Relatively united in their campaign against Thaksin Shinawatra's reign, reporters' harmony cracked following the coup that ousted him. Since the coup-makers named the heads of three professional media associations as members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) last week, all hell has broken loose.

Should the trio serve in the NLA? Don't even think of asking anyone that, unless you are dead bored and want to pick a fight or drive a wedge among friends. I know this well, because as editor of The Nation and vice president of the Thai Journalists' Association (TJA), I have been caught right in the middle of it.

Some background: after seeking representation in the Constitution Drafting Assembly, the TJA, Press Council of Thailand and Broadcast Journalists' Association (BJA) also nominated their heads as NLA members. The three umbrella groups insisted the nomination followed proper consultation among them and their members, but there have been complaints of poor communications and insufficient discussions.

A boycott by an ally of the three professional bodies has taken place. Thirty political reporters have signed a strongly worded protest letter asking the three nominees to choose just one hat. Threats to burn TJA membership cards have been made. Several media academics have frowned on the trio, and strong measures could be announced soon.

The clashing schools of thoughts can break up the media community and allies. Those opposed to the involvement with the NLA cite the basic principles: how can you scrutinise something thoroughly if you have become a part of it? The media's role is to watch, observe and report what's going on. To be part of any legislative tool, let alone one set up by a military junta that just overthrew a democratically elected government, is controversial to say the least and would compromise the credibility of the Fourth Estate. And check out the Press Council of Thailand's Code of Professional Ethics, which prohibits taking "political positions that could create conflicts of interest".

The other camp says this is for a good cause. It points at the unique political situation and the need for all parties to help restore Thailand to normalcy in the light of fears the military may be tempted to take full control. Having representatives in the NLA is no different from other professions having their representation there, and it can only be good where limited post-coup checks and balances are concerned. Moreover, there may be several pieces of legislation having to do with media freedom or allocation of broadcast rights up for NLA deliberation, and this would be an opportunity to push effectively for the media community's noble agenda.

TJA president Pattara Khampitak, Press Council chairwoman Banyat Tassaneeyavej and BJA president Somchai Sawangkarn are all very nice and decent human beings. They are now under great pressure, and only the fact that their organisations initiated the nominations themselves and the appointments were made through a Royal Decree has prevented them from withdrawing altogether.

Now they look like World Cup finalists selected for a penalty shoot-out against their will. "If I doze off for just one minute in the assembly hall, it will be on every newspaper's front page," said young Pattara. But most sympathy is going to Banyat, 76, whose integrity and dedication throughout her career make her a somewhat undeserved target of fellow professionals opposed to the nominations. "I'm not a fighter," she said, "but we have to move on. It would have been easier if the nominations had not come from us."

In a bid to ease criticism about conflicts of interest, the three have vowed to waive much of their parliamentary salaries, keeping only sums sufficient for taxes, which will rise drastically, and which are reasonable for work expenses. The three organisations yesterday pondered turning their vast combined membership into some sort of back-up forum for the three - a "constituency" through which voices of media professionals can be conveyed to them before they make crucial decisions in the NLA.

The controversy is still simmering, and more pressure may mount on the three. One thing is certain: the "Thaksin curse" knows no bounds. From the 15 Constitution Court judges in 2001 to the ecclesiastic community to democracy advocates, now it's reporters' turn to be at each other's throat as a result of political developments related to him.

But what a diversity we are seeing here. There are people who are against Thaksin and support the coup and those who support him and are against the coup. There are people who are against Thaksin and opposed to the coup at the same time. There are those who are against Thaksin and supportive of the coup and the media representatives' role in the NLA. There are also people who say no to Thaksin, support the coup and campaign against the media representation in the NLA. And there are those who support Thaksin, denounce the coup and condemn the media's involvement with the assembly.

That can't be too bad where democracy is concerned, can it?

Tulsathit Taptim