They have done this in the form of a group called Platform of Concerned Citizens, with them publicly voicing their concerns over what they view as a “closed political atmosphere” blanketing much-needed freedom of expression towards the new charter draft ahead of the referendum on August 7.

The big names in the group include former election commissioner and peace advocate Gothom Arya, former Human Rights Commission chairman Niran Pitakwatchara and Law Reform Commission of Thailand member Pairoj Polpetch.

The other members include high profile politicians such as Democrat Kasit Piromya, Pheu Thai’sChaturon Chaisang and Chat Thai’s Pattana’s Somsak Prissananantakul.

On April 25, two days after the law was promulgated, the group issued its first statement calling for a joint principle assuring an accountable and participatory referendum process.

It is further testing the water with a forum series, the first due tomorrow to also commemorate ‘Black May’, the 1992 popular uprising that resulted in a bloody military crackdown and the toppling of General Suchinda Kraprayoon’s government.

Buntoon Srethasirote, a former member of the Constitution Drafting Committee and one of the key coordinators of the group, talked to The Nation’s Piyaporn Wongruang about the idea behind the group and the ultimate goal of creating an accountable and transparent atmosphere for the referendum.

Platform of Concerned Citizens regards the referendum as a most critical moment for the country.

Looking back to the day you issued your first statement, what made you come together for such as move?

You may have learned that the civil sector has actually long been working in a certain way with the political sector, either behind closed or open doors. We had observed the same concern – that the current political atmosphere is quite closed to public discussions, especially about the latest charter draft.

Our concern arose after we had read the content of the draft. This was accompanied by the facts that a series of detentions was also on the rise, in contrast to what was supposed to be, which is freedom of expression ahead of the referendum – one of our most critical decision-making moments for our country.

So we started to get in touch with one another again, and discussed how we could have the space for discussions about the charter draft before we made such a critical decision. It’s what we call “a safe dialogue platform”.

What triggered your concerns? The series of detentions, the new referendum, something else?

They’re all mixed together. In addition, what we saw was the stance of those in power over the issue. This has become increasing clear to people – that those in power, or the National Council for Peace and Order themselves, have not shown the public that they are open to different voices and views enough to assure us they would listen.

The point is: People’s emotions have already changed from the beginning of the coup … Now there has been an increasing call for democracy to be returned and they want to get back on track, something that we are not sure they [the junta] have realised.

Actually, it’s a kind of a test for us all too – whether we are too divided to get together and talk about something that will be important to our lives, like the new charter draft and the referendum. By calling for an accountable and inclusive referendum process, we wish to see a joint principle, a joint procedure, that we can work together first. Then, we will have forums held to discuss the draft’s content further in detail. Whether we wish to pick only topics of our interest to discuss with the public will be the next matter.

Don’t you think the current atmosphere is open enough for discussions?

Like I said, considering the NCPO’s stance, the legal interpretation and implementation of the new referendum law, I must say that it’s not quite.

The law itself is supposed to be the new rule guaranteeing public expression because it’s a law, right? But when interpreted or implemented, you can see now that it goes against what’s supposed to be. It restricts freedom of expression rather than promoting it – something that we thought, well, maybe it’s not the right way to go. This is despite the fact that the law even has one article mentioning a guarantee of freedom of expression – Article 7.

The legal interpretation by those in power including the deputy prime ministers, who have gone opposite to one another, has also caused confusion among the public on how to proceed with the referendum.

This has also confused us despite the fact that we have some lawyers giving us recommendations. Because of the law, we ourselves are not sure whether we should post our next activities onFacebook – for fear that it would be interpreted that we are calling people to vote against the draft.

It’s a kind of challenge ahead, but we will go ahead with the forums to let people know the draft content as much as possible.

Compared with the referendum on the 2007 Charter, what are the similarities and the differences [with this process]?

The 2007 referendum was far more open, but actually this had a lot to do with the charter drafting process from the start. The 2007 period was more open and inclusive, allowing other sectors to propose their inputs, and that helped facilitate the processes that came later including the referendum. The political context was also different – it was not as divisive as the present time.

The most important thing is that at present we have lost a lot of trust in one another, so it’s very hard to believe in what someone says or promises.

Who initiated the idea to push for an inclusive and accountable referendum process?

I must say the idea to try to create a joint process first started with civil society. We then approached politicians. They actually wanted to see an open space the most.

As I told you, the two sectors have actually had connections and have been working together to a certain degree.

So what would be the next step for the group?

