Democrat plans NACC petition against PM over ministers’ holdings

By The Nation

 

File photo : Watchara

 

A SENIOR former Democrat MP yesterday said he would seek action from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) office against Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha over what he alleged was malfeasance concerning ministers’ stock holdings.

 

The NACC should open an investigation into Prayut because he had failed to do anything about Cabinet ministers who had violated the law by owning stocks, particularly Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai, said Watchara Petchthong, a former party-list MP.

 

According to the law, ministers are prohibited from owning stocks amounting to more than 5 per cent of the registered capital of a firm.

Watchara singled out Don because he had not altered his portfolio and yet remains in the Prayut’s Cabinet.

 

“The prime minister should be held responsible and investigated to find out whether he has violated the law or the Anti-Corruption Act concerning Don’s case. Don was kept in his Cabinet after the latest reshuffle,” Watchara said.

 

He added that he would also submit a petition to the NACC calling for an investigation whether the National Legislative Assembly’s approval to extend the tenure of NACC members violated the law.

 

He added that he wondered whether the approval had been implemented at the orders of powerful people.

 

Sceptical public 

 

Meanwhile, Professor Srisakdi Charmonman, CEO of STC poll, unveiled a public opinion poll about the declaration of assets by holders of political positions as stipulated in the charter.

 

The poll was conducted between last Monday and Friday, surveying 1,195 respondents 18 years old or older.

 

Srisakdi said 81.09 per cent of respondents believed that required declarations did not violate the privacy of individuals, while 13.89 per cent believed otherwise and the rest were not sure.

 

Meanwhile, about 53 per cent of the respondents said they believed that the act would help improve politicians’ credibility.

 

About 75 per cent of respondents thought that the rules would help improve the examination of politicians. However, 60.25 per cent said they believed the rules would not reduce problems of corruption among politicians and holders of political offices.

 

Concerning punishment for people who make false declarations of assets, 37.74 per cent said offenders should be banned from politics for more than 10 years, 32 per cent thought the ban should be between six to 10 years, and 10.46 per cent five years. Fourteen per cent said offenders should be banned for life.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30336251

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-15

It seems that the Junta, instead of bringing reconciliation between the two sides of the political divide, has generated divisions inside its own yellow camp! 

Edited January 14, 20188 yr by candide

59 minutes ago, candide said:

It seems that the Junta, instead of bringing reconciliation between the two sides of the political divide, has generated divisions inside its own yellow camp! 

And notably the guy in charge of reconciliation is unusually wealthy

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Meanwhile, about 53 per cent of the respondents said they believed that the act would help improve politicians’ credibility.

The other 47% in positions to accept bribes or 'unusually wealthy'  I presume

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Concerning punishment for people who make false declarations of assets, 37.74 per cent said offenders should be banned from politics for more than 10 years, 32 per cent thought the ban should be between six to 10 years, and 10.46 per cent five years. Fourteen per cent said offenders should be banned for life.

Whilst I accept the premise of banning these trough dwellers from politics, the time is irrelevant as they have more than likely garnered enough to retire quite happily with a nice comfortable lifestyle, and no need to return for more, thank you very much.