The main opposition People’s Party (PP) has taken a bold step by submitting a bill aimed at amending the constitution to limit the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s (NACC) authority to investigate Members of Parliament (MPs) and senators for ethical violations. According to Pakornwut Udompipatskul, a list MP of the PP and the opposition whip chief, the bill has already been presented to House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha.
Interestingly, this move comes ahead of the ruling Pheu Thai Party’s own initiative to gather support from coalition parties for their version of a bill, also aimed at rewriting sections of the charter focusing on the ethics of political post-holders. Under current stipulations, political post-holders found guilty of ethical misconduct can face lifetime bans from the political arena.
A source well-acquainted with the matter revealed that Pheu Thai’s draft is somewhat less specific compared to the PP’s bill in terms of curbing the NACC’s power over ethical violation cases. Both drafts are expected to be reviewed together and potentially merged during the scrutiny stage.
On Tuesday, Mr. Pakornwut disclosed that the PP-sponsored bill is currently undergoing vetting, and it must be placed on parliament’s agenda within 15 days. He anticipates that the bill will be debated in a joint sitting of parliament tentatively scheduled for September 25. However, should this debate conflict with discussions on Pheu Thai’s bill, the PP is open to rescheduling their draft for a later date.
The PP’s bill aims to systematically revise the rules for what constitutes ethical violations for political post-holders. This comes as many MPs feel besieged by what they perceive as an overload of trivial or unfounded petitions meant to unseat them from office. Currently, the NACC is responsible for vetting these cases before deciding whether to forward them to either the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court.
Mr. Pakornwut acknowledges that the bill will require refining due to what he describes as the charter’s “vague” and “abstract” wording. Despite this, he reiterated Pheu Thai’s stance that any amendments concerning the powers of an independent agency like the NACC should be endorsed through a referendum.
In a related development, PM’s Office Minister Chusak Sirinil, who also serves as Pheu Thai’s legal expert, mentioned that the party aims to amend four to five sections concerning the ethical code for politicians. He dismissed allegations that Pheu Thai’s initiative is a self-serving maneuver designed to weaken the charter. According to him, the party’s goal is merely to define ethical violations more clearly.
As the political drama unfolds, both parties seem to share a common goal: refining the ethical guidelines for political figures. However, their approaches and the specifics of their bills differ, leading to an intriguing legislative face-off. The coming weeks promise a lively debate as the bills make their way through the complex corridors of parliament.
In essence, the battle over the ethical guidelines for political post-holders is heating up. Should either bill pass, it could reshape the landscape of Thai politics for years to come, making this a pivotal moment in the nation’s legislative history. Stay tuned!
Honestly, does anyone else see this as a blatant attempt by politicians to avoid scrutiny? Limiting the NACC’s power sounds like a way to make corruption easier.
Agreed! If they’re really innocent, they shouldn’t be afraid of investigations. Sounds shady to me.
Policing politicians needs to be stringent. Otherwise, we are just giving them a free pass to do whatever they want.
Or maybe they just want to avoid frivolous lawsuits? A lot of these investigations are petty anyway.
Sure, but that’s no reason to weaken oversight altogether. There needs to be a balance.
Exactly, Lek. It’s about finding middle ground. But removing a lot of the NACC’s power isn’t the answer.
Everyone knows the NACC is just a puppet for the major parties anyway. Restricting their power could actually bring some fairness.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I agree that the system is rigged.
Fairness? Really? It’s just going to be abused in a different way. Politicians will use these loopholes for their own benefits.
Fair point, Joe. But the current system isn’t exactly foolproof either. It’s worth discussing alternatives.
Does no one care about the waste of resources on these endless investigations? Reducing the NACC’s power could make governance more efficient.
True, but what cost does efficiency come with? Less oversight could mean more corruption. It’s a slippery slope.
Imagine fewer corruption cases but also less transparency. That’s a dangerous trade-off.
We need to trust our elected officials at some point. Micromanaging them creates more problems than it solves.
I think this bill is a necessary move. The NACC oversteps its boundaries too often. MPs need to do their jobs without being constantly harassed.
A lot of MPs have faced investigations that went nowhere. Isn’t it time we focus on real issues instead of chasing ghosts?
Exactly. Not every investigation leads to a guilty verdict, but the damage to reputations is done.
This whole situation feels like a power struggle between two parties trying to control the narrative. The NACC needs independence, not political puppeteers.
Totally. Independence is crucial, but giving them too much power without accountability is risky, too.
Isn’t this the kind of reform that should go to a public vote? Ignoring the public’s voice could lead to more distrust in politics.
Agreed. Democratic processes should be upheld. Let the public decide!
I feel like this whole debate misses the bigger picture. We should be asking why there are so many ethical breaches to begin with. Fix the root cause, not the symptoms.
Brilliant point! Get to the heart of the problem rather than just fighting over how to handle the fallout.
True. Better ethics education and stricter regulations might solve more problems in the long run.
This battle over ethical guidelines just shows how broken the system is. Both parties need to work together for genuine reform.
Unity sounds ideal, but with the current political climate, cooperation seems like a far-fetched dream.
By making it harder for the NACC to act, we’re simply encouraging more unethical behavior among politicians. They need to be kept in check!
Or maybe we’re just making it fairer for honest MPs who are getting bogged down by baseless claims.
Pheu Thai’s draft is no better. It’s just a different version of the same control tactics. Neither bill addresses the core problem.
Why don’t we talk about real ethical reforms, instead of just how we’re going to handle the cases? Politicians should face harsher penalties for violations.
If we’re not honest about the real intentions behind these bills, nothing will change. Both sides have their own hidden agendas.
Watch this turn into just another bureaucratic mess where nothing gets decided, and everyone loses.
Whether we like it or not, this is a crucial moment for Thai politics. Let’s see if our leaders have the guts to make real changes.
I’m not holding my breath. Too many vested interests on the line for anything meaningful to come out of this.
What kind of precedent are we setting here? That we can barely balance the scales of justice in our favor?
A troubling one for sure. Future generations will pay the price if we don’t get this right.
A referendum sounds like the most democratic solution. Let the people decide how much power these commissions should wield.