The war within the Defence Ministry between the minister himself and his subordinate, the defence permanent secretary, has not only shaken the ranks but raised a thorny question about the state of meritocracy in Thailand.
Army chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha usually leaves people seething with his blunt and often overly emotional responses to questions. But for once, his soldier-style bluntness is right on the mark. It's simply embarrassing for the military to have its people be seen fighting one another for a promotion.
Indeed, it's embarrassing for every profession. Why? Because when it comes to rewards or promotion, the decision to go by the merit system should have been adopted long ago.
I understand there are still diverse views about what the "merit" should constitute and how can they be evaluated fairly. Should merit include levels of education? Or should it be tied more to professional competency?
Each organisation can debate and define what it wants to include in its merit system but at least it should have been agreed by and large that personal connections or personal preferences have no role in the reward or reshuffle system.
The reality, however, is that the annual reshuffle list of the military or police force has always made big news in this country.
Why? Because it's always controversial and it's always followed by speculation about who has the backing of whom and is getting pushed there to serve whose interest.
Take this as an example. Earlier last week, Achirawit Suphanphesat, a former deputy police chief who sits on the Police Commission, complained that politicians are interfering in the reshuffle of police commanders.
About 80 police commander posts will be up for grabs in this reshuffle and the commission is authorised to take care of it.
Pol Gen Achirawit, however, said that as it turns out, politicians, policymakers and administrative figures (whoever they are) sent their lists of people they wanted appointed to the commission, apparently not for the commission to consider but to simply approve.
There is no question that the use of connections is bad. And all of us can support Pol Gen Achirawit when he said that these politicians should not expect that every single one of their requests will be honoured and that the police themselves should be free to make the final decision on who is most suitable for the positions.
But things get a bit complicated when Pol Gen Achirawit admitted himself that the police reshuffle is based on both merit, seniority and the patronage system. To be precise, only 33% of the transfers are based on merit, he said.
My question is this: what is "the patronage system"? Is it a kind of "quota" for politicians, policy makers and administrative figures (whoever they are)? If so, why must it be there?
The latest row at the Defence Ministry provokes similar questions. News reports say both Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat and permanent secretary for defence Sathian Phoemthongin insisted they have the right to choose the new permanent defence secretary.
Both also claim that their choice _ assistant to the army chief Thanongsak Apirakyothin for ACM Sukumpol and deputy permanent secretary for defence Chatree Thatti in the case of Gen Sathian _ best suits the post.
Gen Sathian said his choice is most appropriate because Gen Chatree has both seniority and a high rank.
Likewise, ACM Sukumpol said his nomination is the best one because Gen Thanongsak is a senior officer capable of coordinating defence affairs.
Haven't they established a clear set of criteria at the Defence Ministry regarding the qualifications of its permanent secretary by now? With proper weightings and scores?
The thing about the reshuffle and promotions is "appropriateness" is always in the eyes of the beholder. That's why the people in power need to put in place a clear set of what exact expectations a candidate must meet beforehand in order to quell questions and controversies that may rise after the fact.
More importantly, it's not like the Defence Ministry has never been through these conflicts before. In fact, it went through exactly the same dilemma last year when then defence minister, Gen Yutthasak Sasiprapa, and then retiring permanent defence secretary, Gen Kittipong Kesakowit, differed in their choices for the permanent secretary post.
Will the Defence Ministry learn to avoid repeating this conflict? If not, it would seem that continued lack of clarity is but one of its strategic positions.
Atiya Achakulwisut is Deputy Editor, Bangkok Post.