public participatory policy process in the establishment of the thaipbs

Dr. Patcharee Siroros Theerapat Ungsuchaval

NIDA – ICCS 2012 379

Public participatory policy process in the Establishment of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service1

Abstract

The establishment of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (ThaiPBS) is considered to be the f irst and only successful achievement of the Thaipublic service broadcasting reform during the time of General Surayud Chulanont’s government (2006-2007). Its success can be seen from the high degree of citizen participation and support in the bill drafting process and the ThaiPBS establishing process. Having learned from the public service broadcasting experiences of several countries, Thai policy makers, led by appointed technocratic ministers, worked closely with several think tank institutions and civil groups to write a Thai Public Broadcast Service Actwhich became a legal framework for building the ThaiPBS. The policymaking process, both bill drafting and the ThaiPBS establishment, was designed to involve citizens through organizing public consultation forumsall over the country. The inputs from this participation had been integrated into the bill draft and legitimized the ThaiPBS institution building process. The three-pillar strategy of knowledge, social participation and movement,and political engagement were utilized to mobilize support for the process.This case study will focus on how the three key policy actors: appointed-technocratic ministers, think tank institutes, and civil groups workedtogether through the participatory policy making process to push theThaiPBS bill draft and help build up a new public television station.

Keywords: Public participation, Public policy, Thai Public Broadcasting Service

Dr. Patcharee Siroros2 Theerapat Ungsuchaval3

1 Paper presented of the International Conference for Case Studies on Development Administration 2012 (NIDA-ICCS 2012). We would like to thank Dr. Hamish Morrison for editing this paper.2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University.3 Executive Assistant of the Family Media Watch Network, an active advocate for ThaiPBS

Public participatory policy process in the Establishment of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service

National Institute of Development Administration NIDA380

Introduction

In the f irst decade of the twenty-f irst century, Thai societyunderwent many drastic changes after the promulgation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1997, which designed new-type organizations, many of which were independent organization following the ideas of the new-constitutionalism and rule of law. These structural changes deeply affected the existing organizations, especially media-related organizations. The emerging Public Broadcasting Service Organization, a type of public media, ref lected the transformation towards democratization in thissociety.

Public media as mentioned earlier was conducted in the form ofpublic television. In this paper the authors want to focus on theestablishment of the ThaiPBS, the f irst Thai public television station inwhich civil groups worked in collaboration with appointed-technocratic ministers and think tank institutes to push the policy process.

The paper will be divided into three parts: policy context before the establishment of ThaiPBS, media reform and the origin of the ThaiPBS,and the role of the civil groups as policy advocates for ThaiPBS.

Policy context before the ThaiPBS

In Thailand before 1992 all television stations were under the government control. Under this condition the state could select or censor the news programs to ensure that the program presentation would follow off icial policies.

After the 1992 Black May political crisis, many Thai citizens became aware of the freedom that they felt they were entitled to gain access tofair information.

It was believed that media liberalization under market mechanisms should facilitate the media to do their job and keep autonomy. PrimeMinister Anan Panyarachun understood this problem and came up with an idea of founding a free television station. This led to an idea of media liberalization based on a framework created by the Government Media Improvement Committee. In the next administration under Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai a UHF 1 station was established under supervision of the Off ice of the Prime Minister Secretary (OPM). This was the establishment of the Independent Television (ITV).



The concessionaire from the bidding in 1994 was the Siam TV and Communication group which later registered as Siam Infotainment Co. Ltd. to manage ITV. A concession condition that made it different from otherswas that the ITV programs had to consist of news and documentariesno less than 70% of the time and shareholders, who were juristic persons, could hold no more than 10% of the shares in order to prevent themonopoly. ITV became a new hope of people for receiving accurate news without distortion.

