The prime minister has failed to make a clear distinction between the importance of creating a public broadcasting network to offer quality television that aims primarily to improve society - which will be good for the country in the long term - and the immediate need to rebuild iTV, now known as TITV, as a viable commercial station relatively free from state control. Surayud on a number of occasions referred to public service broadcasting and independent television as if they were the same thing. Put simply, the planned state-subsidised public service broadcasting network seeks to offer quality programming regardless of what the masses want - as opposed to a market-driven independent commercial network like TITV which must cater to popular tastes, rely on advertisers for its survival and compete successfully with other networks to survive. Theoretically, both public service broadcasting and independent commercial networks should do well in their own ways if the government maintains a hands-off policy.

It remains unclear whether Surayud really has it all mixed up or whether he is just stalling for time. Either way, he is exposing himself as an indecisive and ineffectual leader. His military-backed interim government, which has committed itself to get rid of the culture of deceit and corruption perpetrated by his deposed predecessor, Thaksin Shinawatra, only has months to go before a free election is held and democracy is restored.

If Surayud wants to be taken seriously as a restorer of democracy, he should prioritise both the creation of a public service broadcasting body and the rebuilding of TITV as an independent commercial network. After all, memories are still fresh about how the former iTV was grossly manipulated and used by Thaksin as a propaganda tool to mislead and misinform the public. This lead to the weakening of country's democracy, corruption of the political system and divisiveness between the rural masses and urban middle class.

Surayud needs to be reminded that Thaksin was not the only person who had been guilty of manipulating the broadcast media to gain political advantage and to further his interests. Various state agencies and bureaucrats who run them, as well as the armed forces, have had monopolistic control of the broadcast media for too long. All mainstream television and radio stations, with their far-reaching transmission capability, are controlled by the military, police and government agencies. They have been commercially exploited through shady deals, generating billions of baht each year that is largely unaccounted for.

Successive governments have failed in their half-hearted attempts at reforming the broadcast media because the armed forces and government agencies put up stiff resistance to any plan to take back transmission frequencies and redistribute them in a way that would ensure free flow of information. This denies the public its right to know, and all citizens of their right to freedom of expression. Such media reform is based on the principle that broadcast frequencies are a resource belonging to all Thai citizens.

The sustainability of the country's democracy depends on the successful implementation of broadcast media reform. Surayud and the Council for National Security, who call themselves restorers of democracy, must spell out clearly how they plan to undertake such reform. Together the Surayud administration and the military junta, which currently wield absolute political power, have a unique opportunity to push through broadcast media reform without fear or favour. Failure to do so will not only undermine their legacy but also put the country's democracy into further uncertainty.