AS-009-2007
January 12, 2007
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
THAILAND: Martial law rules in constitution’s stead
An article in the Bangkok Post of January 11 quoted General Sonthi Boonyaratglin as saying that martial law in Thailand, which was imposed on September 19 when he seized power, has never been partially lifted as the public had been led to believe in late November. According to General Sonthi, the King has not signed into effect any amendment to the law. The junta now instead intends to exercise wider powers entitling soldiers to search premises, prohibit actions, seize items and detain people for questioning, he told the paper.
After September 19, the new military government in Thailand hurried to have an interim constitution written up which would create an illusion of its adherence to principles of law, after which it named a retired army general as its “civilian” prime minister. A lot of rhetoric about popular reform, the rule of law, human rights and democracy followed, together with various assemblies, councils and appointments intended to inflate the impression that the regime was sincere in its intentions.
In fact, the gaping hole left by the abrogated 1997 Constitution was filled not by the sham charter but by martial law. Nor is there anything “interim” about this arrangement. The intention of the armed forces has from the beginning been to restore an earlier model of hierarchy and administration to the government, military, police and bureaucracy. The extended application of martial law in Thailand is not simply about the replacement of one government or one constitution with another, or competition between the existing regime and members of the ousted administration. It is much about a radical reversion to a discredited, outdated and unpopular mode of elite authoritarian rule under the guise of formal democracy.
But martial law is primitive. It is characterised not by the creation of law, but rather its suspension. It is not capable of meeting the many needs and complexities of a modern state. On the contrary, it is intended to serve the limited objectives of a small group of persons and their agents. Where it substitutes for constitutional rule, however imperfect that may have been, there follows growing confusion about the functions, roles and relationships of state organisations and their personnel. In Thailand, with its multitude of overlapping and competing departments, offices and commands, this can only give rise to even greater conflict for which there will be no easy solutions, which will in turn demand increasingly aggressive and uncompromising responses from the military for it to keep control. That is the direction in which the country is now headed.
?lt;br />The facade of civilian government and adherence to the rule of law has come crashing down in Bangkok. What remains is the antithesis of these principles. Today what counts in Thailand is military dictatorship and martial law. All else is fraud and pretence.
The Asian Human Rights Commission now urgently calls upon the government of Thailand to pull the country back from the very dangerous point to which it has taken it and
1. Make an unequivocal statement clarifying the current situation and indicating why the country apparently remains under martial law well over a month after it was purportedly lifted;
2. Ensure that martial law is fully lifted without further delay;
3. Refrain from using any of the provisions of martial law to curtail basic freedoms prior to its lifting; and,
4. Decline to renew the emergency decree over the southern provinces when its current period expires on January 20.
Beyond these immediate steps, the overwhelming challenge for the people of Thailand is to restore to the country the seeds for the rule of law and genuine constitutionalism from which the 1997 Constitution emerged, and struggled to grow up to when it was cut down in 2006. That challenge will only be met once military rule is ended. How long that takes depends largely upon how long the public is prepared to endure a cabal of generals who say one thing and do the opposite, disbar abuse of power and enjoyment of corrupt practices by anyone other than themselves, encourage the free sharing of opinions that don’t contradict their own, permit public participation in a rigged constitution-writing process, and allow the judiciary to be independent so long as it does what they want. Judging from history, it may not be long.
