iTV Court Ruling

[womble]

Court rules iTV concession fee cut illegal

The Central Administrative Court Tuesday overturned an arbitration decision in 200 4 which significantly cut the concession fees paid by iTV to the PM's Office.

Judge Prapot Klaisuban said the arbitration committee exceeded its authority in changing details of the contract between iTV and the PM's Office.

Chaiwat Maraprygsavan, a lawyer for iTV, said the company will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Nation

[sriracha john]

another loss for the Thaksin-ian Empire...

[sriracha john]

Details of the findings and its repercussions:

iTV suffers costly setback as court overturns fee cut

The television network iTV Plc yesterday lost a landmark court battle over discounts in its concession fees and the right to adjust its programming. It stands to lose more than Bt1.5 billion in retroactive and regular concession fees.

The Central Administrative Court yesterday overturned a 2004 decision by an arbitration court that had significantly cut the network's concession fee.

However, the company's lawyer Chaiwat Marapreukwan said the battle was not over. "iTV will definitely appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court within 30 days," he said.

Shin Corp Plc is iTV's major shareholder with a 53 per cent stake. Singapore's state investment arm Temasek Holdings controls over 96 per cent of Shin, which was previously owned by caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's family. Earlier this year it sold its majority stake to Temasek.

iTV's executive chairman Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisal said despite yesterday's court order, the company has yet to pay the retroactive concession fee, pending the appeal.

Eva Ho, director of corporate communications of Temasek, refused to comment on whether yesterday's ruling would affect Temasek's interests in iTV. "Shin is the parent of iTV, so Shin is looking into the matter," she said.

The court's decision yesterday would mean iTV having to resume paying the annual concession fee rate of 44 per cent of revenues or Bt1 billion per year - whichever is greater - to its concession owner the Office of the Permanent Secretary of the PM's Office.

At present, iTV pays only 6.5 per cent of revenue or a minimum of Bt230 million, granted by the ruling of the arbitration court in 2004.

Yesterday's ruling also called for the backdated concession fee to be paid to the government of around Bt1.5 billion, according to the estimates of analysts and iTV executives.

The court ruling also voided an easing in programming requirements under the arbitration court ruling, which had allowed iTV to adjust its news/entertainment programme ratio to 50:50 from the original 70:30.

The ruling yesterday reasoned that the arbitration court's ruling in the case of iTV exceeded its authority.

iTV had earlier asked the Office of the Permanent Secretary to compensate it, reasoning that the government had overcharged its concession fee. Moreover, iTV said its operation was adversely affected by the fact that some cable TV operators were found to run disguised commercials in defiance of their contracts. However, the government refused to do so.

Therefore, iTV filed the case with the arbitration court and later won the legal battle when the court allowed it to pay a much lower annual concession fee and enjoy the flexibility to adjust its programmes from January 30, 2004.

After the ruling, the Office of the Permanent Secretary asked the Central Administrative Court to override the arbitration court's ruling, citing the verdict exceeded that court's authority. The state agency awarded the 30-year-concession to iTV in 1995.

Deputy permanent secretary of the Permanent Secretary's Office, Julayudh Hiranyawasit, said a meeting would be held soon to see what it would do next with iTV.

iTV posted total revenues of Bt2.34 billion last year, up Bt504 million over 2004, thanks to improved ratings for its programmes, especially during prime time. Its net profit skyrocketed 232 per cent to Bt679 million from Bt205 million in 2004.

Brokerage houses rushed to lower the value of iTV Plc's shares in reaction to the Central Administrative Court's ruling.

- TN

[sriracha john]

Sell! Sell! Sell!

iTV stock plummets after court ruling

iTV Plc's stock took a 30-per-cent nosedive yesterday after the Central Administrative Court overturned a 2004 arbitration decision and investors began a selling spree.

The 2004 decision significantly cut concession fees paid by the television broadcaster to the government and allowed it to water down its original heavy concentration on news programming. Yesterday's decision reverses the situation, leaving iTV burdened with huge concession payments and needing to shed popular entertainment programming.

Brokerage houses rushed yesterday to lower the fair value of iTV's shares.

The stock, which closed on Monday at Bt9.35, started the day with a tumble and heavy selling pressure soon after the court's ruling pushed the price down to close at Bt6.55. A Seamico Securities analyst said that following the Central Administrative Court's ruling, it was now risky to invest in iTV shares, the fair value for which will tumble to about Bt4.

