Controversy rages over appointment of anti-corruption commissioner

By THE NATION

 

Suchart Trakulkasemsuk

 

Among the hottest topics in Thai politics right now – second only to the fiery row within the Palang Pracharat Party – is undoubtedly the recent appointment of Suchart Trakulkasemsuk to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

 

The issue has become the focus of public criticism because Suchart was once a member of the post-coup National Legislative Assembly (NLA), a fact that could and perhaps should have disqualified him from joining the NACC.

 

Sector 11 of the Organic Law on Anti Corruption BE2561 stipulates that an NACC member must not be or have been a member of Parliament, a political civil servant, member of a local council or executive of a local administration organisation in the last 10 years.

 

Observers are now arguing whether membership of the NLA should be considered to be the same as membership of Parliament. There are two, opposing interpretations of this issue.

 

According to the first, an NLA member is a member of Parliament according to Article 6 of the 2014 Constitution, which stipulates that the National Legislative Assembly must have a maximum 220 members, all Thai nationals aged over 40 and appointed by His Majesty the King, to work in the House of Representatives and the Senate as suggested by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

 

This interpretation is also based on the fact that NLA members worked in the same capacity as members of the lower House or Senate, considering draft laws, and appointing and dismissing civil servants in government agencies.

 

The second interpretation is that an NLA member is not a member of the lower House or of the Senate, based on the fact that NLA was established for specific reasons under the NCPO and performed its legislative duties only temporarily. This interpretation is also backed by the verdict of the Secretariat of the House of Representatives that members of the NLA will not be entitled to benefits provided to lower House MPs.

 

This shows that although NLA members had duties similar to their parliamentary counterparts, the former do not possess the same status as the latter.

 

The opposing interpretations have created ambiguity over Suchart’s eligibility to join the NACC, and have spurred the public to question the standards used in selecting candidates for independent agencies meant to act as checks and balances to government power.

 

The Senate meeting to consider this issue cited Section 16 of the Organic Law on Anti Corruption, stating that in cases of ambiguity regarding the qualification of candidates, the selection committee shall use its discretion to give a verdict, and such verdict shall be final. This means that the Senate cannot change the verdict of selection committee once given, and that the Senate can only vote to approve or disapprove the appointment of the candidate.

 

A similar problem emerged last May, when the committee to select the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) ruled by majority that General Niphat Thonglek, former Defence Ministry permanent secretary, was ineligible since he had been a member of the NLA in the past 10 years. The panel cited the Organic Law on National Human Rights Commission BE2560 which possesses a similar standard as the Organic Law on Anti Corruption BE2561.

 

Jade Donavanik, former adviser to the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), said that selection panels for independent agencies should maintain the same standards to ensure public trust in their impartiality. “If the selection committee for the NACC rules that Suchart is an eligible candidate despite having worked in the NLA in the past 10 years, then the NHRC selection committee should change its verdict and rule that General Niphat is eligible as well,” he said.

 

However, Jade personally believed that Suchart was ineligible since a member of the NLA should be considered a member of either the lower House or the Senate, considering that they worked in the same capacity.

 

Senate Chairman Pornphet Wichitchonchai said he will postpone submitting the names of candidates for HM King’s approval until further notice, while the issue is under public debate.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/opinion/30389402

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-06-11

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Another pro-govt member will ‘ruin credibility of anti-graft watchdog’: spokesman

By The Nation

 

Teerajchai Phunthumas

 

Teerajchai Phunthumas, National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) spokesman and Move Forward MP, has questioned Palang Pracharat Party’s move to propose a person to replace Julapan Nonsrichai, former MP of dissolved Future Forward Party, as an NACC member.

 

Teerajchai declined to mention the name of the controversial candidate, though the NACC met to consider the eligibility of Suchart Trakulkasemsuk on June 9.

 

The NACC now has eight members from the government and only six from the opposition, which contradicts its principle of independent scrutiny, while the replacement would tilt the agency even further towards the government, said Teerajchai.

 

He added that the opposition should have seven members in the NACC to increase the effectiveness of scrutiny and prevent the government controlling oversight of the legislature.

 

Teerajchai said candidates for the NACC should be honest and not have a history involving any kind of corruption.

 

“The name [proposed by Palang Pracharat] would ruin the image and credibility of the NACC and further jeopardise the position of the opposition in the commission,” he said.

 

Critics say Suchart is ineligible for the role as per Article 203 of the Constitution, because 10 years have not passed since he served as a member of the National Legislative Assembly.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30389416

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-06-11

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

He’s there to make sure that the only corruption investigated is with people opposed to the junta Government.

To sum up; 

Because he was "appointed" not elected, he was not a member of parliament.

 

This is similar to the logic proving that Prayut was not a public servant when he was appointed PM. Forgotten the pretzel logic there, just remember there was some "interesting" points made complete with back-flip and pike perfectly executed because the EC and the court approved it.

the opposition is just using this scare tactic to try and demean the great work the PM and his brilliant team have accomplished. 

