Fear of international backlash on Article 44
Play
Concern about foreign reaction spurs govt to explain its move to diplomats in Bangkok
After Article 44 came under international fire, the government will tomorrow try to create a better understanding among foreign diplomats of Thailand’s promotion of democracy and human rights.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday he would join the Foreign Ministry-led briefing of envoys.
The government’s move to replace martial law with Article 44 of the interim charter drew a strong reaction and rebuke from the international community, led by the United States and the United Nations, over Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s apparent “unlimited” power under the article.
Wissanu said during a conference at Thammasat University’s Institute of East Asian Studies that the article could not be directly used to harm an individual, as widely misunderstood.
“Foreigners may perceive [it] differently from Thais as they’re looking at it from another perspective,” he said.
Although Article 44 has been criticised as handing too much power to the chief of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), Wissanu said, Thais had experience with this kind of draconian law over several episodes, although the younger generation was not familiar with it.
Analysts say Article 44 is similar to Article 17 enforced during Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat’s dictatorial regime from the late 1950s to the early 1960s.
Article 44 may surprise foreigners because they have never seen this kind of law before, especially when they see that it is applied to different issues, he said.
“Article 44, however, cannot be applied to harm anybody until it is used,” Wissanu said.
“If we compare Article 44 to a sword, it’s like keeping it in its scabbard and wielding it only when necessary,” he said.
‘MoU to reconcile conflicting parties’
This measure was employed earlier this year to extend the term of local administrators to remain in office until the new election is held under the new constitution, he said.
This is the second time since January that the article has been invoked to facilitate the transition from martial law to Article 44, he said.
Its impact still remains to be seen on a case-by-case basis as to whether it is legitimate or not, he said.
The idea of Worachai Hema, former Pheu Thai MP from Samut Prakan, of having opposing parties sign a memorandum of understanding to help solve the political conflict had some merit.
“Personally, I see it as a good proposal, but it would depend on the decision of the security agencies,” he said.
There would need to be the consent of the security agencies, general public and signatories to figure out the outcome, he said.
“Otherwise, people might understand that they are cutting a deal for their own benefit,” he said.
As for tomorrow’s meeting with representatives from foreign missions and international organisations, it would be the responsibility of the NCPO and the Foreign Ministry to explain the content and the situation.
“The NCPO’s Order of 3/2015 (concerning the use of Article 44) was issued by the NCPO’s chief, not by the Cabinet, so the NCPO will be the institution [directly] in charge,” he said.
However, he was ready to answer all questions that the envoys would have, he said.
Deputy government spokesman Sansern Kaewkumnerd reiterated that Suan Dusit Poll’s survey of public confidence vis-a-vis the use of Article 44 showed that 51 per cent of the public was comfortable with the law.
The NCPO has insisted that the application of Article 44 would be realised in a constructive manner, aimed at addressing problems related to security and the bureaucracy.
Despite all the explanations made by the Thai government, the international community remains highly sceptical.
Last week, after the government decided to replace martial law with Article 44, many Western states and international agencies, including the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Amnesty International expressed deep concern and asked for a swift return to democracy.
