Don't police our morals

Don't police our morals

The military government is making an unmistakable attempt to foster national morality. Even so, the latest plan by the National Reform Council to set up yet another special body to police the moral values of public figures is still a step too far.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has shown a clear preference for conservatism. His government has a bias for seeking public conformity rather than a healthy exchange of ideas.

Both the premier and his National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) have put bureaucrats at the centre of their policy implementation. Apparently, neither the junta nor the government have that much faith in politicians, business people, or even private citizens.

Whether a return to conservative values is appropriate for a country struggling with deep political polarisation is open for debate. After all, the "roadmap to democracy" will not actually be completed until a new election is held, possibly in early 2016.

Criticisms abound over the government's multimillion baht spending to promote the submissive 12 core values for Thai people. But an argument can be made to say the cabinet has the right to execute such promotional projects — whether it be a series of short films or Line stickers. They may be controversial, but they are not downright harmful.

However, the proposal floated by NRC chairman Thienchay Kiranandana is different. Citing the need to combat corruption, which lies at the centre of the reform efforts, Mr Thienchay has said the NRC wants to set up yet another super-agency to serve as a "national morals council".

To have an agency specifically to safeguard national morals sounds ominous enough. Based on what Mr Thienchay has sketched out as the proposed council's work scope, the new agency would have a hard time fitting into the current political structure and social standards.

According to Mr Thienchay, the national morals council would be set up under the constitution. Its proposed auxiliary work is the only part of its remit that seems vaguely acceptable. This includes working with other state agencies and private bodies to promote moral values, supporting the state's efforts to combat corruption and providing the public with information regarding public office holders.

The rest, which arguably comprises the more important aspects of its duties, is unclear.

Mr Thienchay said the morals council would "oversee" the standards of morals, ethics and good governance for public figures, state agencies, and private companies doing business with the government.

It is open to debate how the proposed council would achieve the task. If it is to "regulate" all existing agencies and public figures, it has to be set up as a super-body with the authority to override them all. This raises many formidable questions. For example, how would this new agency relate to those that already exist, such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission or the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office? And to whom will the morals council be accountable?

Mr Thienchay even suggested the new council be protected from prosecution to allow it to carry out its monitoring job effectively. This specification is definitely out of sync with public expectations of more transparency and accountability from state offices.

Above all, the standards of morals, ethics or good governance are hardly set in stone. They usually differ from one company to another and from one community to another. They cannot be arbitrated by any single state office.

The national morals council is unnecessary. It is out of step with a return to democracy, even with the fight against corruption that it proclaims to be the basis for its establishment.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (6)