In 1997 ITV was confronted with an economic crisis which affected their ability to pay for the concession fee and this led to an amendment ofthe contract in April 2000. The amendment allowed the shareholders tohold more than 10% and the new majority shareholder was the Shin Corporation Public Co. Ltd., a business group with strong politicalconnections to Prime Minister Thaksin Shinnawatra. The Shin Groupused legal power and advertisements to force the changing of the proportion of documentary and entertainment programs from 70:30 to 50:50 in 2003.The change led to internal conf licts in ITV between the new administration under Shin leadership and the so-called ‘ITV rebel’. The change also caused conf lict between ITV and the OPM. The issue was brought to arbitrationwhich gave a verdict to permit ITV to change the program structure and instructed the OPM to reduce the concession fee to 230 million baht, inaddition to paying a compensation fee for ITV. However, the OPMdisagreed with the verdict and brought the case to the administrativecourt. On 13th December 2006, during Prime Minister General Surayut Chulanont’s government, the supreme administrative court overruled the arbitration verdict and forced ITV to pay a huge f ine and deferred aremaining concession fee amounting to 100, 000 million baht to the OPM.

It was obvious that ITV was unable to pay the f ine and this led theOPM to revoke the concession, terminating all programs and transferingthe ITV broadcasting rights to the Government Public RelationsDepartment (PRD). In 7th March 2007 the former ITV was changed tobecome a new television station, named Thailand Independent Television (TITV).

Such incidents showed the possibility of political interventions in the running of ITV that could take place via government and capitalist mechanisms and this increased the demand for public television. In 19th



September 2006 there was a military coup and the coup leaders playeda key role in pushing for the f irst proper public television station inThailand.

The cabinet decision to terminate the contract for collaboration and the operation of the UHF radio and television stations between the OPMand ITV forced the government to f ind a solution for managing ITV in the future. In 13th March 2007 the cabinet adopted a temporarily measure to founding a TITV management station as a special delivery unit (SDU)within the Public Relations Department. Long-term measures wereadopted and several public hearings were carried out on the issue of thefuture of public television.

Media reform and the movement for ThaiPBS

The 1997 constitution was considered to be the f irst legal framework to address clearly issues concerning the new direction of the media. This can be seen from section 40 which stated;

“Transmission frequencies for radio or television broadcasting and radio telecommunication are national communication resources for public interest.

There shall be an independent regulatory body having the duty to distribute the frequencies under paragraph oneand supervise radio or television broadcasting and telecommunication businesses as provided by law.

In carrying out the act under paragraph two, regardshall be had to utmost public benef it at national and locallevels in education, culture, state security, and other public interests including fair and free competition.”

The above clauses illustrated at least two important points thatare related to our case study: the transmission frequencies were public resources and a national mass media system would be operated for public interest purposes. People started talking about the concept of establishing public television and this would be a major reform in Thai media history. Obviously the idea had been inf luenced from the experiences of broadcasters in several other countries such as the BBC in England, NHK in Japan, and PBS in the U.S.A.



Several movements for public television emerged. The National Health Foundation (NHF), with f inancial support from the Thai Health Promotion Organization (THPO), raised the issue of founding a public television station for children and family. The THPO also sponsored the Thailand Development and Research Institute (TDRI) to organize public forums on a guideline to establish a Thai public television. In 13th March2007 Dr.Somkiat Tangkitvanich, a researcher at the TDRI, released areport on the feasibility and guidelines of founding a Thai public television station for children and family based on the information, ideas, and recommendations collected from stakeholders and networks. In addition,the TDRI proposed a legal foundation for a public broadcasting servicesbill. The summary of the seminar was submitted to the government thatwas struggling for a solution to the ITV problem.

The essence of the proposal was to push for a public television stationin Thailand by undertaking two major stages: a push for the publicbroadcasting act and the establishment of a new public television stationor converting an existing television station into a public station. The most likely choice would be to convert Channel 11 or TITV to become a public television station.

The temporary situation of converting TITV was the appropriatechoice as it could create a guarantee for a sustainable public televisionstation in the future. However, in 16th March 2007 Kunying Tipawadee Meksawan, Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Off ice which had jurisdiction over ITV, set up a committee to listen to public opinion on the future of TITV and to organize forums over the country to collect ideas and opinions from various groups, networks, and organizations. Two strategiesfor TITV direction were proposed for consideration: rethinking therelationship between public television and independent television, and listening to public opinion which had to be done within one month. The organizers clarif ied the def inition of the two terms with their different management styles to prevent any public confusion. On the 5th April 2007 a listening to public opinion forum was launched at the Public Relations Department. The result was that the participants wanted to have both public and independent television stations.

