Protest law needs time

Protest law needs time

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha is correct when he says new legislation is necessary to address public gatherings. The rolling protests that have highlighted political protests since 2005 are no way to run a democratic country. But Gen Prayut is wrong about the urgency involved. His current, martial law is no model for the needed statutes, and actually will inhibit and cripple efforts to rush through a law that will certainly prove imperfect.

Before anything, it is important to recognise the purpose of laws on public gatherings. That means starting with the basic principles: All Thais must be free to gather, and to petition the government and to speak their minds. If the aim is truly to put the country back on the road to democracy, then these principles are not up for debate. 

For more than six months, these principles have been shunned. It is possible to defend the bans on public gatherings, as many do, by claiming they are necessary to keep the nation calm. Gen Prayut and the military have claimed they were forced to overthrow the government and constitution because events and violence were spiralling out of control.

Fear of violence and bloodshed explains support for the regime and the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). That is why many regime supporters prefer to soften the language of martial law's effects by referring to them as mere "restrictions". They are not; the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expressions are being suppressed.

Any reform efforts will be in vain if these important pillars of an open society are trampled upon.

The prime minister said last Friday that the government and Royal Thai Police must act urgently to pass a new law to protect society. In fact, there is no need for urgency.

Martial law, which the premier says will stay in place indefinitely, ensures there are no problems with public gatherings. The two bodies he named to write and pass the new law are ill-suited for the job. The mission of the police is to enforce laws, not to write them. And the military-dominated government cannot be objective in both enforcing the current law denying basic civil rights while debating the fine points of a serious new law on freedom.

Any new law must protect freedom of speech, while recognising that the rights apply to all — equally. In the past nine years, anti-government protests using freedom of speech have continually denied rights to fellow citizens, such as the right to move freely. Gathering to seek redress or demand accountability from abusive governments or businesses is a basic right. Defining the point where that group's rights to speak overrules others' rights is tough, to say the least.

Gen Prayut should realise the irony of the police and the military regime dictating a new law on core freedoms. This is an issue that deserves and demands public input, national debate and the most careful consideration. A democratically elected parliament and government would have a challenging task to bring this issue to an acceptable conclusion.

The military has repeatedly emphasised that the putsch was a necessary interruption so the country could move on in peace. The country now needs to move toward a more open society. The current national goal should be to remove barriers to basic human rights and make citizens free again. The premier's talk last Friday was merely the opening of the debate. He should now open the issue for lengthy consideration, or simply pass it on to the next elected government.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (1)