TiTV=>TPBS-TV

[mdechgan]

Does anyone know what's up with the TITV.
I can't find any news about the legal case or any updates.
However I heard that the employees are not being paid and many have resigned to move to channel 3 news.

[GWR]

http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/forum/showpost.php?p=19143&postcount=2
mdechgan

Does anyone know what's up with the TITV?
I can't find any news about the legal case or any updates.
However I heard that the employees are not being paid and many have resigned to move to Channel 3 news.


A partial answer perhaps!?

Worried TITV staff reject plans for independent station
Published on January 12, 2008

TITV staff yesterday expressed opposition to the station becoming independent.

They reacted to a government committee's decision to make the channel an independent television station, saying that the move was not transparent and in was in violation of several laws.

Acting news director Atcha Suwanpakpraek said the five-member panel, appointed by the Public Relations Department, issued an advanced television broadcast programme without authorisation, violating the right of a government panel to be set up in the future.

He said he was aware that the panel was instrumental in pushing for a condition that would see half of the 800 TITV staff members lose their jobs once TITV became independent.

The new broadcast programme will also reduce news time from eight hours a day to only three while the remaining time had been reserved for news programmes to be produced by outside operators.

"This panel will submit its well-prepared plans to the government-appoint committee, making it merely a rubber stamp," he added.

Tuangphonr Assawawilai, the daily news editor, accused the National Legislative Assembly members, mostly media professionals, of setting up post-independence conditions to favour outside or freelance television programme producers.

She said those NLA members had abolished their professionalism and were scurring around trying to get their slices of the annual operation cost of Bt1.7 billion.

Jom Pradabphet, a senior TITV editor, said the post-independence TITV needed to give a 100 per cent assurance to its staff that they would not be affected in terms of both professionalism and employment benefits.

Chatchai Tawantharong, a TITV deputy news director, said he saw no need for the current government to rush the transition process and should wait for the elected government to handle the TITV matter.

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/12/politics/politics_30062024.php

[mdechgan]

So TITV wants to become independent from the government.
But the staff and workers are afraid to lose their paychecks so they prefer to be government paid?

I would prefer for TITV to become independent because there is yet to be a station that is independent from from the Thai government.

Subcontracting news to freelancers would encourage independent media correspondents and might even lower wages shifting them from secure government paychecks to more willing and enthusiatic persons that really want to report real news instead of being an extented voice of the government.

[GWR]

Well, the man DOES have a long history of interference in this utterly bedevilled channel!:

Thaksin 'wants control of TITV'
Published on January 13, 2008

Mass-media members of the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) said last week that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was behind the TITV news staff resisting changes to the station.

Led by Somchai Sawaengkarn, the group alleges Thaksin has a three-point plan to retake TITV.

It said the former prime minister wants a change in personnel of the nine-person committee overseeing the move to a public television station.

Step two is to remove the caretaker station director and the final step is to amend the Public Television Act.

The Administrative Court has ordered an injunction halting the removal of the station's director by the junta-appointed administration.

Staff said the removal order, made just before the December election, was unjust and constituted an act of political interference.

They said the government censored the broadcast of an interview with Thaksin in Hong Kong.

News-media professionals in the NLA have come under attack by TITV staff for alleged conflict of interest because they will benefit when the station becomes a public broadcaster.

Somchai denied this. "Allegations that NLA members will divide up the cake that is TITV are groundless and reflect a lack of journalistic ethics on the part of the media professionals and suggests they ignore national interests and care only about themselves.

"Check who has shares in production companies. These people recognise the [pro-Thaksin] People Power Party is about to form a government and will annul the Public Television Act.

"When that day comes, I for one will not simply watch but will expose the truth to society."

News-media expert Euajit Virojtrairat was approached to sit on the TITV committee. She has been accused of bias and exploiting the situation by TITV staff.

She has since rejected the committee offer.

Soon after the election, Euajit, who heads the non-governmental organisation Media Monitor, was criticised for her statement saying election coverage by all state-controlled stations was "impartial".

She said TITV staff were trying to prevent the birth of public television. She urged them to stop thinking of the station as their own property.

She denied having any interest in TITV's new programming.

"TITV staff who claim to be fighting for people's rights and liberties should look and see what the majority of society wants.

It's best if TITV uses the rights and liberty they hold dear in a proper way and not just to legitimise themselves," she said.

Sathien Viriyapanpongsa


The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/13/national/national_30062069.php

[mdechgan]

Everything has come full circle in Thailand.
It is like Thailand has lost a few years existence since everything seems to be the same as it was before.

The government with the same people in power even after a coup.
Thaksin returning to Thailand like he never left.
The baht soon to return to pre-crisis 1997 levels of U.S. dollar exchange rate.
Don Muang airport is still open.
We still have traffic in Bangkok.
Police are still corrupt.
Media is still heavily regulated.

[GWR]

Indeed, so much for the idea that iTV could perhaps balance out the heavy government involvement in the broadcast media! That idea went completely out of the window when 'they' capitulated and allowed Thaksin to get his grubby little paws on the company. How many more cycles of "full circle" can iTV/TiTV stand and live?: :D

TiTV to become public TV at midnight

The TiTV station, the formally iTV owned by the Shinawatra Group, will become a public TV station by midnight.

The process will require the station [to refrain?]from airing any commercial[s].

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30062178

PUBLIC TELEVISION
Rocky start for TITV
Published on January 15, 2008
All staff laid off; ad ban enforced as new board due

TITV's transformation into Thailand's first public television station began last night with advertising being dropped and the appointment expected today of a five-member board to take care of its operations.

PM's Office minister Khun-ying Thipawadee Meksawan said the five names would be submitted to the Cabinet for acknowledgement. The board would take charge of the company's operations in line with the Public TV Act, which came into force yesterday. The board, which will be in office for six months before the establishment of a permanent nine-member board through the selection of various groups, will then announce its policies.


Public Relations Department director-general Pramote Ratthawinit said as from midnight, the 800 TITV staff were no longer considered employees and that all existing programmes, news or non-news, would be pulled off the air.

For two full days, programmes would be government documentaries, mostly on royal activities, and particularly those of HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana, to be supplied from the PRD's broadcasting network.

"The new board will then appoint the station director, who will make decisions on employment and programming. Staff who do not get new job contracts will not be entitled to any compensation," he said.

Within six months, the board should complete all pending issues.

TITV staff at midnight gathered to bid goodbye to the station. The disgruntled workers clustered in a gloomy atmosphere. Some said they did not want to be the dead bodies littering the path to public TV. At a press conference yesterday afternoon, they said they had done their jobs with honesty and had never taken money from politicians or interest groups.

"We are confident that the board members will do their job fairly and honestly with no agenda to seek personal benefit or to benefit their peers," said senior editor Alongkorn Muandao.

Sathaporn Charupa, chief of the Labour Protection and Welfare Department, said up to half of the station's staff could be laid off and they were not protected under the labour law as they had fallen under the control of the Public Relations Department - a state agency. He said the department was ready to help staff who were laid off.

Advertising agencies and TV producers have cried foul over the lack of official notification of the ad ban.

A source from a media planning agency said its clients had no contingency plan on what to do, as everything would depend on the station's new board.

Y&R advertising agency's chief executive Sorn Chongsricharn said the ad ban would have no negative affect on the company's customers, given that big advertisers had shifted their ads to other channels since iTV was changed to TITV.

He said the loss of ad time on TITV would not mean a significant boost in revenue for other channels that allow advertising.

"Advertising fees on TITV are not expensive at only one third the cost of other channels. I think Channel 7 will be the biggest beneficiary and the rest will go to Channels 3, 5 and 9. Without TITV, it's good for advertisers - they have fewer options to choose from," Sorn said.

Traiphop Limpraphat, a television host and head of producer Born and Associates, criticised the government for the sudden change. He called it a big hoax. "If the new programmes are those announced earlier, the government is deceiving the public," he said.

"It announced that a public TV station must be independent from government intervention or business-sector control. But the announced programmes contain some government programmes. Indeed, the board must not be appointed by the government. If we don't call this intervention, what else can we call it?"

He urged the board to conduct hearings so the public can say what it wants of the public TV channel.

"This needs massive public scrutiny given the involvement of taxpayers' money. This is a big hoax and I will not let anyone fool the public," he said.

Phusit Laithong, deputy managing director of producer TV Thunder, also questioned the government's move following the announcement of the new programmes. He urged the public to question if any particular party would benefit from the transformation.

"From our discussions, no producers have been notified of the unplugging. We're still producing programmes and our most recent tapes could last until late February. This will cause damage," he said.

Under the Public TV Act, TITV, which earns about Bt2 billion in annual ad revenue, would be financed by "six taxes" of about Bt2 billion annually. Its original operator, iTV Plc, posted net profits of Bt205 million in 2004 and Bt678 million in 2005. With provisions for additional concession fees, it made a net loss of Bt1.78 billion. The concession was revoked in March 2006 following iTV's failure to pay fines of over Bt100 billion.

The PM's Office was recently ordered to settle the fines through arbitration. There are questions over what the government will do if the fines are settled at a level acceptable to and payable by iTV.

The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/15/headlines/headlines_30062252.php

[GWR]

New, public TPBS-TV ready to start hiring

The five-member board, appointed by the Thai Cabinet on Tuesday to work on policy and guidelines for the country's new public television station, met in the afternoon and agreed to start the recruitment process for the new station on Wednesday.

It also set Feb 1 as the launching date for Thailand Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS), the first of its kind for the kingdom.


Five members of the board included Mr Thepchai Yong, Mr Kwansuang Atibhoti, Mr Narong Jaiharn, Mr Apichart Thongyoo and Mrs Nualnoi Trirat. Apart from Mr Thepchai who has a deep media background, other members are academics or social workers.

Mr Thepchai was however criticised for conflict of interest as he has been a long-time executive of The Nation multimedia group which also operates a broadcasting network, the Nation Channel.

Minister of the Prime Minister's Office, Dhipavadee Meksawan, denied Mr Thepchai could have a conflict of interest, saying he has already resigned from The Nation group.

She said Mr Thepchai's mass media background would be beneficial to the five-member board and his performance has been outstanding.


