Weapons buys need scrutiny
The 340-million-baht airship saga brings to light serious problems regarding the weapons acquisition process and the need to make it more accountable. The airship, Aeros 40D S/N 21, nicknamed Sky Dragon, together with a security patrol system was purchased in 2009 during the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration when Gen Anupong Paojinda served as army chief and Gen Prawit Wongsuwon was defence minister. Of the total price, 209 million baht was spent on the aerial surveillance system comprising the blimp itself and two patrol cameras, and 131 million baht on an aerial patrol system using helicopters.
It was explained that the airship was needed to enhance the effectiveness of air patrols in the insurgency-plagued far South since it could fly silently for long periods of time, as opposed to unmanned aerial vehicles.
The army decided to decommission the airship this year amid reports that when in service, it was rarely used, given its technical problems. Refilling the airship with helium was also costly. There were reports the army had to spend up to 25 million baht in subsequent years for refilling and that was the reason the airship was mainly kept in a hangar at the 15th Infantry Division in Pattani’s Nong Chik district.
The decommissioning of the airship was leaked amid reports that the army is planning the fresh procurement of a military vehicle to tow a barrage balloon.
In the wake of public suspicions, army spokesman Winthai Suvaree explained that the airship’s outer skin is made of tarpaulin, and that means the service lifetime of the vessel is limited, particularly in Thailand’s humid tropical climate.
Gen Anupong downplayed the controversy to incomplete information and also “misunderstandings”.
In 2015, the purchase of the airship triggered a dereliction of duty allegation against former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban. The Pheu Thai Party took the case to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), asking it to impeach Mr Suthep for allegedly failing to stop the army from buying the airship at an inflated price. The NACC dismissed the request.
The anti-graft body this week turned down a call that it review the case, citing a lack of new evidence.
Democrat Party leader Abhisit who gave the green light to the army to buy the vessel also said the airship saga might be a case of cost inefficiency rather than corruption.
No matter what it is, the case shows that accountability is a big issue. It demonstrates that the purchase was made without a thorough study of whether the vessel was suitable for Thailand and if the climate here led to its short service life.
By tradition, the military has the luxury of keeping its acquisition process confidential, citing national security. Few, if any agencies, dare to stand in the way when the army wants to replenish its arms supplies, especially at a time when a military regime is in power, resulting in a sharp rise in the military budget.
Even when a deal draws public suspicion such as when the navy ignored public concerns and went ahead with the 36-billion-baht submarine procurement scheme in May this year, it appears scrutiny by state agencies such as the Office of the Auditor-General was not very substantive.
But the airship and G200 purchase controversies, not to mention the navy’s aircraft carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet and some other deals that may remain hidden under the carpet, make us realise that changes are needed to the acquisition process.
The army should make the process more accountable and transparent and ensure a thorough study is completed. On top of that, it must seek the views of third parties and experts to ensure that what it wants to buy is really necessary. Otherwise, such bad purchases will come back to haunt us time and again.
The military has the luxury of keeping its acquisition process confidential.