What Does Thailand’s 2019 Defense Budget Mean?

[webfact]

What Does Thailand’s 2019 Defense Budget Mean?

The government’s announced figure constitutes a modest increase but masks ongoing challenges and issues.

By Prashanth Parameswaran

 

Last week, the Thai government announced new defense budget figures for the 2019 fiscal year. Though the headlines following the announcement indicated that another major increase had occurred, that hike in fact obscures the significant challenges and issues still confronting the Thai military and government with respect to its broader defense modernization plans.

 

As I have noted before in these pages, over the past decade or so, Thailand has had one of Southeast Asia’s highest levels of defense spending but has generally lagged behind the regional average percentage-wise in terms of government expenditures and GDP.

 

And while military coups in Thailand tend to see boosts in the defense budget, the military junta which came to power in May 2014 has been able to get some increases but not nearly to the level expected due to a range of factors including the country’s economic underperformance and related domestic scrutiny.

 

Full story: https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/what-does-thailands-2019-defense-budget-mean/

 

-- THE DIPLOMAT 2018-06-14

[cornishcarlos]

Just now, webfact said:

What Does Thailand’s 2019 Defense Budget Mean?

 

It means, even if there should be a shock result in the "promised" election and a genuine political party wins, the generals will all disappear with their pockets well and truly bulging...

[George Bowman]

14 minutes ago, webfact said:

that hike in fact obscures the significant challenges and issues still confronting the Thai military..

Border Post

[JAG]

Another couple of watches...

[leeneeds]

Defence budget includes updated Dalek models 

superdopper laser beam satellites 

magnetic field force deflector shield 

 bum recognition, electric jolting chair to who ever thinks they have the right to sit in the PM's chair, 

just to name a few, 

 

[grumbleweed]

Quote

 (just over $7 billion), as well as a reported additional $3 billion for security spending for a range of internal threats. 

In other words: "30% of the defence budget spent on defending the population from democratically elected governments." 

 

 

[Samui Bodoh]

An interesting article, but it misses or omits a few key points.

 

The article mentions overall defense spending, but it does not delve into what the actual threat(s) are to Thailand; a defense budget and the concurrent defense posture should correspond to a strategic analysis of current and future threats. I have never seen such a document (although I am certain one exists) and I do not see any large-scale military threat to Thailand currently or in the immediate future. What are the new equipment/upgrades for (specifically)?

 

Secondly, a better analysis of Thailand's military budget would also consider how monies are spent and whether there is 'value for money'. The most obvious place to begin is with the number of General Officers; I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but there is something like 10 times too many Generals for an army of Thailand's size. Further, it would be worth asking if military personnel are being used effectively; I recall a few times seeing stories in the newspaper regarding conscripts being used as personal servants. Finally, as above, do the manpower targets/needs correspond to the threats? If so, how? What is the evidence?

 

Finally, as noted in paragraphs one and two, budgets should correspond to mission(s) and threat(s). What exactly are the missions of the Thai Military? What exactly are the threats to Thailand that the military deals with? And, most importantly, in light of the frequent coups that occur in Thailand, how is it possible that those missions and threats are being dealt with? This is the most significant question, and I do not see a clear answer.

 

Until and unless the cycle of coups ends for good, any military budget will not and can not correspond to an actual threat or threats, and thus is essentially meaningless in terms of proper military preparedness and proper budgeting; it is, for all intents and purposes, simply a pot of money to be used in whatever fashion the current commanders wish.

 

That is not a proper or effective use of a military budget.

 

[kannot]

Means we have more money than sense

[kannot]

5 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

An interesting article, but it misses or omits a few key points.

 

The article mentions overall defense spending, but it does not delve into what the actual threat(s) are to Thailand; a defense budget and the concurrent defense posture should correspond to a strategic analysis of current and future threats. I have never seen such a document (although I am certain one exists) and I do not see any large-scale military threat to Thailand currently or in the immediate future. What are the new equipment/upgrades for (specifically)?

 

Secondly, a better analysis of Thailand's military budget would also consider how monies are spent and whether there is 'value for money'. The most obvious place to begin is with the number of General Officers; I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but there is something like 10 times too many Generals for an army of Thailand's size. Further, it would be worth asking if military personnel are being used effectively; I recall a few times seeing stories in the newspaper regarding conscripts being used as personal servants. Finally, as above, do the manpower targets/needs correspond to the threats? If so, how? What is the evidence?

