Thai editorial: Ethics assembly a recipe for mischief

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Ethics assembly a recipe for mischief
The Nation

Proposed body could become a political tool used by unscrupulous groups to maintain their hold on power

BANGKOK: -- A vision of "ethical politics" for Thailand is being widely touted. With corruption rife in public life, a focus on moral standards is welcome. Yet there's a major snag: who will define and police standards for politicians, civil servants and the business community? Also, how will they do it?

The National Reform Council (NRC) and Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC) have proposed that an independent Ethics Assembly be charged with the task.

The assembly would wield impressive power, able to publicise evidence of fraud in order to raise public awareness of unethical behaviour. This would, in effect, impose a "social sanction" against individuals the ethics agency deems guilty of violations. It could also forward such information to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Its powers wouldn't end there. The assembly might also submit cases to the Election Commission. Those could be put to public referendums and anyone found guilty could be banned from politics for five years.

The proposal for a 55-member Ethics Assembly was endorsed by the NRC last week and will now go before the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) before likely being cemented in law by the new Constitution.

According to the proposal, the prime minister, opposition leader, House speaker, a representative of the Supreme Court and perhaps a representative of the university rectors' council would appoint the selection committee to pick the assembly members, who would then need to be individually approved by the Senate.

As in other cases, the junta-backed reformers have dismissed the option of a popular vote, believing instead that "a few good people" must handpick other "good" persons to run the country.

But the problem now is how to define the ethical standards to be applied and how to ensure that the 55 good men and women have higher moral principles than the rest of us.

In fact, history has already shown that moral excellence plays little or no role in election to power or appointment to public office. Prime ministers, opposition leaders and House speakers are ordinary men and women who have entered the profession of politics. Judges are laymen, not infallible gods, and they make their rulings in accordance with the law, not their personal morality. Neither can university representatives hold any special claim to high moral standards - several recent scandals involving financial and sexual misconduct give the lie to that idea. So what moral legitimacy would these professions have in ruling who should form the Ethics Assembly? Is it not likely that their representatives would instead pick "their people" - the individuals they think will best guard the vested interests of the establishment?

In countries with a strong rule of law, politicians, civil servants and state-private deals are regulated and controlled by fairly rigid and rigidly enforced rules. Corrupt politicians and officials are prosecuted under the law. Ethics and morality would only blur the boundaries and come under the influence of ideologies, social and cultural norms and religious prejudice. It is thus unnecessary and damaging to use a separate category - ethical standards - to judge and punish people.

The NRC, NLA and CDC are mostly made up of educated persons who should be able to distinguish clearly between the rule of law and areas of morality. The law should cover whatever they deem wrong, making a separate "moral policeman" in politics unnecessary. If our moral codes are not made clear and enshrined in law, the Ethics Assembly will likely become a political tool used by unscrupulous groups to maintain their hold on power.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Ethics-assembly-a-recipe-for-mischief-30255687.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-10

[15Peter20]

These geniuses need to realize they are trying to re-invent the wheel. They've got laws already which purport to engender a set of ethical beliefs, why introduce another set when what is really necessary is simply proper enforcement? They look so silly!

[96tehtarp]

Thailand would be better served by judiciously enforced laws than a by a vaguely defined ethics board. Imagine the mischief possible if the proposed ethics super-board is implemented. With any luck this proposal will turn out to be another flip-flop and it'll just flop all by itself.

[Chris Lawrence]

Really sounds coplicted for the common folk of Thailand.

So the people on these committees are Bangkok elite military type based, that have come to power?

I agree with 96tehtarp, judicial laws and system would be a better approach. The current judicial system may not be able to accommodate or handle such change.

[Lupatria]

These geniuses need to realize they are trying to re-invent the wheel. They've got laws already which purport to engender a set of ethical beliefs, why introduce another set when what is really necessary is simply proper enforcement? They look so silly!

Time for them to re-vitalize inactive laws and inactive ethics but that requires to get rid of inactive thinking. The blah blah of a 55-member Ethics Assembly in a cocktail lounge of posh hotel won't do.

[wabothai]

May be a book on ethics and ethical behavior ought to be introduced and to be taught in all schools.

The military or their subsidiaries ought to stay away from this topic. Ethics at gunpoint?

[FangFerang]

Seems to be the battle cry of both sides: "We demand the other side stop being corrupt!!"