Accurate, complete and unbiased reporting requires a high degree of media freedom. For instance, when a new law with significant public impact is issued, the media has a duty to report not just its benefits but also its negative impacts. Without such accurate and full disclosure, reporting cannot benefit society as a whole.

But to present the whole story to the public, the media needs freedom of access to information – and especially to official information. The Thai media have succeeded in this regard thanks to their efforts in pushing the Official Information Act many years ago.

Media freedom helps reporters probe deeper into irregularities at the official level, including those involving corruption in state agencies. Without the freedom to access critical information, such high-level graft would never be exposed.

More importantly still is the freedom necessary to present such information. There is no use producing reports that are accurate, complete and unbiased if they cannot be presented because the media has been gagged – whether by overzealous state authorities, business or any other illegitimate power.

However, even in the media there are those who view this issue with twisted logic. Typically they will admonish colleagues to first report “correctly and completely” if they want to ensure media freedom. That thinking is tantamount to surrendering to the current controls and restrictions on Thai media. Apparently, these journalists endorse the curbing of free expression through special laws. Yet the reality is that scrutiny of the media should be limited to conventional legislation such as defamation laws rather than extended to suppression of a basic right. Scrutiny can otherwise safely be left to consumers of the media. The threat of losing readers or viewers is the most effective weapon against any media professional or outlet that abuses their freedom.

One media group issued has issued statement warning against freedom of expression, both by the media and by individuals. In doing so they undermined a cornerstone of their own profession – the duty to speak truth to power – and maintained a deferential stance that does nothing to further the cause of media freedom in Thailand.

In their latest move to seek relief from the clampdown, media representatives met with Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha at Government House on Tuesday to submit an open letter calling for the junta to rescind certain special restrictions on the media.

They were given short shrift.

“You still don’t have enough freedom, right?” asked a sceptical General Prayut, before adding that if certain orders were to be repealed, more would be added. The open letter was also rejected, with officials explaining it would set a “bad precedent” for other groups who wanted to petition the prime minister.

As Prayut turned to walk away, Yuwadee Thanyasiri, a senior reporter on the Government House beat, muttered, “Media freedom is people’s freedom”.

The prime minister did an about-turn and demanded to know who had spoken. Yuwadee identified herself, at which Prayut pointed to her and said, “Watch yourself!”

As it turned out, the call for media freedom on World Press Freedom Day seemed to fall on deaf ears.

The initiative of a tourism business network in northeastern Si Sa Ket province, the 1:11 scale model has been built over the past six month by troops from the Suranee Task Force, and financed by Colonel Thanasak Mitraphanont, a member of National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA).

Col Thanasak, a former commander of the 23rd Ranger Task Force, donated Bt5 million accumulated from his NSRA salary to fund the construction. The resulting cement structure, painted red, sits on an 800 square metre plot at Pha Mor-E-Daeng and will open to the public once final touches have been added.

Kalayanee Thammacharee, an adviser to Si Sa Ket’s governor, told local reporters the project was aimed at drawing tourists in the wake of a border dispute in 2008 that resulted in the blocking of access to Preah Vihear from Thai side. Col Thanasak called the construction a symbolic gesture of Thailand’s willingness to boost cooperation with Cambodia on the issue.

Ever since 1954, when Marshal Phibun Songkram sent troops to occupy Preah Vihear, the Thai establishment has considered the temple belongs to Thailand. But Phnom Penh subsequently took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which in 1962 ruled that the temple sits in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.

Stung by the ruling, the Thai elite continue to tell their children that one day, whether in this life or the next, Thailand would reclaim its rightful ownership of “Phra Viharn”.

In the meantime they have exploited wounded nationalist pride to further their own domestic political aims. In 2008 they made a bid to block Phnom Penh’s move to list the temple as a world heritage site. While they failed in that aim, the move succeeded in injecting nationalist fervour into an already heated domestic political scene, at the same time severely damaging relations with Cambodia. Military skirmishes around the temple in 2011 finally prompted Cambodia to request an interpretation of the 1962 ruling from the ICJ.

