Published on January 18, 2006

If the Bangkok governor had been doing his job, charges of corruption would not have come as a surprise. Virtually all of his predecessors at the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) had to deal with at least one major corruption scandal at some point in their tenure, so Apirak Kosayodhin could not really say he did not see it coming.

The Bangkok city government, which has an annual operating budget of Bt30 billion to Bt40 billion, plus huge supplementary funding from the central government, awards numerous procurement contracts each year through competitive bidding.

Given that there are lessons to be learned from the experience of others, Apirak’s handling of alleged irregularities in connection with 16 road-construction projects worth more than Bt20 billion leaves a lot to be desired. Complaints of alleged favourite treatment of certain contractors participating in the bidding for the lucrative deals were lodged with the BMA, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and relevant parliamentary committees at about the same time last October.

The problem is that the BMA, headed by Apirak and his administrative team, received the complaints and did not act on them until the DSI announced last week it was looking into the questionable bidding. This was in response to complaints from contractors who claimed to have lost out because contract awards had been rigged.

Only after the scandal broke did Apirak find it necessary to order a halt of all questionable construction projects, pending an internal BMA investigation. Apirak’s failure to act on serious corruption allegations in a timely manner raises questions about his judgement and standards of good governance.

It was also ludicrous for Apirak to claim not to have had prior knowledge of alleged irregularities in the bidding process or of subsequent complaints. As head of the BMA, he does not have the luxury of plausible deniability. BMA regulations stipulate that any project worth more than Bt50 million must receive approval from Apirak or his deputy governors.

Even if knowledge of the alleged irregularities had somehow eluded him, Apirak should have ordered a halt to all construction projects awarded under questionable circumstances, then launched an internal investigation after looking into claims of rigged bidding and found sufficient evidence to merit closer examination.

Most the blame is resting on Deputy Governor Samart Ratchapolsitte, formerly one of Apirak’s most trusted men but now suspected of being the main culprit in the questionable bidding. Be that as it may, Apirak cannot totally escape blame-free himself, because he is supposed to uphold standards of good governance and transparency in municipal-government decision-making.

Apirak, who is also deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party, knows that his party has fashioned itself as a driving force in the anti-corruption campaign being targeted at the Thaksin administration, which has been tainted by a long series of corruption scandals since coming to power five years ago. The Democrats and Apirak have a duty to prove they are practising what they preach.

The BMA under Apirak’s leadership must fully cooperate with DSI investigators and see to it that its internal investigators do their job without fear or favour. All investigation efforts must produce clear-cut findings as to whether the bidding process was rigged, and if so, who was responsible for peddling influence at the BMA. The public expects nothing less.

It is regrettable that the Democrats, in reacting to the corruption scandal, could not resist accusing the Thaksin administration of double standards. By saying that, the party has suggested that the DSI is going easy on the central government’s cases of alleged corruption while making much ado about alleged BMA irregularities.

This is beside the point. Both Apirak and the Democrats must take it upon themselves to get to the bottom of the corruption scandal and any alleged irregularities and bring to justice any and all wrongdoers. The public should not have to choose between one political party that is perceived to be more corrupt and another that is believed to be less so. Besides, the public is also fed up with the politics of the pot calling the kettle black.

Post your comment to this story here