Unnecessary burden on us

Unnecessary burden on us

The government claimed last week it needed time to consider lifting its proclamation of emergency in and around Bangkok. Lt Gen Paradorn Pattanatabut, due to be replaced as National Security Council chief, stated the prime minister will consider the issue this week. That was unhelpful. By law, the decree runs out on its own on Saturday, absent a decision to extend it. The question is, why the state of emergency still exists.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and her cabinet imposed emergency regulations on Jan 21. Even today, they cover Bangkok, Nonthaburi and parts of Pathum Thani and Samut Prakan provinces. The day the state of emergency came into force, protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban laughed. He said he and supporters would simply ignore it. And he did. So did virtually every citizen.

The emergency in fact caused a massive, near-universal disrespect for rule of law. The government appointed a Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order, headed by — of all people — the belligerent Chalerm Yubamrung. In the 55 days since then, there is no known achievement by Mr Chalerm, his two-billion-baht CMPO or the emergency itself. Mr Suthep went ahead unimpeded with his “Bangkok Shutdown”. Mr Chalerm not only had to eat his ultimatums including, “We will retake Government House”, but saw Government House completely barricaded from access.

As for the public, including Mr Suthep’s People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), they gathered in groups of six or more to rabble-rouse on politics. The courts dismissed pretty well every charge of “violating the emergency regulations”.

No building was demolished, no newspaper was censored. Only roads were blocked. This went against the state of emergency. Mr Chalerm’s single known achievement is signing the order to deport the highly regarded and influential Satish Sehgal — and Mr Sehgal is still here.

On the first day of the so-called emergency, business leaders predicted dire consequences. They said it would deepen political conflict. The business of the nation, from local shops to international trade, would suffer. Tourists, scanning the “Thailand under emergency rule” headlines, would stay away in droves. The Thai Chamber of Commerce stated clearly that the emergency would not put an end to the protests, but it would hurt trade. Fifty-five days later, can anyone argue?

In the past month, Thai businessman William E Heinecke, of Minor International, has written twice in these pages of troubles with the emergency. His cogent, serious warnings should have been obvious to the government. Tourism is down. Thailand’s international image is wounded. The knock-on effect is massive. As Mr Heinecke notes in an example, harm extends down to the farmer who grows the food that goes to market that sells to the restaurant that feeds the tourist.

Mr Heinecke wrote of travel warnings. They are issued by governments of nations (including Thailand). Supposedly they inform and caution citizens of dangers they might encounter abroad. Almost all are so general and so far out of date that they are actually useless. In truth, they merely are transparent coverings for the bureaucrats who issue them, and can tell superiors they have (over-)warned citizens of the so-called dangers of travel to, say, Thailand during these past 55 days.

There are rare times that governments must declare emergency measures. Natural disasters, for example, often require a military response. In recent years, however, governments have reached for the emergency decree as an alternative to dealing honestly and forthrightly with political problems. The current emergency, which never should have been declared, should be lifted even before it runs out automatically on Saturday.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (3)