Nowadays, while one part of Thai society is teaching that "growing up without cheating" and trying to establish various mechanisms to eliminate corruption, it seems another group is struggling just as hard to spread the opposite view that corruption, when subjected to extensive scrutiny, does not disappear but rather hinders the country's development due to delays in investment caused by the very systems set up for oversight.

Take the issue of transparency in accordance with the principles of the Integrity Pact or the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST), which the government plans to implement for several large procurement projects. There are already reports of "well-meaning" individuals advising the government against its use, claiming it will delay all projects. They argue that while we are busy disclosing information, when will we be able to purchase the much-needed trains, buses, etc.? The common people will suffer unnecessarily.

This perspective is quite absurd at first glance, as it distorts the truth, making people feel that disclosing information creates additional steps in procurement processes. In reality, these systems do not interfere with existing procedures at all; they simply request that what was once kept secret be made transparent. If there is anything that causes delays, it is the irregularities that necessitate project slowdowns for verification, not the act of disclosure itself. Nevertheless, one thing that Thai people may need to come to terms with early on is that whether the fight against corruption causes delays or not, it will undoubtedly impact economic growth.

In fact, it is not just the Thai people who need to accept this; any nation that wishes to combat corruption after having relied on it for years must come to terms with this reality. China itself, after President Xi Jinping declared a war on corruption, saw many businesses that thrived on corrupt practices decline. Luxury hotels, high-end retail stores, and expensive restaurants faced plummeting sales. Karaoke bars and brothels that once catered to corrupt officials are now eerily quiet. One condom manufacturer estimated that usage dropped by over a million pieces per day in recent months, and even casinos in Macau, a major entertainment hub for Communist Party members, reported their first revenue drop in years.

Moreover, as corruption was tackled, many large investment projects in China came to a standstill, not because the anti-corruption system caused delays, but because officials were hesitant to approve projects as they did before. Alternatively, those who previously signed off on projects without due diligence were dismissed, and replacements have yet to be found. Ultimately, the result of China's anti-corruption efforts has led to a GDP growth rate of just 7.3% in the last quarter, the lowest in five years, putting significant pressure on the Chinese government.

However, the Chinese government seems unfazed, as during the recent Fourth Plenary Session, the Communist Party issued a statement declaring that economic growth is not the party's top priority at this time. The priority is how to combat corruption, which is a significant political courage. The Chinese authoritarian regime is largely accepted by the populace despite various oppressions because of its economic achievements. Given that China's economic system has long been intertwined with under-the-table payments, tackling corruption cannot happen without affecting growth.

On the other hand, this decision is also quite astute because no matter how anti-corruption efforts impact the economy, it will not be more detrimental than the devastation that would result from failing to address corruption. An economy sustained by bribes can only self-destruct, as resources flow according to the desires and ignorance of politicians rather than necessity. Projects that should be undertaken are neglected in favor of those that yield quick profits.

Furthermore, when the lucrative opportunities often relate to the country's infrastructure—such as transportation, energy, and communication—widespread corruption in these areas leaves other sectors reliant on infrastructure equally crippled. Conversely, if corruption can be resolved, even if the economy suffers in the short term, in the long run, the country's competitive capacity will soar without limitations.

This is not merely conjecture; there is evidence to support it. The Economist magazine noted that China has previously launched anti-corruption campaigns, albeit not as extensively as in the current era. For instance, the anti-corruption investigations in Beijing in 1995 and Xiamen in 1999 initially seemed to slow the economy by three percentage points, but both cities recovered quickly. Additionally, research indicates that regions in China that actively combat corruption tend to have higher incomes than those that turn a blind eye.

In summary, the leaders of China have made their choice regarding the type of economy they wish to build—whether it be superficial or stable.

It remains to be seen whether the leaders of Thailand and their ministers have made their choice yet.

SOURCE: www.thaipublica.org