National security censorship

“National security” is a term that authoritarian regimes love. Why? Because invocations of “national security” censors and shuts down debate and limits dissent.

We know, for example, that the monarchy (and, hence, lese majeste) is considered a matter of “national security.” Judges regularly deny bail on the basis that the alleged crime is a matter of “national security.” The regime goes to UN bodies declaring Article 112 a matter of “national security.” Doing so covers up the failures of the monarchy and the repression of the regime.

In an interesting case of shutting down debate, the regime’s politicians are threatening opposition politicians with legal sanction if they debate a matter of “national security.” This time, it’s not the monarchy, but the border.

Clipped from Thai PBS

Thai PBS reports that the “Government chief whip Nirote Sunthornlekha has warned the opposition that the plan by some of its MPs to question the government over last week’s incursion by a Myanmar MiG-29 jet into Thai airspace, over Tak province, may undermine the country’s national security…”. Nirote declares that parliament discussing matters of “national security” “could be deemed a criminal offence.”

Given that the prime minister Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha declared the incursion as no big deal, and Nirote agrees, it would seem that parliament discussing the matter is, somehow, a big deal. What is it that Nirote and political masters want covered up?