By Kwan Suet Yeing

Thailand first heard its people’s outcry in May and June 1973. Students and workers rallied in the streets to demand a more democratic constitution and genuine parliamentary elections in contrast to Thanom Kittikachorns’ new interim constitution where the appointed legislative assembly consisted of two- thirds of the members of which would be drawn from the military and police.

The victorious removal of Thanom resulted in a free environment where students and activistｓ could express themselves through community radios and their own publications such as The Sovereign. A wide spectrum of political ideas were introduced to the public when Western literature on political ideologies and reform were brought in and translated. But the people’s political and social mushrooming were clamped down after a short period of three years when the military again surfaced and came into power under Sucinda Kraprayoon, a former army commander.

The turning point came in May 1992 when military crackdowns on pro-democracy protesters and the total blackout of all state-run television stations during the crisis provoked strong criticisms from the public and print media on government controls over Thai media.

As many as 30,000 demonstrators, mostly young middle class and students, gathered at Sanam Luang, demanding Suchinda to step down. The democratically-charged climate persisted after the crisis, after general elections were scheduled in September 1992 and Anand Panyarachun was appointed head government.　

With encouragement from Anand, radio stations began to report politics more openly. Interactions between the radio broadcasters and the audience persisted. To a certain extent, television seemed to have also developed a more liberal attitude. That is, some political talk shows (such as Nation Talk hosted by famous journalist Sitthichai Yoon of The Nation newspaper and Mong Thang Mum [an alternative media]) which allowed audience participation, became more popular (http://www.busakorn.addr.com/thaitcom/thaitcom-may92.htm).

The most significant policy change in Thai electronic media as a result of the crisis was made in the Anand interim government. That is, private ownership was approved for television for the first time. Four new UHF (ultra high frequency) TV stations were offered for bidding.

One significant individual whose policies have largely impacted the media’s direction is Sangchai Sunthornvut, the late director of the Mass Communication Organization of Thailand (MCOT). During his term, MCOT awarded several licenses to private companies to operate cable services. The main motive, as openly verbalized by Sangchai, was to break the near monopoly by IBC, a Shinawatra subsidiary which formerly controls over 90 percent of the cable television market. This forced IBC to improve its quality due to competition, costing Shinawatra over 300 million baht. Sangchai (who was recently assassinated speculatively due to his recent drastic changes in several policy areas and serious clashes within the board of directors) strongly pushed for open economic competition in the media industry. He called for more participation from different private companies, abolition of monopoly, and more transparent and expansive role of the MCOT as a national media agency to serve the “public interest”.

But Sangchai’s assassination put the media liberalization move to a halt and with the current Thai government under Thaksin Shinawatra, most TV stations and key agencies are forced to use Shinawatra’s Thaicom satellites. And due to the fact that Thailand’s political system remains a multi-party system – which is plagued by political stalemates and competition among politicians, military old power, and influential business groups – the policy of Thai media remains hard to change.

This is especially true for electronic media that is extremely important as means of political as well as economic control for these groups. Initiatives to bring about any drastic changes which counter the existing political and economic order can result in violent reactions from such order, as demonstrated in the case of Sangchai’s assassination.

In sum, the power relations between the media and the authority will always exist. This crucial issue remains: to what extent does the government exert its control, and who among the Thais would take a stand and dare break away from the system?