The enigma that is Sondhi Limthongkul
Hearing Manager Group owner Sondhi Limthongkul calling for "media solidarity" and a fight against "government oppression", one might wonder why most other media establishments have been at best lukewarm if not ambivalent to his rallying cry until this week.
 Pravit Rojanaphruk
November 20, 2005 - Is it because the local media, with different vested interests, are fragmented to the point that only the worst-case scenario of a national crisis, such as the May 1992 uprising, could bring them together with one voice? Or is media mogul Sondhi himself too controversial for some people to align themselves with?
The truth perhaps is a bit of both.
Newspapers today are big business, with many of them listed on the stock market. Severe if not cut-throat competition is the order of the day, and partisanship with big business and political parties is not unheard of.
It's no secret that some papers have already been neutralised by the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, either by choice or out of economic and political expediency.
Some other papers that had shown resistance have seen their editors removed, one way or another, such as in the cases of the Bangkok Post and Siam Rath weekly news magazine.
Given such a complex situation, it would be hard to expect any unified front, even a temporary one, any time soon.
To complicate the matter further is Sondhi's own reputation. Known for having no false modesty, one of Sondhi's most memorable dictums is his declaration that while press barons and their underlings may be bad, he is the "least bad of the lot".
This sort of reverse self-flattery cum confession, no matter how accurate it may or may not be, does not go down well with other media moguls and editors, even if lubricated with a glass of good wine.
An annual decency ranking of media moguls, addressing issues like labour standards, fair pay, questionable links to powerful business and political figures might be welcome, but the holier-than-thou attitude surely hasn't helped win allies to his side.
Then there is the small community of mostly foreign-born journalists working in Hong Kong and Bangkok who were employed by Sondhi's then-fledgling empire before the economic bubble burst in 1997. Some of them, now in Bangkok, were floated - just like the currency - which did not go down at all well with the labour unions, or indeed the journalists.
Sondhi's criticisms of Thaksin must be taken with a pinch of salt, for during most of the first four years of the administration it was Sondhi's Phujadkarn (Manager) daily which was arguably amongst the staunchest of pro-Thaksin newspapers.
The bottom line, to some of Sondhi's critics, is more about who's saying what than what is being said. Others, however, take a reverse stance and now find in Sondhi a convenient focal point for everything that is wrong with Thaksin - the premier's arrogance and seeming wish to compare himself with the monarch and the numerous alleged incidents of corruption and abuse of power by him, his family and cronies. Nevertheless, no matter what one thinks of Sondhi, press freedom and freedom of expression, which are now under threat, should be upheld and supported and applied to all.
Surely Sondhi's U-turn earlier this year is food for much thought as to why, and why now. Another controversy is the media mogul's tactic of citing the monarchy in his criticism of Thaksin, which some feel is a regressive tactic as democracy should not invoke input from the King who is above politics. While many people have criticised Thaksin over the years, Sondhi's reference to the King must have touched a nerve among many loyal subjects.
As the saying goes, the enemy of your enemy is your friend, but in this case Sondhi may turn out to have one enemy too many, and that's why things have got very complicated now.
|
