• 
• 

Let's get this straight: even if Thai PBS is as anti-government as Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej claims it is - even though it is, of course, broadcast on state TV channels - there is nothing wrong with that. This is more of the same old attitude from a man who has always viewed the media as being useful as a political tool, and who will pay lip service to freedom of expression only when somebody else is in control of state power. If he deplored the publicity the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) was given, all he needed to do was recall his bitterness when anti-coup activities were so limited on pro-government channels last year.

Thai PBS is not supposed to toe the state's line. In fact, no TV station is supposed to, but in our imperfect world Samak should consider himself lucky that no other TV station has really shown the sheer scale of this last push by the PAD. Thai PBS has simply shown what has been lacking on other government stations, and, no matter what the political leanings of the Thai PBS staff are, that is called democracy.

Samak said yesterday he was "hurt" the most by the way the Thai media are behaving. The truth is that he is hurt by his own dictatorial mentality where the media are concerned. In his opinion, a good media should resemble the one he participated in before the infamous Thammasat bloodbath in 1976. That was a one-dimensional media toeing just one line and speaking in one voice. Students were "communists" and nobody said otherwise, and the result was one of our nation's blackest political chapters.

The least Samak could have done would have been to read newspaper comments in the aftermath of the NBT seizure by the PAD. That incident last Tuesday, no matter how brief, almost sabotaged everything that the PAD had done because it went against the very principles of media freedom. NBT, no matter what its political bent, is still a media outlet and its staffers are absolutely entitled to their jobs.

Strangely enough, Samak asked the Thai media to choose sides when political tension was high last week. So, what's wrong with Thai PBS deciding to take a stand that is unfavourable to him? Does this mean that although he purportedly gave the media the right to choose, he was in fact giving them no choice at all?

This has not been easy for Samak and it must be noted that he has handled the PAD protests well so far. Instead of using force to drive the protesters out of Government House, he sought court eviction orders. And, unlike his alleged master Thaksin Shinawatra, whose failure to allow Parliament to tackle the controversial Shin Corp sell-out to Singapore's Temasek aggravated political problems, Samak's government has at least tried to use parliamentary means to address the current crisis.

But Samak's flaws are glaring ones, especially his refusal to acknowledge the role of a free media in a democracy. Journalistic old-timers must recall the days when he served as interior minister after the Thammasat infamy. At that time, newspapers were closed down or intimidated, and columnists he didn't like had to find a new line of work.

Politicians always claim the media are responsible for national crises. Maybe it was this attitude that led Samak to set up his own newspaper, which bit the dust in the end despite strong political connections that should have ensured good financing. Maybe it was why Thaksin bought iTV before coming to power. Maybe it was the reason PAD activities have scarcely been seen on government TV stations and Samak endorsed a daily NBT programme to counter his opponents and went on TV himself every weekend to attack "irresponsible" media.

Make no mistake: the media is powerful. But there are two types of media power - one that consolidates all major mediums to deliver devastating one-sided propaganda, and one that is formidable because no one is quite able to lay a monopolising hand on it. In this imperfect world, we will have to decide which one to live with. And if our choice is different from Samak's, then so be it.