Before this, on the 30th March 2007, the National Health Foundation, Social Management College, and Civil Organization on Selected Issues



organized a public forum on “Public television: a knowledge frontline for citizens?” to educate people and push the issue into government decision making. After the listening to public opinion forum, the advocates for the public television and independent television choices organized activities to gain public support. Somkiat Tangkitvanij’s, of the TDRI, comparative studyof the choices, was followed by other researchers such as ThitinanPongsudhirak and Weekayut Kanchuchat (2003, 2005), on the similar theme.

In addition to the study, there were several public conferences onthe topic. One example was an international workshop on “Doing public television: experiences and lessons on how to make it work,” in 2007 with cooperation with the UNESCO, Japan NHK, Australia ABC and several advocating organizations in Thailand.

The information, ideas, opinions, choices from the panels, forums,and studies were brought to the cabinet for consideration. The decision was reached on the 24th April 2007 to convert TITV to be a public service television station, to set up an UHF broadcasting management organization to implement public television, and to draft a legal bill on public television.

In early 2008 the cabinet appointed a study group for drafting apublic broadcasting service organization bill. The group used a draftbased on the study report of Somkiat Tangkitvanich and added theviews and suggestions of lawyers, scholars, and experts to develop a billdraft to submit to the cabinet. On the 15th May 2007 they approved aprinciple of the “Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act, B.E….” This ref lected a major step of collaboration between scholars, civil groups, and statesectors to work together to push the bill after a decade of hard work.

Then, in 18th July 2007, the National Legislative Assembly ofThailand (NLAT) approved the public TV bill concept by considering the government’s draft and then appointed 22 persons called “Select Committeeon Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act …” including the representatives of the NLAT, the academic sector and civil groups, which had advocatedthe policy.

During the time taken to consider the bill, the select committeeprovided the opportunity for people who demanded the right to expresstheir opinions by opening the website “http://tpbs.pdc.go.th” in order thatthey could inform the public about progress and hear more public opinion. Also, the civil groups operated activities to encourage the bill. On the other



hand, there was some resistance from group who lost their benef it fromthe prior arrangements. This policy-process was a time of signif icantcompetition to frame and seize policy opportunities by various interest groups.

As a result, in 14th January 2008, the Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act 2008 was promulgated in the Royal Thai government gazette and implemented from 15th January on. The properties, debts, management rights, frequency and the like of TITV were immediately transferred toThai Public Broadcasting Service (ThaiPBS), which was the f irst non-prof it public media organization broadcasting in order to support the moral social development of Thailand with useful documentaries and news.

Initially, the establishment of the ThaiPBS could not be claimedto be a completely success because there were no broadcasting service with diverse programs and neither was the organization and necessarily infrastructure for running the television station. On 15th January 2008 the cabinet appointed an ad hoc policy committee of the public broadcasting service organization consisting of f ive people to run the organization untila legitimate policy committee had been appointed.

The role of the civil society policy networks as public television policy advocates

Before the public television became a controversial public issue in2007, there had been a movement to push the issue by several civilpolicy networks that worked together in a loose coalition. The maingroups were Child Media Program, Foundation for Child Development, Family Network Foundation, Family Media Watch Network, Kid-Journalist Volunteer Network-Pineapple Eye Ranger, Media Creative Producer for Child and Family Network, We Are Happy Group, New Media Network, Alternative Media Network, Radio for Kids Group, and the Institute Thai Press Development Foundation, Civil Media Development Institute. These groups with their sub-networks countrywide shared common ideas andbeliefs on good public media development. They frequently collaboratedin organizing activities related to public media although these were quite minor affairs.

When the public television had become a hot issue in 2007, thesegroups, as policy advocates, actively participated in proposing ideasabout public television legal frameworks in discussions, public forums



and meetings. They became more active after the 24th April 2007 cabinet decision, especially during the period when the public television draft law was under the consideration of the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand. The groups advocated the law on the ground that it would leadto change in Thai society in the direction of more ‘open’ and ‘neutral’(without control or domination by any power groups). It was a beliefthat a solid legal framework for public television would lead Thailand to be a knowledgeable and participatory society (Khemporn Virumrapan, 2008, 14)

To strengthen its position these groups expanded their networksby being allied with other partners such as the National Institute for Child and Family Development, Mahidol University, and networks from the academic community such as Ramkhamhaeng, Burapha, RajabhatSuan Sunanta, Chiangmai, Mahasarakham, Rangsit, Phuket Rajabhat, Dhurakij Pundit, St. John’s, Bangkok, Sripatum, and Rajabhat Jankasem universities. The new networks renamed themselves, “Friends of Public Television Networks.”

