Worse, they do not understand what is really going on in the cyber world. They all pursue their own agendas, thinking positively that they are indeed contributing to Internet openness and freedom of expression.

Unfortunately, when hiccups occur, as always happens, everybody turns defensive and automatically blames each other for all the ills, whether they be web blockages or technical malfunctions - which might or might not be attributed to them in the first place.

Apparently, knee-jerk reactions have become the modus operandi in response to online mishaps. For instance, any public outrage over indecent websites will pressure the authorities to shut them down and any hullabaloo about Thaksin's spin strategy has the authorities jumping from their seats.

In a way, such responses should be laudable if they are rational and well-thought-out. Sad but true, nobody really sits down and thinks strategically of how to harness the Internet, through which the country could benefit tremendously in terms of political, economic and social development. Each government agency rises to the occasion when a specific issue comes up in response to a crisis, as does civil society. But they should have more dialogue and consultation, instead of taking a tit-for-tat attitude.

Despite all the ills in cyber space, online users blame the current government, the Ministry of Information and Technology and the Royal Thai Police for whatever problems they encounter, especially websites that have been blocked by the authorities since the September 19 coup. Public expectation was high that the interim government would promote freedom of expression and press freedom.

When the US Embassy organised an online teleconference yesterday with Harvard University expert John G Palfrey, who spoke from Cambridge, Massachussetts, it was a unique opportunity for local online regulators and operators, including freedom of expression campaigners, to compare notes and grumble about strengths and shortcomings. The outcome was commendable as all of them had the opportunity to exchange information and trade accusations regarding online governance.

Representatives from the government including the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology were very candid, admitting the government has done filtering in the past, but only minimally. Maneerat Plipat, deputy permanent secretary, was sanguine, saying the ministry blocked less than 2,000 websites, mainly those that were pornographic or anti-monarchy. But civil society watchdog organisations argued that the number of blocked websites ran into the several thousands, including those that criticise the government. Nobody at the discussion, including the police, had a precise figure, which shows that any attempt to control the Internet or block websites would be in vain.

Since September 19, some local websites have faced censorship, for instance Midnight University and Sept 19. These high quality portals, the authorities argued, contained material critical of the monarchy, which is illegal under Thai law. Now, the former site has filed a lawsuit against the authorities at the Administration Court for violation of freedom of expression.

It is interesting to note that Thailand does not have any Internet laws in the truest sense. So any legal action taken against any website has to be done under various criminal laws instead. It is problematic whenever certain websites are shut down. Last April, the controversial anti-monarchy website manusaya.com was shut down under an elaborate system of collaboration among various government agencies and with assistance from countries friendly to Thailand.

At the moment, a proposed bill on cyber crimes is pending consideration in the House of Representatives. It will be vetted and passed in the next few weeks. Civil society and freedom of expression advocates were not happy with the draft because it gives too much power to the authorities to shut down sites considered detrimental to national security. They want to see court sanctions.

So, it has been difficult to pinpoint who really did block certain websites. Maneerat disclosed that on September 19, MICT did not block the news transmissions of CNN and the BBC because its cyber monitoring officials were not in the country. Often, whenever technical hitches occur, certain government agencies will be blamed. It is a Catch-22 situation.

Taking advantage of this vulnerability, deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinwatra, through his army of bloggers, public relations officials and foreign Internet service providers, is now bombarding the Internet with Thaksin-related spin aimed at undermining the current government. The government's knee-jerk response will certainly make matters worse. In the past three months, the pro-Thaksin campaign only appeared in print and broadcast media, as part of the region-wide public relations campaign to portray him as a freely elected leader.

Now, the campaign is moving toward the critical second stage, focussing on new media such as websites, web casts and short messages. So far, Thaksin has the edge because he has the money and experts to do the job for him. Meanwhile, the government is struggling to cope with mounting criticism of its inertia.

During Thaksin's reign, the Internet was used to promote his government's policies and his personality cult. It is an open secret that MICT was created to facilitate and promote his telecom business empire. Indeed, the ongoing and vexing question continues to be whether this ministry should be abolished altogether. The ambiguous status of MICT helps explain why there is so much confusion regarding the country's Internet governance. Under the interim government, attempts have been made to make sure the Internet serves the public interest. But time is running out.

Kavi Chongkittavorn

The Nation