• 
• 
• 

The alleged irregularities in the management of the Government Pension Fund (GPF) need to be thoroughly investigated. The Securities and Exchange Commission has said that they have yet to find any evidence of abnormalities in the management of the fund that could be put down to insider trading. However, questions surrounding alleged irregularities in the fund management have yet to be clearly aired in front of the public.

The public is waiting to see the results of the final investigation into the controversy surrounding GPF management, especially after the fund's board refused to accept the resignation of the embattled former secretary-general Visit Tantisunthorn.

Though Visit said in his letter of resignation, addressed to the chairman of the board of directors, that he wanted to take responsibility for any damages incurred by the agency, the board decided to dismiss him from his position and ordered further investigation into his actions.

Visit was also alleged by the Committee on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption in the Public Sector, under the Justice Ministry, to have purchased and sold stocks in his private investment portfolio a few days prior to GPF's investments in the stock market. If the allegations were proven to be true, then he would be violating Article 241 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which prevents officials who have access to insider information from using it for their personal benefit.

The SEC said its primary investigation had so far shown no evidence of insider trading, but that it would look further into the case.

After all, the case cannot be taken lightly, because Visit has been accused by the committee of having bought and sold stocks in his private portfolio related to the fund's investments in the stock market.

In its preliminary findings, the committee blamed the alleged management irregularities for portfolio losses incurred by the GPF in 2007 estimated at between Bt18 billion and Bt24 billion.

The losses could also be attributed to the cyclical downturn of the stock market. However, the GPF board's decision to dismiss Visit instead of accepting his resignation shows that there may be grounds for concern. Besides, people in charge should have come up with an answer for the public on whether there were indeed any irregularities in the fund management.

The public deserves to be able to thoroughly scrutinise the GPF management. After all, the GPF manages around Bt400 billion in assets for about 1.2 million civil servants in Thailand.

The GPF was created 12 years ago to ease the government's burden of financing retirement programmes for government officials. The fund management was reformed to ensure that civil servants retiring at the age of 60 would receive pension contributions during the final years of their lives.

The government changed the pension-fund management, making it more professional, to ensure that the fund is independently operated to benefit retired civil servants. The GPF is like any investor on the stock market. Its management should be required to observe the rules and regulations in the same fashion as other investors.

In spite of the SEC's preliminary ruling that it had yet to find any evidence of insider trading, the panel on the prevention and suppression of graft has asked Visit and GPF executives to provide more information regarding the alleged irregularities in the fund management.

The authorities somehow overlooked the management of the GPF, even though it has the same status as any other investor in the market.

The controversy surrounding the fund should provide a lesson that the integrity of the supervision of public funds should not be compromised. Meanwhile, other semi-government agencies that deal with public money should learn a lesson from the GPF controversy - they need to make their management transparent to prevent damages to the agencies' reputation.

The GPF commands a massive amount of money, which can direct the course of the movement of stocks in which it decides to invest. The agencies in charge must carry out the process of investigation and tell the public what exactly has happened with the GPF.

Meanwhile, the Finance Ministry should try its best to ensure that the GPF will be managed with good governance and use it as an example for other investors in the market.

Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij recently ordered the GPF board to review the fund's rules and regulations. Let's hope this process continues correctly and restores public confidence in the fund management.