More "inactive posts" as a penalty for corruption, which I'm sure was a real deterrent . . .

Until the concept of "inactive posts" has been removed once and for all from the mind set in the Thai government, their history of business as usual will preclude any progress.

More "inactive posts" as a penalty for corruption, which I'm sure was a real deterrent . . .

Until the concept of "inactive posts" has been removed once and for all from the mind set in the Thai government, their history of business as usual will preclude any progress.

So what is your recommendation then that should be done with a top civil servant who they know has been deep into corruption but have no positive proof that would stand up in court ?

Would you sack them anyway without proof of wrongdoing ? In a country where litigation is normal you know what would happen don't you.

Would you leave them in the job until such time as proof was forthcoming ? Allowing them to either continue scamming or give them the chance to cover any trails.

Or have you any better ideas ?

It is going to surface elsewhere too, do not worry.