THE ORGANIC bill on the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which would allow it to wiretap phone calls and other communications, was yesterday fiercely debated in the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) and seriously criticised for possible intrusions of privacy.

Legislators expressed concern that the stipulation was a double-edged sword and could hurt not only the agency but also people in the current regime once the political situation changes.

NLA members opposed to the NACC’s wiretapping authority encouraged the vetting committee or the NACC to withdraw the stipulation, rather than force the NLA to vote on the issue.

After almost five hours of heated debate, with the NACC refusing to back down, NLA Vice President Surachai Liangboonlertchai had to adjourn the session for 10 minutes before deciding to close the meeting and discuss the issue again today.

NACC President Pol General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit

People’s rights affected

The stipulation was initiated by the vetting committee and passed on to members of the NLA and the NACC. Among them was NACC President Pol General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit, who yesterday argued that the bill laid out strict procedures and the wiretapping would not be able to be carried out arbitrarily.

The NACC could only wiretap phone calls or other communications of people who were accused of |fraud or being unusually rich, and with a court’s permission, Watcharapol said.

As agencies such as the Narcotics Control Board and Anti-Money Laundering Office already had the capability to conduct such operations, the NACC president said the NACC’s mission was equally important and the agency should have the same authority.

A minority on the vetting committee, including former NACC member Vicha Mahakun, Constitution drafter Pattara Khumpitak and other NLA members saw the issue differently, expressing concern that such power could be dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands.

NLA member Tuang Antachai said not only the current NACC commission would have the power but also future commissions selected by MPs and the Senate.

Another legislator, Somchai Sawangkarn, said the stipulation could be abused for reprisals, adding that the NACC had the capability to close cases without relying on wiretapping.

Vicha and Constitution drafters Pattara and Pakorn Nilprapan added that the stipulation could also undermine the NACC’s integrity.

Vicha said the NACC was a semi-judicial agency with the responsibility of conducting trials, rather than just investigations, adding that such a proactive power to wiretap phone calls was unnecessary.

Other critics said the stipulation would create an atmosphere of mistrust, while the public would be concerned that it was an intrusion of privacy, which would foster feelings of hostility towards the NACC.

Pakorn said people would trust the agency and provide it with tips based on its good relationship with the public. On the contrary, if the NACC insists on pursuing eavesdropping powers, people’s rights would be affected and they would be dissatisfied with the agency, he added.

Watcharapol responded that the NLA should trust that a good law would result in the recruitment of “good people” who would not abuse their power.

However, he also added that abuse was unlikely given that the new legislation laid out harsh punishment for a commissioner who violates the law – twice the punishment of ordinary people.