New Mandala

31 responses so far ↓

• 1 John Dove // Sep 3, 2010 at 5:12 pm

  The military spending is no doubt on an incline under the Apisit government, as we all know very well that this government was formed by the order of a few generals. But don’t be surprised to learn that Apisit is giving back what the military gave him, they are in fact joining hands to absorb everything they can from the tax payers. Look at the jets and tanks they bought, one’s can learn easily how much corruption had been made. Tanks from country like Ukraine and fighting jets from Sweden. The purpose for all these military spendings is not really to upgrade or modernize their wings but rather than to pocket huge commission from these deals. So, the more they buy, the more commission they earn. Don’t be surprised with a sharp incline in all these spendings. The Thai generals with salaries of BHt 30,000 can drive a few Mercedes Benz that cost BHt 15,000,000 and live lavishly in a hundred millions Baht home.

  Highly rated. Quality comment or not? 46  4

• 2 Nganadeeleg // Sep 3, 2010 at 6:06 pm

  The increased military spending figures would be even more striking if shown in dollar terms, judging by this GDP graph:
  http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:THA&dl=en&hl=en&q=thailand+gdp+graph

  Quality comment or not? 5  3

• 3 Sceptic // Sep 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm

  Excellent – in a nutshell this graph encapsulates what was the prime motivator behind the 2006 coup.

  Quality comment or not? 19  3

• 4 chris beale // Sep 4, 2010 at 12:12 am

  And perhaps yet another military coup in October, to ensure this spending continues !
  http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/194465/surapong-coup-in-oct-for-sure

  Quality comment or not? 14  3

• 5 Frank G Anderson // Sep 4, 2010 at 12:32 pm

  This link was just sent to me…obviously with more than a slight slant but interesting…
  http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/?p=328

  Quality comment or not? 8  0

• 6 Woolloomooloo // Sep 5, 2010 at 12:02 am

  สงสัยเว็บนี้โปรท้ากสินแน่ๆ

  Quality comment or not? 3  19

• 7 Ralph Kramden // Sep 5, 2010 at 8:01 am

  Woolloomooloo: Pro-Thaksin because it provides graphs of military expenditure? Wow!

  Quality comment or not? 18  0

• 8 Suzie Wong // Sep 5, 2010 at 11:02 am

  The relationship between military expenditures and economic development is a matter of some importance because statistical evidence for less developed countries indicates that military expenditure has a substantial negative effect on capital formation and consequently reduces growth rates. Knowing that military expenditure has a negative effect on growth and retards development, what are the justifications the Thai military has in its exponential military expenditure increase?

  Data from this chart show that the Thai military regime is spending about 2% of its gross output on defense, a staggering high amount in absolute terms considering the poverty level of Thailand. There are no relevant variables e.g. neighbors, potential enemies, and other security-influencing powers, in the post-Cold War context for such an increase in aggregate military spending.

  Why does the current Thai military regime prepare for wars that may never occur are allowed to allot such a large share of national income? Why does Thailand apparently find it easier to built modern armies than to establish modern democratic institution?

  Quality comment or not? 18  2

• 9 Simon // Sep 5, 2010 at 11:55 pm

  Hungry military or fear of ugly neighbours? It would be interesting to compare Thailand’s military expenditure with that of other countries in the region, I would be surprised if the recent uptick isn’t a regional trend.

  Would also be interesting to look at regional distribution across the services. China starts building aircraft carriers, everyone else starts starts buying submarines…

  Quality comment or not? 4  8

• 10 Nganadeeleg // Sep 6, 2010 at 9:49 am

  Simon: “It would be interesting to compare Thailand’s military expenditure with that of other countries in the region”

  Andrew has already done that in the second graph (and he has given instructions on how you can also do it)

  If anyone has started a regional upswing in military spending, it looks to be Thailand, and surprise surprise, it looks to have started with the installlation of a military government.
  The shortlived PPP led goverenment had no chance to rein it in, and the current military installed & backed government certainly knows which side it’s bread is buttered on.

  Quality comment or not? 12  2

• 11 Suzie Wong // Sep 8, 2010 at 12:29 pm

  “The prime minister is concerned because he wants good reasons for the public to understand why Germany won’t sell us their engines.

  Acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said Germany refused to sell the Deutz engines because of the European Union’s policy not to supply weaponry to countries where human rights, border and ethnic problems exist to prevent the weapons being used for violent suppression.”

