channel 11, have always been free to run ads (someone confirm this if you can please). However, beginning a few years back, Channel 11 was permitted to air a very limited number of ads. This is the point that the lawyers for ITV pounced on. I'm simplifying a bit (partly because I don't remember all the details anymore), but essentially, ITV claimed that this was unfair to ITV and therefore a breach of contract. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me, but for some reason for which I could not possibly imagine, the bureaucrats in the PM's Office seemed to agree!

TTV is also another weird story. Let me answer your question about their audience first. It's written that they have a "potential subscriber audience of 100,000." I have no idea over whether this means the number of TV sets they hit or the number of viewers they have. In any case, their analouge MMDS service (3 channels, including the Nation) is free-to-air, all you need is to have the microwave antenna installed. Many already have them leftover from the old IBC MMDS service (owned by Shin), which was popular for a while in the 1990s, but then later sold to UBC, which then cancelled the service. Because the service is free to air, TTV argues that they can show advertisments. And they definitely do - my grandmother gets TTV and I've seen the ads.

TTV is now in the process of launching a digital MMDS service that will run 16 or 24 channels (I've seen conflicting information on this). My assumption is that this will be a pay-tv service, so I have no idea what they will do in terms of running advertisments. Maybe we'll see another round of litigation. They'll find a convenient ally in UBC though, which has been lobbying to get the advertising restriction removed since time immemorial.

My understanding is that provincial cable operators do run ads, as they're not as carefully regulated as UBC. Otherwise, they couldn't provide subcription rates that are less than a fifth of UBC's! ASTV, at least if you get it over satellite, definitely runs ads. I think ITV may have also cited this point in the contract dispute.

Depth of loyalty to Thaksin? You and I know that businessman are pragmatists first and foremost. He wooed two key businesses - Bangkok Bank and CP back during the Chuan days. They likely supported him because they saw a winner in him. If Thaksin is no longer a winner, then there will be no TRT. That's my personal opinion. For instance, Suriya Jungrearungkit and his Wang Nam Yom faction of 100 MPs has the resources to start a new party in their own right. All they need is a leader with popular appeal. For now at least, that leader is still Thaksin.

Regards,

Tettyan

[Gulliver]

Hi,
I just wanted to add to Tettyan's response to the media concessions in Thailand. I am new to this forum and to be honest am very impressed with the knowledge of facts on the webboard. To add to the Tettyan's response to Scuba 22. Channel 5 also runs Thai Global Network (TGN) Initally TGN was to provide news and information for foreign service workers and expatriate thais overseas. The programming was basically allocated equally among the Thai TV pool. This was the only available source of Thai programming for Thais overseas, until ASTV. In recent years Channel 5 has been trying to find a way to generate more revenue from this and I believe now has a domestic TGN aired on UBC. The problem with TGN was not being able to find advertisements and I believe it is still a problem for them.

Also, Tettyan either forgot or didn't know that UBC is basically the merger of IBC (Shinawattra) and UTV (CP) back in 1998. During that time there was actually a third player, Thai Sky, which was owned by the Wattachak group, but they failed to pay their concessions and disbanded. Some say somebody made out like a bandit, thus creating the monopoly that is UBC.

As far the mess concerning provincial cable, I agree and if anyone knows the answer to this it would be of help. I travel frequently in the provinces and I notice that some cable programming whether it be ESPN or CNN is different in every province. When I was in Roi Et, I was able to catch nickelodeon, Hua Hin, ESPN America, not the Asia crap and so forth? Recently I've noticed ads for sattellites here in Thailand and have learned that you don't have to pay a monthly fee. When I asked if I could recieve HBO, Cinemax, and the other channels the sales girl said yes. When I asked How? she said the feed comes from the Philippines. Is this legal?

Regarding ASTV you can purchase a ASTV dish for about 6,000 baht with no montly fee. From what I understand there are a total of nine channels with one english speaking channel called the Thailand Outlook Channel, which I saw at a Hotel in Bangkok, and Esan channel, business channel, etc. I think both Manager and Nation are moving towards the IPTV format, which I believe is the smart move. It will be content that drives viewers. If you go to True's website, [url]www.hispeedworld.com/main/tv/ you can see it beginning.

I also received a press release that said that TTV will be receiving a concession with the PM's office and will be the only content provider for provincial cable. Now, this press release was given to me when PM's office also supposedly took ASTV off the air.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all works out, but by the looks of the NBC board it doesn't look promising.

[Tettyan]

Gulliver -

Thanks for the added info, a bunch of stuff I've never heard before.

As for UBC's history, i think I touched on the IBC-UTV merger in one of my posts, but didn't dwell too much on it. Because in the end, the merged company turned out to be under CP's control anyway. Their monopoly status is defintely not a good thing. We'll see if TTV's proposed digital MMDS service will be able to pose any type of challenge.

