NLA debate expected over NACC wiretapping powers

By PRAPASRI OSATHANON, 
JAKRAWAN SALAYTOO 
THE NATION 

 

 

CONCERNS VOICED OVER INVASION OF PRIVACY AS AGENCY PUSHES FOR EXPANSION OF SURVEILLANCE

HEATED debate is expected during today’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) deliberations over the anti-graft bill, after the vetting committee reviewed several controversial issues, including authorising the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to wiretap phone calls.

 

The vetting committee said the authorisation would enhance efforts to fight corruption, but legislators have expressed concern that such “excessive authority” could be an infringement of rights and might even violate the Constitution.

 

Sources in the NLA have said the NACC might not need such authority as several other agencies, such as the Department of Special Investigation and the Narcotics Control Board, could conduct wiretaps with court permission.

 

The NACC’s claim that it needed such powers to find evidence about fraud or in cases involving unusually rich suspects was not merited, NLA sources said. 

 

The agency had successfully tackled such cases without infringing on rights, one source said, pointing to the case of former Transport permanent secretary Supoth Saplom, who was accused of unusual wealth and prosecuted in the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. The source also said the Criminal Code would soon be revised to set conditions allowing phone eavesdropping, making it even more unnecessary for the NACC to have the authority included in its organic law.

 

The controversial issue is expected to be considered in the chamber today. 

 

Presently, there are 10 laws that allow wiretapping, including the controversial computer crime law.

 

General Singhsuek Singhprai

 

General Singhsuek Singhprai, an NLA whip member, said the NACC had proposed the new authority on the grounds that it fit with international norms where other corruption-fighting agencies had the authority to wiretap phones.

 

In Thailand, investigative agencies, including the Anti-Money Laundering Office, are allowed to conduct wiretaps, so NACC officials claimed they should also have the authority, especially as some of their cases involved money laundering.

 

The NACC had a number of cases it could not resolve and wiretapping authority would be helpful to its work, the NACC stated.

 

Singhsuek said the vetting committee had considered the matter carefully, especially aspects of invasion of piracy. He added that the controversial practice would only be employed against suspects accused of fraud whom the NACC considered guilty and would “strictly follow” procedures. 

 

Wissanu Krea-ngam

 

Amid the criticism, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday the bill had not been finalised and there could be further revisions before the NLA passed it. 

 

If the issue is not resolved in the NLA meeting today, a joint committee would have to be set up to review the bill, he said.

 

The bill will be forwarded to relevant agencies, such as the Constitution Drafting Commission and the NACC, for a final review after it passes through the NLA. Those bodies will have the authority to call for a joint committee to consider revisions if they disagree with aspects of the bill.

 

The Constitutional Court also had the authority to rule whether the stipulation was constitutional, Wissanu said, adding that the process should not take too long to conclude even if the issue escalates and a petition is filed with the court.

 

Wissanu also added that other agencies had similar powers to wiretap phone calls, given court permission.

 

The NLA today reportedly will deliberate the controversial bill consecutively in the second and third readings. 

 

Hot-button issues in the new bill

 

- The NACC could have the authority to wiretap phone calls or any other communication in fraud cases, which has raised a controversy over invasion of privacy.

 

- Unmarried partners of people declaring assets and liabilities to the NACC could be required to also declare their assets. However, it is unclear how authorities could prove the status of “partners”.

 

- The current commissioners could be allowed to continue their tenure regardless of qualifications set by the Constitution, prompting people to question not only the constitutionality of the clause but also the connection between the commissioners and the ruling junta.

 

- In addition to politicians, all civil servants could be required to report assets and liabilities to the NACC, prompting concern that this would unnecessarily add to the workload of the busy agency. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30334418

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-12-21

10 hours ago, webfact said:

concern that such “excessive authority” could be an infringement of rights and might even violate the Constitution.

Given that the 2017 Constitution already infringes on inalienable rights.

And who protects the Constitution when it is violated?

Not the new organic laws that seemingly run counter to constitutional rights and liberties.

Not the Constitutional Court that has thus far sanctioned Prayut's unlimited use of Article 44.

Stop reading after the first sentence. Heated debate? Lol. Lots of hot air from you know where.