According to our statement, you can see that we call clearly for an inclusive and accountable referendum process, which means we want to see the space for freedom of expression for issues of importance like the charter draft.

So, we would make it happen. We ourselves will also push for public forums to discuss the charter draft content. We will adhere to the law and see for real, what we can or cannot do.

A referendum is actually a public-learning process, for people to learn to live together amid differences, both in terms of process, and in terms of content.

So, this referendum is very important to us all, and that’s why we are trying this time.

The NLA’s question asks that whether, in order for the reform work to be carried out continuously in line with the national strategy in the five-year transitional period, the two houses of Parliament should jointly select a prime minister.

But they eventually managed to share the forums, with the NLA solely responsible for clarifications on the additional question.

NLA vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai talked to The Nation’s Piyaporn Wongruang on why the NLA had proposed the question, and how it would help

resolve the problems the country faces.

SO, YOU HAVE EVENTUALLY decided TO USE THE SAME FORUMS as THE CDC?

Yes, we have. An NLA panel just held a meeting to discuss further details on how to arrange the public relations campaigns.

[The panel meeting on Friday fleshed out its campaigns, which would see the NLA share the stage nationwide with the CDC.]

many questions continue to be raised about the additional QUESTION. SO HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS QUESTION?

To answer how this question was devised, we may need to go back to the interim charter put in place in 2014.

If you remember, the interim charter previously stated that the NLA and the now-defunct National Reform Council [NRC] were tasked with proposing an additional question each in the referendum. If the previous draft by Borwornsak [Uwanno] had not been aborted, we would have seen the two questions proposed to go along with the referendum.

But as the NRC was dissolved, and the interim charter was amended, the National Reform Steering Assembly, having replaced the NRC, would only propose the questions to us, and we were tasked with finalising only one question to go with the referendum. So the task started from there, and the interim-charter amendment has specially addressed our task this way – to have the NLA propose one question to go with the referendum.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARDs?

After the CDC had finished the charter draft, the NRSA met and discussed the questions before resolving to have a question with similar details. Roughly, they agreed that during the transitional period, there should be a mechanism to supervise reform work, and that’s why a joint selection of a prime minister by the two houses was proposed.

The NLA afterwards took the NRSA proposal for further consideration and with the majority of votes, we agreed with the NRSA’s question. But what we did was just tweak the wording. So you can see that the question was not proposed without lead-ups. It is actually the same old issue addressed in the first version of the interim charter.

WHY DO WE NEED SUCH a QUESTiON? And WHAT RESULT Does THE NLA EXPECT TO SEE FROM HAVING SUCH a QUESTION PASSED?

To answer this question, we may have to go back to what’s written in the charter draft by Ajarn Meechai [Ruchupan, the CDC chief]. In the draft, they have proposed a chapter regarding the country’s reform and they have designed that the Senate during the transitional period would help supervise the work.

The point is the draft has addressed the Senate’s duty, but it has failed to address its power. So that’s the point where we picked up to figure out how to help the Senate perform as required.

This would be dependent on the administration as well as the prime minister. So a capable prime minister should be selected jointly by the houses, and that’s the idea that the NRSA had proposed in order for us to get ” special mechanisms” to help accomplish the task.

You can see that the NRSA and the NLA may initiate the idea, but in the end it’s not they who will make a decision. We did not shoot down the idea, or say yes, let us do it this way. As it’s about the country’s critical reform, we thought the people should make the decision.

DO YOU THINK such a question WOULD LEAD US away from the DEMOCRATIC PATH?

The referendum is a democratic process. In principle, a referendum is in place to help accomplish two major purposes: one is about having a decision on a very critical law, the other is about having a decision on issues of importance to the country.

The referendum this time has both contexts. We are going to have a decision on the new constitution, and we are going to decide what is asked in the question, which is critical to the country. So that’s the reason we decided to go ahead with the referendum. It is direct participation in decision-making. We should not exaggerate. Why we have come to this point is made clear in the charter draft. They are the key words, and if we forget these, we would be bogged down with doubts and speculation all over again, such as why an outsider prime minister, and so on.

BUT YOU STILL THINK the QUESTION was necessary?

If we go back to the time before the coup, you may remember that we had different political camps making demands. One said reform before an election, the other said an election before reform. But what both sides agreed was the country needed reform, right? So they saw the same thing – that this country had a serious problem.

It’s a challenge for all of us, and that’s why reform has become part of the new attempt addressed in Ajarn Meechai’s charter draft, with the selected Senate proposed, and so on, to ensure that we would not waste our time and efforts.