I have read about Nation's new contract to supply content to provincial cable networks. As I understand it, it's not a monpoly, but a joint venture between the cable networks and Nation, with the encouragement of the PRD. Basically, the cable networks from all around the country will supply news content about their local regions and relay it to the Nation. Nation will then edit the content, compile it, and then relay the material to the various cable networks in the form of a 24-hour news channel. Sounds like a pretty neat idea. I wonder why the gov't is willing to support Nation on this venture when their reporting has been very critical of the gov't. Anyone have any ideas?

On another note, I mentioned in an earlier post that the Administrative Court upheld the selection process of the new NBC. Well, I stand corrected. Here is the lastest story from the Nation's website.

http://202.60.196.117/breaking/read.php?lang=en&newsid=96702

The Nation - Breaking News
Administrative Court nullifies NBC selection
Published on Nov 23 , 2005

The Administrative Court Wednesday nullified the selection process of the National Broadcasting Commission members because of conflict of interest.

The court reasoned that members of the selection committee had conflict interest with some of the selected NBC members.

The seven NBC candidates, who have been endorsed by the Senate, were automatically disqualified because of the court's ruling.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngarm said the government would not appeal the court's decision and would restart the selection process from the beginning.

Wissanu said the government would amend the laws to have the National Telecom Commission to act as NBC pending the new selection, which would take time as the current Senate would expire in the middle of March so senators would not be able to select new NBC members in time.

[Gulliver]

Well, I thought you knew that the majority shareholders in Nation (NMG) are the Jungrungreangkit's I believe they now own more than 20%. The story is that a few years ago Thaksin met with Sutichai Yoon and asked him if he could tone down any news regarding himself and his family. I believe he offered him 10 million baht per month as a token of his appreciation or sponsorship however you want to look at it. P-Yoon being himself didn't reply directly to Thaksin, instead I believe he put out a picture of PS drinking it up out with his friends with interesting captions. Well, obviously the PM wasn't too happy and had his representative tell P-Yoon forget about the deal. At the time I believe Suriya's family had a small stake in NMG I believe 5%. His sister in law then increased her stake to 8-10% I'm not sure, but it is now at 20+%. It happened in 2003. Well the rest is history and P-Yoon, to me anyway hasn't been the same. Many people believe that the PM fronted the money, but believe what you want to believe either way it's owned by one of his cronies.

[Wisarut]

Well, don't forget that Suriya is already inconflict with Ai Pheng ... allowing the founders to the Nation to Bombard Thaksis for caring more on his inner circle than other factions .... a Machiavillan Politicing in the media INDEED. :eek:

[Tettyan]

Yeah, Suriya's loyalty seems like it can be up for grabs. I mentioned in another thread that he and his Wang Nam Yom faction are really a sort of "party within a party."

From what I understand, Suriya's family and various relatives collectively own about 20% of the Nation Group. Although that's the single biggest block of shareholders, it is still outnumbered by the combined holdings of Sutichai Yoon, Thepchai Yong and the other founders of the newspaper. So it's unclear to what degree Suriya and his family can really exercise control over the paper's content.

The government still finds ways to pull tricks on Nation from time to time. For instance, the gov't claimed that TTV breached its contract with the PRD when Nation started broadcasting its channel over satellite. Of course, this had nothing to with TTV, as Nation technically only supplies content to TTV, so that broadcasting Nation Channel over frequencies is not related to the PRD concession to TTV. It looks to me like Nation and the gov't have a pretty schizophrenic relationship.

[Tettyan]

Dear All -

At Scuba22's suggestion, I have created a wiki on "Media in Thailand" based on information discussed on this thread. I have also included a bunch of other information that I have been compiling for a while. Check it out at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_in_Thailand

Since I'm sure many of you know more about this subject than I, any suggestions or comments are greatly apprciated. Also, it would be great if some of you want to take it upon yourselves to create entries for the many related links I included in the article.

I also plan to add sections in the entry on media conglomerates and censorship when I have a little more time.

Best,

Tettyan

[Scuba22]

Dear Mr. Tettyan:

Thanks for that wiki entry, it's great to have this kind of information all gathered in one place. It will be interesting to see how the substance gets edited over time.

Regarding TV regulation, according to what we've discussed so far, it seems that terrestrial channel content is regulated by MCOT (Ch 3,9), the Army (Ch 5,7), and the Prime Minister's Office (iTV directly, Ch 11 through PRD).

Can these entities (MCOT, Army, PMO) create any restrictions they like for these channels? Are they subject to any other regulatory body - or is this confusion the reason for the NBC to begin with?

It seems very odd that MCOT, a private company (even though 77% owned by the Ministry of Finance, this appears to be a financial investment rather than a strategic operational investment) would be in a position to dictate content restrictions without any government oversight. It also seems very odd that the Prime Minister's Office would be regulating a station owned by the Prime Minister's family.

