Local governance in Thailand is often perceived as a breeding ground for corruption, but the statistics tell a different story.

Decentralization in Thailand remains a critical issue, yet it is often opposed by three persistent myths. The first is the belief that local administrations lack the capacity to manage effectively. However, this can be easily debunked. Without adequate opportunities, authority, budgets or personnel, local governments cannot develop. By providing the necessary resources, this issue could be resolved, and the belief that local governments are unprepared would no longer persist.

Second, Thai conservatives argue that decentralization could lead to territorial separation, but this claim seems far-fetched. While it’s true that in some cases—such as East Timor and South Sudan—local referendums driven by ethnic divides and grievances have led to independence, the likelihood of this happening in Thailand is slim. Even in the three southern border provinces, where conflicts are most intense, the majority of people do not support separatism.

Research suggests that “if regional elites have more to lose than gain from a national schism, they will not invest in politicians or conflicts that promote secession.” With careful design, decentralization “should drain secessionist pressure by peeling away moderate citizens from radical leaders,” ultimately strengthening the state rather than weakening it.

The third claim suggests that decentralization could lead to increased corruption, but this needs careful examination. While there may be reports of a high number of corruption complaints at the local level, the financial damage caused by local corruption is generally much less significant than that at the central level. Despite facing loopholes in oversight mechanisms and obstructions from Bangkok, local agencies have performed relatively well in combating corruption.

Local corruption: fact or fiction?

In 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) received a total of 9,254 complaints. Of these, the NACC directly handled 3,868 cases, while 2,744 were referred to other agencies. Local administrative organizations (LAOs) accounted for the largest share, with 1,739 complaints (44.96%). The Ministry of Interior followed with 342 cases (8.84%), and the Ministry of Education had 285 cases (7.37%). Other government agencies combined accounted for 1,502 cases (38.83%).

During the same year, the NACC ruled on 466 cases, resulting in 3,150 individuals being found guilty, leading to a total financial loss of 336.243 billion baht. The largest group among those found guilty were civil servants, totalling 528 individuals (16.76%), followed by local government staff with 501 individuals (15.91%) and local government executives with 241 individuals (7.65%).Private sector personnel and other related parties, including subcommittee members and state agency employees, accounted for 1,353 individuals (42.95%).

The higher number of individuals involved in corruption cases does not necessarily indicate that local officials are more corrupt. In a 2021 report by The Urbanis, Assoc Prof Dr Weerasak Krueathep from Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science noted that most corruption cases occur in state enterprises, followed by central and regional government agencies, with LAOs ranking last.

Data from the NACC between 2011 and 2016 revealed that financial damage from local-level corruption ranged from 100 to 200 million baht. In contrast, damage in state enterprises and other government agencies reached up to 200 billion baht, while central and regional agencies accounted for approximately 100 billion baht. While local corruption does occur, the financial impact is significantly lower compared to other sectors.

Hindered by design

In fact, LAOs perform relatively well despite the unnecessary restrictions imposed by Bangkok, which hamper their governance and lead them to resort to illegal practices.

The NACC's dataset for fiscal year 2023 showed that procurement issues were the most common complaints against local governments, accounting for 827 out of 1,739 cases (47.56%). This was followed by 346 cases of misconduct or failure to perform duties and 171 cases of embezzlement of government property. This trend is consistent with previous years, reflecting ongoing issues in the public procurement system and the challenges local government organizations face in complying with the law.

Currently, local government organizations must follow the procurement system established by the 2017 Public Procurement and Asset Management Act, which sets clear guidelines and empowers the NACC to investigate corruption or unfair bidding practices. Despite these regulations, local governments face practical challenges due to the rigidity of the system, which can hinder their ability to operate efficiently and manage essential resources, especially when responding to urgent situations.

There are three main methods of procurement: public invitations to bid, selection, and specific invitations. These methods require the government to wait for suppliers to submit bids, preventing direct negotiations or price offerings. This system becomes highly restrictive in cases where special resources are needed or during periods of high demand, such as procuring medications during an epidemic or emergency equipment during disaster situations. This can lead to delays and create opportunities for corruption, such as bid rigging.