In January 2004, iTV won the Arbitration Court's consent to pay an annual concession fee of either 6.5 per cent of revenue or Bt230 million, whichever is higher.

The original rate was 44 per cent of revenue or Bt1 billion per year, whichever was higher.

The Arbitration Court also allowed the company to adjust its programming content. Its news/entertainment programme ratio was revised from 70:30 to 50:50.

However, the Office of the Permanent Secretary of the PM's Office, which awarded iTV the concession, asked the Central Administrative Court to override the Arbitration Court's ruling, claiming it was illegal.

Yesterday's ruling means iTV Plc will have to resume paying the original annual concession fees and return to the original proportion of news and entertainment programmes, as well as paying backdated concession fees of around Bt1.5 billion to the Office of the Permanent Secretary of the PM's Office.

iTV said it would appeal the case before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Kim Eng Securities estimated that iTV would swing into a net loss of Bt722 million this year if it lost the appeal, or a Bt757-million net profit if it won.

The broker cut its fair value for the broadcaster's shares to Bt5.20 each.

Its net-loss estimate takes into account the broker's current assumption that iTV's first-quarter net profit will drop by 3 per cent quarter on quarter and 36 per cent year on year to Bt103 million due to a sharp decline in gross margin.

A change in accounting methods imposed within the Shin Corp group in the first quarter also plays a role in the forecast.

Shin Corp now owns 53 per cent of iTV Plc.

Capital Nomura Securities has lowered its fair value for iTV shares to Bt2.04, while Sicco Securities downgraded the TV operator's fair value to Bt1.50 per share.

According to Dow Jones Newswires, an analyst at Trinity Securities said the court's ruling would reduce iTV's fair value to about Bt5 a share.

- TN

[bkkjosh]

Watched the sell off today.... very scary for shareholders. When a sell-off happens here there isn't any hesitation at all....

[penzman]

Mmm, courts seem to be making their OWN decisions lately... Good start, let's hope this lasts.

[marshbags]

Mmm, courts seem to be making their OWN decisions lately... Good start, let's hope this lasts.

................................................................................

...............................................................

To repeat a version of the much quoted phrase:-

What goes around comes around.

Karma is a very appropriate philosophy among Thai,s and their religion, perhaps it is starting to repay the group who have taken so much in the last 5 years while in their priviledged positions.

Now the eyes of all the electors are opening and they become aware of the fact that Thailand belongs to all the people, ( not just the so called elite ) and as such are entitled to the benefits as laid down in the constitution for all it,s citizens.

The list is starting to grow relating to minipulations of the constitution and self rewarding of the now infamous

" Puppet Master and his puppets. "

The cracks are starting to appear and they will soon begin to widen, start marking them down and ticking them offffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.

marshbags

Edited May 10, 2006 by marshbags

[marshbags]

Mmm, courts seem to be making their OWN decisions lately... Good start, let's hope this lasts.

Here,s another good sign of the change in mind set, the old chesnut relating to so many injustices

when finding funds to lodge a complaint along with the onus being on the plaitiffs / damaged parties

Taken from the B.Post today quote :-

Special court rules for theenvironment

Sweeping reforms to speed up cases

BHANRAVEE TANSUBHAPOL

The Supreme Court is poised to make sweeping procedural changes to speed up handling of environmental cases. This includes placing the burden of proof on defendants, broadening the court ruling to cover all damaged parties and cutting court fees for poor plaintiffs, a high court official said yesterday.

''We would like environmental cases to be special cases because they affect the life, health and well-being of the public. If the court deliberation is slow or has to wait for any side-effects to emerge it may be too late for the environment or people's lives,'' said Apichart Sukhagganond, president of the environmental division of the Supreme Court.

Mr Apichart said each case affecting the environment should take no more than three years to resolve instead of more than five years now in most cases.

More than 1,000 environmental cases currently await Supreme Court judgments. Most are handled by the 10 Appeals Courts around the country but only four of them have an environmental division attached.

The green light has now been given to the Criminal Court in each province to set up an environmental division to help speed up environmental cases.

''Environmental cases should be concluded as quickly as possible,'' he said. To expedite the process, the court is considering moving environmental cases only through the Criminal Court and the Supreme Court, skipping the Appeals Court.

The court fee for poor plaintiffs could be lowered or waived to enable poor people to file legal action against industrial offenders, said Mr Apichart.

Normally, plaintiffs must post as much as 200,000 baht to cover court fees if they demand large compensation. This means legal action is out of reach of many who claim to suffer consequences from environmental damage.