  From Bangkok Post, Sept 8, 2010.
  “PM opens fire on armoured vehicle deal”
  · Published: 8/09/2010 at 12:00 AM

  Quality comment or not? 2  0

• 12 Why Europe Won’t Sell Weapons to Thailand | Robert Amsterdam Thailand // Sep 9, 2010 at 3:19 am

  [...] While Western nations have long turned a blind eye to events like the recent Bangkok Massacres, one of the world’s major arms exporters appears to have finally stood up to the Thai military. Today, without a hint of embarrassment, government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn explained to the Bangkok Post that Germany declined to sell to Thailand a batch of Deutz BF 6m015 engines, in accordance with a European Union policy that prohibits the sale of weaponry to governments that systematically use violence to suppress or deny the rights of their citizens. The engines were meant to complement the purchase of ninety-six armored personnel carriers from Ukraine. The Thai government will have no trouble buying the military equipment it wants. The Royal Thai Army, after all, was just rewarded for the zeal with which it shielded the Abhisit administration from the terrifying prospect of an election with a vastly increased military budget – when measured as a percentage of GDP, now almost twice as large as it was during Thaksin Shinawatra’s tenure in office. [...]

  Quality comment or not? 6  4

• 13 เหตุใดยุโรปจึงไม่ขายอาวุธให้ประเทศไทย? | ประเทศไทย Robert Amsterdam // Sep 9, 2010 at 5:08 am

  [...] เป็นเรื่องที่ทราบกันดีว่าอาวุธที่กองทัพไทยใช้กำจัดประชาชนของตนในเดือนเมษายนและพฤษภาคม เพื่อขัดขวางไม่ให้มีการเลือกตั้งแบบประชาธิปไตยนั้น มีแหล่งผลิตในประเทศเสรีประชาธิปไตยในยุโรป หลายประเทศในยุโรปมีนโยบายที่จะไม่ค้าอาวุธกับรัฐบาลที่มักจะใช้อาวุธที่ผลิตขึ้นในต่างประเทศดังกล่าวกดขี่ฝ่ายตรงข้ามและชนกลุ่มน้อยในประเทศ อย่างไรก็ตาม ในกรณีเดียวกัน นโยบายค้าอาวุธให้กับเหล่าผู้นำเผด็จการของประเทศตะวันตกอย่างสหรัฐอเมริกานั้นมีสองมาตรฐาน เพราะสหรัฐมักจะทำการค้ากับเหล่าผู้นำเผด็จการที่ให้ประโยชน์กับตน และไม่ให้ความช่วยเหลือทางการทหารกับผู้นำที่ไม่ยอมปฏิบัติตาม โดย กองทัพไทยได้รับผลประโยชน์จากนโยบายสองมาตรฐานนี้มาตั้งแต่สงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง ในขณะที่ประเทศตะวันตกได้เพิกเฉยต่อเหตุการณ์ฆ่าหมู่ในกรุงเทพมหานคร แต่ประเทศผู้ค้าอาวุธหลายใหญ่ของโลกได้ตั้งคำถามกับกองทัพไทย วันนี้นายปนิธาน วัฒนายากร โฆษกรัฐบาลได้กล่าวถึงเรื่องที่น่าอับอายในหนังสือพิมพ์บางกอกโพสต์ว่า ประเทศเยอรมันปฏิเสธที่จะขายเครื่องยนต์รุ่น Deutz BF 6m015 จำนวนหนึ่งให้กับประเทศไทย ตามนโยบายของสหภาพยุโรปที่ห้ามค้าอาวุธกับรัฐบาลที่ใช้ความรุนแรงกดขี่หรือปฏิเสธสิทธิของพลเรือนตนเองของเป็นระบบ ซึ่งเครื่องยนต์เหล่านี้ถูกสั่งซื้อแทนที่การสั่งซื้อรถถังหุ้มเกราะ 90คันจากประเทศยูเครน แน่นอนว่ากองทัพไทยคงจะไม่มีปัญหาในการหาซื้ออาวุธที่พวกเขาต้องการ เพราะรัฐบาลอภิสิทธิ์ให้รางวัลกองทัพไทยจากความพยายามปกป้องรัฐบาลอภิสิทธิ์ไม่ให้ต้องลงแข่งขันการเลือกตั้งที่น่าหวาดกลัวโดยการเพิ่มงบประมาณมหาศาลให้กับกองทัพ ซึ่งมากขึ้นเป็นสองเท่าหากเทียบกับงบประมาณกองทัพในรัฐบาลทักษิณ การที่ประเทศเยอรมันปฎิเสธที่จะขายอาวุธให้กับเล่านายพลที่โกงกินภาษีประชาชนเพื่อใช้เป็นเครื่องมือในการรักษาอำนาจอันเลวร้ายของตนเองควรจะเป็นแบบอยางที่ดีแก่ประเทศเสรีประชาธิปไตยในตะวันตกนำไปปฏิบัติ เพราะหากกองทัพไทยยืนกรานที่จะใช้อำนาจโดยไม่คำยังถึงสิทธิมนุษยชนและศักดิ์ศรีความเป็นมนุษย์ของประชาชนแล้ว ก็ไม่ควรจะทำโดยใช้อาวุธที่ผลิตในประเทศที่ปฏิญาณตนว่าจะปกป้องสิทธิมนุยชนทั่วโลก ไม่น่าสงสัยเลยว่านายพลเหล่านี้จะไปซื้ออาวุธจากประเทศอื่น แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม การที่ประเทศตะวันตกปฏิเสธที่จะไม่ค้าอาวุธให้ประเทศไทยเป็นการส่งสาสน์ชัดเจนไปยังรัฐบาลอภิสิทธิ์ว่าความรุนแรงที่ก่อขึ้นในเดือนเมษายน/พฤษภาคมโดยรัฐบาลนั้นมีราคาที่ต้องจ่าย อย่างน้อยที่สุด ประเทศเสรีประชาธิปไตยในตะวันตกควรจะยึดถือศีลธรรมที่สูงกว่านายบูท Read more from Uncategorized กดที่นี่เพื่อยกเลิกการตอบ [...]

