Ethics changes face backlash

PM’s Office Minister Chousak Sirinil on Monday downplayed criticism about a Pheu Thai Party-sponsored charter amendment proposal involving ethical standards for political postholders, saying it would not undermine the charter’s fundamental principles against corruption.
The ruling party’s proposal to revise the charter section by section covers six issues, including ethics for cabinet ministers who, under Section 160 of the charter, must be evidently honest and must not have committed any severe violations of ethics for political officeholders.
The move was apparently triggered by the removal of Srettha Thavisin as prime minister by the Constitutional Court for an ethical violation over his decision to appoint former convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister.
However, the proposal has drawn flak from critics who argue that the proposed changes on ethics for political officeholders would go against the intent of the constitution. The ruling party has insisted it merely wants to clarify what constitutes ethical grounds for taking action against public officeholders.
“The proposal doesn’t eliminate ethical standards but clearly defines them to prevent problems for the national administration,” he said.
“The public is aware of how the issue affects national administration and the formation of the government. They aren’t to be abolished.
“But there is a need for clear guidelines to measure ethical behaviour.”
The proposed changes will not have retroactive effects before the 2017 charter was promulgated, he added.
Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai will hold talks with coalition partners on Oct 1 about the proposed charter amendments and the progress of the charter rewrite process, including the tentative schedule for a charter rewrite referendum.
According to Mr Chousak, the Pheu Thai Party and the main opposition People’s Party have already submitted separate proposals to parliament to revise the charter section by section.
When asked if the government would discuss the issue with senators, he said it would find a chance to talk to them soon because charter amendments require support from the Upper House.
Senator Nantana Nantavaropas said on Monday that the current charter has several flaws that must be addressed.
Her group will likely support the amendments if they can resolve those issues before a new charter is drafted.
When asked about criticism that the proposed changes are self-serving and constitute a conflict of interest, the senator said members of that profession should determine the code of conduct.
She said that currently ethical standards for political officeholders are not clearly defined and subject to interpretation by the Constitutional Court, adding the politicians’ standards of ethics should therefore be revised.
“It’s not about a conflict of interest. If ethical standards are to be part of the law, they must be clearly defined and specify which behaviours are wrong. And they shouldn’t cover behaviour from 20 years ago,” she said.
Meanwhile, Sonthiya Sawatdee, a former adviser to the House committee on law, justice, and human rights, on Monday submitted a petition to Parliament President Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, asking him not to put the charter amendment proposals on the agenda.
He said the proposed amendments, initiated by the ruling party and the main opposition party, constitute a conflict of interest under Section 114 and do not require urgent attention.
Former senator, Somchai Swangkarn, wrote on Facebook that the ruling party’s charter amendment proposal is unlikely to be for the public benefit but rather for politicians being investigated.
He said if the amendments, which require one-third of the Senate’s support, sail through parliament, the MPs and senators cannot be relied upon, and the country may enter another political crisis.
Mr Wan said the parliament’s legal affairs team is reviewing the charter amendment proposals before they are on the agenda.
He declined to comment on the content of the amendment proposals but he did say that the parliament would consider and make decisions, ensuring that changes were in the best interest of the public and that the law was applied fairly.