Mr Apichart said courts may put the burden of proof on defendants rather than the plaintiffs, as in normal law suits.

If this practice is adopted, it would be the first time Thai courts agree to follow the so-called precautionary principle long advocated by environmentalists, who argue it is too much of a burden for damaged parties to prove wrongdoing by powerful offenders.

Another change that will have a major impact on offenders is the broadening of the court ruling on a single case to cover all damaged parties.

''This will help minimise the number of cases coming to court and all damaged parties will get the same level of compensation, as in bankruptcy cases,'' said Mr Apichart. Only the plaintiffs now benefit from court rulings in their favour, he said.

unquote.........................................................................

...................................................

For the full article please go to :-

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/10May2006_news10.php

If they cofirm this then it,s yet another turn around that favours the less priviledged while upholding their constitutional rights.

marshbags

[sriracha john]

UPDATE

Seems like all of Thakky's old companies are falling apart without his interventions and manipulations:

Further fine increase for iTV threatened after breach

Permanent secretary to the Prime Minister's Office Julayuth Hiranyawasit yesterday warned Independent Television (iTV) of a ''fine run-on'' if it refuses to pay up for an alleged concession breach. The station faces the prospect of paying up to 80 billion baht in fines , which is more than the 76 billion baht it has been ordered by the office to pay over an alleged breach of its concession. Mr Julayuth said the fine payment demand was a pressing issue following its breach of contract and the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) insisted the Prime Minister's Office was in a position to demand payment within one year after it won the case in the Supreme Administrative Court. Mr Julayuth also insisted an investigation committee set up by former deputy agriculture minister Newin Chidchob should be abolished, as he had no authority to appoint the panel in the first place. Illegal actions are nothing new for Mr. Newin

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/26Oct2006_news08.php

[madmitch]

Correct me if I am wrong here as I am not 100% sure.

iTV was a part of the Shin Corp empire taken over by Themasek (spelling??) Holdings earlier this year. They paid 73bn baht for their share. If the fine is upheld then they would be responsible for their holding in the company which would significantly eat into the amount they paid for Shin Corp.

I would have thought that under the due diligence this ongoing case would have been considered and I would also have thought that here would be a clause in the contract somewhere absolving Themasek af all liabilities for this, in which case who will pay any fine? A certain family whose head is currently out of the country?

It would probably be easier just to close iTV down if fine of the magnitude talked about is imposed as with a reversion to the original scheduling rules, a reduction in advertising revenue with no alcohol companies, it might be difficult for the company ever to make money.

Again, this is speculation but it's my take on this issue and if I am wrong factually then I apologise.

[sriracha john]

UPDATE

iTV staff want help from PM over Bt94 Billion in fees

More than 30 iTV staff members will submit an appeal to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont today, asking the government to review an order for the station to pay concession fees of Bt94 billion, a source at the broadcaster said.

The source said the staff would submit the letter to the premier at Government House, to ask the PM's office to reconsider the fines.

iTV must pay the fines following a Central Administrative Court ruling.

However, the broadcaster wants the PM's Office to review the amount the free-to-air broadcaster has to pay. The TV station was only paying 6.5 per cent of revenue - or a minimum of Bt230 million a year - based on a 2004 arbitration panel judgement.

But the Central Administrative Court on May 9 overturned that decision and ordered iTV to pay 44 per cent of revenue or Bt1 billion a year - whichever was greater.

iTV lodged an appeal against the ruling with the Supreme Administrative Court.

Previously, the government claimed the free-to-air broadcaster owed fines totalling Bt76 billion for breaches of its concession agreement. It claimed the station had adjusted programming ratios in 2004 without state consent and reduced concession fee payments from those specified in the contract.

The concession contract meant total fines, plus interest, were now Bt94.06 billion, yet the source said staff at the channel feared the fines would have an adverse impact.

"We are concerned the fines will affect iTV staff. If the station was seized [for its debts] we might be laid off. Why do we have to suffer for something we did not create," the source said.

The source claimed there was no hidden agenda in the staff appeal to the prime minister - it was not aimed at pressuring the Supreme Administrative Court, which will conduct its first hearing on the appeal on Friday.

- The Nation

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

perhaps Thaksin will feel generous and sympathetic for his old company and put the fees on his MasterCard...

[marshbags]

iTV staff want help from PM over Bt94 Billion in fees

More than 30 iTV staff members will submit an appeal to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont today, asking the government to review an order for the station to pay concession fees of Bt94 billion, a source at the broadcaster said.