 

Finally, as noted in paragraphs one and two, budgets should correspond to mission(s) and threat(s). What exactly are the missions of the Thai Military? What exactly are the threats to Thailand that the military deals with? And, most importantly, in light of the frequent coups that occur in Thailand, how is it possible that those missions and threats are being dealt with? This is the most significant question, and I do not see a clear answer.

 

Until and unless the cycle of coups ends for good, any military budget will not and can not correspond to an actual threat or threats, and thus is essentially meaningless in terms of proper military preparedness and proper budgeting; it is, for all intents and purposes, simply a pot of money to be used in whatever fashion the current commanders wish.

 

That is not a proper or effective use of a military budget.

 

biggest threat is from within if  they arent very careful.

[kannot]

Just now, kannot said:

Finally, as above, do the manpower targets/needs correspond to the threats?

If the amount  of Generals are anything to go by.....well!!!

Edited June 14, 2018 by kannot

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

An interesting article, but it misses or omits a few key points.

 

The article mentions overall defense spending, but it does not delve into what the actual threat(s) are to Thailand; a defense budget and the concurrent defense posture should correspond to a strategic analysis of current and future threats. I have never seen such a document (although I am certain one exists) and I do not see any large-scale military threat to Thailand currently or in the immediate future. What are the new equipment/upgrades for (specifically)?

 

Secondly, a better analysis of Thailand's military budget would also consider how monies are spent and whether there is 'value for money'. The most obvious place to begin is with the number of General Officers; I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but there is something like 10 times too many Generals for an army of Thailand's size. Further, it would be worth asking if military personnel are being used effectively; I recall a few times seeing stories in the newspaper regarding conscripts being used as personal servants. Finally, as above, do the manpower targets/needs correspond to the threats? If so, how? What is the evidence?

 

Finally, as noted in paragraphs one and two, budgets should correspond to mission(s) and threat(s). What exactly are the missions of the Thai Military? What exactly are the threats to Thailand that the military deals with? And, most importantly, in light of the frequent coups that occur in Thailand, how is it possible that those missions and threats are being dealt with? This is the most significant question, and I do not see a clear answer.

 

Until and unless the cycle of coups ends for good, any military budget will not and can not correspond to an actual threat or threats, and thus is essentially meaningless in terms of proper military preparedness and proper budgeting; it is, for all intents and purposes, simply a pot of money to be used in whatever fashion the current commanders wish.

 

That is not a proper or effective use of a military budget.

 

I don't agree with high defense spending, coming from a country like the Netherlands its not really done. 

 

However you are forgetting one big thing in your argument. Why do all the other countries have more defense spending in relation to GDP than Thailand, obviously there is a threat in the region or all the other countries would have a lower defense spending too. 

 

You don't see threats, i guess you overlooked China plus with everyone spending much on defense if Thailand stays behind that could create new threats to Thailand. There are still Islands that are contested and the border with countries that are contested. So there are definite threats. 

 

However I do agree that HOW they spend the money leaves a lot to be desired about. Subs (crazy) better get a good surface fleet. There are other examples too. 

[tracker1]

I wonder where all this money goes ? is it anything like the temple funding or destitute funding no checks and balances till years later !

[mok199]

The Budget Pie...everyone wants a piece of this Big Kahuna

[jayboy]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't agree with high defense spending, coming from a country like the Netherlands its not really done. 

 

However you are forgetting one big thing in your argument. Why do all the other countries have more defense spending in relation to GDP than Thailand, obviously there is a threat in the region or all the other countries would have a lower defense spending too. 

 

You don't see threats, i guess you overlooked China plus with everyone spending much on defense if Thailand stays behind that could create new threats to Thailand. There are still Islands that are contested and the border with countries that are contested. So there are definite threats. 

 

However I do agree that HOW they spend the money leaves a lot to be desired about. Subs (crazy) better get a good surface fleet. There are other examples too. 

I guess you overlooked that Thailand is in effect a vassal state of China (and has been for a few decades) and thus does not face a threat from that direction.As to the Spratly islands under contention Thailand does not claim any of them and has remained silent on China's acquisition of them, in contrast with the rest of ASEAN.

 

Thailand is in the fortunate position of facing no external threats.This places it in a different position to Philippines. Singapore and Indonesia.

 

You make the common error of assuming the purpose of the Thai military to block external threats (which as pointed out earlier are non existent).Its purpose is interfere in politics, to control and if necessary kill its own people to retain the status quo and repress democracy.Even more important is its wish to make money for its generals (more generals than any army in the world) by any means possible, corruptly if necessary.Military procurement for weapons against the non existent threat offers many obvious attractions by way of kick backs and backhanders.

 

Try doing some research.There's plenty available which might have the benefit of curbing your more ignorant musings.

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I guess you overlooked that Thailand is in effect a vassal state of China (and has been for a few decades) and thus does not face a threat from that direction.As to the Spratly islands under contention Thailand does not claim any of them and has remained silent on China's acquisition of them, in contrast with the rest of ASEAN.

 

Thailand is in the fortunate position of facing no external threats.This places it in a different position to Philippines. Singapore and Indonesia.

 

You make the common error of assuming the purpose of the Thai military to block external threats (which as pointed out earlier are non existent).Its purpose is interfere in politics, to control and if necessary kill its own people to retain the status quo and repress democracy.Even more important is its wish to make money for its generals (more generals than any army in the world) by any means possible, corruptly if necessary.Military procurement for weapons against the non existent threat offers many obvious attractions by way of kick backs and backhanders.

 

Try doing some research.There's plenty available which might have the benefit of curbing your more ignorant musings.

A vassal state or not, it still pays to have an army if China does make a threat its better to have a good army. You might not think so but I do. You also forget the border disputes and the large sea they have to police (subs were a bad thing but a better surface fleet would help to curb illegal fishing and keep an eye on their ocean). 

 

Are Asean states by treaty not obliged to help.. so if the Philippines get attacked by China where does that place Thailand. 

 

Maybe you should look things from an other side so you don't look as ignorant as you often do. 

 

The Dutch also thought the threats to be non existent, we learned quickly in 1940, we thought neutrality would work.. it did not.

Edited June 14, 2018 by robblok

[observer90210]

Any new military budget means it's Christmas, with all the brown enveloppes that will be changing hands !!

[Anak Nakal]

Much money but no control.

It birthday present for general. 

[Denim]

2 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

It means, even if there should be a shock result in the "promised" election and a genuine political party wins, the generals will all disappear with their pockets well and truly bulging...

 

Pockets no longer suffice. They will need samsonite cases with wheels.

Camoflaged color of course.

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

An interesting article, but it misses or omits a few key points.

 

The article mentions overall defense spending, but it does not delve into what the actual threat(s) are to Thailand; a defense budget and the concurrent defense posture should correspond to a strategic analysis of current and future threats. I have never seen such a document (although I am certain one exists) and I do not see any large-scale military threat to Thailand currently or in the immediate future. What are the new equipment/upgrades for (specifically)?

 

Secondly, a better analysis of Thailand's military budget would also consider how monies are spent and whether there is 'value for money'. The most obvious place to begin is with the number of General Officers; I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but there is something like 10 times too many Generals for an army of Thailand's size. Further, it would be worth asking if military personnel are being used effectively; I recall a few times seeing stories in the newspaper regarding conscripts being used as personal servants. Finally, as above, do the manpower targets/needs correspond to the threats? If so, how? What is the evidence?

 

Finally, as noted in paragraphs one and two, budgets should correspond to mission(s) and threat(s). What exactly are the missions of the Thai Military? What exactly are the threats to Thailand that the military deals with? And, most importantly, in light of the frequent coups that occur in Thailand, how is it possible that those missions and threats are being dealt with? This is the most significant question, and I do not see a clear answer.

 

Until and unless the cycle of coups ends for good, any military budget will not and can not correspond to an actual threat or threats, and thus is essentially meaningless in terms of proper military preparedness and proper budgeting; it is, for all intents and purposes, simply a pot of money to be used in whatever fashion the current commanders wish.

 

That is not a proper or effective use of a military budget.

 

SB, your points are all relevant to discussing the budget and spending needs and priorities of a "conventional military". The Thai military is different. You generously suggest that they may have strategic analysis of existing and potential strategic threats to Thailand. Frankly, I see no evidence of that. Their piecemeal procurement of a variety of equipments for example, of little or limited use in the environment (topographic, geographic, climatic or in terms of potential enemies) all purchased in incompatible penny packets belies that. It follows no coherent pattern. They have four different types of infantry rifles using 3 different ammunition types! They have half a dozen different types of field artillery, all using different ammunitions and sighting systems! There is no coherence, it is not considered. Procurement is driven by things other than need. The Thai military is different.

 

Similarly, when it comes to the extremely bloated senior staffs, they do not function like those of a modern professional military. A modern professional military has staffs to develop doctrines, plan training, conduct and monitor it. It is a collaborative process, across arms and services, and in the big picture between Army, Navy and Air Force, and with allies. Training starts at individual level, and goes through company and battalion level exercises to formation (brigade, divisional and higher) level exercises. Complex, expensive, but it leads to professional ability when you have to do it for real. In plain terms, it makes you effective, and means fewer of your people die. The Thai military is different.

