• 
• 

Published on November 13, 2007

Many are concerned that the law will normalise and make permanent powers such as those granted under martial law and emergency rule. These unchecked powers will become part of our daily political reality.

In other words, martial law will become a part of daily life even without the government having to resort to declaring it because the Internal Security Act grants them similar powers without the negative tag of "martial law".

Any hope that the vetting process by the NLA in the days and weeks to come may result in less draconian measures should be grounded due to the fact that this assembly was handpicked by the military junta, which stands to benefit the most from the law. What's more, during last week's vote, an overwhelming number of NLA members - 101 - voted to endorse the bill, with only 20 opposing it.

The 20 minority NLA members, mostly from academia, the media and civil society groups, may have spoken eloquently against the bill, but the fact that they accepted to become a part of this rubber-stamp parliament means they have, whether intentionally or not, acted as a prop to help give the impression that the NLA is independent and free.

However, nothing is independent and free about this parliament as long as the majority of its members toe the military line.

Right of physical movement, freedom of expression, recourse to court and the freedom of the press itself are now under threat. Also, officers acting on orders and deemed to have been acting "honestly" cannot be prosecuted or held accountable if he or she causes harm to others under the law.

The law will grant one or two men unprecedented power to decide who represents a threat to "internal security" with no proper checks and balances mechanism in place  - a perfect cocktail for political oppression.

All political parties, major and minor, now owe it to the public to clearly state their stance towards the bill. Would they abolish it if they form the next government? Or would they be too afraid to upset the generals like former Council for National Security chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin, who last week hinted at the possibility of yet another coup if the results of the upcoming election aren't to his liking?

Those supporting the law say the public shouldn't worry about it because the revised version gives the prime minister the authority as director of the Internal Security Operation Command (Isoc), with the Army chief as deputy director of Isoc.

Well, given that the military has a long record of tearing up one constitution after another, it is of great concern that the one who will truly wield power under the law is likely be the Army chief and not the prime minister. After all, any prime minister would risk facing a coup if he tried too hard to steer away from the military's agenda. Under the law, the military budget is likely to increase exponentially.

Also under the law, the government will become less transparent, if not secretive, on many issues deemed to affect internal security.

The law runs the risk of being abused by the powers-that-be, who may use it to prosecute political opponents and more. In fact, if abused, the law itself is a threat to human and national security!

This law, which is lacking even an iota of legitimacy because it was proposed by an unelected government and passed by an unelected assembly, will, however, mark a new chapter of the people's struggle.

Some are already talking about collecting enough signatures from citizens to oppose the bill. Others suggest petitioning His Majesty the King to withhold his endorsement.

Some still think that a clean and honest prime minister and Amy chief can exercise their powers under the law for the public good, but the choice is now between allowing unchecked power while relying on the wishful premise of having a good prime minister and Army chief, and ensuring proper checks and balances in society.

Thai society now has a choice between trying to sink or discard this law as soon as it possibly can or learn the hard way by waiting until more than enough people have fallen victim to the law before acting.

By then, however, it may be too late to act.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation