Part of me wishes the military government had been behind the recent ban on the publication of the results of a poll by the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida). Such state intimidation is not a good thing. But at least it's better than the reality -- self-censorship imposed by Nida's president or, put it another way, his preferred choice to not let public opinion influence an ongoing probe against one of the regime's top men.
The regime's intimidation of academics has been growing and it is here to stay as long as the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) remains in power. Had the release of the poll results relating to the luxury watch scandal of Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon been halted by a state order and against the will of Nida executives, we could have felt relieved that the institute's integrity was left relatively intact.
But Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha made it clear that his government had nothing to do with it. Apparently, Nida president Pradit Wanarat admitted it was his own decision to hold back publishing the results of the poll -- which asked whether the public believed Gen Prawit's explanation for his possession of the pricey watches.
His rationale was that public opinion might paint a misleading picture of the affair while the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) was still probing the case.
Even if Mr Pradit is a critic of the regime, his rationale is unjustifiable -- it is not academically sound. If he had faith in the reliability of the methodology used for the poll, then the results should not mislead the public or the NACC as they merely reflect what the people surveyed really think about the scandal.
The NACC has a number of laws, regulations and criteria it has to follow when it comes to an investigation into an alleged unusual wealth case.
Gen Prawit is a public figure, the No.2 figure in the NCPO. Any allegation against him related to his official positions is subject to public scrutiny, criticism and polling.
The fact that Mr Pradit is serving the regime as a member of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) makes his rationale about the ban even less convincing and more dubious. And the reality that such a judgement was made by the president of one of the country's leading higher education institutions is even more worrying.
If leaders of higher education institutions regard the censorship of public opinion as "normal", can we still pin our hopes on them to nurture the education of our future leaders while providing a guiding light for society?
Whenever the media needs comments on current events, we usually turn to academics for their views, supposedly based on their developed understanding, sound analyses and unbiased judgement.
Academic integrity is a pillar that can keep the conscience of society at large from waning, guiding people with sound and proved principles based on what is right or wrong.
If the political conflict over the past decades has fractured our "intellectual circles" pitting liberal anti-coup academics against those supporting conservative values, the latest coup in 2014 has brought about growing support for the latter and for authoritarian values.
The Nida poll case is just the tip of the iceberg. Throughout Thai academic circles, there have been scholars who tolerate censorship and suppress freedom of expression on campuses. Some of them serve in the NLA which has passed many laws that compromise or bypass democratic values and sound principles.
For instance, on July 31, 2016 Khon Kaen University executives banned a seminar on the draft charter ahead of the constitutional referendum a month after. A day later, Chiang Mai University forbade a press conference on the referendum planned by a group of local academics citing an order from the rector who was also serving as an NLA member.
In August last year, Chulalongkorn University executives removed political science student Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal from his democratically elected student council president post simply due to his "inappropriate behaviour". Former Thammasat University rector Somkit Lertpaithoon has also been criticised for serving in the NLA.
A decline in academic freedom due to state intimidation is less threatening than a growing inclination toward authoritarian and undemocratic values by higher education institutions. While the former may be a temporary trend, the latter could last longer by becoming embedded in our education systems, influencing the hearts and minds of future generations.