Unquote

This has to be a joke / extracting the urine to the extreme.

If they want bailing out then they are using the wrong approach.

They need to ask the beneficiaries of the last governments unconstitutional amendment that was

based on a 2004 arbitration panel judgement.

They may also wish to follow S.J,s advice if i might be allowed to quote him without further comment.

perhaps Thaksin will feel generous and sympathetic for his old company and put the fees on his MasterCard...

marshbags

[COBBER]

All of the "Hang Taksin out to dry" mob might be having a good chuckle over this but i cant see this as being a good thing if ITV goes to the wall . To me ITV is the only half reasonable free to air thai channel and if it goes what do you have left. Government controlled channels that just pump out garbage , making the already wealthy and influential thais that own the production companies even more wealthier.

[Jai Dee]

Over 30 ITV staff members appeals PM for fairer treatment to broadcaster

Over 30 staff members from iTV have submitted a document requesting Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to help review through the case regarding the fate of iTV. A Central Administrative Court ruling has ordered iTV to pay concession fees of Bt94 billion.

ITV officers have requested for a fair treatment as they claimed that the root cause of the problem came from the delay in the implementation of the Office of Permanent Secretary to PM’s Office. They said that the office did not propose ITV program schedules to the Cabinet on time, causing the annulment of the verdict of arbitration.

They have appealed to the premier to consider the matter.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 6 December 2006

[ColPyat]

All of the "Hang Taksin out to dry" mob might be having a good chuckle over this but i cant see this as being a good thing if ITV goes to the wall . To me ITV is the only half reasonable free to air thai channel and if it goes what do you have left. Government controlled channels that just pump out garbage , making the already wealthy and influential thais that own the production companies even more wealthier.

Yes, very true. At least someone here noticed this.

ITV is the only not government/military controlled public TV station.

At the moment there is a very strong drive to reverse the clock and bring back all under military/burocracy control.

This is as frightening as what Thaksin has done.

[Jai Dee]

PM says he will deliver full justice to ITV employees in their 100 billion baht concession burden

The Prime Minister affirms he will deal justly with the ITV Public Company in resolving state demands that the company pays over 100 billion baht in concessions.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont commented on the incident in which more than 30 employees of the ITV Public Company submitted letters of grievance calling for justice from the government in an incident that was motivated by an order from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Prime Minister's Office, calling on the ITV company to pay over 100 billion baht in concessions.

The Prime Minister said that he has yet to receive the grievance letters and that he would have to carefully consider the ITV employee's demand for the establishment of a committee to set new concession rates.

Prime Minister Surayud assures that he would deliver full justice to the ITV employees, and added that the Cabinet would conduct discussions over the issue to arrive at a suitable resolution.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 7 December 2006

[sriracha john]

Cabinet may debate iTV's concession fees

The Cabinet may Thursday debate options designed to resolve the controversial fine imposed on iTV following its delayed payments of broadcast concession fees, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Wednesday.

"The government will ensure fairness in trying to settle the dispute on the computation of the fine," Surayud said, referring to the petition lodged by the station's employees.

Since the filing of the petition took place yesterday, it remains unclear if the issue would be ready in time for debate at today's Cabinet meeting or the one next week.

In their petition, the employees complained that authorities unfairly computed the fine which could cause the collapse of the television station. The fine amounts to almost Bt100 billion.

PM's Office Minister Khunying Dhipavadee Meksawan said she had instructed her subordinates to review the petition and recommend options for the prime minister.

The Nation

[womble]

All the profits from these corrupt changes in policy were claimed in the high share price of shin and went into Thaksins pocket.

Temesek didn't take out any due dilligence when buying shin, so there is no clauses in the contract to protect them.

They should take ITV away from Shin/Temesek adn return it to the people.

We all know Thaksin won't lose his $ so lets just leave it at that.

I smell backroom deals a plenty.......

[Jai Dee]

Supreme Administrative Court to rule on iTV next week

Supreme Administrative Court will deliver verdict on the concession fee case of iTV Plc next week.

The court will rule on the case on Wednesday 13 at 2pm.

ITV has asked Supreme Administrative Court to rule after the Central Administrative Court ruled that iTV pays a potential bill of Bt76 billion in penalties and Bt1.7 billion in backdated fees for adjusting programme since 2004 without the consent of the PM's office.

The company has so far refused to pay, insisting to wait for ruling of Supreme Administrative Court.

