The Surayud government, which last week approved the bill in principle, should take it back and order the Defence Ministry to revise it before forwarding it to the NLA. The bill is now being scrutinised by the Council of State, the government's legal advisory body.

The bill seeks to revive the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) - headed by the Army commander-in-chief - which would be given virtually limitless powers to take control of all aspects of political, economic and social life in the country in the name of preserving national security. For example, the bill would allow the Army chief, in his capacity as ISOC head, to restrict people's freedom of movement, prohibit public demonstrations, impose curfews as well as limit trading activities and the transportation of goods. The bill would also empower ISOC to conduct searches, detain people or seize their assets without first obtaining a court order.

ISOC, an agency that played an instrumental role in the defeat of the communist insurgency in the mid-1980s, has been languishing in inactivity for almost two decades. The rise of Islamic militants/Malay separatists in the deep South and the polarisation of Thai politics, which has pitted the rural masses against the urban middleclass, have provided the military with the justification to restore ISOC as its tentacle of power. During the war against the communist insurgency, ISOC enabled security forces to take the law into their own hands in combating the guerrillas and their sympathisers, leading to widespread abuse of authority. With the proposed new mandate and the near absolute power it provides, coupled with the far-reaching network of personnel from national, provincial and district levels, ISOC has the potential to repeat its Cold War-era mistakes, which could exacerbate the already escalating situation in the deep South.

This is not to mention the suspicion that the military has been plotting to perpetuate its hold on political power beyond the next general election. The Internal Security Act, if passed by the NLA in its present form, would enable the military to accomplish this.

Another potentially dangerous pitfall is that such powers could fall into the wrong hands. Certain military leaders who harbour high political ambitions could abuse these powers to advance their selfish interests, suppress political opponents or silence dissent. The military's handling of anti-coup demonstrators in Bangkok has already raised questions about where the military stands on civil liberties.

On the one hand, the military junta, or the Council for National Security, has the duty to ensure peace and security as well as to prevent potentially violent confrontation between supporters of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and anti-Thaksin protesters. On the other, the military has employed questionable tactics, including restricting people's travel and their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

It must be made clear that not all anti-coup protesters should be considered a threat to national security because there are people - indeed the majority of freedom-loving people in this country - who are genuinely opposed to military domination of Thai politics. 

This controversial bill would put the military beyond the control of the administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government. In other words, the armed forces would be accountable to no one and become the single most powerful institution in the country.

No democratic society should tolerate such an attempt at self-aggrandisement. The military is supposed to be serving the people, defending them against the enemy while at the same time submitting themselves to civilian democratic rule and respecting civil liberties. The plans to revive ISOC should be rejected by the government and the NLA, pointing as they do to the military wanting to continue its dominance in Thai politics. This bill should be left for the next democratically elected government to consider.