Detention bill goes too far

Within two weeks, probably sooner, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is scheduled to take up the military's request for a new law. It is a serious proposal, which affects the country and should involve more, and better, screening. It would allow military officers to arrest anyone, keep them in military detention and deny all outside access for 12 weeks.

There never has been a law like it in Thai history. This law, if passed, throws us back in time. Constitutions, rule of law and — most importantly — public awareness and opinion have all evolved a long way since then. This makes the proposed legislation more surprising, not less.

Right from the start, it seemed the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) realised the huge importance of such a law. It has provided no announcement. Since it submitted the bill to the NLA, the NCPO has clearly taken a defensive position. It has responded only to media questions and public concerns. It also has failed to explain any key point, including why martial law is not enough to keep what seems a fairly even and peaceful keel throughout the country.

Military spokesmen say that the law will affect few people — soldiers, civilians already in military detention and "emergency cases". The idea that "almost everyone" will never be affected is not in line with the rule of law. Just as there should be no one above the law, there certainly should be no one below it.

The best case possible for this law amounts to, "Trust us, we are the army." The answer to this is obvious. The nation has long trusted its military forces, compared with other institutions. People trust military leaders to do the right thing, in the best interest of the nation.

Giving arbitrary powers to unknown and indeed undefined officers — powers uncomfortably close to life and death — stretches trust too far. Trust cannot be ordered. It only can be earned.

The military command has failed to explain why the change is even necessary. Has some nation-endangering event occurred which would have been prevented by holding a citizen incommunicado for months? What, in fact, is an "emergency"? What officers will be empowered to wave a civilian into military prison without charge or access to family or a lawyer? And who will oversee these life-changing decisions by the responsible officers?

Anonymous army officers would exert powers over every Thai citizen, and yet who would hold them to account?

This alone should disqualify the change. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has presented his temporary rule as a stepping stone to a true democracy. The prime feature of democratic rule is the accountability of those trusted with governing.

It is not a lack of trust to oppose the army's attempt to legalise 3am knocks, unlimited "attitude adjustments" and the threat of lengthy solitary confinement. It is puzzle as to why the military needs such powers and — more importantly — why they must be secret. Open arrests, a transparent justice system and fair courts are how governments earn trust.

The NCPO still has time to recall the bill from the NLA. It should receive serious and open discussion from interested parties nationwide. Such vetting may reveal the reasons why such a law is needed, and better safeguards then can be written.