His words carry a lot of weight, because Pridiyathorn, who served as Bank of Thailand (BOT) governor until his appointment as a key Cabinet member, practises what he preaches.

During his tenure as governor of the central bank, the BOT released several reports concerning the alarming rise in household borrowing and issued warnings to the public about the danger of increased public debt resulting from those populist policies. Of course, it was probably easier for Pridiyathorn, given his high stature, to maintain a relatively high degree of independence vis-a-vis the previous government led by the tenacious Thaksin Shinawatra.

But that does not exempt self-respecting government officials, who are public servants, from their responsibility to safeguard the public interest while also taking orders from politicians elected by the people to govern the country. How to achieve a delicate balance between protecting the public interest and ensuring the elected government's policies are translated into action is a big dilemma for government officials.

If it sounds like government officials are assigned the impossible task of serving two masters at once, then a little clarification is in order. It is true that government officials must follow orders from politicians, but not unlawful orders - orders that contradict the best interest of the public, orders that require them to compromise professional ethics.

However, if carrying out orders means facilitating or participating in corruption, then the officials cannot turn round and excuse themselves by saying they were just following orders.

Pridiyathorn said that although government officials might not always succeed in stopping bad policies formulated by unscrupulous politicians, they must at least try to persuade their political masters to abandon some of the more damaging ones. They can also inform the public about the pros and cons of specific government policies.

There should be no question about where government officials' loyalties lie. Government officials are first and foremost responsible to the people they are supposed to serve. Ideally, the working relationship between officials and politicians must be based on mutual respect.

Obviously, doing the right thing is never easy or convenient for government officials. Civil servants who stick to their principles risk facing harassment from politicians who might fire them or transfer them to inactive posts. But there should be no doubt that their loyalties lie with the public.

When Thaksin and his ruling Thai Rak Thai Party burst onto the scene on the back of populist policies, he made a pledge to transform the state bureaucracy into a people-friendly entity that would deliver better public service, ensure transparency in government decision-making and uphold a higher degree of accountability to the public.

This all sounded impressive and noble. But instead, Thaksin proceeded to purge the top echelon of the state bureaucracy of capable people who possessed professional integrity, and replaced them with yes men and corruption-prone civil servants. During his five and half years in power, Thaksin turned government agencies into fiefdoms and civil servants into unthinking robots that implemented his every whimsical policy and facilitated the corrupt practices of himself and his cronies.

Destroying comprehensive bureaucratic reform was one of Thaksin's most grievous sins. And now Thai society must take it upon itself to do away with the culture of deceit and corruption that the deposed prime minister has left behind. The Surayud government is now faced with the Herculean task of rebuilding a state bureaucracy based on its own merits instead of the corrupt patronage system, one that is capable of holding its own in a mature relationship with elected politicians in the future.