The board, in its first meeting at the headquarters of the Public Relations Department (PRD), appointed Mr Kwansuang as chairman and Mr Thepchai as TPBS director.

According to the board, the TPBS's programmes would emphasis news and documentaries while "creative and appropriate" soap operas and entertainment programmes would be allowed.

Link may expire:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=125166

Thepchai selected as TPBS acting director

(BangkokPost.com) - The five-member board of Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS) selected Chulalongkorn University's architectural tutor Kwansuang Athipo to be the president of the station, which is formerly known as TITV.

Thepchai Yong is selected by the board to be the station's acting director.

Mr Kwansuang said the station will open for job applicants starting Wednesday to Jan 20, adding that the station will be able to produce its own content partially on Feb 1.

Changes in TITV occurred after the Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act came into force on Monday, making it an an-free public television station.

Channel 11 is ordered to take over the transmission of TITV by broadcasting prepared programmes with no commercial breaks.

The committee is tasked with planning programme content in line with the public television principle and recruit staff to work for the station.


Link may expire:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=125162

[mdechgan]

Could someone explain or give a small summary about the history of ITV and how it became like it is today?

How did ITV end up like it is today?

[GWR]

Could someone explain or give a small summary about the history of ITV and how it became like it is today?
How did ITV end up like it is today?

Try this for starters:


Thai Independent Television (TITV, originally named iTV) is a television station in Thailand, owned by ITV Public Company Limited (SET:ITV), a unit of Shin Corporation. The station was started in 1995 when the company was granted a 30-year concession by the Office of the Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister's Office to operate a free-to-air television station in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) spectrum at 510-790 MHz. After a lengthy dispute over unpaid concession fees to the Prime Minister's Office, iTV in 2007 was taken over by the government's Public Relations Department and its name was changed to Thai Independent Television (TITV). ITV is Thailand's first UHF channel. Following a previously unannounced order of Thailand's Public Relations Department delivered the same day, the station closed down operations at midnight on 14 January 2008.

Early years

The original name of iTV's holding company was Siam Infotainment Company Limited. Its major shareholders were Siam Commercial Bank, the Crown Property Bureau (the investment company of King Bhumibol Adulyadej), and the Nation Multimedia Group.[1] Siam Infotainment won a 30 year concession to run a commercial television station, after offering only 120 billion baht in royalties. A rival company offered royalties of 625 billion baht. This irregularity was subject to a government investigation in 996. The results of the investigation were never made public.

Established as an independent television station (all other TV stations in Thailand are government controlled), the company barred any one shareholder from having more than a 10% stake. Beholden to no major shareholders and with journalists feeling unencumbered, the station quickly distinguished itself for its in-depth public affairs programs and investigative journalism.

The East Asian financial crisis of 1997 led to heavy losses by the station. One factor for the losses was the high cost of concession fees (25.2 billion baht to be paid over 25 years) imposed by the Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister's Office, which granted the iTV concession. In 2000, it lost 775 million THB (USD $18 million) — and the Democrat government worried that if it collapsed, it could adversely affect shareholders like Siam Commercial Bank and the Crown Property Bureau.[2] In order to attract outside capital, Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai lifted the 10% limit on ownership in the station. Shin Corporation, owned by future Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was requested to purchase a large portion of the company's shares, which he did for USD $60 million. At the time, this was considered a high price for the ailing company.[3]

Under the Shin Corporation

Under new ownership, iTV's news programming became less hard hitting.[citation needed] Journalists said they were pressured to downplay negative news about Shin Corporation's then-owner, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and his Thai Rak Thai party. Twenty-one journalists were fired for speaking out. They later won a court case against iTV and were awarded several years of back pay. [4]

Originally, iTV's entertainment-to-news ratio was about 50:50. Over the years, iTV has increased its entertainment-based programming so that about 65% of its shows are entertainment. Among its popular programs is the Thailand version of the Big Brother reality TV show.

In 2004, iTV was granted permission by an arbitration panel that it could increase the amount of entertainment programming and pay the government 230 million baht in annual licensing fees, an amount that was drastically reduced from the 1 billion baht the station had agreed to pay.

In June 2006, as a result of iTV's changes in programming, Thailand's Central Administrative Court invalidated the arbitration panel's ruling, saying the entertainment-to-news ratio must be returned to 50:50 and that broadcaster must pay 76 million baht in fines. iTV has contested the court's decision. [5]

Media-reform activists in Thailand, such as Supinya Klangnarong and Jon Ungpakorn have suggested that the station model itself as a public broadcaster, similar to the BBC, PBS, NHK or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which the activists say would allow it to better achieve its original mission as an independent public network free of political intervention and business interests. Thailand does have a public broadcasting channel, Channel 11, owned and operated by the government's Public Relations Department, but it does not operate on the same model as the BBC or PBS.