The court duly poured more salt into Thai nationalists’ wounds with its 2013 judgement that, “Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear“, meaning Thailand had to withdraw all security forces from the territory.

In the court’s view, the issue is clear-cut and can now be resolved. The ICJ has asked that both sides settle any lingering differences peacefully and cooperate in “good faith” over Thai access to the northeastern part of the temple. That process has yet to begin, however, after being derailed by the coup of May 2014.

Since then, junta leaders have met several times with their Cambodian counterparts, repairing much of the Ill-feeling between the two sides. However, the gate to Preah Vihear from Thailand’s side remains firmly shut, just a few hundred metres from Pha Mor-E-Daeng. Talks in March with visiting Cambodian Defence Minister Tea Banh failed to produce any progress, though officials on both sides insist bilateral ties are strong. Meanwhile the lack of access to the new world heritage site for all but a favoured few Thais remains a sore point, most notably among the elite, who have nothing to show for their long struggle. Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his clan have taken up an invitation to visit Preah Vihear, but the temple remains firmly in Cambodian hands.

Perhaps building their own miniature version, however absurd it looks, is of some consolation to elitist Thai nationalists. The small cement-and-stucco replica located within a stone’s throw of the original might eventually help soothe the pain.

Along with elements widely deemed undemocratic, such as an appointed Senate which could be empowered to jointly select the prime minister, the charter draft defines the future path of national development with a set of reforms and national strategies that are unprecedented.

In a recent interview with The Nation, Constitution Drafting Commission spokesperson Chartchai na Chiangmai summed up the vision behind the draft as “restorative democracy” in contrast to the retributive politics he said had achieved nothing except for fierce competition for resources and seats, plus longstanding conflict and division.

Referring to the Western model of democracy, he added, “The textbook system just does not work here now. We have to look at the reality, that we need good people and politics restored first. We first need an atmosphere for co-existing and sharing before we can move ahead together.”

The word “restorative” brings to mind not only what went wrong in the past, but also what desperately needs to be done in the future. But “how” we travel that path is the crucial question lingering in many minds, including mine.

The route being offered in the new charter draft is a challenge to all of us. Each must examine the consequences from all sides before making a decision whether to accept it or not.

As such, the road leading to the referendum in the next few months is critically important. It needs to be open and inclusive of different views and ideas in order that the draft content receives proper and universal scrutiny.

That process would also generate the legitimacy of genuine popular consensus for a charter draft that is at present beset by controversy.

Unfortunately, the authorities have apparently turned a blind eye to the need for such openness. With a new referendum law in place, authorities including the Election Commission (EC) have taken swift action to close down debate.

Instead of allowing open and inclusive discussion to prevail, the powers-that-be have chosen to rely on a law whose vague wording seems aimed at instilling paranoia and enforcing a clampdown on debate. Among the first to be threatened was an academic, whose “crime” was to distribute leaflets at a seminar organised by the Platform of Concerned Citizens, a newly formed group of scholars and civil rights advocates. The leaflets contained seven points on why the draft should be rejected. Then, on Wednesday, the EC launched a complaint against a group of Facebook users, alleging they had posted harsh and disturbing messages attacking the draft. The EC failed to elaborate on the content of the messages.

Along with the referendum law, the computer crimes act is also being used to curb freedom of expression, with at least 10 people arrested on the same day recently.

The ongoing clampdown on those voicing opinions against the draft not only creates a climate of fear, it also shuts the door on a thorough public review of the content and its chances of legitimacy.

Narrowed by such strict enforcement of the law, the road leading to the referendum looks like suppression and appears to set a bleak path for the future of the country and its people.

However, it is not too late for the authorities to review their thinking and change their course. Thai society desperately needs room for dialogue on these issues of crucial importance so that a true “restorative” atmosphere of coexistence has a chance to grow.

More than anything, as citizens of this country we have a basic right to open debate about its future.

Next month, the EU is set to decide whether to lift its “yellow card” warning on the Thai fishery sector for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing practices.