Our duty was how to make the people see the point and make the right decision towards the future. It’s a shared responsibility, and I view this as a joint duty for us all.

YOU do NOT THINK THE QUESTiON has the potential to LEAD TO A NEW CONFLICT?

I don’t think so. If people have information, like what we are trying to explain, I believe they will make the right decision.

The Nation’s Kasamakorn Chanwanpen and Piyaporn Wongruang talked to CDC spokesman Chartchai Na Chiangmai about the charter dissemination plan as well as the challenges ahead.

How does the CDC get millions of eligible voters to understand the 279-article constitution and take part in the referendum?

Basically, we will train 350,000 volunteers from 84,000 villages across the country to be mouthpieces for the charter draft, or around four of them per village. These volunteers will knock on the doors and explain the crucial points – not all 279 articles – to voters. This way, the charter is more easily digested.

We will also produce folk songs representing each region of the country and play them on TV and radio to explain the charter. Infographics will also be made available online.

Who will be these 350,000 volunteers?

They will be what we call ‘teacher C’ and will be mainly selected from the communities. They will be people well known in the villages and generally welcomed by villagers. They have to also be trustworthy and have good communication skills, so they can pass on the words about the constitution correctly.

But most importantly, they have to be very responsible in doing this crucial job. The CDC will rely mostly on them to make the charter draft known and to encourage people to exercise their right.

How will you train such a huge group of people to talk about the constitution, which is clearly not an easy assignment?

It will go down the ladder from the drafters to representatives at provincial, district, and community levels. The CDC will give them a brief containing the exact things that they have to say to voters. Also, we have listed some possible questions [that people may ask] and provided the answers for them.

What are the most essential points in the charter draft that the CDC really wants voters to know?

There are five points that we want to get across. Firstly, their rights are protected under this charter: They can have access to education, public health services, and to other resources. The state also has a duty to fulfil these [requirements] to ensure people’s access to these resources.

Secondly, we want them to acknowledge that people have duties as well. The country will not move forward unless we are disciplined, and we all have to give a hand.

Thirdly, the charter draft stipulates that reforms must be carried out. These cover educational, justice, and political matters. The plan to curb corruption is also a reform, though it is not in the chapter directly.

Fourthly, the electoral systems, both for MPs and the Senate, should be acknowledged. Voters should know how they can help tackle the persisting problems facing the country.

Lastly, we want everyone to understand that the constitution can be amended, unlike what the opponents are saying. It is just that every party must give its consent.

What about the transitional period that contains exceptional rules – how are you going to explain this?

I don’t want to touch upon that if I really have a choice. Frankly speaking, we did not give the military everything they asked for. It was only on the Senate matter [that the Senate be selected by the junta] that we complied with their recommendation.

But now everything is harder with the additional question posed by the National Legislative Assembly [to allow the junta-appointed Senate to have a part in selecting the prime minister]. So, we will let them [legislators] explain this because we don’t know in the first place. We weren’t a part of their discussions and debates when such a question was proposed.

What are the most worrisome aspects of the plan to promote the charter draft?

We hope that the … friendly door-to-door mission will be very effective in raising awareness about the draft and the referendum.

However, in villages there are people with different colour-coded favourites. We don’t want our volunteers to fight with those strongly against the draft. It would worsen things. Funny questions might also be posed to stir things up and ridicule the volunteers.

Worse, different volunteers could answer the same question differently. It would further confuse voters and at the end they may not go to the polling stations.

But the decision made in the referendum could also be impacted by some “external factors”.

Do you have any plan to tackle that?

The CDC is very well aware of that issue. We could just pray that they will wait until we pass this decisive time before doing anything because it could really affect the referendum.

Some people who are not big fans of the National Council for Peace and Order [NCPO] often use the constitution to indirectly target the NCPO. They express dissatisfaction towards the charter to express their dissatisfaction with the NCPO. We really hope that the powers-that-be can remain calm.

The issues about [former Pheu Thai minister] Watana Muangsook and the scandal about pulling strings to reserve a military position for someone’s son can potentially shake the referendum on the ground if it spreads.

The CDC is putting in a lot of effort into writing and promoting the draft. What is your ultimate expectation?

We expect that voters will understand the draft. We expect that when we talk about the single-ballot system, you know what it is and what the benefits are. As a drafter, of course I want it to pass the referendum because I know that we have done the very best. However, I will respect the result no matter how it turns out.

