Critics of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) were quick to accuse the graft-busters of lusting after power for proposing a bill to the National Legislative Assembly seeking to greatly increase its authority.
Are critics too hasty to jump to such a conclusion? Or are they just being pessimistic about the NACC? Let’s take a closer look at the essence of the bill, and then make your own judgement.
The proposed amendments are: statute of limitations clock in corruption cases would stop ticking while an accused, or a defendant, is on the run; life banishment from politics for politicians who conceal their assets; declaration of assets by political officials and executives of local administration bodies; powers to mete out disciplinary action against officials found guilty of corruption by the NACC, but who are spared penalties by their respective agencies; maximum penalty of death for corrupt officials.
The NACC might have thought that its legislative move would receive the blessings of the government and the NLA, given the severity of the corruption problem and the massive damage rendered to the country -- as manifested in the corruption-plagued rice pledging scheme and the Klong Dan waste water treatment facility fiasco. The NACC was wrong.
The government appeared to be luke warm about the NACC’s initiative given the tone of Deputy Prime Minister Visanu Krua-ngam when commenting on it. He said the government had nothing to do with the amendment bill as it was within the authority of the NACC to submit proposed legislation directly to the NLA, bypassing the cabinet.
He did, however, say that some of the proposed amendments are necessary and should proceed, but others could wait until the completion of the drafting of the new constitution.
Meanwhile, the NLA set up a committee to study the proposed amendments. Paibul Nititawan, chair of the panel setting the framework of the new charter, said the proposed amendments might affect the drafting of the new constitution. He pointed out that if the content of the new charter does not correspond with the amendments, the NACC Act would have to be amended again.
Now let us focus on the points that the NACC would like to amend.
Vattana Asavahame appears at the Supreme Court to testify in his graft case involving the 23 billion baht Klong Dan wastewater treatment project in Samut Prakan, in August 2008. (Bangkok Post file photo)
Firstly, the issue of the statute of limitations. Take for example the case of former deputy interior minister Vattana Asavahame, sentenced to 10 years in prison for corruption in the Klong Dan project, but who ran away before the court handed down the final judgement. He and his cronies sold public land and pocketed the money.
If the statute of limitations clock in his case does not stop ticking, this convicted and corrupt former minister will be able to return home a free man in the next couple of years. Under the proposed amendment he will have to spend his entire life in self exile abroad, or return to spend time in jail.
This amendment is therefore reasonable and should be supported by the NLA, otherwise many other crooks will follow in the example of Vattana and many other fugitives before him and since.
Life banishment from politics for corruption, instead of just five years, is also worthy of consideration given the fact that many of the graft cases involving government procurement projects and mega projects involve politicians.
The scandalous futsal pitches project is just one recent example -- politicians manipulated the budget of the Basic Education Office and rammed the futsal pitches down the throats of hundreds of school directors in the North and Northeast without asking them first whether they wanted the pitches or not.
As for the NACC's bid for powers to mete out disciplinary action against corrupt officials. If the agencies corrupt officials work for refuse to take disciplinary action against them, as demanded by the NACC, should the case just be dropped? And in reality, there are many such cases.
Last but not least, the proposed maximum penalty of death for corrupt officials. Personally, I don’t think the death penalty would be an effective deterrent against corruption, in the same way it has not discouraged people from getting involved in drug trafficking -- so long as they think the potential gain is worth the risk with small chances of getting caught.
Personally, I don’t think the NACC is power hungry. The graft-busters are just seeking more teeth to do their job properly and effectively. But the agency needs to speed up its work and to improve its performance; there is huge backlog of cases.