Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

The call for an amendment to the Defence Ministry Administrative Act must be considered carefully to ensure that any change in the law will serve the public interest and not be seen as politically motivated.
The red-shirt movement and the Pheu Thai Party have suggested an amendment to the Defence Ministry Administrative Act so that politicians in power will be able to step in to have a say in the reshuffling of ranking military officers. This is what the Thaksin Shinawatra government attempted to do before he was ousted in the September 2006 coup. The Pheu Thai-led government apparently wants to have a big say in the military reshuffles in order to reduce the power of the current Army top brass.
While any legislative amendment is a natural process to update the law in line with changing circumstances, this particular amendment should be executed for the public interest, not to serve any particular group of people.
The campaign to amend the act is being spearheaded by two leaders of the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) – Natthawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan. The two have come out to incite red-shirt supporters to call for the amendment of the act on the ground that the law prevents the elected government from having significant influence in the military reshuffles. As a way to campaign for the change, the two DAAD leaders have mobilised red shirts to oppose the proposed reshuffle of Army officers this year.
The two red-shirt leaders claim that the act was enacted by the Council for National Security (CNS), the 2006 coup-makers, and that most of those who took part in drafting the law are officers from the Army’s “Eastern Tigers Faction”, including former defence minister General Prawit Wongsuwan. As a result, the two DAAD leaders claim, the act is poisoned fruit left by the dictatorial CNS.
The Defence Ministry Administrative Act was enacted during the term of the interim post-coup government of then prime minister General Surayud Chulanont, to prevent politicians from changing the military reshuffle list, as had happened in the past. The act is aimed at allowing the armed forces to check and balance their own power by taking care of the reshuffles to create internal unity, which is essential for national security.
Now the Yingluck government has control of both the administration and the legislative branch, as well as having control of key security agencies like the police, the Interior Ministry and the National Security Council. The move to amend the act would enable the government to more or less resume control of the reshuffles within the armed forces.
Pheu Thai MPs and red-shirt supporters, especially former military officers in the party, have now come out to campaign against the act by gathering the signatures of mostly red shirts to support the amendment. Such former military officers include ACM Sumet Phomanee and Lieutenant General Ma Phognarm. They are collecting the signatures and submitting them to the Cabinet to propose a bill to amend the act. They say that the amendment comes in response to the wishes of the people.
The amendment campaign is in response to what the red shirts claim is this year’s reshuffle seeing Class-12 officers, who were classmates of General Prayuth Chan-ocha, promoted to powerful positions. They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year’s crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions.
The question is whether these are good enough reasons for a legislative amendment. This act, like any piece of legislation, can always be amended in accordance with circumstances. But in this case, politicians need to convince the public of the need to amend the act so that it will better serve the interests of the country and people.
This proposed amendment should not serve the personal agenda of leading red shirts or the vendetta of any group of people against another group. If this turns out to be the case, when a new power group comes into office, the act will simply be revised again to serve the interests of those new politicians in power. And the basic integrity of the legislation will thus be compromised.