When you start laying these facts out, the situation with the NBC become frighteningly clear. Delays in creating the NBC and continued confusion clearly serve certain interests: here, MCOT (hence, Ministry of Finance), the Army, and the Prime Minister, who all hold the power in the current chaos. A truly impartial and fair NBC would put this power at risk. This could be circumvented either by creating a crony-dominated NBC, which some argue is the case (incidentally, can we go down the list of NBC nominees who were just ousted and explain how they are connected to the powers-that-be?); or by endlessly extending the process. Indeed, these are exactly what is happening.

The discussion on "who controls the Nation" is also an interesting one. I knew that someone associated with TRT had purchased a sizable chunk. Surya's family being behind it makes for interesting speculation. You can see how keeping Thaksin slightly off-balance through continued hard-hitting journalism and commentary could be in Surya's interest. But then again, 20% ownership doesn't allow you to do much. 25% can be a magic number because it allows you to block certain items that require a 75% majority vote (according to the company charter), such as perhaps increasing capital to create a new paper or TV broadcaster.

I notice on the SET site that Dow Jones ownes a small share (I think it was in th 5-7% range) of the Nation.

On the wiki, it may be useful to explain what you mean by "progressive" politics. Also, there should be some mention of how some have suggested that private advertising spending from politically-connected businesses is being used as for "economic intimidation" to control press content rather than outright government censorship.

I've never contributed to the wiki, but I am inspired by the items you put up to learn how.

Thanks!

Scuba22

[Tettyan]

Dear Scuba22,

As always, thanks for your comments.

By "progressive", I essentially mean the opposite of "conservative". I am very wary of using the term "liberal", as it means so many different things depending on where you come from - whether it be the US, Canada, the UK, continental Europe, etc. One should always be skittish about applying idealogical labels in Thai politics, since issues don't fit neatly into catagories originally developed to explain politics in the West. Nevertheless, I hazarded to do it in this case, because there is a real qualitative difference between papers like Thai Rath and Thai Post. Thai Rath (founded originally to cheerlead Field Marshal Sarit's government) is unapologetically nationalistic and usually supports the status quo - no matter who's in power. I think it's proper to label this attitude "conservative". Thai Post relishes in being a thorn in the side of any government - maybe "anti-status-quo". I think the term "progressive" is universally accepted as having this kind of connotation.

No discussion of Thailand's media could be complete without discussing the role of media conglomerates and goverment interferene. As I mentioned earlier, I do plan to add a section on "censorship" later, where I'll also discuss the subtle ways the government uses to manipulate content.

Best,

tettyan

[Scuba22]

Dear Mr. Tettyan:

Indeed it was skittishness that led me to question the "progressive" label! The distinction you laid out- pro or anti status quo - is perhaps a more interesting one. I somehow can't see the Nation being any less critical regardless of who's in power.

I also wonder if the editorial stances are more indicative of business relationships than any political ideology at all; in fact I really wonder what motivation other than simply greed, self-promotion or spite, really drives any public political stands taken by people.

Sondhi is an excellent case example of this, it seems very unclear what he's for.

For the wiki, perhaps it would be useful to post the short paragraph you just wrote here by way of explanation?

Cheers!

Scuba22

[Wisarut]

Khun Tettyan,

You are missing thsoe 3-day Business Newspapers which are NOT less important than Krungthep Thurakij at all ...

1) Prachachart Thurakij - the Busienss Newspaper from Matichon Group

2) Than Setthakij - the biggest Business newspaper in Thailand -> the owner is allaince of TRT sotheygot more news from TRT

3) Siam Thurakij - the business Newspaper whcih is a mousepiece for the Conservatives ... just liek the Mix of Thairath with Than Setthakij

More Minor Daily newspapers:

Siamrath (Founded by the late MR Kuekrit Pramote in June 25, 1950) used to be the model for Matichon Daily .... but new it has becoem more liek Thairath after Sanator Chatchawan Khongudom has purchased the ailing Siamrath after the demise of the Founder in 1995.

[Tettyan]

Scuba22 -

Your point is well taken. The points you raised probably deserve a paragraph or 2 of explanation. I'll try and get to it if I have time, or you can try taking the plunge yourself. If you want to start contributing to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you create a username/account. You can still contribute if you don't have one, but the record will show your IP address instead of your username. Better to protect your privacy and also to develop a username with a good reputation - it's all better in the long-run. My username there is the same as here. If you wann edit, just click on the "edit" link next to each section or the "edit this page" tab at the top.

If I had to label Sondhi anything, maybe "populist" fits best. Unfortunately, the term populist has become a pejorative in Thailand - meaning anything that's associated with Thaksin. Sondhi's flamboyant, maverick style has much in common with populists in other countries, like Ross Perot in the US or Ishihara Shintaro in Japan. Then again, maybe "maverick" may work as well.

