The Cabinet resolution of June 12 to close the sluice gates of Pak Mun Dam permanently, and the rekindled 10-year-old land dispute between people and the military at Mae Ram village, Mae Rim district, Chiang Mai, reflect the return of a military presence in conflicts between the state and the people.
And this would prevail if and when the internal security bill gets endorsed and becomes law.
Military might vs. community rights
Pak Mun and Mae Rim are just two examples of the military's role in numerous conflicts. The state employs the military might to suppress conflicts over resources, particularly during times of semi-democracy. In 1992, for example, there was a military-led attempt to forcefully resettle 250,000 farmer families out of 352 forests in the Northeast. Many villages were stormed into by armed troops driving the villagers out of their homes; houses and barns were quickly demolished.
During 1993-1994, the armed forces were used in several national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the North to expel communities by oppression and intimidation. In the evacuation of hill-tribe peoples from Doi Luang National Park in Lampang, houses were burned down, and people were threatened with guns. The hill-tribes faced extortion at military checkpoints; some women even endured sexual harassment.
In the case of the Pak Mun Dam, the Council for National Security (CNS) Chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, also the Army chief, attended the Cabinet meeting in his capacity as Director of the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC). Many eyebrows were raised wondering what ISOC had to do with the Pak Mun case. Under the influence of ISOC, the Cabinet made an abrupt about-turn on the issue. The May 29 Cabinet resolution, that approved the opening of the dam's sluice gates from June 7, was reversed in favour of a decision to close the gates permanently.
The Communities Network of Ubon Ratchathani had previously complained about ISOC's interference in the Pak Mun case through its Centre of Poverty Eradication under the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy.
In the Mae Rim land dispute, in early July, the Fifth Special Warfare Regiment in Chiang Mai suddenly revived the dispute, prosecuting three families in an attempt to evict them, despite a joint agreement with Chiang Mai Governor in 1993 that the military would pose further threat or intimidation. The Army even ceded the land to the government for land reform following the May 4 1993 Cabinet resolution.
The community has in fact a long history of settlement on that site, with its temple established in 1930. Some villagers have held official land documents issued in compliance with the 1936 land law, before the lands were expropriated by the Special Warfare Regiment in 1940.
Internal security law or militarization law?
On June 19, the Cabinet approved the Internal Security Bill proposed by the Office of the National Security Council. The bill is currently being examined by the Council of State, and will later be forwarded to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA). Many human rights advocates and academics have strongly opposed the bill, have criticized it as part of the hidden agenda of the Council for National Security (CNS) to prolong its power, and have demanded that it be scrapped.
According to these analysts, the bill gives the Army chief, as Director of the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), sweeping powers to violate people's rights: closing public roads, banning gatherings and advertisements, arresting and detaining suspects without warrants, etc. Military rule would overshadow the elected government.
The definition of the threat to national security was criticized as too broad. The military would be able to operate anywhere in the country.
Pairoj Polpetch of the People's Rights and Freedoms Association was particularly concerned that the ISOC officers, protected by the law, could not be held liable for their acts and would enjoy immunity from prosecution in the Administrative Court.
Naruemon Thabchumpon, lecturer in the Political Science Faculty of Chulalongkorn University, said that the bill had nothing to do with the threat of terrorism, but was rather motivated by internal politics. Many past attempts to push for such a law had failed because it infringed on people's rights. It has now succeeded in this administration.
Now is a pivotal period on Thai politics. This political transition does not lie simply in accepting or rejecting the draft constitution and voting in the following general election. If the Internal Security Bill were to become law, this country would truly move backward, no matter how fabulous the Constitution is.
