People sympathetic to the Surayud Chulanont administration may feel that the government is caught in a no-win situation in regard to the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra People's Television (PTV).

The interim government has threatened to crack down on PTV right from day one - it is due to begin broadcasting tomorrow.

The threat to prosecute the new satellite-based TV channel, run by people close to the deposed PM, will surely add to the already long list of media suppressed since the junta came to power last September.

The list includes 300 community radio stations and more than 10,000 Internet websites - with little explanation to the public on the reasons for this.

There have also been direct requests asking broadcasters and the print media to "co-operate" with the junta and its government by refraining from reporting anything "divisive" that may "confuse the public" and affect "national unity".

Critics claim that if the regime allows PTV to operate freely - which is the other alternative course of action - the government will run the risk of having the large rural population ignited by pro-Thaksin "propaganda" and programmes or reports likely to be anti-junta.

So either way, the regime can't really win.

Partisanship aside, the PTV controversy, along with a recent attempt by some academics and media activists to propose a draft bill to the government to set up Thailand's first public television station that will be independent from both political and business interests, only highlights the long-standing fact that Thailand's broadcast media is not free - but, deeply rooted in political and business interests.

Supporters for the draft public-TV bill last week cited research which stated that television reaches 80 per cent of the population while only some 20 per cent of Thais read newspapers. It means the majority of the populace has no access to information free of state or private censorship. The group, led by the Thailand Development Research Institute's research director Somkiat Tangkitvanij, who drafted the bill, called for a station for "the people".

Ironically, PTV also claims to be representing the public, as suggested by its very name, and vows to serve "the people".

The lack of freedom in the broadcast media is also a reminder of the lack of access to a democratic environment before and after Thaksin was ousted. In Thai television, voices of the elite and a handful of individuals who run the various state-controlled channels - with a range of mind-numbing programmes and propaganda - virtually dominate and marginalise any voices from the majority.

By claiming that PTV - or even anti-Thaksin ASTV programmes run by media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul - are socially and politically "divisive", the junta and the print media reduce the bulk of the Thai people to mere juveniles incapable of thinking for themselves and judging what is true or false, right or wrong.

This display of "national and social unity" is itself a big obstacle hindering the democratisation of Thailand. And yet the majority of the print media are willing to play the game - partly because the print media largely represent the middle class and elite more than they do the majority, and are all Bangkok-centric and based in the capital.

And, no matter whether PTV represents Thaksin's voice or propaganda, in a truly democratic society people ought to be able to decide things for themselves. There must be a guaranteed place for all these differing views, pro or anti Thaksin, supporters and opponents of the junta of all shades, within the broadcast media.

Alas, this is not the case for Thailand at present. The junta are merely committing the same mistake that Thaksin did by continuing the age-old tradition of suppressing voices of dissent through legal and other means.

The price of this artificial "national unity" is that people, especially the young, indirectly or directly, may be brainwashed into believing that differing views are alien to Thai society and not accepted, and that peaceful or genuine debate is not desired or even wanted.

Ignorance, oppression and coercion and the lack of a genuine democratic environment are some of the prices our entire society has to pay for this superficial notion of national unity.

And if it's too late to change the mindset of adults, at least adults concerned about the future of this society might try to spare the young from having to pay the same price - to try to improve the situation for the better.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation