It is not surprising the private sector heartily welcomed the lifting of martial law without mentioning its replacement, Section 44 of the interim constitution, which is even more draconian.
Except for the media, the private sector will not feel the effects of this special law -- such as the curbs on free expression, the bans on news presentation, dissemination of information and distribution of publications.
Instead, the private sector will be wooed by the government to help drive the ailing economy out of the woods and into recovery after being dubbed the "sick man of Asia".
Citing intelligence reports, but not really giving any details, Deputy Prime Minister Visanu Kruea-ngarm insisted Section 44 is needed because there is not just one, but five groups of ill-intentioned people waiting in the shadows for the right time to spring into action and stir up trouble. One of the five groups comprises politicians who have lost power, he said.
Although the media as a whole is not among the five evil elements identified by military intelligence, it nevertheless feels the heat from the invoking of this harsh law, which gives "peace-keeping officials" unlimited discretion to ban news stories, dissemination of information and distribution of publications deemed, by them, to be a security threat or possibly cause public alarm.
The five core media organisations are fully justified in feeling alarmed by the curbs on free expression by the media and the public alike. And what is most worrisome about this media-gagging law is that it empowers peace-keeping officials to use their discretion to judge the media.
Who are these peace-keeping officials anyway? According to Mr Visanu, they are military officers with the rank of sub-lieutenant or above.
Imagine the possible consequences when power is given to a junior military officer, and sub-lieutenant is very junior, who has no background whatsoever in the media and its role in society, a person mired in a world where following orders and never questioning his boss is law, to judge the conduct of the media and to mete out punishment?
In the past, in similar circumstances, it was the press officers who were put in charge of overseeing the media and deciding on punitive measures. The interior minister or the police chief was the press officer for Bangkok, and provincial governors were press officers for the provinces.
The four media organisations have called on the National Council for Peace and Order to define the scope of the provision on press curbs and to set clear criteria on reports which are deemed a security threat.
I would add one more demand - that not all peace-keeping officials be empowered to oversee the media, only a selected few, one for each province, who are qualified and well versed in the world of journalism and respect free expression.
The media as a whole is not the NCPO's enemy, even though its role as a watchdog may sometimes offend the junta. So, it should not be seen in a negative light and treated as such.