• 
• 

Published on January 18, 2008

He went to one of the poorest areas of Northeast Thailand. In Roi Et's At Samat district, he implemented a project to help reduce poverty. This came to be known as the "At Samat Poverty Reduction Model".

Thaksin also invited the ambassadors from friendly countries to accompany him on this trip. During a break in the heat of Isaan, Thaksin went over to have a chat with a Western ambassador. He said: "What a relief! We do not have The Bangkok Post or The Nation here."

The Western ambassador asked: "What do you mean?"

Thaksin said: "Well, I don't care what the newspapers say. I have control over television."

Thaksin was a smart politician. He knew how to play around with public opinion. He understood that out of 63 million Thais, only two to three million read the newspapers every day.

The majority of Thais - more than 90 per cent - rely on TV as their primary source of news and information. If Thaksin could control the TV stations, all of which were under government control, he could shape public opinion.

The rural people, who represented Thaksin's political stronghold, watch TV for news and entertainment. They work most of the day before returning home at five or six o'clock in the evening. Then they turn on the TV and watch it until 10 o'clock before going to bed. So, between five and 10 o'clock, they get all the news and information that the government wants them to get.

Thaksin got hold of the majority of Thai TV viewers and had them by the hook.

Separately, he said that journalists on Thai Rath, The Daily News and Matichon newspapers, which had a combined market share of 60-70 per cent, were all his friends. He had no problem reaching out to the public.

This was the state of the Thai media during the Thaksin era. When his Shin Corp bought into iTV in late 2000, it created a stir. Should a businessman, who aimed for political power, have control over a TV station? Or was it a purely business deal? The Thai public gave Thaksin the benefit of the doubt, believing that he would not use iTV to support his political ambition.

Whether iTV had become a tool to propagate the Thaksin government was not relevant. But when his family sold Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore, it effectively transferred ownership of a Thai TV station to a foreign entity.

From a national security perspective, this was unacceptable. Even the US does not allow foreigners to buy into its TV stations. Rupert Murdoch, the Australian-born media baron, had to become a US citizen before he was allowed to run Fox Television.

There followed a legal manoeuvre to revoke the iTV licence and return it to the state. iTV was found to have violated the licensing contracts and was forced to pay a fine of Bt100 billion. When it failed to pay the fine, the government took its licence back and renamed the station TITV. (But you don't see the government trying to take the AIS mobile-phone concession back from Temasek).

iTV, created in the wake of the May 1992 tragedy, prided itself on being a news station rather than an entertainment channel. It is the role of media historians to judge whether iTV fulfilled its role as an independent news organisation, as envisioned from the start. But the 800 staffers are now crying out for help because they are not sure what the future holds for them.

From iTV to TITV and now to TPBS (Thailand Public Broadcasting Service), the TV station, with legislative support and a direct subsidy from the government, is again aspiring to become a public broadcast station. Is this a good idea? Yes, it is by all means.

It is long overdue that we have a public television station that focuses on quality news and other programming that serves the public interest without having to worry about commercial support. Most TV stations are commercial-oriented. They have failed to inform the public of the truth and have not educated people about events that affect their lives. We need good education. We need cultural programmes and documentaries from our public TV station.

Many public TV stations in other countries rely on corporate and public donations or government subsidies to provide quality cultural and education programmes. They may not make much money but they are good for the audience's intellectual development.

There is a big gap between the goal of TPBS and its ability to make things happen. The next six months will be a challenge for the interim management team before a permanent board steps in.

Unfortunately, the criticism around TPBS is now centring on character assassination or vested interest rather than on substance or what we expect from it. We already have too many poorly run TV stations with their endless soap operas and game shows.

Let's give TPBS a chance. If it does not deliver, we can scrap it at any time.

Thanong Khanthong

The Nation