Thailand’s “Superboard” Media Takeover Silently Kills Democracy from Within
The rot of democracies isn’t always marked by tanks in the streets; sometimes it’s a subtler, more insidious decay — the kind that thrives in meeting minutes and amended regulations. It’s the bureaucratization of authoritarianism, a death by a thousand policy tweaks. And we’re seeing its Thai variant emerge. The Senate just rubber-stamped five members to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission’s (NBTC) “superboard”—a group formally titled the Oversight and Performance Evaluation Committee—tasked with overseeing the media landscape. Bangkok Post reports that these appointees will police broadcasting, television, telecommunications, consumer protection, and the promotion of rights and freedom. But who are they, really? And more crucially, who do they really answer to?
The specifics, as always, are where the devil resides. For example, in broadcasting, Pol Maj Gen Ekthanat Limsangkas, from the Anti-Money Laundering Office, won with a healthy margin. In television, it was an NBTC staff member, Phansak Chanpanya. Telecommunications goes to an academic. Consumer protection is secured by Gen Sithichai Makkunchorn, formerly attached to the NBTC Chairman’s Office. And a key rights and freedom position has been given to Issararat Krueahong, assistant secretary to the NBTC.
“The Senate approved five members to the Oversight and Performance Evaluation Committee, known informally as the ‘superboard’.”
These outcomes aren’t inherently corrupt, not every bureaucrat is a villain in waiting. But the overwhelming number of insiders and those tethered to the existing power grid begs the question: Is this an oversight board designed to check power, or concentrate it? The abstentions are equally telling. Do they signify indifference, unresolved rifts, or something more ominous lurking beneath the surface? The result is what political scientist Pippa Norris, studying media capture, might diagnose as a “hollowing out” of regulatory agencies, where formal structures are preserved but their independence and public-serving missions are quietly undermined from within.
Thailand’s recent history is a stark warning. Since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, the country has seen a carousel of coups and constitutional rewrites. The 2014 coup, led by then-General Prayut Chan-o-cha, installed a military junta that justified its actions by citing corruption and the need for “national security.” The NBTC itself hasn’t been immune to controversy, facing accusations of political bias and a failure to safeguard media freedom. Remember the Future Forward Party? Dissolved by court order in 2020, its media coverage was often targeted and disproportionately scrutinized by the NBTC, critics argued. The selection process for NBTC board members has long been plagued by a lack of transparency, fueling concerns about undue influence.
Zoom out, and the broader context is even more troubling. Freedom House consistently rates Thailand as 'Not Free," a designation solidified by eroding freedom of expression and assembly. This “superboard,” ostensibly designed to promote accountability and public service, could easily become another instrument to further constrict the already narrow space for dissenting voices and independent media. It’s a local manifestation of a global trend, one that Evgeny Morozov, in his writing on “digital sovereignty,” warns against: the use of technology and regulation to build illiberal regimes under the guise of protecting national interests.
So, what’s the antidote? Sunlight, of course, remains the ultimate disinfectant. Independent, dogged investigative journalism that shines a light on the board’s decisions and their consequences. Vigilant civil society organizations scrutinizing its actions. Rigorous academic research analyzing its impact. But perhaps even more critically, a sustained effort to rebuild trust in democratic institutions, to inoculate against the creeping cynicism that allows these seemingly technical changes to metastasize. Because the erosion of democracy rarely comes with a bang, but the silence that follows can be deafening.
