The purge of cheaters must be ruthless

Case-by-case approach to civil service exam rigging is not good enough

Barely a day after saying it would halt the appointment of new civil servants after a massive exam cheating scandal threw the entire process into question, the Department of Local Administration (DLA) reversed the decision, citing the threat of hobbled government operations.

Instead, it said, it would address wrongdoers on a case-by-case basis.

There are times for caution, but this is not one of them. The DLA and the entire Thai government need to act decisively and with prejudice against the affront that this discovery constitutes.

Let’s first dispense with the argument that a pause in civil service appointments — or a wider cleansing, even — would impede government services and be a detriment to the nation. The fact is that public services are already severely hampered by the presence of incompetent and unjustly placed fraudsters.

A police raid on an answer sheet tampering operation on June 24 reportedly led to the seizure of over 2,000 civil service tests that were being altered to grant entry and positions to unqualified individuals.

Not only were the people in question too inept to pass their exams, but they have revealed an indefensible readiness for dishonesty by paying up to 800,00 baht to bypass the hurdle altogether.

The tests were a requirement for some 7,000 roles serving citizens across the country. That the single operation netted more than 2,000 papers that were in the process of being doctored tells us that an overwhelmingly significant proportion of the incoming officials would have been those willing to cheat.

Based on the available numbers alone, close to a third of this class of test-takers paid to pass. To nullify the entire lot would not be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Plague of fraudulence

Moreover, this was highly unlikely to have been the first ever instance of answer alteration and is likely only one facet of a much larger system of fraudulence plaguing public service in Thailand.

Even if just anecdotal, there are surely many stories of citizens facing ineptitude when seeking local administrative services. If these experiences are a result of a surfeit of unsuited workers, what is the real threat of holding back this next batch?

More importantly perhaps, how impaired is the civil service at present with so many bad actors gumming up the works?

An aspirant willing to manipulate a recruitment examination for personal gain is unlikely to become a model civil servant once appointed or promoted. The same willingness to abuse authority for private benefit can easily manifest itself in procurement decisions, licensing, budgeting or personnel management.

The damage is likely already occurring in insidious ways.

The greater danger lies not in temporary vacancies but in allowing compromised officials to remain in positions of trust. Every day they continue exercising authority raises further questions about the integrity of decisions affecting communities across the country.

Then there are those honest public servants, who not only submitted to the rigours required of them to gain their offices, but joined the service with a genuine desire to do good for their compatriots.

Even if there is the fear that the burden will fall to their shoulders, it must be accepted that these are the sacrifices for which they signed up.

They may end up working longer hours, absorbing additional responsibilities and enduring public frustration as agencies adjust. That is unfortunate, but is it not worthwhile if it restores the purity of the institutions they serve?

Is it possible they are already suffering daily, encumbered by dishonest peers obstructing their best efforts and adding incalculable inefficiency to an already overtaxed system?

Cleaning house is rarely comfortable. Yet postponing difficult decisions in the name of stability often produces the opposite result. Public confidence erodes further, honest employees become demoralised and corruption becomes harder to uproot.

The DLA is facing a defining choice. It can treat this scandal as an isolated embarrassment to be contained, or as an opportunity to demonstrate actual accountability.

The public is judging not only those accused of cheating, but those responsible for deciding what comes next.