• 
• 

Published on October 18, 2007

The revised Internal Security Bill approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday was a major improvement on the original version put forward by the Defence Ministry in June. The government has taken into consideration the public outcry over the original bill, which would have given the military excessive power to deal with poorly defined national security matters and could potentially have impinged on civil liberties. The concerns expressed by civil rights advocates and the general public are legitimate. Many critics fear the legislation, if passed into law, could threaten democracy itself.

The way the first draft of the bill was written aroused strong suspicion that the military intended to perpetuate its dominant role in national politics and to renege on its promise to submit itself to the new civilian government that will emerge from the December 23 election. Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont should be commended for addressing the issues and taking corrective measures to make the bill more acceptable to the public and to rein in the military's power.

The original bill sought to revive the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), headed by the Army commander-in-chief, which would have wielded virtually limitless power over all aspects of the political, economic and social life of the country - in the name of preserving national security. In other words, under the earlier draft, the Army chief would have been able to act independently of an elected prime minister to restrict freedom of movement, prohibit public demonstrations, impose curfews and limit trading activities and transportation of goods.

The original bill was roughly fashioned as Thailand's equivalent of the US Department of Homeland Security. The most striking difference was that the Thai agency would have operated under its own discretion, outside the administrative purview of an elected government.

The Defence Ministry said Thailand needed the Internal Security Bill to effectively counter national security threats from terrorism and insurgency in the deep South, which could escalate and spread to other parts of the country. But it is understood the possibility of civil unrest instigated by those still loyal to deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra was also one of the factors that contributed to the effort to resurrect the Isoc.

The Isoc played an instrumental role in the defeat of the communist insurgency in the mid 1980s, but languished in inactivity for almost two decades.

The revised version of the Internal Security Bill, to be forwarded to the National Legislative Assembly for deliberation soon, will make the prime minister director of the Isoc and the Army chief deputy director by virtue of their respective offices. That will submit the Army chief to the authority of an elected leader.

But the elected PM, as Isoc chief, will still retain power to restrict civil liberties in cases of national emergency. This is far better than concentrating power in the hands of the Army chief.

Suspicion has been rife that the military has been plotting to hold on to power as Thailand prepares to revert to democracy after the military overthrew the corruption-prone Thaksin government in September last year. The fact that Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, former head of the junta, has entered politics and has been given the position of a deputy prime minister, has not helped alleviate fears that the "democracy" set to be restored will be a half-baked one, with the military pulling strings from behind the scenes.

Giving a democratically elected prime minister the power to restrict or suspend some constitutional rights is nonetheless a sensitive issue. Safeguard provisions must be put in place to ensure that the prime minister will exercise such power responsibly to preclude the possibility of abuse.

When considering the bill, the NLA should make a point to improve and fine-tune the government-sponsored legislation and try to strike the delicate balance of giving the prime minister and security agencies just enough power to effectively deal with clear and present dangers to the nation or to restore the country to normalcy after an emergency.

At the same time they must reassure a sceptical public that civil liberties will not be restricted for longer than is absolutely necessary.