Wisarn Sukchuang, financial manager of Worapoj Yasadatt, the managing director of Patriot Business Consultants Co, shows a letter and financial transaction records for the purchase of CTX 9000 bomb detectors for Suvarnabhumi Airport, which were submitted to the Anti-Money Laundering Office. — SOMCHAI POOMLARD |
It looks like the government’s report exonerating Thai officials of accepting bribes in the procurement of a system to scan for explosives in luggage at the new Suvarnabhumi Airport has not put the matter to rest. In fact, it could provide headaches for the prime minister and several of his top ministers for some time to come.
Critics in the opposition and the Thai Senate have called the conclusions of the six member panel flawed and essentially nothing more than a massive cover-up. The Democrats have vowed to carry through with a censure motion in parliament and they now say they might target Deputy Prime Minister Visanu Krue-ngarm, the man who supervised the inquiry.
Last Thursday Mr Visanu released his panel's findings after several delays. He said the inquiry into the scanner case found “no clear and compelling evidence” to suggest any individual or official took kickbacks, and no proof of irregularities. The procurement process he said had followed normal business practices.
The specific details are complicated but the reasons the case has created so much public attention are not. The scanner contract first hit the headlines here in Thailand when it became known that the US manufacturer, InVision Technologies, had paid an $800,000 (32 million baht) fine to the US Security and Exchanges Commission (SEC) for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
“InVision, said the SEC, “was aware of a high probability that its foreign sales agents, or distributors, made or offered to make improper payments to foreign government officials in order to obtain or retain business for InVision.”
When people started looking at the procurement process closely, it did appear to exhibit some of the classic signs of a shady deal. First, the specifications for the scanning system were changed in a way that seemed to favour InVision’s relatively expensive CTX 9000 system. It was also discovered that that InVision’s local sales representative, Patriot Business Consultants, had paid the travel expenses for Thai officials to see the system in the US.
Bribes require a lot of money and a good way to obtain it is to inflate the price charged for the product. Here, critics quickly zeroed in on what looked to be unusually large profits margins on all stages of the process. They also wondered why some much of the cost of the equipment had been paid in advance.
The government report did address these suspicions. The equipment specifications were revised, the report said, when the airports’ construction plan was altered to accommodate a significant increase the number of passengers arriving each year. Profit margins were not excessive because both the supplier and the purchasers had significant expenses that went beyond the basic equipment involved.
Critics complain that the inquiry was either designed to clear the officials involved or that it was severely flawed. It focused on what could be most easily explained and ignored or glossed over what could not.
Last Friday, Senator Sompong Sakawee blasted Mr Visanu’s committee for focusing only on the part of the deal involving Patriot and ITO Joint Venture – the contractor of the New Bangkok International Airport Co (NBIA). The real corruption, the senator said, came in the next step of the process when ITO presented its bill to the NBIA, jacking up the price by 600 million baht. The profit margin was much too high and that was the source of the funds used to bribe officials, he said.
Watch to see how these and other charges are answered in the coming days. Watch also for new allegations. The opposition often receives tips from unhappy government officials and that can create some awkward moments for government ministers during censure debates.
|
exonerate
to show or state that someone is not guilty of wrongdoing
bribes
money improperly given to try to make someone do something for you
procurement
the obtaining of equipment or supplies
luggage
bags, cases, etc. containing a traveller’s possessions
flawed
not perfect; containing mistakes
cover-up
something done to prevent wrongdoing from being discovered
|
vowed
promised
censure motion
a formal proposal to open a debate for criticising the behaviour of a government minister
compelling
causing you to believe or accept something because the evidence is strong
kickbacks
money paid illegally and secretly in exchange for help
violations
actions against a rule or law
act
a law
|
probability
likelihood
retain
to keep
exhibit
to show
shady
dishonest or illegal
inflate
to improperly increase beyond what is appropriate
zero in
to focus
|
altered
changed
glossed over
failed to give proper attention to
blasted
criticised severely
jacking up
increasing (especially beyond what is appropriate)
tips
information given secretly
awkward
causing anxiety or embarrassment
|
|