As for business relationships and political idealogy, I guess it all really depends. I think by and large, though, Thai papers seem to reflect the thinking of their particular audiences.

Yes, I forgot to address your earlier point about TV. MCOT was until recently a state enterprise, and I guess the gov't still treats it like one. Yes, w/o the NBC, the owners of the frequencies pretty much do whatever they like. Which means the gov't in this case has a free hand to control the media. The constitution drafters remembered Black May all too well. The TV stations broacasted plenty of stories denouncing the protesters as "troublemakers." That's why the new constitution required the creation of the NBC.

Khun Wisarut -

I didn't include Siam Rath because ever since M.R. Kukrit died, it hasn't been considered a major paper, at least from my point of view. I thought that the only reason why people ever bothered to read it in the first place was precisely because it was Kukrit's paper.

You're right, the bi-weekly business papers probably deserve mention as well. Any idea about their circulation figures? Or what type of people read them? I'm really curious why they can survive in the market when they already have a lot of competition from the daily business papers and the weekly business magazines. Any clue as to why that's the case? I'd like to know a little more about this market segment before I try to write anything about it.

I'm a little confused about Than Setakij. I thought that they were brazenly anti-Thaksin, at least early on. There was a while when Than Setakij was one of the most reliable sources of anti-TRT stories. Or maybe I'm wrong?

[Wisarut]

As we have already know, Bi-weekly newspapers survive by the Advertising ... in muchthe same way as otehr newspapers ->

As the matter of fact, 60-65% revenue come formadvertising and the rest covered bythe circulation.

Look at the supplements that attached thsoe newspapars durign special occassions of the corporations who buy the advertising spaces from the newspapers

The circulation of biweekly business newspaper is for the corportation ... Look at the banks and corportate reading areas (library) and you'll see
those bi-weekly newspapers ... publishedin high quality paper ... all in color, not just the cover, to attact more Advertising Money.

Furthermore, the bi-weekly newspaper have DETAILS and ANALYSES
not covered by the Daily .... with Higher frequency than the Weekly Magazines ... I got LOTS of info from these bi-weekly newspapers ....

Well, Than Setthakij has just change the head after the demise of the leader .... hard to say ... but the closed proximity with Shin CorpBuilding have effectively forced them to become a mousepiece for TRT

Than Setthakij has CLAIMED as the bi-weekly business newspaper with the highest circulation.

[tomv]

If I had to label Sondhi anything, maybe "populist" fits best. Unfortunately, the term populist has become a pejorative in Thailand - meaning anything that's associated with Thaksin. Sondhi's flamboyant, maverick style has much in common with populists in other countries, like Ross Perot in the US or Ishihara Shintaro in Japan. Then again, maybe "maverick" may work as well.



As a political term, "populist" is usually pejorative everywhere as far as the international media is concerned. The problem with the word in Thailand is that it has become non-descriptive, like you said, meaning anything and everything associated with Thaksin. People here sensed and employed the negative connotation without bothering learn the word's actual meaning. I wrote long-winded post on my blog about that: Populism and nationalism in Thailand (http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/?id=207).

In it, you'll find that the Democrats were in fact much more populist than the TRT in the last general election.

Back to Sondhi, although "populist" probably fits, I still find that it's much too good a term for him, even with all the negative connotation. Here’s what I've just written today on my blog for you to judge for yourself what to call him:

Here’s a man who was making apologia for the Beslan hostage takers as the outrage was unfolding, presumably because he saw Russia as part of the hated “West”. His lifetime goal is naturally to be “the first Asian to get up and fight the Western press.” (While often criticizing the current Western-dominated international media myself, I do not wish it to be replaced by an insidious propagandist who happens to have been born on the same continent as I was). Making similar apologia for insurgents in Thailand’s South, he warned against the obviously greater menace of a “superpower’s” interference in the country. (Apparently the said superpower doesn’t have enough on its plate already in Iraq and Afghanistan.) He claimed to see a declaration of war against Islam in Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republican Convention. In the tsunami’s aftermath, he extolled the wisdom of beaching whales and suggested promoting that to the exalted status of “folk wisdom”

As for this:

Well, the Thai government is determined to censor the internet and chat boards on the same scale as the Chinese Communist Party. Sites like pantip.com are requiring registration of citizen ID etc before you can post your opinions! Civilized countries would regard that as an invasion of privacy. I'm afraid that the "technological revolution in communications and media" may actually give the government more leeway in regulating people's thoughts.

Have you lived in China? I have. You can't read cnn.com over there. Their filter works on emails, too, so those containing certain keywords will be blocked (I learned this the hard way). Off the internet and in the real world, the Chinese government needless to say doesn't suffer a daily barrage insults from virtually every single newspaper, like the current Thai government does. There is no comparison, but somehow Thaksin critics manage to make such hyperbolic claims without undermining their own credibility.

