Revised organic law on corruption ruled as constitutional

By The Nation

 

The Constitutional Court has ruled in favour of the revised Article 185 of the organic law on prevention and suppression of corruption. The unanimous verdict was issued on Friday, according to a press release from the court’s office.

 

Before the organic law governing the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) was passed in December, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) had revised the original version drafted by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC). The CDC version allowed NACC commissioners to remain in office only if they met the qualifications or were not disqualified by the stipulations in the Constitution.

 

The NLA revised the bill proposed by the CDC by waiving certain disqualifications for NACC members stipulated in the charter. As a result, all the NACC members remained in office.

 

In February, 32 NLA members petitioned the court for a ruling on the matter.

 

 

The Constitutional Court found the NLA waiver of disqualifications was not against the charter, according to the press release.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30340641

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-03-10

Did anyone know what the CDC, NACC, NLA, was talking about.

2 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

Did anyone know what the CDC, NACC, NLA, was talking about.

Probably legal jargon for a way 'corrupt officials' can stay in place ?

2 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

Did anyone know what the CDC, NACC, NLA, was talking about.

Did they know?

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

NLA revised the bill proposed by the CDC by waiving certain disqualifications for NACC members stipulated in the charter.

 

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The Constitutional Court found the NLA waiver of disqualifications was not against the charter

Part 4, NACC, Article 232 of the 2017 Constitution (according to my copy of the 2017 Constitution translated by the Thai government Office of the Council of State) states that selected persons "shall have any of the qualifications" and lists seven qualifications. It does not list disqualifications.

I couldn't find what qualifications were exempted by the NLA. Nor the rationale by the Court why exemptions were allowed.

 

But "any" in Article 232 implies that a candidate might only need to have a minimum of one stated qualification - assuming correct translation. Even liberally "any" also implies "some" and not "all." From that perspective NLA could then exempt certain qualifications in Article 232 without being unconstitutional. If that wasn't the intent of Article 232 (ie., require a person to have all the qualifications), then it was poorly written.

The very notion of Thailand's top dogs (lawyers, politicians and the like) and 'non-corruption' is really a joke beyond a joke. 

How can any of us put up with this nonsense much longer? Are we really expected to read all these lies and this cant with a straight and gullible face? 

Thailand in ALL its institutions and attitudes is CORRUPT - from the bottom-most bottom to the topmost top. Period!