Published on May 23, 2005

If the best the authorities can do is issue statements, then the press must continue to ask questions

The bribery scandal surrounding the murky deal to purchase explosives-detection equipment for Bangkok’s new international airport has emerged as one of the longest-running headline issues of the four years-plus of the Thaksin government.

The Thai government, the US Embassy in Bangkok and GE InVision, the company at the centre of the scandal, have tried to put out the fire, but despite their best collective and individual efforts, they have not succeeded. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has done his part by putting various spins on the case.

First, he attempted to portray it as some sort of American conspiracy, rejecting outright any claims that bribes might have been involved in the deal even though no official investigations had been carried out in Bangkok. Then the government demanded that General Electric, which had purchased the ill-fated InVision before the scandal broke, release an official statement clearing the Thai officials involved of any misconduct.

Not long after, the prime minister decided that the Thai press appeared to trust the conclusions of the US Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the two agencies investigating possible irregularities in the deal from the US side, more than reassurances he had offered. He is now trying to secure official absolution for all Thai officials from the Justice Department. In its letter to the Thai government, GE appears to follow Thaksin’s line by lashing out at the Thai press for publishing inaccurate reports on the deal.

The US Embassy in Bangkok then waded into the fray by confirming the GE contention that no Thai citizens had been involved in whatever irregularities might have taken place – irregularities that apparently were real enough for GE InVision to feel compelled to voluntarily pay penalties to the concerned US agencies. But then the press was asked not to identify the official who made this statement.

You don’t have to be an investigative journalist to get the feeling that despite all of the reassurances that are being made, there is something not quite right about this case. Why did the US Embassy decline to allow the official who briefed the press on this case to identify himself, if only in the interest of helping to set the record straight? For its part, GE chose to lash out at the Thai press when it never once bothered to organise a briefing to explain the issue. Its code of conduct appears to have been compromised by its desire to hold on to the very lucrative deal to supply equipment to the new airport.

At the end of the day, the Thai government’s various attempts to put a favourable spin on the case have had the unintended effect of making the case look more murky. This is particularly regrettable given this administration’s stated desire to demonstrate that it is serious about tackling corruption.

The case is actually quite straightforward, as officials at the US Securities and Exchange Commission have said already. The complaint that led to InVision paying the fines to US authorities didn’t allege that any actual payments had been made. What it did say was that “InVision authorised the offers of payments”.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Thailand’s national sovereignty being violated. Nor could we even say that GE has anything to do with it because the incident took place before the firm had even purchased InVision. And the US Embassy is certainly not in a position to clarify anything, since it had nothing to do with the deal.

Rather this has to do with the willingness of all parties to try to find out the identities of the Thai officials or politicians who might profit from the sale of the equipment. The difficulty is that the actual payments have not been made, but the budget was set aside.

As far as the role that the Thai press has played in all this, all we want is for the government to stop trying to spin the issue and start treating the possibility of misconduct with the seriousness and transparency that it deserves. We have to know whether bribery offers were made, to whom and for how much.

We are sympathetic to the difficulties involved in establishing clear evidence. The government may not succeed because no transactions appear to have taken place, but the least it could do is try.

Corruption ranks high on the list of public concerns. This case can be closed only when “facts” are established by credible sources. This is the kind of conclusion that the government should be shooting for. Anything else would just involve more embarrassing smokescreens and endless doubts.

Post your comment to this story here