Darkness and light

 13 sep 2004

The court action which Shin Corp has launched against the NGO activist Supinya Klangnarong for alleged defamation is not the only such legal action under way. There are at least three. In the other two cases, one is still under preparation, and the other is keeping a low profile. The common factor is that each of these legal actions is launched by a company in the Shin Group (by three different ones). It is doubtful that this is a matter of pure coincidence.

Such legal action can be a very effective form of intimidation. The scales are so unevenly balanced. The 400 million baht sum claimed in damages is, on the one hand, equivalent to 2,777 years of Supinya’s modest salary, and on the other, roughly equal to the revenue of Shin Corp over one week. For the corporation, the case is something for their legal department to take care of. But for Supinya or any similar defendant, it is both practical hassle and mental strain. Supinya admits that, despite putting on a brave and bright face, she is feeling pretty bad.

As many people have noted, the statements about Shin Corp which have got her into trouble do not seem especially strong or especially different from what many other people have said, both before and since. Probably that is because these are not the sole or main reason why Supinya has been targeted.

What makes her different is that she has been the most high-profile and most effective public advocate for media freedom over the last few years. Targeting her (rather than other critics) has a bigger meaning than defending corporate honour.

Supinya has come out repeatedly to ask the big questions. How come this country, which claims to be marching rapidly towards the first world, has most of its electronic media owned and run by agencies of the state? Twenty years after the collapse of the communist insurgency and fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, why does the army still own two television stations and hundreds of radio stations? Where do their profits go? How come the demand for reform and liberalisation of the media, which was so strong after the army shot demonstrators on Bangkok streets in May 1992, has been so well contained? How come ITV, the love-child of the 1992 events, was able to rip up its charter in full public view with total impunity? How come, seven years after passage of the 1997 constitution, its provisions for transferring control of the electronic media from the state to the people are still not implemented – to the point most people no longer have faith that they will make much difference anyway?

 In short, how come the Thailand which wants to be part of the first world, member of OECD, leader of Asia, kitchen of the world, fashion capital, and tourism hub has the electronic media of a banana republic?

Part of Supinya’s effectiveness is a matter of pure image. She is campaigning for freedom and openness in media and she does it in a beautifully free and open way. She is the medium and the message. The usual attempts to discredit such critics by alleging that they have ulterior motives simply do not work because the allegations do not seem credible. When the stands up against the former army chief (a man who excused the strange financial dealings in the army TV station as merely an attempt to safeguard the financial interests of the army by subverting the 1997 constitution), it is light against darkness.

Moreover, the issue of media freedom has become more complex and important in Thailand over the last few years for two reasons.

First, the media and entertainment industries have grown much more lucrative. At Thailand’s current stage of development, consumer spending on these items is increasing much faster than the economy as a whole. Companies like Grammy have come from nowhere to rank among the country’s largest in just a handful of years. The Maleenont family, holders of the Channel 3 concession, have soared into the top ranks of the wealthy. Media and entertainment are now very big business indeed.

Second, the new populist streak in Thai politics has increased the importance of media image and media exposure. Only a few years ago, the important business of Thai politics was transacted out of sight, in smoky back rooms. That is no longer the case. The 2001 election was a landmark in public campaigning. The desperate smothering of Bangkok in posters over the recent mayoral election (in pursuit of a job which is a joke) shows how much politicians feel they now need public exposure. The electronic media, especially TV, are now vital for gaining and keeping political power.

Those in power understand this very well. Last week, the TV presenter who interviewed Ekkayuth live had lost his job before the interview was over.

Supinya is probably targeted not just for what she specifically said but more generally for what she stands for. Demands for media freedom are threats to financial interests and political interests. The case against Supinya not only intimidates her specifically, but serves as a more general threat to everybody.

In his speech to the International Conference of Asian Political Parties on 3 September, Thaksin said: “Governments given a mandate to serve the people often end up using such authority to serve their own interests. Governments given the opportunity to enact laws to empower the electorate, often abuse such laws to sustain their own power. And governments chosen to do what is best for the country, often drift towards doing what is best for themselves. I am proud to say that my administration is under no such misconception.”

Shine on, Supinya.