Originally published at Siam Voices on April 24, 2012
“Tongue-Thai’ed!” encapsulates the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.
The General Sonthi Boonyaratglin of 2006 is very different from the Sonthi Boonyaratglin of today. The former was army chief and led the 2006 military coup that toppled the government of Thaksin Shinawatra and created one of the first pivotal moments of the current political crisis. Sonthi has since retired from military service, hung up his uniform in exchange for a business suit, became a MP and leader of the Matubhum Party. And for some utterly inexplicable reason, he also heads the House committee on national reconciliation. When pressed to reveal who’s really behind the coup, Sonthi swore to take his secrets to the grave.
For the chairman of a committee to evaluate the roots of the political crisis and find solutions for the much heralded reconciliation (which nobody has properly defined it yet), a former army chief that led a military coup wouldn’t be the first choice to my mind.
Recently though, he at least revealed the real reasons for the coup…
พล.อ.สนธิ กล่าวว่า ระบบชนชั้นถือเป็นอุปสรรคในการพัฒนาประชาธิปไตย เพราะยึดติดบุคคลมากกว่าองค์กร ขณะเดียวกันไม่ว่าใครมาเข้ามาบริหารประเทศก็จะยึดติดอยู่กับเรื่องการเมืองและเศรษฐกิจ แต่มองข้ามเรื่องความรักความสามัคคีของประชาชนในประเทศ ซึ่งความขัดแย้งของไทยมีมาตั้งแต่ปี 2475 และขัดแย้งรุนแรงสุดในปี 2549 จากการปฏิวัติรัฐประหาร แต่แท้จริงแล้วเหตุผลของการปฏิวัติ คือต้องการให้เกิดความสามัคคีเพราะเหตุหลักๆไม่มีรัฐบาลใดที่จะสร้างความเข้มแข็งในกรณีดังกล่าวนี้ จนถึงปัจจุบันนี้ก็ผ่านรัฐบาลมาแล้ว 5 ชุด ซึ่งส่วนใหญ่ก็ยังเน้นแก้ปัญหาในเรื่องเศรษฐกิจ การเมือง และการปกครอง แต่ในการพัฒนาสังคมทำน้อยมาก
General Sonthi said: “The clash of the classes is a barrier for the development of democracy because it is dependent of individuals rather than organizations. No matter who comes to serve [in the government] is only focused on politics and economy but overlook the [issue of] unity of the Thai people. Thus, divisions have existed since 1932, and the 2006 coup has caused the most – but the real reason of the coup is the need for unity because no [civil] government whatsoever has created a strong enough one. To this day, we had five governments that mostly have focussed on solving the problems in economy and politics, but very little in the development of society.”
““บิ๊กบัง” ชี้ ระบบชนชั้นเป็นอุปสรรคในการพัฒนาประชาธิปไตย“, Daily News, April 20, 2012 – translation by me
Gen. Sonthi seems to get lost in his own words: On one hand, he acknowledges the severe consequences of the military coup that did more harm than good. But then on the other he still insists that it was the only legitimate way to restore national unity among all Thais! To put it in simpler terms: to restore ‘democracy’ they had to stage a non-democratic coup!
Nevertheless he faces strong criticism from those who are still supporting the coup, accusing him of being in cahoots with the Yingluck government to give Thaksin a clean slate for a return. It seems that the Sonthi of today is really a different one from the General Sonthi – so much so that, according to a satirical cartoon in Manager/ASTV, his 2006-self shoots himself in the head in shame of his current self.
Note: coup de main [ˈˌku də ˈmeɪn]: noun, “a sudden surprise attack, esp. one made by an army during war.”
If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 13, 2012
At 3.38pm (all times local) April 11, 2012, an earthquake occurred at the bottom of the Indian ocean west of Sumatra for a mere few minutes. The order of magnitude however was originally recorded at a very strong 8.9 (subsequently downgraded to 8.6). At 3.45pm, the Hawaii-based Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami warning for essentially the entire coastline along the Indian ocean, who predicted the arrival of the waves on the Thai islands of Phuket, Kho Phra Thong and Kho Tarutao in a timespan of two hours beginning at 6.18pm local time. The Thai authorities issued their own warnings in six provinces and many coastal areas were evacuated, as people were urged to move to higher ground.
