Corruption in Thailand: the view of the Thais themselves
Corruption is a beloved and much-discussed topic among Thais and interested others alike. This also applies to this blog that aims to discuss both the many good things about Thailand and the less good things. Corruption does a lot of damage to the country. Here I want to show the vision of the Thais themselves. It differs between individuals and groups.
A good discussion of this topic, with the many types of 'corruption', cause and control, is here: www.thailandblog.nl/BACKGROUND/corruption-thailand-first-understanding/
Thailand is usually somewhere in the middle of the various corruption indices. This also applies to Asia, where China is seen as the most and Japan as the least corrupt.
I am mainly writing this story to show how the Thais view the various forms of 'corruption' in the survey described below from Pasuk's book.
The backgrounds and causes of corruption
Let me give a short and by no means exhaustive list of the causes of corruption, with an emphasis on Thailand.
- corruption is most prevalent in countries with economies in transition from agriculture and self-employment to a more differentiated, industrialized and globalized economy. In Europe this happened in the 19e century, in Thailand only since 50 years. Some writers even mention that certain forms of corruption can then be beneficial.
- civil servants in Thailand did not receive a salary until not so long ago (say until 1932) but deducted their living expenses from the amounts received and transferred the rest to the government. To a certain extent, that attitude would still be there. Officials in Thailand are not called 'civil servants' but khaaraatchakaan or 'servants of the king'. They often do not feel responsible to the population.
- an atmosphere of secrecy and closedness against freedom of speech and information and the lack of control plays a major role. Fear of the consequences keeps the population from speaking out.
- the power of government officials over the population is also a factor.
- as Jory's article below argues, 'giving, generosity' is an important virtue in Thai thought. It improves your karma and increases the chance of a beautiful rebirth. This means that 'giving' can be a moral double-edged sword: it does good and sometimes it does bad and everyone realizes that. In other words, this kind of 'corruption' is still a remnant of the old person-centered morality but no longer appropriate in a modern nation-state.
I can't help but add something that has to do with this last point 5. In 2011 ABAC conducted a poll among Thais about corruption, a poll that is often quoted. This would show that two-thirds of the research group had no problem with corruption if they benefited from it themselves. However, the question was broader, namely 'Do you approve of corruption if it helps the nation, the community or yourself?' Two-thirds said yes to that broader question. Still too much of course, but in view of the above, it is understandable.
The start of solutions
Of course corruption should be punished when it comes to light, but punishment alone will not reduce corruption. I think as Thailand develops there will be a natural improvement. But the most important factor in the fight against corruption is the increasing knowledge, empowerment and courage of the population, also because they are the main victims (and not the government, as is claimed, which continues to take care of itself).
Pasuk mentions three strategies in her book: 1 putting more pressure on the existing anti-corruption fighters (there is a lack of political will) 2 greater pressure from below through an improved political environment with more freedom of speech and information, decentralization of decision-making and more control of the citizens (bureaucrats have too much power) 3 educating the public about the causes, serious consequences and remedies of corruption. So awareness. Reform of political parties is also a necessity.
The survey
The survey mentioned in the book below was conducted among a total of 2243 people, which is representative in itself and can yield good results. What is often not reported in a survey is the distribution across different groups in society. Yes here. For example, the urban poor and the peasants got off somewhat badly with a total of 724 people, and there was an over-representation of people with higher education and people from Bangkok. The opinions between these groups sometimes differed slightly and sometimes more, but that is too much to mention all here.
The results begin with an explanation of what the Thais understand by the broad umbrella of 'corruption'. The answers of those surveyed, from less serious to more serious corruption, were as follows:
- Gift (with a good heart): sǐn nám chai
- 'Tea money': khâa náam róhn náam chaa (to speed up an action legal in itself)
- Dishonest conduct: pràphrút míe chôhp
- Bribery, extortion: sǐn bon
- Dishonesty in duty: thóetchárít tòh nâathîe
- Corruption:kaan khohrápchân
The interviewees were presented with concrete cases in which they had to choose what kind of 'corruption' this was. I give the answers in rounded percentages. The missing percentage are the 'no answer, don't know, unsure', which were rarely more than 5 percent. Multiple answers were possible so that the total percentages are sometimes more than 100.
