I had an opportunity to sit down with a senior technocrat the other day and exchange views on the economy, politics and everyday life.
Victims of government kleptocracy? (Clockwise, from main picture): Former National Security Council chief Thawil Pliensri, former national police chief Wichean Potephosree, former Finance permanent secretary Suparat Khawatkul, former director-general of the Department of Corrections Chatchai Suthiklom, and Sureeprapa Traiwes, former secretary-general of the Office of the Narcotics Control Board.
Talk eventually turned to life in the civil service, and the influence of politics in the ordinary day-to-day work of human resource management: performance assessments, transfers, promotions and hirings.
Civil service regulations notwithstanding, it should come as no surprise that the selection and appointment of the country's most senior technocrats hinges largely on their ability to placate the political leadership. Politicians are elected to office by the electorate to implement policies promised at election time, and it is the responsibility of the civil service to translate words into deeds. It is hardly surprising that government ministers want people of like mind on their team.
Yet in years past, political "interference" at the national level of government was largely confined to senior technocrats _ department deputy directors-general, directors-general or ministry permanent secretaries. In more recent times, however, the relationship between politics and the bureaucracy has moved down the ladder, to the extent that some senior mandarins can hardly be certain of the loyalty of their own subordinates across a department or ministry.
If the politicians tap someone with talent and vision for a post, then fine. But if not, well, then efficiency, productivity and teamwork can expect to be sacrificed.
I recall a director-general once telling me why an official had been promoted to a certain post. "The politicians want their own people, nothing more," he said with resignation. Indeed, it is not unheard of for government parties to set "quotas" on how many positions each will control, with the department's top boss, the director-general, having little or no say at all in appointing his own team.
Ultimately, it all comes down to power and money. A senior technocrat, after all, is privy to all sorts of information that is valuable to the right players, whether it be specifications for an upcoming bid contract, details about a new concession project or advanced notice about changes in state rules and regulations. Ministers and their political "advisers" have a vested interest in ensuring that the bureaucrats are firmly "on board" when the time comes to approve budgets, sign off on new rules and regulations, or draft new contracts.
Even something as mundane as public relations programmes can attract significant scrutiny from the political machine, with budgets steered to agencies or publishing houses tied to certain advisers or political supporters. For the honest civil servant _ and yes, there remain plenty _ refusing a "suggestion" from a political adviser means a very real risk of being banished to the bureaucratic hinterlands.
Each government in recent memory has always highlighted the need to raise living standards, national competitiveness and close the income gap. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is no exception, and her team is busy laying plans to invest hundreds of billion baht in new infrastructure and social services to help meet that goal.
But personally, when I think of the milestones Thailand must pass to graduate from developing nation to developed status, I don't see money as the solution. Corruption, both within the public sector and within our political system, is a more insidious burden for Thailand's development than Bangkok's crowded streets, our rapidly depleting forests and deteriorating environment, or our antiquated teaching curriculum.
Corruption saps the spirit, and raises confusion and conflict within society about the value of justice, equality and fairness. Within the civil service, meritocracy has given way to kleptocracy, leading to a vicious cycle where the honest and talented no longer see virtue in public service, to the loss of society as a whole.
A study by the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce last month estimated that losses from corruption could be as high as 25% to 30% of state investment spending, amounting to as much as one trillion baht in losses over the next decade on investment projects by public agencies and state enterprises alike. No one questions the need to invest in water management and flood prevention programmes. But I can't help but wonder if taxpayer funds and money borrowed from our future generations will be well spent. Even in the smallest water projects, say, a concession to dredge Bangkok's inner canals, one can see the opportunity for waste. Who will ever know or notice whether the dirt and debris at the bottom of the canal has been actually removed? No one, I think. At least not until the next flood.
Over the past 14 years Thailand has run a balanced budget only twice, in 2005 and 2006. In all the other years, successive governments have each run deficits, ostensibly to finance the investments and public services that have been deemed necessary for the country's development.
Yes, some progress has been made. But at what cost?
Wichit Chantanusornsiri is a senior business reporter for the Bangkok Post.