  Quality comment or not? 4  3

• 14 Non-ngong Na Malai // Sep 9, 2010 at 11:33 am

  One thing these underdeveloped countries love doing: to equip themselves with military paraphernalia so they will appear tough, while deep down they are completely unreliable. And the big powers that produce weapons can hardly hide their smiles at the foolishness of the poor but ambitious cousins.

  Quality comment or not? 1  3

• 15 Simon // Sep 9, 2010 at 11:31 pm

  @Nganadeeleg: I hardly think a comparison with *three* other countries can be considered a ‘regional’ comparison, particularly when it doesn’t even include *China*.

  Nor do I think an increase of < 0.5% is significant when it has been declining for the last 20 years.

  In fact the headline is, in true New Mandala style, rather misleading.

  Quality comment or not? 1  3

• 16 Simon // Sep 10, 2010 at 12:18 am

  Well, here’s some off the cuff figures on Chinese military spending. I’ll leave it for readers to decide how credible the sources are:

  On Thursday 04 March 2010 Beijing published China’s 2010 defense budget. It totalled 532.115 billion yuan (about $77.9 billion at current exchange rates) or 7.5% more than last year. Chinese defense spending has increased by an average of 12.9% annually since 1989 when Beijing launched an ambitious army modernization program, and this wasonly the second year over that period in which annual growth was less than 10%.

  Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm

  Chinese military expenditure as a percentage of GDP (graph of World Bank data):

  http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+military+spending

  In % GDP terms, Chinese spending has been relatively static at ~2% since around 1993; in absolute terms it has increased massively because of the spectacular growth of the Chinese economy.

  Quality comment or not? 2  0

• 17 Simon // Sep 10, 2010 at 12:40 am

  These are 2008 World Bank figures on % GDP spent on defence (Google ‘country name’ military spending to see the graphs of your choice):

  Australia 1.78%
  Bangladesh 1.13%
  Cambodia 1.11 %
  China 1.96%
  India 2.45%
  Indonesia 0.981%
  Korea (DPR) ???
  Korea (RO) 2.6%
  Lao PDR 0.34%
  Malaysia 1.96%
  Myanmar 1.30 %
  Nepal 1.47%
  Pakistan 3.27%
  Philippines 0.81%
  Sri Lanka 3.02%
  Thailand 1.51%
  Vietnam 2.02%

  Eyeballing these figures it seems (no surprises here) that countries spend a greater % of GDP on defence if i) they think have a significant security problem (Pakistan, India, formerly Nepal, RO Korea, Sri Lanka) and ii) as their development status improves (Australia, China, RO Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and debatably India).