(Notably, the Chinese government also happens to be the darling of many Thailand's inveterately anti-West papers, Sondhi's included.)

Who here is brave enough to defend Thaksin over this one?

http://202.60.196.117/breaking/read....n&newsid=95243

Most people say news media not free
Published on Nov 17 , 2005

Most residents of greater Bangkok are not convinced that the Government allows Thai news media the freedom to inform the public, according to a survey conducted by Assumption University.

I'll give it a try. So a poll is being now used to determine the state of media freedom in Thailand, while many self-styled freedom lovers are busy rejecting the voter’s wisdom in electing the country's leader? That strikes me as rather weird.

The question asked is a loaded one, and we Thais are extremely averse to appearing naive.

To comprehensively debunk these claims about media suppression will require more than a few more lines I intend to write. So I suggest reading Thai newspapers for yourself. Not only will you find that the real anti-government ones make The Nation look like a poodle, but you'll find that the much-vaunted Thai "journalism" consists of humdrum who-says-what stenography, turbocharged with opinionated, sensationalist headlines. The "pro-government" dailies (Thai Rath and perhaps Matichon?) are now at best on the fence. Does this look like a country that actively suppresses press freedom?

For those who can't read Thai, you'll have to settle for the distant second-best alternative of reading English-language newspapers. Still, a similar though incomplete picture emerges. Can you really call the Bangkok Post pro-government?

And by the way, remember the bogus runway crack story? That was started by am MCOT staffer on an MCOT radio. Was the guy fired? No, he was actually on the National Broadcasting Commission before the court nullified it.

[Gulliver]

This is response to TomV.
You make some very good comments and I'll be the first to admit that Sondhi is an interesting character. To me, he's a maverick. Why?, because he's got the biggest balls of any businessman I know. He established the first Asian news magazine in Asia, Asia Inc and he tried to set up a regional Asian daily "Asia Times" not to mention a satellite channel to rival Murdoch's Star unfortunately the crash came first. As Tomv said, it's always been his view to create a media empire in Asia, one that can rival those in the West. He also has bounced back a bit still owning www.atimes.com which if you've ever read it is a very good website with the writers predominantly western, he also produces the local daily "Thaiday" for IHT. I admire that. Sure his past is shaky, but whose isn't?

I am a historian and so is Sondhi. If you've ever met him, he will tell you that he is historian first and a journalist second. What tomv says is correct about Sondhi's claims of American interference pertaining to the south and their wish to set up some sort of presence in the 3 southernmost provinces. Is it possible? Who knows, but I wouldn't count it out.


The reason I'm writing this is not to defend Sonthi, but to figure out WHY? he's doing what he's doing.
Now as a historian, if you look back at Sondhi he made his REAL fortune after and during the 92' uprising. He was the only newspaper to still print after being order to stop and everytime his newspaper came out they were gone within the first hour. He was smart during that time he also gave the paper away for free, whether he did to help his friend Gen. Chatichai or because he felt it was the right thing to do, don't know.

I want you to recall the events that occured during that period and look at today's situation. The Nation is beginning a series of both men and their histories. If you think about it Sonthi is taking the role of Chamlong this time around. It's a different role from the previous of just writing and taking a back seat. I would love to hear other people's opinions on the matter. It strikes me odd that his next telecast is on Dec. 9. One day before Constitution day. The other big question is what will H.M. the King have to say to our PM during his Birthday speech to the Nation. Ladies and Gentleman these are very interesting times in the Land of Smiles. Can't wait to see how it ends. LOVE HIM, HATE HIM, DESPISE HIM. Thank you Sondhi for making things interesting and giving people something to think about.

[Tettyan]

Dear Tomv,

Thank you for your comments. Your blog has been bookmarked on my browser for some time now and I find it to be a superb source of information. I'm glad that you're now contributing to this forum.



As a political term, "populist" is usually pejorative everywhere as far as the international media is concerned.

FOX News's Bill O'Reilly doesn't seem to mind being tagged with the label "populist", it actually seems like he relishes it. Come to think of it, Sondhi is sort of like Thailand's answer to O'Reilly. Both are egotistical, self-righteous, ultra-nationalist, and shameless self-promoters.

Have you lived in China? I have. You can't read cnn.com over there. Their filter works on emails, too, so those containing certain keywords will be blocked (I learned this the hard way). Off the internet and in the real world, the Chinese government needless to say doesn't suffer a daily barrage insults from virtually every single newspaper, like the current Thai government does. There is no comparison, but somehow Thaksin critics manage to make such hyperbolic claims without undermining their own credibility.

I'll give it a try. So a poll is being now used to determine the state of media freedom in Thailand, while many self-styled freedom lovers are busy rejecting the voter’s wisdom in electing the country's leader? That strikes me as rather weird.