"The goal of founding iTV back in 1995 was to provide a public service via a truly independent network. That ideal should continue to be supported as we shouldn't forget that this network was set up following the 'dark age' of information which led to the Bloody May events of 1992," Jon Ungpakorn told The Nation. [6]

Post-Shin Corporation

In 2006, Shin Corporation, iTV's majority shareholder, was acquired by Temasek Holdings, the investment company of the Singaporean government. Thai media activists strongly criticized the sale. After the 2006 military coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand's interim civilian government voiced intentions to take over iTV if it failed to pay 2.8 billion dollars in fines.[7] In February 2007, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont appointed a new executive board consisting exclusively of civil servants. The station was renamed "Thai Independent Television" (TITV).[8]

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont announced that it intended to take over the station and let it be operated by the Public Relations Department, which already ran Channel 11. Surayud promised that the station would not be taken off the air no matter what happened regarding its concession controversy.

PM's Office Minister Dhipawadee Meksawan announced that the station would be taken off the air on midnight on 6 March 2007, following the Cabinet's revocation of iTV's concession in early March 2007. Surayud apologized for not keeping his word.[9][10][11][12]

Then on 7 March 2007, Surayud reversed his decision yet again and ordered that iTV continue broadcasting after the deadline had passed.[13]

Other junta controlled television stations like MCOT were expected to reap windfall gains due to the situation at iTV.[14] On 14 January 2008, Thailand's Public Relations Department delivered a non-negotiable letter ordering closure of the station at midnight that day. The station complied, and immediately after 24:00 hrs., TiTV became history and the station transformed into a public broadcast motif.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TITV

[GWR]

See also previous post on the history of iTV/TiTV/TPBS-TV.

EDITORIAL
Public television closer to reality
Published on January 16, 2008
The new ad-free station will break the state broadcasting monopoly and make political reform possible

The interim Surayud government has chosen the drastic route of transforming Thailand Independent Television (TITV), originally known as iTV, into the country's first public television station - an entity that it hopes will be free from business influence and political interference. In a way, the outgoing government had no other option but to do what needed to be done to ensure that the new station made a clean break from its chequered past. The government's Public Relations Department, tasked with overseeing the transition, terminated the employment contracts of more than 800 TITV journalists and members of its support staff and set up a five-member provisional board of directors to draw up the new corporate identity and business objectives of the new television station.

It is estimated that only half of the current number of employees will be re-hired, and those that are will have to agree to the new, public service-oriented mode of operations. In addition there may be considerable pay cuts. According to the government, these measures are necessary as many of TITV journalists and staffers are known to be strongly opposed to the proposed changes - if not also suspected of being closely associated with the deposed Thaksin administration. Those journalists and employees who are to be let go will be compensated under the labour laws.

The original iTV, which was later turned into TITV, was created in the aftermath of the May 1992 bloodbath, with the express purpose of providing the Thai public with accurate, truthful and timely news and current affairs programmes based on strict journalistic objectivity and professional media ethics. During the May 1992 bloody crackdown on unarmed democracy protesters by the then-Suchinda administration, all TV stations under government control failed to report the truth that scores of people were being gunned down by the security forces. The public outrage that led to the resignation of Suchinda Kraprayoon as prime minister came only after people learned of the massacre from international news agencies.

ITV, which began operating in the mid-1990s, was designed as a free TV channel that wouldn't be used as a tool of the powers that be. Its considerable "independence" was hailed by the public as the best thing that had ever happened in the Thai broadcast media, but it was a short-lived affair. Before he came to power in 2001, Thaksin Shinawatra took over the financially ailing station, turning it into his personal propaganda tool. Under his administration, ITV's management arbitrarily changed the concession terms of the station to lessen its financial burden and to increase the amount of entertainment content, contrary to the original plan.

The new provisional board - including a journalist, media expert, social worker and political activist - will exercise its power under the Public Broadcasting Act. It will be relatively free from government control to create a new station devoted to public service and to be funded by special taxes and donations. It would be an understatement to say that it has a tall order to meet.

Public broadcasting is part of a broader media reform advocated by a coalition of media professionals, academics and members of civil society who believe that genuine political reform is not possible without breaking the state monopoly on the broadcast industry.

There has been some confusion over what public television actually is. The planned public station - subsidised but not controlled by the government - will aim to offer quality programming that helps to educate people, as opposed to market-driven commercial TV networks that must cater to popular taste, rely on advertisers for survival and compete against rival networks to stay afloat. To shield the public station from the dictate of viewer ratings and advertising, it will be commercial-free.

For a public TV station to succeed, the real power to control the quality of programming must be placed in the hands of the viewers. An audience council must be established with members appointed from professional groups representing a wide cross-section of society, not only to make sure the station delivers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people but also to raise moral and aesthetic standards. The biggest challenge is how to come up with high-minded programming that is not boring to the majority of viewers.

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/16/opinion/opinion_30062362.php

Court to pass ruling on TITV shutdown
Published on January 16, 2008

The Administrative Court will today rule on the fate of TITV, which has been unplugged to pave the way for the formation of the country's first public television station.

Under a law passed by the current government, the public television station is set to take over TITV's assets, liabilities and frequency.

But the station's employees have fiercely opposed the order signed by Public Relations Department (PRD) director-general Pramoj Rathavinij which ended TITV's broadcasts on Monday night. More than 100 yesterday called on the court to intervene.

The court will hear their appeal at 1.30pm today.

The employees called the PRD order "illegitimate" and in defiance of an injunction issued by the Administrative Court on January 7. That injunction ordered the PM's Office to ensure TITV continued broadcasting until there was a final ruling in the case or until the court ruled otherwise.

