By default or not, the pattern of the government's responses, since the coup last September, to information and video clips deemed offensive, including political views and comments, has been uneven and disastrous. This will have far-reaching implications.

As far as the Internet is concerned, the government has transformed Thailand into a repressive regime on a par with Burma, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. As of last week, at least 50,000 sites were banned, including commentaries, anti-monarchy sites, anti-government sites and sexually explicit sites.

In the past six years, Internet usage in Thailand has increased many-fold. At the moment, at least 12 million regular users are facing heavy censorship by the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) and the Royal Thai Police. At the moment, in the absence of an Internet law, these authorities are the highest arbiters determining what sort of information and images Thais should have access to.

The Thai authorities lack the understanding and skill to respond to new communication mediums. Quite often websites are shut down because monitoring officials do not want to risk their careers if dubious Internet content goes unfiltered. Eventually, they end up blocking more online content than they should. These bureaucratic responses and this official mindset is akin to that demonstrated by officials handling requests for public disclosure of government information.

After a brief, three-year period of enthusiasm following the passage of the Access to Information Act in 1997, the number of disclosure requests has now dwindled to the point of insignificance, as the responsible authorities' preponderance to turn down requests has increased exponentially. Officials who wrongfully disclose government information would face higher fines and more severe jail terms than those who broke the law and refused to give out information.

The number of banned websites varies in Thailand. MICT minister Sithichai Pookaiyaudom said less than two dozen sites have been banned under his leadership. But informal statistics show a huge discrepancy in the number of banned sites and the authorities' claims.

The problem is that the Thai authorities do not classify in detail the criteria used for online censorship. Previously, three types of content were prohibited online: pornography, anti-monarchy sites and sites critical of former PM Thaksin's style of leadership. The majority of banned sites between 2001-2005 were related to pornography and anti-Thaksin websites. That much was clear. However, following the coup last year, any online political views and commentaries critical of the Council for National Security and its interim government have not been tolerated. Strange as it may seem, similar critical comment of the government in printed media has not been banned. Sad but true, online critics have now been perceived as conspirators in the public relations campaign carried on by Thaksin, who has money and a penchant for using all available new media.

That helps to explain the Thai authorities' hysterical attitude. The infamous incident on YouTube, which is currently banned in Thailand, was a good illustration of how the banning of a website had the immediate effect of further publicising the offending material. It immediately helped to create mirror sites around the world. Before the YouTube ban in early April, numerous video clips were placed on the popular video-share website praising the Thai king and commemorating his 60-year reign. Unofficial statistics showed that before the coup, only nine websites existed with information considered offensive to the Thai head of state. The most notorious was Manusaya.com, which was shut down last March. As of April, the Thai authorities have identified 19 more sites and blocked them. As everyone can see, the ban has the opposite effect.

Now, the new cyber crime law, officially known as the Computer-Related Crime Act, is waiting for royal approval before its enactment. On the surface, the law may give confidence to Internet users as it sets out rules and regulations that oversee the Internet. Service providers, who helped draft the law, have been pleased with the content.

However, Thai media experts are concerned that this law will do much damage to online and citizen journalism, as well as restrict overall freedom of expression. Some of the provisions would turn online journalists into criminals if certain content is considered to endanger "national security".

To top it all, Thailand already has one of the world's most conservative censorship systems, with at least 27 laws which are either anti-press or limit freedom of expression. For instance, the antiquated legislation known as the Film Act of 1930 is still being used every day by the Thai Censorship Board to determine what Thai people will see in the globalised world of the 21st century. Similarly, the 1941 Printing Act also has done great damage to press freedom and to restrict publishers and journalists.

There are rogue elements in the Thai bureaucracy and judiciary that still want to control the way the Thai people think and express themselves. They should realise that these archaic laws have greatly undermined the creativity and aspirations of Thais - and the consequences might be unfathomable.

Kavi Chongkittavorn