Apply assets law equally

One with great power should shoulder great responsibility. Those holding executive and advisory roles in government agencies now have a new responsibility to publicly disclose their assets and debts, because of the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s (NACC) regulation to prevent corruption in the public sector. But a number of the officials oppose the new rule.

Faced with growing opposition, the anti-graft agency yesterday brought disgrace upon itself by kowtowing to complaints. NACC president Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit said his agency planned to amend the rule to set different standards for different groups of people. An assets declaration will still be required from all of them, he said, but public disclosure of the declaration will be exempted for one group and required for another.

The NACC’s decision is wrong and it needs to be righted. The regulation was established under the 2018 National Anti-Corruption Act, passed by the military regimeappointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA). Transparency is one of the regime’s claimed mandates after it seized power from the civilian government whom it accused of corruption.

Under the old anti-graft law, only holders of political positions, such as cabinet members, MPs and senators, their spouses and children were required to make their assets and debts public. Other high-ranking officials of independent and government agencies were required to submit their asset lists to the NACC, but were exempted from disclosure.

But the regime’s new law is tougher, which is sensible given that corruption is also rooted in government agencies. There is no reason not to lay those public organisations open to public scrutiny. The law also extends its scope to cover a wider range of people, such as advisory members of organisations.

The law was supposed to take effect on Dec 1, but opposition to it prompted the NACC to extend the deadline to Feb 1.

Since then, four advisory members of the National Health Security Board along with some university council members have tendered their resignation. Others have threatened to do the same. They said the rule adds a too-rigid paperwork burden. Some cited the fear that any honest mistakes could cause them problems or risk of imprisonment.

It is true that the NACC should listen to their concerns. But what it should have done is ensured that guidelines and assistance would be provided to everyone to ensure that no honest “mistakes” could be made and the paperwork burden kept to a minimum.

But the NACC’s decision to give the law a double standard will weaken the public trust in its own operation. Thailand is already mired in double standards when it comes to law enforcement, and the NACC has been part of it.

While it has actively pursued criminal cases against members of a particular political party, it has been less active in investigating allegations made against those linked to the current regime.

For instance, its probe into the luxury wristwatch scandal involving Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon has been unusually slow.

Ironically, those who oppose the regulation include two NLA members who helped pass the law.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam also said the exemption from public disclosure would be given to members of regime-appointed committees on national reform and strategy.

Executive and high-ranking officials have no reason to fear criminal prosecution as long as they follow the book and the NACC provides them with clear guidelines and assistance.

Given that the law imposes much harsher punishment, banning those found guilty of assets concealment from political positions for life, it is the job of the NACC to ensure the law will be enforced effectively and impartially.

What it must do now is to stop proceeding with the regulation amendment, which promotes the double standard in law enforcement. The same rule of assets disclosure must be applied to all, with no exemption.