I don't think anyone on this board is suggesting that Thailand's media situation is equivalent to China's. Far from it. The point I was trying to make was that given the ability and the opportunity - this government would LOVE to be able to exercise the same amount of control over the media that the CCP does. Don't take my word for it - the gov't has made its intentions all too transparently clear through its words and actions.

The Thai media is one of the freest in SE Asia. But that doesn't me we should rest on our laurels. I asked in another thread whether we should all sing China's praises because they have a better human rights record than North Korea's. I think fair-minded people would agree that that's madness. Just because Thailand's media situation is better than Cambodia's (hardly an accomplishment) gives us no excuse to downplay our problems. We also need to pay attention to the DIRECTION that the situation is headed. And Thailand's ranking by "Reporters Without Borders" is sadly indicative of that direction.


To comprehensively debunk these claims about media suppression will require more than a few more lines I intend to write. So I suggest reading Thai newspapers for yourself. Not only will you find that the real anti-government ones make The Nation look like a poodle, but you'll find that the much-vaunted Thai "journalism" consists of humdrum who-says-what stenography, turbocharged with opinionated, sensationalist headlines. The "pro-government" dailies (Thai Rath and perhaps Matichon?) are now at best on the fence. Does this look like a country that actively suppresses press freedom?

My Thai reading ability is not good to the point where I can keep up with all the dailies on a daily basis. Fortunately, I have many friends and relatives who do read them, so I'm aware of the type of stuff that's printed in Thai Post and Naew Na. And yes, the Nation is quite mild by comparison. Nevertheless, the anti-government papers' readership is tiny, concentrated almost entirely in Bangkok. What really matters is what's being said in Thai Rath, Daily News and television. As far as I know, these guys like to avoid the whole Sondhi vs Thaksin issue as much as possible.

Duncan McCargo touches some of the issues you mentioned on the quality of Thai journalism. His book is a bit dated, but still my reference of choice on the subject. Yes, Thai news articles read like "he-said, she-said" stories, and are often bereft of analysis or context. Analysis is lumped with opinions and editorials, where of course it's impossible to find any objectivity. Professionalism is also sorely lacking, even with the English dailies. Reporters and editors often don't bother to double-check their facts. Thai journalism has many flaws of its own making, and I'd be delighted to discuss this further on another thread.

The lack of quality in Thai journalism, however, gives Thaksin no excuse to treat the press the way he does. Look at America's CBS and the Bush National Guard story. Everyone agrees that CBS screwed up badly, but I didn't see anyone at the White House threatening to sue for libel. Those involved behaved like mature adults and the affair was settled fairly. Perhaps if Thaksin conducts himself in a more professional manner, the press could be inspired to follow suit.

I look forward to hearing more from you. Again thanks for your comments.

Best,

Tettyan

[Scuba22]

Dear Mr Tom V,

Welcome to the discussion, and thanks for the links to your blog. Speaking personally, I do think that ill-considered hyperbolic critique reflects worse on the critic than the criticized, and this is a big problem in the usual anti-Thaksin commentary we see.

You take these critics to task very well. I found your comments to be well-thought out, fact-based, and fair.

I only wish the criticism about Thaksin was as erudite and logical.

I believe there are plenty of legitimate issues that can be raised about Thaksin, but that these are rarely made. If I were commenting on Thaksin, it would be about the circumstances in which he made his money - how did he get the contract to sell IT equipment to the police? what were the circumstances around his initial telecoms commission? I think these are very important questions that bear directly with his vision of the relationship between the government and private business, which in turn has a direct bearing on how society and economy in Thailand evolve, thus impacting all of us who live here.

Yet the criticisms actually made - populism, nationalism, the grand palace affair - never touch on issues that have real relevance. Sure Thaksin is a populist, and as you say, so is pretty much everyone else pandering for votes, which is to say, anyone in politics. And populism isn't necessarily a bad thing, what's important is to look at the specific policies and their implementation and ask what has resulted. I started another thread to ask those questions specifically and I'd love to hear your perspective on that question. Are the policies reducing poverty? Are they sustainable?

I also believe that it is more important to criticize the party in power over finding faults in the relatively powerless. I don't deny that the Nation prints ridiculous stuff sometimes, and I don't agree with most of Thirayuth's pronouncements - I find his understanding of economics sadly lacking. But these not the ones implementing policy and having real impact. Thaksin is.

And I do find Thaksin's understanding of free market economics and capitalism totally lacking as well (see another of my threads - Thaksin, businessman and capitalist?). The Prime Minister being clueless is a far worse problem than a famous academic being clueless - I would love to hear your perspective on that as well.

I think we both believe in public civil discource, regardless of what "side" one is on. So long as we can debate using facts and logic, I am thrilled to be part of the conversation.

Best regards,

Scuba22

[Wisarut]

Now, the Leader's governemnt is in Financial Trouble ... he has to ask for 70 billon baht loan to cover the deficit of 100 billion baht after the faiolture to privatize EGAT ...

This is the leak from the former Duputy Minister of Finance [Phichet Phanwichartkul] .... Ther will be a Great Depression in 2006 .... now the govnemrn has to borrow to payu for the governemnt salary ....

Well, this is due to the profrigacies on spending .... to gain more voters ...
Better prepare to raise the tax even though thosewhocome up with Suvannabhum City (the vested interests aroudn the Leadeer) want to pay
NO tax to the localgovenremnt (BMA and Samut Prakarn) ....

[Tettyan]

I just stumbled upon this website: http://www.busakorn.addr.com/papers.htm

It offers a gold mine of analysis and history of Thai media and telecommunications. This is all part of a personal website of a Thai woman who got her PhD in communications in the states a few years back. Looks like there havn't been any updates lately though. Nevertheless, there's still plenty of stuff to give us a lot to think about.

I suggest all of you check out this paper: http://www.busakorn.addr.com/sangchai/Sangchai-all.htm

It's about the assassination in 1996 of Sangchai Sunthornvut, who was appointed as MCOT director by the Democrat administration. It's a long read, but touches on various aspects of the role of special interests in the Thai media. And even though it was written in 1997, there even is mention of the Shinawatra connection.

[Tettyan]

From today's Bangkok Post. This is interesting. Based on my understanding, the PRD and its media outlets, Channel 11 and Radio Thailand, are supposed to be public service broadcasters. From the definition of public service broadcasting in other countries, they are not supposed to operate for profit or run advertisments. It's not clear to me to what extent the proposed reforms change this. And what the heck is a "service deliverly unit" anyway?

It appears that many are not happy with the proposed changes, but their line of logic seems to be that since it's a policy of this government, it's gotta be bad. Is there anyone out there who can explain this issue with a little more subtance?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/28Dec2005_news01.php

Wednesday 28 December 2005

Call to halt `cash cow' media plan

New PRD may benefit the wealthy, not public

AMPA SANTIMATANEEDOL & PRADIT RUANGDIT

Media advocates yesterday asked the government to cancel its plan to restructure the Public Relations Department (PRD) and its media outlets, fearing the new entity emerging from the change could become too commercialised and function as a cash cow for influential businessmen. Representatives of the Institute of the Civil Sector Media, the Campaign for Media Reform, the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association, the Thai Journalists Association and the Thailand Association of the Blind submitted a letter stating their demand to Prime Minister's Office Minister Suranand Vejjajiva at Government House yesterday.

They oppose a Dec 20 cabinet resolution that would turn Radio Thailand, Channel 11 TV, and the Institute of Public Relations into ``service delivery units'' (SDU).

The advocates argue that the government's plan violates the constitution which intends to keep the PRD-run media outlets as ``public service broadcasting'' (PSB) facilities. The transformation would allow the state agencies to engage in profit-oriented businesses, they say.

They also argue that the cabinet resolution contravenes the law governing frequency allocation, television broadcasting and telecommunications which divides operators into three categories _ non-profit government operators for public interest, business-oriented private operators and civil operators serving communities. The policy may open the door for businessmen close to politicians to commercially exploit the PRD's new operations as well as allow businessmen to exert control over state-run media.

The advocates accuse the government of bypassing public participation in working out the policy and of failing to explain any of its benefits. Besides, the change had been quickly introduced before the establishment of the National Broadcasting Commission, an independent body responsible for regulating government broadcasting media. This could lead to legal disputes between private and government sectors in the future, they said.

Supinya Klangnarong, who represents the five NGOs making the demand, said the public stood to lose as they would not have freedom of choice and be forced to watch certain media content.

She called on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to order the cabinet to review the Dec 20 resolution and allow the public to have their say on the issue.

But Mr Suranand said the government's plan had been misunderstood.

The PM's Office minister insisted the PRD would be restructured for the public interest and there was no ulterior motive.

The government had studied examples in Europe and the United States before deciding on the plan. He promised to organise a workshop to listen to opinions from all parties concerned after the New Year holidays.

``SDU is a choice which may or may not be picked. PSB will be allowed to air commercials to generate income. We are open to opinions to see which kinds of commercials will be suitable. In principle, they should be for the public interest, not those for consumer products. Television needs a huge budget to operate so we must find a balance,'' Mr Suranand said.

The cabinet resolution would be implemented within six months and the ``brainstorming'' could happen during that period, he said.

Meanwhile, a panel has been set up to control airtime concessionaires who sub-lease their contracts at much higher rates, causing huge loss of revenue to the state.

Government spokesman Surapong Suebwongle said the Prime Minister's Office had issued a ministerial directive setting up a panel tasked with monitoring state-owned broadcasting agencies which sell airtime to the private sector.