Two high-profile figures also lodged a complaint yesterday with the Administrative Court against the order to end TITV's broadcasts - Weng Tojirakarn and Prateep Ungsongtham Hata. Both were leaders in the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra protests.

TITV was previously known as iTV, which had been under the control of Thaksin's family for many years until early 2006.

Weng and Prateep said the abrupt closure of TITV damaged their chances of being informed.

Some TITV staff also lodged a complaint with Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

Meanwhile the Cabinet yesterday approved the appointment of a temporary five-member policy board for the country's first public television station.

They are Narong Jaiharn, Apichart Thongyoo, Kwansuang Atibodhi, Nualnoi Trirat and Thepchai Yong.

Narong is a law lecturer at Thammasat University, Apichart is the secretary-general of the Sawasdee Foundation and also an in-dependent academic, Kwansuang is a special lecturer at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Architecture, while Nualnoi teaches at Chulalongkorn's Faculty of Economics. Thepchai is a former senior editor of Nation Multimedia Group.

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/16/national/national_30062385.php

[mdechgan]

Why weren't the concessions paid?
I heard there was somekind of dispute because ITV was broadcasting more variety shows than it was supposed to.

Is there any hope for ITV to come back from the grave? Channel 11 is a very bland channel.

I was a very big supporter ITV for busting crooked cops.

[GWR]

Court to pass ruling on TITV shutdown Thursday

The Administrative Court will rule Thursday whether to issue an injunction against the shutdown of TITV pending a trial.

The court will issue a ruling via fax at 1 pm, the court announced Wednesday.

TITV employees filed the lawsuit with court seeking to annul the order of the Public Relations Department which ended the broadcast Monday night.

The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30062446

Nation will not seek airtime on TPBS

Nation Broadcasting Corporation will not seek airtime lots from the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS), which has taken over assets and frequency from TITV, during its transitional period in a bid to quell any allegation surrounding the appointment of Thepchai Yong to TPBS temporary policy board.

Thepchai Yong resigned from his post as the editor of the Nation Multimedia Group (NMG) and sold all his shares in the group to join the board.

Nation Broadcasting Corporation is a part of NMG, which also publishes The Nation.

"To prevent any question about the conflict of interest, we will not propose any programme to TPBS," the corporation's president Adisak Limprungpatanakij said Wednesday.

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30062423

[GWR]

Poor TV reception

By Soonruth Bunyamanee
The Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS) lost its chance to make the country's first public television station credible and reputable right from the outset - when the cabinet endorsed the appointment on Tuesday of five members of the interim board.

The members are former lecturer on architecture at Chulalongkorn University Khwansuang Atibodhi; former World Bank official Apichart Thongyoo; Thammasat University law lecturer Narong Jaiharn; Chulalongkorn University economics lecturer Nualnoi Treerat; and the group editor of the Nation Multimedia Group, Thepchai Yong.

Mr Thepchai is the focus of criticism for his possible conflicts of interest.

But Mr Thepchai, a veteran journalist, insists he no longer has anything to do with the Nation Group, because he resigned his executive position to become part of the interim board.

He also said on Tuesday that he intended to sell his 100,000 shares in the company on the stock market the next day, yesterday.

There is no doubt that Mr Thepchai possesses the capabilities and journalistic experience to run the station. He may also be sincere in his wish to see real public TV in this country.

But since he is a younger brother of Suthichai Yoon, a director and editor-in-chief of the Nation Group, and has spent his entire working life with the firm, he'll find it tough to convince critics his connections with this private media group will be entirely cut off.

Investors did not seem convinced either.

This was reflected in the Nation Multimedia Group's share price, which rose 7.4% on Tuesday to close at 7.95 baht, despite the 11.36-point drop in the SET index.

The crucial point is that the cabinet approved the appointment of Mr Thepchai and the other four members on Tuesday, and that same day Mr Thepchai announced he would sell his shareholding the next day.

So could his appointment result in legal problems emerging?

Well, we should not blame Mr Thepchai for being given the job. The fault lies with those who picked him.

PM's Office Minister Khunying Dhipavadee Meksawan seems to be the most accountable person here because she was a key figure in nominating the board members.

Khunying Dhipavadee needs to make it clear why it was that, instead of a capable candidate from state-run broadcaster Mcot, she chose someone for the job who would inevitably attract questions about conflicts of interest.

The board, despite its temporary tenure of six months, has some very important duties in laying down the station's guidelines, including the qualifications of the producers who will provide content, which will consume a state budget of 1.7 billion baht a year.

So the recruitment of the interim board members should have the highest degree of transparency and be free from questions about conflicts of interest.

It's a pity the "neutral-gear" government didn't use its last chance before the end of its term to make the development of the country's first public TV station a masterpiece.

The board heading the TPBS must prove its credibility to the public, which will be closely watching what it does.

Link may expire:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.php?id=125203

[GWR]

Legal lifeline for TITV rejected
Published on January 18, 2008
The Administrative Court refused yesterday to issue an injunction to allow TITV to resume broadcasting.

Hundreds of employees asked the court to issue the injunction following the abrupt closure of the station on Tuesday.

