NACC work to become more challenging after new law on asset disclosure

This is despite the determination of the regime and its drafters to make corruption fighting their main agenda, keep away corrupt politicians, and make politics clean. The new organic law governing the NACC stipulates that the agency should only publish a summary of the assets and liability lists of political office holders, including Cabinet members and judges of the Constitutional Court. 
The practice has been scaled down from the previous law, which demanded the NACC share the full and complete list with the public as well as the media so they could also participate in scrutinising their government. 
And for the record, a number of politicians have been scrutinised by the public through this means. The late veteran politician Maj-General Sanan Kachornprasart was one of them. He was ousted from his interior minister post and banned from politics for five years for making a false declaration of assets.
Regardless, some members of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), who have been responsible for drafting the controversial draft, explained the new approach places importance on protecting the privacy of office-holders.
After all they are not accused of any wrongdoing, drafters said. They are just required by the law to report their assets and liability, they explained.
“So, publishing the asset lists to the public was not appropriate,” a drafter who asked not to be named said. “We have to sympathise with those who have to report the lists because [they can be too detailed].”
“The transparency should not be affected because the NACC still had the authority to look into the assets and liability lists,” he insisted. “But the reporting people should be regarded, too. Is there anything to protect them? So, the scrutiny must have its balance.”
Another drafter explained that it was also about the constitutionality. The new Constitution only stipulates that the NACC disclose “the result” of the scrutiny, not the full list as prescribed by the obsolete 2007 charter, he said. 
It would be up to the NACC to decide how much of the list they would publicise, he said. However, he argued, if the new organic law had the exact same stipulation as its predecessor, then it might go against the Constitution.
So it’s reasonable to understand why people in the graft-busting circle might be concerned that the practice would weaken public scrutiny of political office holders. They believed that the public could actually help be a watchdog as they have more eyes and ears than a handful of busy officials. 
But the controversial organic bill sailed through the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in the first reading early this month. It is now being groomed by a vetting committee of 35 members. Two of them have ongoing fraud cases before the NACC, sparking off even more controversy. The National Legislative Assembly
NACC chairman Pol General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit, who is also sitting on the vetting committee, said that he did not think the old practice was inappropriate although it could draw attention from people with ill intentions to the people declaring their assets. 
Hence, the NACC would propose to the committee that the old approach be maintained, but may find another way to conceal some information that could be misused against office-holders.
Sharing his personal opinion, Watcharapol said that the previous law aimed to allow public participation in the scrutiny. And if the people wishing to represent the public interest wanted to demonstrate their sincerity, they should avoid providing inadequate detail that would make scrutiny difficult, he said.
He also said the committee was mulling over the stipulation in the new charter that prescribed that the NACC should publish the “result” of the scrutiny and would decide how to interpret it. It is up to the committee and the NLA how the bill would turn out, he said.