The men who stood up so dauntlessly to defeat a despicable proposal in the anti-graft organic bill in the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) last week deserve the nation's gratitude. Earlier, a small group of the junta-backed legislature had suddenly produced the proposal as a last-minute addition to the bill to authorise widespread and unregulated wiretapping. It would have enabled the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to launch surveillance against, literally, anyone or any group. Worst of all, there was no provision for oversight. The proposal deserved to be shot down, and one must hope it will never resurface.
The wiretapping proposal was a terrible idea from the start. It was floated in such a startling manner that it reminded people of a similar attempt to railroad the parliament four years ago, when the Pheu Thai Party had crudely and slyly tried to force through a political amnesty bill. The nation must hope that the reaction to the defeat of this wiretapping proposal is not as drastic as the 2013-14 protests and coup.
The proposal to allow the NACC to set surveillance standards, in secret, was in any case an idea that deserved no respect. It strongly backed dictatorial and "big brother" powers, and that too at a time when virtually the entire country is demanding free elections to put Thailand back on the road to democracy.
There is no room for placing such secret powers in the hands of an independent agency in a free country. However, this should not detract the NACC or the tens of millions of Thais dedicated to wiping out corruption, especially in politics. The new constitution and organic laws have increased the scope and powers of the NACC against graft. But in order to succeed, the NACC must -- more than anything else -- be trustworthy. Tackling high-level corruption is already a tough job, but it could turn impossible without public trust.
Last week's so-called "debate" in the NLA lasted just three days. On the first day, the bill's sponsors suddenly and without notice introduced an eavesdropping and wiretapping clause into the proposed 193-section bill. This, perhaps more than anything else, shows the sponsors of the bill were banking on the element of surprise, possibly to mislead and certainly to ram the bill through the legislative process before the opposition could rally against the idea.
That the controversial proposal failed in the next two days, and was dead by Friday, highlights the overall and deep-set revulsion to secret surveillance, especially wiretapping. Even those with short memories were appalled last week. But the majority of Thais are in favour of strong protection for civil rights. Many remember the 1990s, a time when democratic voices flourished, and a people's constitution was promulgated after long and careful consultation with all Thai citizens.
Those were the days when the government supported and helped pass a law against wiretapping. In those days, that almost exclusively and literally meant monitoring telephone calls. But the rise in the use of mobile phones and internet messaging has, if anything, underscored the need for stronger prohibition of unregulated surveillance.
The anti-wiretapping laws provided an out. In most dire criminal cases, security forces can obtain permission for specific wiretaps. Senior judges of the higher courts can examine evidence and issue wiretapping warrants.
This seems both logical and acceptable to most reasonable people. However, it was somewhat incomprehensible for the junta's appointees who pushed unsuccessfully last week to turn things around on their head. In short, the graftbusters are now required to seek wiretapping permission from a Criminal Court chief justice in a given case and once permitted, they are allowed to decide on when, where, how many and whom to tap without any oversight.
The proposed addition was a bad idea that met the fate it deserved. We fear, however, that more attempts will be made to revive this attempt to trample our civil rights. Right-thinking legislators and all citizens must be ready to oppose such measures.