The television broadcaster's executive chairman, Niwathamrong Boonsongpaisan, insisted that iTV still held to Article 70 of the law governing the establishment of the Administrative Court - that the ruling would be enforced only once the case is completely at an end.

The case ends once the Supreme Administrative Court makes its ruling on the iTV case, he said.

While PM's Office claimed iTV had to pay a fine of Bt76 billion from its adjustment of programming since 2004 without the consent of the PM's office, Niwathamrong argued that the fine should be only Bt100 million per year under the company's calculation method.

Source: The Nation - 8 December 2006

[cclub75]

Supreme Administrative Court to rule on iTV next week

Supreme Administrative Court will deliver verdict on the concession fee case of iTV Plc next week.

It's going to be an interesting test.

We should open the bets...

On one hand it would be difficult to follow the view of the company. On the other hand, such a huge penalty would kill the company and put a lot of pressure around Temasek, and the whole Shin deal...

So I bet for a perfect thai way, middle path : the necessity to continue the enquiry due to a technicallity along with a small penalty for a technicallity too.

[Plus]

ITV is indenendent only in the name. Ever since Thaksin bought it it has been as good as military/government controlled. No big loss.

Now that it belongs to people of Singapore there's little they can do about it.

Initially it was designed as Thailand's only public owned channed, I don't know how they can change its shareholding structure back to original design. Buy it from Temasek???

[Jai Dee]

Fearing collapse, ITV asks for leniency

The defence team for iTV yesterday pleaded for leniency, saying the station could collapse and its workers become unemployed if the high court ruled to confirm the whopping fine of almost Bt100 billion.

The Supreme Administrative Court has scheduled its appellate ruling on the case for Wednesday.

"This court's primary duty is to dispense justice and disputed parties should not try to sway the ruling or make hasty criticism in advance," judge Charan Hatthakam said in the final session of the appellate review.

At the centre of the litigation is a contractual clause - Article 5, paragraph 4 - that empowers the station to seek mediation by a board of three arbitrators to revise its concession fees if authorities allowed advertising to be broadcast on cable television.

Based on this clause, the arbitration ruling allowed the station to pay reduced fees and revise programming to favour entertainment at the expense of news coverage.

The Office of Permanent Secretary for Prime Minister's Office, the regulatory body for iTV's broadcast contract, petitioned the Central Administrative Court to overturn the ruling.

The lower court ruled last year in favour of the regulatory body and ordered iTV to pay full fees and restore its original programming.

The regulatory body subsequently ruled to impose the fine for delayed and partial payments made since the arbitration ruling.

The station appealed the lower court's decision and postponed any fee adjustments pending the outcome of the appellate review.

In his closing statement to the high court, defence lawyer Praman Ruangwatanawanit said the station did not manipulate the contract because the clause in question was inserted by the Office of the Attorney-General when scrutinising the draft contract.

Praman said the station had sought and received the arbitration in good faith.

He went on to state that the regulatory body had complied with the enforcement of the clause six times since 1999.

Source: The Nation - 9 December 2006

[sriracha john]

Plea to save iTV has come six years too late

It's understandable why members of iTV's staff are squirming over the prospect of the TV station going out of business under the weight of the almost Bt100 billion being demanded from it by the Prime Minister's Office.

But flying the flag of media professionalism to generate public sympathy for what is purely a business undertaking - and obviously a dubious one, too - is something one finds hard to digest.

The ongoing iTV saga, despite its history as an independent TV station, is all about commercial interests. The TV management is simply fighting for business survival. The journalists who came out to plead for "fairness" from the Surayud government were only sugar-coating it.

What happened at iTV was probably the most blatant example of what is described as the "arrogance of power" that came to mark the deposed Thaksin administration. Through his family-owned Shin Corporation, businessman-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra in 2000 took over the financially-ailing iTV in defiance of protests from media organisations and academics and in one stroke put an end to the country's only independent TV station known for its aggressive and in-depth reporting.

The biggest irony about iTV is that it was a product of the endeavour to plant democracy in Thailand in the aftermath of the bloody May Uprising of 1992, only to end up serving as the political mouthpiece of an authoritarian leadership. Indeed, it was the first casualty of Thaksin's well-orchestrated assault on the fledging democracy, starting with the media.

Most of the iTV journalists who turned up at Government House last week to submit a petition asking Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont to intervene in the legal tussle between the station and the PM's Office were there when Thaksin added the station to his telecommunications empire. But none raised their voices - some even rejoiced at the prospect of the new owner with his fat purse bringing them better financial benefits.

