Evaluation of Current Situation of Fraud and Corruption in Thailand Prepared by Dr. Sutthi Suntharanurak Auditor , Professional Level Office of the Auditor General of Thailand Outline • Research Methodology • Contents of current situation fraud and corruption in Thailand - International Anti-Corruption index - Summary interesting results Research Methodology • Qualitative Method - Review literature about corruption in Thailand since 1997 - Review literature about corruption assessment • Questionnaire survey of our research team - Descriptive analysis Corruption in Thailand since 1997 • Why we start at 1997? - Financial Crisis in Thailand Demand for Good Governance - 1997 Constitution of Thailand The Reform of Check and Balance system • Since 1997 many Anti Corruption Agencies (ACAs) have been established to prevent and suppress corruption and money laundering in Thailand • The Organic Act on Counter Corruption B.E. 2542 (1999) • Act on Offences Relating to the Submission of Bids to State Agencies B.E. 2542 (1999) • The Anti-Money Laundering Act B.E. 2542 (1999) • The Special Investigative Cases Act B.E. 2547 (2004) • Act on Administrative measure for prevention and suppression corruption B.E. 2551 (2008) • The Organic Act of State Audit B.E. 2542 (1999) • Since 1997 ACAs have been anti corruption both grand and petty corruption. • Case studies of Grand Corruption in Thailand - Corruption in public procurement of medicine and medical equipment in 1999 - Corruption of Klong Dann Sewage Treatment in 2000 - Corruption of Bangkok International Film Festival in 2007 - Corruption in public procurement of Bangkok fire fighting trucks in 2008 - Unusually rich of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport in 2012 - Unusually rich of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defense in 2013 Statistical Corruption of ACAs OAG Thailand Number of Corruption and Money Cases 349 NACC 1,056 Database of NACC (2000-Present) DSI 85 DSI Annual Year Report 2011 (2004-2011) AMLO 426 AMLO Annual Performance Report 2011 (1999-2011) ACAs Sources Database of OAG (1999-2012) Corruption Perception Index of Thailand during 5 years (2008-2012) Year CPI Thailand Ranking 2008 3.5/10 80/180 2009 2010 3.4/10 3.5/10 84/180 78/178 2011 3.4/10 80/183 2012 37/100 88/176 Global Integrity Index of Thailand Category of Integrity Measure Integrity Indicators Scorecard Interpretation Indicators Civil society, Public Information and Media 71/100 Moderate Elections 47/100 Very Weak Government Accountability 61/100 Weak Administration and Civil Service 64/100 Weak Oversight and Regulation 78/100 Moderate Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law 68/100 Weak Overall Score 68/100 Weak Integrity Indicators Scorecard about SAIs and Anti-Corruption Category of Integrity Measure Integrity Indicators Scorecard Interpretation Indicators Whistle-Blowing Measures 69/100 Weak SAI 83/100 Strong Anti-Corruption Law 89/100 Strong ACAs 63/100 Weak Rule of Law 71/100 Moderate Law Enforcement 50/100 Very Weak Process of Collecting Data 1. To translate ASOSAI questionnaires in Thai version 2. To determine the number of sample which I focused on ACAs ,that is, OAG, NACC, PACC, DSI, and AMLO. 3. 155 questionnaires were distributed to 4 ACAs in order to evaluate corruption situation in Thailand. Meanwhile, I send 10 questionnaires to AMLO in order to assess money laundering situation. 4. However, this research focuses on the role of SAI. Therefore I selected 125 respondents from OAG Thailand. These respondents are auditors and investigators who have more experiences to explain corruption situation. Number of Sample 10 10 10 OAG 10 NACC PACC DSI 125 AMLO Response rate and Challenge problem • There were 115 respondents (or response rate was 70% of all respondents) who returned their questionnaires back to me. However, these answers reflected only the evaluation of corruption situation. • In process of collecting data, the challenge problem was the collaboration problem especially other ACAs which I got only 10 questionnaires from DSI. • Further, some respondents commented about the complexity of some questions which seems to be hard to answer. The Statistics of respondents 10 40 OAG (HQ) OAG (RGO) DSI 65 Summary interesting results 1. Approximately 77.4% viewed that the current situation of corruption in Thailand seems to be serious and pervasive in most or all sectors. 2. Interestingly, almost 70% believed that the current situation is much higher than previously. 3. Half of respondents described that the tolerance level is moderately intolerant towards corruption. 4. Meanwhile, 54.78% of respondents explained that the strength of steps taken by Thai government against corruption is at moderate level. 5. The first type of corruption based on perception of respondents is Grand corruption which 52.17 % perceived it is prevalence in Thailand. 6. However, 57.39% still believed that the prevalence of petty corruption is at high level. Likewise, 75.65% recognized that the pervasiveness of grand corruption is at high level, too. 7. This dataset showed that common types of corruption seems to be the abuse of position/power (28.69%) and criminal breach of trust (29.56%) 8. Interestingly, half of respondents viewed that local government or municipalities was the most vulnerable to corruption. 9. Approximately ¾ or 75% of respondents ranked that the greatest probability of corruption occurred in procurement contracts sector. 10. For the root cause of corruption in Thailand, about 44.35% believed that it had been derived from culture, customs and habits of giving bribes to get things done. In contrast, 40% seems to agree and disagree that main cause of corruption is derived from the patronage-client system. 11. About monitoring the situation of corruption, 53.04% viewed that it was essential. Likewise, half of them thought that it was essential to prioritize complaints of corruption or fraud from the public. 12. For reporting corruption, most respondents emphasized the important role of whistle blower. Interestingly, 64.34% believed that the whistle bowling was effective to ensure complaints of corruption. 13. For the effect of corruption, most respondents concerned seriously about damage of corruption to the government budget, private sector, and citizen. 14. Almost 65% strongly agreed that corruption during budget formulation is primarily grand or political corruption. Likewise, more than half strongly agreed that unchecked and excessive discretion in the budget process tends to create opportunities for political corruption. 15. Our respondents gave their opinions about conflict of interest which is usual style of corruption in Thailand. 16. Conflict of interest (COI) is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. (Thompson, 1993) 17. Example of COI : Self Dealing, Post-Employment, Outside Employment, Using inside information, Using public property for private advantage, Pork barreling, etc. Different countries but same behavior!! 18. Further, many respondents mentioned to the policy corruption which involved to the public policy process. They explained that the policy corruption is related to both national and local politicians. It still involved to the budget cycle especially the budget formulation and approval budget. Thank you for your attention You Will Never Walk Alone !!