Without the police asking, the traffic offender gives an amount less than the fine to the officer who then accepts it.
- Bribery: 61%
- Dishonest behavior: 37%
- Unfair in duty: 31%
- Corruption: 16%
If the amount is higher and the police ask for it, it is much more corruption
Someone is well served in a government office. When everything is over, he offers the officer 50 baht, which is accepted.
- Gifts: 70%
- Tea Money: 17%
- Unfair in duty: 85%
- Bribery: 18%
- Corruption: 5%
Someone visits a government office. The officer takes a lot of time on purpose. You give 50-200 baht to speed up the process and reward the officer.
- Gifts: 6%
- Dishonesty in duty: 24%
- Tea money: 20%
- Bribery: 56%
- Extortion: 19%
- Corruption: 16%
A civil servant takes paper and writing utensils home from the office for private use.
- Dishonest behavior: 53%
- Dishonesty in duty: 16%
- Corruption: 49%
A senior police or military officer serves on the Board of Directors of a private company during working hours.
- Completely normal/legal: 28%
- Inappropriate behavior: 61%
- Corruption: 5%
Business people consider this normal much more often, the poor less so.
A businessman gives a certain amount of money to a government department or official to secure a project.
- Gifts: 16%
- Part of the costs: 9%
- Bribery: 45%
- Dishonesty in office. duty: 18%
- Corruption: 34%
Here, 18 percent said 'not sure, no answer'. Business people often saw this as a 'gift'.
A high-ranking military officer receives an amount after a weapons purchase (commission)
- Inappropriate behavior: 40%
- Dishonesty in duty: 37%
- Corruption: 53%
Again, 13 percent did not answer. Are people afraid?
A person is promoted because he/she is a relative or client of a superior officer.
- Inefficient administration: 59%
- Inappropriate behavior: 48%
- Dishonesty in duty: 21%
- Corruption: 8%
Again evasive answers with 13 percent.
On the question in which ministries or departments respondents thought most of corruption these answers in percentages
- Police: 34%
- Defense: 27%
- Interior: 26%
- Transportation: 23%
Finally, which one type of government was seen as the most corrupt
- Elected Government: 22%
- Military authority: 23%
- Not sure, can't say: 34%
- No answer, otherwise: 21%
Sources:
- Phasuk Phongpaichit and Sungsidh Piriyarangsan, Corruption and Democracy in Thailand, Silkworm Books, 1994
- Patrick Jory, Corruption, the Virtue of Giving and Thai Political Culture, Int. Conf. Thai Studies, Chiang Mai, 1996
Corruption runs in line with temperature.
Heat makes people tired and lazy faster
Tired and lazy is less productive.
Less productive is less money.
If corruption in Thailand stopped tomorrow, the economy would take a serious hit.
Many properties and vehicles have been bought with a corrupt future.
M.vr.gr.
Nonsense. Until 1900, the Netherlands was just as corrupt as Thailand is now. And if the corruption (money goes to the wrong people) that money is also simply reduced into the economy in a legal way.
Nonsense that the Netherlands was just as corrupt then as Thailand is now – it seems to me.
What support do you have?
http://www.corruptie.org/nederlandse-corruptie-in-verleden-en-heden-door-toon-kerkhoff/
https://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/9353202/d/cpg_jaarboek_2014_kroeze.pdf
The first article is about the Batavian Republic and the second about the time after. Like I do here, they place corruption in the mindset of that time. 'Likewise' is difficult to define, you have to take it somewhat metaphorically.
Once I read a book entitled Corruption in the Third World, and in Britain until 1886, something like that. Enough literature, by the way, about contemporary corruption in the Western world.
Taking it in the ideas of the time (and that country, I might add) – that's how you can talk everything to each other.
'Likewise' is not at all difficult to define, it means equality in nature and extent.
Take it somewhat metaphorically: built-in vagueness.
Nonsense: worse than false?
I take the statement as: true in the thoughts of the writer, and do not get further than that corruption also occurs outside Thailand. You may take my judgment somewhat metaphorically!
China is known in Asia as the most corrupt country. As well as North Korea and Mongolia. Let it freeze well in those countries there and often be really cold.
Sorry, but now you are doing Mongolia an injustice. You can google 'corruption perception index 2016' to see which countries are doing even worse.
Mongolia is still corrupt in terms of corruption ranking. My point was to show that the claim that corruption is in line with a country's climate is just nonsense.
Okay, but you mentioned China, Mongolia and North Korea in the same breath as the most corrupt countries. North Korea is indeed the most corrupt country in Asia (and does not score “badly” worldwide either), but there are many warmer Asian countries between North Korea and Mongolia.
THE example of a society that has largely wiped it out, that has an even warmer tropical climate than TH, and is also ruled by the notoriously corrupt Chinese; SINGAPORE. Hong Kong can also keep up very well in that area. So, this is a counterexample.
The northern regions of Australia also have a tropical climate: yet there is no more/less corruption there (as far as data is known) as in the more moderate large cities.
So I think it has more to do with what Tino describes as a transition from farming to urban life/modern economy.
Yes, I like to sink all that drink talk into the pit.
As long as the Thai government severely underpays its people, this “corruption” cannot be eradicated. In fact, salaries are built with this in mind, so a small salary + "gifts". This also applies to the police officers who also have to buy their own uniform + pistol and bullets + motorcycle, etc. In doing so, it cannot be eradicated. The police also receive 50% of all fines. I can give many examples where a “donation” in which I myself was involved, the process was completed at lightning speed. Can't name any instances on the Internet.
For sure, theoS. The police are grossly underpaid for often dangerous work. Sometimes I think that I might be in that situation too….I have a certain sympathy for that.
Then singapore should be more corrupt than thailand, but it is the other way around: virtually no corruption in singapore!
“The same goes for Asia where China is seen as the most and Japan as the least corrupt.”
In any case, this is not correct. Globally, Singapore ranks in the top 10 and Japan ranks 20th. China, on the other hand, was in 2016th place in 79, with countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia far behind. (See index of transparency international)
Point 4 is I think the main cause of government corruption. It sees itself in a position of power vis-à-vis the citizen rather than in a position of service. The Thai civil servant therefore thinks that he should be paid extra for providing services and is not at all assuming that he/she is already paid monthly from taxes. The level of the salary hardly plays a role there. In fact, the higher the salary (the position), the more extra must be paid.
I am not surprised that the police are seen as the most corrupt. Ordinary citizens experience this the most. However, the corruption amounts that the police receive are nothing compared to other ministries and departments, when it comes to large (and costly) government projects and purchases. Think of transport, health care, the army & Home Affairs (especially land department).
Clear article.
This makes things in Thailand much clearer (for me).
I have written about corruption many times in the past and I don't want to repeat myself. A few points though:
1. The effectiveness of the fight against corruption depends on the persistence of the government to fight corruption. The Corruption Index (https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/corruption-index) shows that Thailand is still on the wrong side of the line (the average) and that corruption between different governments does not differ very much. In my opinion this is because the corruption is not fought consistently but only temporarily (to make a good impression on the population) and only on symptoms.
2. Part of the corrupted ('black') money will undoubtedly find its way back into the Thai economy and companies will benefit from this. In my estimation, this mainly concerns 'smaller' amounts such as tea money and not corruption of billions of Bahts that cannot simply be spent unnoticed. (See here the fight against the people who are 'unusually rich') . I think this big money often disappears abroad (real estate, tax havens, shares, bank accounts in Switzerland, etc.) and means nothing to the Thai economy;
3. The main victim of corruption is the state, the government and/or all kinds of government agencies and, by extension, the Thai population, because they together form the state. If someone defrauds the state for billions of Bahts (infrastructure, purchase of fire trucks, not phasing out police stations or weapons, rice subsidy) ultimately the taxpayer pays for it.