Govt defends allocation for ordnance in national budget as 'necessary'

By The Nation

 

 

The government has justified the proposed expenditure on ordnance in the national budget, after the opposition criticised the allocation saying it should be utilised for economic purposes.

 

Government Spokesperson Narumon Pinyosinwat said on July 8 that it was necessary for the Defence Ministry to spend on ordnance in fiscal 2021 and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha had already explained the reason.

 

The Bureau of the Budget also had examined the proposed expenditure and saw that it was line with the regulation of the national budget to spend on ordnance.

 

Thailand must improve its weaponry since this sector was not funded in the past few years, resulting in 80 per cent of weaponry becoming old, while the southern insurgency still requires new weapons, she said.

 

Narumon also said that the premier would make sure that the budget would benefit the country and its citizens, and the government would use the Bt1-trillion loan that was approved by the House to revive the economy.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30390945

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-07-08

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Let's spend money on ordnance, or continuing to keep Covid-19 at bay, with the threat of a second trickle, allegedly, on it's way.

OK, ordnance it is !

Edited July 8, 20206 yr by Thaiwrath

11 minutes ago, webfact said:

The government has justified the proposed expenditure on ordnance in the national budget,

Of course they have, got to have plenty on hand in case the peasants start to revolt.

13 minutes ago, colinneil said:

Of course they have, got to have plenty on hand in case the peasants start to revolt.

And I'm sure SOME of it WILL get spent on ordinance!

 

 

Edited July 8, 20206 yr by PatOngo

31 minutes ago, webfact said:

80 per cent of weaponry becoming old, while the southern insurgency still requires new weapons, she said.

A military government would spend preferably for the military. 

Bit difficult to pass judgement without knowing how this ordnance expenditure affects the defence budget as a percentage of GDP; the latest figure I could find for the overall defence budget was 1.4% (https://thediplomat.com/2019/09/what-does-thailands-new-defense-budget-say-about-its-future-military-outlook/) which appears quite modest.

You have to have bullets,  hand grenades and cannon shells to help train the troops or defend the country against foreign invaders...555!  Foreign invaders,  I'd like to see that!  

Of course they need to spend money on ordnance, they seem to lose it on a regular basis.

Narumon also said that the premier would make sure that the budget would benefit the country and its citizens.

 

By eating lead presumably ????

2 hours ago, Paiman said:

A military government would spend preferably for the military. 

Personally, I am not a supporter of spending mega amounts of money on ordnance, but please note:-

 

"Thailand has contributed troops to United Nations peacekeeping efforts in places such as Darfur, Haiti and Timor-Leste. ... When preparing troops for deployment, the center ensures that troops deployed to U.N. peacekeeping operations are selected, generated, equipped and trained according to U.N. standards.Apr 22, 2019"

1 hour ago, nausea said:

the latest figure I could find

and if it is even close to the actual funds spent, and if it is even spent on ordnance, and if they even had an honest bone in their bodies ...

Well, if the photo is current, then the rifles those troops are carrying are Vietnam-era.  Probably worn-out after 50-years of abuse by farm boys.

17 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand must improve its weaponry since this sector was not funded in the past few years, resulting in 80 per cent of weaponry becoming old, while the southern insurgency still requires new weapons, she said.

Complete BS

19 hours ago, Paiman said:

A military government would spend preferably for the military. 

It stands to reason.

16 hours ago, Burma Bill said:

Personally, I am not a supporter of spending mega amounts of money on ordnance, but please note:-

 

"Thailand has contributed troops to United Nations peacekeeping efforts in places such as Darfur, Haiti and Timor-Leste. ... When preparing troops for deployment, the center ensures that troops deployed to U.N. peacekeeping operations are selected, generated, equipped and trained according to U.N. standards.Apr 22, 2019"

And the UN pays, quite generously, for those troops. One of the problems with these peacekeeping forces is that it is sometimes the case that all the funds provided by the UN are not always used for that purpose.

4 hours ago, Iron Tongue said:

Well, if the photo is current, then the rifles those troops are carrying are Vietnam-era.  Probably worn-out after 50-years of abuse by farm boys.

What do you think of their helmets, they do not look like those currently issued with camo fabric cover?

      If the Thai Military are really short of weaponry, maybe its time to round up all the loose canons that many of the public seem to have lately.

6 hours ago, Iron Tongue said:

Well, if the photo is current, then the rifles those troops are carrying are Vietnam-era.  Probably worn-out after 50-years of abuse by farm boys.

 

2 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

What do you think of their helmets, they do not look like those currently issued with camo fabric cover?

The rifles - M16s, were a design introduced during the Vietnam war, however they remained in production for many years afterwards, and so they may well not be that old. Age is not a problem as such, if the weapon has been properly maintained (!) and of course has had relatively few rounds fired through it. Many units these days seem to be equipped with the "Tavor" - Israeli "bullpup" design with an optical sight. 

 

They may have retained M16s for ceremonial use.

 

The helmets look like varnished up inner liners for the old US pattern steel helmet - again retained by those armies who, for unaccountable reasons, like wearing tin hats on ceremonial parades.

On 7/8/2020 at 4:59 PM, Dap said:

and if it is even close to the actual funds spent, and if it is even spent on ordnance, and if they even had an honest bone in their bodies ...

Whatever, but for a country run by generals 1.4% is pretty modest. I was surprised, I must admit. Even more surprising as a lot of this, presumably, goes into people's pockets.

On 7/8/2020 at 1:40 PM, Paiman said:

A military government would spend preferably for the military. 

Who's going to fire these guns?  Certainly not the bulk of the army who are all generals.  They can't see they've already been invaded and annexed already by the country who gave the world Covid 19.

Prudence demands they guard against a coup or unexpected outside threat. Antarctica mentioned wherever that is.

5 hours ago, nausea said:

Whatever, but for a country run by generals 1.4% is pretty modest. I was surprised, I must admit. Even more surprising as a lot of this, presumably, goes into people's pockets.

Gotta remember this pittance comes after already buying the jets, armored personnel carriers, tanks, helicopters and of course the navy's new ships AND a few submarines. At this stage of their game, a lower profile is really quite necessary.