A survey has found people were asked to pay the highest combined amount of bribes and tea money at the Land Department's offices.
From left: Pasuk Phongpaichit, Thanee Chaiwat and Yongyuth Chaiyapong from Chulalongkorn Univeristy and Uthit Buasri from the National Anti-Corruption Commission at the seminar at the NACC's office on Chaeng Wattana Road on Nov 18, 2014. (Photo by Kitja Apichonrojarek)
But on average, public schools demanded the largest bribes, at 11,796 baht each, followed by 10,538 baht at customs offices.
Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Economics conducted the survey on 6,048 households from January and February this year to determine how much money was involved and where the serious problems were.
- Graft has evolved: Corruption fighters '10 years behind'
The poll found the respondents were asked to pay a combined 4.94 billion baht during the two months, down 68% from 15.40 billion baht in the same period 15 years ago, said Prof Pasuk Phongpaichit.
Of the total this year, 39% was solicited at land offices, 36% at police stations, 13% at public schools, 4% at the Transport Department, 3% each at customs offices and local administrative organisations and 1% each at the Revenue Department's offices and other agencies.
The poll also found heads of the surveyed households perceived that police were the most corrupt in the public sector, followed by MPs, Bangkok's city hall council, district councils and the Commerce Ministry.
They were also more concerned about corruption but to them the problem was less severe than economic problems and the high cost of living.
They believed educational institutions were the most efficient in tackling corruption, followed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Prof Pasuk said in general bribes in the form of cash comprised high-value bribes of 10-100 million baht each often found in procurements or large government projects and low-value bribes people pay in everyday life, or what she termed "household corruption".
The survey focused on the latter as it involves a lot of people.
However, to say that the severity of corruption or the amount asked from people was much less than in 1999 may be an understatement.
In the wake of high-profile corruption campaigns and news, the respondents could have been cautious when answering the questions. As well, bribes might come in non-cash forms.
"While the survey may give an overall picture of an improvement, the problem is acute in some areas and certain civil servants continue to be 'unusually rich'," she said.