Chartchai rejected the notion that this would compromise the transparency secured in the old law, which requires political holders taking or leaving office to report their assets, which would be later released in detail to the public.

Chartchai told the Nation the NACC is given authority by the new charter to handle the issue, including determining who must report their assets. By law, the NACC would be required to scrutinise the assets in detail and safeguard the information in case irregularities occur.

Given that power of asset scrutiny being handed them under the new bill, the CDC considered how to balance that with an individual’s right to privacy and fair treatment.

Individuals are required by law to report their assets and they are not accused of wrongdoing, so there should be “appropriate” revelation of their assets, said Chartchai. Their assets under the new law would be publicly available only in a summary form, he said.

Chartchai rejected the suggestion that the clauses would benefit those now in power. The new law would impact only newcomers, he said. But if people left office they would be required to report their assets, which would be revealed to the public in detail in a similar way as under the old law, Chartchai said.

The issue emerged after the bill had passed the National Legislative Assembly’ first reading, and was now under scrutiny by the NLA’s law vetting committee.

Anti-corruption advocates said that the clauses, including Article 104, would allow only rough reports of assets of political holders to the public, in contrast to the current law that allows public access to detailed reports. The current approach was seen by anti-corruption experts as helping keep political holders in check and transparent.

Chartchai said it’s up to the committee, whether they would rewrite the controversial clause.

The committee would have 58 days to scrutinise the bill before it is deliberated by the NLA in its second and third readings, before being promulgated into law.

The NACC law is one of the 10 organic laws required by the new charter and expected by anti-corruption advocates as a critical tool to suppress corruption, one of the critical goals set by the junta since it took power in 2014.

Thailand will probably remain neutral and back multilateral resolutions regarding regional security issues, particularly the Korean peninsula and contentious South China Sea issues, Foreign Ministry officials said. During a two-day trip to Danang in central Vietnam, Prayut will also have bilateral discussions with his Papua New Guinea counterpart Peter O’Neill and Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam on the sidelines of the Apec meeting.

Prayut and Lam, who visited Thailand in August, will probably continue to focus on trade and the economy. Hong Kong, Asean’s second and Thailand’s ninth biggest trade partner by value, also plans to establish an economic and trade office in the Kingdom.

Arthayudh Srisamoot, director-general of the international economics department at the Foreign Ministry, said Hong Kong business entities were also keen on investments in the Eastern Economic Corridor, which has been promoted by the Thai government as improving regional connectivity and infrastructure.

At a multilateral level, Thailand will focus on the green economy and tech-savvy development, including support for small and medium-enterprises, modernising the agricultural sector and big data management, Arthayudh said.

Thailand along with Peru drafted the Apec Strategy for Green, Sustainable and Innovative Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, which will be part of the Apec Economic Leaders’ Declaration at the end of the summit, he added.

The Apec event will be the first attended by US President Donald Trump, whose “America First” policy has overturned US international trade policy.Prayut visists the US last month for bilateral meeting with Trump

Arthayudh said he believed that Apec would be an opportunity for Thailand and the other 20 Apec members to strengthen ties in light of changing circumstances, including focusing on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

On Sunday, Prayut will head to Clark Air Base in the Philippines for a gala dinner before going to Manila.

The summit, which will be observed by partners including the US, will be watched for Trump’s expressions regarding the deteriorating situation of the Rohinhya minority in Myanmar. The US regional security agenda encouraging countries to distance themselves from North Korea and pushing for a Code of Conduct regarding the South China Sea are also of interest.Filipino government security forces stand in formation during deployment for the Asean Summit and Related Meetings in Manila, Philippines, 05 November 2017. (EPA-EFE photo)

A diplomatic source suggested that Myanmar might take the upper hand regarding the controversial Rohingya issue by bring it up pre-emptively. “The move, certainly, has to be creative,” the source said.

Thailand would continue to work through Asean mechanisms such as the Asean Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management to provide aid to the affected minority, said Suriya Chindawongse, director-general of the Asean department under the Foreign Ministry.

“We would like to provide help but it has to be based not only on an Asean consensus but also on Myanmar sentiment,” Suriya said. “This conflict may not be a direct Asean problem but certainly affects countries within and outside Asean.”

Regarding the South China Sea, he said, Thailand might not be a contestant to ongoing disputes but benefits from maritime and air routes.

Rather than looking at it as a territorial dispute, Thailand will focus on other aspects when considering the Code of Conduct framework, he said.

Thailand will also address the ageing society and Asean Cyber Security and Cyber Crime Center to support its chairmanship of Asean in two years, he added.

THE National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) would risk breaking the law if it officially supports a particular political party, Meechai Ruchupan, head of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) and a member of the NCPO, warned yesterday.

The caution came after NCPO chief General Prayut Chan-o-cha on Wednesday asked the public six questions concerning elections and future politics. In one question, the junta head asked whether the NCPO had the right to support a particular political party.

The new organic law governing political parties forbids outsiders from being involved in the administration of a political party.

Meechai, as the chief charter writer and a veteran legal expert, said it was a basic political right for individuals to support parties, but they could not do so in the name of a political institution such as the NCPO.

“Supporting a party is a right. It’s a preference, We can donate money. But we cannot intervene, using our power and force people to choose [a particular party],” Meechai said, adding that such behaviour would necessarily constitute unfairness in the election contest.

However, Meechai said he believed Prayut might have only wanted to know what people thought.

“Although I cannot possibly know what Prayut’s thinking, I’ve learned from talking to him that he does not want to pursue a position [after the election],” Meechai said. “And I don’t think he posed the questions because he wants to stay on in power. Even if he wants to stay, he didn’t need to do that.”

Meechai added that people naturally were concerned with the progress of their work, but regardless of that concern they were obligated to withdraw when “it was time to stop working”.

Politicians and academics have said Prayut’s latest questions are dangerous, in a move that indicated the NCPO’s intention to retain power and legitimises undemocratic rule.

However, government officials brushed aside the accusation, saying the six questions were only a means to understand people’s thinking. Wissanu Krea-ngam

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said Prayut might have only wanted to hear people’s views of politics.

In the past, the stage to voice complaints had been dominated by “political stars”, he added.

“If you don’t think the questions made any sense, then it’s okay. But we want you to voice your opinions. Otherwise, there will be only a handful of [political] celebrities that get to express their thoughts.”

Regarding the observation that the NCPO’s advocacy of a political party might constitute a violation of the law, Wissanu said the NCPO had not really taken any action yet.

Support could come in many forms and the NCPO had some leeway in that context, he added.

However, he said, if it was wrong, “then so be it”, suggesting that the NCPO would accept the consequences.General Prawit Wongsuwan

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan said he believed that Prayut only wanted to communicate with the public.

Prawit said he had watched the news on television and saw that people liked the idea of the questions.

“Some of you may think that the questions are suggestive. But that is all in your head,” he said. “I assure you that the NCPO is not trying to build political currency or anything like that.”

Six months ago, Prayut posed four similar questions concerning elections, politics and politicians’ behaviour after being pressured to call for an election.

The matter was taken seriously as a national event with people encouraged to answer the questions via various means provided by the government, including at Damrongdhamma complaint centres under the Interior Ministry.

Centre staff on Wednesday told The Nation that approximately 1.1 million people had responded to the four questions raised at the end of May.

All the answers were processed and passed on to government officials, staff said.

However, it is unclear how the government considered the answers, as no conclusions have been issued and the campaign is still ongoing with feedback still solicited.

About 200 groups were represented at the meeting chaired by the committee’s vice chair Theerapat Prayurasiddhi and public hearing panel chair, Choochai Supawongse.

The committee is among 13 reform committees set up following the stipulation of the charter and the new national reform law promulgated over a month ago.

The committees are to develop reform plans to pave the way for the country’s long-term change in line with the national 20-year strategy.

The committee has set four prime goals.

They include maintaining natural resources and their health to provide a foundation for the country’s social and economic development; balancing conservation and the use of natural resources to mitigate development impacts on natural resources; protecting the environment to minimise pollution and other public health and environmental impacts; and boosting effectiveness in managing natural resources and the environment to minimise conflicts and inequity, based on public participation.

The committee has divided its work into six sub-sectors, covering land resources (land, mining, forests and wildlife), marine and coastal resources, water resources, biodiversity, environmental quality, and natural resources and environmental management.

They were presented to the participants at the meeting before they were asked to make comments.

“The environmental problems over time would become more severe, partly as a result of a growing population and demand for resources,” said Dr Theerapat.

“However, their impacts could be minimised and the prime minister wishes to see that we have plans to deal with them. It’s not easy, but that’s why we have committees to work on reforms and the laws to ensure their continuity.”

The participants at the hearing also proposed law amendment to improve forest-related laws to be able to keep up with problems and ensure justice.

They also proposed decentralisation of water management and water related disaster mitigation, especially to local communities.

In regard to the marine and coastal resources management reform, the participants wanted new laws to protect the country’s interests in resources, as well as new maps to address them properly. More stringent law enforcement should also be implemented, they proposed.

The participants also proposed that the committee come up with management mechanisms for biodiversity as well as law enactment to balance conservation and utilisation of the resource, as well as preventing piracy of biodiversity.

They also proposed the introduction of economic tools to support the management of hazardous waste and pollution, while reforming the concerned management mechanisms and systems.

The committee plans to hold four more hearings in the North, the East, the South, and in Bangkok, before submitting their reform plan to the government by December.

The caution came after NCPO chief General Prayut Chan-o-cha on Wednesday asked the public six questions concerning elections and future politics. In one question, the junta head asked whether the NCPO had the right to support a particular political party.

The new organic law governing political parties forbids outsiders from being involved in the administration of a political party.

Meechai, as the chief charter writer and a veteran legal expert, said it was a basic political right for individuals to support parties, but they could not do so in the name of a political institution such as the NCPO.

“Supporting a party is a right. It’s a preference, We can donate money. But we cannot intervene, using our power and force people to choose [a particular party],” Meechai said, adding that such behaviour would necessarily constitute unfairness in the election contest.

However, Meechai said he believed Prayut might have only wanted to know what people thought.

“Although I cannot possibly know what Prayut’s thinking, I’ve learned from talking to him that he does not want to pursue a position [after the election],” Meechai said. “And I don’t think he posed the questions because he wants to stay on in power. Even if he wants to stay, he didn’t need to do that.”

Wissanu said the NCPO had discussed the matter with the Interior Ministry, adding that it was possible that the ban on political gatherings would be lifted for the elections.

The NCPO wanted to have local polls completed before the national election, Wissanu said.

However, the lifting of the ban would not be undertaken immediately because there were legal issues to be considered as preconditions, as several laws concerning local administrations were not in line with the new Constitution, Wissanu said.

He added that a legal amendment was under discussion by relevant agencies, which would meet with him soon.

It was necessary to keep the road map for local elections in mind, Wissanu said, although it was a different matter than the national “road map to democracy”.

The best approach would be to conduct local elections before the national election, otherwise they would overlap, he said.

One of the clearest indications of his new stringent approach is that Pol General Chakthip Chaijinda, the national police chief, has already tendered his resignation from Thai Airways International’s board of directors and is expected to take up a portfolio in the new Cabinet.

Prayut will focus on the qualifications and competence of his new Cabinet members, especially those named to run crucial ministries. General Chatchai Sarikulya

Agriculture Minister General Chatchai Sarikulya will likely be replaced by a person more qualified for the job even though Chatchai is one of the premier’s close confidants. Chatchai, one of Prayut’s classmates at the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School, could be moved to a less-important portfolio, such as to replace General Sirichai Distakul as the Labour Ministry, as the next Cabinet will need to improve the performance of the Agriculture Ministry which handles the well-being of millions of farmers.

Prayut has said he will consider performance before personal friendships, so a change of the agriculture portfolio is highly likely as Chatchai has been facing growing opposition from key members of the agriculture revival and development fund who have threatened a rally at Government House.

Previously, General Udomdej Sitabutr, the deputy defence minister, was tipped to be the new labour minister but Udomdej would prefer to stay on at the defence ministry.

As a result, Chatchai would become a new candidate for the labour portfolio if he leaves the Agriculture Ministry.Pol General Chakthip Chaijinda

Pol General Chakthip it is reported would prefer to stay on in his current position but Prayut and other top brass have decided to name either Pol General Srivara Rangsibhramanakul or Pol General Chalermkiat Sriworakhan to be the next national police chief and give Chakthip a Cabinet portfolio.

Chakthip is likely to be named either a deputy interior minister or the social development and human security minister. At the Interior Ministry, he would join Minister General Anupong Paochinda, and Sutee Makboon, the first deputy interior |minister.

Sutee is expected to stay on to supervise the next general election next year, so Chakthip would serve as the second deputy minister. Another possibility is for Chakthip to replace Pol General Adul Sangsingkeo as the social development and human security minister or he could become a minister at the PM’s office.

So far, the economic management team, headed by deputy premier Somkid Jatusripitak, appears to be left intact, even though the government has faced criticism over the uneven dis-|tribution of economic benefits, especially among farmers and other low-income people.

However, there could be major changes at other ministries.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister General Surasak Kanjanarat is likely to be replaced by a civilian minister due to internal conflicts, while Areepong Bhoocha-oom, the former THAI board chairman, is tipped to be the new energy minister. He is would replace ACM Anantaporn Kanjanarat at the ministry responsible for overseeing bidding for vast natural gas resources.

PRIME MINISTER GENERAL Prayut Chan-o-cha’s latest efforts to survey people’s thoughts on politics with six controversial questions appeared to be an attempt not only to set a political agenda but also to legitimise the junta’s rule despite it being undemocratic, politicians and academics have concluded.

The comments came one day after the prime minister refused to rule out the possibility of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) setting up a military-backed party to contest the next elections.

Prayut abruptly came up with the six questions himself when he was attending a meeting yesterday morning at Government House and then made additional comments on the release of the questions a few hours later.

The new tack came shortly after the NCPO was criticised for maintaining the political ban although the political party bill has been implemented and the mourning period for the late King Rama IX has ended.

The questions are Prayut’s second “survey” after the first earlier this year. The previous questions, which required respondents to answer in person at Damrongdhamma centres, elicited about 1 million responses.

However, the government has not released a report on the outcome of the survey.

The earlier four questions were viewed as leading respondents to disapprove of politicians and cast doubt on Thailand’s democratic system. The six new questions follow a similar pattern – but with a stronger tone. 

In one question, Prayut asks if he or the junta has the right to support any party they chose, while another elaborated on the junta government’s performance over three years before asking people if they see a better future as a result.Abhisit Vejjajiva

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he viewed Prayut’s questions, which constituted a non-scientific survey, as instigating conflict for no purpose.

“Constitutional mechanisms to create good governance have been ongoing, so there is no need to pose such questions,” Abhisit said in a radio interview on FM 101. “This will only create more confrontation.”

Rather, the former prime minister said, Prayut should ask the public about the junta’s objective performance, especially regarding the declining economy, rather than pose political questions.

Abhisit also warned that if the NCPO uses its overwhelming power to support any party, it could constitute an abuse of power leading to a severe violation of good governance and democratic principles.

Watana Muangsook

Key Pheu Thai Party figure Watana Muangsook said he believed that Prayut, who seized power in the 2014 coup, had no right to ask such questions to the public at all.

“He still casts doubts on politicians, although political mechanisms should have been ready by now,” Watana said. “We would like to move to be prepare for the election, not clash with anyone. How could we create any insecurity as claimed by Prayut?”

Independent political academic Trakoon Meechai said he believed the questions were asked based on an underestimation of the potential public backlash, particularly given speculation that the junta wanted to cling to power after the election.

The questions were leading, seeking answers legitimising the junta and discrediting politicians, Trakoon said. Ultimately, the questions were asking if it is okay for the junta to maintain a lingering political influence by backing a political party.

“This method of ensuring one’s own legitimacy may differentiate any emerging party submitted by the NCPO from those parties backed by the military in the past,” Trakoon said. “But it will be very dangerous for the junta itself to publicly show this kind of intention.”

THE SUPREME Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders on Tuesday published the full combined verdict as well as individual judgements of nine judges in the case against fugitive former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra regarding her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

The full 95-page verdict was read on September 27 in absentia after Yingluck fled the country before the scheduled first reading of the verdict on August 25. She was subsequently found guilty of malfeasance and sentenced to five years in prison.

Of the nine judges, Pison Pirun was the only one who ruled that she was not guilty.

The eight others provided similar reasons that Yingluck had been aware of extensive corruption in the rice-pledging scheme.

As prime minister at the time, she had received notice from relevant agencies, such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the Office of Auditor-General, warning of possible negative impacts, particularly to the national treasury, the eight judges wrote. An aggravating factor was the motion of no confidence that the opposition party had raised to expose irregularities in the flagship scheme.

However, Yingluck had allowed the scheme to proceed even though she, as head of government, had the necessary authority and resources to end the programme before it hurt the country, the judges concluded.

Each of the eight judges who ruled Yingluck guilty provided judgements individually, with the verdicts ranging from 80 to 120 pages.

Pison’s verdict was relatively concise at 14 pages. He said the Attorney-General had prosecuted Yingluck for negligence or misconduct, but according to the law the offence must be accompanied by ill intentions to cause loss to others.

The act of negligence alone did not count as an offence in light of the laws cited by the Attorney-General, Pison argued.

Although the prosecutor had proven the rice-pledging scheme was plagued with corruption, there was no evidence that Yingluck had benefited, Pison wrote.

Although the prosecutor and Yingluck had argued extensively about whether the rice-pledging scheme had caused losses or been beneficial to the economy, Pison wrote that those arguments were irrelevant in the context of the law.

He also rejected Yingluck’s arguments regarding judicial power as irrelevant.

Pison summed up his verdict by ruling that the case against Yingluck should be dismissed.

Cheep

It is true that the (former) prime minister had the duty to direct the grand policy, but overseeing the implementation was equally important, especially in regard to the graft-combating and prevention policy, which had also been declared before Parliament.

The defendant [Yingluck] should not have relied solely on reports from relevant agencies. When they reported that irregularities had not been found, Yingluck was negligent and took no further action.

This was despite the fact that she had legal and economic advisers. If Yingluck had not been negligent of her duty, the huge loss incurred by corruption could have been prevented.

Yingluck also had authority and sufficient time to put a halt to the delivery of the rice in the fake G2G (government-to-government) deals, but failed to do so. This demonstrated Yingluck was negligent, and appeared to intend to help people in the fake G2G case to gain profit.

Thanarirk

Yingluck, as the prime minister and head of the national rice policy committee, had the responsibility to oversee all the heads of the subcommittees she had appointed. But … she allowed those people to commit fraud.

Also, despite the fact that anti-corruption agencies and no-confidence motions had alerted her to the case, Yingluck failed to stop the corruption, which resulted in losses. Such an action was malfeasance.

When Yingluck was aware of the corruption, and failed to stop it, this meant that she had a motivation to incur losses to the national treasury and the country.

Ubonrat

The fact that the national rice policy committee resolved to continue pledging prices regardless of the huge deficit showed the scheme was completely political, rather than in the national interest.

At the time, the programme was facing a serious liquidity crunch and needed a way out. As the committee refused to reduce the pledged prices, the government did not have the money to pay farmers. Consequently, the rice growers were affected greatly.

Although the committee later limited the amount of rice in the scheme, a huge loss had already been incurred. Yingluck may argue she had appointed other officials to be in charge of the matter. But she could not deny or be free from the duty and responsibility.

When she learned of the loss and did nothing to stop it, she was guilty of negligence.

Thanasit

After it had been exposed that the supposed G2G rice deals was involved with a local company owned by Sia Piang, Yingluck did not do anything to pursue the truth. Her negligence contradicted with the policy she had laid out before the parliament that she would prevent and suppress corruption.

So, the illegal trades in the fake G2G continued as Yingluck did not do anything to stop it. This was anormal especially as Yingluck was the prime minister and the head of the national rice policy committee who had the direct responsibility to direct and scrutinise the scheme and ensure transparency.

Sophon

Yongluck’s excuse that the distribution of the rice in the fake G2G rice deals had been confidential and she had no knowledge of it could not be true. Yingluck had given interviews at least twice, demonstrating that she acknowledged the results of the fake deals. That included the distribution, the payment and the amount of the rice involved.

This meant that Yingluck was aware that there had been fraud in the distribution process in the fake G2G rice deals. Or at least, she must have been aware when the issue was raised in a censure motion.

Yingluck, as prime minister, was the head of all government agencies. In such a case, Yingluck should have exercised her power and stopped the distribution of rice to prevent damages to the national budget.

Wiroon

In the prevention of corruption, the national rice policy committee agreed to set up subcommittees to scrutinise the existing committees. As it turned out, Yingluck appointed the same people to these panels to scrutinise themselves. Of course, no irregularities were found as a result.

This showed that Yingluck was negligent, failing to inspect the implementation of the rice-pledging scheme to ensure transparency.

Although later the irregularities were exposed in a censure motion in parliament, nothing had been done to stop further transactions and the delivery of the rice. This was regardless of her responsibility, authority and resources to scrutinise the scheme and put an end to the corruption.

Even when Boonsong Teriyapirom, then commerce minister, had been accused of fraud in the scheme, Yingluck still went on and allowed him to make more rice deals.

Thanit

Yingluck said she had already sacked Boonsong. But that was after a huge loss had already been incurred. Such an argument could not be used to defend the case.

Her argument that the distribution of the rice had not been under her responsibility, and she could not possibly intervene without going against the administrative principal, was also unreasonable. Yingluck was the person who appointed Boonsong into the position; she had all the authority to order scrutiny of him.

As the prime minister and head of the national rice policy committee, Yingluck had the authority to oversee implementation and measures in the scheme directly. Furthermore, she also had the authority over all government agencies, which would have been sufficient to put a halt to the corruption-plagued scheme.

Salaikate

When it appeared that there could have been irregularities in the distribution of rice, Yingluck did not follow the process closely. Rather, she appointed the same group of people who had been allegedly involved with fraud to the scrutinising committee. This was regardless of how these people attempted to conceal the facts concerning the rice distribution.

Yingluck was directly in charge to oversee these people.

Even after the motion of no confidence, when the opposition party proposed that a minister be sacked because of the fake G2G deals, Yingluck appointed that minister to set up a scrutiny committee. It was obvious that this meant it was difficult to obtain the truth.

Although Yingluck replaced commerce minister Boonsong with another person, it was not in time, as he had already made another four corrupt deals.

Pison’s minority opinion

According to the law, which was also cited by the accusers themselves, the defendant should not be found guilty based on malfeasance alone, but she must have had motivation to do so.

If she was negligent, but had no motivation or intention, it is not sufficient to constitute a crime.

Although there was corruption in the distribution of rice in the fake G2G rice deals, it has not been proven that she benefited from it.

Sia Piang, the owner of the company that gained profits illegally through the rice deals, may have had a photograph with Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra. However, that is not sufficient proof that Sia Piang was also connected to Yingluck.

It cannot be said that Yingluck was negligent allowing others to gain benefits from the policy.

The source he would also be invited to the ministry for inquiries including his intention to form the party and the facts regarding his connection to the junta.

The issue emerged earlier this week after some photos were seen of the officer setting up his organisation’s branches in several provinces.

PM Prayut Chan-o-cha denied knowing him.

Songklod has rejected speculation that he was setting up a political party to support the junta ahead of the coming national election. He said he had not yet registered the party with the Election Commission.

He said he had been focused on “volunteering” to boost what he called “Thai Nation’s Power” – the party that he had said he was planning to set up in June.

He conceded that he was part of the National Council for Peace and Order, having worked for the council under its committee for reform.

He retired from the Defence Ministry as a staff judge advocate in 2016.

He had worked as a chief of staff at the ministry’s permanent secretary office, and at the Internal Security Command Office.