Opinion: The NACC has long been problematic; an investigation is warranted

Listen to this story

Suspended Deputy National Police Chief Surachate Hakparn’s recent allegations against the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) provides a fertile ground for discussing much-needed reforms not just within the police, but across the wider mechanisms of accountability and governance.

The case against Police General Surachate, involving serious accusations of bribery and money laundering linked to illegal online gambling operations, underscores the perennial issue of corruption within the Royal Thai Police. However, Surachate’s counterclaims—alleging that his suspension and the investigations against him are politically motivated attempts to block his ascension to the police chief—cast a spotlight on another crucial aspect of Thailand’s struggle with corruption: the role of the NACC.

Surachate’s petition to the NACC to investigate PM Srettha and other police investigators is particularly significant, not only for its immediate implications for his own career but for the broader discourse on the political impartiality of Thailand’s anti-corruption efforts. The NACC, established with the mandate to tackle corruption, has frequently been criticized for its selective prosecutions, which many observers argue disproportionately target political figures opposed to the military and its allies, while seemingly neglecting transgressions by those within or aligned to military circles.

This perception is not unfounded.

The case of Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan’s undeclared luxury watches is a point in case. Prawit, who faced accusations of possessing a large number of luxury watches he had not declared on his asset declarations, was cleared of all wrongdoing by the NACC, which accepted his explanation that the watches were borrowed from friends and had been returned. This decision was met with widespread skepticism and derision, serving as a stark illustration of the potential biases in how the NACC pursues its investigations.

Moreover, the NACC’s conduct under different administrations does little to dispel concerns about its impartiality. Throughout the tenures of Prime Ministers Prayut Chan-o-cha and his predecessors from the military establishment, the commission has been seen as a tool for silencing and controlling political opposition rather than a neutral body dedicated to cleansing Thai politics of corruption. For instance, the aggressive pursuit of charges against figures associated with the Shinawatra family and other liberal politicians contrasts sharply with the leniency or outright inaction regarding allegations involving conservative or royalist figures.

Such selective enforcement has consequences beyond mere politics. It erodes public trust in the institutions that are supposed to safeguard against corruption and abuse of power. When a body tasked with fighting corruption is perceived as corrupt itself, or at least as a political weapon, the very foundation of governance is weakened. This undermines both domestic confidence and international faith in Thailand’s commitment to democratic principles and good governance.

Reforming the NACC to ensure it operates without political bias is thus a critical step toward broader national reforms. Such reform would involve not only revising the legal framework that governs the NACC to ensure greater transparency and accountability but also reshaping its institutional culture, possibly with increased oversight by independent entities, including civil society and other stakeholders.

Beyond legal and structural changes, there needs to be a cultural shift in the political landscape of Thailand—a move towards a genuine rule of law, where no individual, regardless of their position or political alignment, is above scrutiny. For the NACC, this means adopting a more consistent and unbiased method of investigation and prosecution, backed by a transparent process that allows the public to see why and how decisions are made.

The allegations made by Pol Gen Surachate, while they may stem from personal and professional grievances, touch upon these deeper issues of fairness and justice in Thai governance. Whether or not his accusations hold up under scrutiny, they highlight the necessity of examining not just individual cases of alleged corruption but the integrity of the systems intended to fight such corruption. The challenge, then, is not only cleaning house within the troubled Royal Thai Police but ensuring that all houses tasked with overseeing the nation’s moral and legal health are themselves beyond reproach.

This comprehensive approach to reform, tough and potentially fraught with resistance, is essential. Only through such sweeping changes can Thailand hope to rebuild trust in its public institutions. The journey is undoubtedly long and the resistance tough, but the path of true reform is necessary if Thailand is to emerge as a robust democracy that genuinely upholds the principles of justice and equality before the law.

COVID-19

Latest article