In a result that sent ripples through Thailand’s civic chat rooms and comment sections, the State Audit Office (SAO) was crowned the country’s most transparent and integrous independent government agency in the Office of Integrity and Transparency Assessment’s (ITA) 2025 rankings. The award, handed out at a ceremony on 15 August, looked impressive on paper — but many Thais scratched their heads and asked: can a watchdog also be the subject of serious construction controversy?
Top performers — and the big picture
The ITA, which operates under the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), evaluated 8,317 government units for the 2025 fiscal year. The national average nudged up to 93.82 points — a 0.77-point rise from last year and comfortably above the anti-corruption master plan benchmark.
In the category of independent organisations the top five were:
- State Audit Office (SAO) — 94.64 points
- Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) — 93.47 points
- National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) — 93.18 points
- Office of the Ombudsman — 90.51 points
- National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) — 90.27 points
On paper, these results suggest a steady improvement in institutional transparency across the public sector. In practice, however, the SAO’s top billing has sparked a lively debate online — and for good reason.
The elephant in Chatuchak
Earlier this year, the SAO’s new headquarters in Bangkok’s Chatuchak district suffered a dramatic collapse after tremors from an earthquake in Myanmar. The partially constructed building — a project with a budget exceeding 2.6 billion baht — raised immediate eyebrows when photos of the damage began circulating. Critics questioned whether substandard materials, design flaws, or poor oversight were to blame. The incident is currently tied up in the courts and remains under judicial consideration.
So when the SAO stepped onto the ITA winners’ stage, many members of the public took to social media to voice incredulity. The message, in short: how could the agency judged most transparent also be entangled in a high-profile construction failure?
How the SAO defended its crown
The SAO answered its critics on its official Facebook page, walking readers through the ITA methodology. The agency pointed out that the ITA assessment blends three independent surveys:
- Internal Stakeholders’ Perception Survey
- External Stakeholders’ Perception Survey
- Public Information Disclosure Survey
According to the SAO, their scores were strong across the board — with one notable exception. The sole indicator where the SAO fell below 85 points was “Work Improvement” in the Internal Stakeholders’ Perception Survey, where it scored 81.74. The office pledged to tackle that shortcoming in the coming year.
That explanation didn’t quiet everyone — transparency is more than procedural boxes checked on a form — but it did put the evaluation process into a clearer light for some observers.
Why the fuss matters
Public trust is the currency of good governance. Awards and rankings can help build that trust, but only if the public feels they reflect reality. The SAO’s victory highlights a stubborn tension: reputational recognition from oversight bodies versus visceral public concerns after a very visible failure. It’s worth noting this isn’t the first time ITA results have provoked backlash — last year the Election Commission’s top score drew its own wave of criticism.
For citizens, the debate isn’t purely symbolic. A collapsed building on a 2.6-billion-baht project raises questions about procurement oversight, contractor vetting, and accountability mechanisms — the very areas transparency measures aim to protect. For the SAO, the job now is twofold: pursue the legal and technical inquiries into the Chatuchak collapse, and translate its high ITA score into concrete improvements that address the public’s anxieties.
Looking ahead
The SAO’s win and the subsequent public reaction underline a simple principle: transparency ratings can open doors, but they don’t close the book on accountability. The national uptick in ITA scores is encouraging, but the true test will be whether agencies use that momentum to fix weak spots, engage skeptics openly, and prove — with action, not just numbers — that they deserve the public’s trust.
Whether you’re scrolling through comment threads or reading the formal ITA report, one takeaway is clear: transparency isn’t a trophy you win once. It’s a habit you earn every day — and for the SAO, the next year will be a crucial chapter.
The SAO winning this award while their new HQ fell down feels like a bad joke, but the ITA score shows something else.
This is embarrassing; you can’t brag about transparency and then have a billion-baht building collapse. Sounds like cronyism to me.
I agree the optics are terrible, but we should separate the legal investigation from public trust issues; both matter and both need answers.
Optics are part of institutional legitimacy. A high procedural score doesn’t automatically repair reputational damage caused by visible failures in procurement oversight.
The ITA methodology mixes perception and disclosure surveys, so an agency can score well on paper while still having operational blind spots.
So basically you can pass a test about being transparent while still being bad at managing big projects? That sounds hollow.
They need real-time procurement dashboards and third-party audits, not just annual surveys. Transparency has to be continuous.
How did the ITA let this happen? The public will never trust a watchdog that drops its own building.
