• 
• 

Published on November 8, 2007

 It was entitled "Internal security bill that is so insecure". I recommended that the government should review and withdraw the bill.

As the bill went to the National Legislative Assembly on Tuesday for its first reading, it has become clear the government has pushed ahead with it to be enacted as law "against continuous strong public opposition".

The latest draft submitted to the NLA has several significant changes, particularly on the scope of the power and authority of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc). This has been watered down somewhat, but clauses on rights and freedom of the people are still subject to very little amendment.

The main points are:

1. The prime minister will be the director of Isoc. The organisation will come under the control of the Prime Minister's Office and will be answerable directly to the prime minister:

 - The Army commander will be the deputy director of Isoc.

 - The director can transfer his/her authority to a deputy to act on his/her behalf.

 - The Army chief-of-staff will be the Isoc secretary.

 - The director has authority to command other state agencies to provide officials to work for Isoc.

 - Other matters can be directed by the deliberation of the Cabinet.

The amendment made so that the prime minister has direct responsibility for Isoc instead of the Army commander is a major step.

The prime minister can indeed give authority to the deputy director (who is the Army chief), but the former's responsibility remains fully legally binding. The prime minister will have to act with the utmost care in giving further authority to civil servants to implement action.

2. The Isoc director, with consent from the Cabinet, has the authority to:

 - Order state officials to act or not to act.

 - Impose a ban on the entry to or exit from certain areas, buildings or designated zones.

 - Impose a curfew in any designated area.

 - Suspend any public meeting or protest on the grounds of it causing public inconvenience or having the possibility of sparking violence.

 - Ban or set conditions on the use of modes of transportation or routes.

 - Ban, or grant permission for the use of, electronic equipment.

On this point, I think the change to the original draft (Article 25) that gave direct authority to the Isoc director on the need to seek consent from the Cabinet (amended as per Article 17) will make the entire Cabinet accountable and responsible for whatever it may decide.

But this Cabinet authority might contradict other laws such as the use of authority (Article 17 [7]) on the "Authorisation on the use of, or banning the use of, electronic equipment". Would this also mean phone tapping without having to seek a court order, or absolute control of the media, radio, television and the Internet?

Meanwhile, The authority to ban a public protest (Article 17 [4]) is clearly in violation of basic rights under a democratic system.

3. The responsibilities of operating officials:

 - Rules, regulations and orders under this bill do not come under the scope of public administration laws.

 - Officials follow the directives of supervisors and are protected by the law. They are therefore not liable to disciplinary, criminal or civil action.

 - Special privileges are extended to the operating officials.

 - Operating officials (or their relatives) can claim compensation based on Civil Service regulations if they are injured, lose their life or are disabled due to the related operations.

 - Any violator of the bill is liable to maximum imprisonment of one year or a maximum fine of Bt20,000 or both.

The clause that waives the legal responsibility of the operating officials is clearly against the principle of good legislation, in which the beneficiaries of legal rights must also be responsible for them. This matter is highly dangerous to members of the public, who will lose their rights to seek justice. Furthermore, any violator is also subject to imprisonment and/or a fine.

These are some of the aspects of this controversial bill that cause great concern. I have tried to look for good reason and need to pass this bill but cannot find anything that could be considered useful to the public at large.

In short, this bill is beneficial to security only in so far as it protects certain groups of people.

And overall, I see no reason why the government should sponsor this bill at all - especially when we already have laws related to security in its entirety such as the Emergency Administration Decree and the Marshal Law.

This new bill will only cause further fear and suspicion among the public. It is not a worthwhile undertaking either in the short or long term.

Most importantly, I am concerned that the sponsors of the bill will not be the ones to implement it. Rather they will provide the avenue for others to exercise and possibly abuse it?

Parnpree Bahiddha-Nukara

Dr Parnpree Bahiddha-Nukara is former Thai Trade Representative under the Thaksin administration.