Recent news reports about Thailand’s corruption rank slipping, while hardly a surprise, attest to the fact that those fighting graft are not doing enough, which is a shame.
Thailand scored 34 points, a drop from 35 the year before, on the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), launched by Transparency International. Denmark had the highest score of 90, followed by Finland, which scored 88. South Sudan came bottom with 8 points.
Globally, Thailand is in 107th place, an improvement from 108th the year before, and on par with Algeria, Brazil, Malawi, Nepal and Niger.
Compared with its Asean friends, Thailand comes 5th, after Singapore, which ranked third globally with 88 points; Malaysia (50 points, 57th place), Vietnam (40 points, 88th place) and Indonesia (37 points, 99th place). The Philippines and Laos are tied with 33 points each, while Cambodia has 21, while Myanmar was bottom in the region at 16 points, in 168th place.
Sornchai Chuwichian of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) attributed several factors to this decline, including concerns over government spending, particularly the implementation of populist policies that are perceived to use public funds for personal gain.
Yet, it’s not exaggerated to say that corruption can be found in most — if not all — administrative levels. Kickbacks come in several forms, among them bribery, embezzlement, bidding collusion and dubious procurements.
Take, for example, the scandalous lamp posts that have mushroomed in several provinces — a glaring example of questionable procurement. However, nothing has been done even though such street fittings are too expensive and, in most cases, excessive in number.
More importantly, how have grey businesses involving Chinese mafia gangs been made possible? Only because certain state authorities have turned a blind eye.
When it comes to corruption, there is no significant difference between civilian administrations and military regimes.
While citing the need to fight politicians’ graft as one of the reasons for taking power, the junta government of Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha was embarrassed by the plunge in Thailand’s corruption ranking, from 76th in 2015 to 101st out of 176 countries in 2016.
The NACC, the main agency tasked with uprooting graft, is not without scandal. Its poor handling of the controversial wristwatch case involving Gen Prawit Wongsuwon, who served as deputy prime minister during the Prayut government, severely tarnished its reputation.
At the same time, the agency has often been criticised for paying too much attention to trivial cases.
It should be noted that Thais first learned of the term policy-oriented corruption shortly after Thaksin Shinawatra took office in 2000.
Extreme populism is a trademark of the Shinawatra family, ie, the controversial rice-pledging scheme pushed by the Yingluck administration and now a series of cash handouts, among other populist policies, by Prime Minister Paetongtarn.
There have been attempts by different agencies to eradicate corruption in Thai society over the past few years, with little success.
Among them is the Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC), which recently launched the White Space Network, a participation model to prevent and monitor graft in state offices nationwide. The agency encourages the public sector to actively join the network.
Those involved should speed up their work. After all, they must realise that the Thai people deserve better.