Somkid told a symposium on the new constitution and media reform, organised by the university's Women and Youth Studies Programme, that he could not think why all three articles should not be included in the new constitution. However, there was as yet no way of preventing owners or politicians from interfering with the mass media, he said.

"Preventing media owners from interfering with [the editorial decisions of] journalists may be the most problematic," he said in reference to Article 41 of the 1997 constitution.

Supamas Senawej, a veteran journalist working in both broadcast and print media, said this was easier said than done as none of the three articles had any organic law to punish offenders. She said she had herself experienced censorship on one private television channel, which prevented her from broadcasting an interview with an anti-Thaksin Shinawatra figure prior to the September 19 coup.

 "If I were to fight, which legal channel could I resort to? I don't see any legal means," said Supamas.

Media reform campaigner Supinya Klangnarong said the situation had not improved after the coup. "The increased press freedom is only the right to criticise the [deposed] regime and it may not include the right to criticise the current administration," Supinya warned.

"In the end, if the media is really free, can Thai society accept it if it makes criticisms on every issue? Can [they accept] freedom without fear - without constraints of tradition or the so-called notion of morality?" Supinya asked.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation