Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS) first went on air on Jan 17. Prachatai interviewed ML Nattakorn Devakula, a news anchor on Channel 11.

 

In your article on Bangkok Post, Jan 17, you likened the government's seizure of TITV to turn it into a public TV station to a battle between the ‘Sakdina' and ‘Capitalist' classes.

 

That's right. But what happened with TITV is not really a perfect representation of the battle. Initially, when it was iTV, the Nation Group and Siam Commercial Bank tried to run it, but the concession terms then were very cruel for any private business, as it required a massive annual payment to the Prime Minister's Office. So the Nation Group and SCB had to back off, or risked becoming an NPL. At that time, Shin Corp was the only one with the guts and plenty of cash, and that was also when Thaksin was looking to have his own media to help launch him to the premiership.

 

What was wrong was that Thaksin wanted to be Prime Minister and wanted to have a TV station of his own, but it was right then when no other capitalists dared to take over iTV, due to the huge debt. It could be seen as the first ‘punch' by the ‘new capitalists' who had become rich during the last couple of decades through concessions involving new technologies, especially telecommunications. They became rich and took hold of a media which commanded much influence over the people. In other words, iTV was dominated by the capitalists; that was not ‘wrong' for me, because if you have no money, you could not run a TV station. With Thaksin stepping in, the concession terms were changed to allow more entertainment programmes, otherwise the one-billion-baht annual payment to the PM's Office could not be made. So changes were made, finished. But later the PM's Office came up with a question about how the concession terms could have been changed, despite the fact that the PM's Office would have to take the blame, as it had not forwarded the issue of concession changes to the Cabinet.

 

The point is the iTV concession terms were changed, as agreed and signed upon by the iTV Company and the PM's Office, and iTV was able to change its programming to 50% entertainment and 50% news, which would increase its revenue to cover the annual payment, a win-win solution. The fault was with the PM's Office not proposing the issue to the Cabinet. I don't know who the permanent secretary was at that time. However, with a new Permanent Secretary at the PM's Office, a lawsuit was lodged with the Administrative Court, resulting in the fines and the ruling that ‘iTV could not change its programming', because the concession change was not approved by the Cabinet.

 

So the PM's Office fined iTV. Under the terms of the contract, the fine had to be calculated on a daily basis at 10% of the annual concession rate which was one billion baht a year; so this worked out to 100 million baht times the number of days during which iTV had breached the contract. Those who drafted the contract were morons. What an amazing fine, 10% times the number of days. iTV didn't pay the fine until the accumulated figure was so high that it could never be paid off; hundreds of billions of baht. And the station couldn't be sold with such a hefty fine. It was a ‘game' right from the start, since when the breach of contract was known, and it was locked into a situation that would lead to the ‘seizure'.

 

Why do you see that as the government's attempt to take the station back?

 

If the PM's Office had common sense, it would keep iTV as a debtor. With such a massive fine or a debt of hundreds of billions of baht, the debtor must be allowed to live so as to repay the debt; a compromise must be found. But the PM's Office now didn't want to compromise, but was seeking a way eventually to ‘seize' it, and then it could do whatever it wanted with the station.

 

In general, I have problems with the direction of administration in the past 3 years. I think Thaksin's entering [into politics] was a good thing; the bad thing was the corruption which happened in his government. But the good thing was ‘change'; he was the only one with enough potential to draw power away from the ‘old power clique' including the military, technocrats, privy councillors, so on. Thaksin was the only person who was ‘bold' or ‘mad' enough to snatch power to balance the existing power, which was OK... The power was from the electoral votes. His charisma, his money are also factors. But when he came to power, and abused power, it shouldn't have been like that. There were many scandals during his time; if they were really what they were alleged to be, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. However, in the overall picture, that was a change that was ‘inevitable' in Thailand, because Thailand was outdated. Look at the Surayud administration. Obviously, its days are long gone. So what has been happening with TITV reflects a battle between the ‘new capitalists' and the old regime which leans heavily on state power, because it has less money.

