Legislation: According to Global Integrity 2007, Thailand's anti-corruption legislation is evaluated as 'strong'. It is largely covered by The Act of Penal Code, B.E. 2499 and 2502. Active and passive bribery, attempted corruption, extortion, abuse of public office for private gain, as well as serving as an intermediary between two parties exchanging bribes and services, are all punishable by heavy sentences, including capital punishment. The Penal Code does not seem to cover bribery of foreign officials or business-to-business corruption as there is no mentioning of these phenomena. The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) covers the bribing of foreign civil servants. Shortly after hosting the 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference in Thailand in November 2010 the NACC proposed the ratification of the convention. The proposal was consented by the Thai Council of Ministers and in December 2010 the decision to join the convention was made. In March 2011, Thailand officially became the Convention´s 149th state party. The convention entered into force for Thailand on March 31, 2011. The Anti-Money Laundering Act 1999 criminalises money laundering and the use of crime-related money and assets. All members of government, members of Parliament, senators and government officials are required to declare their assets. The Constitution of 1997 was also an important part of the anti-corruption legislation because it stressed greater transparency and accountability in public administration. The new Constitution of 2007 is also drafted after the same principles and entails provisions about the access to public information. According to the US Department of State 2010, access to information is normally provided to citizens and the right is enjoyed without other restrictions than those related to national security and public safety. According to Freedom House 2010, the Constitution of 2007 differs on some important points from the Constitution of 1997. It restricts the Prime Minister to serve only two consecutive four-year terms in office; it mandates that instead of the previously fully elected Senate, 76 out of the total 150 members are elected and 74 appointed by judges and members of independent government agencies; finally, it reduces the number of members of the House of Representatives being elected through a proportional system. These amendments, drafted by the military-backed government that overthrew Thaksin in 2006, clearly bear traces of the military's will to curb the executive's power. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Thailand.

Government Strategies: While Thailand's legal framework for combating corruption has been in place since the late 1990s, enforcement of anti-corruption laws has generally remained weak. Petty corruption is dealt with regularly and is also used to demonstrate to the public that the government is taking its anti-corruption efforts seriously. However, investigations into large-scale political corruption were largely neglected until the military coup in 2006, when the military-backed government vowed to go after one of the 'big fish' and launched investigations into the activities of former Prime Minister Thaksin. In accordance with the 1997 Constitution, Thailand has set up formally independent anti-corruption institutions, such as the National Counter Corruption Commission (renamed the National Anti-Corruption Commission in July 2008), an Ombudsman, the Elections Commission and the Constitutional Court. In the past these institutions have been weakened by government interference and they have encountered difficulties when trying to enforce the law. Some commentators argue that this no longer applies to the Constitutional Court, which has made important rulings against the executive. In December 2008, for example, the Constitutional Court dismantled the People's Power Party, the ruling party at the time, on grounds of electoral fraud. As a consequence of the ruling the government was dissolved as well. The Court ruling has on the other hand been criticised by Thaksin and his allies for being politically biased against them, as reported by Freedom House 2010. In an attempt to bring anti-corruption efforts into focus, the Thai government and the NACC hosted the 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference in Thailand in November 2010. The NACC provided 2.2 million euro for the event. The objectives of the project, Thailand Anti-Corruption Expo 2010, were to develop cooperation among the network of anti-corruption agencies and to promote its expansion, to restore Thailand´s image as a country that is fighting for transparency and to develop an alternative national anti-corruption strategy. Participants of the Expo included governmental and private organisations, civil society groups, and others. The campaign, as well as focusing on strategy, stresses the participation of both public and private sectors in the implementation of anti-corruption strategies and initiatives. The strategy includes the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy Mobilisation Committee, including four sub-committees responsible for the Mobilisation of the public and private sector agencies, civil society and the mass media and administration, coordination and the monitoring of the strategy. In September 2011, the newly formed Anti-Corruption Coalition, which included the Stock Exchange of Thailand and 28 private organisations, hosted a march against corruption. The march, a step towards creating a culture of honesty and the fight against corruption, was led by the newly elected Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva. According to a September 2011 article by Oneindia news, they were also joined by the senate speaker and the chairman of the Anti-Corruption Centre. The Prime Minister led participants to pledge not to abuse power and to condemn corrupt behaviour. Meanwhile, the opposition leader promised during the march that his party would scrutinise any instances of corruption in all sectors. According to a September 2011 report by the National News Bureau of Thailand from the Public Relations department, the Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra took an oath during the Anti-corruption campaign and vowed to fight against corruption in Thailand, stressing that her government placed great importance on promoting good morals and transparency amongst all officials.

Anti-Corruption Agency: Originally mandated by the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2542 (1999), the National Counter Corruption Institution was established in 1999. In July 2008, its name was changed to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, the 1997 and 2007 constitution provide the NACC with the power to investigate and prosecute, including cases involving politicians and state officials, and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. The NACC consists of 9 members including the President and the Secretary-General, who are appointed by the King with the advice of the Senate. The NACC's duty is to carry out inspections and investigations of cases of 'unusual wealth'. It receives many complaints about corruption in local governments. However, investigations proceed at a very slow pace and only a few officials have been punished. After the military coup in September 2006, new members were appointed to the NACC. This was allegedly done to ensure that the members were not loyal to the previous government. The subsequent political instability in Thailand has had no effect on the NACC, whose staff remains unchanged. According to NACC Anti-Corruption Forum May 2009, NACC offices will eventually be established in all provinces, and it is believed to be a useful tool for establishing contact and cooperation with individuals at the grassroots level. Nevertheless, the Global Integrity 2007 is very critical of the anti-corruption agency, evaluating its performance as 'weak'. This may be due to a limited budget and lack of efficient cooperation on anti-corruption issues between government agencies as explained by a member of the NACC in a report by The Nation in 2010. In November 2010, the Commission kicked off an anti-corruption awareness campaign that coincided with the hosting of the 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference in Bangkok. According to the US Department of State 2010 Human Right report, the Anti-Corruption Agency received 2,779 cases prior to June 2010 of which 1,104 were completed, and that public officials were subject to disclosure laws.

Election Commission of Thailand (EC): The EC was formed under the Constitution of 1997 as an independent regulatory body to combat vote-buying in the electoral process. Its purpose is to control and organise elections for members of Parliament as well as for members of local administrations, and in this way ensure that Thai elections are conducted in a fair and lawful manner. The EC can call for a recount of votes and can even demand new elections. The EC was compromised during the April 2006 election, which was nullified by the Supreme Administrative Court. According to Transparency International National Integrity Systems 2006, the EC was suspected of acting in favour of the governing party (Thaksin's TRT) and thus not acting independently. After the 2006 election, the commissioners of the EC were all sentenced to jail for compromising the election and not following the laws that ensure that people give their vote in secrecy. A new group of commissioners has been appointed to the EC.

Office of the Ombudsman: The Office of the Ombudsman was established by the Ombudsman Act 1999 under the Constitution as an independent body with the power and the obligation to investigate complaints about public officials' negligence to perform their duties in compliance with the law. However, according to Global Integrity 2007, the office is criticised for lack of action, which may be taken as a sign of indirect political control. According to the Organic Law, the Ombudsman is not required to publish decisions based on the complaints received, but its website does make the results of decisions publicly available. Most cases are related to inappropriate behaviour of public officials, but several cases of corruption can also be found. Since its establishment in 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman had received 17,363 complaints and 15,653 complaints had been solved. More information can be accessed here.

Asset Examination Committee (AEC): All members of government, Members of Parliament, senators and government officials are required to declare their assets. The AEC consists of various entities (for example the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO), the Auditor General) and is authorised to freeze a person's assets when there is evidence supporting that the person has engaged in corrupt practices. Freezing of assets also includes the assets of the person's family. Former Prime Minister Thaksin's assets were frozen following the military coup in 2006.

Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO): The AMLO investigates cases according to the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1999, Section 3. These not only include cases related to drug dealing and prostitution, but also public fraud, fraud by financial institutions, bribery and tax evasion. The AMLO is only authorised to investigate, hence they hand over their investigation results to law enforcement agencies. The AMLO also carries out awareness raising tasks in relation to the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Office of the Auditor General (OAG): The OAG was reorganised in 1997 and placed under the Senate instead of the Prime Minister's Office. The OAG is headed by the Auditor General, who assigns duties to four Deputy Auditor Generals and three Assistant Auditor Generals who carry them out based on the State Audit Act and supervise state revenues and finances. According to Global Integrity 2007, the OAG receives regular funding and makes its reports publicly available, although many of these are out-dated. Some of the Auditor's reports can be accessed on the OAG website. Hence, Global Integrity 2007 considers the OAG to be one of the strongest institutions in Thailand.