 

This military (it's officers) are a group within society, dedicated to furthering their own political, economic and personal power. Their soldiers for the most part conscripts, have little or no military significance, but exist merely to provide a reason for their officers privilege. That is why they have little (almost no) real training. The equipment procurement for decades has been geared to "benefitting" those who make the purchasing decisions. The bulk of (largely unserviceable) equipments held are those effectively given to Thailand by the USA forty years ago during the Cold War.

 

It's different. The budget and how it is used reflects that, and unlike a modern professional military they are unaccountable to government.

Edited June 14, 2018 by JAG

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

 

The Dutch also thought the threats to be non existent, we learned quickly in 1940, we thought neutrality would work.. it did not.

You don't even understand your own history.I suggest you stop pontificating.

 

http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~dwhite/101/27.htm

[Samui Bodoh]

13 minutes ago, JAG said:

SB, your points are all relevant to discussing the budget and spending needs and priorities of a "conventional military". The Thai military is different. You generously suggest that they may have strategic analysis of existing and potential strategic threats to Thailand. Frankly, I see no evidence of that. Their piecemeal procurement of a variety of equipments for example, of little or limited use in the environment (topographic, geographic, climatic or in terms of potential enemies) all purchased in incompatible penny packets belies that. It follows no coherent pattern. They have four different types of infantry rifles using 3 different ammunition types! They have half a dozen different types of field artillery, all using different ammunitions and sighting systems! There is no coherence, it is not considered. Procurement is driven by things other than need. The Thai military is different.

 

Similarly, when it comes to the extremely bloated senior staffs, they do not function like those of a modern professional military. A modern professional military has staffs to develop doctrines, plan training, conduct and monitor it. It is a collaborative process, across arms and services, and in the big picture between Army, Navy and Air Force, and with allies. Training starts at individual level, and goes through company and battalion level exercises to formation (brigade, divisional and higher) level exercises. Complex, expensive, but it leads to professional ability when you have to do it for real. In plain terms, it makes you effective, and means fewer of your people die. The Thai military is different.

 

This military (it's officers) are a group within society, dedicated to furthering their own political, economic and personal power. Their soldiers for the most part conscripts, have little or no military significance, but exist merely to provide a reason for their officers privilege. That is why they have little (almost no) real training. The equipment procurement for decades has been geared to "benefitting" those who make the purchasing decisions. The bulk of (largely unserviceable) equipments held are those effectively given to Thailand by the USA forty years ago during the Cold War.

 

It's different. The budget and how it is used reflects that, and unlike a modern professional military they are unaccountable to government.

Er...

 

Isn't that what I said?

 

"... Until and unless the cycle of coups ends for good, any military budget will not and can not correspond to an actual threat or threats, and thus is essentially meaningless in terms of proper military preparedness and proper budgeting; it is, for all intents and purposes, simply a pot of money to be used in whatever fashion the current commanders wish..."

 

 

[Eligius]

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

... What exactly are the missions of the Thai Military? What exactly are the threats to Thailand that the military deals with? And, most importantly, in light of the frequent coups that occur in Thailand, how is it possible that those missions and threats are being dealt with?

 

Excellent points, Samui Bodoh. If I might, let me answer your questions (above):

 

1. What are the missions of the Thai military?

Answer: There is only ONE mission: to keep the Thai populace in check.

 

2. What are the (elite-perceived) threats to Thailand that the military deals with?

Answer: The Thai people - who might have the gall to demand their human and civil rights.

 

3. How are these missions being dealt with?

Answer: By having coup after coup after coup - to let the Thai people know that they do not possess any rights at all to elect a government of their choosing.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Eligius

[Eric Loh]

It's really now how much you spend but how wise you spend. Not sure the spending are strategically thought out in line with military goals. Too many military duds like the blimp, aircraft carrier and GT200 make one think that the spending are mostly sweet heart deals for self enrichment. Worse these generals who approved the duds are not being investigated and questioned. 

[JAG]

15 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Er...

 

Isn't that what I said?

 

"... Until and unless the cycle of coups ends for good, any military budget will not and can not correspond to an actual threat or threats, and thus is essentially meaningless in terms of proper military preparedness and proper budgeting; it is, for all intents and purposes, simply a pot of money to be used in whatever fashion the current commanders wish..."

 

 

 

Yes. We agree. I merely expanded on your points.

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, jayboy said:

You don't even understand your own history.I suggest you stop pontificating.

