Tawida Kamolvej explained in detail the steps and authority of the Governor and the Committee in considering punishment for the Bangkok running track corruption case. She noted that the case has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for assistance in investigation. Currently, the case is in the inquiry process, and if wrongdoing is found, the penalties will be more severe.
10 June 2026 GMT+7 Ms. Tawida Kamolvej, former Deputy Governor of Bangkok, posted a statement and answered questions via Facebook regarding the corruption case involving the purchase of exercise equipment by Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA). Mr. Suphanat Meenchainan, Member of Parliament (MP) for Bangkok from the People's Party, has been closely following this matter and requested a clear explanation about whether the Bangkok Civil Service Committee (Committee) is not the Governor of Bangkok, and the Governor of Bangkok is not the Committee. This misunderstanding diverts the issue and shows a lack of understanding of authority in the civil service system. As for why the Governor did not raise objections himself, if the Committee did not object, what would happen? This question suggests acceptance that the case is not yet closed. The case has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Now, can the Committee reconsider the penalty? Will the penalty be harsher? The questioner should read the official regulations and try working on such cases.
Ms. Tawida further explained: To respond quickly in spoken language but legally checked for accuracy, the Committee consists of 18 members, while the Governor is only one person. However, the Governor serves as the Committee's chairperson by position (can delegate to the Deputy Governor). The Governor has already exercised the right to object once by not accepting the initial investigation results, requesting the investigative committee to conduct further inquiries. When the investigative committee reaffirmed their original findings, the Governor must use the disciplinary subcommittee and the Committee to agree or disagree. If the case is sent back to the investigative committee and there is interference or orders to change the penalty, it would be an overstep and compromise the independence of the investigation (considering other cases where civil servants or personnel might be bullied). If the Governor exceeds his authority or disregards procedures and regulations, he can be challenged in the Administrative Court to protect those under investigation.
Regarding the disciplinary subcommittee of 17 members, 10 are external members, similar to the full Committee of 18 members with 10 external members. Referring the case to the disciplinary subcommittee and the Committee means allowing another panel to review, comment, raise objections, and vote to agree or disagree. In the running track case, both the disciplinary subcommittee and the Committee unanimously disagreed with the investigative committee and ordered further investigation.
As for why the Bangkok Anti-Corruption Monitoring Operations Center (BMA Center) — which includes the NACC, the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC), and the Anti-Corruption and Misconduct Division (ACMD) as members, with the Governor as chairperson — immediately referred the complaints and suspicious project information to the NACC, it was to proceed in parallel. The NACC has broader authority, efficiently investigates financial flows and collusion, and imposes harsher penalties. Even if not violating disciplinary rules, the NACC can investigate under corruption bases such as Section 157 or misconduct. In this Bangkok running track case, the NACC is currently conducting an inquiry (as of 9 June 2026).
Regarding why the Governor did not request a replacement of the investigative committee, Ms. Tawida revealed that according to regulations and appointment procedures, this cannot be done within just a few days. Establishing the investigative committee, monitoring the case file, following up on facts, and understanding previous investigation steps would prolong the process by as much time as already spent. Referring the case to the disciplinary subcommittee and the Committee means assigning another panel with external members, providing a mechanism with dignity, rights, and transparency.
“If the new investigation results by the disciplinary subcommittee and the Committee lead to a resolution with a heavier penalty, they can increase the penalty. Moreover, if the NACC also issues a penalty decision, additional penalties can be imposed accordingly. In the next post, I probably won’t need to explain the mechanisms and independence of the disciplinary investigative committee, disciplinary subcommittee, Bangkok Civil Service Committee, Bangkok Anti-Corruption Monitoring Operations Center, and the system of checks and balances involving the Governor of Bangkok.”