The act was part of the ultra-nationalist leader's efforts to tighten political control by giving the police blanket power to keep the press in line.

Ironically, 66 years on and after decades of attempts at democratic reforms, the antiquated law is still around - and has been occasionally enforced, even when the country was under democratically elected governments. While preaching democracy, none of the successive governments thought it necessary to consider reviewing what is obviously one of the most repressive laws in existence. Worse still, politicians in power even believed that the act was a necessary legal tool to deal with media dissent.

When Krungthep Turakij, a Thai-language sister paper of The Nation, published a Reuters news article back in 2001 speculating on the fate of newly-elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra - who was facing a verdict by the Constitutional Court on charges that he concealed his family's assets - the Special Branch issued a written warning. The police, who are legally referred to as "press officers", claimed that the article had disturbed political stability and undermined the credibility of the country's leader.

The warning issued by the Special Branch evidently ran counter to Articles 39 and 41 of the reformist 1997 Constitution, which was still in force then. These articles guaranteed freedom of expression for individuals and journalists. Fortunately, the daily lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court, which subsequently ruled that the police order was unconstitutional.

The 1941 Print Act is without a doubt an anachronistic piece of legislation. It is unimaginable how, in a democratic society, the police still have the power to penalise the media. The law gives "press officers" the authority to censor and halt publication of newspapers carrying content deemed to "disturb peace and good morals". Publishers are also liable to have their publishing licences revoked on those grounds.

Thailand will never be able to convince the international community it is working its way back to democracy as long as the draconian press law remains on the statute book. So, as we are working on political reforms in conjunction with the drafting of a new constitution, abrogating the 1941 Printing Act should be at the top of the agenda.

It's unfortunate that the Surayud government has appeared non-committal in embracing the idea of abolishing the law. A committee that Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont has set up to study the possibility of revoking the Printing Act has been back-peddling. The original proposal by the country's leading media organisations to do away with all media restrictions has been watered down by the committee, which apparently believes that some degree of media control is still necessary.

Four media representatives resigned from the committee two weeks ago in protest. Media organisations are now rallying support for a bill submitted by group of members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) that would place minimum restrictions on the media. Under the bill, which would replace the 1941 Printing Act, only newspapers would be required to register with the police but would not be subject to their control.

The bill is in line with the new constitution that seeks to revive the spirit of Articles 39 and 41 of the defunct charter. In a meeting with representatives of major media organisations at the Government House last week, Prime Minister Surayud voiced support for the bill but still reserved his government's prerogative to submit its own version of a press bill.

Of course, PM Surayud must also have been hearing voices questioning the wisdom of removing media restrictions. There are a lot of people both in the government and in the legislative body who still believe that the media shouldn't be given what they see as "absolute freedom".

Their fears of abuses of media freedom are understandable. But media professionals and media organisations are not asking for unbridled freedom. They understand very well the tenet that freedom of speech has to be balanced with responsibility. Even in the absence of the Printing Act, there are still many other existing laws that can ensure media responsibility and hold them accountable. A number of newspaper editors are in the dock facing jail terms and heavy fines for alleged libellous news reporting in their papers. Security-related laws have the effect of reining in the media when it comes to reporting on issues concerning national security, while obscenity in the media is also a criminal offence.

If the government is serious about preparing the country for a return to democracy, as the prime minister has repeatedly claimed, abolishing the Printing Act and replacing it with the bill proposed by the NLA members would definitely be a great contribution to building a stronger democratic foundation. It would be a most valuable legacy for a government that has otherwise been heavily criticised for its lack of vision and achievements.

Thepchai Yong