• 
• 

Published on July 7, 2007

TV audiences, station operators and the majority of media outlets disagree with the new plan proposed by the Public Relations Department (PRD), although most of them do support the objective of making TV a child-friendly medium. So, as a mother, how do I respond?

Like many parents, I welcome the idea and appreciate the PRD's move to help protect children from inappropriate content. Certainly some TV programmes - prime time soap operas in particular - have long been a threat to proper child development. The TV set sits in the living room with your kids (or, worse, in a child's bedroom), unlike the movie theatres. Nevertheless, the blanket measure of strictly classifying programmes and limiting air time according to PRD classifications sounds like chemotherapy for a patient with a high fever.

No wonder various groups are opposed to the plan.

The simple fact is that 94 per cent of the households in Thailand own TV sets and audiences range from little kids to the elderly. It's still considered one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. If parents have the right to voice their concerns about inappropriate programmes, general audiences, especially couch potatoes, also have the very same right to demand the shows that entertain them.

One TV watcher called the ratings plan unfair on a Web discussion board. "I've bought my own TV and paid the electricity bill. Why can't I enjoy watching it?"

The Nation blogger Ggrass asks if parents really want their TVs to act as mechanical nannies "so that they can put their kids in front of the TV."

So the PRD may want to review its plans and try to strike a balance between protecting little children and at the same time respecting the right of the majority to enjoy TV programming. As the classifications stand now, most shows will fall under the "Chor" classification, which will only be allowed to air from 10pm to 4am daily. Shows rated in the "Nor" category - similar to a PG-13 movie rating - will be limited to 9am to 4pm on weekdays, and 8pm to 5am on weekends and public holidays. The restrictions bewilder me and I can imagine the confusing effects they will have on TV producers and stations.

But what is more mystifying are the details that the new ratings plan will focus on. For example, the Nor rating (for viewers aged between 13 and 18 with parental guidance) regulates the number of times a programme can show scenes containing violence, sex and incorrect grammar. So who will keep an eye on each station and count each occurrence of this "unwanted" content? And who will have the last say on violence and incorrect grammar? I doubt if the PRD has the ability to ensure that the plan is implemented effectively. It hasn't done a perfect job with the existing ratings system, which is far less complicated.

Content-wise, the rating plan is very ambiguous and everybody can foresee problems. We've witnessed it before in films. Would you call the fighting scene in "Pao Wun Jin" ("Justice Pao") serious violence? The series has been praised as a quality show that contains moral lessons, but in the end of each episode a criminal is beheaded. Who is to decide whether the execution scene is a moral lesson or violence? Some favourite cartoon series like "Doraemon" are also facing an uncertain future, and so is the popular Western cartoon "Tom and Jerry". The content of these shows is by no means suitable under the classifications for "Por" and "Dor", which focus on kids aged between three and five years old, and six and 12 years old respectively.

The more I read, the more I try to put myself in a station manager's shoes. "What titles may fit into the new rating scheme?" Yes, there are many including "Tele-Tubbies", "Barney and Friends ", "Bananas in Pyjamas" and "Kam Kling Ling Kab Mah". Then try to imagine yourself as an adult who can't afford True or a DVD player; you can no longer just be entertained with those shows dominating your TV set.

And what will be judged to be "sexual" scenes? I don't know if we do have any sexual scenes on TV. The most I've seen are kissing scenes where the actors do not actually kiss, but where camera angles are used to suggest they do. Rape scenes are more dangerous and it is shockingly dangerous (as I've written before) when the hero of a hit soap opera rapes the heroine and she ends up falling in love with him. Instead of zeroing in on superficial issues like the sex theme - like most campaigns to eradicate social vices - the government should have worked harder. It is not sexual content alone that will harm children, but content that suggests wrong values - for example, paparazzi-style programming that follows celebrities and gossips about them without any respect for their privacy. Or a programme that looks like a society news show but features bikini-clad models dancing seductively.

If the PRD really wants to come up with a masterpiece, they should involve all parties in the discussion. They still have time to engage more people to see the real picture. First things first, the working group also has to break their traditional belief that they are solely responsible for raising children. Parents are supposed to watch their children regardless of whether there is a ratings system in place. Believe me, I'd rather guide my little one through the harmful entertainment world than tell her that the government doesn't allow her to watch a particular programme.

And if the ratings sail through and are implemented, it doesn't mean the parents need not look after their children. Please don't forget that you still have True and cyberspace, and when your children grow up enough, they can also buy VCDs/DVDs and watch any movie or series at home.

Watch out and never stop living up to your obligation as parents. There is no such thing as a "parent state" in real life.

 

 Veena Thoopkrajae