Exasperated by criticism and calls for political accountability, the Prayut government is pushing a law to clip the wings of civil society. This is a travesty.
A strong civil society is essential for a healthy democracy. Yet instead of supporting civil society, the government has chosen to obstruct its operations. This reveals the government's tunnel vision and is a gross violation of the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression.
By intruding into civil society activities and obstructing them with red tape and imposing strict state scrutiny, the government infringes on the right of citizens to organise and seek justice.
Nonetheless, the cabinet approved the Non-Profit Organisations Operations Act in January this year. The bill was prepared by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, the state body overseeing non-profit organisations.
The controversial law was rushed through ceremonial public hearing procedures which ended on Friday, and the bill will head to parliament soon.
The government claims the law will support the work of non-profit organisations and promote their transparency. The real motive, however, is to bring civil society under total state control.
It is no secret the government is frustrated by rights groups that expose state violations of human rights as well as abuses of power and corruption. But rather than punish wrongdoers it has chosen to punish the whistle-blowers.
The legislation exemplifies a new modus operandi for how authorities deal with non-profit organisations and specifically non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
It should be mentioned that the relationship between the state and civic groups has been largely cordial since international non-governmental organisations began opening offices in Bangkok during the 1990s.
There are now 86 international NGOs and more than 25,000 local NGOs based in the country. Their presence serves as "eyes and ears" which have helped make Thailand stand out as a free, open society in the Asean region.
The draft law will sour that cordial relationship.
If this anti-civil society effort becomes law, non-profit organisations must acquire legal status and state approval to operate. To show "transparency", they also must declare funding sources, submit expenditure audits and provide detailed reports about their activities to the government. If they fail to do so, or their activities are deemed a threat to "national security", they can be taken to court.
Democracy enshrines a people's right to organise and participate in public policy decision-making. Thailand's 2017 constitution -- engineered by the 2014 coup-makers led by Mr Prayut Chan-o-cha himself -- speaks of upholding similar rights. The anti-civil society bill, therefore, betrays the constitutional mandate.
The government often plays the nationalistic card by accusing rights groups of using foreign funds to attack Thailand. The groups are not attacking the country. They are attacking a system that needs reform. And most right groups depend on international resources because local donors dare not support their cause for fear of political backlash.
Also questionable is why international support to strengthen civil society in Thailand faces hurdles when the government supports direct foreign investment that often exploits the country's valuable natural resources. The Board of Investment, for example, grants tax-free grace periods and many other privileges to help investors maximise profit. Meanwhile, investment in human security and justice from international organisations faces strict scrutiny.
Furthermore, officials have the authority under this law to fine or close down civic groups. This is an overreach of power. Handing down verdicts is the duty of the court, not state officials. Should the government be concerned with money laundering and terrorism, there already exist strict laws to tackle these crimes.
Instead of persecuting civic groups, the government should respect the constitution to support people's organisations. A special fund should be set up to support civic groups' social missions, while efforts to harass or obstruct peoples' rights and freedoms should result in punishment.
Instead of using the notion of transparency to harass civil society, the government should itself practise transparency and indeed accountability by making known to the public its own expenditures and activities in full. In short, it should practise what it preaches.
What Thailand needs is not a law to control civil society but a law to make state agencies transparent and accountable. Democracy is a remote goal if governments have free rein to harass civil society. The Non-Profit Organisations Operations Act must be dropped.