Nobody has publicly declared that the emperor is not wearing any clothes just yet. That means that somebody somewhere will have to tell the prime minister that he has grossly underestimated the capacity for manipulation of the corrupt officials who surround him and who heap compliments on him at every step. The idea of holding an e-auction may sound exciting, and “e-government” may smack of “visionary leadership”, but such thinking is also a huge trap – this so-called “bureaucratic reform” contains the seeds of its own destruction. A personal declaration from the premier might not look the same when it gets to the implementation stage.
E-auction and e-government, interpreted superficially, with form over substance, could well lead to plenty of “e-corruption”.
A veteran insider told me the other day that if the premier were serious about cracking down on corruption, he would have to realise that holding an e-auction would in no way prevent palm-greasing among elements of the “Vicious Triangle” of bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen.
“First, if you want to take part in an e-auction being organised by a certain government agency, you first have to apply and undergo screening to be qualified. Does the prime minister realise that in many cases, potential bidders have to pay certain members of the screening committee a certain fee to be qualified?” an old-timer asked.
That is known within the inner circles as an “entrance fee”. In this case, the corruption precedes the e-auction process. The under-the-table payment doesn’t get recorded.
Once the “entrance fee” has been paid, a list of the names of the qualified bidders is made public. That opens up the way for collusion among the contenders. Such a price-fixing conspiracy is known as a “hua” in trade parlance.
The insider I spoke with says the prime minister should also realise that what he admiringly refers to as an “e-auction” is just one small part of the overall government bidding process. The dirty money comes into play before and after that supposedly “transparent” procedure takes place.
“The premier may also need to be told that the costs involved in this process have been jacked up because only qualified ‘neutral companies’ are commissioned to run the electronic bidding process. And does anyone realise that at the moment there are only seven government-approved neutral companies that are qualified to undertake this highly noble task,” this disillusioned veteran told me.
Perhaps the most important point in deciding how “clean and transparent” the e-auction system is, is the end result. The premier, this insider suggests, can best ascertain the degree of honesty (or the lack of it) of the people involved by checking the daily reports on the winning bids.
“Why is it that the winning bids are almost always just slightly below the official median prices?
It’s an unmistakable, eye-catching pattern. It’s there for everybody to see and analyse. It tells a story that the government has chosen to ignore. Or am I being too naive?” he asked. He didn’t have to pose that question. He knew the answer.
I asked him why this apparent flaw hadn’t caught the attention of the officials concerned. “They aren’t that innocent. It’s an open secret. They all know what’s happening. They aren’t talking – either because they are players in the game or they are scared of being victimised. And don’t forget, if your big boss keeps talking about how fantastic e-auctions are, are you going to stick your neck out and blow the whistle?”
The e-auction, despite all the brouhaha stirred up by the premier, has yet to prove that it’s free of the state-of-the-art graft known as “e-corruption”.
Autor: Suthichai Yoon
Quelle: The Nation, 09.06.2005