Although the law allows for specific procurement methods during emergencies or disasters, the budget caps for these purchases are often too low to enable effective responses. For example, the purchase of goods or services is capped at 500,000 baht, while construction projects are limited to 5,000,000 baht. In many cases, these amounts are insufficient to meet the demands of emergencies.

These limitations have led many LAOs to find ways to bypass regulations through alternative methods, increasing the risk of corruption. As a result, the number of corruption cases related to procurement has steadily increased. Moreover, these restrictions hinder the overall efficiency of LAOs.

External Oversight

This does not mean that LAOs do not require external oversight; on the contrary, such oversight is essential for monitoring corruption at the local level. However, the role of external oversight often extends beyond addressing corruption, sometimes interfering with the autonomy of LAOs in setting and implementing policies.

Thailand has established numerous anti-corruption organizations, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the State Audit Office, the Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC), the Ombudsman, the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct, the Administrative Court, the Election Commission, the Royal Thai Police, and the Department of Special Investigation.

These have the authority to investigate financial matters and operational practices. For instance, the Office of the Auditor General reviews local budget expenditures and provides recommendations for improvements. These agencies often collaborate with the Damrongtham Centres of the Ministry of Interior, set up nationwide to receive complaints from local citizens. Their establishment has led to an increase in the number of corruption-related complaints, which could indicate an increase in transparency.

Among these agencies, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) plays the most prominent role. As an independent constitutional body, the NACC is empowered to investigate and examine cases of corruption, especially those involving public officials or political officeholders accused of corruption or illicit enrichment. It holds the authority to investigate and rule on serious legal or ethical violations.

Under the 2017 Constitution, the NACC’s authority to oversee public officials—at both local and national levels—was expanded. The NACC can receive complaints and forward them to relevant agencies for action. However, in cases of significant corruption, it conducts its own investigations directly.

Though these bureaus and independent bodies were established with good intentions, they can become highly politicized due to the influence exerted by the status quo over the appointment of their officials and operations. The establishment often uses the issue of corruption as a pretext to seize power, justifying its interventions in governance to serve its own political interests.

Oversight from Ministry of Interior agencies plays a crucial role in local governance. Provincial governors and district chiefs are responsible for supervising budget use, managing local assets, and conducting audits and financial reporting. While these measures could support effective oversight, the Ministry’s power also extends to ensuring that local policies align with its own guidelines—often resulting in interference with local initiatives rather than directly addressing corruption concerns.

LAOs are already busy managing their own affairs. Patak Nunchu, a legal officer at a Sub-District Administrative Organization in Surin Province, highlights that the legal challenges faced by local governance are complex, often involving community relationships, local politics, and conflicts of interest. While local agencies may seem independent, central agencies still maintain considerable influence through the issuance of letters or "requests for cooperation," which carry real enforceability.

"I believe that oversight of corruption should be conducted within a scope that does not violate the local autonomy,” said Patak. “Clearly defining the scope of authority will help reduce problems of interference in operations from the central government, and enable the locality to manage their affairs more effectively.”

If an LAO wants to organize a cultural event or develop specific infrastructure projects, but these initiatives are viewed as inconsistent with central government policies, they may not receive approval. “In such cases, localities lose the opportunity to implement policies that respond to the needs of the people and lack autonomy in governance, which contradicts the spirit of decentralization,” said Patak.
For oversight to effectively combat corruption without hindering local governance, there must be a clear boundary between monitoring for integrity and intruding into local policy decisions. Anti-corruption investigations conducted by central authorities should be carried out in a manner that does not interfere with the independence of local governance.
 

Internal Oversight

While the external oversight system still has many areas for improvement, internal oversight also contains its own loopholes.

The internal oversight mechanism begins with local councils, which are responsible for reviewing regulations and budgets proposed by local administrations. Additionally, local councils have the authority to raise questions and debate policies. However, in practice, their ability to scrutinize the executive branch is quite limited compared to national-level representatives.

