THAILAND: Gov’t Faces Political Storm Over Anti-terrorism Law

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Aug 13 2003 (IPS) - The Thai government faces a political storm after it did an about-turn on its counter-terrorism policies, and then ignored the parliament in its rush to crack down on individuals and groups that could unleash violence in the country.

The Thai government faces a political storm after it did an about-turn on its counter-terrorism policies, and then ignored the parliament in its rush to crack down on individuals and groups that could unleash violence in the country.

Human rights activists are now firing broadsides at the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra for its conflicting messages about the terrorist threat that it says Thailand faces.

Till the past weekend, Thaksin kept convincing the public that this South-east Asian country was safe from any acts of violence, as was the case Aug. 5 when a car bomb went off in the Indonesian capital Jakarta, killing at least 10 people.

The government had stuck to this refrain ever since the bomb attacks in Indonesia’s Bali island in October last year, where 202 people were killed.

But on Monday, the government sought the assent of the Thai monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, to impose through an executive decree the country’s anti-terrorism law.

Bangkok defended this measure as urgently needed steps to combat possible acts of terror. ”We need to be quick to issue the (anti-terrorism) law because problems have been occurring in neighbouring countries. If Thailand is slow, we could be a safe-haven for terrorists,” Thaksin was quoted as having said.

But rights activists like Sunai Phasuk ask which government view of the ‘terrorism threat’ can be believed.

”What bothers us to begin with is the government being in total denial all these days about a terrorist threat and saying there was no need for an anti-terrorism law. And then it has changed suddenly,” said Sunai, a researcher at Forum Asia, a Bangkok-based regional human rights lobby.

He also questions the rationale for the special anti-terrorism law when Thailand, he says, has sufficient provisions in the penal code and anti-money laundering laws to deal with the groups bent on terror.

”The Thai penal code has enough clauses to punish perpetrators of terror, so do the national security law and the anti-money laundering law,” Sunai pointed out during an interview. ”There is no need for a new law to combat terrorism.”

Under the new anti-terrorism law, any person who ”threatens to commit a terrorist act and shows behaviour convincing enough to believe the person will do as said” or influences people into such acts will be classified as a ”terrorist” and can face a jail sentence or fines.

The law adds that individuals who commit acts of terror -including spreading fear and harming the public and damaging public or private property – can face the death penalty, life imprisonment, a jail sentence or fines.

With this anti-terrorism law, Thailand joins the ranks of other South-east Asian countries that have either passed or are in the process of passing similar tough measures to thwart acts of terror.

Currently, Indonesia and the Philippines have the special laws, while Cambodia is in the process of formalising similar legal provisions. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia, on the other hand, have used their respective Internal Security Acts (ISA), which allow detention without trial, to crack down on individuals the state suspects as being terrorists.

But the method the Thai government has used to secure the anti-terrorism law has made it vulnerable to charges of undermining the country’s claim to being one of the few democracies in South-east Asia.

It is also being accused of setting in motion a dangerous pattern, where the Thaksin administration could bypass parliament and impose executive decrees for unpopular or tough laws.

”We do not agree with the way the government avoided the legislative process for this law,” Jaran Ditapichai, a member of the National Human Rights Commission, told IPS. ”It means that the government does not respect the democratic process of checks and balances. Parliament should have debated this issue.”

As critical is Kavi Chongkittavorn, a columnist and editor of the English-language newspaper ‘The Nation’. ”This violates the parliamentary procedure, and sidelining the parliament like this could convince the government that it can push through laws without scrutiny and approval from the legislature,” said Kavi.

”What is worse, it has happened when both houses are in session,” he added.

Bangkok’s haste on the matter has prompted speculations that it acted to appease the U.S. government ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit to be held in Thailand in October.

”Pressure and criticism from the U.S. government this year has forced the Thai government to take the current position,” said Sunai. ”This is an attempt to please the U.S. and to be on the side of its friends. Prime Minister Thaksin needs (U.S.) President (George W) Bush to attend the APEC summit.”

But Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh has denied the charge that the Thaksin administration had caved in to Washington’s dictates.

Since the Sep. 11 acts of terror in the United States, Thailand has been spared bomb explosions unlike Indonesia, but it has been identified as a country where Muslim militants from the region have found it easy to enter. Four Thai Muslims were arrested this year for allegedly planning to detonate bombs in Bangkok.

”The new anti-terrorism measure is a good first step as part of a much-needed strategy to handle the emerging threats,” Panitan Wattanayagorn, a security expert at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, told IPS. ” But quick change will not help in the long run.”

What is needed is across-the-board reform, including training people and restructuring the security organisations, he added. ”There is a lack of comprehensive strategies to deal with counter-terrorism measures in Thailand.”