Introduction

In October 2004, Thailand lost her nine counter-corruption commissioners whose main tasks were to investigate the wrongdoings of politicians and state officials, and promote good governance in the public sector. These nine commissioners were themselves involved in malfeasance of raising their own salaries in contravention of the legal power that they thought they had, and were eventually charged with criminal offences by the Special Court for Political Office Holders and lost their offices. It took sometime to sort out the domestic politics before appointing nine Commissioners to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC), the third time since its inception seven years ago. The third NCCC is the front-line as well as the supreme agency that deals with corruption in Thailand. Two other anti-corruption bodies were set up to work alongside the NCCC. One is the amalgamation of the State Auditor and the State Auditing Office and the other is the creation of an ad-hoc body called the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) with specific tasks to investigate various corruption cases in the last government.

Scope of Power and Authority

Prior to the establishment of the NCCC, the government agency that dealt with the investigation of corruption in the public sector was the Office of the Committee on the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption and Malpractices in the Government Sector. This office is a department in the Prime Minister's Office and thus a part of the executive branch of government. Lack of independence from the existing political power made this government agency ineffective and ineffectual in investigating corruption cases that involved politicians and/or high-ranking officials in the government. This agency was widely known as a "paper tiger". Therefore, when Thailand had a new constitution in 1997, an organic law was drafted based on the constitution to give enormous power to the nine commissioners in the new anti-corruption agency. In the past seven years after its establishment, the NCCC has proven to the public that it is not a paper tiger any more, but a real tiger with real power.

The NCCC is not a court of justice. It has no power to prosecute people (unless under certain limited conditions), let alone adjudge people. NCCC commissioners have power to investigate any corruption allegations and to recommend prima facie cases to the Prosecutor-General or to the Special Supreme Court for Political Office Holders for prosecution. The way NCCC operates did not exist before and what it can and does do could be regarded as quite drastic and awe-inspiring. The drafters of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption had ensured that the alleged culprits are fully protected under the law in such a way that the decision to prosecute is vested with the Prosecutor-General, not in the NCCC. The final verdict will come under the sole jurisdiction of the court of justice.

On the above philosophy, the NCCC is empowered to conduct four major activities related to the suppression of corruption and promotion of proper conduct of government officials. These four activities are described in Section 19 of the Organic Act and they are, in simple language, to:

1. remove political office holders from their respective offices if they committed an offence of corruption;
2. file a case against state officials who commit an act of corruption, or engage in malfeasance of his duty, of which a disciplinary action can be suggested to the guilty officials in addition to criminal action that the Prosecutor-General will take care of;
3. check whether state officials have become unusually rich, and if the new found wealth cannot be explained, the NCCC has the power to suggest the court to confiscate it; and
4. check the existence and accuracy of income and assets of selected state officials before and after they assume their offices to prevent corruption.

One of the most important new directions that comes out from the work of the new NCCC is the emphasis on the existence of conflicts of interest as a major target for the suppression of corruption in Thailand. This and other reform efforts on anti-corruption measures and procedures in Thailand can provide some good lessons for other countries in East Asia.