Graft rankings show regime isn't doing enough

Graft rankings show regime isn't doing enough

The Thai Ministry of Commerce's pursuit of 20 billion baht in compensation from its former minister and his five associates for their involvement in the allegedly "fake" government-to-government rice deals raises the question of how ingrained corruption in Thailand actually is.

The Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 (CPI), produced by the respected international NGO Transparency International (TI), helps provide the answer.

First launched in 1995, the CPI is probably the world's leading assessment of corruption. Compiled by business people, analysts and experts, the CPI has been widely referenced in academic literature and recognised by both the media and civil society. Considering the 2016 CPI scores for countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), Singapore, at 84 points, is the only Asean country rated as "very clean". The mid-scoring Brunei, at 58 points, is followed by Malaysia, 49. Indonesia, 37, Thailand, 35, the Philippines, 35, and Vietnam, 33, are all muddling along, in the same "corrupt" bracket as Myanmar, 28, and Cambodia, 21.

As Transparency International points out, in corrupt and very corrupt countries, "people frequently face situations of bribery and extortion, rely on basic services that have been undermined by the misappropriation of funds, and confront official indifference when seeking redress from authorities that are on the take". The allegedly fake rice deals certainly resonate here.

Looking at countries moving up the rankings, Indonesia is clearly, if slowly, improving, following years of dictatorship and military rule. Laos is also slowly progressing as the communist government realises that some kind of legal framework generates inward business and donor investment. This is essentially the same realisation that the Myanmar elite came to, following years of slowly increasing western inward investment. Myanmar has now overtaken Cambodia and is no longer the most corrupt country in Asean.

Cambodia's low score and associated abysmal ranking are attributed by Transparency International to its utter lack of room for civil society or of any effective judiciary or rule of law and thus the absence of a public sphere.

In the case of Myanmar, the National League for Democracy, which came to power after elections in March 2016, has basically declared a war on corruption in a measure supported by some unelected military members of the Pyithu Hluttaw (House of Representatives). However, the challenge will be what happens when corruption is detected in high-ranking officials in the Tatmadaw, the Myanmar armed forces. Moreover, military impunity is being demonstrated in the crackdown on the Rakhine State Muslims. Wanton and unchecked acts of majority-on-minority inter-ethnic violence do not inspire confidence in a government's accountability.

Both Malaysia and the Philippines are essentially treading water. Transparency International points out that while Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has promised a war on corruption, his government has actually instituted arbitrary rule, with personal attacks on the media, violent intimidation and death squads undermining democratic institutions. In Malaysia, the main focus is on Prime Minister Najib Razak, with the allegation of US$700 million (24.5 billion baht) somehow arriving in his personal bank account from state-owned investment firm 1Malaysia Development Berhad, casting a pall over the entire country's integrity.

Thailand's ranking was down last year, from 38 to 35, equal to the Philippines and only two points ahead of Vietnam which is trending upwards and one of Thailand's closest competitors for foreign direct investment. Thailand's falling score is attributed to political turmoil, specifically Cambodian-style political repression and the lack of any independent oversight, with a resulting deterioration in human rights. Unfortunately, the downgrading of Thailand's National Human Rights Commission and absence of any human rights framework are contributing to the demise of civil society and causing media self-censorship.

Transparency International also stresses the lack of any independent oversight or even-handedness in the 2016 Thai constitution referendum process which contributed to low government accountability. It also notes that the constitution entrenches the military rule, a reference to Myanmar-style embedding of military picks in the Senate, which builds unaccountability into the next Thai government. The 2016 CPI results highlight the connection between corruption and inequality. As José Ugaz, Chair of Transparency International, puts it: "In too many countries, people are deprived of their most basic needs and go to bed hungry every night because of corruption, while the powerful and corrupt enjoy lavish lifestyles with impunity." The organisation stresses that a lack of punitive action in addressing corruption leads to populism because of a vicious cycle of corruption, insufficient checks-and-balances on power, and unequal distribution of wealth.

When citizens see public money being squandered through corrupt welfare schemes and they see public funds being diverted to serve the rich, through kickbacks, they do not feel they can change the system. If these citizens do not believe the state can address grand corruption itself, they believe the situation is rigged, which leads to popular disenchantment. This causes those citizens to support populist candidates, or most recently in Thailand, a populist military coup.

However, the Thai military government is equally adept at increasing its own budget and squandering public funds, via uneconomical expenditures on the procurement of Chinese tanks and submarines, coal-fired power station megaprojects, and an incompetent education system. Moreover, it has done little to substantially re-distribute power or wealth, with only token nods to inheritance and land and property taxes. To address systematic corruption, Transparency International recommends breaking the linkages, via licences, between business and high-ranking government positions and holding corrupt officials accountable instead of allowing impunity. It also suggests enforcing greater controls on money laundering and outlawing the use of secret companies including those with offshore accounts.

The Thai military government is certainly making a lot of noise about taking such anti-graft measures with the move to seek compensation from those allegedly involved in the rice deals. However, whether entrenched interests like the Thai military will permit these guidelines to be applied to them under the next, democratic administration, will likely rely on the extent to which a responsible, principled government is elected. The task will be for that government to openly discuss societal corruption with the military. Thailand's appalling position as fifth equal in the CPI rankings for Asean should spur such a dialogue.


John Draper is director, Social Survey Centre, College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University. Peerasit Kamnuansilpa Phd is founder and former dean of the College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT