Lack of accountability ‘could hinder graft fight’
WHILE THE junta government has widely promoted its anti-corruption measures, its lack of accountability to the public, as well as an “unmodernised” bureaucracy, could hinder efforts to stop graft, a forum heard yesterday.
More than 300 governmental officers have been shifted and around 80 punished directly by Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha under Article 44 of the interim charter, the forum heard. But while the interim charter itself was defunct, Prayut’s absolute power still remained under the permanent charter.
Prasong Lertratanawisute, director of investigative news agency Isra, told the anti-graft forum that the crackdown on corruption had focused on civilians rather than the military.
“This government is hyped on eradicating corruption. Yet, only little progress has been seen on military-related cases, from Rajabhakti Park to the GT200 scandal,” Prasong said, referring to controversies over two billion-baht military procurement deals.
“They set up probing committees and the result either comes out clear or is really slow to come,” he said.
The forum, titled “New Government: Old Corruption”, was organised by the Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand to mark national anti-corruption day.
Charter Drafter Patara Kampitak, who shared a platform at the forum, however, argued that the use of Article 44 may not deal with graft in a sustainable manner, but it was meant to create examples on what fates corrupt officers might face.
The current charter also includes mechanisms that will prevent corrupt politicians from re-entering the political arena, as well as placing sanctions on a future parliament should it ever pass a budget or policy plan with hidden benefits for certain people, Patara said.
Prin Panichapak, a board member of the Stock Exchange of Thailand, said that while the government has lined up legal instruments to cope with corruption, these more complicated rules might actually attract more cases of graft than simpler rules.
For instance, a foreign company seeking approvals has to go back and forth between the Commerce Ministry and the Board of Investment. The more regulations required, the more the potential tendency for companies to bribe authorities or take other illegal action to facilitate their aims, Prin said.
“Civil servants themselves even complain that outdated systems in bureaucracy obstruct efficiency,” Prin said. “In this case, we may take India as an example, where the government is cooperating with the private sector in fluidising technology to help combat graft.”
He suggested that Thailand should do more at a global level, such as joining the World Chamber of Commerce, where the Kingdom could demonstrate its trade and economic transparency under international scrutiny.
Banyong Pongpanich, CEO at Kiatnakin Bank, said that Thailand’s widely-used discourse on morality may not be the most effective tool to cope with corruption.
While one of Prayut-promoted “12 moralities” says that one must take into account others’ benefits before themselves, Banyong said that this separation of public benefit and one’s own benefit may not help when a person falls into dire need and committing graft is the only solution.
He said that there should be more awareness of the link between public and personal benefits as well as the damaging results of corruption on the system and a wrongdoer’s own life.
Prasong suggested that transparency is the key to cope effectively with all sides. For instance, revealing information to the public can clarify what is going on in the bureaucracy.
The news agency director also suggested that priority should be put on matters related to public financial contributions to the state, such as procurement, the tax system and the budget. Information about justice-related processes, especially in graft-related cases, should be made public at the earliest opportunity, he said.
