Balancing Security and Liberty

A fine article by The Nation's Kavi.

Regional perspective: Our next trick: balancing security and liberty

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanond tried to quell the growing outcry from civil society organisations over the new national security law, which was passed by the Cabinet recently

Published on July 16, 2007

He said the law would not proceed if all contentious points were not settled. For the Buddha's sake, he should have said that a long time ago. It is hard to understand why the government has to wait until matters reach boiling point before it tries to cool things down.

Essentially it boils down to a need for trust and a mutually binding consultative process between the government and the people, which is lacking at the moment. Surayud is trying to reassure the public that there is a need for a new security law to replace the existing martial law, emergency decrees and other security related laws. Sad but true, the government should have known full well that such draconian security legislation would need widespread and transparent public debate before it could be decided.

If the law is implemented as is, it would literally turn the country into a banana republic under the control of the Army - the image we often see in cheap Hollywood movies. This will further reinforce the current widespread belief that the coup leaders are not different from other Third World military leaders, that they are power-hungry generals whose real motive is to usurp and maintain power.

As it turns out, the new law has been pushed hard for by the Council for National Security (CNS) as it is a veil to embed the army in running national affairs, with or without emergencies. It combines two separate proposed laws. One, drafted by the National Security Council (NSC), has been pending since the previous government and deals mainly with measures and official power to counter terrorist activities and threats inside the country. The other draft was prepared by the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) to cope with issues affecting so-called national security. The ISOC draft trumpeted concerns over counter-terrorism measures. In this case, all security concerns are local. At it stands today, the bill could become an all encompassing security law. It empowers the Army chief, in his capacity as director of the ISOC, to pre-empt any plan or perceived action affecting national security - something which has never been tried before. It completely ignores the due process of law and parliamentary process. Previously, the prime minister served as the internal security chief.

It is interesting to note the surge of ISOC activities in recent years. This once most-feared organisation has been under scrutiny for decades since communist insurgents no longer pose a threat. In the 1990s, it was reassigned to do counter-narcotics work along the northern frontiers. However, under the Thaksin government, the ISOC network was reactivated and reoriented to serve political tasks assigned by the prime minister, including security in the three southernmost provinces.

After the Constitution Tribunal dissolved Thai Rak Thai, retired general Pallop Klinmanee, the former deputy chief of ISOC, was abruptly called in to help General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the current ISOC chief, to neutralise anti-government political forces. He did well, and so did ISOC, in containing the public rallies in Bangkok and the provinces. ISOC, which has a widespread network of 700,000 in every village, has suddenly come in from the cold and is prospering in the post-coup period. Just imagine what the ISOC can do in both security and non-security areas. It is the latter in which ISOC is finding a new resilience.

The CNS thought mistakenly that the public would be more supportive of the expanding mandate and role of the Army and ISOC this time around. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Past experiences of ISOC, including numerous atrocities it is alleged to have committed, remain scars on the Thai political memory. Indeed, the Thai Army is learning from Singapore and Malaysia, with their long-standing and draconian internal security acts dating from the 1960s, that these laws are quite useful in quieting dissenting voices.

Of course, every country needs a security law, as does Thailand. But we need a balanced one that provides security for the people and guarantees civil liberty. The government has so far failed to explain the reasoning behind its move. At the very least, the public should be given the opportunity to debate such an important law, which will affect everyone's lives and families. Open public forums, as in past deliberations on people-oriented projects, must be encouraged. After all, the government and CNS must be willing to face the public and explain in detail their rationale. They have done that concerning the coup. What should prevent them from doing so in this case?

The government must delay the implementation of this law as it will further tarnish the country's reputation. If it is enacted, all the government's past efforts in promoting political reform, openness and respect for human rights will ring hollow. It will go against the current public diplomacy that seeks to promote democracy and human rights within Asean and internationally. Thailand's international standing has already suffered irreparable damage, with the ongoing and senseless online censorship and proliferating media self-censorship. The country can no longer afford to violate human rights and civil liberties.

After all, we must not forget Thomas Jefferson: "When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."

Kavi Chongkittavorn