Submarines won’t sink budget, says auditor general

By The Nation

 

 

BANGKOK: -- The Auditor General on Monday defended the government’s controversial decision to purchase a Bt13.5-billion submarine from China.

 

Pisit Leelavachiropas said his office had examined the deal and found no irregularities. 

 

He said the government would this year make an initial payment of “only” Bt700 million, following by annual instalments of about Bt2 billion until 2023. The purchase would thus not unduly burden the national budget, he said.

 

The Navy has already signed the purchase agreement with the Chinese government, initially for one submarine, to be followed by two more later.

 

The deal, quietly approved by the Cabinet in April, has sparked public debate over the need for the military vessels when significant investment is required in education, public health and other areas.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30315930

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-05-22

Nah, they won't sink the budget, they'll just sink.  Some idiot will order "Dive!" with the hatch still open. lol

38 minutes ago, webfact said:

Pisit Leelavachiropas said his office had examined the deal and found no irregularities. 

This one got his Xmas gift early 

just look at his title Auditor GENERAL , that's his job safe then can look forward to early retirement and a nice pension, next up to the trough please

Auditor general has just secured his job/pension/ place at the trough with spouting that nonsense.

I just witnessed a flying pig!

He must've already been awarded a piece of the action. 

Please tell us what the total cost will be for the 3 subs over their life time ? Will it be B 200 billion ?

Has  cost of the aircraft carrier been fully paid off through sales of hats and keychains yet ?

 

The real questions are - what is the purpose for forking out B13.5 billion for a submarine? What is it going to do? 

Is it normal to make these sort of annual payments, in advance of getting the goods?

 

Or was this some sort of financing deal?

OK

How can an expense not sink the budget i do not understand?

'Pisit Leelavachiropas said his office had examined the deal and found no irregularities.'

 

Or none that proved unexpected.

57 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Is it normal to make these sort of annual payments, in advance of getting the goods?

 

Or was this some sort of financing deal?

Thais do it all the time ... which is why there are so many successful scams. 

19 hours ago, webfact said:

The Auditor General on Monday defended the government’s controversial decision

they didnt really defend the deal (it's necesssity) , rather they verified a few details from the perspective of their jobs

 The purchase of the submarines wont sink the budget.At present, and without the proper level of training, in 'How to operate a submarine' i think the book is called, i am sure i saw one in the 'Canturbury Tales' cafe, paperback section.They wont sink any ships either

Or as the,now famous radio message from the Bismark to it's nearest ship said.

"Ve are sinking'  and it's reply from the nearest ship was,"Vot are you sinking"

I was rather hoping the A/G would have a pair guess not. Made a trip to the paint store and bought a bucket of whitewash and a brush. Nothing surprising just fortifies a move by a wasteful government and of course his job rides on government approval. All part of the political daisy chain. He blatantly overlooked the last paragraph which reads as follows. His looking at the purchase was a non starter. 

The deal, quietly approved by the Cabinet in April, has sparked public debate over the need for the military vessels when significant investment is required in education, public health and other areas.

 

6 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

I was rather hoping the A/G would have a pair guess not. Made a trip to the paint store and bought a bucket of whitewash and a brush. Nothing surprising just fortifies a move by a wasteful government and of course his job rides on government approval. All part of the political daisy chain. He blatantly overlooked the last paragraph which reads as follows. His looking at the purchase was a non starter. 

The deal, quietly approved by the Cabinet in April, has sparked public debate over the need for the military vessels when significant investment is required in education, public health and other areas.

 

I agree. Boot-licking sycophant. However, how could he take on the Cabinet and still remain in his role? No win situation, so he uses Bulls*** to justify his actions.  

4 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Is it normal to make these sort of annual payments, in advance of getting the goods?

 

Or was this some sort of financing deal?

Finagling 

act in a devious or dishonest manner.

"they wrangled and finagled over the fine points"

2 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I agree. Boot-licking sycophant. However, how could he take on the Cabinet and still remain in his role? No win situation, so he uses Bulls*** to justify his actions.  

Different country different A/G actions. When living in fear of your job its a given you sing from the same song sheet. 

It may not sink the budget but is sure sinks Thai peoples hopes of transparent and open government. 

Just now, Father Fintan Stack said:

Don't be silly. Thais never pay anything off.

 

They still owe billions to foreign governments and contractors for the expressways, rapid transit systems etc. Nothing ever gets paid for here and international arbitration agreements are simply ignored.

 

Self-enrichment is the most important consideration in every transaction here.

If your right China better do a credit check before opening their check book here unless of course they are purchasing something. 

1 minute ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

I am right. 

 

The original expressways were never paid for. The Thai government welshed on the deal to pay the contractors (I believe they used a typical lie that the foreign contractors had not lived up to their end of the bargain by using the BMTA to stop the construction being completed. Someone here will know better than I) and foreign governments got involved. International arbitration ruled the Thai government had to pay. The ruling was ignored. 

 

BTS is now exactly the same. Profits being skimmed and put into fat pockets while $40B of the original debt and growing is ignored.

 

Thailand is a massive car-crash of household and government debt waiting to happen. See 1997 for details.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I am rather amazed that foreigners owed money did not try and attach Thai international assets for payment if International arbitration ruled in their favor. Kind of a free booting world. 

On 5/22/2017 at 2:03 PM, webfact said:

Submarines won’t sink budget, says auditor general

If they can't even sink a budget, then what good are they anyway? 

If spending 13.5 billion on the sub will not sink the budget, why dont we think up some more useless projects and waste some more money?

Just as you'd expect, TCO (total cost of ownership) not being considered, only the initial acquisition cost.  A high school dropout knows that's not the big picture.  Not even sort of for a naval vessel. Not even in one's dreams for something as specialized and complex as a full mission capable submarine.. Children.

of course these subs will sink ships,, their own,,,  when they crash into them,,