NCPO needs thicker skin

The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) is treading an increasingly fine line with its continued use of summonses and “attitude adjustment” sessions when dealing with people who voice opposition. The latest case, which clearly illustrates the military regime’s mounting dilemma, involved the brief detention of leading Pheu Thai party member and former minister, Watana Muangsook, on Wednesday.

Mr Watana was released after spending some nine hours in custody at one of the army’s Bangkok bases. He was also charged with violating the Computer Crime Act of 2007 for allegedly inputting false information into a computer system that caused damage to others.

The NCPO would not have stirred up such controversy if it had filed the computer crime charge against Mr Watana according to normal legal procedures.

Unfortunately, the military regime’s decision to send military personnel to Mr Watana’s house, take him to an army base, forcefully detain him well into the night and then to also presume that all NCPO members are above criticism is worrying.

What led to Mr Watana’s summons to have his attitude adjusted was a message he posted on Facebook. In the post, he criticised as sexist a comment made by Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon who said soldiers that had been sent out to trail former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra took photos of her because she was beautiful.

Mr Watana also slammed the NCPO and government for causing further polarisation among Thai society.

There is no denying that Mr Watana’s post was critical of both Gen Prawit and the military regime. However, there is nothing in his message, shared on social media, that appeared dangerous enough to threaten national security. Mr Watana’s post did not instigate unrest or tell people to take any kind of action or to protest.

Gen Prawit insisted it was necessary to enforce the law in such a fashion if Mr Watana’s comment caused damage to the country and incited conflict. Again, Mr Watana’s opinion was decidedly unfavourable to the military regime. Whether such an opinion should instantly be interpreted as one that would portray the country in a negative light or provoke discord is debatable.

NCPO spokesman Winthai Suvaree argued that Mr Watana needed to be taken into custody before the computer crime charge was pressed against him as some of his comments had tarnished the NCPO’s image.

The rationale offers thin protection for the military regime to launch such an oppressive action.

The NCPO can claim that this is no ordinary time and that it is armed with necessary laws to protect itself against claims of human rights violations. However, the ruling regime is still bound by the provisional charter of 2014 to protect the rights, freedoms and liberties as enjoyed by Thai citizens under the constitutional monarchy and as guaranteed by international treaties.

Also, to claim that the NCPO can summon and detain anyone arbitrarily based on the rather ambivalent accusation that they have “tarnished” its image is to make the organisation look repressive.

It does not bode well for the military regime either to seek to intimidate its critics as the action would suggest that it views itself as being above criticism.

As the NCPO and government are telling the people of Thailand to respect the law, they must be the ones who should be leading by example. If Mr Watana broke the law with his Facebook post, he should be dealt with effectively through the Computer Crime Act or normal defamation laws. The summons and detainment were excessive.