If you really read it and you don’t like it and you vote ‘no’, I’m fine with that. I just want you to really understand the charter. But it’s really up to you and how you vote.

Do you think voters will accept the charter?

As a drafter, I think we have done our best and people should like it, hopefully. But I want to add that our context now forces us to design the political system to be a rather restorative one, not a retributive one.

Politicians have not worked on policies. We have patronism and cronyism and the politicians only seek to win with whatever means. We cannot go on like this. It would only lead to more street protests and then coups.

The Westminster system just does not work here now like the book says. We have to look at the reality that we need good people and politics restored first.

Starting from scratch again?

Well, we need an atmosphere for co-existing and sharing first before being able to move ahead together, I think.

The NRSA is tasked with steering the reform plans of the NRC, so we brought all the studies to the table and prioritised the work. We applied some criteria in prioritising, which included creating a sense of urgency and a degree of seriousness, gauging the degree of impact of the problems, and judging the possibility of success, something that we would not have achieved in a normal situation. But it will be possible during this transitional period.

As we came up with criteria to prioritise our work, we then grouped natural resources into three main groups: forestry and land use management, water resources, and marine and coastal resources.

These three sectors together cover the most critical resources that people rely on.

HOW IS YOUR WORK PROGRESSING ON FORESTRY AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT?

We looked at the root of the problems again to see whether we had started at the right points. We found that our forests have been critically shrinking in the last 30 or 40 years. Our forests, in addition, have a unique aspect in that they are a home to many people. That made solving the problem more complicated. Our land use of forests is not well managed, and all these factors pose a critical challenge to our fast-shrinking forest areas. How could we restore them to meet the goal of increasing the forest area by 40 per cent in the next 10 years.

We have come up with a strategic reform plan to guide the further development of mechanisms to deal with the problems. Of course, it will significantly be about creating legal instruments, and a part of this is a new Cabinet resolution to address the problems at a policy level, and the enactment and amendment of related laws.

Besides, new monitoring and regulating of the land use system is to be developed and put in place. We’ll also have a new fund to support efforts on forest conservation. Declaring new protected areas is also part of our strategy for better protection of forest areas.

WHICH WORK AREA HAVE YOU GIVEN THE MOST WEIGHT TO?

Developing legal instruments to help us manage forests is probably the biggest challenge. We plan to amend two laws – the Wildlife Protection Act and National Park Act – while we’ll come up with another act on community forests.

We need to improve the first two acts so that they can cope with the challenge, especially in regards to simmering conflicts between forest residents and forest officials. The existing National Park Act is vague and forest officials often find themselves in a dilemma as they have no clear guidelines on best practices.

From now on, the act will be a better guide for them based on scientific evidence.

It’s likely that forest areas will be zoned based on ecological values, and we will then look to what extent people can coexist with the environment. That means, if the areas are ecologically fragile, we may have to implement intensive conservation for such a zone, but if people can coexist, then the management can be flexible. But first and foremost, officials need some tools to help draw lines and make things clear.

As for the Community Forest Act, that could help open space for participation by communities in conserving our forests and coexisting with them, if possible. As such, we need tools to help provide a framework to work together in the future, and with this we hope that we can also increase our forest areas.

We will also come up with a new Cabinet resolution to give us a holistic policy in regard to forest management.

The June 30, 1998 Cabinet resolution was put in place to deal with the forest occupation problem, but it did not give a clear timeframe and stopped short of addressing necessary directives to settle problems. For instance, it did not say how the state would compensate people if they needed to be moved out of the forest to protect ecological values. So, we really need a new policy to help address the issue in a more clearcut and comprehensive manner.

If we cannot solve this problem, other work will be difficult to achieve. For instance, it will be difficult to increase protected areas if we cannot settle the forest occupation problem. Actually, these legal instruments also need to be pushed along with other measures including a new fund to create incentives for people to live in harmony with the forests and help protect them.

IF WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ALL OF THIS, CAN WE SAY THAT WE HAVE MANAGED TO REFORM OUR EMBATTLED FOREST MANAGEMENT?

I actually would like to call it the beginning of our forestry reforms. As you may know, problems related to our forests are very hard to tackle. But with some legal instruments developed or improved, they can help open the way for further implementation.

For people working in this field, developing legal instruments is fundamental to the success of forest management. But it is the most difficult part of our work, crucially because of politics. If policies were easily changed or unattended, like in the past, the work would hardly progress. During this period of time, however, it has become possible.