Then, in June or July, the US State Department will release its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report on various countries around the world, including Thailand. Last year, Thailand was kept at Tier 3, the lowest ranking of countries which the US says have not done enough to combat human trafficking and illegal labour practices.

And later this year, the ICAO, a United Nations agency, will review the progress of Thailand’s measures to tackle aviation safety and related issues, after the country was red-flagged in 2015.

It seems the country needs a lot of hard work and also good luck if it is to survive all these threats and escape punishment such as trade sanctions while also improving the tarnished international reputation of its seafood, tourism and other industries.

Thai seafood exports to the 28-country EU market are worth more than Bt20 billion annually. A red card from the EU over the IUU issue could lead to an import ban on Thai seafood.

EU officials have indicated they need to maintain the warning due to insufficient action by Thai authorities to combat illegal labour and fishing practices that take a heavy toll on migrant workers from neighbouring countries, especially Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos.

While new fisheries and labour laws have been enacted, enforcement and follow-up measures remain inadequate, so EU authorities might not remove the yellow-card warning during their review later this year.

The general expectation is for the status quo to be maintained, but more pessimistic analysts are suggesting that Thailand could face a “red card”, or import ban. The uncertainty has prompted major Thai seafood exporters to use smaller operators in other Asean member-countries to process their raw materials, so as to minimise the impact of a possible import ban by the huge EU market.

For aviation safety and related issues, the outlook is similar, since it will take time to overhaul the regulatory framework on airline licensing, auditing and other matters after years of high growth for low-cost, chartered and other airline sectors.

Aviation services have a direct bearing on the tourism industry, which is a major source of revenue for the country, with visitor arrivals forecast to top 30 million this year.

Both tourism and seafood exports are crucial pillars of Thai economic growth at a time when overall exports have slowed due to the sluggish global economy.

As such, many Thais are dismayed at the growing threats and pressures being applied by the US, the EU and the ICAO since the May 2014 coup. However, these “outsider” actions have a significant upside. They serve as powerful leverage for positive changes that could lead to more sustainable economic growth in the future.

Ever since the coup of 2014, those who query the actions of the regime have met with the same response: “Do you want everything to go back to where it was before May 2014.”

The challenge from critics has taken various forms:

“The international community is calling for restoration of democracy.”

“Is the single-ballot system really the best answer for voters?”

“A fair referendum should be conducted in an open atmosphere where freedom of expression is not limited.”

Each time it is met with the same rhetorical question:

“Do you want everything to go back as before May 2014?”

And poof! End of story. It works like magic. The questioners are silenced.

It is understandable that we remain daunted by the nightmare we suffered prior to the coup. However, the two years that has elapsed is time enough for us to have woken up, looked around and begun to figure out where we are right now.

Our location “right now” is detailed in the junta’s so-called road map to democracy. More precisely we are at a crucial point, with the junta-sponsored constitution draft set to go to a public vote along with an additional question on whether the appointed Senate should be empowered to select a prime minister. If the draft charter passes the referendum, the military will very likely extend its control over politics for at least another five years after the next election.

What’s more, right now the powers-that-be are pushing hard to promote the draft, highlighting its reform plans and mechanisms to curb corruption that were demanded by those who demonstrated against the government in 2013 and 2014. And right now, civil groups who oppose the draft have found their own activism severely restricted by the recent referendum bill. Voters are thus being deprived of the chance to hear both sides of the argument and make their choice accordingly.

Under the threat of a return of political violence, it appears we have sacrificed a fair referendum in which all sides are free to speak their minds. The result is that we do not get to hear clearly from each side about the pros and cons of the charter before making a decision that will impact our lives for at least the next five years, and for 20 years if the national strategy is implemented.

Should our silence be read as consent?

Is it true that the path we are on won’t lead back to the political turmoil prior to May 2014? Right now we need to cast off the blinkers of fear and take a good look at where we are actually going.

We are being warned to fear history and learn from it. But what’s equally important is to distinguish fear from vigilance.

The vigilant examine their surroundings carefully. In contrast, the fearful bury their heads in the sand so they don’t have to face what’s out there.

But those in a hurry to spend their future windfalls are advised to show caution.