However, on Thai television there was hardly a hint about it. All Thai terrestrial TV channels were covering the funeral ceremony of Princess Bejaratana Rajasuda, a cousin of King Bhumibol and the only child of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI), throughout the afternoon until they switched over for “breaking” news coverage. These TV channels were facing criticism over their failure to inform people about what was going on at the Kingdom’s Andaman coastlines during an emergency situation, where up to the minute information could have been crucial. But how could that happen?
All terrestrial TV channels (Channel 3, 5, 7, MCOT, NBT and ThaiPBS) were broadcasting the TV pool live footage produced by a joint venture of these aforementioned channels and the Royal Palace exclusively for this occasion and not, as some have suggested, by the government or a similar agency. When the first warnings about a potential tsunami were issued, all TV channels stayed on the ceremony.
Viewers were at best informed by an occasional ticker at the bottom of the screen (it could be argued that this should have been run not only in Thai but also in English, considering the many foreign tourists at the beaches) or, like in many such cases, by local radio stations and social media (and a few cable or satellite news channels like Nation Channel and Spring News) – the latter heavily criticizing the lacking TV coverage. It took two hours since the first tsunami warnings before ThaiPBS decided to pull out of the royal coverage at 5.42pm, shortly followed by a few others after 6pm.
In attempts to clarify the situation, it was explained that the Royal Palace actually allowed the TV directors to cut away from the royal ceremony “at any time.” (as mentioned here in a ThaiPBS report) Also, the National Broadcast & Telecommunication Commission (NBTC) has directly approached the TV stations and asked for their cooperation (as seen here in a letter tweeted by now-NBTC board member Supinya Klangnarong), since a regulation in such emergency cases is reportedly still being drafted.
So what prevented the broadcasters from pulling out of a royal ceremony to cover an urgent emergency situation, even though they had the apparent freedom to do so? ThaiPBS deputy director Vanchai Tantivitayapitak wrote on Facebook that the decision to pull out of the royal ceremony coverage required “presence of mind and courage” – a clear hint at a deeper-lying problem.
Since this was a funeral involving a member of the royal family, it was social pre-emptive obedience that prevented the terrestrial TV channels from reporting on the tsunami warning anytime sooner. In these times, where public loyalty to the royal institution is being demanded and any perceived move outside the norm is being heavily scrutinized (and at times punished), it is difficult to put the priorities desired by some over the essential priority to inform.
The relief, when the tsunami warnings have been lifted, was no doubt high among all involved. However, this should not dillute the failures of Thai television to comprehensively inform and report on a developing story and an emergency situation. The fears of social retribution and stigma has shown this time how restrictive they really are, even considering what would have been at stake. At least the outcome of this media episode, and its unprecedented amount of criticism, would be clarity, should such a situation happen again.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
By Saksith Saiyasombut
“Fair is foul, and foul is fair.“
(Three Witches, Act I, Scene I)
The Tragedy of Macbeth is a famous play by William Shakespeare that tells the story of a man and a woman on their bloody path to the throne of Scotland and their violent downfall, driven by arrogance, paranoia and death. The 400-year-old story has been adapted and re-interpreted countless times, even spanning movie versions from Japan and more recently from India.
A Thai adaptation named “Shakespeare must die” (เชคสเปียร์ต้องตาย) has also been produced — touted by its directors Ing K. and Manit Sriwanichpoom as the first from the kingdom — set to be released later this year.
Set in an alternate Thailand ruled by a “superstitious, megalomaniacal and murderous dictator,” a theater group plays their adaptation of Macbeth. As it can be seen by the trailer below, the movie’s themes borrow heavily from the volatile current political climate, with street protests and burning effigies (but also notably a visual reference to the Thammasat Massacre).
However, this will not happen, according to the producer’s press release:
This afternoon the Thai Film Censorship Board, under the Department of Cultural Promotion, Ministry of Culture, ruled to ban ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, the first Thai Shakespearean film, a horror movie adaptation of William Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth’.
To quote the Record of Film Inspection (see scanned attachment): “the Board deems that the film Shakespeare Must Die has content that causes divisiveness among the people of the nation, according to Ministerial Regulations stipulating types of film, BE 2552 [AD 2009], Article 7 (3).
Press release by Manit Sriwanichpoom, Producer “Shakespeare Must Die”, April 3, 2012
It is the second movie (the first one was 2010′s “Insect in the Backyard”) to be banned from commercial release under the Thai Film Act of 2008. According to Matichon, the board was about to determine the age rating for the movie. However, it did not reach a consensus and asked the directors to edit or cut some scenes. The director duo refused and thus the board decided to ban it.
“Those he commands move only in command, / Nothing in love (…)“
(Angus, Act V, Scene II)
What is noteworthy is that the movie got financial support from several government initiatives and funds (as seen in the last seconds of the trailer), namely the Thai Khem Khaeng Initiative, the Creative Thailand Project under the previous Abhisit administration, the Office of Contemporary Art and Culture and the now-defunct Ministry of Culture’s film fund. Surely, all these organizations must have been submitted with a pitch for the movie and a rough outline of the synopsis.
The producer continues:
It seems strange that the cultural ministry would ban Shakespeare, in the form of a film that the ministry itself had funded. It’s as if we’re actually living under a real live Macbeth. There are cinematic versions of Macbeth from all over the world—India, Japan, Taiwan, you name it. This is the first Thai Shakespearean film and, for reasons of national security, it is deemed too dangerous for Thai people to see!
Press release by Manit Sriwanichpoom, Producer “Shakespeare Must Die”, April 3, 2012
“Make all our trumpets speak; give them all breath,
Those clamorous harbingers of blood and death.“
(Macduff, Act V, Scene VI)
According to director Ing K.*, the production has been plagued by many problems, most notably during the 2010 red shirt protests:
Our cast and crew motto was: Fight Fear with Art; Make Art with Love. It’s not an easy one to live by but very inspiring. (…) We needed a brave set motto, since in the making of the film we faced literal hell fire (red shirt occupation and riots in 2010 which closed down the filming for two weeks, made it a hassle for everyone to get to work, especially Lady Macduff who was daily and nightly harassed by red shirt guards so that she had to move, and once on 28th April stranded us in Rangsit when the highway back to Bangkok was cut off when violence broke out and a soldier was shot dead by a sniper) and literal high water (postproduction interrupted by the flood of 2011).
Director’s Statement by Ing K., co-director ”Shakespeare Must Die”, March 13, 2012
This might also have colored the director’s bias against the red shirts who describes them as “violent, unreasoning, fanatical morons (…), courtesy of the alchemical spin of the Thaksin machine.”
She also reveals that he has shot actual footage of the May 19 crackdown on the red shirts, in particular the burnings of Central World and other buildings that have been edited into the movie – which is reportedly one of the scenes objected by the film board, fearing that the viewers would be too stupid have difficulties to distinguish fiction from reality.
But may be it could have also been the end that was very contentious (spoiler warning!):
In the world of the theatre, the tragedy ends with their deaths, but in the real world of the film, the tragedy begins as Dear Leader’s fanatical followers burst into the playhouse and, enraged by this perceived affront to their idol, massacre everyone present. Amidst sounds of cheering, the play’s director is hanged;
Synopsis of “Shakespeare Must Die”
This scene is a thinly veiled reference to the various personality focused cults in the Thai political history and their potentially violent consequences as seen most recently by the controversy over the Nirirat group and the threats made against them.
“When our action do not, / Our fears do make us traitors“
(Lady Macduff, Act IV, Scene II)
Art has been always been used to reflect and comment on society in various ways, sometimes exaggerated, sometimes painfully accurate. This little art project dared to paint the Thai political crisis with a broad brush and with the story of Macbeth, the creators are re-telling one of the most important stories about the striving for power, the paranoia of holding on to it and the downward spiral madness when it is unchallenged and out of control.
This movie might have not been the best to tell this, but with the commercial ban this project gets more attention than its creators would have ever imagined. Thus, it is unsurprising is the reason that the movie causes “divisiveness among the people of the nation” - a non-sense, empty urge for national ‘unity’ at all costs that has been far too often said in this political crisis, while being completely oblivious that the key to move forward is the co-existence of different views and idea(l)s.
*UPDATE: A reader has pointed out this profile on co-director Ing K. and her past work – least to say, she’s somewhat of an enfant terrible in the Thai movie scene…!
