Open army accounts
Re: "Prawit defends army spending", (BP, Dec 3).
I share Defence Ministry spokesperson Lt Gen Kongcheep Tantravanich's concern that using incomplete information could cause misunderstandings and confusion among the public, and thus I propose much greater transparency be adopted. DPM Prawit cannot get by with assurances that "spending of the military budget strictly adheres to relevant laws" any more than a SET-listed company's president can assuage shareholders by saying "your firm's spending strictly adheres to relevant laws" -- and keep the company's books closed.
Since all funding for the military comes either from taxes or official work undertaken by soldiers, those monies properly belong not to the military but to taxpayers. For example, if I have my driver open a car-washing business, using my time, equipment and staff, all revenues (and expenses) from the car-wash are mine, not the driver's.
Thus, to assure fund owners that their money is being used as intended, I suggest that, as with any listed company, the military be required to have its finances audited annually under the same standards and timetable as a SET-listed firm, by auditors authorised by the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission, with results including off-budget items posted on the internet.
The sole exception would be matters of national security, but even those must have controls, and we can look to how more transparent countries, like Singapore, control their military's finances.
Thus, for example, we should analyse income and expenses at military-controlled radio/TV stations, horse racing, etc, for their relevance to the armed forces' mission of defending us from external enemies, and at how we could get more value for money in achieving that mission.
Yes, Lt Gen Kongcheep, let's clear up public confusion through greater transparency.