In what is seen as rare public opposition against a particular legislative effort, business communities, academics, social activists, lawyers and a senior judge have come together to rally against the controversial cybersecurity bill. Their main concern is that the bill would allow authorities to search private properties, seize computers and hard drives, and snoop for information on individuals and businesses without court orders.
Their mutual opposition demonstrates that the bill, in its current form, would have far-reaching effects, compromising liberty and privacy and bending the rule of law.
Of course, the drafters of the bill that was proposed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society are fully aware of these concerns after many rounds of public hearings. But they have done little to address them. Their latest "revised" draft still propels Thailand towards becoming what is described by Appeal Court senior judge Sriamporn Saligupta as a "police state", reflecting their purely stubborn refusal to make a sensible law.
The opposition have been so loud and clear that it prompted Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to call for a review of the bill.
But the revised draft still allows a new government agency, the National Cybersecurity Committee (NCSC) to be chaired by the prime minister, to access private information stored on computer systems and make copies of the data. It will also still allow the agency to conduct surveillance on systems deemed as threats, and then examine and/or stop them. All these actions can be carried out at the discretion of the agency's secretary-general, without court orders.
The drafters, however, seem to be trying to show they are listening to the many concerns of stakeholders by making a few minor changes to the definition of terms used in the bill and the need for authorities to seek a court order for the seizure of computers, access to, and the testing of computer systems. But the draft is wily enough to say that such a court order can be bypassed in cases deemed as an "emergency" or a crisis.
This means authorities will be allowed to use their discretion on what is considered an emergency or a crisis. It simply leaves room for abuses by the NCSC, similar to how police and military officers abuse their authority by citing national security as a basis for their arrests of activists and dissidents in recent years.
In what is seen as a rare rebuke by a judge, Mr Sriamporn of the Appeal Court pointed out on Monday that the revised bill would enable the powers-that-be and the government to suppress their opponents and critics, distorting not only the rule of law but also the democratic system, once the country returns to civilian rule.
Worse still, he said, it would promote authoritarianism.
Businesses have also opposed the bill given that the NCSC can order them to hand over trade-sensitive information. They will also be required to alert the NCSC of any cyber threats or face punishment.
Without changes, the bill will undermine confidence among foreign investors and companies, driving them out of the country.
The drafters still have time to revise the draft again prior to having it vetted and approved by the cabinet and the National Legislative Assembly at year end. This time, they must not turn a deaf ear to the growing voices of the opposition.
Any provisions that allow authorities to bypass judicial oversight for access, and the seizure of private properties and information must not have a place in the bill. A cybersecurity law should shield individuals and companies against cyber threats, rather than treating them as enemies of the state, and giving birth to a police state.