The government economics team led by Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatrusipitak has been keen to employ any tactic that might spur domestic spending.

High-income earners – those with annual income of between Bt4 million and Bt5 million after deductions and allowances – should benefit most under the new structure.

Apart from a deduction of Bt100,000 and allowance of Bt60,000 (up from Bt90,000 and Bt30,000 currently), this bracket enjoys a 5-per-cent cut, to 30 per cent tax.

Currently, those who earn between Bt2 million and Bt4 million a year are subject to 30-per-cent tax. Above Bt4 million, tax rises to the maximum rate of 35 per cent. But under the new structure, those who earn between Bt2 million and Bt5 million will be subject to the 30-per-cent rate. Meanwhile the 35-per-cent rate will only apply to those who earn more than Bt5 million.

In short, if you earn Bt5.16 million a year, you can save around Bt130,000 annually – a rise of Bt74,500. If you earn taxable income not exceeding Bt300,000 a year, you will be free from tax, although that only represents a modest saving of Bt3,600.

If that all sounds good, we shouldn’t forget that the new rates, deductions and allowances won’t be launched until the 2017 tax year, meaning that tax claims won’t be delivered until 2018.

Many are wondering why the government isn’t employing the new tax structure this year, though officials have explained that the 2017 date will ensure a balance is maintained between public revenue and spending.

Nevertheless, critics view the new rates as symptomatic of a lack of economic direction and a last-ditch bid to boost consumer sentiment in the hope of triggering a multiplier effect and boosting the economy.

Over the Songkran holiday, the government launched a campaign of tax benefits on food and tourism-related products priced up to Bt15,000, with a similar aim of boosting consumer spending. Authorities were happy at the success of the campaign, but ignored the fact that many of the shoppers who flocked to take advantage of the tax-back bonanza earned incomes short of the level required to pay tax.

Meanwhile high-income earners form only a small proportion of the total 10 million taxpayers but contribute most in tax payment.

If the government wants to create a multiplier effect for the economy, it has no need to delay the taxation changes.

But by overreaching, the powerful undermine the legitimacy of their own rule and thereby threaten their position.

Consider the following three cases of exercising power. We do not judge which case is right or wrong, but merely note that those in authority face questions about the way they use their power.

The first case involves campaigning ahead of the August 7 national referendum on the draft constitution. Voters are supposed to receive sufficient information upon which to base their final decisions. But this will only be the case if both sides of the argument are presented in open and public campaigning.

Authorities have however banned advocates from speaking either for or against the draft constitution in public. Voters’ access to information has thus been closed off. Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan has banned T-shirts with slogans calling for a yes or a no vote.

“Campaigning is not allowed. You may dislike or like the draft. It’s fine to keep it to yourself. But you can’t wear shirts calling for people to vote yes or no,” General Prawit said.

The ban has prompted many to question whether there is sufficient reason or legitimacy for such a drastic move.

Another case involves the detention of Pheu Thai politician Watana Muangsuk, for openly criticising the draft charter. Watana’s critics describe his actions as politically motivated and note they violated a ruling made by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

In reality, Watana was simply expressing an opinion which may or may not be correct. His views might find sympathy with many, while upsetting others, including the generals in power. But international norms dictate that expressing an opinion in a peaceful manner is not illegal. It is surely every individual’s basic right to voice their opinion.

So far Watana’s arrest has drawn criticism from Swiss and Canadian diplomats, but others in the international community are sure to follow suit. International principles are at stake here, and Thai authorities are bound to come under more pressure.

The final case involves the circumstances in which Defence Ministry permanent secretary General Preecha Chan-o-cha’s son was appointed an officer after graduating in mass communications. Observers are querying why Preecha’s son gained the job ahead of thousands of other graduates with similar or better qualifications.

General Preecha is the younger brother of Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, who also heads the NCPO.

Preecha secretly signed the form approving his son’s appointment, thus apparently ignoring the requirement that members of the military be appointed on merit and leaving himself open to accusations of graft.

Subsequent “explanations” from the people involved have done little to clear those suspicions. “Many people in the military do the same thing,” Preecha retorted, as if that might legitimise what appears to be a straightforward case of nepotism.