They were also there when the iTV management began interfering with editorial decisions. They had no qualms about following orders to slant their news coverage in favour of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party, which was on the verge of winning a landslide election victory in January 2001. And with Thaksin in power, many even competed to internalise the political demands of the ruling party. There were a few who felt their independence was threatened but had no choice but to grudgingly play along.

When 20 of the staff were kicked out for standing by their journalistic principles, none of their colleagues stood up to defend them. Worse still, some even testified against them in court. Luckily, through their sheer determination and support from media advocacy groups, the so-called "iTV rebels" were able to beat the political pressure and won their case - much to the dismay of many of their former colleagues who saw them as "outcasts".

Meanwhile, iTV's management moved swiftly to exploit the political order of the day by getting an arbitration committee to consent to its demands to have the concession fees it is required to pay the PM's Office slashed significantly and its programming requirements relaxed to allow more airtime for money-making entertainment content.

Considering the political influence of the powers-that-were at the time, it came as no surprise that the PM's Office, which owns the concession, came up with only a pretence of resistance to iTV's demands. And again, none of the iTV news staff felt the arbitration committee's ruling in favour of their management was a betrayal of the station's founding principle of public-mindedness. They were all probably dreaming of better pay and hefty bonuses.

It must have come as a shock to them when the Central Administrative Court, probably the only independent body that managed to survive political interference under Thaksin, nullified the ruling of the arbitration committee early this year. The court's decision was not so much a rejection of the much-criticised settlement by an arbitration tribunal as a slap in the face of the political power that made public interest secondary to family business interest.

Now iTV, which is majority-owned by Temasek of Singapore, is being charged with a breach of contract and saddled with a bill of almost Bt100 billion in overdue confession fees and fines. The iTV management is contesting the charge on technical grounds.

After receiving the petition from iTV staff last week, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said his Cabinet would try to settle the dispute with fairness. But it's difficult to imagine a "fair" solution that doesn't hold the iTV management accountable for what happened and without taking public interest into consideration.

The iTV staff tried to give the impression last week that the uncertainty over the future of the station was putting their professionalism at stake. They came up with the slogan "Help save iTV" in an attempt to enlist public support for their fight. But help save iTV from what? The station today is just a ghost of its former self as an independent TV station that had the public interest at heart.

The iTV staff may be reacting six years too late. Where were they when Thaksin took over the station and turned it into a political PR machine? And where were they when 20 of their colleagues were axed for trying to defend their professionalism? And it wasn't until the last minute that iTV's usually pro-Thaksin news coverage made a major turn-around to reflect the changing public mood towards his scandal-tainted administration.

If iTV is to be saved, it should be saved from the hands of those who betrayed the democratic spirit that gave birth to the TV station. Thailand doesn't need "another" TV station that thrives on soap operas and game shows and is answerable to the political power of the day.

There is no room for compromise in dealing with the iTV problem. Its management has blatantly breached the founding principle of the TV station and has been raking in money by doing it.

The only fair solution is the one that sees iTV once again become an independent media outlet that lives up to the spirit of the May Uprising. And the Surayud government can start moving towards that by first revoking the current concession and having it returned to the PM's Office.

Thepchai Yong

The Nation EDITORIAL

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

[Chang_paarp]

You have to love it.

Journalists (?) asking the government to interfere with the court process.

[hammered]

Plea to save iTV has come six years too late

It's understandable why members of iTV's staff are squirming over the prospect of the TV station going out of business under the weight of the almost Bt100 billion being demanded from it by the Prime Minister's Office.

But flying the flag of media professionalism to generate public sympathy for what is purely a business undertaking - and obviously a dubious one, too - is something one finds hard to digest.

The ongoing iTV saga, despite its history as an independent TV station, is all about commercial interests. The TV management is simply fighting for business survival. The journalists who came out to plead for "fairness" from the Surayud government were only sugar-coating it.

What happened at iTV was probably the most blatant example of what is described as the "arrogance of power" that came to mark the deposed Thaksin administration. Through his family-owned Shin Corporation, businessman-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra in 2000 took over the financially-ailing iTV in defiance of protests from media organisations and academics and in one stroke put an end to the country's only independent TV station known for its aggressive and in-depth reporting.

The biggest irony about iTV is that it was a product of the endeavour to plant democracy in Thailand in the aftermath of the bloody May Uprising of 1992, only to end up serving as the political mouthpiece of an authoritarian leadership. Indeed, it was the first casualty of Thaksin's well-orchestrated assault on the fledging democracy, starting with the media.

