More bribes to 'look into'
Re: "NACC to probe bribes by Deere", (BP, Sept 14).
Can we expect as much in-depth investigation and prosecution of malfeasance in the case of bribes paid by Deere's subsidiary Wirtgen Thailand to Thai officials as we have seen in similar cases involving Rolls-Royce and Toyota? Rolls-Royce admitted bribes had been paid to Thai officials to grease the way for lucrative contracts.
In the Toyota case, the motor company reported "possible anti-bribery" violations in making payments to influence Thai court decisions affecting alleged failure to pay import taxes on auto parts.
To reduce their potential fines and legal exposure, these companies have disclosed details of the bribes to US and European regulators and offered similar cooperation with Thai investigators. Until now, however, there has been no evident legal action taken against the Thai officials allegedly accepting the bribes. We can now add the Deere case to the list of those the National Anti-Corruption Commission has promised to "look into".
Will govt probe this graft?
Re: "NACC to probe bribes by Deere", (BP, Sept 14).
Will PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra go after officials at the Royal Thai Air Force, Department of Highways, and Department of Rural Roads who accepted John Deere bribes including cash, lavish trips, and other gifts to award government contracts over 2017-2024?
It is reported that Deere & Co has agreed to pay $9.9 million in fines for violating the US' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
It should be easy to identify the recipients. For example, Rolls-Royce admitted in a British court in 2017 that RR had bribed Thai government officials to buy RR engines worth over 14 billion baht. For THAI, our NACC indicted two former top THAI executives.
If Ms Ung-ing declines to pursue the crooks in high places with vigour, the Democrat Party should keep its vow to "pull out from the coalition immediately if there is corruption in this government".
Don't assume, run polls
Re: "EC, beware the chaff", (Editorial, Sept 12).
Did the Bangkok Post editor maintain a straight face whilst writing this sentence: "The EC and the Constitutional Court, as independent agencies endorsed by the former military-leaning Senate, have to carefully screen these complaints, and throw away the nonsensical ones"?
That central prepositional phrase is too telling. And then that killer follow-up sentence: "If not, they may be seen as being part of the political game". Yes. Maybe.
The way to discover whether some institution is in fact "seen as being part of the political game" is to run the polls. That is really the only way to get reliable statistics on how a population feels about any issue, institution, or person, political or otherwise.
In the absence of such polls, preferably done periodically, claims about how a people or demographic feel about any topic, person or institution are little more than wishful fantasies. Who would prefer such willful deceit to honest knowledge? Why would anyone force the former rather than enabling the latter?
The resemblance is uncanny
Re: "Moo Deng a global media sensation", (BP, Sept 13).
The photograph of this goblin hippo brings to mind a certain individual with a similar girth and penchant for expensive watches. Not so adorable though, but an appetite for attention and otherwise must be the same.