  Going back to graph no. 2, I am not sure that the three countries chosen for comparison are good choices in themselves. Looking more widely in the region, Thailand’s expenditure seems middle of the road given its development status. I would also hazard a guess that Vietnam and Thailand’s initial high levels of military expenditure in the graph are hangovers from the Vietnam war.

  And as an aside, it’s worth considering the kind of hardware Thailand’s military has. It is genuinely clapped out. Most of the tanks and aircraft are museum pieces. Many of the firearms are also of ‘historical interest’.

  In summary, it seems to me that Thailand’s % GDP expenditure on defence is not unreasonable.

  Quality comment or not? 5  2

• 18 Elspeth Sterling // Sep 10, 2010 at 2:58 am

  It appears to me that the Western World is urging Thailand towards a civil war. I don’t think the central powers in Bangkok realize how much Thailand has touched our European hearts. Germany is getting bold, with its refusal to sell weapons, and recent demands in Phuket for the police to clean up their act with regard to keeping the embassies informed. The British Embassy is working on busting a pedophile ring, apparently so important and demanding that it hampered their assistance to British citizens during the yellow shirt campaign at Bangkok airport late in 2008. I am not surprised the current government are arming themselves…they feel threatened. If it comes to civil war then they lose everything and face death. They aren’t smart enough to manage a tiger economy, so they look to the Burmese model. Let’s pray for a simple and elegant way out of this mess.

  Quality comment or not? 1  2

• 19 Frank G Anderson // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:35 am

  All interesting data and lots of conjecture on how much and why the Thai military is spending.
  Note that two leading social commentators and critics – Giles Ungapakorn and ajarn Sulak Sivalaksa, have come out repeatedly to cite the Thai military as the major domino in failure of democracy to survive in the country. Of course both have extremist tendencies according to how you look at them, but when people like this stand up and speak, and suffer the consequences, you need to appreciate what it is they are speaking about and why it is important that they not be allowed to continue to speak.
  The Thai military has been at the forefront of problems even before 1932, and seemingly does not intend to take any back steps to allow any release of power or migration to a democratic system. I am also a bit surprised at the lack of analysis regarding Thailand’s last 3-4 decade shift toward a communist China-style bureaucracy and accompanying teaching of Chinese language in government agencies, companies, etc. We are probably all in unison that the Chinese have gotten way past the foot in the door stage here, but how closely do we agree that the country is now in a near-total pro-China alignment – politically, militarily and culturally? If the ‘saturation’ is as deep as it seems, then Chinese-style militancy makes a lot of sense.

  Quality comment or not? 2  1

• 20 Nganadeeleg // Sep 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  Simon: I don’t doubt that much of Thailand’s military equipment is ‘clapped out’ , especially if the GT200 purchase is typical of their purchasing methods

  PS. I cannot see much point Thailand getting into an arms race with China – completely irrelevant to compare with that country, although I do think the inclusion of Malaysia, Cambodia and Laos in Graph#2 would be an improvement.

  Quality comment or not? 4  1

• 21 Tench // Sep 10, 2010 at 2:51 pm

  Elspeth: can you explain that again? The Western world is “urging Thailand towards a civil war” how exactly? By the Germans refusing to sell Thailand weapons and the Brits cracking down on pedophiles? I’m sorry, I just didn’t get it.

  Quality comment or not? 3  0

• 22 Elspeth Sterling // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm

  I agree with the comment from Frank, because I have seen it clearly in the villages. The Chinese are the mercentile class, dominating the stores selling “made in China” goods, and providing high interest loans. The sad thing is….it doesn’t seem all that different here in England. The banks are refusing to loan money and the shops are full of cheap stuff that was made in China.
  Also, this seems consistent with the Maoist rise in Nepal. I was under the impression the massacre of the Royal family allowed them to gain some ground, partly because the King was planning to abdicate and hand over to a democratic system. His son was not of the same mind and shot his entire, extended family over a dinner…apparently he went to Eton. What do they teach there? The only Etonian I ever knew personally was suggesting that global warming was a conspiracy because oil was running out.
  The other thing I wanted to add to my last comment was that the stability in Burma is largely due to the fact that the country has been cut off for so long. We care, but not on a personal level. There are not so many family ties between the country and the Western World. Think how long the scars of war take to heal. Think how deep the wounds are already.
  Another question I had was about Thaksin. They accused him of corruption and seized 2.3 billion dollars (sorry if the figure is wrong), and he has been left with a mere 900 million. What I want to know is how much money did he have when he came to power?