 

With iTV taken back by the state, who will be responsible for the debt?

 

The debt iTV owed to the PM's Office will disappear. If the arbitrator rules that the iTV Company must pay the fine of hundreds of billions of baht, the company should be sued for bankruptcy. And that would be finished, as the company cannot pay. For me, this is an opportunity for the government to reclaim the frequency, as it had been in the hands of a capitalist, Thaksin, and then sold to Singapore. So I understand the government's stand as to ‘why seize it'. However, the iTV staff are just collateral damage or innocent victims. If it was not taken back, the frequency would belong to Singapore's Temasek.

 

If so, the government's claim that it was ‘reclaiming a national asset' should be supported?

 

I believe [the claim] is not supported. But it makes sense. It is legitimate, to a certain extent, to say, after all is finished, that historically the frequency was grabbed by Thaksin, and Thaksin sold it to Temasek, so it became a Singapore TV station. Looking at it from a nationalistic point of view, this should never have been allowed to happen; hence the seizure. I understand this perspective. But the problem is the approach leading to the seizure. This is the fight between ‘new capital' and the ‘old regime' which is purely nationalistic: this frequency must be renationalized no matter what. And Dr Somkiat Tangkitvanich [of the Thailand Development Research Institute] came in just as MR Pridiyathorn Devakula left. The previous plan, to seize iTV and launch a new round of bidding open to all private companies, was scrapped.

 

Dr Somkiat stepped in with Dr Chalongphob Sussangkarn coming up with the idea of drawing 2 billion baht per year from cigarette and liquor taxes to support a public TV station. When Dr Somkiat presented the draft public TV bill, the PM's Office Minister Dhipawadee liked it, and ultimately the Prime Minister liked it and gave the green light; the ball was starting to roll.

 

It's not that the idea of a public TV station is bad. I agree to have one such station. But what is bad is that this bill is formulated specifically for this frequency; that is not necessary. You don't have to be in such a hurry, and you don't have to vie for this particular frequency. Mr Akapol Sorasuchart, member of the National Legislative Assembly and the Chart Thai Party, suggested striking out this passage, and leaving it open for any frequencies that would become available from the future National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Board. But they targeted only this frequency. It's a battle over this particular frequency.

 

What about looking at it as another achievement of the government's, reclaiming a TV station from the old power clique, and is TITV readily capable of being made into a public TV station?

 

I understand why Dr Somkiat had to rush, because under this government, the Thailand Development and Research Institute (TDRI) has a role to play. Chalongphob, former TDRI Chair, became Finance Minister, for example. And the NLA is more amicable. If the elected government is in place, this would probably never be an option.

 

Now that the TITV has already been seized, what should be done to make it a public station, TPBS?

 

Now I can only sigh. The 2007 Constitution is just awful. The 1997 charter should have been in place. I was resigned [to the outcome] on the night of the referendum. I didn't show up at any TV programmes on that night, as I was afraid I would not be able to contain myself. I can say that if I had my way, I would take the 1997 charter back. The 2007 charter was fostered by Prasong Soonsiri who should not have had a hand in this in the first place. I also had to come to terms with the unfair political ban imposed on those 111 former Thai Rak Thai executives, and also the fact that the elected government just disappeared. This could happen again yet again, as so much power is conferred to the judiciary that the judiciary seems to hold the power to nullify the elections. I have no idea who came up with this scheme of things. For me, the judiciary in no way holds the right to nullify the elections.

 

Te outcome of the elections is the people's sovereign power in choosing their representatives. The judiciary can cancel the elections only when things turn into an absolute crisis, with electoral fraud so rampant in almost or more than half of the constituencies. So it is frightening that the judiciary is becoming so powerful. I have had to come to terms with many things; so now with iTV I just look ahead. So be it. It could possibly accommodate people who were marginalized during Thaksin's reign; that's OK. TPBS may become like Channel 11 or something in between Channel 11 and 9. I don't mean that Channel 11 is bad.

 

But it's undeniable that Channel 11 does not do anything controversial, and there's no guarantee that a public TV station will involve real public participation.

 

It's good to have a station like Channel 11 in place, but only one is enough. The concept of a public TV station is good on paper only; it won't work in reality in Thailand for the time being. If I am to produce TV programmes, who do I have to be accountable to? If I produce bad programmes for Channel 3, with low ratings my programmes would not survive 3 months. But if I make bad programmes for Channel 11, I could stay on because I have no one to be accountable to, no shareholders.

 

With a public TV station, I would propose my programmes to the board which consists of academics. Would there be a concern over marketing? No. Two billion baht is always at their disposal. And if I'm to be accountable to the 9 board members, I would not be accountable to the viewers. So ‘capital' is always better than ‘the state'. However, if the ‘capital' is clustered in one person, there would be a problem.

 

What are the shortcomings of a public TV station?

 

Like I said, accountability in one thing. Because ‘accountability to the public' exists only in dreams. Accountability to the people means TV programmes can stay on due to good ratings. A public TV station is for the people, putting on good programmes for the people, isn't it? It's a concept of commercial TV actually, producing what the people want to see. But the commercial TV stations perhaps indulge too much in soap dramas and game shows. For a public TV station, ratings can never be ignored.

 

How would TPBS be made different from Channel 11?

 

The producers must be professional. I have an idea but I don't think it could be implemented for the time being. I wish we had a channel called the National Reconciliation Channel or NRC. If TPBS is not yet ready, I think the best producers in Thailand are the Manager Group and The Nation, and if I had my way, I would provide three-hour slots for ASTV, PTV, The Nation, the Bangkok Post, the former iTV; with the rest of 6 hours shared among Channel 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Because now the media also fight among themselves, like the politicians. But it's impossible.

 

Don't ASTV and The Nation already have their own channels?

 

I think ASTV or PTV need an audience. TPBS is not ready anyway. To run a TV station needs preparation and resources. The iTV rebels should be able to return. This is like a saga.

 

Saga of power seizure?

 

Yes. But this is not yet final, as there will be revenge. ‘New capital' ruled, and the Sakdina struck back, but without winning the hearts and mind of grassroots people. ‘New capital' will strike again, and what will the Sakdina do? The only way is to get rid of ‘new capital'. So the battle will grow ever more intense. And that would be the end of ‘new capital', because at the next blow it will be completely destroyed. Ultimately, the powers that are greater than the power of the people-unfortunately, this is a reality of Thai politics-are the state power and military power. Now we have stopped short of one thing, ‘civil war'. The people only have the right to vote, but the last three election results have never been respected.

 

One component of the Public TV station is a so-called ‘viewer council' to evaluate and monitor the station.

 

I don't buy that. It's only on paper. There's no such thing: selecting people to do evaluations. Would you select farmers? Perhaps, no. It's ridiculous. You only have to see the feedback by doing surveys like developed countries are doing. The selected ‘viewer council' would do the evaluations and then the 9-member board will consider the results. Would this reflect what the people really want? Perhaps, yes. But it would probably be like what happen in the former Soviet Russia. But we are now in another world, a world that needs management like that of iTV, Channel 3, or 7.

 

The BBC is quite successful and has been raised as a public TV prototype.

 

In the case of BBC, countries like that deserve to have such stations, because other channels are fully developed, so excellent that viewers feel OK to have just one public channel. In our case, there are just a few good channels, so we don't need another bad channel. I'm not saying that TPBS will not be good, but it will never replace iTV because iTV was managed by ‘capital' which proves the most workable. TPBS will never serve public needs, because it's ultimately dependent on the government. It won't need to compete with anybody due to the annual budget of two billion baht. In my view, commercial TVs serve public needs the best.