Concerns raised as Bhumjaithai proposes change to Thai PBS funding model

Concerns have been raised over public media independence amid fears of political interference after a ruling Bhumjaithai Party MP proposed replacing Thai PBS’s funds derived from sin taxes with the annual state budget.

Earlier this month, MP Supachai Jaisamut, the ruling party’s chairman of the legal affairs division, proposed to amend the 2008 Thai Public Broadcasting Service Act, known as the Thai PBS bill. The proposed bill is open for a public hearing between 30 September and 14 October.

The Thai Public Broadcasting Service, also known as Thai PBS, is a Thai public television network established in 2008. Its funds have come directly from revenue earmarked from liquor and tobacco taxes. 

Thai PBS Act amendment proposal

The key point in the proposed bill is an amendment to Thai PBS’s earmarked funding from sin taxes to an annual allocation from the state budget. If passes, ThaiPBS would have to receive its annual funds through parliamentary approval. 

According to Section 12 of the current Thai PBS Act, the public media has the authority to collect subsidies from a person liable to taxes under laws on liquor and tobacco at a rate of 1.5% of taxes collected from liquor and tobacco, with maximum amount not exceeding 2 billion baht per fiscal year. In addition, funds ThaiPBS rived from sin taxes are not remitted as state revenue under the Budgetary Procedure.

The proposed amendment cited the 2018 State Fiscal and Financial Disciplines Act, which does not allow additional taxes to be imposed for the purpose of providing earmarked funds to any state agency, except for local government administrations. 

Section 82 also make an exemption for laws that were in force before this Act took effect, which covers the 2008 Thai PBS Act. However, Supachai insisted that the current Thai PBS Act should be amended, as the government needs to maintain strict financial discipline. 

In addition, the funds Thai PBS received should be subject to scrutiny and transparency. Under the current funding model, Thai PBS has never clarified how the money was spent.

Growing concerns over public media independence

A network of media professionals urged the government to reconsider the decision and halt the proposed amendment, which would signifcantly changes ThaiPBS funding model. 

Concerns have been raised about Thai PBS's independence if its funding has to be obtained through parliamentary budget process, potentially opening the door to political interference, particulary if there is no effective safeguards.  

GreenNews stated that ThaiPBS is one of the few media outlets that cover the matter overlooked by most commercial media given that it did not generate advertising revenue. The public media often disclose the information related to capital groups and the state, whose projects and operations have repercussions for the general public. 

The amendment could potentially put the public media at risk of imposing self-censorship for fear that the annual funds could be cut. “How could the public media dare to scrutinise the state if the state itself can reward and punish it through the allocation of the annual budget?” said GreenNews’ statement. 

Thailand Consumers Council stated that the current funding model provides financial stability and safeguard Thai PBS’s independence, arguing that a change to its funding model as proposed may open for political interference, potentially undermine Thai PBS’s status as the public media and turn to merely a state media.

Thai Journalist Association (TJA) reiterated that any amendment to the Thai PBS Act must not weaken its core value or undermine its status as a public media.

The state financial disciplines and media independence can coexist. However, independence in the public media’s professional duty is also closely linked to financial independence. TJA remarked that any change to the funding medel should therefore be carefully considered.

“Maintaining public media independence was not to protect an organisation from scrutiny, but rather to protect people’s rights to access accurate and comprehensive information, without political interference and business interests,” said TJA.

Following the proposal, Thai PBS issued its statement, noting that it welcomed scrutiny of its efficiency and use of public funds, and agreed to comply with the state’s financial disciplines. 

However, the proposal concerns not only funding model, but also “public media independence,” which is the cornerstone of Thai PBS.

ThaiPBS asserted that financial independence is an important safeguard against political interference, proposing that a change in a source of funds, particularly to the annual state budget, safeguards must be implemented to ensure that the allocation process cannot be used as a tool to interfere with Thai PBS’ policy direction, professional duties and editorial decisions.

Independence must go hand in hand with accountability for public funds

In response to public concern, MP Supachai posted on his Facebook, arguing that “media independence” and “public funds management” were separate matters.

He noted that the government welcomed scrutiny, and ThaiPBS was not the only one that served as a check on the government power, adding that independence should not to be monopolised by a single media outlet. 

The MP said the general public has the right to question the public media of how the public funds are spent and whether its funding allocation system remains appropriate for the financial situation the country is facing.

The proposal to amend the Thai PBS Act should not be viewed as editorial interference by the government. Changing the source of funding to the state budget does not mean the government would have a power to tell ThaiPBS what to report, what not to report, or whom it can or cannot criticise, noting that source of funding and editorial control were separate issues.

Supachai remarked that the point is to find a system that can safeguard media independence while ensuring transparency and financial discipline in the use of public funds.

In response to concerns that budget allocation coul be used as a tool to exert pressure, he remarked that legal safeguard can be put in place to prevent interference. 

“Media independence must go hand in hand with accountability for public funds. Thailand can have both,” said Supachai.