The National Anti-corruption Commission does not do much except give an award for transparency, but this year there was no award because all the nominees were too corrupt. Government Departments, State Enterprises and private businesses were all eligible.
Private Tye wonders why. After all, it is just like any other award. If you wanted the award all you would have to do is slip a few thousand baht under the table to the judges and committee members.
The inescapable conclusion is that nobody wants the award. Which is, we suppose, not that surprising. In a country where every organization is corrupt, having a reputation for honesty would be very bad for business. It would be like a US Congressman having a reputation for always telling the truth, nobody would want to have any dealings with him.
This is all very silly. The Commission should stick to its main job of whitewashing. When some Government Department is accused of blatant corruption, the Commission investigates and (surprise, surprise) inevitably finds that there was no corruption.
The story from Prachatai (27 Dec):
No winners for national transparency award, nominees too corrupt
Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission has refused to award its annual transparency award, saying none of the nominated organisations satisfied its criteria for good governance.
While 11 organisations were highly commended, no organisations received the rating of ‘excellent’ required to win the award, according to the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s (NAC) website.
This is the first year no organisation has won the award, which is in its sixth year. Organisations eligible for the award ranged from government departments, state enterprises and private businesses that were established no less than five years ago.
According to Mana Nimitmongkhon, the secretary of the Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand, there were no winners in 2016 because the NAC enforced its criteria for good governance more strictly.
During its selection process this year, the NAC verified the documents provided by applicants to the award. In previous years, it largely accepted the documents provided by applicants, allowing for doctored reporting.