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.

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?