Powers-that-be must be subject to public scrutiny

British parliamentarians have been debating whether Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul, is fit to run an international company. The debate is somewhat ironic. While the British MPs question Murdoch’s leadership role, his media empire remains one of the most commercially successful in the world. 

This editorial is certainly not meant to argue in favour of Murdoch, because his former News of the World newspaper clearly took an unethical approach in hacking into the phones of numerous people. Our suggestion is that a similar debate may be beneficial for Thai society, because top leaders in our public service agencies should also be subject to scrutiny, in order to protect the public interest.

First of all, those in the top echelons of organisations in the public sector tend not to be subject to straightforward evaluation or scrutiny because of their stature. By the time their flaws have been exposed, the damage sometimes can barely be controlled. The problem is that, too often, the abuse of power or mistakes on the part of these leaders affects many innocent people.

Murdoch should still be on top of the world with the commercial success of his media empire. But even if he wasn’t directly complicit, he was certainly negligent in allowing illicit voice-mail interception to be carried out by News Corp’s News of the World tabloid. Then the scandal was exposed. 

Since then, the ethical questions have dogged Murdoch to the point where the UK parliamentary committee has questioned his moral character, reporting that he is not a “fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company”. The opinion of the parliamentary committee could lead to Murdoch losing his lucrative broadcasting licence, if it is judged that a person of questionable ethical character should not be in charge of such a powerful media business.

While it is unclear what will happen next, the debate over the ethical qualities of decision-makers who have the public interest at stake should enhance public awareness. In this country we need to understand that a person’s success should not be judged only on material wealth but also ethical and moral standards.

A successful media company has to strike a balance between its mission to serve the public interest and its ability to stay afloat commercially. The scandal at the now-defunct News of the World suggests its reporters and editors were tilting towards the profit-making side by trying to serve readers’ appetite for gossip and scandal.

Top executives like Murdoch cannot deny responsibility for these illegal acts. A businessman with no ethics can easily turn a blind eye to such illegal practices if it can translate into big profits. After all, the News of the World was the best-selling Sunday paper in the UK, with 2.7 million copies sold each week before it was closed.

Thus, this issue comes down to the character of executives of big organisations or companies. But how will the Thai public define whether a person is “fit” or “unfit” to make decisions where the public interest is involved. The current division in Thailand is caused by inadequate observance of good governance. Some media outlets here have been accused of intentionally manipulating written or verbal content or digitalising visual content to mislead the public to serve their own political purposes. There are also regular allegations over the powers-that-be at public organisations making business decisions to serve their personal interests. These ethical questions arise at every turn, and this is not to mention the problem of massive corruption.

The debate over the quality of leaders whose decisions directly affect the public interest should not happen only after scandals break out. Thai society already has the debate over whether righteousness or business should be the priority for our leaders. People would say that they value goodness, but they naturally want a bigger slice of the cake too. But the two qualities do not have to contradict each other. An ethical business approach has been proved to last longer. Murdoch’s scandal shows that material success without ethics cannot be sustained. 

Decision-makers cannot avoid responsibility. The culture of the corporation “permeates down from the top”. The character of the person at the top cannot be taken lightly. Public scrutiny of that character should happen before the damage starts.