Officials at the Finance Ministry are reassessing the political and professional risks to them as the process to establish the rule of law has been a big blow to them.

The sacking of five senior officials at the ministry is obviously a part of this government and the Council for National Security's promise to restore the rule of law after the September 19 coup toppled Thaksin Shinawatra on the grounds of widespread corruption.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Pridiyathorn Devakula was forced to take action on Monday when the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) accused Sirote Swasdipanich and other four senior officials of failing to collect tax from members of Thaksin's family.

The general public may herald the NCCC and Pridiyathorn for setting a new benchmark for bureaucrats starkly different from what officials were told to do when Thaksin was at the peak of his political power. Yet, many people question whether the current government and societal mechanisms, via independent organisations, have given everybody fair treatment, as the big fish have not yet been caught.

During his five years in power, Thaksin brought in a new style of management, the so-called chief executive officer (CEO) style. He emphasised management and urged state officials to override rules, regulations and obstacles for faster implementation of government policies.

At first, Thaksin's CEO style was appreciated in almost every quarter of society. Many leading business figures, who were often entangled in a web of regulations when dealing with government agencies, wholeheartedly welcomed the new approach. The general public was pleased as they viewed Thaksin, a successful telecom businessmen, as the ideal leader in the globalisation context.

Indeed, bureaucrats in general agreed with the CEO management style. Honest officials often complained that corrupt politicians and state officials had easily found ways to circumvent the rules. At the same time, complicated rules were a barrier to honest officials enforcing measures to serve the public interest.

Complicated rules and regulations have long existed and they were designed to prevent corruption among politicians and state officials. But there is a consensus of opinion that they are not effective and that is part of the reason why the 1997 Constitution created independent organisations such as the NCCC, the Office of the Auditor General and the Election Commission to directly deal with corruption issues.

The case of Sirote might suggest that some officials went too far in following Thaksin's CEO style, that they interpreted the Revenue Code to favour those having political clout. It is because there are so many grey areas that competent and honest officials are reluctant to follow this example due to the possibility of wrongdoing. On the other hand, some officials were willing to risk their professional careers by violating laws and regulations - and for this they were promoted by Thaksin's government. The grey areas or legal loopholes looked less risky when such officials thought Thaksin's political support was strong and he would be in power for many years. As independent organisations were weakened by Thaksin's government, as alleged by the coup-makers, and as his government intervened in the NCCC and other independent bodies, the risks associated with violating the law were further reduced. Officials might not have been aware of the issue of conflict of interest under the Thaksin government, and this led them to miscalculate the political and professional risks.

"I think that since Sirote was sacked, officials have become more careful about working under politicians," said one official at the Finance Ministry. He lamented that bureaucrats are put under considerable pressure by politicians and those who do not bow to their demands will not be promoted.

As the case proceeds in court, the process of building rule of law will be scrutinised meticulously, but Sirote and the other four officials could walk free if the NCCC is unable to prove before the court that they were wrong. For the time being, it really makes sense for bureaucrats to reassess the political risks for the sake of their careers and reputations.

Wichit Chaitrong

The Nation