The court agreed to hear arguments but decided against an injunction now.

In line with the Thai Public Broadcasting Act, the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS) will take over the assets, liabilities and frequency of TITV. It will operate the country's first public television station from next month.

TPBS yesterday ran a test programme alerting viewers to the new public television. The message was broadcast in tandem with documentaries on the life of Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana.

The broadcasts aired between 3.20pm and 5.10pm. This will continue until January 31. TPBS is due to commence proper broadcasts the next day, February 1.

Appearing on the programme called "The start of TPBS" were its chairman Kwansuang Atibhodi, board member Apichart Thongyou, Rangsit University's Anusorn Srikaew and Chatchai Chuaraman, of the public television support group.

The channel's acting president Thepchai Yong said the programme informed viewers about the start of public television, and the act.

"The stoppage of TITV to air at midnight of January 14 left the public in the dark about what happened. We needed to inform them of the history and the reason why public television has been born," he said.

Kwansuang said more than 2,000 people had applied for jobs at the station on Wednesday and yesterday.

Among them were former TITV news staff including Chairat Thomya and Paweenamai Baikhloy and technicians. He said some 400 application forms were given to TITV staff. Most were yet to submit applications because they had waited to hear the court's decision at 1pm yesterday.

In a related development, the Confederation for Democracy asked the court yesterday to rule invalid the Cabinet's appointment of an acting board for TPBS.

The group argues this is against the act's objectives for free media.

Another group calling itself June 24 Democracy yesterday denounced the closing of TITV.

It said it was a violation of press freedom, and vowed to campaign for repeal of the act, which it said was passed undemocratically.

The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/18/headlines/headlines_30062612.php

[GWR]

Interview with ML Nattakorn Devakula: power play over the public TV saga
Tatikarn Dechapong
22 January 2008

http://www.prachatai.com/05web/upload/HilightNews/library/200801/18_203930_72.jpg
[Photo: Prachatai]
Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS) first went on air on Jan 17. Prachatai interviewed ML Nattakorn Devakula, a news anchor on Channel 11.

In your article on Bangkok Post, Jan 17, you likened the government's seizure of TITV to turn it into a public TV station to a battle between the ‘Sakdina' and ‘Capitalist' classes.

That's right. But what happened with TITV is not really a perfect representation of the battle. Initially, when it was iTV, the Nation Group and Siam Commercial Bank tried to run it, but the concession terms then were very cruel for any private business, as it required a massive annual payment to the Prime Minister's Office. So the Nation Group and SCB had to back off, or risked becoming an NPL. At that time, Shin Corp was the only one with the guts and plenty of cash, and that was also when Thaksin was looking to have his own media to help launch him to the premiership.

What was wrong was that Thaksin wanted to be Prime Minister and wanted to have a TV station of his own, but it was right then when no other capitalists dared to take over iTV, due to the huge debt. It could be seen as the first ‘punch' by the ‘new capitalists' who had become rich during the last couple of decades through concessions involving new technologies, especially telecommunications. They became rich and took hold of a media which commanded much influence over the people. In other words, iTV was dominated by the capitalists; that was not ‘wrong' for me, because if you have no money, you could not run a TV station. With Thaksin stepping in, the concession terms were changed to allow more entertainment programmes, otherwise the one-billion-baht annual payment to the PM's Office could not be made. So changes were made, finished. But later the PM's Office came up with a question about how the concession terms could have been changed, despite the fact that the PM's Office would have to take the blame, as it had not forwarded the issue of concession changes to the Cabinet.

The point is the iTV concession terms were changed, as agreed and signed upon by the iTV Company and the PM's Office, and iTV was able to change its programming to 50% entertainment and 50% news, which would increase its revenue to cover the annual payment, a win-win solution. The fault was with the PM's Office not proposing the issue to the Cabinet. I don't know who the permanent secretary was at that time. However, with a new Permanent Secretary at the PM's Office, a lawsuit was lodged with the Administrative Court, resulting in the fines and the ruling that ‘iTV could not change its programming', because the concession change was not approved by the Cabinet.

So the PM's Office fined iTV. Under the terms of the contract, the fine had to be calculated on a daily basis at 10% of the annual concession rate which was one billion baht a year; so this worked out to 100 million baht times the number of days during which iTV had breached the contract. Those who drafted the contract were morons. What an amazing fine, 10% times the number of days. iTV didn't pay the fine until the accumulated figure was so high that it could never be paid off; hundreds of billions of baht. And the station couldn't be sold with such a hefty fine. It was a ‘game' right from the start, since when the breach of contract was known, and it was locked into a situation that would lead to the ‘seizure'.

Why do you see that as the government's attempt to take the station back?

If the PM's Office had common sense, it would keep iTV as a debtor. With such a massive fine or a debt of hundreds of billions of baht, the debtor must be allowed to live so as to repay the debt; a compromise must be found. But the PM's Office now didn't want to compromise, but was seeking a way eventually to ‘seize' it, and then it could do whatever it wanted with the station.

