A very old and perplexing question received a partial answer last weekend. The question is: Who watches the watchdogs?
The answer is unfortunately incomplete but still encouraging. It came from a seminar over the weekend organised by the Office of the Ombudsman where concerned citizens examined the official watchdogs of today, found them wanting in many ways, and examined ways to fix the five agencies in question.
At the seminar, Pichet Sunthornpiphit, former ombudsman and senator, said he had major "independent organisations" in mind. The five he named and flamed are arguably the most important of them all. They are the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the Office of the Auditor-General, the National Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Election Commission.
Whichever agencies one might list, the point is that the past 18 years of instituting independent bodies into the national body has not been a huge success. The military regime has appointed a vast number of committees and members to devise recommendations. But voices must be heard outside the halls under government control. It is difficult to imagine that society will go along with reform proposals that are passed down to citizens. On the other hand, the public will suggest and adapt to reforms that percolate up to the exalted levels such as the constitution writers.
This is why an open process such as the one engineered by the Ombudsman's Office is important. It allows citizens to point out flaws in the current system, and where reform is needed. Just like a prime minister, a bureaucrat or a member of parliament, leaders and members of independent bodies must be held accountable. The "independent" description means the government must not interfere — making it even more important that citizens play active roles in such organisations.
Anyone who thinks the five bodies named by Mr Pichet are working perfectly, has not been paying attention. They are liable to the same scrutiny as any agency that is funded by public taxes.
Ombudsman Siracha Vongsarayankura agreed with Mr Pichet's criticisms and proposed changes. For starters, the number of people on the selection committees should be increased to allow more diverse backgrounds. Now there are only seven people on each selection committee. That leaves open questions about the fairness of those who select members of these important bodies.
Another participant, National Legislative Assembly deputy chairman Surachai Liangboonlertchai, raised a more contentious point. "Politicians or figures connected with politics" should not take part in the process of selecting independent bodies. This is highly debatable. Any citizen is entitled to have a political viewpoint. Political input into the transparent selection process could demonstrate openness.
The Office of the Ombudsman deserves kudos for initiating an open process for citizens to express their views. The reform process is a duty of all citizens, not just the committees formed by the generals. The content and wording of the next constitution are far too important to be left to such small, isolated committees.
An involved public is an informed public. It is the declared goal of the current power holders to launch Thailand onto a fresh road to democracy. The more citizens who help build this road, the higher its chances of success.