  Quality comment or not? 0  4

• 23 Robert Amsterdam: Why Europe Won’t Sell Weapons to Thailand « Center for Intelligence News Study // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm

  [...] The Thai government will have no trouble buying the military equipment it wants. The Royal Thai Army, after all, was just rewarded for the zeal with which it shielded the Abhisit administration from the terrifying prospect of an election with a vastly increased military budget – when measured as a percentage of GDP, now almost twice as large as it was during Thaksin Shinawatra’s tenure in office. [...]

  Quality comment or not? 2  2

• 24 tukkae // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm

  Thaksin had definitely more assets before his premiership than now after being stripped off most of his wealth.
  He was already well know as a telecom billionaire. Most of his fortune then was stuffed in shares of SHIN and affilliate companies.

  Quality comment or not? 3  1

• 25 Tarrin // Sep 10, 2010 at 7:47 pm

  Elspeth Sterling – 21

  “What I want to know is how much money did he have when he came to power?”

  When Thaksin took the office he was technically own close to none because he has transferred his asset to his children, maids, driver, and securities guard, so on paper Thaksin own nothing when he took office that is why he got charge for asset concealment but the court found him not guilty later on. Based on that legal process, Thaksin didn’t actually sale AIS, it was his children who sold the shares but the court later found that it is an act of nomination (which I almost sure that 50% of the major shareholders in SET are nominees). That is why I’m so disgusted with Thailand’s jurisdiction and justice system.

  Quality comment or not? 5  0

• 26 Frank G Anderson // Sep 10, 2010 at 9:44 pm

  Thaksin had a debatable amount, and at one time was listed as the 14th richest man in the world. How much he had when he came to power was also alleged to have multiplied by two or three times during his premiership, depending on what you cite as a source. Sadly we are not privy to similar enriching experiences by the rest of the legion of corrupt who run the place. The only guys who know when and where who was paid what are either dead or badly misinformed – or paid off.
  The Burma longevity is not merely from isolation. There have been many kingdoms in the past that were isolated but changed overnight. Burma’s situation is also because of not isolation but cooperation from greedy folks nearby and afar.

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 27 chris beale // Sep 11, 2010 at 3:36 am

  A more revealing angle on Thaksin’s wealth is not how much he owned, but WHAT he owned :
  it was concentrated heavily in emerging hi-tech sectors of the Thai economy.
  Unlike Thailand’s traditional elite, Thaksin’s wealth was not based on land-ownership, but instead on a sharpened spearhead of Thailand’s economy.

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 28 MattB // Sep 12, 2010 at 12:53 pm

  But Thaksin is rapidly diversifying . . . to blood diamonds maybe . . . based on recent news.

  http://thailandjumpedtheshark.blogspot.com/2009/11/thaksins-blood-gold.html

  http://asiancorrespondent.com/breakingnews/thaksin-meets-nelson-mandela.htm

  Thaksin should have stuck w/ Thai hi-tech (Shin/Advance Info) investments and spared himself and his family and his party pain (that won’t heal) . . . by that most grievous of investing error: SELLING MUCH TOO EARLY.

  Was Thaksin macho and brave . . . to hide at Montenegro?
  Was Thaksin a brilliant investor by divesting too early his Thai holdings (the man was in a hurry, wasn’t he)?

  Quality comment or not? 0  4

• 29 Anonymous Thai // Sep 29, 2010 at 4:03 am

  Is that rather amateurishly drawn projection for 2009 and 2010 actually accurate?

  The following source claims the 2011 military budget of 170 billion baht is just 1.5% of GDP:

  http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/192037/military-spending-under-fire

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 30 Andrew Walker // Sep 29, 2010 at 8:18 am

  Yes Anonymous Thai, it is a rough projection. If anyone can provide accurate data I would be very happy.
  The most recent GDP figure I can find (Bank of Thailand) is 9.05 trillion baht (2009). 170 billion is 1.88 percent of that. Taking a guesstimate of 10 trillion for more recent GDP, then the percentage would be 1.7. So, I think the extrapolation is pointing in the right direction, though based on these figures the slope is too steep. I will add a note to clarify. AW

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 31 Der vorerst letzte Putsch - genau vor 4 Jahren. 19. September 2006 // Sep 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm

  [...] mal gegoogelt: Thailand’s hungry military Thailand’s hungry military Mit Zitat antworten + Auf Thema [...]

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

Leave a Comment