In general, I have problems with the direction of administration in the past 3 years. I think Thaksin's entering was a good thing; the bad thing was the corruption which happened in his government. But the good thing was ‘change'; he was the only one with enough potential to draw power away from the ‘old power clique' including the military, technocrats, privy councillors, so on. Thaksin was the only person who was ‘bold' or ‘mad' enough to snatch power to balance the existing power, which was OK... The power was from the electoral votes. His charisma, his money are also factors. But when he came to power, and abused power, it shouldn't have been like that. There were many scandals during his time; if they were really what they were alleged to be, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. However, in the overall picture, that was a change that was ‘inevitable' in Thailand, because Thailand was outdated. Look at the Surayud administration. Obviously, its days are long gone. So what has been happening with TITV reflects a battle between the ‘new capitalists' and the old regime which leans heavily on state power, because it has less money.

With iTV taken back by the state, who will be responsible for the debt?

The debt iTV owed to the PM's Office will disappear. If the arbitrator rules that the iTV Company must pay the fine of hundreds of billions of baht, the company should be sued for bankruptcy. And that would be finished, as the company cannot pay. For me, this is an opportunity for the government to reclaim the frequency, as it had been in the hands of a capitalist, Thaksin, and then sold to Singapore. So I understand the government's stand as to ‘why seize it'. However, the iTV staff are just collateral damage or innocent victims. If it was not taken back, the frequency would belong to Singapore's Temasek.

If so, the government's claim that it was ‘reclaiming a national asset' should be supported?

I believe [the claim] is not supported. But it makes sense. It is legitimate, to a certain extent, to say, after all is finished, that historically the frequency was grabbed by Thaksin, and Thaksin sold it to Temasek, so it became a Singapore TV station. Looking at it from a nationalistic point of view, this should never have been allowed to happen; hence the seizure. I understand this perspective. But the problem is the approach leading to the seizure. This is the fight between ‘new capital' and the ‘old regime' which is purely nationalistic: this frequency must be renationalized no matter what. And Dr Somkiat Tangkitvanich [of the Thailand Development Research Institute] came in just as MR Pridiyathorn Devakula left. The previous plan, to seize iTV and launch a new round of bidding open to all private companies, was scrapped.

Dr Somkiat stepped in with Dr Chalongphob Sussangkarn coming up with the idea of drawing 2 billion baht per year from cigarette and liquor taxes to support a public TV station. When Dr Somkiat presented the draft public TV bill, the PM's Office Minister Dhipawadee liked it, and ultimately the Prime Minister liked it and gave the green light; the ball was starting to roll.

It's not that the idea of a public TV station is bad. I agree to have one such station. But what is bad is that this bill is formulated specifically for this frequency; that is not necessary. You don't have to be in such a hurry, and you don't have to vie for this particular frequency. Mr Akapol Sorasuchart, member of the National Legislative Assembly and the Chart Thai Party, suggested striking out this passage, and leaving it open for any frequencies that would become available from the future National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Board. But they targeted only this frequency. It's a battle over this particular frequency.

What about looking at it as another achievement of the government's, reclaiming a TV station from the old power clique, and is TITV readily capable of being made into a public TV station?

I understand why Dr Somkiat had to rush, because under this government, the Thailand Development and Research Institute (TDRI) has a role to play. Chalongphob, former TDRI Chair, became Finance Minister, for example. And the NLA is more amicable. If the elected government is in place, this would probably never be an option.


[I]Continued in next post
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=492

[GWR]

Continued from previous post

Now that the TITV has already been seized, what should be done to make it a public station, TPBS?

Now I can only sigh. The 2007 Constitution is just awful. The 1997 charter should have been in place. I was resigned [to the outcome] on the night of the referendum. I didn't show up at any TV programmes on that night, as I was afraid I would not be able to contain myself. I can say that if I had my way, I would take the 1997 charter back. The 2007 charter was fostered by Prasong Soonsiri who should not have had a hand in this in the first place. I also had to come to terms with the unfair political ban imposed on those 111 former Thai Rak Thai executives, and also the fact that the elected government just disappeared. This could happen again yet again, as so much power is conferred to the judiciary that the judiciary seems to hold the power to nullify the elections. I have no idea who came up with this scheme of things. For me, the judiciary in no way holds the right to nullify the elections.

Te outcome of the elections is the people's sovereign power in choosing their representatives. The judiciary can cancel the elections only when things turn into an absolute crisis, with electoral fraud so rampant in almost or more than half of the constituencies. So it is frightening that the judiciary is becoming so powerful. I have had to come to terms with many things; so now with iTV I just look ahead. So be it. It could possibly accommodate people who were marginalized during Thaksin's reign; that's OK. TPBS may become like Channel 11 or something in between Channel 11 and 9. I don't mean that Channel 11 is bad.

But it's undeniable that Channel 11 does not do anything controversial, and there's no guarantee that a public TV station will involve real public participation.

It's good to have a station like Channel 11 in place, but only one is enough. The concept of a public TV station is good on paper only; it won't work in reality in Thailand for the time being. If I am to produce TV programmes, who do I have to be accountable to? If I produce bad programmes for Channel 3, with low ratings my programmes would not survive 3 months. But if I make bad programmes for Channel 11, I could stay on because I have no one to be accountable to, no shareholders.

