He suggested on Monday that the bill on the NACC, which was recently passed by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), should be amended to reflect the relevant constitutional clauses involving the qualifications of NACC members.

The NACC bill exempts some members of the agency from complying with the Constitution’s tough clauses regarding required qualifications and prohibited qualities.

NACC president Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit, for example, lacks certain qualifications and also has a prohibited quality, having been out of political office for less than the 10 years required by the charter for someone to be eligible to work as a commissioner.

In a Facebook message, Chaturon said that by passing the bill, the NLA members in effect had allowed the existing NACC membership to remain in office until their term ends, although they do not meet the tough qualifications set by the 2017 Constitution.

He added that the charter set high standards for NACC members with the goal of preventing possible political intervention from people in power.

“It is against the Constitution for the NLA to allow the existing NACC members to remain in office until their term ends,” Chaturon insisted.

He also noted that the NACC chief is close to the ruling junta, and by allowing him to remain in office, the junta would undermine the Constitution’s checks-and-balances system aimed at preventing government corruption.

“If the existing NACC members are allowed to remain in office, without the NACC bill being revised, the NCPO should brace for a total collapse,” Chaturon said, referring to the ruling National Council for Peace and Order.

“These so-called laws have infringed people’s rights and consequently obstructed public voices in decision-making procedures despite effects on their communities,” said Jon Ungpakorn, an executive director of the Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), at Thammasat University’s Tha Phra Chan campus. “We can’t be truly democratic with lack of sufficient public participation.”

The petition would be undertaken in line with the 2017 charter’s Article 133, which requires 10,000 signatures, endorsed with copies of national IDs, to propose legislation to the parliament.

A bill deliberated in parliament is a possible way to overturn the laws, some of which enacted under the sweeping Article 44 powers of the NCPO head, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. The power was first given under the now-defunct 2014 interim charter, then addressed in the new charter.

However, the groups plan to file the petition only to the elected Lower House after the upcoming election.

They said they have little faith in the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA), whose performance “has not protected public interest but rather favoured nepotism”, according to Jon.

“This attempt will at least put pressure on the NCPO to consider the revocation as soon as possible,” he said.

Many of the participating groups have faced or feared prosecution under NCPO laws. These include laws prohibiting political gatherings of five or more people and empowering military officers with policing authority, including the power to order arbitrary detention.

Sunee Chiawarose, a former National Human Rights Commissioner and currently a coordinator of the Women’s Movement, said that pressures are felt not only by civil society but also by those who enforce the law.

“Basically, both we and they have to be oversensitive in almost any activities we perform,” Sunee said. “We were afraid of being prosecuted while they could be afraid of neglecting their duties.”

The women’s group has been active in land management and labour rights issues, but she has had to tone down its activities to comply with the NCPO orders. “We have to ask for their permission every time we want to hold a forum,” she said, adding that some activities had been ceased while they were being conducted.

Chatchay Thammo, a manager of the North Activist Community, said he had a first-hand experience of being tracked down by officers under the post-coup atmosphere.

“When we raised points about local developments and infrastructure, they feared that we could cause sedition in Chiang Mai,” Chatchay said.

Rosana said netizens, including those on the anti-corruption CSI LA Facebook page, had documented Prawit wearing 22 luxury watches with an estimated value of Bt34.7 million, based on market prices.

She said Prawit could claim that about 20 watches worn by him have not yet been reported to the National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC), because they only appear in recent photos.

But at least two watches – the 16th and 20th as reported by the CSI LA – should have already been reported to the agency as they were apparently his assets before he took office during the Abhisit government in 2010.

Rosana said that possession of these two watches could be enough to prove that Prawit failed to report assets worth more than Bt200,000 to the NACC, as required by law.

Rosana said Prawit’s income during the past three years should not have exceeded Bt10 million, but the watches he had allegedly acquired were worth more that Bt30 million. This raised an interesting question as to how the NACC’s probe into the case should proceed.

Rosana urged concerned officials to look into taxation regulations to help in the case.

If Prawit obtained the watches as inheritances, he must have some proof, such as the wills of the deceased. But if he was given the watches by family members, he must identify the persons or show other proof, then apply for a tax waiver of no more than Bt20 million and pay tax on the rest.

If Prawit was given the watches by people other than family members, he must again have proof or be able to identify those persons, and ask for a tax waiver of no more than Bt10 milion and pay tax on the rest.

However, if he showed such proof or identified persons for this purpose, Prawit might risk violating the NACC’s regulation to not take gifts worth more than Bt3,000, Rosana said.

In addition, the persons who gave the watches to Prawit would have to prove where they earned the money to buy them, and declare whether they had paid tax on their income.

Rosana said if Prawit claimed that he borrowed the watches from friends, he must identify those friends so the Customs Department could trace whether they had paid customs duties for the import of those watches. If they had not paid customs duties, then Prawit might risk violating the Customs law for taking tax-unpaid items. The gift-givers’ income would also have to be checked, and it would have to be determined whether they had paid tax.

The extreme case, Rosana said, was if Prawit said he had bought the watches himself – because his income is apparently far lower than the price of the watches. If that were the case, he would face an allegation of having unusual wealth, Rosana said.

Rosana said the handling of Prawit’s case would show whether the junta government really took corruption seriously, and whether the new charter – which is claimed to be a corruption-suppression tool – would be as effective as it is supposed to be, or just another tool to suppress the government’s opponents.

The ex-MPs are seeking clarification over whether the NACC will pursue them for abuse of authority for proposing an amnesty bill in 2013.

One of the ex-MPs, Worachai Hema, took the issue to the media, saying the NACC was considering whether the MPs would be charged.

However, the NACC president dismissed this, saying the issue had not moved as quickly as reported. The matter is with its subpanel, which is still investigating the case, he said.

Watcharapol also dismissed speculation that the NACC’s resolution on the case would “wipe out” Pheu Thai’s MPs, saying its investigation would follow procedures and would be accountable enough for any examination.

Watcharapol said the inquiry was at an initial stage and the NACC has been doing its best to look into all aspects of the issue. He said the NACC has procedures to follow, and its secretary-general has already reported twice to commissioners about the case.

As Prawit has been seen wearing more than 20 luxury watches on different occasions, the NACC would need to find out more details, Watcharapol said.

Prawit, he added, had not yet reported anything in addition to his initial letter of explanation to the NACC.

The NACC should open an investigation into Prayut because he had failed to do anything about Cabinet ministers who had violated the law by owning stocks, particularly Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai, said Watchara Petchthong, a former party-list MP.

According to the law, ministers are prohibited from owning stocks amounting to more than 5 per cent of the registered capital of a firm.

Watchara singled out Don because he had not altered his portfolio and yet remains in the Prayut’s Cabinet.

“The prime minister should be held responsible and investigated to find out whether he has violated the law or the Anti-Corruption Act concerning Don’s case. Don was kept in his Cabinet after the latest reshuffle,” Watchara said.

He added that he would also submit a petition to the NACC calling for an investigation whether the National Legislative Assembly’s approval to extend the tenure of NACC members violated the law.

He added that he wondered whether the approval had been implemented at the orders of powerful people.

Sceptical public

Meanwhile, Professor Srisakdi Charmonman, CEO of STC poll, unveiled a public opinion poll about the declaration of assets by holders of political positions as stipulated in the charter.

The poll was conducted between last Monday and Friday, surveying 1,195 respondents 18 years old or older.

Srisakdi said 81.09 per cent of respondents believed that required declarations did not violate the privacy of individuals, while 13.89 per cent believed otherwise and the rest were not sure.

Meanwhile, about 53 per cent of the respondents said they believed that the act would help improve politicians’ credibility.

About 75 per cent of respondents thought that the rules would help improve the examination of politicians. However, 60.25 per cent said they believed the rules would not reduce problems of corruption among politicians and holders of political offices.

Concerning punishment for people who make false declarations of assets, 37.74 per cent said offenders should be banned from politics for more than 10 years, 32 per cent thought the ban should be between six to 10 years, and 10.46 per cent five years. Fourteen per cent said offenders should be banned for life.