The cabinet on Tuesday approved the National Police Office's draft bill on public gatherings. The bill will have to go through the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) before it can be enforced. But that is the easy part. Both the government and the NLA are handpicked by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) which tends to curb freedom of expression.
The bill seeks to control public gatherings to protect the public interest and to maintain peace and order. The essence of the bill is that the organiser of a public gathering or protest must notify the local police 24 hours in advance with details about when and where the gathering is to take place and the estimated number of participants.
There are restrictions on where public gatherings can be staged such as near the palace, temples, schools and government offices. Last but not least, those who break the law face imprisonment or fines. The police bill is nothing new. In fact, similar bills were approved by the government or the parliament during previous governments, but they were dumped before becoming effective due to political change. Pro-democracy and human rights advocacy groups are against such a bill because it goes against the basic principle of freedom of expression. The presence of martial law, however, has discouraged them from speaking up.
Still, the public gathering bill is necessary to protect the rights of individuals from infringements from protesters and to maintain public order. Many business people at Ratchaprasong shopping district, who were affected by the prolonged protest by red-shirt protesters in 2010 and many Bangkokians who were affected by the six-month protests by the People's Democratic Reform Committee, may feel the need for such a bill to protect their rights and interests.
The question is how to find the right balance. To do so, there must be input from the people's sector which should include human rights, pro-democracy groups and ordinary people. Unfortunately, the bill in question was purely the work of the National Police Office, which means little emphasis on freedom of expression.
No sensible local police chief will allow a public gathering to take place in his area of jurisdiction if the gathering is politically motivated or to protest against the government because that means that he may put his job at risk. The bill needs to be modified. For instance, permission from the police is not needed and only advance notification is enough. Certain levels of public inconvenience caused by public rallies such as partial traffic blockades should be permissible, but that should not deprive the right of affected individuals to take the case to the civil court to seek compensation from the rally organiser.
The cabinet's endorsement of the public gathering bill clearly reflects the NCPO's narrow-minded view and disdain for freedom of expression. It is an extension of the heavy-handed acts that public protesters have been subjected to for the past six months. A group of students at Kasetsart University on Tuesday were told to stop their planned protest march against the Mae Wong dam project or face arrest. Yesterday, another group of students, who were helping Loei villagers fight an environmentally destructive gold mine, were arrested for their peaceful protest against the prime minister in Khon Kaen.
The state's intolerance of public grievances is hardly a healthy sign for national reform and reconciliation.