Three incidents during the past week point to one crucial problem that will keep Thailand from advancing, despite it being elected head of the G77 bloc of developing countries at the United Nations.
The first was the controversy over an application by Chitpas Kridakorn, a key leader of the anti-Yingluck Shinawatra protest group, to join the police.
The second was the dismissal of former Supreme Administrative Court president Hassawut Withitwiriyakul from the judiciary over allegedly asking for preferential treatment for a police officer working for him.
The third was a showcase of how corrupt Thai society is in the Museum of Thai Corruption installation.
Though seemingly unrelated, the three incidents revealed that cronyism runs deep in Thai society and has become so ingrained that some people view it as normal. Worse still, favouritism can be found right in the justice system, the very place where people turn to for impartiality.
The hullabaloo over Ms Chitpas' attempt to join the police force flared up ferociously but died down quite quickly after the former leader of the People's Democratic Reform Committee announced the withdrawal of her candidacy. Throughout noisy arguments about whether Ms Chitpas was qualified to join the police force when she had criticised it in the past, people may have forgotten that neither Ms Chitpas nor the police force have ever clarified whether she was the only applicant for the position, and the only one endorsed for an interview, as alleged by many people.
The Police Commission acknowledged that the position Ms Chitpas applied for had just been created and the application process did not follow the normal procedure. What the force has never told the public is: how far from the normal procedure was the "special" process? Did this mean the position was not open to the public? That the applicant must apply to it by invitation? Or what?
It seems convenient for leaders in the police force to let the controversy die down with Ms Chitpas's withdrawal. But the truth is, with a cloud of doubt left to hang over the case, the police will continue to be shrouded in distrust.
Police chief Pol Gen Somyot Poompunmuang may proclaim loud and clear that Thai police are the best in the world. Without the ability to clear up such a small allegation of nepotism in its recruitment, the force will only be recognised by such plaudits as the Ig Nobel prize.
The second incident concerning former Supreme Administrative Court president is more alarming. Mr Hassawut was dismissed from duty by the Administrative Court's judicial commission, which ruled he had condoned attempts by his aide to help a police officer who worked for him to receive a promotion.
Mr Hassawut contested the decision, saying there was no evidence to support the allegation that he assigned the aide to secure a promotion for the police officer. That argument aside, what was striking in this case was the two letters that Mr Hassawut's aide wrote to the national police chief and a deputy national police chief to ask for preferential treatment.
The notes appear so forthright, so honest about their dishonest purpose, they are scary. The cheating requests were written on the Administrative Court's official stationery. The wording could not have been more blatant.
The letter to the then police chief said the police officer in question was a close friend of the Supreme Administrative Court president's nephew. The officer also helped carry out the president's tasks on many occasions, and wanted to ask to be considered for a promotion to superintendent. The message appears so normal it is more like an official document than an underhand request.
The note to the deputy police chief was just as breezy. The writer even asked the deputy police chief to recommend what he or the Supreme Administrative Court president would have to do to have the wish fulfilled.
The two letters deserve a place in the Museum of Thai Corruption showcase, which has just ended. What is remarkable to me is while there are concerted efforts to battle corruption, the museum installation being a case in point, many people are still lost in cronyism. People who are on Ms Chitpas's side still can't see how improper her application was. Those who support the allegedly corrupt rice-pledging scheme which was one of the showcases at the museum still can't acknowledge that the scheme was flawed.
What hope do we have to root out corruption when we can see corrupt practices only in enemies, and never from those considered to be on our side?
Atiya Achakulwisut is Contributing Editor, Bangkok Post.