NACC vs NACC

30 01 2017

Which National Anti-Corruption Commission is to believed? The one that was backing away from the recent batch of corruption cases or the one that has an “ongoing” investigation?

A few days ago, the NACC’s Secretary-General Sansern Poljeak was talking publicly about several reasons to think that the big cover-up was in progress. Yesterday it is reported that Police General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit, who is NACC President, declared that all was well and the investigations continued.

The Police General is the political appointee and Sansern is the official. Indeed, when appointed in 2015, Watcharapol denied he was a “junta stooge.” He was formerly Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan’s secretary general, and “denied that he had been ordered by the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to use the NACC as a political tool, as has been widely speculated.” No one believed him.

It is the junta’s Wacharapol who has slapped his Secretary-General. He:

dismissed statements made last week by his deputy, Sansern Poljiak, who said UK officials were refusing to send information to Thai investigators because cases of corruption can be punishable by death, which the UK opposes…. “It’s not related at all,” he said.

He then added: “Right now we are in the stage of fact finding.” Brilliantly sharp, like a bowling ball, Watchapol stated that “his agency, which was assigned by the government to look into the matter, requested information from the UK’s Serious Fraud Office including who the bribe-takers were.”

Fancy that! Actually asking for names! Brilliant!

We have a feeling that this is a cover-up by other means or that Watchapol has been instructed to look for political advantage in naming (some) names.


Actions

Information