Chadchart under fire over claims of meddling in appointments

Activist Srisuwan Janya on Monday petitioned the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate Bangkok governor Chadchart Sittipunt over allegations of interference in the appointment of senior Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) officials.

Mr Srisuwan asked the anti-graft agency to examine claims that an individual known as “Agong” wielded undue influence over personnel decisions within the BMA and was involved in the alleged trading of official positions.

The complaint followed allegations made by former Pheu Thai Party MP Jirayu Huangsap during the Inside Thailand television programme last Tuesday.

He claimed that two individuals known as “Sia Tor” and “Sia Por” exercised significant influence over the appointments of senior BMA officials.

He alleged that the pair controlled major budgets and were involved in bribery linked to personnel transfers and appointments in several government agencies.

The allegations gained further attention when Economic Party leader and MP Chris Potranandana held a press conference on Thursday outlining what he described as Agong’s network.

Mr Chris questioned whether Mr Chadchart or Agong held greater influence within the BMA, alleging that the network was involved in trading official positions, some reportedly worth up to four million baht.

He said he possessed evidence relating to the transfer of 17 BMA officials — including 16 district directors and one inspector — during Mr Chadchart’s tenure.

According to Mr Chris, the officials were formally transferred to the Office of the Permanent Secretary but continued to perform duties in their original district offices.

While saying he did not regard Mr Chadchart as personally corrupt and acknowledging his popularity among Bangkok residents, Mr Chris said questions remained about the fairness and transparency of the BMA’s personnel management system.

Former deputy Bangkok governor Tavida Kamolvej rejected the allegations, saying that previous appointment orders had been revoked following complaints about inconsistent evaluation criteria and had subsequently been reviewed by the Merit System Protection Commission.