The National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) ruling that National Reform Council (NRC) members need not declare their assets is a big let-down.
With transparency being the keyword in the national reform process, it goes without saying that people who are asked to shape public policies and the country's direction should abide by the principle of transparency by declaring their assets.
Asset declaration has become the norm in political life in the past few decades. Whether or not policy-makers must declare assets and liabilities should not be in question at all. The NACC's decision, therefore, disappoints the public, rolls back past democratic practices, and betrays the spirit of reform.
According to NACC commissioner Vicha Mahakhun, the decision is unanimous. Here's the rationale: The role of NRC members is merely academic. They only contribute their knowledge and expertise toward change and reform to improve the country. Since they cannot decide on particular projects or budgetary matters, their work does not involve conflicts of interest. For that reason, they need not declare their assets and liabilities.
This rationale is highly debatable.
The NRC will have to decide on 11 reform issues. Many of them are controversial, divisive, and confront old ties between business and officialdom. Among them are energy reform, overhauling public infrastructure and logistics, and management of natural resources such as land, water and forests.
It is naive to believe NRC members will not meet with any lobbying from vested interest groups, from either big business or the mandarins.
While the government's focus is on electoral reform to decide who can and cannot enter the political arena, other reform issues on education, anti-corruption, social disparity and mass media all have major ramifications for society.
The reform proposals that the NRC will send to the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) are expected to steer the country in a new direction. They will have big implications for the way resources and budgets are allocated. The proposals will be screened by the CDA and sent back to the NRC for approval. It is quite clear these roles are political.
That the NACC has decided to go against public expectations on transparency does not bode well for the Prayut government.
Of late, it has met with increasing public disappointment. For example, the public wants the government to deliver the officials behind the microphone graft scandal. The government has not only failed to do so, but appeared to be protective of the officials involved.
Despite the promise from coup leader and Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha to help the poor, forest evictions continue unabated. Despite his vow to protect the environment and bridge social disparities, his government's push for megaprojects that will destroy the environment and locals' livelihoods has rendered his words empty.
The government's protective stance toward the police in the Koh Tao murders has also raised questions about how it can ensure the rule of law without police reform.
With his repeated stress on the need for transparency, the prime minister could have issued an order on asset declarations himself. Yet he has bowed to the NACC ruling, which is bad for his government's image.
Old-style politicians are condemned for rampant abuse of power. The public expect coup-makers, the government, and coup-installed bodies to prove themselves in transparency, political accountability and anti-corruption commitments.
It is easy for the government to turn the tide of public disappointment: It must practise what it preaches.