For a brief period anyway, it seemed Thailand was catapulted into a new and more liberal political atmosphere. With the military driven back into the barracks, the country began a new experiment with democracy that eventually led to the reformist Constitution of 1997.

Among the many political changes brought about by the historical event was the birth of the country's first independent TV station, iTV. But all the euphoria accompanying the aftermath of the "people's power" movement was unfortunately short-lived. iTV (the "i" stands for independent) became the first casualty of businessman-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra's well-orchestrated assault on the fledgling democracy.

Fast forward to May 2006. After having resigned themselves to the fate of iTV, which became a business of Shin Corp until recently when it became part of Temasek's business empire, media reform campaigners' hopes of salvaging the once independent TV station have been rekindled.

The Central Administrative Court last week sent a shockwave through the broadcast industry by nullifying the huge reduction in the concession fees iTV is required to pay the state. It also ruled that the change in the station's programming that essentially gave priority to entertainment over news was unacceptable.

The ruling was not only a rejection of the much-criticised settlement by an arbitration tribunal but also a snub to the political powers that many believe had lobbied on behalf of the iTV management.

While the court's decision is being seen by media organisations and academics as a first important step in the right direction, any rejoicing is certainly too premature.

iTV today is only a skeleton of what it was in its early years as Thailand's first and only independent TV station. A legacy of the massive street protests that led to the downfall of the military-backed Suchinda administration, iTV was designed to be a torch-bearer in broadcasting, news free from state control and political prejudice. The bloody uprising was to be the last time that state-owned broadcasters could whitewash political excess and military abuses.

The way iTV was able to expose corruption and abuses of power and hold politicians and bureaucrats accountable through its hard-hitting and in-depth reporting was symbolic of the new-found media freedom that accompanied the political reform following the 1992 uprising.

iTV not only broke the broadcast media monopoly held by state agencies, but also inspired other broadcasters to be more professional in their news reporting. Breathing a freer political air and taking a cue from iTV, even some of the government-owned TV stations tried to test the limits with coverage touching on politically sensitive issues that they normally shunned.

It was no surprise then that among the first major steps taken by Thaksin to prepare for his takeover of Thai politics was to have Shin Corp, his family-controlled business, take over iTV. It was done through a deal with Siam Commercial Bank, iTV's major shareholder, which had by then found the TV station to be a financial burden.

Thaksin's agenda then was obviously more sinister than he wanted to acknowledge. No one in his or her right mind would believe his claim that the iTV takeover was merely a business decision. And it was only a matter of time before his critics were proven right.

From being an independent media outlet, iTV overnight became Thaksin's personal public relations machine. Dumping its aggressive and objective political news coverage, iTV instead chose to carefully toe the line while its journalists mastered the art of internalising the political wishes of the ruling party.

The arbitration tribunal added insult to injury by conceding iTV's demand for lower concession fees and more entertainment content. But it was essentially the politicians in power who made sure that iTV was rewarded for its betrayal of the spirit of independent media.

The Administrative Court's ruling, coming interestingly on the anniversary of the uprising that gave birth to iTV, should set the stage for a revival of the debate on the future of the TV station. After all, the question of concession fees, which was the major bone of contention between the station management and the government, was probably far less relevant than how iTV has been diverted from its original goal as an independent broadcaster.

iTV in the hands of the politically-connected business conglomerate was already bad enough. It's even worse now that it is an extension of the Singapore government's business arm, Temasek.

It's more important than ever at this political juncture that iTV be restored as an independent TV station, even if it means tearing up the concession to pave the way for a clean start. Thailand as a democratic society will remain just an empty concept unless the broadcast media are freed from political control.

The Administrative Court's decision showed the way. It's up to the rest of society, whether they care enough to stand up and demand their once independent voice back.

Thepchai Yong