(SEAPA/IFEX) – The following is a 9 March 2007 SEAPA press release: Thailand’s iTV saga underscores continuing instability in country’s media environment The saga of Thailand’s iTV, originally envisioned in 1995 as an independent counterpoint to government and military-owned stations in Thailand, underscores the struggle for independence in the kingdom’s airwaves, as well as a […]
(SEAPA/IFEX) – The following is a 9 March 2007 SEAPA press release:
Thailand’s iTV saga underscores continuing instability in country’s media environment
The saga of Thailand’s iTV, originally envisioned in 1995 as an independent counterpoint to government and military-owned stations in Thailand, underscores the struggle for independence in the kingdom’s airwaves, as well as a continuing abnormality in the country’s media environment half a year after a military takeover of the government.
Initially holding the promise of providing independent programming in a country where broadcasting frequencies have long been held by the government and the army, iTV has since been the subject of a tug-of-war among independent media proponents, democracy advocates, big businesses, politicians, government, and the military.
iTV was severely compromised by a majority takeover in 2001 by Shin Corp, then owned by ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra’s family. Under the influence of intertwined business and political interests, tax breaks and more favourable concession fees were soon granted, accompanied by a substantial content change favouring commercial programming, signalling that something had clearly gone wrong with the “independent TV” experiment.
Against a backdrop of legal and political wrangling over conflict-of-interest charges directed by media and civil society against Thaksin, broadcasting reform champions fought over the years to win back the original spirit and rationale behind iTV.
The fight for the soul of iTV went all the way to the Supreme Administrative Court, and transpired in the context of a larger political crisis besetting the Thaksin government and a military coup that eventually ousted him in September 2006.
In December 2006, three months after the anti-Thaksin coup, the Supreme Administrative Court voided the concessions granted to iTV and the station was ordered to pay 2 billion baht (approx. US$60,938) in overdue fees by 6 March 2007. When the deadline passed and no payments were received, the military-installed Cabinet terminated iTV’s broadcast licence and took over the station, following the filing of a bankruptcy suit against it on 27 February.
Citing issues of legality regarding ownership transition, the military government was to have pulled the plug on iTV on 6 March at 12:00 p.m. (local time). However, following an emotional demonstration of public support, led by iTV staff, the government allowed the station to stay on-air – albeit under the new name of TITV and under the control of the Public Relations Department. TITV’s quick return to the airwaves was met with relief and euphoria by its supporters, but what really does it signal?
Ownership of the airwaves has been reasserted by Thailand’s military. The structure and management of TITV has basically gone full circle: back into government hands. It continues to broadcast only at the behest and tolerance of the ruling military junta.
“Tolerance”, in fact, is the word defining the current media environment in Thailand. Immediately after the 19 September coup that toppled the Thaksin government, the junta suspended the Constitution, put in place an official regime that allows it to censor all media, and asserted its ownership of the airwaves.
Under such rules and guidelines, the Thai military government suspended more than 300 community radio stations perceived as pro-Thaksin. It blocked cable news broadcasts of interviews with the deposed prime minister. Websites and web boards encouraging open debate about the virtues and follies of the coup have been censored, monitored, and harassed.
To be sure, most media today remain up and running, and certainly most journalists enjoy a measure of freedom in their access to information, access to government leaders, and their ability to report the news. But what the iTV – or TITV – story reminds us is that, as with the past handful of episodes involving community radio, controversial websites, and as with CNN and BBC’s run-ins with the junta, there remains instability in the overall media environment in Thailand. Tolerance, unfortunately, does not provide sufficiently stable ground upon which media can stand, plan, and run in the long term.
It remains evident that media risk having the rug pulled from under their feet at any moment. The military junta appeared sensitive to public sentiment, which desires independent and free media, but that trait has proved a double-edged sword in the case of experiments like the “reprieve” granted to iTV. The junta has also suggested that an overzealous free press could divide a country trying to find its way back to democracy, in order to pressure media to practise self-censorship when it comes to matters involving Thaksin. Indeed, the junta has offered the same rationale to stand in the way of separate but related initiatives by both pro- and anti-Thaksin groups to set up new satellite television operations.
What is clear, therefore, is that iTV’s transformation into TITV does not signal any sort of change in the Thai media environment since the coup of September 2006. If anything, it underscores the continuing vulnerability of the press, even with a military government that has been compelled to be tolerant.
While Prime Minister Surayud Chulanot assured the local press, during an event celebrating Thai Press Day on 5 March, that media are freer now than they had been under Thaksin, this “freedom” is at best the result of a fragile mood of tolerance that will only last for as long as the military’s patience holds.
