Beefing up martial law sends wrong signal

The recent proposal to amend the 1955 Act on the Organisation of Military Courts should set alarm bells ringing. The move sends the wrong signal both at home and abroad about what kind of country we might become.
The amendment would permit military commanders to detain civilians for up to 84 days without judicial oversight.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has voiced concern about the proposal, warning it would give the military too much power.
“Detention without judicial review breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR], to which Thailand is a state party. Under Article 9, a person detained on suspicion of a criminal offence is to be brought promptly before a judge. The Human Rights Committee that oversees the ICCPR has interpreted ‘promptly’ to mean within a few days,” Rupert Colville, the United Nations’ OHCHR spokesperson, said in a statement issued from Geneva on Tuesday.
The National Legislative Assembly is considering the proposed amendment. The fact that the assembly’s members were handpicked by the military is a point of concern here. We can only hope that in making their decision, our lawmakers place the national interest ahead of any loyalty they feel toward the junta.
Passing the amendment would strengthen the special measures currently imposed under martial law. 
By and large, martial law should be confined to military affairs. It should not extend to the civilian domain unless in it is needed to maintain peace and order in times of national peril, such as during war.
Thai law permits the detainment of suspects for up to 84 days. But, as part of that process, police must file charges and offer clear evidence of wrongdoing. These requirements are waived under martial law. That’s why it should be confined to emergency situations. In other words, it should only be used as a measure of last resort.
Moreover, the imposition of martial law sends a terrible signal to the international community. It recalls an era when Southeast Asian strongmen like Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos and Than Shwe wielded military laws to bolster their authoritarian rule.
Haven’t we in Thailand moved beyond that stage? We tell the world we are progressing toward democracy and doing everything we can to put the country back on track to elections. If they want to back those words with action, NLA members must reject the proposed amendment. A yes vote would erode freedoms that should be guaranteed in a nation with serious democratic aspirations.
Citizens might not feel any immediate, direct impact on their lives should the amendment be passed. But it would give the authorities the chance to use detention without trial as a convenient tool to crack down on critics or political opponents. Too much blood has been shed already in our decade-long political conflict. We need to move away from divisive authoritarian measures and instead build an atmosphere conducive to peace and reconciliation.
Criticism of those in power is the sign of a healthy democracy. And as we stride towards building a democratic nation that respects the rule of law, we need to stand up against attempts to curb our basic civil rights.
We must question whether lurking behind this proposed amendment is a hidden agenda. Is it, in fact, a hammer for the military to bring down on government critics whenever they want, and without having to offer justification?