Govt must consider putting in place 'just laws' to rule

The junta has been blaming the international community, plus foreign governments and the media for misunderstanding the need for the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to enforce the interim charter’s Article 44 after martial law had to be lifted.

Martial law was put in place two days before the military seized power from Yingluck Shinawatra’s government on May 22 last year. 

The imposition of martial law itself is not strange in Thai politics, but it’s very rare for an open society like Thailand to be under this law for nearly a year. 

The international community, and many in the tourism sector, had been calling and pushing the government to lift martial law for two reasons.

Firstly, it violates the basic rights of Thai citizens by prohibiting them from expressing themselves, especially at a time when the government is trying to reform the country. It would be difficult for Thailand to move toward democracy when people’s basic rights are restricted. 

Secondly, martial law has had a negative impact on the economy as travellers stopped coming to Thailand because insurers refused to cover people visiting a land under martial law. Once martial law is in place, it means there is a greater risk of instability and chaos, which scares investors and travellers away. 

Though the junta’s decision to lift martial law won the thumbs up, the thumbs turned down again when it was replaced with Article 44 because the new measure is essentially no different from the previous one. It’s like martial law under a new name. In fact, in some aspects it is even worse, as Article 44 gives too much power to a single man – the junta chief. 

Hence, the international community led by the United Nations and the United States did not pull any punches when it called on the junta to not exercise such extraordinary power. 

As far as the government is concerned, military personnel – down to the rank of second lieutenant – will be appointed as “peace and order maintenance officers” with sweeping powers, including the power to search, arrest and detain without any judicial oversight. 

In addition, they will have the power to “conduct any other action” as ordered by the NCPO. 

Article 44 authorises Prayut to issue any legislative, executive or judicial order. Such orders, and any action based on them, would automatically be considered legal, constitutional and conclusive. This basically violates human rights under international and existing national laws. The peace and order maintenance officers are blessed with immunity from criminal, civil and disciplinary liabilities for any action they might take while acting under these extraordinary powers. 

Obviously, the premier did not quite understand the international community’s concerns when he instructed his deputy and legal expert Wissanu Krea-ngam, along with officials from the Foreign Ministry, to provide an explanation to Bangkok-based diplomats and foreign correspondents. He was hoping this explanation would help stop the criticism.

Wissanu is able to talk until the cows come home, but the man who designed Article 44 still failed to convince the public as to why this law has to go against the basic “rule of law”. 

The “rule of law” principle does not translate to just having any old laws in place to rule, but “just laws” that have a transparent checks-and-balance system to rule. Giving all the power to one man is autocracy, not the rule of law. Even Wissanu, as a legal expert, has failed to convince other countries as to why Prayut needs sole power to prohibit people’s assembly, freedom of expression and to censor media. 

For as long as people’s basic rights are violated, no matter what kind of law is in place, the government will never be able to stop international criticism.