For many, suggestions for bureaucratic reform in Thailand are empty slogans rather than viable policy commitments. It’s one thing to restructure government agencies, as Thailand is doing in real time by splitting its Ministry of Tourism and Sports to merge tourism functions with the Ministry of Culture. It is another to tackle corruption and patronage networks, which has not been done in the eyes of public opinion. Worse still, a series of developments last month regarding the Interior Ministry, the centralized agency overseeing local government and internal security, highlighted alarming trends.
The first problem appeared in mid-June at the level of provincial leaders appointed by the Ministry of the Interior. A rumor spread online that the governor of Phuket, after cracking down on illegal beach businesses operating under the protection of influential officials, had been threatened with expulsion by one of his own deputies.
While the alleged source of contention is known in Phuket, a tourism and development powerhouse defined by varied and competing interests, the province’s growing notoriety as a hub for foreign business, coupled with the publicized display of powerful support from a certain high-ranking member of the civil service to circumvent formal structures, prompted Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to intervene directly in his competing capacity as interior minister. He quickly approved the reshuffle of Phuket’s two vice governors, Teerapong Chuaychu and Adul Chuthong, to the same positions in Nakhon Si Thammarat and Songkhla provinces respectively. The hope was that Nirat Pongsitthaworn, governor of Phuket since November 2025, would continue in office. However, he too was later transferred to Bangkok as deputy permanent secretary of the ministry.
Although this radical change was probably intended to create a clean slate and improve the efficiency of governance, the shrinking of the space left for the pursuit of one’s own interests is what matters most. Furthermore, only when the public believes that the conflicting parties are subject to impartial treatment is there an appreciation of the change in direction. Nirat having already served as deputy permanent secretary from 2020 to 2022, his reassignment to the same position naturally seemed to observers a demotion, even though his rank was technically equivalent to that of the governor. The fact that Nirat’s former MPs ended up in highly populated administrative centers is hardly considered a “downgrade”, further reinforcing the assumption that whoever gets stronger support prevails in the Thai bureaucratic system.
The second problem, that of would-be bureaucrats, exploded in late June. Thailand’s Central Bureau of Investigation has uncovered an illicit network helping candidates cheat their way through local government entrance exams in an exceptionally sophisticated manner, employing a hybrid method of altering physical answer sheets and manipulating digital records.
The scale was also unprecedented. In 2025, there were 6,669 vacancies in the Department of Local Administration of the Ministry of Interior. Out of more than 400,000 contestants competing, 9,000 used the cheating service to ensure their success, paying between 150,000 baht ($4,503) and 900,000 baht ($27,019) individually depending on the intensity of the competition in different local arenas. It is impossible for corruption at this level to take root without the complicity or direct orchestration of moles already entrenched within the bureaucracy. This is according to an awareness post from Thammasat Testing Center – one of Thailand’s largest exam organizers – and shared by the National Intelligence Agency.
The third problem looms in the area of subnational electoral politics, involving provincial administrative organizations (PAOs), municipalities and sub-district administrative organizations (SAOs). In late June, the Thai Senate passed an amendment bill to lift the eight-year cap on term limits and lower the minimum age from 35 to 25 for candidates for president, mayor and SAO chief.
The case for these changes is firmly rooted in the logic of continuity and democratic freedom, encouraging citizens to continue choosing politicians who actually do their job – in turn incentivizing those politicians to continue running – and attracting greater participation from younger generations. But these qualities do not happen automatically. Even if politicians – notably baan yai (local political dynasties literally nicknamed “big houses”) – do not necessarily take advantage of the changes to consolidate their power as skeptics would claim, the mere worry that this is the case already acts as a barrier dissuading “clean” people from running for public office.
The widespread disfigurement of Thailand’s internal governance bodes ill for the ruling Bhumjaithai party, which has controlled the Interior Ministry since 2023 and has growing influence over the Senate. Concerning the Ministry of Interior, there was only a few months’ transfer of power to the Pheu Thai Party in 2025. Thus, any contradictory signals from the Ministry of Interior, as the Phuket drama shows, can easily be interpreted as reflecting internal tensions within the Bhumjaithai leadership and, by extension, the longevity of the government he leads. The relationship between the official leader of Bhumjaithai and its founder who prefers to avoid the limelight, namely Anutin himself and Newin Chidchob, is under curious scrutiny at the moment.
A broader, longer-term implication of Thailand’s current predicament is whether local authorities can reliably respond to fluid security concerns. With reference to the National Security Policy (2023-2027), Thailand’s security apparatus has prioritized modernizing its collection and assessment of actionable intelligence while promoting area-based security for greater resilience, thereby laying the foundation for a whole-of-society approach to protecting national interests. The Interior Ministry’s recruitment of questionable human capital directly undermines this effort, and its effects will gradually be felt.
The situation as it is should not be considered directly as a threat. His high-profile revelation could be presented as a pretext to correct the flaws and restore public trust. We can only hope that those in positions of power will choose to do the right thing.