ownership of the International Herald Tribune, it expected to turn it into a global newspaper capable of competing with both the FT and the WSJ (Cassy 2003).
Meanwhile, Asia, with its 472 million television households and 180 million homes passed by cable, in broadcasting terms, compared very favourably with both the US (101 million and 98 million), and Western Europe (145 million and 87 million) (Hansen 2001, p. 34). In South Korea, alone, broadband subscribers grew from 800 000 in 1999 to 4 million in 2000 (Rohwer 2001, p. 54). By the turn of the century, Hong Kong, Beijing and Singapore, were beginning broadband experiments, often ahead of many European markets and, as deregulation continued across Asia, the growth continued.
The citizens of Taiwan and the Philippines spent the least time reading print publications – only 1.2 hours (Philippines daily television consump- tion was 2.8 hours, slightly higher than Hong Kong, Taiwan, Mainland China, Singapore and Malaysia). Thailand topped the television watchers charts with 3.2 hours of television viewing a day, although the residents of the three major Chinese cities, Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, were fast catching up, with an average of 2.4 hours of television a day, and a significantly low 1.3 hours of newspaper reading (MEDIA 6 July 2001, p. 4).
By comparison, the average American adult spent 16.17 hours on the phone a month, listened to 90 hours of radio and watched 131 hours of TV (4.2 hours a day). The 53 per cent of the US population that used the net spent more than 25 hours online a month at home and more than 74 hours on the net at work (Lyman and Varian 2003).
In this environment, Asia’s pay-television industry has also enjoyed a boom. By the end of 2004, there were 205 million subscribers according to Fusion Consulting,4with a total of more than $US25 billion in revenues.
Dominating consumption are the large economies of Japan, India and China, with content localization a key driver of the recent upturn in for- tunes of pay TV (AMCB September–October 2005, p. 16).
Indeed, despite the lingering economic problems caused by the triple-play of the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, the bursting of the Tech Bubble in 2000, and the market volatility after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the industry analysis by Asian Market Intelligence showed renewed growth in owner- ship of telecommunications and IT products in the first decade of the twenty-first century, as well as in technology products among affluent adults in the region. There was also a growth in Internet access and use, as well as growth in penetration and use of cable and satellite television (see Tables 3.1–3.8).5Even allowing for investor’s licence these were big numbers, and media companies worldwide are chasing the increasing number of Asian subscribers.
Not only were the leading international publications flourishing, other media businesses were looking to grow their Asian footprint, reflecting the pull the potential regional market presented. In 2000, electronic informa- tion service Reuters, mapped out an Asian growth strategy. It had taken on 200 journalists in the region that year, putting more than 10 per cent of the company’s total staff in Asia, contributing about 15 per cent of global profits. Reuters said further expansion was planned, much of it focused on the Internet (Lee 2000). Analysts were very bullish about the growth of that medium. In 2001, the number of Internet users in China was forecast by Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs to reach 330 million by 2005 (Rohwer 2001, pp. 54–5).
The late 1990s, however, also marked moves by some Southeast Asian governments to try to reign in this flow of cross border information. This was done often by the familiar methods of commercial influence and legal controls, but also the adoption of new strategies such as diluting what was deemed unacceptable by drowning it in uncontroversial competition. There was a growth in local programming and content, much of it as bland and uncontroversial as that produced by its international counterparts, neutered by global industry trends.
The agenda of governments around the region was clear – to reassert their gate keeping strategies:
The development of information, social communication and mass media under Repelita VI is important for the realization of a conducive climate to support the expansion and progress of the people in their participation in and responsibility for the national development, the socialization of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution in all aspects of the people’s life. It is also aimed at a healthy, free and responsible press.6
By 2002, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF), the journalists’ pressure group, described Asia in its Annual Report (2002a) as the World’s Largest Prison for Journalists. RSF said that, in 2001, the Asia-Pacific region had the worst results in the world for press freedom violations: the largest number of jour- nalists killed, imprisoned, threatened and attacked, and the largest number of countries where the right to pluralist information was not guaranteed.
The report stated that even in the three Southeast Asian countries where press freedom was respected, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia, the situation had deteriorated. In Thailand, Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, and those close to power, renewed state interventionism in the media. Journalists of both the private and public press have been under direct and indirect pressure from the government of this ‘Asian Berlusconi’, known for not accepting criticism. Violence against journalists had increased with two Thai journalists killed that year.