One strategy of the Friends of Public Television Networks was to submit letters to the government to rush the policy process. For instance,they submitted a letter to Khun Ying Tipawadee to ask for her supportfor public television (Unya-orn and Theerapat, 2010).

The Friends of Public Television Networks also used strategies to advocate their position. One was to organize activities in cooperation with other sectors to push the law draft. The most important strategy was the public forum on ‘Public hearing program contents for public television’with 17 other partners on the 11th January 2008 to give recommendations on style and direction of public television to a committee on preparednessof public participation in public television.

After the 2008 ThaiPBS act, as mentioned earlier although theThaiPBS act was promulgated it was initially unable to broadcastingproperly. The cabinet was in the process of appointing the policy committee to operate the organization. The appointed ad hoc policy committee thought it might be a good idea to have a process to hear public opinion and collect public ideas, opinions, and recommendations about the future ThaiPBS direction, program developments, and operation. The ThaiPBS broadcasted twelve live-programs and also organized nine public forums for nine



regions all over the country to collect information from government (national and local), academics, citizens, and television producers in March-April2008 (see Appendix B). The questions and issues to be discussed in the forums were: origin and def inition of public television, how ThaiPBSwould be utilized to generate benef its for the society, how ThaiPBScould enhance social equality, how to develop collaboration betweenThaiPBS and citizens, and how to maintain and sustain public televisionin Thai society.

In 2008, the Friends of Public Television Networks, in collaboration with think tank institutions and other civil groups, also organized public forums to educate citizens about public television and citizen participationto propose guidelines for desirable television programs (see Appendix C).

It has been four years since January 2008 when ThaiPBS began broadcasting. ThaiPBS has quickly earned a distinctive place in the Thai broadcasting industry with its bold and independent news reporting and wide range of thought-provoking and knowledge-building programs. It has become the most trusted broadcaster during Thailand’s most critical times. It is obvious that the collaboration between the government, think tanks and civil groups to push the public television policy and broadcasting services contributed to today ThaiPBS’s success.

Analysis

The ThaiPBS is a successful story. Several factors can be analyzedto assist us in understanding the reasons for this success.

F irstly, overlapping sectors of civil society. It is noted that the collaboration between the civil groups, think tanks, and state sectors towork together was a key factor for effectively pushing public televisionand Public Broadcasting Services Act. Holloway (2001) calls thisphenomenon as the overlapping area of three sectors of civil society: public, private, and citizen sectors.



According to Holloway, the three sectors (public, private, and citizen)

“………play different roles, means, motivation, benef its and so on, but they have a linkage structure that connecting each other all the time. The three sectors are not isolated from each other but overlap to some extent, as they work together to promote democratic ideals and governance. Therefore, the overlapping area represents the place where the strengthsof the state, business and citizens join together to create a normative area of democracy, social responsibility and protection of the public good.” (Holloway, 2001: 6-7)

In the ThaiPBS case, the overlapping sector of civil society can be seen in the following table:

Figure 1 : A better view of civil society as the overlapping part of each of the three sectors of the state.



Public Sector Private Sector Citizen Sector

Off ice of the Prime Minister Secretary (OPM)

Media Creative Producer for Child and Family Network

National Health Foundation (NHF)

Government Public Relations Department (PRD)

New Media Network

Thailand Development and Research Institute (TDRI)

Thai Health Promotion Organization (THPO)

Alternative Media Network

Social Management College (NGOs)

Kunying Tipawadee Meksawan (Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Off ice)

Radio for Kids group

Somkiat Tangkitvanij (TDRI’s researcher)

Committee on listening to public opinion on the future of TITV

Institute Thai Press Development Foundation

Child Media Program

National Legislative Assembly of Thailand

Civil Media Development Institute

Foundation for Child Development

National Institute for Child and Family

Network for Independent Producers

Family Network Foundation

National Institute for Child and Family Development, Mahidol University

Network of Commerce and Industry

Family Media Watch Network

Select Committee on Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act …

Kid-Journalist Volunteer Network-Pineapple Eye Ranger

Network of Local Administrative Unit

We Are Happy Group

Mass Communication and Journalism network

Friends of Public Television Networ

Network for Consumers

Table 1 : Policy actors who involved in the overlapping area of civil society.