Most of the iTV journalists who turned up at Government House last week to submit a petition asking Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont to intervene in the legal tussle between the station and the PM's Office were there when Thaksin added the station to his telecommunications empire. But none raised their voices - some even rejoiced at the prospect of the new owner with his fat purse bringing them better financial benefits.

They were also there when the iTV management began interfering with editorial decisions. They had no qualms about following orders to slant their news coverage in favour of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party, which was on the verge of winning a landslide election victory in January 2001. And with Thaksin in power, many even competed to internalise the political demands of the ruling party. There were a few who felt their independence was threatened but had no choice but to grudgingly play along.

When 20 of the staff were kicked out for standing by their journalistic principles, none of their colleagues stood up to defend them. Worse still, some even testified against them in court. Luckily, through their sheer determination and support from media advocacy groups, the so-called "iTV rebels" were able to beat the political pressure and won their case - much to the dismay of many of their former colleagues who saw them as "outcasts".

Meanwhile, iTV's management moved swiftly to exploit the political order of the day by getting an arbitration committee to consent to its demands to have the concession fees it is required to pay the PM's Office slashed significantly and its programming requirements relaxed to allow more airtime for money-making entertainment content.

Considering the political influence of the powers-that-were at the time, it came as no surprise that the PM's Office, which owns the concession, came up with only a pretence of resistance to iTV's demands. And again, none of the iTV news staff felt the arbitration committee's ruling in favour of their management was a betrayal of the station's founding principle of public-mindedness. They were all probably dreaming of better pay and hefty bonuses.

It must have come as a shock to them when the Central Administrative Court, probably the only independent body that managed to survive political interference under Thaksin, nullified the ruling of the arbitration committee early this year. The court's decision was not so much a rejection of the much-criticised settlement by an arbitration tribunal as a slap in the face of the political power that made public interest secondary to family business interest.

Now iTV, which is majority-owned by Temasek of Singapore, is being charged with a breach of contract and saddled with a bill of almost Bt100 billion in overdue confession fees and fines. The iTV management is contesting the charge on technical grounds.

After receiving the petition from iTV staff last week, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said his Cabinet would try to settle the dispute with fairness. But it's difficult to imagine a "fair" solution that doesn't hold the iTV management accountable for what happened and without taking public interest into consideration.

The iTV staff tried to give the impression last week that the uncertainty over the future of the station was putting their professionalism at stake. They came up with the slogan "Help save iTV" in an attempt to enlist public support for their fight. But help save iTV from what? The station today is just a ghost of its former self as an independent TV station that had the public interest at heart.

The iTV staff may be reacting six years too late. Where were they when Thaksin took over the station and turned it into a political PR machine? And where were they when 20 of their colleagues were axed for trying to defend their professionalism? And it wasn't until the last minute that iTV's usually pro-Thaksin news coverage made a major turn-around to reflect the changing public mood towards his scandal-tainted administration.

If iTV is to be saved, it should be saved from the hands of those who betrayed the democratic spirit that gave birth to the TV station. Thailand doesn't need "another" TV station that thrives on soap operas and game shows and is answerable to the political power of the day.

There is no room for compromise in dealing with the iTV problem. Its management has blatantly breached the founding principle of the TV station and has been raking in money by doing it.

The only fair solution is the one that sees iTV once again become an independent media outlet that lives up to the spirit of the May Uprising. And the Surayud government can start moving towards that by first revoking the current concession and having it returned to the PM's Office.

Thepchai Yong

The Nation EDITORIAL

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

Thepchai has run into a rich vein of form with this piece. He gets it pretty spot on.

[sriracha john]

the tension is mounting..... we need a drum roll...

iTV fate will be decided today

Bt94-billion 'fine' could bankrupt it and its concession handed to the state

The final chapter in the iTV saga could play out today if the Supreme Administrative Court rules in favour of the PM's Office on its concession fee and programming ratio, paving the way for another lawsuit and hefty fines of over Bt90 billion.

In the worst case scenario, the landmark ruling would lead to its bankruptcy and nationalisation of the independent TV channel, academics and stock analysts said.

In their opinion, if the court overturns an arbitration panel's 2004 judgement that iTV could lower its concession fee to Bt230 million and adjust its programming, then iTV was likely to face fines of over Bt90 billion for having done so without the PM's Office's consent. iTV's total assets as of September 30 stood at Bt3.7 billion, meaning it would be bankrupted and its concession returned to the government.

