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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS