The government of Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha is known to be infatuated with the idea of introducing a "Great Firewall" of its own to censor internet content.
A year after the coup-installed junta came to power in 2014, the idea of installing a single gateway internet in the interest of national security was floated in 2015.
In the end, the single internet gateway never materialised due to heavy public resistance. But like old soldiers who refuse to die easily, the idea resurfaced last week.
For the latest round, Minister of Digital Economy and Society (DES) Chaiwut Thanakamanusornis said at the House debate last Friday the government is studying a national internet gateway (NIG) under a plan to deal with cyber crime.
He said such crime is on the rise, partly because the government only has a limited capacity to block information deemed illegal in Thailand from reaching target audiences.
Such an explanation is misleading -- and disturbing.
Cyber crime is a global phenomenon that take place everywhere. Nevertheless, governments around the world -- with the exception of authoritarian states such as China, North Korea and, now, Cambodia -- do not construct national firewalls just to catch cyber villains.
These governments knew what side effects a firewall would have in terms of destroying the free flow of information and seamless global connectivity -- the very qualities that make the World Wide Web so valuable and successful.
Most countries with low rates of cyber crime do not need or use an internet firewall. According to digital data protection company SEON, Germany, the United States, Norway and the United Kingdom are among the top five countries with the lowest risk of cyber crime.
At the opposite end of the scale, Myanmar and Cambodia had the highest risk of cyber crime.
Interestingly, China ranked 36th, and Thailand 60th out of 100 countries.
Cambodia announced last year that it would join China in setting up a national internet firewall. But its plan to launch the NIG last week was eventually put on hold.
The question the government and DES need to answer is whether a national firewall will deliver what they say it will. Moreover, does the government have enough capacity to run such a project?
This would require immense resources, in terms of well-trained manpower and advanced software and hardware, the likes of which only a superpower such as China can easily muster.
Without the proper management and know-how, this would result in bottlenecks slowing down the local internet network, negatively affecting digital and business activities.
Cyber thieves -- or just regular netizens -- could still rely on other methods such as an easily downloadable virtual private network (VPN) to evade the firewall and access whatever information they are seeking.
Rather than imposing a tool to control information and further intrude on the freedom of the press, Thailand can follow in the footsteps of Denmark and Germany by making its digital laws stronger, educating the public to be more digitally literate, and penalising those in the state or private sector who fail to protect people's data.
There's simply no need for a Great Firewall of Thailand.
