NRC members are not obligated to declare their assets

BANGKOK, 22 October 2014 (NNT)-The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said National Reform Council (NRC) members do not have to expose their assets to the public.

According to the report, the NACC has indicated that the NRC members are not obligated to reveal all their assets to the public. The commission claimed that they are only a group of academics, and they neither gain nor lose politically in their roles.

They are required to use their expertise and knowledge in changing the society. NACC commissioner Supa Piyajitti said politicians and government officials must have their fortune probed at the start of their duties.

Her job is also to identify whether the assets have been obtained legally. They will be confiscated if they are illegal. She said an in-depth look into how they make a living should be carried out during their employments too. Mrs. Supa wanted Thailand to be corruption free. She said most of the cases were often found in procurement agreements.

The NACC has also revealed that 50% of the corruption cases involved local administration officials. This is followed by cases regarding natural resources and abuses of power respectively.


-- NNT 2014-10-22

Is this a joke? Only a group of academics who can't gain or lose in their roles?

TIT

If they have got nothing to hide, then why hide it??

All part of the generals anticorruption campaign!!

If we don't get it, it is only because we don't understand the true nature of Thainess!!

If they have got nothing to hide, then why hide it??

Not hiding it , just not being transparent .

Current Thainess means stop corruption ! ......................... ( but not ours ........just theirs )

This Nation article gives a better overview of some of the 250 NRC members...lots of former executives of companies and govt agencies on the list. Saying they are a just a group of academics and have nothing to gain politically is laughable.

If they have got nothing to hide, then why hide it??

Not hiding it , just not being transparent .

Current Thainess means stop corruption ! ......................... ( but not ours ........just theirs )

Got to love the promises that everything will be transparent, well not quite everything and not quite about everybody.

All people will be transparent just some people will be more transparent than others!!

"The commission claimed that they are only a group of academics, and they neither gain nor lose politically in their roles."

I don't care what country you are talking about, people gain all types of benefits from being members of government related positions. Why do you think American politicians spend tens of millions of dollars to be elected to a position that pays a few hundred thousand dollars a year? If you think it's to serve the public, I have a great deal on bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan to sell you.

The only difference between Thais and Americans seeking governmental appointments is the amount of benefits gained. And if they don't have to report their assets, the benefits can be endless.

Edited October 22, 201411 yr by jaltsc

What a surprise...

Strange that those who can adment or change the constitution has to report their assets but those who write the constitution do not.

"National Reform Council (NRC) members do not have to expose their assets to the public."

"The commission claimed that they are only a group of academics, and they neither gain nor lose politically in their roles."

Ok. Well, that's that then...

If they have got nothing to hide, then why hide it??

Have you disclosed your assets to the nation? Of course not, so why should if you're not obliged to?

This Nation article gives a better overview of some of the 250 NRC members...lots of former executives of companies and govt agencies on the list. Saying they are a just a group of academics and have nothing to gain politically is laughable.

The NRC has some important representatives of many big business interests. Declaring assets might give a clue as to past corrupt relationships with the government.

Of course all they have to do to prove me wrong is declare their assets, and give reasonable explanations for unusual sudden increases in wealth.

If they have got nothing to hide, then why hide it??

Have you disclosed your assets to the nation? Of course not, so why should if you're not obliged to?

Really? For the same reason that executives and board members have public salaries when a company goes public. They serve the public (in the case of companies, they serve their investors) and the public (investors) have a right to know who they are keeping in power and what those people are up to, nefarious or otherwise.

Now the average worker doesn't have to reveal their salary because they're not management nor do they write the rules nor do they lead the ship. That's why YOU, sir, don't have to disclose your income.

Edited October 22, 201411 yr by JeffreyO

"NACC commissioner Supa Piyajitti said politicians and government officials must have their fortune probed at the start of their duties."

At the start? How about at the end? How about an asset declaration on annual basis?

This Nation article gives a better overview of some of the 250 NRC members...lots of former executives of companies and govt agencies on the list. Saying they are a just a group of academics and have nothing to gain politically is laughable.

The NRC has some important representatives of many big business interests. Declaring assets might give a clue as to past corrupt relationships with the government.

Of course all they have to do to prove me wrong is declare their assets, and give reasonable explanations for unusual sudden increases in wealth.