YOU WOULD HAVE ABOUT FOUR MONTHS LEFT AFTER THE CHARTER CAME INTO EFFECT IF IT PASSES THE REFERENDUM, SO WILL THIS AFFECT THE WORK?

The shortened period of time would not affect the work, as we had actually planned to finish it within this year. With legal amendments and a new policy developed, we can then proceed with other necessary measures including monitoring mechanisms, probably in the form of new committees, and so on.

Much of the work afterwards will be about following up.

WHAT WILL WE SEE FROM THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE?

I hope we will be able to see our forests more effectively managed, and used appropriately, based on their true ecological values, which have a scientific basis. This would benefit further economic development, as the forests are fundamental to other resources. If they are healthy, so are other resources, including water.

So, you will see that we base our work on the national benefit, not the benefit of any particular group. Some people may not understand our intention, but we would have to make a decision to do something so that we can manage our resources before it’s too late. It’s national benefit that comes first, and that’s the reason why we are not afraid of making a decision.

WHAT ABOUT WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES?

For these two resources, the main idea is similar to forest management: we need some legal instruments to help us manage them. We need an act for water resources, which will enable us to have comprehensive water management. It’s likely that we will see a sort of a new Strategic Water Resources Management Act formulated. There would be a similar act for marine resources, to ensure our utilisation of our marine and coastal resources is sustainable while conserving them if necessary.

So, I count this as another leap of reform in the field of our natural resources. With all these, things that need to be changed will start to be changed, and ultimately utilisation and conservation of our natural resources could be brought back to the balance again.

WHAT LED THE NBTC TO COME UP WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT?

Fundamentally, it is stated in our auction licences that broadcasters have to abide by the media’s code of ethics and conduct.

In the announcement, we followed Article 27 in the 2010 Act on assigning radio frequency and regulating broadcasting and telecommunications service.

We’ve also followed Articles 39 and 40 in the 2008 Act on the radio and television broadcasting business. All these articles empower the NBTC to make media practitioners to set ethical standards and also have them practice self-regulation pertaining to their profession.

It can be said this was triggered by two highly controversial cases – the insensitive coverage of late actor Trisadee Sahawong’s funeral, and Channel 3’s apparent defence of its convicted TV host Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda at the start of the case.

These incidents have stirred social calls for tangible development of media ethics against morality issues at the earliest – and the NBTC thought that it’s about time to level up.

WHAT DOES THE ANNOUNCEMENT AIM TO PRODUCE?

It aims to set new ethical standards for media organisations through NBTC-introduced procedures. The organisations, as designated in the draft, will be required to register and get approved by the NBTC. This can ensure, to a certain extent, that organisations will have to comply with the new requirements, for example, publicising their budget and annual reports, as the draft says.

Under this draft, media organisations will also have to set up an ethics regulation committee consisting of media veterans, academics and outsider experts.

The committee will help protect consumers and the public by accepting complaints against the media, seeking compensation for those who have suffered as a result of media practices, as well as sanctioning wrongdoings by media practitioners.

WHEN I HEAR THE WORD “SANCTION”, I THINK OF THE STATE AUTHORITY’S CONTRIBUTION TO THIS, INCLUDING THE ROLE OF THE NBTC AS YOU MENTIONED. DOESN’T THIS GO AGAINST THE THREE ARTICLES THAT SUPPORT MEDIA SELF-REGULATION?

Such sanctions will be decided on wholly by media organisations, which in turn could become soft as some support is cut. As for the NBTC’s position, I may say it could actually be something between a facilitator and a regulator.

It’s true that we will have to use authority to enforce this draft, but I plan for the NBTC to only draw outlines for media affairs and not step into the decision-making field at all.

The NBTC could step back when media organisations have settled down, meaning they can eventually regulate themselves effectively and sustainably.

BUT AREN’T LEGITIMATELY FORMING MEDIA ORGANISATIONS AND SETTING UP ETHICS TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS?

Media people haven’t been able to solve their ethical issues yet and you’re trying to introduce a new structure as a solution.

Those are all correct points, but how can we make media ethical standards concrete without creating more legitimate bodies to shape them up? They just need to be done together.

HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THE ETHICS ISSUES WITH OTHER NBTC COMMISSIONERS?

Yes, and I think they might observe the matter from a rather legal perspective, seeing things only in black and white. Their approach is that either the NBTC should have greater control over the media platform or it should not bother about it at all. If you ask me, I think ethics has grey areas and a lot of discussions are required to push it through.

WHAT ABOUT EXISTING MEDIA ORGANISATIONS? THEY SEEM TO GO FOR SELF-REGULATION WITHOUT THE NBTC’S PARTICIPATION?

