Chris Baker has prepared a translation of the revised Internal Security Act and has provided the following comments. Thanks very much Chris! (His comments on the previous version are here.) [UPDATE 23 October 2007: the link to the translation above is an updated translation kindly provided by Chris.]
- The Council of State has revised the Internal Security Act. The draft bill passed the Cabinet on 16 October and will soon be submitted to the National Legislative Assembly.
- The attached translation is incomplete (because I have not yet got the full Thai text) but probably has all the important stuff.
- This is not an amended version of the old bill but a completely different piece of legislation.
- Only a couple of the boilerplate clauses are the same. As a quick guide to the key points, read these Sections: 5, 14, 15, 17, 23.
- The drafting is a professional job, not the cut-and-paste botch-job of the previous draft.
- The Prime Minister and Cabinet are clearly placed in the position of authority under the Act.
- The earlier draft had a very wide definition of ‘internal security’ and a very long and threatening list of powers allotted to ISOC.
- This draft has a low-key and possibly sneakier approach.
- It does not define ‘internal security’ or a ‘threat to internal security’ at all. It simply sets out a procedure whereby ISOC can submit a plan to Cabinet for combating a threat to internal security, and be authorized to implement the plan. In other words, what constitutes a threat to internal security and merits invocation of this Act depends on the Cabinet’s decision on a proposal from ISOC, with no guidelines.
- The list of ISOC’s powers to combat any threat does not include detention or interference with the media.
- However the Act does include a blanket clause granting ISOC power “to have relevant government officials implement any action, or withhold the implementation of any action.”
- It also has a very strange clause granting ISOC power “to order persons to undertake or cease any action in connection with electronic equipment to guard against danger to life, limb, or property.”
- The amnesty clause (23) is still there.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Andrew Walker // Oct 23, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I have provided Chris Baker’s latest translation of the revised Internal Security Act.
2 Andrew Walker // Oct 23, 2007 at 2:17 pm
From today’s Bangkok Post:
National Legislative Assembly member and former National Security Council chief Prasong Soonsiri yesterday pledged to oppose the National Security Bill if it were again submitted to the NLA for consideration.
Sqn Ldr Prasong said the serious flaw of the bill was a provision seeking to exempt state officials assigned to work under the bill from civil, criminal and disciplinary punishment. It was inappropriate to enact legislation which took the judicial system for granted. “If it is submitted to the NLA for debate, I will oppose it. We must follow the justice system,” he said. The bill also sought to suspend basic civil rights and liberties such as the right to protest and express opinions. As a former charter writer, he said, he must see to it than any draft law which was unconstitutional was not passed into law.
3 Andrew Walker // Oct 23, 2007 at 2:20 pm
And here is the Bangkok Post’s editorial on the issue:
It is difficult to know why the Surayud Chulanont government has struggled so hard to pass a new internal security act when it has been rejected by legal experts, politicians, civil rights groups and the man in the street.
Yet after the military’s own hand-picked legislators gave still another thumbs-down to this ill-considered and unwanted law, there was Prime Minister Surayud spending some weekend time trying to convince the nation how badly it needs the law. The only reasonable explanation for this extraordinary stubbornness over the proposed law is that a tiny group of people close to the premier want this law for their own purposes. What a splendid argument this is for the opposition to continue to fight until this interim government either gives up or ends its term in office.
Gen Surayud’s insistence on having his way with the internal security bill is doubly puzzling. In the first place, the establishment of a powerful security apparatus is a serious matter that requires popular inspection and democratic debate. Since Gen Surayud is promising to hold elections and turn over the government to an elected regime by next January, there is no need for the bill for now. Three months hardly seems an unreasonable wait for a law that almost no one can justify anyhow.
Just as baffling is the premier’s doublespeak on his government’s priorities. As recently as his Saturday morning appearance on the weekly government information show, Gen Surayud said his remaining time in office he planned no new programmes. A new government, elected by popular vote, would be taking over by late January, he said, and there was neither time nor justification in trying to launch any new laws or projects. Hours later, after the government whips sent the internal security bill back to his desk for a second time, the prime minister spoke rather passionately about how necessary the law was. He indicated he will, indeed, try to push it back to the legislators once again.
The whips at the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) deserve credit for their reasoned stand. The legislature was the first body to take the initiative last July and reject an even more radical form of the internal security bill. NLA members noted, as had many members of the public, that the proposed law essentially made it legal for the army chief or head of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) to take over the governing of the country on little more than a whim. Anyone he designated would automatically become non-accountable for any actions, no matter how violent or anti-democratic.
After the first rejection, Gen Surayud wisely chose to receive advice from the Council of State, which suggested toning down the worst excesses. The next rewrite put the prime minister in nominal charge of declaring a national emergency and dictatorial rule _ but infamously allowed the premier to delegate power to the Isoc or army chief, just as before. As a result, the NLA whips have properly sent it back.
New Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratkalin argued that the bill is necessary immediately. After all, he said, a national security emergency could pop up any day now. That sounded just a little too much for some people like a warning that the Dec 23 election to return the country to democracy might go all wrong. Because of that and other reasons, 14 non-governmental organisations dealing with civil rights decided on Sunday to join forces to fight to kill this bill.
The cabinet is to meet today as usual, and may take up the internal security bill yet again. Prime Minister Surayud appears determined to try to ram through a law that everyone can see is as unpopular and unwanted as it is unnecessary. For that reason, citizens’ groups and NLA members should continue to oppose the bill and force it off the agenda at the legislature.
If an internal security act is deemed essential, the new and elected government can take up the issue as a matter of priority early next year. Thailand has survived as a united nation for hundreds of years without this bill, and a few more months will not cause its collapse.
4 Thailand imperilled by masculinity, not pregnancy « Rule of Lords // Nov 30, 2007 at 8:23 pm
[...] why the National Assembly is considering the latest draft of an internal security law which will heap enormous powers on the command that Sonthi currently [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.