Despite the doubts, and in the absence of serious attempts by the interim government to jumpstart reform of the broadcast media, public television could be a good start in breaking the state monopoly on the airwaves.

Since the Surayud government is still undecided as to what to do with TITV (the reincarnation of iTV, whose concession was wrested back from Shin Corp by the Office of the PM's Permanent Secretary early this month after the former failed to pay the exorbitant overdue concession fee), some proponents of public television believe the most appropriate course of action is for it to be turned into a public channel. But there are also those who are pushing for Channel 11, which is owned and operated by the Public Relations Department, to become a public station.

There are two rival schools of thought as to the question of funding for the proposed public channel. One calls for state funding for the new station so that it will be financially independent and immune from commercial interests, which are often seen as an impediment to editorial independence. The funding sources could include revenue from the so-called "sin taxes" levied on alcohol and tobacco.

However, this raises the question of whether a public TV station could be truly independent if it had to depend on government funding. Control of the purse strings can always be translated into control of editorial direction, one way or another. And this is most likely to be the case if a media-savvy government is in power.

The other school of thought suggests that the proposed public TV channel should be financed through public contributions. It calls for every viewing household to pay an annual fee to subsidise the outlet so that it would be totally free from state control.

Both ideas stem from the belief that Thailand needs an independent TV station to reflect the people's free will and hold politicians and bureaucrats accountable, without interference from political or business interests. While iTV initially managed to live up to the spirit of the May uprising of 1992 by pursuing an independent editorial line, it was only a matter of time before its independence was compromised.

The death of iTV as an independent media outlet was largely blamed on its shareholders' pursuit of commercial interests at the cost of the station's public mindedness. It was made worse by the fact that its major shareholder, Shin Corporation, was owned by then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

For advocates of public television, the fate of iTV has become major stigma that makes new, privately funded TV stations unpalatable. They often cite the British Broadcasting Corporation as a success story for public broadcasting because of what they see as its proven independence and high ethical standards.

 Of course, public television should be encouraged. The Thai people certainly need independent broadcasters that cater to public needs. We have had enough of TV stations that thrive on entertainment and are inclined to serve at the beck and call of whoever is in power. iTV was close to performing that job before it was taken over by Shin Corp and turned into a PR instrument of the ruling party.

But the case of iTV should not in any way create the notion that commercial interest is anathema when it comes independent broadcasting. That the journalists at iTV were able to carry out their duties professionally and independently, at least in the first five years of the station's existence, is proof that a commercial broadcaster can be as dependable as any public channel in providing objective and credible news coverage.

Alongside public media outlets, more commercial TV stations are needed - provided there are clear-cut ground rules from the outset to protect them from manipulation by political and business interests.

iTV's biggest burden was its financial obligation to the PM's Office. Even though iTV was supposed to be a news and current affairs station, the terms of its concession placed priority on financial returns. So it was natural that those who offered the biggest investment and promises - no matter how far-fetched - were awarded the concession. In this case, the consortium headed by the Siam Commercial Bank won the concession with a commitment to pay as much as Bt23 billion over a period of 30 years to the State. It was a figure that made no commercial sense but was big enough for the group to win the contract.

There are certainly many entrepreneurs out there who share media advocates' belief in independent and professional broadcast media. And given the opportunity and sound business conditions, they will be willing to play a part in bringing about a TV station, or stations, that can rival iTV in terms of independence and professionalism - but with greater longevity.

 Thepchai Yong