"Then, the government would have two choices for iTV. It could repackage the concession and put it up for a new bid. Or it could turn iTV into a state TV channel," said Somkiat Tangkitvanich, research director of Thailand Development Research Institute.

"Whatever, it won't affect investor confidence but it will serve as a lesson for investors that they should thoroughly look into contracts and consider if they can fulfil them," he said.

This afternoon, iTV will broadcast the court's announcement live.

After the court issues the ruling at 2pm, the PM's Office will call a press conference to reveal its next move, according to Chulayuth Hiranyavasit, permanent secretary of the PM's Office.

"We have not yet discussed with the government what to do with it, but the office has some ideas in mind. This is a big issue. The policy must be drawn up by the government. If the iTV concession is revoked, it is beyond our power," he said.

He said state prosecutors are now considering how to proceed with the penalty issue and insisted the Bt94 billion fine, calculated on a daily basis, was correct.

A stock analyst believed that if the concession was revoked and the government re-sold it, it would be difficult to find buyers. "The company is cheap. But the buyers' motives would be in focus no matter if they are politically connected, independent or influenced by a non-profit organisation. If they are looking for gains, it seems difficult to expect extraordinary profits from the company."

Stock analysts believe iTV would face difficult financial times if the court overturned the arbitration panel's ruling. Even without the hefty fine, it would still be subject to huge concession fees. Meanwhile, the high ratio of news programming meant low advertising income and lower competitiveness against other TV operators that are subject to lower concession fees.

Quarterly, iTV's total revenue is about Bt500 million against operating costs of nearly Bt360 million. Based on the annual concession fee of Bt230 million, in the third quarter of this year its net income is Bt89 million. If the higher concession fee is in place, the company could be in the red in the quarter.

"With the original concession fee, sooner or later, the company would have to shut its doors. The worst-case court ruling would just speed up the process," said an analyst who asked not to be named.

The wrangling over the concession fee and programming has continued for two years since the arbitration panel in January 2004 granted iTV a lower concession fee.

Originally, the fee was 44 per cent of revenue or Bt1 billion, whichever was higher. The panel also allowed iTV to provide more entertainment programmes to generate higher advertising income. However, the PM's Office did not accept the ruling and forwarded the case to the Central Administrative Court, which overturned the arbitration panel's ruling. ITV fought back in the Supreme Administrative Court.

iTV's shareholders are to convene on December 29 to consider how to settle the dispute with the PM's Office.

- The Nation

[hammered]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/12/13...es_30021459.php

Court rules in favor of PM's Office over iTV saga

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled on Wednesday in favour of PM's Office, subjecting iTV to the original concession fee, about Bt1 billion per year, and allowing it to reverse the news programming ratio from 65 per cent to 70 per cent.

[ColPyat]

The ruling means the government can pursue a case for the payment of fines and unpaid concession fees totalling Bt94 billion.

Prime Minister Office permanent secretary Chulayuth Hiranyavasit said yesterday prosecutors were considering their next move. He insisted the government's demand for Bt94 billion was accurate.

That would be the end of the only potentially non-government controlled TV station. I hope they find a solution that keeps ITV alive.

[Plus]

How come people consistently call a TV station bought by Prime Minister himself "non-government controlled"???? Who else controlled it? His wife?

Does it make any sense?

I hope they take it's license away and turn it into something like BBC or PBS. There are ways, I believe, to make it publicly owned without direct government control or sponsorship.

[Siripon]

All of the "Hang Taksin out to dry" mob might be having a good chuckle over this but i cant see this as being a good thing if ITV goes to the wall . To me ITV is the only half reasonable free to air thai channel and if it goes what do you have left. Government controlled channels that just pump out garbage , making the already wealthy and influential thais that own the production companies even more wealthier.

Yes, very true. At least someone here noticed this.

ITV is the only not government/military controlled public TV station.

At the moment there is a very strong drive to reverse the clock and bring back all under military/burocracy control.

This is as frightening as what Thaksin has done.

Oh dear! ITV was an independent station until taken over by Thaksin-the original concessions payable to the government and restrictions on entertainment meant it would never be easy to make a profit.

But once he took over all independence was gone, sacking all journalists who protested at editorial interference( about 20).

And did their colleagues, the present distressed staff help them? Not a jot.

At the time the Democratic government let Thaksin take over ITV, there was a clause prohibiting any shareholder from owning over 10%. I don't know to this day why they let him take it over and didn't try to form a BBC type corporation. Though collecting tax from every TV owner in Thailand could prove to have been problematic!