The meaning of integrity in Thai society
There was a long pause. Kasikornbank president Teeranun Srihong was midway through a talk on his bank's anti-corruption practices when he hit an obstacle. The snag was the English word "integrity" - a must-have quality for the directors and CEOs he was ad
Eventually he confessed that there was no Thai word for it. That might explain, he quipped, why there are so few men with integrity in Thai society.
But Teeranun did single out one model of this rare virtue – his boss and chairman of the bank, Banthoon Lamsam.
Teeranun recalled the day just before the 1997 financial crisis when Banthoon bluntly declared that KBank’s non-performing loans were as high as 17 per cent, when all its competitors were only admitting single-digit numbers. He praised his boss for that honesty, which sparked doubts about the real health of other financial institutions.
I couldn’t agree more with the praise. When Bangkok was “shut down” in late 2013, Banthoon did not hesitate to admonish the authorities for failing to enforce the rule of law. Then, when the new junta authority reportedly asked him to join the reform process, Banthoon demurred, explaining he was preoccupied with private matters.
Oxford Dictionaries defines integrity as “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles”. In essence, a person with integrity is a person who puts principles first.
Such people are crucial components of any corporate organisation that strives towards long-term sustainability. As sustainability is the first goal no matter who leads the organisation and no matter what his personal preferences are, companies need bosses who embody integrity and also demand that subordinates do likewise without being “krengjai”.
If their superiors issue directives that go against the true interests of the company’s stakeholders, employees should dare to challenge those orders. With such a check-and-balance system in place, integrity becomes a corporate culture that the leadership cannot ignore and must protect.
Such leaders are less likely to make business deals that render short-term benefits but could ruin their company’s existence in the long term. By setting the “tone from the top” that the organisation will not tolerate corruption, leaders help ensure that their employees will not dare strike transactions that go against company policies, law and regulations.
In his presentation, Teeranun admitted that leaders at any organisation are duty-bound to maximise profits. But he also insisted that KBank maximised profits in line with policies to benefit all eight types of its stakeholders, which include employees, regulators and the community.
This message is a welcome refuge of sanity at a time of stormy debate. With numerous reform agenda in the picture, there is plenty of temptation to sacrifice the benefits of one stakeholder for others.
It surprises me deeply that, in a “free society” like Thailand’s, there has been almost no public complaint about the infringement of human rights. A recent survey showed that the majority still supports the imposition of the martial law, despite it being used to summon and imprison many citizens just because they think differently from their leaders. Respondents of the survey genuinely believe that martial law will smoothen the ongoing reform process. Despite the concerns of many in the international community as well as groups like Human Rights Watch, most of us still believe that curbing freedom of speech is necessary.
That belief echoes the thinking of coup leader and prime minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha. He has repeatedly insisted he staged the coup to achieve national reconciliation, but he apparently believes that martial law will not deter the objective.
Yet, one area where reconciliation does seem to colour Prayut’s thinking is the granting of petroleum concessions. Though the Cabinet recently agreed that the 21st round of bidding for concessions would go ahead in March as planned, the prime minister showed compassion to those who oppose the plan. Questions and criticism were fielded by a panel of energy officials and experts last week. It looked uncannily similar to the forums that took place shortly after the coup. Last week’s forum was hosted despite there being no change in Thailand’s projected oil deposits or energy needs.
The end result was that the authorities resolved to go ahead with the bidding. To dissatisfied opponents, the government could point out that they were given a chance to express their misgivings.
Obscurity also clouds our government’s message on justice, especially regarding the criminal charges against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra. The case against her went to the Supreme Court last week, where she is charged with negligence over her role in the rice-subsidy scheme. Some observers detect a political motive in bringing the case.
On the positive side, unlike a corporation, Thailand can’t fall off the world map by failing to conform to internationally accepted principles. But is this a sustainable path? It seems that at the national level, the definition of that word is shifting as Thais waver on the definition of moral principles.