I talked to digital TV broadcasters last month and we concluded that companies will regulate themselves. If there are unsolved problems, they will be passed on to the NBTC, which will offer solutions.

If the problem is still unsolved, existing media organisations will be in charge and if problems are still there, it will eventually be the NBTC’s job to solve them.

The NBTC looks forward to talking with the rest of the media organisations, with the exception of online ones, by the middle of this month in relation to the draft. Hence, details of the draft are subject to change depending on future conclusions.

If all organisations decide to reject the draft, so be it. I am a commissioner who stands by the media and respects their voices after all.

HOW WOULD YOU PERSUADE MEDIA ORGANISATIONS TO ENGAGE IN THE DRAFT THEN?

I would say that coming up with a legitimate, clear ethical line that everyone can agree upon would be for public benefit. This will also cut out unnecessary arguments on what is good and what is not.

I would also say that the NBTC needs to be present to merely put things in order, as it is being long urged by social pressures. The issue of media ethics had better be organised as soon as possible or the state may have an excuse to interfere in harsher ways.

There is no particular case I can think of – but the pressure was to complete a massive amount of work with time constraints. For instance, in the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative (KCUC) case, the money embezzled from the public by the cooperative executives was used to buy many plots of land. We had to work against time to prevent these assets from changing hands. We had to work fast before the media reported the scam, especially as former cooperative chairman Supachai Srisupaaksorn had not been arrested.

The kickback case against Pol General Pongpat Chayapan, former chief of the Central Investigation Bureau, involved many business transactions and was linked to many people. Many assets had to be seized and checked and put up for auction.

HOW DO OFFSHORE COMPANIES AVOID TAX AND LAUNDER MONEY?

Offshore companies are set up to transfer profits made domestically to foreign countries in order to pay less tax or to avoid double taxation – without having to open actual business operations in the country of the offshore companies being registered.

The process is to export goods to countries of buyers – but to mark down the price on the invoice to less than the selling price. For instance, the selling price is Bt200 but the invoice price is Bt130. This is to pay less tax. The goods would be shipped to the country of the buyer – but payment is made in the country where the company has an account without having to transfer money to the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands or Bermuda. Since the money is not transferred to Thailand, the Revenue Department cannot collect tax. This is a legally correct way that is done across the world. It is not money laundering but AMLO has to watch out because there could be politicians or government officials using this method to launder money. The Revenue Department’s methods of checking are different from AMLO’s.

This method, however, is not used by law-abiding countries such as the United States. The US Federal Reserve has regulations that all banks in the world must submit reports to it if a US citizen opens a bank account with US$50,000 upwards. The US central bank will deduct 30 per cent from the total deposit without having to prove anything. The Revenue Department has a measure of collecting 15 per cent in tax from deposits transferred out of the country.

HOW DOES THE EXISTING LAW PREVENT POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN AMLO – AS POLITICIANS CAN USE THE OFFICE AS A TOOL TO SABOTAGE POLITICAL RIVALS?

Previous and current governments have passed laws on AMLO by transferring the agency – which was under the jurisdiction of the Justice Ministry – to be under the PM, who cannot interfere in AMLO’s operations. Many state agencies seek support from AMLO to analyse financial transactions of any suspected cases of corruption and irregularities and they can seize assets of corrupt officials very fast.

ARE CURRENT MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING CRIMES?

The latest amendment to the money laundering law extended the law to cover 24 offences. The international standard is for each country to have anti-money laundering actions against 20 offences.

HOW DO YOU FORESEE CRIMINALS DEVELOPING NEW MONEY LAUNDERING ACTIVITIES?

Previously, drug traders opened – for instance – gold shops, car for rent businesses to front their illegal businesses. But [now] as they can trade their goods online, they don’t need front businesses. In some regions, criminals still operate legal and illegal businesses together. AMLO has set up a division to monitor illegal technology activities and found a lot of offences that led to seizure of assets. Criminals have exploited technology to cheat the public by luring them to buy goods and services.

AMLO has taken the right path by adopting standard practices. If we can block financial transactions, we can block criminal activities. Countries that have anti-money laundering agencies that do not meet FATF standards would be boycotted from trading and financial transactions.

When countries have good standards on financial checks, investors are confident they can invest without being cheated, thus, it is good for the country’s economy. If there is liberation of financial transaction through an online system, concerned agencies must adopt anti-money laundering standards to prevent criminals from exploiting financial liberalisation.