It was educational to watch the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) handle the Channel 11 kerfuffle last week. The regulators still are feeling their way over just how much power they have, and how they can enforce it. The commission effectively finessed the whole controversy over an appearance on the government-owned station by fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.
The NBTC's subcommittee on content and programme slots held a closed-door probe that lasted hours. No witnesses were examined in public, or named at all. No public comment was invited or heard. After this ''investigation'', the committee chairman ruled that the NBTC had no right to intervene, since programme content is strictly a matter between Channel 11 and whoever buys the airtime.
It seems likely the NBTC will come to regret this decision, or perhaps to ignore it. Content of Thai TV programmes is often debated. The public, too, should regret this confusing, double-negative decision that the appearance of Thaksin during a Muay Thai tournament broadcast from Macau was _ in the NBTC's words _ ''not illegal''. If the broadcast regulators appointed by the 1997 people's constitution will not regulate broadcasts, who will?
The answer to that question is disappointing, because it puts programme content right back in the bad old groups from the bad old days: government ministers, government censors and shadowy groups of influential figures. The Thaksin broadcast of Dec 8, abetted by his cousin and former army commander Gen Chaisit Shinawatra, raised important questions.
Thaksin's appearance was unremarkable in many ways. Criminals including felons frequently appear in the media worldwide. The relevant and questionable part of the Thaksin appearance was that it came on the government-owned NBT station, Channel 11. Far more than a possible plot to legitimise Thaksin, the ex-premier's appearance should raise the question of whether the government should own, operate and manage a TV station which presents news.
In the wake of the broadcast, some demanded that PM's Office Minister Sansanee Nakpong take responsibility. The minister replied, logically, that she does not know the content of programmes before they are aired. This is true of all credible government media worldwide. But, as critics pointed out, the government does not just fund Channel 11; it owns, operates and (when well done) it profits from it.
Channel 11 is no stranger to controversy, and Ms Sansanee's critics obviously have short memories. In 2008, under then-prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, Channel 11 was set to broadcast an entire red-shirt rally, including a video appearance by Thaksin. Then, under the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, Channel 11 fired the red-shirt presenters and hired replacements with more pro-government views.
The public pays for all this sham. That is why the NBTC reticence to deal with the issue is disappointing. The opposition, whoever it is, will never deal with the problem either, because it expects to use Channel 11 to its own advantage during its turn in charge.
The government can fix this mess by giving up ownership of Channel 11.
There is no reason taxpayers should fund a blatant propaganda arm of the government. The prime minister can easily find a more credible home for her or his weekly talk with the public. Channel 11 should be returned to its rightful owners, the Thai public.