(For those readers who have trouble telling the difference, this week’s piece is the genuine article.)

The constitution of the old Soviet Union was, I am reliably informed, an impressive document, outlining the rights and freedoms of all citizens. Until you got to the last clause, which said that the constitution could not used in any action to protect those rights and freedoms.

Something similar is happening in Thailand.

Thailand has, for 10 years now, enjoyed the existence of a National Human Rights Commission, an innovation of the 1997 constitution of fond memory. When the military ripped up this document after the coup in 2006, they automatically removed the legal basis for the Commission’s existence.

However, the 2007 constitution resurrected the idea of having a National Human Rights Commission, but made a few changes in how it was selected and structured and in the powers it enjoyed. This meant that the 1999 National Human Rights Commission Act was no longer in synch with the constitution. A new law was needed.

The outgoing Commission, greatly reduced in numbers and working well beyond their sell-by date, set about drafting this. The bill has jumped through the procedural hurdles and is now in the queue waiting for the new parliament to debate and decide.

But a funny thing happened on the way there. Somebody added Section 43.

This says that no one, neither a member of the Commission, nor a member of a sub-commission, nor a member of staff, can reveal any information that they receive in the course of their duties. The only exceptions are if the Commission resolves to issue a report on a matter, or if the facts are disclosed during court proceedings. And to make sure that this gagging clause really does gag, Section 51 sets the punishment for illegal disclosure at not more than 6 months in the clink and/or a fine of not more than 10,000 baht.

And the question is: Why?

The 1999 Act had no such provision and its absence didn’t seem to be a problem. Groups who work on human rights don’t see the point. The National Human Rights Commission itself has said they don’t want it. And you can be pretty sure that, beyond safeguards for victims and witnesses, those suffering human rights abuses don’t want the identity of the perpetrators kept hidden.

So why?

Or perhaps more to the point, who did this?

Now this column does not subscribe conspiracy theories. Except when there really is a conspiracy, as seems to be the case here.

The hot money is on the Council of State. This is the government’s legal eagle, regularly scanning prospective legislation to make sure that it has the proper language, that laws do not contravene the constitution or any international treaty obligations the government has signed on to, and so on.

And apparently in this case, they saw their role as inserting a poison pill inside the National Human Rights Act. The imposition of this rule of silence makes it impossible for the National Human Rights Commission to do its job.

It is required by the constitution (current version) ‘to examine and report the commission or omission of acts which violate human rights’. Tricky when you risk 6 months in jail for the reporting part of that.

It also makes it nigh impossible for anyone outside the NHRC to monitor its activities. And don’t think you can keep tabs on the NHRC’s goings on by reading their annual reports, because the latest they have on offer on their website is the report for 2008.

Now serious questions were asked when the current Commissioners were selected (by a committee of 5 active and retired judges and Chai Chidchob as President of Parliament). The new Commission didn’t seem like the cream of the crop (one was even named as a human rights violator by the previous Commission). The question asked then was: Are these Commissioners up to the job?

It looked like somebody wanted a compliant Commission. The gagging clause looks like somebody also wants a silent Commission. Are those two somebodies the same somebody?