Teacher and Educational Personnel Network

Labor Union

Ramkhamhaeng University

Burapha University

Rajabhat Suan Sunanta University

Chiangmai University

Mahasarakham University

Rangsit University

Phuket Rajabhat University

Dhurakij Pundit University

St. John’s University

Bangkok University

Sripatum University

Rajabhat Jankasem University

The three sectors led by a major think tank (TDRI) and citizengroups worked in a network by sharing information, organizing publicforums, and advocating the public television issue. The networks became stronger when they could access the public sector led by KunyingTipawadee Meksawan, the Minister of Prime Minister’s Off ice, who had jurisdiction over ITV and ThaiPBS. The overlapping of civil societies ofthese three sectors is considered the key factor in pushing for the ThaiPBS. It was neither established during a dictatorial government which neverref lects the great power from below, nor pushed by the rulers or technicians who believed that they themselves knew more than others.

Secondly, favorable political context. The ThaiPBS movement took place in 2007-2008 during the military government under Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont (2006-2008). Most of the cabinet came from

Public Sector Private Sector Citizen Sector

Table 1 : Policy actors who involved in the overlapping area of civil society. (Cont)



former technocrat-backgrounds and included bureaucrats such as KunyingTipawadee. Under the military authoritarian regime, the military leaders invited experts and technocrats to run the economic and social policy.The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) was the only legislative body in which members were mostly technocrats, experts, military, and NGOs. Several NGOs that had advocated the issues of their interests outsidebecame interested in sending their people to be NLA members or NLA commission members to push their issues. Public media was one of these. For instance, Somkiat Tangkitvanich, researcher of the TDRI had been interested in public media and had been doing research on this issue for a long time. After the coup in 2006 he was the one who strongly advocatedthe idea of public television in public forums and was involved actively inthe NLA study group to push for ThaiPBS. With the favorable politicalcontext with a single legislative body and strong executives facilitatedthe ThaiPBS policymaking process effectively.

Thirdly, policy learning and knowledge. We can say that the ThaiPBS establishment was set up using policy learning from other countries.According to Dolowitz and Marsh (2000, 5), policy learning is

“…a similar process in which knowledge aboutpolicies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting.”

In Thailand, public media was a foreign concept that media experts learned from other countries’ experiences. Public television was also a lesson drawn from England (BBC), US (PBS), and Japan (NHK). Media expertssuch as Somkiat, among others, mentioned about the foreign publictelevisions in his research and public discussions. The government usedthe foreign experience of public media set up the former ITV in the hopethat it would be an independent television producing knowledge-building programs. ITV failed to achieve its mission and people started thinking about a new ThaiPBS. As this case study shows, the ThaiPBS idea had been inf luenced partly by policy learning from other countries and this made the ThaiPBS policy process tend to be more rational, evidence-based (foreign model and knowledge based on solid research). Less political policy process contributed to the PBS success.



To summarize, the establishment of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service was a new and innovative policy phenomenon in Thailand. The participatory policy process pushed by the public, private, and citizensectors in this case was extraordinary and should be a lesson-drawing forother diff icult public issues. As Kunying Tipawadee and Paiboon Wattanasiritham commented, “the ThaiPBS establishment was consideredto be the best policy output of this government (Surayud) because it hadchanged crisis to opportunity which led to sustainable social benef its.”(Tipawadee Meksawan, 2010: 146; Paiboon Wattanasiritham, 2011: 185).

