Defending the NBTC through gritted teeth

Indeed, they could well be sincere and might not be attempting to pull a sleight of hand, but a little caution here doesn’t hurt. So, those professional (and amateurish) activists who are screaming for or against an “outsider” prime minister, a non-elected Senate or continued military influence after the election should probably zoom out a bit. In short, they should also be looking somewhere else. By “somewhere else”, I mean the juggling act with the broadcasting and telecom frequencies.

The draft charter redefines the word “frequencies”, changing it from “national resources to be utilised for public interests”, to “national assets”. This alone might not trigger alarm bells, but there are a few other things, too. Clauses related to the utilisation of the frequencies have been moved from the “Rights and Liberty of the Thai People” section to the “Duties of the State” section. With regard to public involvement in the media that utilises the frequencies, the word “must” has been replaced by an equivalent of  “should also”. 

There’s something intriguing as well about the National Broadcasting and Telecom Commission, an independent panel set up to serve an earlier constitutional directive that power to allocate frequencies should lie in the hands of the people. The new draft is less clear about the NBTC’s power of allocation. The commission will have “independence in carrying out its responsibilities related to the frequencies”, says the draft.

In addition, the term “fair competition” has disappeared. What has come in is a bit too vague for my liking: “A minimum portion shall be set aside for [bid winners] to [use the frequencies to] serve public interests.”

Last but not least, the draft makes it perfectly clear that, when it comes to utilisation of satellite orbits, the power belongs to the state. This could have far-reaching implications.

Call me an alarmist, but the changes are too detailed and subtle – some may say ambiguous – for comfort. Moreover, everybody knows that opening the door even slightly for the government, politicians or military to sneak back into broadcasting and telecom management, is dangerous economically and politically. The NBTC, for all its shortcomings, is here for good reasons.

In an era when information is king, it’s more important than ever that no single entity dominates its dissemination. Some may argue that the NBTC has itself become too powerful and susceptible to the same malaise that plagued its predecessors. Yet for all its flaws (some of which are serious) the NBTC is more transparent than either politicians or the military, both of whom look at the frequencies and see only two things – money and the power to control.

If the drafters mean to do what I fear, the NBTC will struggle for public support – and the commission will have itself largely to blame. The digital TV landscape, for example, remains a mess. Cellphone and Internet bills continue to make subscribers gasp even while the operators are laugh all the way to the bank. Whether they are “national assets” or “national resources to be utilised for public interests”, the frequencies are still something that only big corporations monetise and ordinary citizens pay through the nose for.

I’m defending the NBTC through gritted teeth, and only because I recall the political strife whipped up by vested interests in the broadcasting and telecom industries when the power to allocate and regulate belonged to ruling politicians. Politicians and other powers-that-be shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the allocation or management of broadcasting and telecom frequencies. It’s that simple. But that doesn’t mean Thais should have to settle for more of the same with a 

little added transparency.

The draft charter has been criticised for being “undemocratic”, but too much focus has been placed on things that could take us a lifetime to argue. It’s far easier and more productive to debate how broadcasting and telecom frequencies should be allocated and regulated and by whom. It’s simpler to map out how the frequencies can best serve the public interest, promote knowledge and wisdom and not become propaganda tools or sources of grave political division.

I’ll gladly eat humble pie if it is proved that the charter drafters have no secret intention of paving the way for a return to the bad old days, when telecom and broadcasting frequencies were at the mercy of vested interests, political power and murky business. As for the NBTC, it had better shape up fast, because its relevance will only last till the day when it doesn’t matter who controls the frequencies.