As an anti-graft agency, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) under its current leadership has been widely criticised for not doing enough to probe corruption allegations against certain members of the former military junta and the military. Few, however, would expect the NACC would recognise the army as the country's most transparent agency. But it did last week in a debut of its transparency rankings of state agencies.
The NACC's rankings recognised the top three most transparent agencies in various categories. In the group of departments or agencies at departmental level, the army earned the number one spot earning a top score of 97.96 out of 100. Second place goes to the Land Department and the third, the Office of Justice Affairs.
The NACC's decision to grant the top transparency award to the army has baffled many, who have questioned the credibility of rankings. This deals a blow to the NACC's integrity and efficiency which have been extremely low since the 2014 coup.
According to Workpoint News, the full score of 100 is attributed to three indicators: disclosure of information to the public (40 points), internal evaluation (30 points) and external evaluation (30 points).
The army got a full score of 40 for disclosure of information. In this area, the NACC told Workpoint News that it only evaluated disclosure of information by agencies as required by law.
However, it did not take into account cabinet's allocation to the military of its controversial off-budget funds, simply, it said, because under the law the fund is not subjected to disclosure.
The off-budget fund, about 18.6 billion baht for the 2020 fiscal year, is off-limits to scrutiny by the public and the Lower House due to a loophole in the Financial and Fiscal Discipline Act of 2018, passed by the former military regime's lawmakers.
The act enables the Defence Ministry to seek an exemption from the Finance Ministry to have this budget bypass compliance with laws and regulations applicable to other government agencies.
The NACC did not elaborate on how the internal and external evaluation was made, prompting more questions about the standards of its rankings.
The army is also known to have generated income from several commercial contracts, such as concessions of airtime from its television and radio stations granted to private operators.
However, the public has no idea as to how exactly this revenue has been spent.
Its decision to overlook the secrecy in the army's financial accounts demonstrates the NACC's willingness to compromise when it comes to probing corruption allegations against certain members of the military or the former junta.
As the majority of its commissioners were appointed by the junta's lawmakers, the NACC has done little to nothing to quell the public's doubt over its political neutrality.
There have been many corruption scandals involving the military and the junta that, in the eyes of the public, have been concluded even though the irregularities in the cases remained unresolved. These include its clearance of Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon over the luxury wristwatch scandal.
The agency's first rankings of transparency therefore offer little hope to the public about the prospects of a more transparent Thailand. Instead, it shows that, similar to that of other "independent" public organisations such as the Election Commission, the NACC's credibility and transparency have largely remained in crisis.