CAN THIS DRAFT CONSTITUTION COMBAT CORRUPTION?

Wicha: The interesting point is that the NACC, the Office of the Auditor-General [OAG] and the Election Commission can suspend potentially damaging populist policies offered up by political parties, such as the rice-pledging scheme. This mechanism will keep a watch, but not really eradicate corruption, because corrupt officials are always looking for opportunities. Hong Kong has succeeded in its anti-graft mechanisms by adopting a defensive approach and plugging loopholes in the law. Building anti-graft mechanisms in law is only a partial accomplishment. The other half depends on its enforcement.

Pisit: This charter draft does focus on fighting corruption. Even though the 1997 Constitution invented many independent agencies to crack down on graft, time has shown that this did not work. This charter empowers the OAG to monitor corrupt practices without having to wait for petitions to be filed.

We had warned earlier governments that such and such spending was inappropriate and could damage the country, but our warnings were ignored. And we could do nothing. This draft charter empowers us to suspend the project by teaming up with the NACC and the EC, as well as file complaints with Parliament.

The draft charter is not as tough as some people think because it only gives these three agencies the right to propose suspension, but not the power to suspend the projects in question.

WHAT ELSE IS NEEDED IN THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION TO COMBAT CORRUPTION EFFECTIVELY?

Wicha: The 2007 Constitution empowers the public to check on the state and protects them against being sued. Individuals will not face libel suits over tip-offs, hints or for filing complaints against state agencies over alleged irregularities.

It is not possible for an anti-graft agency to solely carry out its duty without locals providing information. I always believe that people should be given access to state information without them having to ask for it in order to combat graft. In other words, people should know what the government knows. All information about state projects should be open to the public via websites that must be updated.

I would like to see more cooperation among anti-graft agencies. The NACC had once asked the OAG to help check on corruption allegations over the construction of a futsal stadium in the Northeast. I want to see the new charter clearly indicate [that all agencies can launch a probe] so we don’t end up passing the responsibility from one to another. We should share work and responsibilities, as well as have open access to all the information.

Enforcement of law is weak and even though we have the best laws, without public participation or without a sense of unity to solve problems, anti-graft efforts will not succeed.

I want this law to be written clearly so the public becomes the arms and legs of agencies established by the charter. We must thank the public for providing tip-offs.

Pisit: Most anti-corruption jobs are carried out after the damage has been incurred. The draft charter should empower anti-graft agencies to stop the executive branch from causing damage instead of waiting for corruption to take place before taking action.

Most anti-graft mechanisms in this charter draft are good, but this is not because the agencies are given more power. Their duty is to safeguard the country’s interests. People who want to work for the country should be willing to be checked and held accountable, and not complain that the anti-graft mechanisms are undemocratic.

Checks and balances are part of democracy. Democracy is not just about people’s rights and liberties. We need mechanisms like Article 44 to stop the executive branch from causing damage, otherwise the damage will be massive.

WHAT OTHER PROVISIONS YOU WOULD LIKE THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION TO HAVE?

Pisit: Even though the Parliament has the right to suspend state projects. What happens if it turns out to be a “spousal Parliament”? How will we be able to deal with cases if the petitions are stalled in Parliament?

If some projects implemented by the executive branch create damage, or if the public believes there is a conflict of interest, some agencies must be given the right to suspend the project until it is proved that there are no irregularities. People who file complaints over corruption allegations must be protected.

Wicha: Once the executive branch in question is undergoing checks, it should stop working temporarily. Permanent officials must be suspended while being investigated over allegations, but we have no mechanisms against politicians facing investigation. If a mechanism like this was in place, then there would be light at the end of the tunnel for the public. Those involved in irregularities must be held politically responsible instead of facing criminal or civil action. We have not gone into details on how they should be punished politically.

The draft charter needs to be clear on whether corrupt officials should be fired. What happens now is if they are high-ranking officials, they are just transferred. The new charter should clearly state that political-office holders who are being investigated over corruption practices cannot enter politics even though their cases have not yet ended.