Table 3.1 Cable in Asia – comparative costs (2004) Singapore – Starhub – $S35 pcm
Malaysia – Astro – RM49.95 ($S22)
Thailand – UBC – TB1412.97 ($S57.90) 29 channels HK – I cable – $HK308 ($S59.3839)
UK – Sky – $S100.80 100 channels US $S66.50
Source: Local research.
70
Table 3.2 Asia Pacific broadband Internet penetration of total households (%) Market2000200120022003200420052006 Australia0.812.764.849.2119.6634.6147.68 China 0.030.190.892.896.029.2612.63 Hong Kong 19.3230.0146.6256.7867.0473.0675.95 India–0.0020.010.020.060.421.00 Indonesia0.010.020.030.050.080.110.22 Japan1.366.0616.2128.9639.3546.8754.66 Korea25.9549.5664.6267.9670.7271.0780.78 Malaysia0.020.180.382.095.089.0915.35 New Zealand0.852.013.986.4811.6723.2435.06 Philippines0.030.070.150.260.420.731.34 Singapore7.7013.6722.5236.9145.5954.6463.98 Taiwan 2.6015.2929.5338.4447.6356.0360.56 Thailand0.010.020.050.120.961.952.96 A-P Pen/HH0.761.833.355.397.9210.3713.12
71
Market2008200920102011201220132014 Australia65.3270.7074.3676.5477.3777.7977.88 China 19.0621.9724.9227.5830.1932.7234.86 Hong Kong 80.2881.5482.4783.2183.5583.7783.86 India2.763.844.986.157.338.509.65 Indonesia0.721.061.441.822.152.412.63 Japan65.0168.7971.7773.6375.2176.3877.10 Korea84.9385.6386.1186.4486.4886.5086.56 Malaysia29.3335.1839.7743.2845.6747.0547.82 New Zealand51.4656.8760.8563.9667.5469.7570.97 Philippines2.833.634.465.326.196.957.45 Singapore76.5880.7983.8986.6688.6390.0890.94 Taiwan 68.1370.8173.2776.1279.2581.5783.34 Thailand5.126.357.668.949.9910.8411.61 A-P Pen/HH17.9420.1022.2424.1626.0327.8029.33 Source:Media Partners Asia (2006).
72
Table 3.3 Asia Pacific multichannel pay-TV penetration of TV homes (%) Market200620072008200920102011201220132014 Australia26.1827.7129.1530.5532.0033.2634.1734.7134.95 China 36.6938.4940.1441.7743.1844.3645.2946.1346.69 Hong Kong 66.3371.5173.4374.1375.1275.9476.5977.1977.42 India60.7964.9370.2275.1079.8283.6186.3988.2489.19 Indonesia1.522.263.144.155.286.347.217.838.24 Japan21.6723.1224.7726.4928.2430.0131.8333.4634.78 Korea92.7992.8694.3995.9097.6098.6299.1999.5999.74 Malaysia36.5239.2642.0945.1148.2051.3253.5755.1156.00 New Zealand47.8750.3454.0257.9261.6065.2968.1369.7670.46 Philippines7.737.748.229.0710.2211.4312.3412.9313.24 Singapore42.9547.1853.5159.1064.6069.8073.6176.1378.11 Taiwan 87.4290.0192.8894.9896.4197.2197.6897.9398.07 Thailand3.353.754.274.835.516.196.707.127.44 A-P Pen/TVHH38.9741.2343.7146.1548.4650.4351.9953.2354.03 Source:Media Partners Asia (2006).
73
Table 3.4 Asia Pacific cable TV penetration of TV homes (%) Market200620072008200920102011201220132014 Australia11.8912.3712.7413.0213.1813.2413.2813.2913.28 China 36.6238.3139.6640.8341.6742.1942.4542.5842.38 Hong Kong 34.5032.4129.2926.8825.6225.0824.7224.4624.18 India59.1961.1662.9564.5265.7566.7567.5067.9668.16 Indonesia0.590.690.810.941.081.201.291.361.41 Japan13.2614.0114.6915.3015.8416.3316.7717.1917.56 Korea81.4281.2980.9880.2179.3078.3477.5877.1776.99 Malaysia–––––––––– New Zealand2.652.742.852.943.033.053.083.113.14 Philippines7.187.077.037.077.167.297.367.407.38 Singapore42.9545.4548.3750.5552.8554.4155.3355.8856.80 Taiwan 83.6083.6983.7283.7483.7783.8283.8983.9884.04 Thailand0.820.830.840.850.850.860.860.870.87 A-P Pen/TVHH36.8838.4939.8641.0742.0242.7243.2043.5343.60 Source:Media Partners Asia (2006).
74
Table 3.5 Asia Pacific digital DTH satellite penetration of TV homes (%) Market200620072008200920102011201220132014 Australia14.2315.2115.9016.3816.6816.8416.9316.9416.89 China ––0.110.320.610.971.401.932.55 Hong Kong 3.424.014.384.534.604.634.674.674.67 India1.603.747.1910.4013.7316.3418.2319.5120.20 Indonesia0.931.572.293.124.034.905.606.076.37 Japan7.477.577.707.867.988.078.128.158.16 Korea11.3711.5811.6811.6211.4711.2811.0410.8910.81 Malaysia36.4239.1441.5843.7945.6947.3348.4549.1749.45 New Zealand41.3844.4747.4249.7551.5152.4552.9753.1853.13 Philippines0.550.590.891.351.872.402.853.153.36 Singapore––––––––– Taiwan 0.250.260.290.310.340.350.360.370.38 Thailand2.502.783.093.333.603.793.893.953.98 A-P Pen/TVHH1.842.323.144.024.995.866.617.287.85 Source:Media Partners Asia (2006).
75
Table 3.6 Asia Pacific IPTV penetration of TV homes (%) Market200620072008200920102011201220132014 Australia0.070.130.521.152.153.183.974.484.78 China 0.070.180.370.620.901.201.441.631.76 Hong Kong 28.4035.0939.7542.7344.9046.2347.2048.0748.56 India0.0010.030.080.180.330.520.660.770.84 Indonesia––0.040.090.160.240.330.400.45 Japan0.941.542.373.334.425.616.958.139.07 Korea––1.744.076.839.0110.5711.5411.93 Malaysia0.090.120.521.322.513.995.125.946.55 New Zealand–0.331.944.477.069.7812.0713.4814.19 Philippines–0.080.300.651.191.742.142.372.50 Singapore–1.735.148.5511.7415.3918.2820.2521.31 Taiwan 3.576.068.8710.9312.3013.0413.4313.5813.65 Thailand0.020.140.340.661.061.541.952.302.59 A-P Pen/TVHH0.250.410.701.051.451.842.172.422.59 Source:Media Partners Asia (2006).
76
Table 3.7 Asia pay-TV, broadband and telecoms data (latest subscriber data) Company Market MajorPlatformVideoDigitalBroadbandTele/VOIPMobile Ownership(Pay TV)Video Indovision Indonesia Salim Gp, MediaDTH 285000285000 Nusantara Citra Kabelvision Indonesia Across Asia LtdCable1320002500019000 (Lippo Gp.) Direct VisionIndonesia Astro All Asia DTH7500075000 Netwks, Lippo Gp. ASTRO # Malaysia Usaha Tegas,DTH 2081613***2081613*** Khazanah Telekom Malaysia Khazanah NasionalADSL106600044500006404 Malaysia # PhilippinesPhilippinesFirst Pacific; NTTADSL4220001819000######## Long Distance TelC# Beyond Cable Philippines Benpres Holdings,Cable 4500004000 Philippine Long Distance Co. Global DestinyPhilippines Solid Group Cable 78000 Cable DreamPhilippines Philippine MultimediaDTH 7100071000 BroadcastingSystem StarHub #Singapore ST Telemedia, NTT,Cable 496000342000334000200001633 Media Corp.
77 SingaporeSingapore Temasek HldgsADSL42100017750001822 Telecom # True Corp.#Thailand CP Group; Thai TrustADSL,56800040000048900019880008140 FundVDSL, Cable, DTH Advanced Thailand Advanced Info ADSL500050007500 Data NetworkServices; TOT Corp. Comms Notes: Type in bold represents updated information; # denotes listed companies *** Residential subs only Source:MPA research estimates.
In the Philippines, which had long been a dangerous country for those in the media, state-sponsored violence continued, while in Indonesia, jour- nalists were targeted by radical political activists, separatist movements and the army, with the new President, Megawati Sukarnoputri, showing an increased intolerance for press freedoms.