E-Governance: Thailand has taken the first steps towards developing an e-governance framework, but it has still not been fully developed. E-auctions and e-procurement for public projects began to emerge in 2005 and 2006 respectively. Use of Internet transactions is envisioned to make procedures more transparent. However, household access to the Internet is not widespread in Thailand and the costs are comparatively high, thus limiting the scope and impact of e-governance. The Revenue Department has introduced e-filing of tax on its website, where individuals as well as companies can file their taxes. The customs department has just introduced one-stop service customs houses, where customs papers can be submitted at a single entrance point.

Public Procurement: There are several laws governing public procurement and tenders, one of which is the Act Concerning Offences Relating to Submission of Bids to Government Agencies 1999. It states which acts are illegal and corrupt on both sides of the contract. Thailand is currently revising its procurement regulations in order to bring them in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction and Services. Government procurement has to be advertised on the government procurement website (in Thai). The interval from the advertisement to the deadline for submitting a bid must be at least 21 days. Post-awarding negotiations are allowed, but allegedly only when they serve the best interests of the state. According to Global Integrity 2007, if a company is caught cheating in the bidding process, it may in principle be barred from participating in future competitive bidding. However, sometimes companies that have been barred circumvent this by setting up 'nominee companies' which on paper seem to be owned by persons that have no record of cheating in the procurement process, while in fact they are owned by the barred company. According to the Transparency International National Integrity Systems 2006, the government implemented an e-system in 2006, requiring that any projects worth more than TBH 2 million must be published on the government procurement website with at least 3 days before a bidding starts. The aim is to give the general public easy access to information on procurement, to enhance transparency and to reduce corruption. However, due to limited access to the internet, websites are not considered a key communication channel between public agencies and Thais, making this goal more elusive. According to Global Integrity 2007, Thailand has no laws yet on conflict of interests for public procurement officials. Procurement for the military is covered by another set of specific regulations. Companies should be aware that the procurement rules that apply to projects at the national level may not always be applied to projects at sub-national level. In March 2011, the Prime Minister of Thailand and representatives of 19 agencies signed a memorandum of understanding on tackling corruption in state procurement procedures. These agencies included the Prime Minister´s Office, the ministries of Information and Communication Technology, Commerce, Transport, Public Health, Transport, Social Development and Human Security, Tourism and Sports, Justice, Education and Industry. The memorandum required the active participation of all agencies in combatting bribe taking, price collusion and other graft in state procurement projects, as was reported by the March 2011 article in Bangkok Post.

Whistle-Blowing: According to Global Integrity 2007, Thailand does not have a specific law dealing with whistle-blowers per se, but protection can be derived from the Witness Protection in Criminal Case Act of 2003. Public sector whistle-blowers must request police protection in criminal cases, whereas private sector whistleblowers must hire police to provide them with protection. Thailand has an internal mechanism for reporting public sector corruption, but this measure is considered to be both slow and inefficient, and it takes between 90 and 125 days before authorities act on the complaint. Whistle-blowers in Thailand are not adequately protected and may experience harassment or dismissal. Hence, Global Integrity 2007 assesses whistle-blowing measures in Thailand as ‘weak’.

General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Thailand has the legal framework to effectively counter corruption. The former military-backed government put its legitimacy at stake by its promise to combat large-scale corruption and it succeeded in charging the former Prime Minister Thaksin with corruption. The provisions regarding the access to information entailed in the new constitution represent a positive development as well. The 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference held in Thailand in 2010 has been described as a milestone in Thailand´s effort to combat corruption. The conference not only resulted in the ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption, but has also raised awareness among the public of corruption in Thailand. However, Thailand still lags behind regarding implementation of and compliance with its own legislation. The asset declaration requirements for anyone working in government and politics have so far failed to hinder conflicts of interest between politicians and officials on the one hand and business on the other. Furthermore, Thailand needs better legislation to protect whistle-blowers: to this point there is no specific law dealing with whistle-blowers. These are some of the challenges the new government will have to meet.