History tells us that power is a double-edged sword. It can bring great benefits to the people, but it can also cause long-lasting damage to both those who wield it and those who live according to its dictates.

And in the volatile state of Thai politics, a wrong move can suddenly turn the advantage of power into an illegitimate authority at odds with the people it is supposed to serve.

Prayut, his clan and his crew have embarked on a mission to re-establish a traditional bureaucratic polity of patron-client bonds and nepotism.

The roots of that system reach back far beyond the establishment of our modern state. The 1932 revolution simply changed the system of governance from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy while leaving the deeper structures of culture and society unchanged.

Although the Thai people have indeed elected governments, it would be no exaggeration to say that the country has in the main continued to be run by a bureaucracy and a feudal elite. Political struggle before the 1973 uprising mostly comprised power plays among the elite.

Popular politics emerged for a brief period between 1973 and 1976 before a massacre at Thammasat University brought back military rule and “quasi-democracy”.

The military-dominated regime was interrupted in May 1992 when street demonstrations by student and middle-class protesters led to a bloody crackdown by troops. The regime fell and the blood-tainted military took a step back from politics, before returning with a vengeance in the coup of 2006.

It is important to note here that current chief charter drafter Meechai Ruchupan has been an architect for more than one military regime. Then and now, he wrote constitutions that empowered the military and bureaucratic elite to overrule elected administrations.

The military has been a constant presence in Thai politics throughout modern history. Although the uprisings of 1973 and 1992 directly challenged its power, they did little to shake the foundations of military authoritarianism.

The Thai army was established more than a century ago by the monarchy and run by aristocrats familiar with patron-client system. The Army looked modern, but the blue-bloods who took charge of its units, barracks and camps treated it as their personal fighting force – just like old times. Thai commanders have a tradition of employing soldiers and military resources for their personal use. Low-ranking privates, for example, routinely serve their bosses as house boys, cleaning, cutting the grass and washing clothes.

The patron-client system runs deep, nurtured and cultivated in schools where senior students demand that juniors serve as their lackeys. Military officers merely follow that age-old tradition, without giving it much thought.

Nepotism is tolerated in the military in similar fashion. The public cried foul last week over news that Defence Ministry Permanent Secretary General Preecha Chan-o-cha had appointed his son as an officer. When challenged, Preecha, Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan and a ministry spokesman chorused that there was nothing in ministry regulations to say the action was wrong.

Preecha even added that such nepotistic was commonplace.

“My son has graduated and he has to work. We have a position available, so he can fill in. What’s wrong? Everybody does it,” he said.

Perhaps the appointment does indeed fulfil ministry and military regulations. It also fulfils the dictionary definition of nepotism as “the action of someone who has power using their authority to get jobs for members of their family”.

If it has been decided that nepotism and the patron-client system are okay, why maintain the attitude that Thailand needs reform?

The couple’s claim – that the damage stemmed from the first doctor’s failure to diagnose tuberculous meningitis in time – is disputed by many medics.

“Treatment, even if delayed by five days, will not change the results in such cases,” Prof Dr Yong Poovorawan said on his Facebook page.

A member of the Royal Society who has also taught at a prestigious medical school, Prof Yong has expressed concerns that the court ruling will significantly affect doctors’ treatment approach in the future.

Other doctors have already vented their frustration at the ruling online. The legal precedent has prompted them to consider whether they should now prioritise self-protection in their treatment decisions.

On March 31, the Supreme Court ruled that a government doctor in a rural province had been reckless in failing to seek the opinion of a radiologist or to ask the patient’s guardians whether they had ever contracted tuberculosis.

However, the shortage of radiologists in Thailand means that not all X-rays are read by specialists. The fact is that most community hospitals do not have a radiologist.

A female doctor at a community hospital in Loei province said the court ruling had prompted her to ask why she should take risks.

Meanwhile a cartoon strip posted on a popular Facebook page depicted the chaos that would ensue if every rural patient with complex symptoms was automatically referred to a medical specialist.

