"Personally, I would agree if there is a call for a malfeasance probe. This would ward off criticism which emerged without proper information," Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda was reported to have said on Friday when the issue of the waste of 340 million baht on an airship was raised by the media.
Gen Anupong, who was the army's commander-in-chief when the purchase was made, has come under heavy criticism over the doomed airship, which was decommissioned after eight years when it was hardly used.
Army spokesman Winthai Suvaree said that the blimp was used to enhance the effectiveness of air patrols in the insurg- ency-plagued South. He said the airship could fly silently for a long period, as opposed to unmanned aerial vehicles.
Umesh Pandey is Editor, Bangkok Post.
The airship went into service in 2009 when Gen Anupong was army chief and Gen Prawit Wongsuwon was defence minister. The generals are among the most powerful members of the coup-led government that has been spending tens of billions of baht on arms procurement.
In his defence Gen Anupong said the airship itself cost only 100 million baht, while the rest of the cost went on equipment. This equipment has now been removed and used on helicopters, so it is not a waste, he claims.
This is not to mention that the airship was flawed from the day it went into service as 25 million baht was used to refill the craft with the helium used to keep it afloat. Soon after the purchase, there was a leak that led to the airship being grounded.
Gen Anupong was trying to sideline himself when he said: "I don't know who assessed it. If its performance was effective or not must be assessed by the army." He is basically asking the army, which procured and wasted taxpayers' money on something that was hardly used, to investigate its own wrongdoing.
This is similar to the Rajabhakti Park corruption scandal when those who were alleged to have committed corruption were allowed to investigate themselves.
But to be fair, Gen Anupong took a step further by saying that "even though the airship was purchased when I was the army chief, the investigation needs to look at those who were involved, including receiving the vessel, making the contract and using it".
He went on to say that he did not have a direct role in the procurement process and the probe should target all of those involved, not only officers serving during his tenure.
How can Gen Anupong say that he or his officers serving at that time should not be targeted? Is it not the norm now that those in positions of power are to be prosecuted for dereliction of duty? After all, former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is supposedly on the run, did not undertake corruption in her rice-pledging scheme but she was charged for failing to do her duty and thus causing damage to the country.
Damage is damage, whether it is 340 million baht or 340 billion baht. So why are Gen Anupong and his buddies trying to shy away from being investigated by others?
The Pheu Thai Party has called on the Office of the Attorney-General to determine whether there were irregularities in the aircraft's procurement. It is sad to see that the Democrat Party has not joined the call for such an investigation by an independent body, maybe because the Democrats formed the government when this procurement was made.
There is no doubt that an independent body needs to investigate the issue, firstly because it is the right thing to do and also because it would make it fair and in line with what this government did with Ms Yingluck's case of negligence of duty.
Most importantly, it would set a precedent for the future as Thailand has already undertaken more procurement of armaments such as the purchase of three submarines and battle tanks from China. It also could be used for the 7-billion-baht tourist attraction docked in Sattahip which the Royal Thai Navy likes to call HTMS Chakri Naruebet, Thailand's first and only aircraft carrier that was procured in 1997 but has never been used.
Accountability for wrongdoing by politicians has been a paramount stance of this military government and up until now this principle seems to be applied to only one side -- politicians. Maybe it is time that the accountability issue becomes a universal thing rather than just being applied selectively.