ITA is a numbers game. If you fill forms and publish PDFs, you get points. Actual oversight is a different skill.
Exactly. Publishing documents isn’t the same as enforcing standards. Citizens see the end product: a rubble site and unanswered questions.
As an engineer, I want to see the structural reports. Earthquakes can do strange things, but design and materials must be scrutinized.
Maybe the SAO scored well because they are transparent about the collapse and are cooperating with courts. We shouldn’t jump to conspiracies.
Cooperating publicly is one thing; accountability in procurement and contractor selection is another. Courts will take time but the agency should publish interim findings.
Transparency means quicker disclosure of vendor contracts and inspection records. If they delay, trust erodes fast.
This is all staged. Agencies protect each other. The score is a cover so nobody takes real blame.
It’s easy to say ‘staged’ when you don’t know the facts. But it’s fair to demand independent probes and full disclosure of contracts.
From a legal standpoint the collapse triggers procurement law and criminal negligence inquiries. The ITA award doesn’t halt those processes.
Legal processes are slow. By the time anything happens, people forget and officials get promoted. That cycle undermines trust.
I just feel angry that so much money could be wasted and no one seems to be held accountable yet.
That cycle you mention is common when institutions lack robust whistleblower protections and independent oversight that can act quickly.
Judicial consideration doesn’t equal truth. We need transparent interim audit reports and a clear timeline for investigations.
Agreed. The SAO should publish a timeline and regular updates so citizens can see progress instead of speculation.
Regular updates help, but they must come with data: contractor selection criteria, materials tests, and inspection logs.
This is a messy situation. I want the people who approved the design to be named and investigated.
Transparency metrics often focus on information disclosure while neglecting governance quality. A balanced scorecard would help.
If procurement is outsourced to buddies, no amount of published PDFs will convince me. Real reform means breaking patronage networks.
How would you propose breaking those networks? Civil service reform and transparent e-bidding could help, but it’s political.
Introduce open-source procurement platforms and public vendor ratings. Let the media and civil society monitor in real time.
People conflate transparency with perfection. The SAO might be open about internal faults yet still be poor at project execution.
Open about faults? They only release what suits them. Remember how other agencies spun scandals last year.
Skepticism is healthy, but blanket cynicism helps no one. Demand evidence, not just accusations.
If substandard materials were used, forensic engineers will find it. Let’s wait for the technical report before burning anyone publicly.
Waiting feels like accepting injustice. Families of affected workers or local residents deserve answers now.
The ITA should consider adding a procurement integrity indicator. That would force agencies to be evaluated on projects, not just paperwork.
A procurement integrity indicator is a sound idea, but it requires clear metrics, independent verification, and political will to implement.
Media outlets also share blame for sensationalizing without explaining the technicalities. Balanced reporting would help public understanding.
Media sensationalism happens, but they are also the ones who pushed for investigation when nobody noticed the budget ballooning.
Why do expensive public projects fail so often? This isn’t unique to SAO; it’s a pattern across agencies.
Understaffed oversight teams, political deadlines, and opaque supplier relationships create the perfect storm for failures.
And don’t forget cost-cutting. Contractors cut corners when profit is prioritized over safety.
Transparency awards are symbolic. Real reform comes from legal amendments that tighten procurement sanctions and protect whistleblowers.
I want to see officials resign if negligence is proven. Otherwise awards feel like trophies in a corrupt house.
Some commenters act like the SAO should have predicted an earthquake. Accountability is about process, not prophecy.
Predicting the quake is different from using bad materials or ignoring safety reports. There’s a big difference.
Institutional learning is important. If the SAO uses this as a catalyst for systemic procurement reform, their score will mean more.
Civil society groups should demand public dashboards showing contract milestones, materials certificates, and third-party inspection results.
I’d support that. Real transparency gives citizens tools to hold agencies to account, not just headlines.
Politicians and career officials share responsibility. Legal outcomes should not be the only mechanism for accountability; cultural change is needed.
If evidence shows fraud or gross negligence, criminal charges should follow. Otherwise we risk normalizing massive waste.
I hope the SAO listens and uses the ITA momentum to reform, not to deflect criticisms with charts and graphs.
I’ll believe transparency when procurement files are easy to read and the suppliers are public with conflicts declared.
Accountability ecosystems must include independent auditors, empowered ombudsmen, and engaged citizens. One award won’t build that alone.
This debate shows why metrics matter but can’t be the only story. We need qualitative investigations alongside quantitative scores.
I just want safety and honesty. Is that too much to ask from institutions handling public funds?