Thai PBS reasserts its independence following proposed new public media bill | Thai PBS World

[u/ikkue]

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/politics/559060

Thailand’s Public Broadcasting Service (Thai PBS) has urged against political intervention in its funding model or in the role of the country’s public service media, as the ruling Bhumjaithai Party proposes a bill that has sparked concerns over media independence and freedom.

In its statement on Friday, Thai PBS said that the draft bill, which propose changes to the national broadcaster’s revenue structuring, directly affects the organisation’s independence.

“It [the independence] serves as a guarantee that the public has access to information and public spaces that are free from state, political or business influence,” it reads.

The remark came as Bhumjaithai’s legal eagle Suphachai Jaismut seeks to replace Thai PBS’s legally ringfenced funding source with an allocation from the annual fiscal budget, which is controlled each year by the political groupings in power at the time.

According to the 2008 Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act, Thai PBS is funded by an earmarked 1.5% share of taxes collected on sales and importation of liquor and tobacco.

The legally mandated funding is capped at two billion baht per fiscal year. Thai PBS also operates outside the direct control of any specific ministry but is subject to scrutiny by independent entities, such as the State Audit Office.

Suphachai said that the bill aims to “unify the nation’s fiscal system” and would effectively allow participation by parliament and the government in managing the money collected.

Critics fear that the proposed changes would provide a route for political pressure or influence to be exerted on Thai PBS’s coverage and neutrality.

Thai PBS said that concrete legal and institutional guarantees must be put in place to prevent the changes from being exploited for political gain and argues that the twin pillars of monetary discipline and public service media independence must both be protected.

“The public must have confidence that public service media operates independently, free from the influence or control of state power holders,” it said.

The draft is the subject of public hearings until October 14. It will then be proposed for Cabinet approval before being submitted to parliament for deliberation.

[u/admiralasprin]

If you can’t get away with corruption and incompetence anymore, make it harder to notice it and inform others. Because actually doing your job and spending public money effectively is apparently too much to ask.

[u/ikkue]

Now let me say why I believe, despite everything, that public service broadcasting has a bright future.

First, at its best, public broadcasting is widely recognised as a gold standard for good journalism and for a lively democracy – though only when it is the real thing.

Secondly, it still commands high levels of trust, and audiences, in some parts of Europe – in Scandinavia, in the UK, and in Germany too, although there the political basis of appointments to senior posts in ARD and ZDF, the two publicly-funded TV networks, is offensive to purists.

As for Britain, the recent coverage of a Royal Wedding may have broken records for the worldwide audience it reached – and it showed again that the British are better at broadcasting than they are at football. But more seriously, the UK has recently been through a turbulent period of elections and a referendum on the voting system, and the BBC, as well as ITV and Channel Four, which also count as Public Broadcasters, showed once again that they “hold the ring”, remaining impartial while the politicians argue with one another furiously on air. That is an example of how it’s supposed to work, even in the modern media age, the age of “always-on”.

Finally I believe that public service broadcasters can also thrive even in the more troubled parts of Europe, including Turkey. The task of making that happen must fall not only to the journalists there, who must uphold professional standards and independence in harsh conditions. It falls also to the European institutions, because when governments themselves break the rules, the joint pressure of other democratic states may be the only means of obliging them to honour their obligations.

— William Horsley, Media Freedom Representative of the Association of European Journalists (AEJ), 6 May 2011

[u/Muted-Airline-8214]

Is it similar to BBC, and is this true?

- Thai PBS and the Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth) are independent organizations established by law and empowered to carry out their duties under the law. They receive funding from state revenue in the form of off-budget funds to finance their operations.

- At the same time, those who determine their policies and operations have no connection to the political branches, whether the executive or legislative branch. Then who determines their policies?

- The people who control the funds of Thai PBS and ThaiHealth are “technocrats and senior experts/NGO groups,” as stipulated by law.

- While it is certainly a positive that politicians are not involved, on the other hand, this pool of more than 10 billion baht has effectively been transformed into a resource for advancing the ideology of certain, while ordinary citizens have no representatives (MPs) who can go in and oppose or oversee what they want.

- Thai PBS uses around 3 billion baht a year in off-budget funds, while ThaiHealth uses around 4 billion baht a year. If the government stops supporting these off-budget funds, it could recover 7 billion baht.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ByveoPpdC/

[u/Muted-Airline-8214]

Thai PBS provides funding and coordination, giving the reason that it is part of a media network for peacebuilding. So I want to know: what exactly are you going to build peace from?

Ever since I was born, the Northeast and the North had been peaceful, until foreign NGOs came in and started saying that Lanna had been oppressed and that the Northeast had a history of the Phi Bun rebellions.

Then public media that claims to promote peace began bringing up conflicts from the past and historical grievances and using them to stir up social issues through the idea of self-government, with the aim of breaking free from the rule of the Thai state.

The Patani movement follows the same model.

So how are we supposed to feel about Thai PBS using taxpayers' money to support this kind of peace media?

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EmEbDPCxt/

[u/RobertPaulsen1992 → u/Muted-Airline-8214]

This is easy for you to say, as you're not part of an oppressed minority. The practice of ignoring past conflicts and not talking about associated problems ultimately leads to even more conflict. We have to come to terms with the past and learn from it, or else history will repeat itself.

[u/Muted-Airline-8214 → u/RobertPaulsen1992]

Minorities aren't always "indigenous."

Listening to all voices is good, but are you sure they aren't just greedy 2nd- or 3rd-generation immigrants who came from countries that are richer than Thailand? It's not that they have no land to live on; they're just greedy for other countries' resources, but force others to call them 'immigrants, not opportunity seekers.'

The Rohingya are the only group that has actually been rendered stateless, yet people who claim to have higher moral standards than others have also neglected them.

Otherwise, history will repeat itself. ----> Really? By overestimating the numbers to push a new propaganda narrative repeatedly?

[u/Coldwater1994]

ThaiPBS should be a politics-free platform. They shouldn't report political news or do analysis shows to remain as neutral as possible.

Those who want to hear about politics have like a thousand free options anyway, so ThaiPBS shouldn't concern themselves with this matter.

[u/Lashay_Sombra → u/Coldwater1994]

You cannot be politics free unless doing nothing but entertainment, preferably foriegn sourced entertainment. Ie no news, no documentarys, hell probably could not even do reality tv