The office's deputy permanent secretary, Jadul Apichatabutra has been appointed as chairman of the committee.

The leaseholders have been accused of paying less money to the state, but ending up making much higher profits through sub-contracting deals.

The establishment of the committee is in line with the measure agreed at a cabinet meeting on July 20, 2004, which aims to eliminate influential middlemen currently taking control of the airwaves.

[Scuba22]

I'm not an expert on the legalities of the Thai situation, but I have been involved in media issues here and I am aware of a similar row going on in the US regarding the PBS (public broadcasting service) and arts funding in general, so I think I might be able to review some of the more general issues in this area.

Information has largely replaced physical force as the counterpart to money in the quest for power in modern democracies, therefore access to and control of information-media is of critical importance. Clearly, having ONLY commericial media is problematic since it places a preponderance of power in the hands of the wealthy. Plus, for some information there is a clear societal benefit without a sufficient private return - for example for weather reporting, it would be difficult for a private operator to set up meteorological stations whose forecasts others could copy for free, yet there is clearly a social benefit in people knowing that a hurricane is approaching. That's a classic case of "market failure" and most would agree that a government weather forecasting service is a good idea.

What consitutes "societal benefit" and who determines that is a highly controversial issue. Government, if it is truly representative of the people, should be able to determine that and provide appropriate information. In cases of government malfeasance, however, there is conflict of interest - people do need to know, however government has an interest in protecting itself. The situation gets even worse if government is too closely tied to private business (a big no-no according to Adam Smith!) - when government and business can prevent information from being known, it is a set up for intransparency and corruption, as we have already seen.

So then, how is public media to be run? It has to be financed by the state and any returns must be returned to the entity or state, otherwise it would not be public. Government control is a bad idea because then you risk becoming propaganda, so you try to have something resembling a central bank - an independent authority respected by everyone even though it sometimes makes unpopular decisions. Ultimately, like a central bank, its legitimacy is reflected in the trust people have in its actions.

That issue of "legitimacy" is what the current government doesn't seem to understand. Their appointments to the NBC, NCCC, EC, and other consituttionally mandated bodies appears to be driven by specific private interests rather than the pubic interest, and this is what kills trust and therefore legitimacy. It certainly doesn't help that decisions are made in private and never explained - what were the results of their "studies" of "examples in Europe and the United States"?

The usual complaint I hear is that the only place to find qualified people for positions like this is from industry, yet that speaks to a serious problem for Thai society. Is there no other path to experience and qualifications in Thailand outside the commercial sector?

Anyway, back to your question... it's difficult to fault anyone for not trusting a scheme coming from this government simply because it comes from this government. Like the US administration, they have demonstrated bad faith over and over again. Still, simple knee-jerk opposition lacks wider credibility as well - it pretty much only attracts the skeptics who are already disposed to disbelieve the government.

I hope I've been able to lay out some of the salient issues, but at the end of the day, its the intransparency that really gets to me. The government seems to keep saying "don't ask questions, just trust us" and claiming to be "misunderstood". Well, these two are related issues- if they answered these questions we could understand them better.

As I keep saying, to reach the masses, criticism needs to be clear, simple, and tangible; much better than I've been able to muster.

Cheers,

Scuba22

[GWR]

Friday, June 20, 2008
Press freedom vanishing from Thailand

BANGKOK (The Nation): In his speech before the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand on Wednesday, Asean Secretary-General Dr Surin Pitsuwan delivered what might best be described as a severe reality check for Thai citizens. Citing statistics from Freedom House, the New York-based monitor of media freedoms around the world, he noted that less than a decade ago Thailand ranked 29th out of 194 countries surveyed, putting it among the top 15% in the world. In its data released last month, however, the agency's 'Freedom Index' saw Thailand in 127th place.

The Thai press reached its peak in terms of freedom under the government led by the Democrat Party (1997-2000). At that time, relations between the media and the government were based on mutual respect and professionalism, unlike the rueful conditions prevailing under the successive Thaksin governments and the regime of its cronies in power today.

The Asean chief pointed out that Thailand was the first country in Southeast Asia to have an information law, which gives the public the right to know. The Thai example has received a positive reception in the region. Recently, the Indonesian parliament approved its own information law. For years, Indonesian authorities have studied the Thai information act and improved upon it. Now, Cambodia, the Philippines and Malaysia are contemplating their own similar laws.

Dr Pitsuwan urged the Thai press to pay more attention to transnational issues that affected Asean citizens and to help promote press freedoms and professionalism in Southeast Asia. He emphasized that if the Thai press were free, it would add momentum to the current national initiatives to recognize the public's 'right to know' throughout the region.

Phuket, Thailand
09:35 local time (GMT +7)
Non-specific link:
http://www.phuketgazette.com/news/index.asp?id=6566