Academics pointed out that the death penalty was obsolete in most countries and that corruption should be treated as a root cause rather than a symptom. The proposal concerning the exercising of state power was tabled in the NRSA yesterday by the body’s political reform committee and was accepted by most members.

Wanchai Sornsiri, chairman of the subcommittee that studied the proposal, said it centred on the reform, checking, and scrutiny of the use of state power. It aims to keep the government’s performance in check more effectively via a more effective censor motion, he explained. Other agencies will also be kept in check and accountable including independent agencies, according to the meeting.

The highlights of the proposal, however, are centred on the penalties against fraudulent state officials, especially civil servants. Besides the death penalty option, people who cause damage to the state of between Bt100 million to Bt1 billion should be subject to life imprisonment without the possibility of the sentence being suspended, the committee proposed.

Some NRSA members, such as former foreign minister Kasit Piromya and Panthep Klanarong, said the severe measures would not stop the root causes of corruption and were against international norms.

Seri Suwanpanon, a key member of the NRSA’s political reform committee, said in response that the measures were meant to be a pre-emptive measures to prevent state officials from committing fraud. NRSA members voted 155 in favour, with seven abstentions. The proposal will be forwarded to the Cabinet, the National Legislative Assembly, the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), and independent agencies for further deliberation.

Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist from Thammasat Unversity, said although the strong measure could make corrupt officials think twice, he doubted whether it would root out fraud in government projects. “They may be reluctant to commit the crime, but it is also possible that they will decide to do it anyway,” he said. “So I think the government should come up with plans to prevent fraud instead of punishing the culprits when the damage has already been done.”