With a public TV station, I would propose my programmes to the board which consists of academics. Would there be a concern over marketing? No. Two billion baht is always at their disposal. And if I'm to be accountable to the 9 board members, I would not be accountable to the viewers. So ‘capital' is always better than ‘the state'. However, if the ‘capital' is clustered in one person, there would be a problem.

What are the shortcomings of a public TV station?

Like I said, accountability in one thing. Because ‘accountability to the public' exists only in dreams. Accountability to the people means TV programmes can stay on due to good ratings. A public TV station is for the people, putting on good programmes for the people, isn't it? It's a concept of commercial TV actually, producing what the people want to see. But the commercial TV stations perhaps indulge too much in soap dramas and game shows. For a public TV station, ratings can never be ignored.

How would TPBS be made different from Channel 11?

The producers must be professional. I have an idea but I don't think it could be implemented for the time being. I wish we had a channel called the National Reconciliation Channel or NRC. If TPBS is not yet ready, I think the best producers in Thailand are the Manager Group and The Nation, and if I had my way, I would provide three-hour slots for ASTV, PTV, The Nation, the Bangkok Post, the former iTV; with the rest of 6 hours shared among Channel 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Because now the media also fight among themselves, like the politicians. But it's impossible.

Don't ASTV and The Nation already have their own channels?

I think ASTV or PTV need an audience. TPBS is not ready anyway. To run a TV station needs preparation and resources. The iTV rebels should be able to return. This is like a saga.

Saga of power seizure?

Yes. But this is not yet final, as there will be revenge. ‘New capital' ruled, and the Sakdina struck back, but without winning the hearts and mind of grassroots people. ‘New capital' will strike again, and what will the Sakdina do? The only way is to get rid of ‘new capital'. So the battle will grow ever more intense. And that would be the end of ‘new capital', because at the next blow it will be completely destroyed. Ultimately, the powers that are greater than the power of the people-unfortunately, this is a reality of Thai politics-are the state power and military power. Now we have stopped short of one thing, ‘civil war'. The people only have the right to vote, but the last three election results have never been respected.

One component of the Public TV station is a so-called ‘viewer council' to evaluate and monitor the station.

I don't buy that. It's only on paper. There's no such thing: selecting people to do evaluations. Would you select farmers? Perhaps, no. It's ridiculous. You only have to see the feedback by doing surveys like developed countries are doing. The selected ‘viewer council' would do the evaluations and then the 9-member board will consider the results. Would this reflect what the people really want? Perhaps, yes. But it would probably be like what happen in the former Soviet Russia. But we are now in another world, a world that needs management like that of iTV, Channel 3, or 7.

The BBC is quite successful and has been raised as a public TV prototype.

In the case of BBC, countries like that deserve to have such stations, because other channels are fully developed, so excellent that viewers feel OK to have just one public channel. In our case, there are just a few good channels, so we don't need another bad channel. I'm not saying that TPBS will not be good, but it will never replace iTV because iTV was managed by ‘capital' which proves the most workable. TPBS will never serve public needs, because it's ultimately dependent on the government. It won't need to compete with anybody due to the annual budget of two billion baht. In my view, commercial TVs serve public needs the best.
Translated by Ponglert Pongwanan
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=492

Original Thai Language article:
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/10914

Some observations on ML Nattakorn Devakula's previous Channel 11 Newsline career:
http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/forum/showthread.php?t=1321&highlight=Newsline

[mdechgan]

Thank you,
ML Nattakorn Devakula

He summed upped the iTV crisis just as I wanted to know, simple.

So basically the concession contract was screwed since day one of the frequency concession.
1. Pay 1 billion baht per year but can only air 20% airtime entertainement with no possibility of making a profit by means of commercials or other marketing revenue.
2. Increase entertainment revenue but have to pay 100 million baht per day in fees. Which is impossible.
3. The station petitioned the PM's office for a change in programming which was approved by the PM but not the cabinet. So the PM's office blamed the station for not doing what the PM's office was supposed to due and that was to petition the cabinet?
4. It was obvious from the start that an independent station like iTV free from government controls would and could never exist because it was not allowed to exist. Every television station is either partly owned operated or licensed by the government.

Channel 3 (under license from MCOT)
Channel 5 (Royal Thai Army Radio and Television)
Channel 7 (under license from Royal Thai Army.)
Channel 9 (MCOT)
Channel 11 (Public Relations Department)
TPBS (under license from the Prime Minister's Office; transferred to Department of Public Relations)

MCOT
Mass Communications Organization of Thailand, the Thai Ministry of Finance retaining a 77 percent stake.

100% of the free to air television stations in Thailand have to be accountable to the government in one way, form or another.

Democracy and media freedom in Thailand.

I am a fan of Khun Pluem, he has the charisma to draw people and is very well educated. He knows what he is talking about. But sometimes I think his U.S. education and ideals might be a bit too Western for Thailand. Its such a waste of a beautiful mind that his celebrity status and infatuation with Thai women and things with names starting with "N" (e.g. Noon, Nadia, Nissan, etc. seems to be getting to his head.

Goodbye iTV and we thank you for all that you've done for the country in the short time that you were here with us. I commend you the corruption that you uncovered and the media that you've aired that wasn't mainstream as 3,5,7.