How does an asset declaration show an "unusual sudden increase in wealth"? These people, who have business interests, could have got their wealth through many years of business investments or from family or from anywhere. In no way am I suggesting that they didn't get some of their wealth through corruption (this is Thailand, of course they did), but how can an asset declaration of a business man prove anything?

If they have got nothing to hide, then why hide it??

Ask the RTP that question as to why they won't allow an independent party test the DNA from Koh Tao murders.

This Nation article gives a better overview of some of the 250 NRC members...lots of former executives of companies and govt agencies on the list. Saying they are a just a group of academics and have nothing to gain politically is laughable.

The NRC has some important representatives of many big business interests. Declaring assets might give a clue as to past corrupt relationships with the government.

Of course all they have to do to prove me wrong is declare their assets, and give reasonable explanations for unusual sudden increases in wealth.

How does an asset declaration show an "unusual sudden increase in wealth"? These people, who have business interests, could have got their wealth through many years of business investments or from family or from anywhere. In no way am I suggesting that they didn't get some of their wealth through corruption (this is Thailand, of course they did), but how can an asset declaration of a business man prove anything?

Good point, the initial asset declaration should include a credible explanation for the wealth, follow-on declarations (asset declaration should be an annual requirement) would have to explain unusual increases.

Good point, the initial asset declaration should include a credible explanation for the wealth, follow-on declarations (asset declaration should be an annual requirement) would have to explain unusual increases.

A "credible explanation for the wealth" might work for someone who has been in a government / police job all their life, but it's not going to work for someone who has been in business all their life. And how do you account for family inheritance or gifts? Does the whole family need to provide asset declarations?

It would be good if people in these positions were able to explain their wealth, but it's not very realistic.

What would be the point.

Any of these guys with a modicum of sense would have already ensured any illegitimate funds would be well and truly hidden away.

The only group that wants to see squeaky clean don't want to show that they are squeaky clean? It sounds conceited, superior and somewhat condescending to me?

And so everything comes full circle. Anyone surprised?

What would be the point.

Any of these guys with a modicum of sense would have already ensured any illegitimate funds would be well and truly hidden away.

Ah yes ... "with a modicum of sense"

Good point, the initial asset declaration should include a credible explanation for the wealth, follow-on declarations (asset declaration should be an annual requirement) would have to explain unusual increases.

A "credible explanation for the wealth" might work for someone who has been in a government / police job all their life, but it's not going to work for someone who has been in business all their life. And how do you account for family inheritance or gifts? Does the whole family need to provide asset declarations?

It would be good if people in these positions were able to explain their wealth, but it's not very realistic.

Businesses should have a paper trail in the form of bookkeeping and tax paying. Inherited wealth can be accounted for by explaining what was inherited, when and from whom. Large gifts are suspicious, they should be explained.

People who work for the government need to accept that government service involves more scrutiny of their accounts than other jobs. At least it does in countries that have corruption under control.

Good point, the initial asset declaration should include a credible explanation for the wealth, follow-on declarations (asset declaration should be an annual requirement) would have to explain unusual increases.

A "credible explanation for the wealth" might work for someone who has been in a government / police job all their life, but it's not going to work for someone who has been in business all their life. And how do you account for family inheritance or gifts? Does the whole family need to provide asset declarations?

It would be good if people in these positions were able to explain their wealth, but it's not very realistic.

Businesses should have a paper trail in the form of bookkeeping and tax paying. Inherited wealth can be accounted for by explaining what was inherited, when and from whom. Large gifts are suspicious, they should be explained.

People who work for the government need to accept that government service involves more scrutiny of their accounts than other jobs. At least it does in countries that have corruption under control.

I was just reading a bit about the 90s and the various constitution writing/shredding processes during the decade.

To be honest, in this case, who cares if these guys on the NRC declare or not. The big-ticket item is what comes out at the other end of this dog and we already know what that's going to smell like.

Edited October 22, 201411 yr by tbthailand

If they have got nothing to hide, then why hide it??

Not hiding it , just not being transparent .

Current Thainess means stop corruption ! ......................... ( but not ours ........just theirs )

Got to love the promises that everything will be transparent, well not quite everything and not quite about everybody.

In this instance being transparent means the public can see through the b.s.

LOL what an honest bunch with nothing to hide, so much for reforms...... same same no different

Anti-Corruption, transparency, reforms...Big smoke no fire.

How can they determine if there is a demonstrable or potential conflict of interests if they do not have to declare their assets, holdings and interests?