Nevertheless, the situation for journalists in those three countries was not as serious as it was in the rest of ASEAN. The RSF report highlighted that, in Burma, Laos and Vietnam, there was no pluralism. In the two Communist dictatorships of Hanoi and Vientiane, all media belong to the state. In 2001, these two regimes even reinforced their laws to better repress the press. In Burma, while there were some 100 private publications, they were closely watched by the censorship office. Newspapers, radio and tele- vision were owned by the military. Finally, in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the RSF said that the authoritarian regimes and restrictive press laws prevented the emergence of independent media.
All this was done in the name of ‘Asian values’, a popular idea in the 1990s to explain the remarkable economic growth whilst challenging the universalization of liberal social ideas and revelling in higher growth levels Table 3.8 Asia – country IT investment (US$ per inhabitant)
Japan 188.1
Singapore 121.5
Australia 100
Hong Kong 89.7
Taiwan 84.2
Korea 81.8
New Zealand 75.1
Malaysia 62.5
Sri Lanka 12.3
PR of China 6.7
The Philippines 5.7
Indonesia 5.4
Pakistan 4.6
Thailand 3.2
India 1.8
Vietnam 1.3
Myanmar 1.2
Bangladesh 1.0
Notes: Investments in telecommunications in selected Asian and Pacific countries, per capita in US$ (1993).
Source: ITU, Geneva, 1994, http://www.interasia.org/background/ asean_tab1.html
than their former colonial overlords.7 These, supposedly, shared values, which were often given a Confucianist patina and included ideas such as the subjugation of individual rights to broader communal values and a pre- disposition towards strong and stable leadership rather than political plu- ralism, was said to be unique to the Asian region. They provided a handy excuse for the authoritarian policies of political elites in countries like Singapore and Malaysia, but have proved something of a chimera as first the Asian Financial Crisis of the late 1990s and then the emergence of global radical Islamic movements, highlighted the competing rather than aligned interests of the countries of Southeast Asia.
In addition, the concept of ‘Asian values’ rested upon a number of pre- sumptions which had serious methodological problems, including the implications that the social, economic and political characteristics of certain Asian countries are based upon a shared value system which is identifiable and distinct, and which transcends national, religious and ideological differences:
Governments emphasize the need for ‘an environment of social and political order’, but this conception of the ‘common good’ is always in the interest of par- ticular groups. However, this perennial democratic paradox is complicated and enlivened in East Asia by rapid change and the controversial relationship between economic development and political liberalization. (Inoguchi and Newman 1997)
By 2004, the media remained one thing on which most Southeast Asian governments saw eye to eye. RSF suggested that the region’s elites demon- strated increasing impatience with a vibrant free press in Southeast Asia. In its survey of global press freedom in 166 nations, Reporters Sans Frontières ranked Southeast Asia’s media as follows: Cambodia (81), Thailand (82), Malaysia (104), Indonesia (110), the Philippines (118), Singapore (144), Vietnam (159), Laos (163) and Burma (164).
Significantly, dangerous restrictions faced journalists in Southeast Asia.
A former Vietnamese journalist, Nguyen Vu Binh, who used the Internet to criticize his country’s government was sentenced to seven years in a trial closed to foreigners. Zaw Thet Htwe, the editor-in-chief of Burma’s First Eleven Sports Journal was sentenced to death for alleged treason after he published a story about the reported misuse of an international donation to promote football in the military-run nation.
In 2005, Amnesty’s Secretary General, Irene Khan observed of the regional media controls:
Governments are betraying their promises on human rights. A new agenda is in the making with the language of freedom and justice being used to pursue
policies of fear and insecurity. This includes cynical attempts to redefine and sanitise torture. (Amnesty 2005)
This is a far cry from the optimism of the late 1990s, when the Asian Financial Crisis seemed a harbinger of democratic change and media lib- eralization. Most significantly, the crisis prompted a sweeping liberalization of the press in Indonesia and significant moves elsewhere. By the middle of the first decade of the new century, this momentum, however, had dissi- pated, as ‘the open window that allowed a fresh wind to blow through the region’s media [was] being steadily closed’ (Aglionby 2004).
Nevertheless, at the same time, technological change and the democrati- zation of the digital world seemed to be opening new possibilities, and giving new hope to opposition groups around the region. Communities of interest (COIs), collections of entities that share a common goal or envi- ronment, were beginning to coalesce around ICT. Whether it be the advo- cacy groups which were effecting corporate strategy, local political groups which had gained a voice due to the difficulties political elites found they had in controlling the flow of information on the Internet, or newly-imagined, transnational communities looking to shake traditional authorities from their seats of power, the changes in information communication technolo- gies had also got the attention of Southeast Asia’s political governments.