When Sakoldet Silapong reported to work the morning after attending his first iTV union meeting, he and 20 of his union colleagues found letters on their desks informing them they had been fired and given one hour to pack.
"I think it's a corporate crime by Shin," says Sakoldet of iTV's [Independent Television] major shareholder, Shin Corporation. "On the fifth [February 2001] we formed and on the sixth we were fired. It's union-busting and we don't want them to get away."
A group of nearly 200 iTV staffers decided to form the union after Shin increased its 10 percent holding in the station to 39 percent in November 2000. ITV management attributes the firings to necessary cost-cutting measures and accuses the employees of violating company regulations. Employees say they were fired for unionizing, for opposing editorial interference by management, and for opposing Shin's takeover of the station. They also say Shin was worried a successful union at iTV could lead to similar developments in Shin's subsidiaries at a time when the company hopes to attract fresh capital through a market listing by the end of the year. Shin Corp, founded by Thaksin Shinawatra, now Thailand's Prime Minister, is the kingdom's largest telecom company with over 20 subsidiaries and now owned by his 21 year-old son, Panthongtae.
The union has taken its case to the courts hoping to set a precedent for media reform while testing the resolve of the Thai legal system to uphold the principles embodied in the 1997 constitution. Last June, the Thai Labor Court ordered the station to reinstate the 21 employees but iTV has countered by appealing the case. A decision is expected by mid-year.
The case has also been forwarded to the International Labor Organization's Committee on Freedom of Association, the first time a Thai case has gone before the body.
In late March, the ILO ruled that iTV management had sacked the 21 staffers without justifiable cause and recommended that the station rehire them with back pay.
"This is a test case in mass media and constitutional integrity, especially how the court will honor Article 41 [prohibiting media interference by the state or media owners]," says union president and former iTV reporter Orapin Lilitwisitwong, who sold orange juice at a Bangkok market after her sacking and now trains Thai journalists. "If we lose, it's the same as before."
ITV's original concession contract stipulates that shares must be owned by at least ten legal entities each with a maximum 10 percent share. As a way to inject capital into the ailing station, the rules of the game were changed allowing Siam Commercial Bank to sell a 39 percent stake to Shin with an agreement enabling Shin to hold a 75 percent share in the future. The heavily indebted bank was stuck holding a 94 percent share of the station that had gone to 24-hour broadcasting and posted three consecutive years of losses after the economic crisis.
ITV was established in the wake of the May 1992 democracy protests -- a period of heavy press censorship -- to offer an alternative to the state-run broadcast media. In a country where most airwaves and television networks are owned by the military or government agencies, iTV's hard-hitting reports such as the broadcast of highway police extorting money from motorists, and stories on corruption and drug trafficking, provided the Thai public an antidote to state-censored news.
The asset-declaration hearings of Sanan Kachornprasart, then secretary-general of the ruling Democrat party and former interior minister were broadcast live on iTV in 2000. The guilty verdict led to the veteran politician's removal from office and five-year ban from politics, sending shudders through Thailand's political old-guard and lending promise to the kingdom's fledgling constitutional reform efforts.
But when Thaksin's asset-declaration case was due to broadcast shortly before the elections, the station pulled it off the air citing commercial reasons and a lack of public interest. Sacked union members published an account of individual testimonies last year that detail such incidents of editorial meddling at the station, including the transfer of outspoken editors from prime-time to afternoon slots, softening news coverage and a placing greater emphasis on entertainment programs.
"Every government does this," says a telecoms analyst in Bangkok who requested anonymity. "But the relationship with Shin Corp and Thai Rak Thai [Thaksin's political party] makes the interference all the more sensitive."
Although iTV managing director, Sanchai Diewprasertakul failed to return requests for comment, Shin executive committee chairman, Boonklee Plang-siri, has publicly declared Shin's aspirations to "build our media and content businesses to the same level as our cellular business."
But by dancing for ratings points and curtseying to the whims of corporate and political interests, iTV has become just another instrument in the global orchestra of media reform and concentration of ownership. As advertisers search for unique brands, iTV can no longer be heard making a distinct sound.
"The thing about iTV was that people used to watch it because it was interesting, lively and had a bit of an edge to it. Most of my friends who used to watch it, don't anymore," says Dr. Duncan McCargo, author of the book Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations. "Politicians aren't usually good at running newspapers, just as politicians aren't really very good at telling people who make TV programs how to do it because politicians tend to see the news organization, whatever it is, as a vehicle for their views," he adds.
Media reform and diversification of ownership was intended to limit the state's influence over information flows. A milieu once dominated by the military has experienced a gradual increase in ownership by politicians and private business. But Shin Corp's restructuring of iTV's editorial and news content and the sacking of the union, suggest that the chains and hammers once used to silence Thailand's press during times of military rule, have yielded to a more subtle and sophisticated environment of media interference.
Journalists working in Thailand's state-owned and private media are not completely at fault for compromising their journalistic integrity to survive, especially with a tight job market and few signs of economic recovery ahead. For iTV however, some former union members still at the station are now testifying against the union in the Labor Court at iTV's appeal and have allegedly received bonuses and promotions for doing so.
The 21 fired iTV employees returned the five-month wages compensation that was deposited in their bank accounts by the station's management. They wish to demonstrate their commitment to restoring credibility in the system of checks and balances promoted by the Constitution and hope to set a precedent for future freedom of association and freedom of the press conflicts.
A press beholden to corporate and political interests is little different than a press controlled by the military as neither serves the public interest and neither, it seems, are commercially attractive. As iTV softens its news coverage and becomes another cog in Shin's integrated corporate strategy, it has contradicted its original mandate, leaving the kingdom's viewers with few options for in-depth news broadcasting.
That is why Sakoldet says the 21 former iTV workers will not give up the fight. "We want to prove to the public that we are right."
Shawn L. Nance is an assistant editor at the Thailand-based Irrawaddy magazine. Re-printed by permission from Irrawaddy.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS