If achieved, registration would have a great impact in conserving wild elephants, which has long been the country’s most critical wildlife management challenge.

Under the order, the origins of the country’s estimated 3,000 domesticated elephants will be checked. Their certificates of identity will be verified and their DNA collected for bloodline checks. If the owners fail to complete the process within the next year, their animals will be seized.

The order also requires the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment to work together to overhaul existing laws for better protection of elephants.

Those working in wildlife protection say the ID certificates of domesticated elephants have opened a major loophole for wild-elephant poachers, who often employ brutal methods.

Rangers at Kaeng Krachan National Park, the country’s largest, have encountered gruesome killings by hunters attempting to take away live baby elephants from the herd. To get one young elephant, the officials said poachers had to kill at least the mother and sister of the infant. Afterwards, the baby would be beaten until it was docile enough to be transported and sold into private hands.

The problem is that private owners can easily conceal the origins of an elephant because the crude ID certificates simply use drawings of major markings on the animals’ bodies to differentiate them. Even worse, under an outdated 1939 law, the certificates are not issued immediately to help identify new-born baby elephants, but only when the animals have reached eight years of age.

With such loose registration and certification, wild elephants continue to end up in the kind of sorry state we often witness in news reports.

The new order has thus brought fresh hope among conservationists that it will improve the plight of elephants in the wild.

The sad fact is that these simple processes could have been accomplished long ago if concerned agencies had managed to agree and help one another fix the loopholes. Protection of the country’s most revered creature should have been the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, given the fact that it has jurisdiction over animal conservation – but that has not been the case.

The new order could be a boon for the animals, but it also demonstrates the weakness of state authority, which has time and again failed to help resolve the country’s problems.

Article 44 is absolute and unchallengeable, and thus an extreme measure for a society in transition to civilian rule. It is not a cure-all and must be invoked selectively and only as a last resort.

Its latest use offers a lesson in how we have failed as a country in protecting our natural wilderness. The time has come to nurture public awareness of the value of and threats to our natural heritage, so that we no longer have to rely on the iron fist to protect and nurture the delicate beauty of nature.

pypostbox@yahoo.com

They began when Preecha, ordered to reveal his assets as part of a post-coup drive for transparency, was found to have more than Bt80 million in the bank. His explanation was that he was holding the money on behalf of the military. Then, earlier this year he signed an order that landed his son with a well-paid position as a military officer. The son did not graduate from a military college.

More recently, Preecha’s wife Pongphan came into the picture when a dyke in Chiang Mai built with public money was named after her. Critics attacked her for claiming credit for a taxpayer-funded project, but the Defence Ministry explained she had nothing to do with the naming of the dyke, which had been local residents’ idea.

Thai politicians routinely attach their names and images to public projects, thereby using state funds to entrench their popularity and power. The post-coup government has vowed to crack down on such corruption, which perhaps helps explain the public disgust over the Chiang Mai dyke project

The Defence Ministry explained that the dyke cost just Bt7,800 to build. However, it was also found that Pongphan and her entourage travelled to the opening ceremony on an Air Force C-130 transport plane, which costs Bt500,000 per hour to fly. The Air Force said use of the aircraft was requested by the Defence Ministry’s permanent secretary.

Although the Pongphan controversy was damaging, Preecha’s reputation suffered an even deeper wound with revelations that a company run by his son Pathompong had won construction contracts worth over Bt120 million from the 3rd Army.

Preecha served as commander of the 3rd Army Region from 2013 to 2014.

The company in question is registered at a family address inside the Third Army Area base in Phitsanulok. Preecha has thus found it difficult to deny he enjoys close connections with the 3rd Army, instead explaining he had been unaware the company was registered at an address on the base. Pathompong’s firm was found to be small – operating with equipment worth less than Bt47,000 plus a pickup truck valued at Bt300,000 – yet it had won military contracts worth over Bt100 million.

Those facts led to allegations of a conflict of interest, adding to the controversy centring on Preecha and his family.

The reverberations are being felt by his elder brother, Prayut, who has promoted himself as a clean and corruption-free leader. So far, the prime minister and head of the National Council for Peace and Order has deliberately distanced himself from the controversies.

“I am sorry but I don’t know everything that my siblings do,” the PM said this week. “I love my brother but I can’t do anything about this. People have to be responsible for their own deeds.”

Those words did little to address concerns that Prayut‘s reputation, which rests on a post-coup pledge to battle corruption, is being undermined.

To shore up that reputation, the prime minister must do more to ensure the same standard is applied to everyone, including members of his own family. Thais rightly have high expectations of the prime minister; he cannot afford to disappoint them.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

Former premier Yingluck Shinawatra is now the highest-profile defendant accused of violating this law, which was enacted in 1996. According to deputy premier Wissanu Krea-ngam, Yingluck ignored written warnings from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) twice over the implementation of the policy between 2012 and 2014.

In other words, the problem was not the policy itself, but its implementation and supervision.

The NACC had warned Yingluck that the scheme, in which her government purchased an unlimited amount of paddy rice from farmers at Bt15,000 per tonne against the prevailing market price of only Bt7,000-8,000, was untenable and should be reviewed to avoid further damage to the state.

The warnings went unheeded and the scheme went on operating throughout Yingluck’s tenure.

To implement the unlimited subsidy, the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) was ordered to lend Bt110 billion to the government and issue bonds worth another Bt400 billion, to fund the purchase of more than 10 million tonnes of paddy rice at an inflated price that had been one of Yingluck’s key election pledges.

The Finance Ministry is now responsible for repaying the BACC, with the first instalment of Bt59 billion set aside from taxpayers’ money in the 2017 fiscal budget.

Paying back the debt plus interest will take an estimated 16 years.

Hence, the government has financial as well as legal grounds to seek massive compensation from previous public officeholders found guilty of negligence in overseeing the rice scheme.

But Yingluck and her Pheu Thai Party were not the first politicians to implement populist schemes at vast expense to taxpayers. Her opponents in the Democrat Party and other factions have implemented similar policies in the past.

One alternative way of helping low-income workers would be to adopt the negative income tax (NIT) system, whereby registered farmers whose income is below a target level receive direct supplementary payments.

Such a system could be a cornerstone of a more efficient and effective welfare policy, especially if facilitated by the government-sponsored “Prompt Pay” electronic payment infrastructure. For example, registered farm households would be entitled to an NIT payment based on the size of their plot and the prevailing market price for their crop.

Many farmers were happy with the Yingluck government’s rice-pledging policy because they made good profits on the guaranteed price for their harvest, but the government faced heavy losses not only from the price differential but also from storage, administrative and other costs, not to mention corruption.

The huge market-intervention scheme also depressed domestic and global rice prices, resulting in deeper losses from sales of the government’s rice stockpiles. In effect, these losses were from taxpayers’ money, spent by politicians on behalf of the public.

After the massive Bt35-billion compensation lawsuit filed against Yingluck, politicians will now have second thoughts over any plan to pour taxpayers’ money into their populist schemes. The civil liability law will loom large in their minds.

Nophakhun@nationgroup.com

Last week brought more entertainment for anti-junta elements, as family members of Prime Minister GeneralPrayut Chan-o-cha, the coup-maker and head of the National Council for Peace and Order, came under bitter attack.

Prayut‘s brother General Preecha Chan-o-cha, permanent secretary of Defence, had a rough week after his wife was widely criticised for allegedly exploiting state budget to burnish her own reputation. Further controversy came when an investigative report revealed his son had won an army construction deal worth more than Bt20 million.

In April, Preecha faced a similar storm when he appointed his youngest son to the post of second lieutenant in the Army. The young man has a communication arts degree.

After the scandals broke, photographs and personal details of those involved went viral. Netizens revelled in the irony that these self-proclaimed “good people” and champions in the battle against graft had apparently been revealed as no better than the corrupt politicians they were disciplining.

However, along with other high-profile Internet sensations such as the Ratchapakdi Park construction, these fresh scandals will soon be yesterday’s news. General Preecha’s family members will doubtless be found innocent eventually, even if the court of public opinion continues to mock them.

There will be no fundamental changes made, and the same old issues will bring new scandals that continue to bleed the state budget because of poor governance.

However, with the authorities now enjoying unprecedented levels of control, this is our chance to seriously address standards of governance and make changes for the better. The absence of strong standards means that even those officials who claim to be honest can be involved in corruption.

We should forget about personal claims to goodness and realise that no one is exempt to the temptations that come with power. The only guarantee we have against such abuses in politics is an impersonal and rigid standard of governance that is policed without favour.

Without it, we will continue in this loop of mud-slinging whereby political rivals take turns throwing dirt at one another whenever they get the chance. That might be gratifying for each side, but the result is that the country will always remain dirty.

So, rather than making it a laughing matter, we should question transparency and accountability in the Army and other government agencies. If irregularities are found, the culprits should be brought to justice.

It must be a norm that transactions and affairs follow the proper process and that nobody can abuse their power to favour their family members at the expense of taxpayers.

chanwanpen92@gmail.com

The surname will be familiar to readers. The “face” of the project happens to be the wife of Defence Ministry permanent secretary General Preecha Chan-o-cha, who is the younger brother of Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha.

The floodwall was built with public money from the Defence Ministry, but the credit went to Pongphan, who heads an Army wives’ club.

Social-media users were scathing in their responses. Many pointed out that Prayut has himself castigated such banners as examples of inappropriate publicity-seeking among politicians and senior bureaucrats.

In fact, politicians have routinely attached their names and images to state-funded projects as if they had paid for them. Critics, in turn, point out that the practice amounts to corruption, with officeholders using state funds to boost their popularity and entrench their power.

It was just such political corruption that Prayut used as justification for his coup in May 2014, vowing to eradicate it with widespread reforms.

But that justification and vow are plainly empty, critics said, if even his sister-in-law can still indulge in such publicity-seeking stunts.

Amid the growing controversy, a Defence Ministry source stepped in to explain that the floodwall was not officially named after Pongphan. Local villagers had coined the name “Mae Pongphan Pattana” merely to welcome her and reflect the fact that she had pushed the idea forward on their behalf. The dyke was built by soldiers and villagers with funding from the Defence Ministry’s Defence Energy Department.

To be fair, Prayut‘s sister-in-law might not have known about the welcoming banner beforehand. It was likely prepared by local officials working under directions from subordinates of her husband at the Defence Ministry.

But even if Pongphan herself is blameless, her case reveals a longstanding and problematic culture of local bureaucrats desperate to please bosses who have the power to reward or punish them.

The rewards include benefits such as promotion and raises.

This culture of patronage has deep roots that flourish even beyond the spheres of politics, the bureaucracy, military and business. Those roots choke faith in democracy and public life by channelling power away from legitimate institutions to individuals. However, in order to solve this problem we must first acknowledge its existence.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

The Panglong Conference got underway in the capital Nay Pyi Taw already under a shadow, with the armed Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) threatening retaliation against government Border Guard Forces (BGF) for harassing its patrols.

The DKBA, which split from the predominantly Christian Karen National Union (KNU) and has sided with the Myanmar military since 1997, has a history of breaking peace deals. This time, it clashed with BGF militias on September 3 in the Mae Tha Waw area of Karen state, close to the Thai border. Each side accused the other of starting the fighting, which has reportedly seen dozens either killed or seriously injured and some 4,000 locals flee their homes.

The clashes have erupted close to territory controlled by the KNU, which has called on the government under Aung San Suu Kyi to quickly contain the violence, which is quickly sapping locals’ faith in the peace process.

Meanwhile the KNU, which has fought with government troops for more than half a century, is embroiled in a separate conflict with another armed ethnic group, the Mon National Liberation Army (MNLA). Battles broke out on September 8 in the South’s Taninthayi Division between the two ethnic armies, which have a history of conflict dating back some three decades, the Yangon-based Mizzima news outlet reported.

The area is now a Mon stronghold but was once under Karen control. The latest tension between the two groups sprang up in August when Mon militia prevented KNU troops from transporting timber across their territory.

These latest outbreaks demonstrate the complex nature of Myanmar’s conflicts, with decades of grievances blocking the path to peace. Ethnic groups are not only fighting the government for self-determination but also clashing with each other over territory. These deep waters are muddied further by ongoing sectarian conflicts between Buddhists and Muslims.

Temporary truces between the ruling junta and ethnic armies have come and gone since the 1990s. When forced to join the Border Guards under the 2008 military-drafted constitution, groups including the DKBA tore up the latest ceasefire and resumed fighting.

The previous government under President Thein Sein succeeded in getting just eight armed groups to sign a ceasefire deal in October, before a landslide election win saw Aung San Suu Kyi‘s government take power.

Her Panglong Conference has drawn more armed groups to the table, but with them have come more questions. How, for instance, can the talks solve the dispute between the Karen and the Mon? While the KNU has signed the nationwide ceasefire agreement, the Mon forces have not. How can the new Panglong effort find a path to peace even as its parties are still fighting?

Military courts had been empowered to try civilians in cases concerning national security, sedition or lese majeste since soon after the 2014 coup.

The move drew fierce condemnation from both domestic and international quarters, with critics pointing out that military courts drew their personnel from the same group as those in power. Military courts also tend to have far higher conviction rates than their civilian counterparts, and hand down verdicts that are harder to appeal. And repeated assurances from the authorities never managed to dispel widespread concern that justice is more likely to be done in a civilian courtroom than in a military tribunal.

Rights watchdogs here and abroad led growing calls for the practice to be halted.

Those calls were bolstered by the claim that the junta was using military justice to target its political enemies, denying them fair trial.

Unsurprisingly, rights groups have welcomed General Prayut‘s decision to rein in military justice for civilians. The move brings light at the end of the tunnel in terms of a return to international norms of justice and rule of law.

The NCPO order cited an ongoing relaxation of post-coup measures needed to pave the way for sustainable development, national reform and reconciliation. It also mentioned the new constitution “to be promulgated very soon”.

The “relaxation” suggests that the powers-that-be are confident they are now in full control. And easing their grip will also help relax the pressure being brought to bear on the government from both inside and outside the country.

In fact, the NCPO chief could go further in this direction by transferring all the ongoing civilian cases in military courts to the civilian justice system. Since the last coup, more than 1,500 civilian cases have been filed with military courts, and more than 500 are still ongoing, according to Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam.

“The cases that are still under the deliberation of a military court will go ahead because they have already entered court procedure,” Wissanu explained.

Critics claim that Prayut‘s order only came after the mission to target enemies with military justice had been completed.

Prayut should also revoke the order that empowers military personnel to make arrests, which is a further intrusion on the civilian justice system and a potential weapon for the junta to wield against political enemies.

Relinquishing these additional powers would serve as a token of good faith in the path back to democracy. It would also enable the junta to credibly claim that such extra powers were necessary to bring order in the aftermath of the coup and were not levied with a hidden political motive.

Prayut deserves praise for calling an end to the prosecution of civilians in military courts. All we need now is a few more steps to complete a move back to judicial normalcy that would benefit the country as a whole.

attayuth@nationgroup.com