By Yasir

In the 1970’s Thai students stood up to the military government of that time and were successful in toppling the regime. This resulted in a period which saw the practicing of freedom of speech and the initiation of an open society. But as with all such sudden freedoms, the short period (1973-1976) ended in blood shed. This led to a lot of students joining the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT), in their guerilla warfare in the jungle. This period of armed confrontation was defused in 1980 when the military offered to give amnesty to these political dissidents. This was the start of the political and economic realignment in Thailand, and also can be said as the birth of the media as a commodity; as a profit making machine.

The media and communication scene during this transformative period is a good reflection of the changing political economic situation. The mass media boomed with the economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s and went down with it in 1997 when it crashed. The new media such as the Internet and multi-media as well as the telecommunications sector expanded rapidly.

This changed the ideologies of the youth along with these changes. The strong minded freedom fighting youth had grown old and new generations came up, but softer and more accepting of the political situation (a society which was not so free after all). My question is: “Are they content with what is around them, namely the system in place?” What drove about a quarter of a million students to rally and overthrow a dictatorship can motivate them to similar ends at this day and time.

Some people like Dr Ubonrat Siriyuvasak say that youngsters have their freedom of expression through modern forms of media such as web blogging and chat rooms. Obviously they can say what they want in cyberspace, but in my opinion their freedom is limited to virtually a small box. As the media owners are looking to make more money, there is little or no incentive on their part to provide a voice to those who do not. What is “aired” is what appeals to the owners such as adverts or messages by high paying sponsors.

The youth of this day may have higher purchasing power than their predecessors, but that is not freedom. Freedom to buy what you want or what you want to watch on television does not justify as “more free than before”. In my opinion, the youth have silenced themselves consciously, but with an added catalyst of more money circulating in the economy. Money that they get to spend— be it money spent for internet, newer TV channels, at clubs or elsewhere that they find fancy—now places them in the same levels as the youth of America and Europe.

Freedom, according to Dr. Ubonrat, is “the power to negate, the ability and freedom to say no”. But do modern Thai youth say no to the monopoly
that belongs to the Prime Minister of Thailand? Thaksin owns media companies, internet service providers, telecommunication companies and many more. This family business may be construed as a tool of propaganda to control the masses; do the youth realise that they could be akin to the unsuspecting people in the movie “Matrix”?

I guess if the media portrays or draws up a picture saying that it is the perfect picture of life, you would not have doubts about a freer or perfect life. The modern media of Thailand has achieved this hegemony over the citizens, especially the unsuspecting youth. So in conclusion, I would like to say that if you perceive a perfect picture to live by, you would hardly be inclined to go against the system asking for more. One may be content with what one has, thinking its perfect in all ways possible, but one must be aware that it just might be silently sucking us dry.