The Finance Ministry's proposed legal amendments to turn bribe givers into state witnesses in a move to target corruption in state procurement has received mixed responses.
Under the ministry's proposal, private firms accused of offering bribes to state agencies are allowed to pay a fine to settle the bribery charges and name other graft recipients. The current law says people who offer bribes face the same penalty as the bribe takers.
While two members of the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) hail it as the right move to deal with graft, a business representative said it may not make a difference in cases of "consensual" bribery.
Seri Suwanpanont, chairman of the NRSA's political reform steering committee, said the proposed amendments are on the right path to tackling graft in state agencies.
According to Mr Seri, private companies do not want to pay bribes but they are compelled to do so because they want contracts. The proposal is likely to deter state officials from demanding kickbacks.
He also expressed support for Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to use his special powers to enforce the changes to relevant law and bypass the National Legislative Assembly's deliberation process.
NRSA member Wanchai Sornsiri said if those who have paid bribes can prove they were forced to do so and the bribe payments were the result of extortion, they should be made witnesses, yet those who offered bribes must be prosecuted.
The NRSA member said he supports the related proposal that the statute of limitations on corruption cases should never expire. Legal action against those who flee overseas must be resumed whenever they return, he noted.
Gen Viddhavat Rajatanun, acting chief ombudsman, said the fresh proposal by the Finance Ministry deserves proper debate. He said its merit lies in that it will give graft fighters more witnesses.
According to Gen Viddhavat, one of the obstacles in fighting corruption is a shortage, if not an absence, of witnesses in corruption trials.
However, he urged caution over the proposal that the statute of limitations should not expire, saying it could invite foul play such as evidence being fabricated.
"When a case drags on, it's harder to find evidence and witnesses. It could be abused to intimidate others. What if a retired official is accused of corruption 16 years ago? That official could be in trouble if he didn't keep evidence," he said.
He said that maintaining the statute of limitations is a good approach but authorities should take the gathering of evidence seriously.
Romsai Thipayasawet, president of the Chachoengsao industry council, said he wants to see stricter enforcement of the current law. He said the proposal is unlikely to combat corruption practices to which bribe givers and takers agree.
"It's better to focus on enforcement of the law. For the businesses, legal disputes aren't good for business even though they are witnesses. This approach is unlikely to work with firms that do business with the state."