Gigantic army expenditure causes furrowed eyebrows
Although Thailand has no hostile neighbors and there are no political tensions in Southeast Asia, the country spends huge sums on army equipment. The hunger for military toys seems unquenchable.
Bangkok Post today comes with an analysis by Wassana Nanuam, about the defense purchase plans of the past two years. It is also remarkable that the regime is saying goodbye to warm ties with the US and is moving towards a partnership with China, Russia and European countries," she writes.
Wassana notes that criticism in society is growing about the ease with which the armed forces continue to procure military equipment.
Defense spending in this budget year (October 1, 2015-September 30, 2016) is "gigantic," she writes. With 207,7 billion baht, they make up no less than 7,6 percent of the total budget expenditure. That is an increase of 7,3 percent (14,76 billion baht) compared to a year earlier.
It strongly appears that Thailand wants to strengthen military ties with Russia, China and Europe and to be less dependent on the US. This is because the Americans are putting pressure on the military regime to quickly return to a democracy.
Since the coup of May 2014, the defense minister and a number of generals have visited China four times and he has visited Russia twice: once with the military top and once with Deputy Prime Minister Somkid. Prime Minister Prayut recently visited China and Russia.
The illustration above shows an overview of planned purchases.
Source: Bangkok Post
Indeed. And the defense budget has increased by almost 2006 percent since the 300 coup. In 2005, the defense budget was 78 billion baht, now 207 billion. Was there a war?
The soldiers take good care of themselves.
It is important that expenditure on weaponry remains in balance with other costs/expenditure. These planned expenditures are excessive and there is work to be done in this country as we all know and that is where the money should go.
My reaction to Tino's numbers and Jacques' text: from 78 to 207 is an increase of 165%, not 300%. In addition, one should also take into account inflation: 2 to 3 percent per year is 10 percent in 30 years, roughly speaking, so 165 minus 30 is 135 percent real increase.
And speaking of a percentage of budget expenditures: for a good comparison, a percentage of GDP is more common. The article in the Bangkok Post could have opted for this better.
World Bank has a nice overview per country of military expenditures (military expenditures as % GDP). This shows that Thailand (in 2014) spends 1.4% of GDP on this. Netherlands 1,2%. Vietnam 2,3%, Malaysia 1,5%, Myanmar 3,7. I think this gives a good comparison instead of shouting that it is a lot. Everything costs money and in the Netherlands expensive JSFs are also purchased when there is no real threat, or a Betuwe line is being built that is hardly used or an HSL line to Paris on which no HSL will run.
In addition, a country can decide for itself how it spends its money. In a large part of the world people also look at the welfare state and the care of the non-workers in Northern European countries in a strange way. One can form a personal opinion about everything. To name but a few: tourists from Europe can easily book a hotel in Thailand for more than 4000 baht per night / around 100 Euro, which the normal Thai tourist will not easily pay, for most this is a week's wages or more….
In addition, I do not think that spending on military equipment in China, for example, is wrong: G2G deals are often involved and compensation purchases are received in return.
And very important: it promotes mutual friendly ties between the various countries and prevents potential conflicts. Examples of the current conflicts are the territorial claims to islands between China and Vietnam and China and the Philippines. Purchases also have a positive influence on, for example, the Chinese economy, which means that more Chinese people are able to visit Thailand as tourists. Or Swedish employees of the aircraft factory who can afford another long winter stay in Thailand…. After all, everything is intertwined and as long as there are no conflicts that is fine.
my 2nd analysis : 7,6 percent of the total budget expenditure is spent on defence. As Tino sometimes indicated in other articles, the income, taxation, of the government in Thailand should be increased. However, this is now small and therefore defense expenditure as a share of government expenditure takes up a large part of this expenditure.
You could also look at it positively. Because tax levies are low, government expenditure is also limited. The result is relatively large expenditure on defense. But compared to my previous analysis above, defense expenditure is not excessive, according to the World Bank overview this is close to the expenditure of NATO countries.
All in a proper perspective, I would like to advise the Bangkok Post.
But apparently there is no money available to replace the very old wrecks of scheduled buses (dating from an earlier life, don't you dare estimate how old...).
They literally spew black soot and poison the city dwellers in Greater Bangkok.
Despite the fact that this has been debated for many years, it does not look like this will change any time soon.
According to Thai logic, 36 billion bhat for a bunch of new submarines makes more sense…. or what did you think?
Thailand benefits from a strong army on land , air or sea .
Because suppose the Burmese or Cambodians or perhaps the Laotians had plans to invade Thailand again .
In the past, they used to do it with elephant fights.
The poor Thai farmers will have to wait a few more years for a simple tractor, even if it is of Chinese manufacture.
Jan Beute.