With key political parties vowing to downsize the military and defence spending as part of their campaign policies, the junta this week has tried to safeguard its interests by claiming transparency in its budget proposals and citing possible adverse effects if the country lacks an adequate defence.
Its reactions, however, were premature and missed the point.
First, these are just proposals, which will still be subject to debate and approval by parliament if the parties proposing them win the March 24 general election.
Pheu Thai's proposals to cut the defence budget by 10% or 20 billion baht a year and reduce the number of generals, and Future Forward's policy to end conscription have nothing to do with putting the country's defence capability at risk. They are more about re-setting priorities for the military, a first step toward greater military reform.
Defence spokesman Lt Gen Kongcheep Tantravanich on Wednesday went on the defensive, saying the ministry's budget proposals have been transparent as they followed normal parliamentary procedures. While citing the army's necessity to guard the nation's interests, he did not elaborate in detail whether the budget was proportional to requirements.
On Monday, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha also cited the need to upgrade the country's weaponry and catch up with the defence capabilities of other countries as a justification for the military's major arms and military hardware purchases under his watch. The spikes in defence spending over the past few years are proportional with those of other ministries, he said.
What both did not spell out was the lack of transparency. Since the 2014 coup, defence budgets have been proposed, scrutinised and approved by the same regime and its appointed "lawmakers". As a result, a new elected government and a new House of Representatives have every right to review past defence budgets and propose cuts over the next few years if necessary.
In fact, the trend to spend big on defence started right after the 2006 coup. Over the past 15 years, the country has invested more in defence than in public health. In the 2018 fiscal year, for instance, the defence budget was 85 billion baht higher than that allocated for the Public Health Ministry.
Why does the country have to spend more on weaponry and soldiers than on hospitals, medical equipment and resources? At the same time, Thailand over the past few decades has not been engaged in any full-blown wars apart from minor, ad hoc border conflicts, illegal drug and human trafficking operations and the fight against insurgents in the deep South. More worryingly, the military's resources have been freely used to crack down on street protests and stage military coups.
The proposal to repeal the conscription law which has been in place since 1954 also deserves looking at. The country drafts about 100,000 conscripts every year and spends about 12 billion baht on their salaries, without questioning whether conscription suits the times or whether there are other alternatives such as volunteer recruitment.
The Defence Ministry cannot keep allowing its budget to balloon and enlarging its pool of resources without expecting the government and parliament to look the other way.
The proposals by Pheu Thai and Future Forward should have been perceived as common administrative strategies to force a reorganisation of the military that could eventually bring about leaner and more efficient armed forces.