• 
• 

Published on July 17, 2007

A senior security official admits revisions of the controversial Internal Security Bill are needed and it may be delayed until the country has a new Parliament.

See and hear Suthaichai's talk why the bill must be withdrawn

It remains to be seen if this means the government has softened its stance further after Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont allowed a public forum on the legislation.

Army Chief of Staff General Montri Sangkhasap said yesterday the government was not in a rush to pass the bill during the remainder of its term.

"Parts of the bill may need improvement before it returns to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) for promulgation within the current government's term," Montri said.

"If the revisions can be completed soon, it could be passed by the NLA. If it is not, it can be presented by the next, elected administration. That's for the sake of carefulness," he said.

Montri, who is secretary-general of the Internal Security Operations Command, or Isoc, was speaking on the sidelines of an NLA seminar yesterday.

Panellists remain split on whether the bill should go through in its current state and see it as a fine balancing act of security and civil liberties.

The seminar was for proponents and opponents to thrash out differences. Rivals were unable to bridge the divide.

Panellists in favour of the bill include General Montri and internal security director Anusit Kunakan of the Council for National Security.

Rebuttals were delivered by human-rights activist Somchai Homla-or and Chulalongkorn University political scientist Panitan Watanayakorn.

"The bill is a proactive law designed to nip new security threats in the bud instead of them becoming full-blown problems," Montri said.

He justified the power vested in the Army chief on the grounds that the military had the necessary resources to resolve security problems.

"The security mandate will be dispensed by a committee chaired by a prime minister," he said, dismissing speculation about Isoc overshadowing an elected government.

He said the legislation would legally sanction the restructuring of Isoc and allow soldiers to do their jobs without "the politicisation of security affairs".

Montri viewed the bill as "unavoidable" but encouraged debate of contentious provisions. He was confident the legislation would pass, either during this government of the next.

Anusit said the country needed the bill to pre-empt security problems in a comprehensive manner instead of addressing them piecemeal.

"Security legislation, such as martial law and emergency decrees, are measures invoked when the country has already plunged into a crisis," he said.

Security authorities were now having problems in quelling violence in four districts of Songkhla where insurgency had spread. These areas were not covered by the state of emergency decree for the three southernmost provinces, he said.

He said the bill would have guidelines preventing abuse of power.

But Somchai deemed the bill redundant because the country had a Criminal Code, martial law and emergency decrees to deal with any security situation.

"The bill, if enacted, is tantamount to empowering the Army chief to manage a state of emergency on a permanent basis," he said.

The United States' Homeland Security Department or Malaysia's ISA did not have the power to override judicial power, he said. Somchai urged authorities to stop pushing for the passage of the bill.

Panitan said many critics saw the bill as the pretext for the military to exert influence. He voiced concern about a lack of checks on security operations run by the military.

Following the seminar, NLA Speaker Meechai Ruchuphan said he anticipated many rounds of revisions before the bill became law. "Any law will be enforced over time, hence every provision designed to circumvent rights or to vest much power in an office has to be scrutinised carefully to weed out undesirable consequences," he said.

When the money-laundering law was enacted, no one suspected foul play until the ousted government found loopholes to bully its critics, he said. He warned the bill could be exploited for political gain.

Meanwhile, Thai Rak Thai group member Kuthep Saikrachang called on people to "systematically" protest against the bill.

Human-rights advocates, media associations and politicians have voiced opposition since last week.

In a related development, a high-ranking military officer insisted yesterday that the bill was necessary for the country's protection. The officer, who asked not to be named, said the bill was currently being considered by the Council of State, which might ask for some changes before sending it back to the Cabinet.

"Isoc needs the bill for military, police and civic officers work to prevent bad things. Without the bill, officers from the military, police and civil forces will face difficulties," he said.

Panya Thiewsangwan,

Prapasri Osathanon

The Nation