Bibliography

Dolowitz, David P. and Marsh, David. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 5-24.Holloway, Richard. (2001). Using The Civil Society Index: Assessing the Health of Civil Society A Handbook for Using the CIVICUS Index on Civil Society as a Self-Assessment Tool. CIVICUS.Khemporn Virunrapan (ed.) (2008). Child Media Program Booklet – Special Issue “Public Television.” Bangkok: Child Media Program. National Health Foundations. (2007a). Pra Sob Karn Lai Bot Rian Tho Ra Tas Sa Ta Ra Na: Tham Yhang Rai Hai Pra Sob Khaum Sum Rej. Bangkok: Pen Tai Publishing.__________. (2007b). Na Yo Bai Sa Ta Ra NA Puea Khun Na Pap Chee Wit Thee Dee: Sen Thang Pa Ti Rub Sue. BangKok: Pen Tai Publishing.Nithita Siripongtugsin. (2011). Politics in Public Media Policies of the Thai Public Broadcasting Service. NIDA Development Journal. 51(3), 117- 139.Pattanan Wisessomwong. (2008.) Pat Ta Na Karn Lai Karn Zat Tang Tho Ra Tas Sa Ta Ra Na Haeg Raeg Khong Pra Tes Thai. Dissertation on master degree in Communication Arts, Dhurakij Pundit University.Paiboon Wattanasiritham. (2011). Kui Rueang…Chee Wit Tham Ma Da. Bangkok: Bizbook.Somkiat Tangkitvanich. (2007). Eek Ka Sarn Pra Kob Karn Tha Leang Khaw Kho Sa Neo Karn Zad Tung Sa Ta Nee Tho Ra Tas Sa Ta Ra Na, 13th March, NHF.__________. (2008). Bot Rean Zak Karn Plung Dun Hai Mee Thp Ra Tas Sa Ta Ra Na Nai Pra Tes Thai. Na Yo Bai Sa Ta Ra Na Puea Khun Na Pap Chee Wit Thee Dee: Kra Buan KArn Pat Ta Na Yhang



Mee Suan Reaum. Bangkok: NHF, pp.33-35.Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act 2008.Thitinan Pongsudhirak and Weerayut Kanchuchat. (2003). Sue Sa Ta Ra Na. research sponsor by Thailand Research Fund (TRF). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.__________. (2005). Sue Sa Ta Ra Na : Yut Ta Sathr Sum Rub Pra Tes Thai. Rai Ngan Karn Suk Sa Rueang Sue Muan Chon Puea Karn Suk Sa Lae Karn Rian Ru 4. Bangkok: Strategy Project for Youth.Tipawadee Meksawan. (2010). Ban Thuek Rat Ta Mon Tree Ying. Bangkok: Bizbook. TDRI Report. (2007). Karn Zad Tang Throu Ra Tas Sa Ta Ra Na Nai Pra Tes Thai. 47(6) : Thailand Development Research Institute.TDRI. (2007). Karn Suk Sa Khaum Pen Pai Dai Lae Naue Thang Nai Karn Zad Tung Sa Ta Nee Tho Ra Tas Sum Rhub Dek Lae Krob Kreau. Research propose to National Health Foundation.Ubonrat Siriyuvasak. (2002). Media in the Age of Reform. Bangkok: Kobfai Publishing ProjectUnya-orn Panitpeungrat and Theerapat Ungsuchaval (eds.) (2010). Keb Rueang…Ma Khian Lau: Technique Kon LA Yut Lai Bot Rian Zak Karn Khub Khuean Na Yo Bai. Bangkok: Family Media Watch.Wipa Uutamachan. (1998). Sue Muan Chon Nai Yi Pun. Bangkok: Project for Academic Text Book of Faculty of Communication Arts Chulalongkorn University.__________. (2001.) Pa Ti Rub Sue Puea Sag Kom: Lhag Kid Lae Bot Rian Zak Na Na Pra Tes.. Project for Academic Text Book of Faculty of Communication Arts Chulalongkorn University.



Appendix A:Chronology of Thai Public Broadcasting Service and

some relevant events

Year Event

1992 Black May political crisis, Thai society became aware of the freedom to get information.

1994 The debut of Independent Television (ITV)

1997 The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1997 was promulgated and Media Reform” concept had slowly solidif ied.

2000 The ITV’s contract was amended and became problematic.

2003 ITV was forced to change the proportion of documentary and entertainment programs by The Shin Group.

2006, December13th The supreme administrative court forced the ITV to pay a f ine and deferred a remaining concession fee.

2006, September 19th Thailand had a military coup and then General Surayut Chulanont became the Prime Minister

2007, March 7th ITV was changed to Thailand Independent Television (TITV).

2007, March 13th -The cabinet had solutions including managing TITV as a special delivery unit within the Public Relations Department and setting public hearing mission on the issue of the future of TITV.- Dr.Somkiat Tangkitvanich released a report on feasibility and guidelines to found a Thai public television for children and family.

2007, March 16th Kunying Tipawadee Meksawan, Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Off•ice set up a committee on listening to public opinion on the future of TITV.

2007, March 30th National Health Foundation, Social Management College, and Civil Organization on Selected Issues organized a public forum on “Public television: a knowledge frontline for citizens?”

2007, April 5th The listening to public opinion forum was launched at the Public Relations Department.

2007, April 24th The cabinet made decision to convert TITV to be public service television and drafting a legal bill.



2007, May 15th The cabinet approved a principle of the “Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act, B.E….”

2007, June 6th International workshop on “Doing public television: experiences and lessons on how to make it work.”

2007, July 18th The National Legislative Assembly of Thailand approved the public TV bill concept.

2008, January 11th The Friends of Public Television Networks conducted a public forum on ‘Public hearing program contents for public television.’

2008, January 14th The Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act 2008 was promulgated in the royal Thai government gazette.

2008, January 15th The cabinet appointed an ad hoc policy committee of the public broadcasting service organization consisting of 5 people to carry out the organization until the legitimate policy committee had been appointed



Appendix B: Activities of listening to public opinion forums on the future of

ThaiPBS management direction

The ad hoc policy committee of ThaiPBS, who was appointed in 15th January 2008, set twelve live-programs “Cooperative Thinking and Creating ThaiPBS Meeting” as a public forum so as to exchange thought and ideas and hear advice about its administration and work from the relevant actors. In the same year, it also directly met nine regional people throughout the country as follows;

Date Forum

12th -13th March 4 southern border provinces forum, in Pattani

15th -16th March The south forum, in Had Yai

18th -19th March The central forum, in Ayutthaya

22th March The Bangkok and vicinity forum, in Bangkok

29th -30th March The east forum, in Pattaya

5th -6th April The west forum, in Hua Hin

19th -20th April The lower northeast forum, in Ubon Ratchathani

22th -23th April The upper northeast forum, in Khon Kaen

26th -27th April The north forum, in Chang Mai

The public hearing forums were divided into 8 issues and 8sub-groups as follow; - the group of formal and informal education issue; - the group of career and job issue; - the group of culture, music, religion and local sport issue; - the group of right, power, justice and transparency issue; - the group of resource and environment issue; - the group of youth and new generation issue; - the group of civil life, participation and media issue; - and the group of marginal people and poverty issue.



In each group there was a facilitator team, who ran the dialogue process, recorded and then drew a mind map, which next was presentedin the meeting. After that, the result of each sub-group was analyzedand exchanged. Some might do networking and sign in order to be a member of ThaiPBS for working together in the future.Subsequently, the results derived from the meeting were re-analyzed by professional media workers in a work shop for creating “TV program boxes” in order to response the participants and ultimately develop them to become a production and managerial course for the future.



Appendix C: Public Forums of the Friend of Public Television Networks in 2008

In 2008, not only ThaiPBS who launched many participatory events, but Friend of Public Television Network, with think tank institutions and civil groups, also set up a public forum in order to educate people about public television and prepare society to publicly participate in ThaiPBS in Bangkok and 4 regional;

Date Topic Forum

29th January How to present news in ThaiPBS in order to meet the social needs

Bangkok, at Suan Sunandha Pajabhat University

13th February Public Television: of public, by public and for public

The north forum, in Chang Mai

15th February Public Television: TV for People

The east forum, at the Burapha University

22th February Dramas in Public Television: How to create them in the creative way for Thai society

The northeast forum, at the Mahasarakham University

23th February How can Public TV Program participate to create Thais Quality Life?

The south forum, at Phuket Rajabhat University

The important means of these events was to open an opportunityfor public expression and advice related to TV programs.

public participatory policy process in the establishment of the thaipbs

Documents

public policy

public participation

type of public media

new public television

thai policy makers

thaipbs establishment

policymaking process

thai societyunderwent