The committee’s chairman, ACM Kanit Suwannet, said on Tuesday that he acknowledged the concern expressed regarding the broad definition of a “media practitioner” in the draft bill.

Those voicing opposition to the definition were suggesting that the sector should instead be categorised for instance into mainstream, alternative or online media, he said.

Although the media regulation bill, as part of the overall media-reform effort, was endorsed by the NRSA on Monday, it met with strong criticism both in and outside the chamber.

The media sector has in particular denounced the proposed professional council, a licensing system for those working in the media, and penalties as set out in the draft.

Due to rising distrust over the proposal that two ministerial permanent secretaries should sit on the professional council, Kanit proposed during the debate that senior officials should take up such a role only during the first five years under a new regulatory system.

After that, no state representatives would join the council, he suggested.

However, it remains uncertain whether the draft bill will be revised to accommodate such a proposal, Kanit said, adding that the committee had not yet reached any agreement on the matter.

Moreover, when he proposed such a revision in the chamber, NRSA members seemed indifferent to the idea, he said.

After the first round of deliberation on the draft media regulation bill on Monday, the committee had 30 days to revise its proposals in accordance with recommendations made in the chamber.

Kanit said the committee would in that time try to reach a compromise on all suggestions made and come up with the best approach to media regulation, without creating any further conflict.