Thailand’s corruption score slips - Bangkok Post

Dancers perform at the Anti-Corruption Awards 2025 ceremony, held by the Anti-Corruption Journalists Association of Thailand, at the National Defence College in Bangkok on Dec 11, 2025. (Photo: Pattarapong Chatpattarasill) Thailand’s score in the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) survey declined to 33 out of 100 from 34 the year before, while its global ranking fell nine places to 116th, according to Transparency International.

The survey released on Tuesday covered 182 countries. Denmark topped the list with a score of 89 points, followed by Finland (88), Singapore (84), New Zealand and Norway (81 each).

Thailand’s score was on par with three other countries: Ecuador, Panama and Serbia. The Kingdom ranked fifth in Asean, with Singapore the highest and Myanmar the lowest at 169th with a score of 16.

In the past decade, the best CPI score Thailand has achieved was 38, in both 2014 and 2015. Rankings can vary more widely depending on the performance of other countries.

In 2022 Thailand jumped nine places to 101st even though its score rose just one point to 36. The following year the score declined to 35 but the ranking fell to 108th.

The three worst performers in the 2025 survey were Venezuela with a score of 10 points, Somalia and South Sudan (9 each).

Berlin-based Transparency International said the global average score in 2025 dropped one point to 42, and 122 countries scored below 50, signalling widespread public sector corruption.

“Only five countries now score above 80 (down from 12 a decade ago), and recent slippage in high-scoring democracies shows corruption risks can rise even where institutions once looked secure,” it said in a statement.

The survey ranks countries and territories according to the levels of public-sector corruption perceived by experts and businesspeople. It relies on 13 independent data sources, among them the World Economic Forum.

Countries that curb civic space often lose control of corruption, Transparency International said.

“In many places, leaders point to security, economic or geopolitical issues as reasons to centralise power, sideline checks and balances and roll back commitments to internationally agreed standards — including anti-corruption measures,” it said.

“Too often, they treat transparency, independent scrutiny and accountability to the public as optional.”