That is exactly what has happened. Since 2001, press liberty has gone downhill, despite the military-installed government's commitment to broaden the freedom of the press. It is like waiting for Godot.

Unfortunately, right after the coup of September last year, numerous news reports and commentaries - both textual and visual - attracted the worst possible reaction from the authorities, who have no appreciation of this country's long-standing tradition of press freedom.

Earlier this week, two respected organisations, Freedom House (FH) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), both gave very low marks for Thai media conditions in their latest reports. The New York-based FH ranked Thailand 127th out of 195 countries surveyed, the lowest in the country's media history, and down from 107th last year when the country was under the grip of now deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Listing Thailand as one of the 10 worst media backsliders for the first time, the CPJ sought to highlight the deterioration of Thai press freedom as seen from the outside. Both organisations have carried out their annual evaluations for decades.

In the absence of any better free media indexes, they are used frequently to gauge the state of the Thai press and the press in other countries.

Thai officials may continue to dispute what the two organisations have to say, but it will not make any difference because the information and data contained in their reports is factually correct.

Thailand must avoid past pitfalls if it is to regain its media freedom and its international credibility and standing. Most importantly, the government has to discourage the "bureaucratic knee-jerk reactions" that are responsible for all the bad publicity and negative impressions overseas.

In highly publicised cases, both here and abroad, it is customary for the Thai authorities to defend the free press and reiterate that censorship of news and, increasingly, websites is only temporary in nature.

Others would argue that given the unusual political circumstances, recent reactions were necessary, especially those pertaining to anti-monarchy sentiments.

For practical reasons, these perspectives resonate well with the public and local media communities because they understand the official intention and local sensitivities.

While good intention is in abundance, it has yet to produce good results.

Overall, the Thai media today still has room for straightforward reporting and commentary that demonstrates the ups and downs, or rather the lack of consistency, on the part of the authorities.

Thai officials have yet to learn how to respond to negative news, or website postings, without tarnishing the country's generally good record for press freedom. The blocking of CNN, the BBC, YouTube and other websites, even briefly, has backfired and done terrible damage to the country's international standing.

Currently, the anti-Thai government coalition, spearheaded by high-profile lobbyists and public relations companies, is gaining strength at the global level.

The Thai government has been portrayed as a tyrant that does not follow international obligations and norms. Of course, post-coup developments, coupled with the government's own policies, have contributed to the growing sense of unease in some quarters overseas.

To remedy this situation, the government needs to ameliorate its position on international commitments. Furthermore, it must understand the nature of the media and its influence, real or imaginary, and find ways to co-exist. This is especially true of the new media.

Continuing to censor or filter the Internet in any form will do even more harm.

Thailand still has at least 27 anti-free press related laws. The most potent ones are the archaic 1941 Printing Act and the 1995 Radio and Television Act, which continue to be used to harass journalists working in both private and public establishments. While tremendous efforts are being made in the new draft charter to promote press freedom, it would be more effective to abolish all these nasty laws, as official reactions are often based on them.

It is not easy to explain how Thailand's media freedom, as ranked by Freedom House, has dramatically nose-dived from 29th in 2000 to 127th last week. Such a dramatic fall does not do justice to real media conditions at home. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Thai authorities to acknowledge that any action, regardless of its duration, must be in full compliance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.

The authorities must now think long and hard before they respond. After all, a "free-press" country cannot have different levels of freedom depending on the form of media. All media must be free.

Obviously, it requires a democratic government coming from a fair and free electoral process to promote and reclaim Thai press freedom, usually regarded as the freest in southeast Asia.

Many "partly free" and "not free" countries have transformed their controlled media environments to become "free press" systems when they joined the ranks of the world's democracies. Thailand must not be the exception to that rule.

Kavi Chongkittavorn

The Nation