Anti-siege bill for Suvarnabhumi: Poor job handled in haste

The title of the bill is misleading, the content superficial, and the punitive measure laid down for any attempt to seize the country's largest international airport in the future is, to say the least, ridiculously light.

If anything, the bill smacks of a second-grade public relations job that is a non-starter from the word go. The handiwork is poor from start to finish, and the fact that the Cabinet had the audacity to pass this dismally-orchestrated bill shows how desperate the prime minister was to impress in his first encounter with the world's top political and corporate leaders. This is not to mention the curious international press, ready to raise some tough questions for a new, untested premier from a troubled Thailand.

For one thing, the title is misplaced. Why is this piece of draft legislation officially entitled, "Safety and Protection of Suvarnabhumi Airport"? Isn't the safety of all the other airports in the country covered by this same proposed legal document?

The inevitable question that immediately comes to mind: Is the Abhisit government only deliberating this bill under the fear that the red-shirted opposition protestors will follow the yellow-shirted dissidents by taking over Suvarnabhumi Airport?

One could be forgiven for thinking so, because none of the Cabinet members or high-level legal advisers seemed to realise the absurdity of leaving out all the country's other airports from the bill.

And if anyone found guilty of seizing the country's international airport is to be labelled a "terrorist", as the wording of the bill suggests, why then is the proposed punishment for this crime a paltry fine of Bt500 to Bt10,000?

Clearly, the clause empowering officials of the Airports Authority of Thailand to act as police in the event of a takeover certainly won't deter any ill-intentioned plotter from seizing control of an airport. On the contrary, the light punitive measure and ambivalent tone of the bill could serve as an incentive for potential terrorists or emboldened protestors to repeat the blatant actions of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) last year.

Some government advisers have defended the bill by arguing there is a real need to enact a law that will restore the confidence of foreign investors and tourists - and Premier Abhisit, armed with this new piece of proposed legislation - can speak with more credibility than simply issuing verbal assurances.

Why then, is any serious criminal punishment conspicuously absent from the draft? A senior legal counsellor to the government explained that since such an act would be subject to a death sentence under the international criminal code, there wouldn't be any need to make mention of that particular clause in the new draft law.

That, of course, makes the whole scheme even more preposterous. It would have been more excusable had the authorities stepped out to confess that it was all a big blunder by a team of overzealous political operatives intent upon currying favour with the premier, who didn't have sufficient time or focus to pre-empt the document from being submitted to the weekly Cabinet meeting.

The only acceptable solution will be for the prime minister to admit it was a slip-up and, if a new draft is deemed necessary, subject it to a thorough public hearing to make sure the new law will really hit the nail on the head.

Will he have the guts to admit, as Barack Obama did on television earlier this week: "I screwed up?"

(Follow my views on the latest news around the clock at www.twitter.com/suthichai.)