Rich Enough? Then Prove It, Thaksin!

[george]

Rich enough? Then prove it

BANGKOK: Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was yesterday asked to put his money where his mouth is and show his patriotism by placing the country’s interests ahead of his business empire.

The premier’s growing band of critics slammed his handling of the iTV controversy, and urged him to force Shin Corp to back out of a Bt17billion legal battle over concession fees.

On Tuesday, Thaksin said he was happy with his current wealth and instructed his government to ignore his links to iTV when deciding how to respond to an arbitration ruling on the concessionfee reduction.

“I’m happy with my [financial] status now,” Thaksin told his Cabinet.

“There’s no need for me to seek more profits. The country’s rules must be respected and protected, regardless of who is involved with iTV. Those in charge [of iTV affairs] must keep that in mind.”

But Thaksin’s critics challenged his sincerity and urged him to take proactive measures and get his company to withdraw from the legal battle.

“iTV is virtually owned by his family,” said Somkiat Tangjitvanij, an academic at the Thailand Development Research Institute. “The best way for him to refute charges of conflict of interest and prove that he has enough money is to drop the appeal.”

Suriyasai Katasila, secretarygeneral of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, said Thaksin’s words meant nothing because people are becoming increasingly sceptical about his intentions.

“It’s simply not enough [for him] to say that he’s rich enough and doesn’t want any more money, and vow that the case will be handled in a straightforwardly manner. He has to take decisive action to prove his sincerity to Thai people, who are increasingly concerned about the two hats he’s wearing,” Suriyasai said.

Bangkok Senator Wallop Tangkananurak deplored the government’s subdued response to the arbitration verdict.

“Nothing has yet to convince me that national interests, not personal interests, will prevail, and that rich people will one day realise they have enough money. I won’t be convinced until there’s solid proof,” he said.

Senator Chirmsak Pinthong said Thaksin’s statement on Tuesday flew in the face of previous decisions made by his government which had yielded his business empire enormous financial benefit.

“I really want to believe him, but nothing this government has done convinces me,” he said.

Despite Thaksin's emotional pledge, the government has been moving halfheartedly over the affair.

On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Vishanu Kruangam all but admitted that the government would have a tough time trying to challenge the arbitration’s ruling.

He suggested that iTV’s management had a strong case when they complained about state violations of the concession contract.

The deputy prime minister was a bit more galvanised yesterday when he said the ruling was “too strong”.

He pointed out that as a direct contract partner of iTV, the Prime Minister’s Permanent Secretary’s Office could not control violations that took place beyond its jurisdiction.

He said the Army was responsible for the extension of the Channel 7 contract, and the Mass Communications Organisation of Thailand took care of cable operators’ advertising businesses.

Critics were sceptical about the arbitration ruling that iTV could increase its entertainment content to 50 per cent because it apparently had nothing to do with alleged violations of the concession contract.

Vishanu said iTV’s case was seriously complicating the government’s policy on the broadcast industry. He said it would affect cable operators’ campaign to earn revenue from advertising, and attempts to make staterun Channel 11 more competitive.

------------------------

A case of strange logic

Why the arbitration ruling is disputable:

1. iTV claims an extension to Channel 7’s contract, which required cheaper concession fees, put it at a disadvantage, mainly because the extension allowed Channel 7 to continue taking a share of the advertising cake.

But the government can argue that Shin Corp was well aware of the Channel 7 extension when it was planning to buy into iTV.

2. The arbitration committee provides no good reason as to why it allowed iTV to increase entertainment content to 50 per cent of overall content, and to air entertainment during prime time. The concession dispute has nothing to do with content, to say the least.

3. iTV claims the government’s failure to prevent cable operators from competing in the fierce advertising market is the main reason why the concession fees should be reduced. But what statistics did the arbitrators use to come up with the staggering Bt17 billion reduction, considering the fact that cable operators have a minuscule advertising-market share?

In other words, if the government really needs to compensate iTV, shouldn’t the amount be based on a realistic assumption of how much iTV – and other free-TV stations – could have gained from the minute share held by cable operators?

--The Nation 2004-02-05