• 
• 

Published on July 13, 2007

In the name of security, the military and the elected government are slated to be closely interwoven in such a way as to reflect the shadow of one another.

The odd co-existence between the generals and politicians is a feature of the home-grown political landscape. Time will tell whether this will lead to a thriving democracy or recurring military interventions.

With Thailand poised to embrace democratic rule once again, the junta has surreptitiously pushed for the passage of new legislation which, if enacted, will be called the Internal Security Act (ISA).

The draft bill is designed to give legal sanction to the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), one of the bureaucratic "dinosaurs" destined for reinvention to fight new and emerging threats.

Since December, junta chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin has been trumpeting the ISA and the revamped Isoc, which he has compared to the US Homeland Security Department, a security behemoth created in the aftermath of 9/11.

Before handing over power to an elected government, the junta is firm on having the Isoc as its legacy - as a security anchor to ensure internal stability.

It is no surprise, then, that the junta designed the bill to vest sweeping power in the Isoc director, who is also the Army chief.

Democracy activists and human rights advocates have in recent weeks started to voice strong opposition to the draft ISA, although they should have detected the draconian law in the making months ago.

In a consensus reached by top generals, it is imperative for the country to enact the ISA in light of security threats in the 21st century.

If the military is to do its job properly in safeguarding the Kingdom, the Isoc must be sanctioned and institutionalised by an act of Parliament, according to the main argument advanced by the top brass.

It is hard to believe but true that the Isoc has existed for the past four decades on the basis of a mere executive order. Its operations fall under the legal "grey area" of being dispensed by officials despite but having no proper law to back up its operations. Sonthi is likely to do everything in his power to ensure a speedy passage of the ISA before the general election.

When the draft went to the Cabinet two weeks ago, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont made two succinct statements summing up all pertinent issues on the ISA.

In his first remarks, Surayud said all laws were designed with good intent but problems arose because of men designated to enforce them.

For his second remarks, he said after the ISA took effect, it would no longer be necessary to declare a state of emergency or to invoke martial law.

He called on parties concerned to air their views in order to assist the Council of State to revise contentious provisions.

The draft is expected to be sent to the National Assembly for deliberation in about a month.

By the elaborate planning of military strategists, the legislative debate on the draft will coincide with deliberations on three organic laws on new electoral rules. With the public spotlight focused on the elections, the ISA might sail through with a minimum of opposition.

Even with some draconian provisions turned down a notch, the ISA still endows the Isoc chief with unprecedented power. In the event of a dire security threat, the Isoc could easily overshadow the elected government.

Surayud is right that martial law or the emergency decree would pale in comparison to the ISA. If passed, the bill would give Isoc officials a mandate to hold any suspects indefinitely. Currently, security authorities have two weeks before people have to be processed for remand.

If enforced in good faith, the ISA would not much different to similar laws in the United States, England, Malaysia and Singapore. But in other countries, elected officials would run the show assisted by the military.

Numerous lessons from Thai political history are a cause for concern about the enforcement of the ISA, however.

Past military leaders have been known to cite security as a pretext to catapult themselves into power.

In the past, many Isoc officials have been linked to forced disappearances of government critics. Have their standards been improved sufficiently to entrust them with the power for indefinite detention?

As the military aspires to become a pillar for stability and to keep politicians in check, it sees the Isoc bill as an indispensable way to guard the Kingdom and the monarchy.

But the top brass may have overlooked one minor flaw in their grand scheme. Politicians too can look at the Isoc chief as a potential puppet to consolidate power.

The ousted government trampled on independent organisations in order to cling to power.

Under the ISA provisions, politicians would have to rein in just one man, the Isoc chief, to open all doors to power. If this happened, the military could become a politicised institution.

Politicians and the generals are about to enter a race to open the trapdoor for control.

Avudh Panananda

The Nation