2 hours ago, mr mr said:

the opposition is just using this scare tactic to try and demean the great work the PM and his brilliant team have accomplished. 

You win - best joke of the decade!

9 hours ago, webfact said:

The NACC now has eight members from the government and only six from the opposition, which contradicts its principle of independent scrutiny,

N.A.C.C. and principles ?

 

Edited June 11, 20206 yr by metisdead
Over-sized emoji removed.

Had he not been a member of the NLA, but had a conviction for fraud he would have probably been qualified...... ????

Where there's money there's in-fighting

 

5 hours ago, Thaiwrath said:

N.A.C.C. and principles ?

 

NACC, principles, and add;  very low number of cases handled & decided over many years, plus very poor capability of past leaders especially one who changed colours/affiliations within a second. 

It would be a sought after job - politician, NLA member or not I should imagine getting the post required a lot of influence...

people... try to file a complain about CORRUPTION on their website ... link, link, link

 

4O4 error, corruption not found

What's all the fuss about? Surely being the anti-corruption commissioner is an inactive post.

 

And by the way, I wonder what all his medals were for.

The issue has become the focus of public criticism because Suchart was once a member of the post-coup National Legislative Assembly (NLA), a fact that could and perhaps should have disqualified him from joining the NACC.

 

The reason why it does not make a difference, is due to the fact that this entire administration, and the stunningly toxic Thai army, are all about protections, and not persecutions. The only people who are hunted are former politicians and those who are lowly enough to not warrant protection, from the corrosive men at the top. This was never about cleaning up the place, and Prayuth was about as sincere as Trump was, when he said drain the swamp. A nice slogan. But, there was never anything behind it. These guys were installed to protect the super wealthy, those who are in any way connected with the army or the administration, the police, customs and immigration. No progress will ever be made here, as long as the army is in control. They are some of the least progressive people in the nation. 

7 hours ago, webfact said:

This interpretation is also based on the fact that NLA members worked in the same capacity as members of the lower House or Senate, considering draft laws, and appointing and dismissing civil servants in government agencies.

there is no need for interpretation - it is clear what this is

If we are honest, the NACC doesn't really seem to have any credibility left to ruin.

6 hours ago, mr mr said:

the opposition is just using this scare tactic to try and demean the great work the PM and his brilliant team have accomplished. 

You're right, of course. If only he was a convicted flour seller, this wouldn't be an issue.

How on earth could anybody want the job of anti corruption commissioner?

Corruption starts at the top, anybody  in line for such a post should be whiter than white.????

Now nobody can find a candidate that fits that description, it would be impossible to find such a person here.

7 hours ago, mr mr said:

the opposition is just using this scare tactic to try and demean the great work the PM and his brilliant team have accomplished. 

No one needs to "try" 

8 hours ago, Chang_paarp said:

To sum up; 

Because he was "appointed" not elected, he was not a member of parliament.

 

This is similar to the logic proving that Prayut was not a public servant when he was appointed PM. Forgotten the pretzel logic there, just remember there was some "interesting" points made complete with back-flip and pike perfectly executed because the EC and the court approved it.

Does that mean that ALL 250 Senators are eligible as they were also appointed and not elected?

 

7 hours ago, mr mr said:

Post deleted by me.

 

7 hours ago, mr mr said:

the opposition is just using this scare tactic to try and demean the great work the PM and his brilliant team have accomplished. 

Please do tell us all exactly what " great work the PM and his brilliant team have accomplished" in the last 6 years?

A troll post has been removed. 

The whole charade is a farce. Actually having an 'Anti Corruption Commission' here is like something from a satirical comedy.

 

The senate was handpicked, the EC was handpicked, the government didn't correctly recite the constitution that they themselves re - wrote, they have convicted international convicts in their parliament etc etc etc. The list is endless.

 

All this has been fully endorsed by the establishment. Tells us all we need to know. 

Just now, billd766 said:

Please do tell us all exactly what " great work the PM and his brilliant team have accomplished" in the last 6 years?

Come come, we all know that the PM  and cronies have done an excellent job of screwing the people over.

These people are employed to go after anyone who opposes the elite. They’ll never in a million years take down one of their own. 
 

As one member on here, who likes to remind people he doesn’t like Prayut, but what about Thaksin, has said before, taking down some people is better than taking down no one. And as I’ve reminded him before, that’s only true if you’re not taking down people purely based on their political allegiances and instead taking them down based only on their actual crimes. 
 

Selective justice is no justice at all. It makes a mockery of the law. People like this only ensure that Thailand is continuing to move closer to ruling completely by law and not at all ‘of law’. 

Surely Suthep would have been the obvious choice. He'd  be like a pig in sh/t !!!

Just take his shirt off & check for the tat.

If it's there then it is his 3 years to fill his boots

Independent my <deleted>.

 

People from the government and people from the opposition. How is that independent?

 

Also, if there is ambiguity, don't appoint him.

The Thai drama second only to the grandstanding second only to the backslapping....Tiredland

. 

Edited June 11, 20206 yr by Okis