For instance, local councils cannot debate or pass votes of no confidence against the executive, and the executive can choose not to respond to questions raised by council members. Another issue arises when both the executive branch and the local council belong to the same political group. Without a healthy local opposition, oversight by local legislative bodies can be challenging.

Patak said that the local council plays a crucial role in detecting corrupt practices and reviewing budgets and local development plans. Because of its close ties to the community and direct access to information, scrutiny conducted by the local council tends to be swift and effective. However, the council lacks the authority to thoroughly examine the processes of budget approval and disbursement. This gap may create opportunities for corruption.

Each local government organization also has a systematic internal audit mechanism, with internal auditors responsible for monitoring employee performance. Their role includes providing guidance, preventing corruption, and regularly reviewing the organization’s operations. However, accessing information can sometimes be challenging, especially when auditing employees or executives within the same agency. This lack of independence can hinder the effectiveness of internal audits, making it difficult to conduct thorough and impartial reviews.

Integrity and Transparency Assessment

Loopholes in internal and external mechanisms are sometimes intertwined, contributing to the corruption problems. This can be clearly illustrated in the case of the Integrity and Transparency Assessment (ITA), which aims to enhance transparency and ethical governance in government agencies nationwide.

The ITA is intended to provide agencies undergoing evaluation with information on their assessment results and guidance for development, helping them elevate their standards. However, the effectiveness of these assessments is often undermined by overlapping gaps in both internal and external oversight processes.

Nattaya Buathong, head of the administrative department of Khao Suan Kwang Municipality, views the ITA as a crucial tool for proactively preventing corruption. However, she describes the current mode of operation as akin to "fooling the audience," producing results that fail to accurately reflect the true quality of services provided.

On one hand, the internal evaluation relies on documents completed by municipal employees or sub-district staff based on set criteria. Often, staff undergo rehearsals to practice responses, aiming to achieve high scores. If questions arise about potential corruption among local executives, responses are typically framed to emphasize transparency, non-acceptance of bribes, and clear public service procedures.

On the other hand, the criteria set by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) are often seen as inappropriate and do not facilitate factual verification. The discrepancies within the evaluation process prevent LAOs from genuinely meeting the assessment criteria. If evaluations were conducted without rehearsed responses or other adjustments, many organizations might struggle to pass the assessment, highlighting gaps in transparency and integrity.

This type of evaluation empowers service users to act as assessors by distributing documents to citizens who utilize the services. However, local agencies often attempt to maintain favourable scores by coordinating with familiar service recipients to secure high ratings. In some instances, staff members even fabricate evaluation forms to manipulate the process and achieve the highest scores.

The importance of active citizens

Flawed internal and external oversight are complicit in the ongoing corruption problems. To improve their effectiveness, public participation is essential for holding officials accountable and ensuring transparency in the process.

Patak emphasizes that public participation is an effective mechanism for preventing corruption. When citizens have greater access to information about the operations of local agencies, the likelihood of corruption occurring naturally decreases. Currently, new mechanisms such as referendums to recall council members or local executives, along with the use of online media to monitor the actions of local officials, significantly enhance transparency.

Patak also emphasized the importance of protecting whistleblowers. Currently, anti-corruption agencies have measures in place to protect whistleblowers or those who provide testimony in corruption cases. However, it is often found that the processes may be somewhat delayed, resulting in offenders having the opportunity to destroy evidence beforehand. Therefore, improving this process is essential to enhance the effectiveness of anti-corruption investigations.

"Protecting whistleblowers is important,” said Patak. “Without adequate protection for whistleblowers, the agencies responsible for oversight may not be able to act quickly enough to prevent the destruction of evidence."

LAOs have made commendable progress in combating corruption. To further enhance transparency, the Bangkok government should prioritize strengthening external oversight mechanisms instead of interfering with local policies. Additionally, the LAOs must intensify their efforts to promote transparency. Recognizing that no system is perfect, it is essential for citizens to remain vigilant.