“I am told I am not a specialist,” says a doctor to her elderly patient, explaining why she can no longer treat all her symptoms.

The strip has been shared more than 23,500 times since being posted on April 9.

Responses like these show that many doctors feel threatened by the court’s decision.

Yong said he had always taught his students to use a holistic approach, taking into account the patient’s history, physical condition and feelings.

“If we require the help of specialists at every step, there will be damage. … Today, there are more cases of ruptured appendix because doctors refuse to provide operations if an anaesthetist is not present. But in the past, doctors have performed hundreds of such operations successfully without the help of an anaesthetist.”

Yong said that resolving the issue required the cooperation of all stakeholders, “or else suspicion will prevail and lead to rifts at the expense of Thai society in the long run”.

Preeyanan Lorsermwattana, head of the Thai Medical Error Network, reckons she must look like a devil now in the eyes of many doctors. She’s even played on that perception in the title of a book she wrote. Her critics may see money as her motivation for suing doctors, but to people who claim they’ve been the victims of malpractice, Preeyanan is an angel. Among those are the parents of the brain-damaged daughter, whose case she worked on. Preeyanan has proposed that the the government draft a medical malpractice act to better protect victims.

In the wake of complaints about the ruling from Medical Council secretary general and defence witness Dr Somsak Lolekha, court spokesman Seubpong Sripongkul said the ruling had been based on evidence presented by both sides.

Somsak said he took the witness stand as a medical expert and president of the Asian Society of Paediatric Infectious Diseases. He did not know the accused in the case.

No matter what Somsak and Seubpong say, both sides should keep in mind that society won’t benefit from a battle between the courts and doctors. What patients need are effective ways to reduce the risks of malpractice and also of the over-investigation that doctors may resort to in a bid to avoid being labelled reckless.

We should applaud the move by the Medical Council, the Consortium of Thai Medical Schools, and the Medical Association of Thailand to set up a committee to seek collaboration and promote mutual understanding among all stakeholders.

Doctors are encouraged to send comments to the committee via prasit.wat@mahidol.ac.th, and urged not to vent anger unproductively on the social media.

Established on April 13, the committee is expected to report its progress within two weeks.

But an unelected Upper House isn’t the only controversial feature in the new political landscape. Also warranting scrutiny is the blueprint for reform.

Public policy in the charter draft is divided into conventional procedures of state governance, and unprecedented “reform plans” plus the national strategy.

Whichever party forms a new government can still deliver its own policies too, but it will have to account for their implementation via advance planning and auditing by Parliament and independent agencies.

In short, the new government will face more stringent regulation of its policies while at the same time having to achieve strategy goals laid out in the charter draft. Such an enormous task will mean parties may have to think twice before fielding election candidates.

For the people, however, the reform efforts could be even more troubling.

The set of plans and policies to address fundamental problems in the country have been put in place by a small group of individuals who claim good intentions and expert knowledge.

The question is, does the strategy forged by these “good people” answer the needs of the country and its citizens.

So far, the reasoning behind the reform plans and national strategy has not been clearly explained to the public. We little idea of how the ideas were developed nor of the information used in that process.

The final wording is equally opaque, with a few vague sentences culminating in a directive that “the government has to ensure that people are allowed to participate in the plans and the strategy”.

However, the lack of public participation so far leaves us sceptical that charter policy will respond to people’s needs in a democratic manner and thus eventually alleviate deep-rooted problems for the country. That two-way communication between the people and their representatives is the foundation of democracy and the only sure way to national progress, however much learning through trial and error it may contain.

In contrast, taking a short cut to “rebuilding” the country via a set of ideas dictated with little public participation could lead to a dead end. Not only is the road ahead unclear, but we are sacrificing the learning process that is fundamental to democracy.

Such brittle, top-down thinking without solid foundations in the popular will is too fragile to survive a pre-existing environment of conflict whose underlying tensions two years of military rule has done little to alleviate.

But if we do choose this road at the referendum in August, those in charge must be pressured to make public participation in reforms a priority.

Only then can we know we are taking the right route to national rebuilding and sustainable democracy.