Welcome ethics move

In a compromise, the ruling Pheu Thai Party has pledged to refrain from amending the charter governing ethical standards for political officeholders. Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai said on Tuesday the party wants to listen to its coalition partners. Among them, the Bhumjaithai Party openly disagreed with Pheu Thai on the issue.
Pheu Thai has made the right move in backpedalling. The timing is not right. The government should focus on urgent matters, like the cost of living and mitigation of flood effects, for instance, rather than issues such as officeholders’ ethics, that could be seen as self-serving.
It was only last week that Pheu Thai submitted a six-point proposal for charter amendments by section to the House of Representatives because it is faster and avoids the costly public referendum process.
Essentially, Pheu Thai’s proposals called for a change in the judicial checks-and-balances mechanism at the Constitutional Court, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), and the law on political parties.
Ethics is at the heart of the 2017 military-sponsored charter — a charter nicknamed “The Prab Koeng version,” which means cheat-buster in the local language. It requires political officeholders to possess higher ethical standards.
That means coalition parties must use a microscopic lens and a fine filter to check the qualifications of cabinet members. Opponents of such rigid requirements have criticised it for causing delays in the cabinet’s formation.
Pheu Thai sought an amendment regarding the ethics of cabinet ministers who, under Section 160, must not have committed any severe “violations of ethics” for political officeholders such as the prime minister.
Former prime minister Srettha Thavisin was removed from office in August under Section 160, over his appointment of ex-convict Pichit Chuenban, who was found involved in bribery, as a cabinet minister.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra will face more judicial scrutiny, as petitioners have lodged complaints asking the Election Commission to examine her ethical standards.
Pheu Thai suggested the “ethical standard” definition in Section 160 should be more legally precise. Their proposal said ministers must not engage in actions that “clearly indicate they are dishonest” and they must not be persons currently being tried in the Supreme Court or appealing against jail terms in the appeal and supreme courts.
Another crucial proposal by Pheu Thai concerns Section 211, which involves the voting criteria of nine jurists in the Constitutional Court. The current charter uses a simple majority of five against four. Pheu Thai proposes the threshold be two-thirds.
In addition, the proposal pushes for changes to Section 235, which involves the authority of the NACC regarding unusually wealthy MPs who are to be stripped of the right to contest elections for five years, not 10 years, and whose right to vote should remain.
Understandably, the proposed charter amendments have been perceived as a conflict of interest, which would make the party and its leader vulnerable. That does not mean the military-sponsored charter does not contain serious flaws.
Indeed, its content is a source of political conflict and needs amendment.
However, Pheu Thai, as the ruling party, must ensure that the amendment process is transparent, inclusive, and free of conflict of interests so that it will not lead to another political crisis.