Prawit in breach of law, Pheu Thai says
The Pheu Thai Party yesterday accused Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon of obtaining undue benefits from borrowing watches from friends, as he has claimed.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) investigation into whether Gen Prawit owned the luxury watches is just a distraction from the real issue, Phumtham Wechayachai, acting secretary-general of Pheu Thai, said yesterday.
Section 103 of the NACC law prohibits state officials from accepting “assets” or “benefits” from other people, unless otherwise allowed by any other law or unless morally justified, he said.
Mr Phumtham said Gen Prawit’s claim that his friends lent him the watches, which have all been returned, was tantamount to him accepting benefits from someone else which is prohibited under Section 103.
By wearing watches without having to pay for them from his or her own salary, which comes from taxpayers’ money, a state official is deemed to have received a benefit defined in Section 103 as an offence, he said.
The violation is punishable by up to three years in jail, he said, adding an offender could also be construed as having committed malfeasance as well, which would lead to impeachment.
“The excuse that they [Gen Prawit and other people] took turns borrowing the watches to wear is an act of receiving a benefit, isn’t it?” Mr Phumtham said.
“Since the law clearly prohibits such an act, the benefit which Gen Prawit may have gained stems from him not having to spend his own money to buy those watches because someone had offered to lend them to him,” he said.
“If this, however, isn’t regarded as an act of receiving a benefit, other cabinet ministers will then be able to borrow a car, a house or a boat from someone else, won’t they?” he said.
NACC secretary-general Worawit Sukboon, however, said it is a matter of interpreting the term “receiving a benefit”. It normally refers to a benefit which has calculable, monetary value.
However, he declined to comment on whether Gen Prawit’s claimed borrowing of the luxury watches from friends was seen as an act of receiving a benefit as defined by law.
It is the job of legal experts to analyse the law and determine whether Mr Phumtham’s argument has legal grounds.