• 
• 

Published on October 30, 2007

But final deliberations on the bill seeking to set up Thailand's first public broadcaster aren't likely to be smooth sailing.

Assemblyman and veteran politician Akapol Sorasuchart is spearheading opposition to the most essential element of the bill, which if tampered with would greatly dilute the very spirit of the whole endeavour. While questions remain over the extent of the support he is receiving, Akapol has vowed to go all the way to scrap Article 55 of the bill. And there is a strong likelihood that he may eventually win some converts and make the passage of the bill a tougher contest than earlier expected.

Article 55 essentially would transform TITV, the reincarnation of iTV, Thailand's first independent TV station, into a public broadcaster. Its frequency and assets would be transferred to the new public entity. Akapol's argument against the article is that TITV, which is now being operated as a special business unit under the Public Relations Department, is still entangled in a legal fight and turning it into a public broadcaster would only lead to further legal complications.

While on the surface Akapol's crusade sounds well intentioned, it needs to be seen in a larger context to understand what may be lying underneath. First of all, despite his many years in politics Akapol has never been known as an advocate of press freedom or media liberalisation. His stand on public television has been at best ambiguous. Worse still, Akapol was largely absent from most of the assembly sessions to debate the content of the bill. Even when he was present, he hardly took part in the discussions or made his thoughts about public broadcasting known.

So it took many by surprise when he suddenly came out to object to the bill. His stated position coincides with a move by a group of shareholders of the defunct iTV to challenge the legality of the bill in the hopes of having it revived as a commercial broadcaster at a later time.

iTV was majority-owned by Shin Corporation, the business empire of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family before it was sold to Temasek of Singapore. Under the Thaksin government, ITV's management arbitrarily changed the concession terms of the TV station to lessen its financial burden and to increase the amount of entertainment content it could air. The changes were widely criticised for breaching the original intention for iTV to be an independent news and current affairs channel.

The Surayud government took a decisive step to nationalise iTV last year with the intention of turning it into a public broadcaster. The move struck the right chord with media advocates who have been campaigning for public television free from commercial influences and political interference. They see it as the first step toward the broader reform of the broadcast industry envisioned in the 1997 constitution.

The public television bill is the fruit of concerted efforts by a coalition of media professionals, academics and members non-government organisations who believe that political reform is impossible without the state monopoly of the airwaves being broken. The proposed public broadcaster would be funded with "sin tax" collected from the sales of tobacco and alcohol and, therefore, be spared from commercial and political meddling. An independent board of directors representing various sectors of society would manage the broadcaster.

One nagging question until recently was whether the government should turn TITV or Channel 11 of the Public Relations Department into a public broadcaster. Channel 11 has always been seen as a government mouthpiece and has little social relevance. But the die was cast when the Surayud government decided to introduce the public television bill that specifically targets TITV.

It's no secret that many of those still working at TITV and those associated with the old iTV still harbour hopes that the bill will not make it through the assembly - or be passed in a diluted form if it does. With his stand on the bill, Akapol seems to be playing into their hands - intentionally or not.

Somkiat Tangkitvanich, a well respected academic and a driving force behind the public television bill, is right to say that it would be meaningless without Article 55. The bill would be just an empty piece of legislation.

Thailand is only one step away from having its first public television channel. A single public-minded broadcaster may not have much of an impact on the overall broadcast industry, but it's certainly a good start that shouldn't be scuttled for selfish reasons.

Thepchai Yong

The Nation