 

http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~dwhite/101/27.htm

I understand my history better then you.. someone who obviously thinks he knows it all. We counted on staying neutral, worked in WW1 but not WW2 so you can think your safe but your not and if your army is worth nothing people can take what they want. They did so when they invaded Holland.

 

My whole point is that one should at least keep its army in line with those of your neighbors. I disagree how the money in the army is being spend i see much more in a professional army, no subs but a better surface fleet so they can use it too for the illegal fishing (has been pointed out in many articles that it would be beneficial). 

 

In general as I am Dutch and anti army i'm not a great fan of military spending but if done correctly and in line with other countries around you I don't see the problem. Problem here is that much of the money is wasted on projects only to benefit those that decide on them (kickbacks). But actually that is how it works for everything here.

Edited June 14, 2018 by robblok

[kannot]

1 hour ago, tracker1 said:

I wonder where all this money goes ? is it anything like the temple funding or destitute funding no checks and balances till years later !

centuries more like

[thaiguzzi]

49 minutes ago, JAG said:

SB, your points are all relevant to discussing the budget and spending needs and priorities of a "conventional military". The Thai military is different. You generously suggest that they may have strategic analysis of existing and potential strategic threats to Thailand. Frankly, I see no evidence of that. Their piecemeal procurement of a variety of equipments for example, of little or limited use in the environment (topographic, geographic, climatic or in terms of potential enemies) all purchased in incompatible penny packets belies that. It follows no coherent pattern. They have four different types of infantry rifles using 3 different ammunition types! They have half a dozen different types of field artillery, all using different ammunitions and sighting systems! There is no coherence, it is not considered. Procurement is driven by things other than need. The Thai military is different.

 

Similarly, when it comes to the extremely bloated senior staffs, they do not function like those of a modern professional military. A modern professional military has staffs to develop doctrines, plan training, conduct and monitor it. It is a collaborative process, across arms and services, and in the big picture between Army, Navy and Air Force, and with allies. Training starts at individual level, and goes through company and battalion level exercises to formation (brigade, divisional and higher) level exercises. Complex, expensive, but it leads to professional ability when you have to do it for real. In plain terms, it makes you effective, and means fewer of your people die. The Thai military is different.

 

This military (it's officers) are a group within society, dedicated to furthering their own political, economic and personal power. Their soldiers for the most part conscripts, have little or no military significance, but exist merely to provide a reason for their officers privilege. That is why they have little (almost no) real training. The equipment procurement for decades has been geared to "benefitting" those who make the purchasing decisions. The bulk of (largely unserviceable) equipments held are those effectively given to Thailand by the USA forty years ago during the Cold War.

 

It's different. The budget and how it is used reflects that, and unlike a modern professional military they are unaccountable to government.

Best post I've read on here in a long, long time.

[jayboy]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

I understand my history better then you.. someone who obviously thinks he knows it all. We counted on staying neutral, worked in WW1 but not WW2 so you can think your safe but your not and if your army is worth nothing people can take what they want. They did so when they invaded Holland.

 

My whole point is that one should at least keep its army in line with those of your neighbors. I disagree how the money in the army is being spend i see much more in a professional army, no subs but a better surface fleet so they can use it too for the illegal fishing (has been pointed out in many articles that it would be beneficial). 

 

In general as I am Dutch and anti army i'm not a great fan of military spending but if done correctly and in line with other countries around you I don't see the problem. Problem here is that much of the money is wasted on projects only to benefit those that decide on them (kickbacks). But actually that is how it works for everything here.

Sorry you don't know your own history as your fatuous comments on Dutch policy indicate.Do some research.

 

[thaiguzzi]

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

What exactly are the threats to Thailand that the military deals with?

I thought this was patently obvious.

1. Laos sea invasion.

2. Air supremacy against the Cambodian RAF.

3. Burmese border skirmishes -  who has the most elephants (in the room). Or controls the border drugs business.

[jayboy]

28 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Excellent points, Samui Bodoh. If I might, let me answer your questions (above):

 

1. What are the missions of the Thai military?

Answer: There is only ONE mission: to keep the Thai populace in check.

 

2. What are the (elite-perceived) threats to Thailand that the military deals with?

Answer: The Thai people - who might have the gall to demand their human and civil rights.

 

3. How are these missions being dealt with?

Answer: By having coup after coup after coup - to let the Thai people know that they do not possess any rights at all to elect a government of their choosing.

 

As to your first point, I would suggest there is another, possibly more important objective - namely to make money in business, both legitimate and illegal.As to the "legitimate" business, that raises further questions whether the military should have interests in media and banking.