Bribery-risk list shakes confidence in Thai state agencies

The disclosure of a private-sector corruption survey naming 26 state agencies perceived as facing high bribery-risk concerns has become a major blow to the image of Thailand’s bureaucracy, especially agencies involved in approvals, permits or regulatory powers affecting business operations.

The survey was released by the Joint Standing Committee on Commerce, Industry and Banking (JSCCIB) through its Zero Corruption working group and Puean Mai Thon. Although the organisers said the disclosure was not intended to attack or condemn any particular agency, but to bring facts to the attention of society, state bodies and the government, the impact on the agencies named has been immediate.

The 26 agencies cited as facing high-risk perceptions cover areas ranging from law enforcement, transport, taxation and natural resources to local administration. The breadth of the list suggests that corruption concerns are not limited to a single body, but spread across many parts of the state system.

The agencies named in the survey were: Highway Police/traffic police; the justice process, excluding courts; tambon administrative organisations; the Marine Department; the Department of Highways; the Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning; local police; the Department of Intellectual Property; the Revenue Department; the Department of Land Transport; the Customs Department; the Royal Irrigation Department; the Department of Business Development; the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation; the Department of Employment; the Royal Forest Department; the Food and Drug Administration/public health services; the Excise Department; the Department of Lands; the Pollution Control Department; provincial administrative organisations; the Department of Mineral Resources; waterworks; electricity agencies; the Department of Industrial Works; and the Department of Livestock Development.

Two rankings, two different risks

The survey also ranked the 10 agencies where businesses said inducements were proposed most frequently. Highway Police/traffic police came first, followed by the justice process, excluding courts; tambon administrative organisations; the Marine Department; the Department of Highways; the Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning; local police; the Department of Intellectual Property; the Revenue Department; and the Department of Land Transport.

A second ranking looked at the highest average alleged bribe value per transaction. The Pollution Control Department and the Marine Department were placed at the top, with an average figure of around 100,000 baht per case, followed by the Excise Department, the Revenue Department, the justice process excluding courts, the Food and Drug Administration/public health services, the Department of Highways, the Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, and the Royal Forest Department.

The findings underline a key concern: agencies that hold the power to approve or refuse licences, approve projects or directly affect business operations tend to be viewed as carrying higher risks of rent-seeking. In such cases, state authority is closely linked to economic value.

The survey also suggests that demands for special benefits remain embedded in many levels of official contact, differing mainly in how often they occur and how much businesses say they must pay. For many firms, these “informal costs” are still seen as part of what they must bear to keep operations moving.

Previous related coverage said the JSCCIB survey covered 401 business executives and representatives nationwide between March 26 and April 10, 2026. It found that 89.1% of respondents viewed corruption as a moderate to very serious obstacle to doing business, while 51.2% said corruption had worsened over the past three years and 51% said dealing with state agencies had become more complicated. (nationthailand.com)

Agencies push back

Once the survey was made public, criticism intensified and the agencies named began to face reputational pressure. Several moved quickly to clarify or reject the allegations, showing how deeply the issue has affected institutional pride and public image.

The strongest response came from the Pollution Control Department, which rejected the claims and insisted that it does not have the authority to approve private-sector permits in the way alleged. It also called on the JSCCIB to clarify the source of the data within seven days, saying the claims had damaged confidence in the agency.

The department’s director-general, Surin Worakijthamrong, later held a press conference to reject the bribery claims and question the survey’s methodology, including how respondents were selected, whether they had direct experience with the department and whether the agency had been correctly identified. He said the department was a technical agency with no power to grant permits to private entities. (nationthailand.com)

The Marine Department also rejected bribery claims linked to the survey, saying its water-transport services are provided through electronic application and service systems, with fee payments made via e-payment. The department said it would ask the JSCCIB for detailed information so it could review and improve service efficiency while maintaining transparency and accountability. (nationthailand.com)

The Transport Ministry has also ordered a fact-finding review into complaints involving three agencies under its supervision — the Marine Department, Department of Highways and Department of Land Transport — after they were named in the survey. (nationthailand.com)

Image damage spreads beyond individual agencies

The reactions show that an agency’s image has become almost as important as legal facts. The survey has not only affected the reputation of individual organisations, but has also shaken wider public faith in state agencies.

Society will now be watching whether the agencies named can prove transparency and restore confidence, as pressure for tougher anti-corruption action continues to grow in Thailand.

The impact is not limited to organisational reputation. It also extends to public, investor and business confidence in the Thai bureaucracy as a whole.

When state agencies are perceived as being linked to bribery, questions immediately arise over the credibility of law enforcement and the transparency of regulatory oversight.

In economic terms, the image of corruption is a major factor in foreign investment decisions. Investors often see “under-the-table costs” as unpredictable risks that can distort fair competition and weaken Thailand’s position in the regional race for investment.

Private-sector leaders have warned that corruption can raise business costs by 20-30% and could affect Thailand’s efforts to join the OECD and negotiate free trade agreements. They say graft is no longer only a governance problem, but a competitiveness issue that could damage Thailand’s credibility in global trade and investment talks. (nationthailand.com)

Although the survey reflects private-sector perception and does not constitute legal proof that any agency committed wrongdoing, its social and reputational impact has created serious pressure on the bodies named.

Once an organisation’s name is linked with words such as “bribery” or “corruption”, damage to trust can occur immediately even before the facts are legally settled.