Published on May 13, 2005

The onus is on the Thaksin government to disprove official corruption

An issue that has been overlooked in the Suvarnabhumi Airport bribery scandal is how the parties involved were selected.

When the Thai authorities and the main contractor, ITO Joint Venture Co Ltd, agreed to pick Patriot Business Consultants as the subcontractor responsible for procuring and installing the explosives-detection system, were any questions asked regarding the company’s background, expertise and accountability? If the answer is “no”, this case is no longer about just kickbacks, but also extreme irresponsibility at the highest levels.

The Thaksin government has been ambiguous and elusive whenever questions are raised about Patriot Business Consultants. The administration initially dismissed the bribery allegations. Then it blamed the supplier of the bomb-detection system, GE InVision Technologies, for damaging Thailand’s reputation following the American firm’s admission that its representatives might have violated the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by offering bribes. Since the scandal broke, the Thai government has distanced itself from any misconduct.

But why did the government allow ITO Joint Venture to use a subcontractor? Which of the company’s credentials convinced the authorities that it was up to the task of installing a major security system? Who authorised Patriot Business Consultants’ involvement? And last but not least, had Patriot Business Consultants been pre-selected before any contracts were signed?

Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit has not only failed to answer these questions, but has also said that it is not the state’s responsibility to dictate who should install explosives-detection machines at the new airport. On Tuesday, he said ITO Joint Venture would have to take full responsibility for any delay in the installation because of problems linked to its subcontractors.

Despite the government’s attempt to steer clear of this case, documents obtained by The Nation tell a different story. They show that from the start, New Bangkok International Airport Co Ltd (NBIA), the company in charge of building the airport, knew about the subcontract awarded to Patriot. NBIA was initially entirely owned by the government, but it was later taken over by the Airports of Thailand Plc, which now heads up the airport construction.

The documents state that the construction deal involved two parties – NBIA and ITO. However, one attachment concerning the source and origin of materials and equipment for the baggage-screening system shows Patriot as the tenderer. The attachment also specifies that the system was to be purchased from the manufacturer “with evidence of certification by the FAA [US Federal Aviation Administration]/TSA [US Transportation Security Administration]”. GE InVision Technologies, which makes the CTX 9000 Dsi machines covered by the deal, is also named in the attachment.

The document bears a stamp from NBIA, then the government’s company in charge of the deal. The contract specifies that the contractor can subcontract any part of the work as long it has the written consent of the employer, NBIA. No consent is necessary if the contractor asks a subcontractor to purchase materials that are in accordance with the standards specified in the contract, or to appoint a subcontractor who is designated in the contract.

Now the crucial part. Clause 4.1D says: “where the contract provides that certain work or certain goods and/or materials shall be carried out by or obtained from a person named therein, then the contractor shall subcontract such work to or shall obtain such materials and/or goods from the person so named”.

This raises the possibility that the government, through the NBIA, had predetermined a subcontractor, possibly Patriot Business Consultants. The documents given to The Nation also support an earlier report that the government had predetermined what equipment it wanted for the inline screening system. An attachment showed Patriot was to buy CTX 9000 DSi machines from InVision Technologies Inc, which has been renamed GE InVision.

The main contract also specifies: “If for any reason beyond the control of the contractor, the contractor is unable to enter into a subcontract with any person referred to in Clause 4.1D, the contractor shall, entirely at its own cost, select another person to carry out the work or the supply of goods and/or materials to a standard and quality equivalent to that which would have been provided by the person referred to in Clause 4.1D, subject to the written consent of the employer’s representative, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.”

This could be read as an endorsement of the standards and qualities of Patriot Business Consultants. No government officials have acknowledged that Patriot was pre-selected for the purchase and installation of the scanning machines. On May 3, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra insisted that the purchase agreement for the machines was a contract between two private companies, in which the government played no part.

It is obvious that the public has been lied to, and that the Thaksin administration has a lot of explaining to do.

Post your comment to this story here