NACC demands new evidence in blimp probe

Case cannot be revived otherwise, says chief

An investigation into the controversial airship purchase deal can only be revived with new evidence, says National AntiCorruption Commission (NACC) chairman Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit.

He was responding to Srisuwan Janya, secretary-general of the Association to Protect the Thai Constitution, petitioning the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) to probe the case.

Mr Srisuwan said that if irregularities are found, the OAG must forward its findings to the NACC to punish Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda, the man who approved the purchase of the blimp when he was army chief.

Mr Srisuwan’s petition also targets former cabinet ministers of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government which approved the budget for the purchase and operation of the army airship. It went into service in 2009 to aid security in the far South.

The cabinet members include deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban who oversaw national security and supervised the Defence Ministry.

Mr Suthep was subsequently accused by the Pheu Thai Party of failing to stop the army from buying the airship at an inflated price.

Claiming dereliction of duty, Pheu Thai petitioned the NACC to impeach Mr Suthep.

However, the NACC dismissed the request on Dec 24, 2015, saying it found no evidence to bear out the claim. Pol Gen Watcharapol said yesterday that if the investigation sought by Mr Srisuwan reached the NACC, it would have to consider whether the petitioner has uncovered new evidence which would support reviving the case against Mr Suthep.

“If the issue were to be brought back for consideration, there would need to be proof that new evidence exists,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mr Srisuwan formally presented the petition to the OAG yesterday, insisting the 340-million-baht airship aerial patrol project was not worth the budget.

He said the army had spent an additional 50 million baht a year on maintenance for the blimp, which pushed up the total cost to 700-800 million baht.

He said his petition singles out several targets for an investigation: Gen Anupong, the Abhisit cabinet which granted the army the budget to finance the airship project, the committee which inspected and received the airship and other state officials connected to the matter.

Pornchai Chamroonpanichkul, deputy auditor-general, promised to process Mr Srisuwan’s request urgently, although he declined to give a deadline.

“I’m asking the OAG to get to the truth of the matter,” Mr Srisuwan said.

“The information available [regarding the alleged problems with the project] should be even more solid than that in the submarine case,” Mr Srisuwan said, referring to the navy’s 36-billion-baht procurement plan for three new submarines.

The OAG conducted an audit of the planned procurement of the first submarine and said in May the project was aboveboard. It is one of three the navy intends to buy from China for 36 million baht.

The big blimp with a Royal Thai Army label and highly visible bull’s eye on its white body has been given the chop but the impression that the army is above scrutiny stays on. The decommissioning of the pricey airship that was rarely used for its supposed services of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in the restive deep South highlights how cronyism is a prevailing mentality in Thai society, how the mentality underlines deepening social rifts and how it will prevent the country from progressing to become a freer and fairer one.

Ever since it was purchased eight years ago in 2009, the 42-metre-long spy blimp has drawn criticism. The deep South was burning. Insurgent attacks, including bombings and roadside ambushes, many of them fatal, occurred almost daily. And the army, headed at that time by the current Interior Minister Gen Anupong Paojinda, thought the best way to fight the ground-based, guerrilla-style insurgency was from a dirigible balloon.

In theory, the Aeros 40D airship nicknamed Sky Dragon should fly up to 3,000 metres where it would be impossible to hear, and out of shooting range. In reality, the zeppelin flew into “technical problems” as soon as it was scheduled for launch in January, 2010. Soon after, leaks were found. A test flight revealed the airship could only fly up to 1,000 metres, or only one-third of its stated specification. Despite the low altitude, the army signed off to accept its delivery. In 2012, the airship needed repairs which cost 50 million baht. It required 300,000 baht a month to keep it filled with helium to prevent further leaks. Later that year, it crashed and suffered extensive damage.

Not much was been seen or heard about the airship again until it made an emergency landing in 2014. Then last week, army chief Gen Chalermchai Sitthisad accidentally told reporters the controversial blimp had been decommissioned. Throughout its life, the blimp was less a spy than a stooge. Have I mentioned that it cost 340 million baht of taxpayer’s money to buy the spy ship, but it stayed mainly in an expensive hangar? The good news may be that we won’t be paying 300,000 baht a month to keep it inflated and inactive any more.

What is most interesting about the “eye-in-the-sky” airship project is how people involved with its purchase reacted to news about its going out of service. When first confronted by reporters about the death of the airship, Gen Anupong said he had no comment as he had retired seven years ago.

Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-ocha, who succeeded Gen Anupong as army chief, declined to comment. So did Deputy Prime Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwon who served as defence minister at the time of the procurement. Later, after Auditor-General Pisit Leelavachiropas vowed to investigate if malfeasance was involved in the procurement of the aerial patrol system which included the airship, Gen Anupong said he would not object to such a probe. He also defended the project saying it is only the balloon that has been decommissioned. The more expensive elements including military-grade cameras remain usable. They will be used to equip helicopters. The minister said he had followed regulations and procedures in approving the procurement.

This misses the point. At issue is not whether the airship programme is recyclable but whether it was worthy of investment in the first place. Also, is it enough for state officials to say they have followed regulations to claim their innocence from dereliction of duty? What if the procurement proved to be insensible, wasteful and ineffective? The scale of damage may be different but in principle how is the dysfunctional airship different from the controversial rice-pledging scheme?

Given how notorious the army’s blimp has been, a tight-lipped response from the government normally keen on prosecuting those accused of graft or dereliction of duty seems out of place. It would appear the airship scandal will reaffirm a major fault in society that underpins so many of our maladies. Cronyism and a need to protect people deemed belonging to “our side” is often stronger than the law. Righteousness applies only to those who stand against us. Dereliction of duty is judged not by what you do but who you are aligned with.

Whether the little-used blimp should have been purchased at all remains the question. What is clear is the 340 million baht, or more than 400 million baht if maintenance and repairs are included, could have bought bomb body armour, cars or weapons that could have saved lives in the deep South. Now that it has gone to waste with the decommissioned blimp, who should take responsibility?