The fault of ML Panadda

“I don’t give them hell,” he countered. “I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s hell.”
Precisely the same could be said of ML Panadda Disakul, permanent secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office, who used Facebook to publicise the obscenely opulent lifestyles of certain elected provincial officials. And did he give them hell!
His posts caused immediate “outrage” among the chief executives of the Provincial Administrative Organisation (PAO). A group of them stood together in solidarity, all clad in black (whatever that signified), holding up sign that read “NO to Panadda”. They asked him to name names – an act that could land him in deep trouble thanks to defamation laws.
In response, Panadda offered his apologies for any offence caused. He had no axe to grind, he said. He was just trying to do his job and duty for the country.  In his view, government officials, whether elected or appointed, should adhere to the highest moral standards and code of conduct when it comes to spending the taxpayer’s money.
Did we hear that right?  Somebody is actually talking about civil responsibility and a code of conduct?  How long has it been since someone in the public sector mentioned moral standards and accountability?
What a breath of fresh air.
As to the conduct of certain chief executives and chief administrators – be they at the Provincial Administrative Organisation or the Subdistrict Administrative Organisation (SAO) levels – the bar could not be set any lower. 
If you want to do business on anything from waste disposal to energy within a subdistrict or provincial jurisdiction, you have to kow-tow to them. And the obeisance goes well beyond the realm of being respectful and courteous. “Grease” for the deal will be demanded and it must be delivered over and over. You may have to buy land owned by the chiefs or their relatives or deputies. You may have to pay a “commission” in proportion to the watts of electricity you are expecting to produce.
In one province, a Royal Household office gave one subdistrict funding for river dredging to prevent repeated annual floods. The chief executives and chief administrators took possession of the funds and did nothing. Until the day of the inspection, that is. A few days before the scheduled review, trucks dumped tonnes of dirt on the riverbanks, giving the impression it came from the bottom of the river. Case closed.
One subdistrict chief executive boasted about building his own Bt300 million resort without having to borrow a single baht from the bank.
His resort is steadily expanding beyond the horizon. Another Bt300 million or more may be poured into this project, the source of enormous pride and joy. And poor taxpayers like us are left with the impression that we must have done something terribly wrong with our money.
These are just two of the pathetic examples of excesses in corruption and wrongdoing on the part of elected government officials.
Undeniably, there are a good number of scrupulous and honourable chief executives and administrators at the PAO and SAO.  But one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.
Political decentralisation is a prerequisite of genuine democracy.  In Thailand, it started off in earnest with the constitution drafted by Anand Panyarachun and his committee. However, as the old adage goes – the way to hell is paved with good intentions: our decentralisation has gone badly astray. 
First, it was monetised to the point of no return. The buying and selling of votes became a normal way of life.
Second, elected provincial and sub district officials’ new-found political empowerment was matched only by their egotism and hubris. The check-and-balance mechanisms either are not there, or have been rendered toothless. The “catch-me-if-you-can” attitude is not even relevant anymore. To many of them, fear of being caught has gone.
Third, local people – the voters – do not have any means to oppose what they perceive as daylight robbery. The people they voted for shrug off the complaints with an attitude of “it’s my way or the highway”. Shakespeare was brave enough to ask whether it was nobler to suffer injustices lying down, or to stand up against it, and by “and by opposing end them”. Voters in Thai constituencies do not have that luxury, for many reasons.
So, it is time that we stopped ignoring the ugly picture of decentralisation and began dealing with the problems. Geoffrey Chaucer had an answer in “Canterbury Tales”: we must throw away the one rotten apple before it spoils the entire bushel.
As for Panadda, our society has a duty to preserve, protect and support him. He has shown the courage to do the right thing. We must not let him down, unless we want to allow more room for scoundrels and none for the good and upright. The latter scenario would leave our society with no hope for real reform – or even hope in general.