'Absolute power' move could haunt Prayut: NHRC

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS commissioner Niran Pitakwatchara has entered the ongoing debate on Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s decision to put an end to martial law by invoking Article 44 of the post-coup provisional charter by warning the former Army chief that absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

“To revoke martial law and exercise Article 44 instead is risky because the article gives the PM absolute authority. The PM has to be cautious about falling into the trap of having so much authority, which could lead to criticism later on,” the commissioner said.

Pressure has mounted on the government to revoke martial law but Prayut’s decision to replace it with Article 44 has led to much criticism. 

Prayut also heads the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). 

The so-called “absolute power” article states: “In cases where the head of the NCPO is of the opinion that it is necessary for the benefit of reform and to strengthen public unity and harmony, or for the prevention, disruption or suppression of any act which undermines public peace and order or national security, the monarchy, national economy or administration of state affairs, he shall have the power to make any order to disrupt or suppress regardless of the legislative, executive or judicial force of that order.”

Niran believes that there is now no need for martial law or Article 44, because if there was a situation that needed to be controlled, the junta government could either issue a state of emergency or use the Internal Security Act to tackle it.

“During a time that the country is trying to promote national reform and solve inequality issues, I doubt that it’s suitable to use Article 44 or martial law,” he said.

Pheu Thai Party members also voiced opposition to the government using Article 44, saying that one person – General Prayut – would have authority over the |three branches of power.

Pheu Thai acting secretary-general Poomtham Vechchayachai said using Article 44 could worsen the situation in the country because the NCPO leader would have power over the executive, the legislature and the judiciary in a manner echoing Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat’s dictatorship.

“Abiding by democracy principles, they should not give absolute power to only one person and checks and balances are also necessary. This is a concerning matter that other countries will not understand,” Poomthum said.

 

Human rights

Former Democrat MP Wirat Kalyasiri supports the use of Article 44, reasoning that it will help push the country forward.

“The use of this article is to control those who wish to create political disturbances and to prevent bloodshed as well as enable the economy to be propelled forward,” said Wirat.

Wirat denied it would result in a similar environment as the one that existed under Sarit, reasoning that the circumstances now were different and there were now more checks and balances.

Sarit used similar absolute power to execute people without trials, particularly people deemed to have purposely burned down their property for insurance pay-outs. Political dissidents were also targeted for many years without charge. Wirat said he had no problem with Article 44 so long as it was not used to violate human rights. 

Meanwhile, the director of the Thailand Reform Institute (TRI), Suriyasai Katasila, a former leading member of the People's Alliance for Democracy, said invoking Article 44 could reduce the pressure applied on Thailand by other countries, but that did not mean it would reduce the internal pressure because it gave absolute power to one person.

“The failure of the NCPO and the government, which they must accept, is that the enforcement of martial law does not separate those who try to create disturbances from those who are trying to help promote national reform, and this surely raises more resistance against the government,” the Rangsit University professor said.