The Walkley Foundation an Alliance Initiative

The Thai story over recent years has been a murky one; it’s been a fight for power and a fight to control the media. The boundaries between so-called liberals and conservatives have blurred. Thaksin Shinawatra, a democratically elected leader, acted more as a dictator, while the head of a government appointed by the military said the media should be free.

To the outsiders looking for black and white in Thailand, the true story has often been grey.

Last November, we saw people in yellow shirts occupying Bangkok’s international airport, then we saw hundreds wearing red marching in the city. By April this year, the red shirts were rioting in a game plan aimed at bringing down the government.

The yellow shirts are led by Sondhi Limthongkul, founder of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Middle-class and urban, they favour the Thai monarchy and are opposed to the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. In the red are Thaksin’s supporters, backed by the so-called Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD).

The rise of these movements shows how new broadcast media – by way of satellite and the internet – has come to play a key role in the Thai media landscape.

For many years the broadcast media in Thailand has had clear ground rules. The state – that is, the government and the armed forces – control the airwaves, both TV and radio.

But while the broadcast media has been tightly controlled, Thailand’s press has been the shining example of independent media in Asia. At least that was the case until Thaksin came to power in 2001.

Thaksin, the telecommunications tycoon, rode a wave of populist policies to win elections in 2001 and 2005. His party Thai Rak Thai (Thai Loves Thai) initially drew on broad support from the city and the countryside alike.

But Thaksin’s desire to quash dissent soon became apparent. The Nation noted in May this year how with Thaksin’s rise, “he changed the Thai media landscape and ethics”. He marginalised the independent Thai media, applying “divide and rule” tactics, and undermined the unity among media entrepreneurs who once stood together against governments led by Thai military dictators.

Both Reporters Without Borders and the New York-based Freedom House have marked the deterioration in the freedom and independence of Thailand’s media. In its survey of press independence, Freedom House currently places Thailand at 119 out of 195 countries. In 2000, Thailand had ranked at 29, but by 2005 its standing had slipped to 95.

Thaksin turned to the courts to silence debate. Media campaigner Supinya Klangnarong faced criminal charges and, together with the newspaper that published her comments, a Bt343 million (AUD$12.5 million) civil suit over an article alleging the government’s policies had benefited the family and business associates of the prime minister. Both Thai- and English-language newspapers were constantly under threat of legal action. Stories were often pulled, even close to deadline, for fear of recriminations.

Enter Sondhi Limthongkul. Described as a “media mogul”, Sondhi had been one of Thaksin’s fervent supporters, but he turned his back in 2005. The former insider began “exposing” allegations of corruption within the Thaksin government. In Sondhi’s armament was a satellite TV broadcast unit, Asia Satellite TV (ASTV). Thousands started listening to his message.

Chris Baker, a commentator and author on Thailand, said Sondhi broke new ground: “You had very little political content on TV and only a small amount on radio. It was the technological changes, the ability to broadcast a signal over the internet outside Thailand, so that it could be uploaded legally to a satellite. That really made a huge change because the government didn’t have the legal means to control that.”

It was novel and became instantly popular. “Suddenly you had a level of political debate on television [and radio] you had never seen before,” says Baker. “The fact is most people don’t read newspapers every day and [Thai audiences] are getting the very hygienic, government-controlled content on standard TV.”

Tens of thousands attended rallies in 2006; Thaksin was accused of corruption and abuse of power. Ultimately the unrest led to a military coup in September of that year. Thaksin went into exile. (In October 2008 he was convicted, in absentia, of conflict of interest in a land deal and sentenced to jail.)

Enter the DAAD, Democracy Televion (DTV) and other pro-Thaksin media.

In March 2007, the military-appointed government initially moved against the People Television (PTV), but later it was able to broadcast to one of the incountry satellite broadcasters. DTV was using the internet and satellite in the same way as ASTV.

Thepchai Yong, a senior manager at Thai Public Broadcasting Service, says ASTV and DTV have played a role in “raising the people’s awareness of what is going on politically”.

“One of the important implications of this is that there are certain sectors of the mainstream media [that] are not doing a good enough job, so this is why [the public has] to turn to alternative media.”

But while ASTV and DTV opened new avenues in broadcast media, Thepchai says little has changed for the mainstream broadcast media. The government still has total control.

New laws, too, are coming into play to limit debate on the internet. The Computer Crime Act allows the police to seize computer equipment from those suspected of sending messages with insulting or pornographic content.

The current – perhaps final – turn in the wheel for Thaksin came in April this year. During days of protest rallies outside the Thai Government House, Thaksin beamed messages – by way of video conferencing – onto large screens to rally his supporters. His political gamesmanship led to his red-shirt supporters taking over the streets of key areas of Bangkok, and even attacking the prime minister’s vehicle.

The government declared a state of emergency and brought in the military to end the rioting. It halted broadcasts of the pro-Thaksin DTV station as well as closing down pro-Thaksin community radio broadcasts.

Now the debate is whether the government has the right to muzzle freedom of speech or if the governing authorities should, as the Thai Post puts it, prevent the “TV medium becoming a tool for those who want to hurt the country”.

But as Pravit Rojanaphruk noted in a commentary in The Nation on April 22, “the more the state pulls the plug on all the few remaining red-media outlets, the more these people feel the government has something to hide from them.

“This heavy-censorship road, followed extensively by countries like China and Singapore, must be avoided at all costs.”

Ron Corben has been reporting South-East Asia affairs for more than 20 years