• 
• 

Published on November 29, 2007

Thailand's top brass got together this past week for a seminar that was more like a whining session for the ageing generals who continue to act like kids in a candy store. They moan about budget allocation - or the lack of it - saying the programme to modernise the military has suffered over the past decade since the 1997 financial crisis. There was even a veiled threat from the Navy's commander-in-chief, Admiral Sathiraphan Keyanon, who insisted that the proposed multi-billion-baht submarine procurement was essential for the security and defence of the country's ocean resources. He warned that the Navy should not be held responsible for failing to prevent any violation of territorial waters or an invasion, saying the blame should be placed on those who object to the procurement project.

Other military chiefs joined in the chorus, making the same pitch about the need for new armoured vehicles and jet fighters. While no one disputes the need to defend the country and maintain defence capability, the push for more money by the top brass begs the question: what are the priorities? While it would be unfair to the armed forces to declare that not a single piece of military hardware should be purchased unless all poor children are fed, clothed and educated, perhaps a little perspective on security issues could shed light and understanding on the matter.

First of all, we must have the moral courage to justify why taxpayers' money has to go to massive military hardware when there are more urgent security needs - namely the insurgency in the South, where more than 2,700 people have been killed since January 2004.

Sathiraphan pointed to the need to defend territorial waters and the natural resources therein. Surely he can do better than come up with this knee-jerk justification. The fish in our territorial waters have been depleted to the point that many of our fishing vessels have to troll through our neighbours' waters for their catch. Hundreds of Thai nationals are detained in our neighbours' jails on charges of intruding into their territorial seas to steal their resources.

Like most modern militarists, the Thai defence strategists are supposed to engage in long-term planning. Unlike in the past, these defence strategists are not able to point their fingers to any particular country or non-state entity and declare them as enemies. Defending natural resources happens to be a safe bet and supposedly a sure-win policy for the military.

The Navy, Air Force and Army have proposed a Bt300 billion budget for a 10-year procurement and modernisation programme to upgrade their inventory. Defence Minister Boonrawd Somthad said the armed forces' budget had been slashed following the 1997 crisis. But then again, that happened to most departments.

The problem with this picture is that throughout the modern history of Thailand, civilians have tended to stay away from crucial issues such as military spending and leave the armed forces' top brass to debate the matter by themselves, which they do in a clumsy manner. The elected political leaders think that by staying away from the debate, they will be free of responsibility and accountability. This may explain the tough talk this past week. It's high time that elected leaders stick their noses into this debate.

Historically, Thailand's military strategy and perceptions of threats to the nation have not always been in sync. For example, the idea of acquiring submarines has been around since the Cold War era. But no one ever really explained how such a fleet would be used in overall defence strategy. Perception of "threats" and the regional-global political context has changed significantly over the past three decades, but our top brass is determined as ever that they are going to get whatever they want.

Thailand's immediate threat is the insurgency in the far South. But this is purely a domestic crisis, not some international conflict which involves armoured vehicles and jet fighters. Perhaps Sathiraphan could explain how a submarine would help to contain militants in the restive South.What is scary is that there seems to be no end in sight to the violence. In terms of deaths, the conflict in the Malay-speaking region is now the worst in East Asia.

Perhaps if our defence forces pay more attention to missions, rather than commissions, the country would be in a better position.