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
I have been recently approached by World Policy Journal, a magazine on global affairs and international relations, to contribute to their most recent issue. In each issue, the publication tackles a certain broad topic to be reflected in several ways from several perspectives and with an international focus.
Their newest Spring issue is all about language and “The Big Question”-section asks:
“When should language be restricted?”
As often as language is used with great facility to promote beauty, express deeply felt emotions, and convey vital information, it is all too often used malevolently to pit nations or communities against one another. Rather than promoting peace and understanding, it can undermine these aspirations. We have asked our panel of global experts to weigh in on this critical question about the use and abuse of language.
Head over here to see what my answer to that is and be also sure to check out what other contributors like renowned Egyptian blogger “Sandmonkey” are thinking about this issue.
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 26, 2012
On Sunday the Formula One World Championship made its first annual stop in Southeast Asia with the Grand Prix of Malaysia near Kuala Lumpur. A night race on the streets of Singapore will be the other race in the region later this year in September. Even though the 2012 calendar is filled to the brim with 20 races until late November, there are other venues vying to host Formula 1 in their country – Thailand is one of them:
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism and Sports Chumpol Silpa-archa has announced that Thailand has its eyes set on being host of the Formula One (F1) racing in 2014.
Following discussions with relevant parties on the possibility of Thailand hosting the Formula One race, Mr. Chumpol stated that the Thai government has confirmed its interest to host the racing tournament within three years time. He also revealed that a number of companies from the private sector, such as Red Bull, PTT and automobile manufacturers, have shown enthusiasm in co-hosting the event with the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau (TCEB) and the Sports Authority of Thailand (SAT).
Meanwhile, Tourism and Sports Spokesperson Watchara Kannikar disclosed that , Mr. Chumpol will within this week submit Thailand’s letter of intent to be a candidate to host the race to Formula One President, Mr. Bernie Ecklestone [sic!].
“Thailand eyes hosting Formula One race in 2014“, National News Bureau, March 7, 2012
This is not the first time Thailand has expressed its ambitions to host a F1 race. The most recent campaign was fueled in late 2010, when Red Bull Racing (back then freshly crowned world champions for the first time) did a demo run on the streets of Bangkok. Reportedly, over 100,000 spectators were there when Australia’s Mark Webber drove (a somewhat modified 2009 RB5) around Democracy Monument on Rajadamnoen Avenue.
It is not surprising that Red Bull Racing were involved in that show run, given the titular energy drink’s origins in Thailand. In its original form, Krathing Daeng (Red Bull in Thai) was created by Chaleo Yoovidhya in the late 1970s and then over the next decades became world famous after a joint venture with Austrian Dietrich Mateschitz, both holding a 49 percent share each.
However, it is Mateschitz who runs the company and thanks to aggressive marketing, the drink became a ubiquitous sponsor at sport events, beginning with extreme sports and more recently with the ownership of several football clubs worldwide and two Formula One teams: championship winning Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso (formerly the backmarkers known as Minardi).
Chaleo, considered to be among the richest people in Thailand, recently passed away and it is now speculated whether or not his son Chalerm, who until now holds the remaining 2 per cent of the company, will take over the shares of his father. Chalerm Yoovidhya is the founder of Siam Winery and also co-owner of Cavallino Motors, the country’s only Ferrari dealer. The other half is owned by the Bhirombhakdi family of the Singha Corporation, who are reportedly close to the opposition Democrat Party – we have previously reported on Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, the Singha-’heiress’, and her political ambitions.
In that regard, there’s enough financial support for a potential F1 race from the private sector. And it is Mateschitz himself who apparently is working on a deal with Bernie Ecclestone, the series’ commercial rights holder and promoter, to build up a potential Thai Grand Prix:
“The idea is good. We are in talks. Thailand could host a Formula One race in the next two or three years,” Msteschitz said in an interview yesterday.“Ecclestone agrees with the idea. We may sign an agreement soon.”
Asked how long it would take for Thailand to get approval, Matesschitz said: “I don’t know. That is as far as I know. I can’t give you details because it is not my responsibility. All I can tell you is that a race could take place here in the next two or three years.”
“Thailand receives Grand Prix boost“, Bangkok Post, March 25, 2012
The other question would be where the Grand Prix would take place? The only race track in Thailand that is certified by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), F1′s governing body, is Bira Circuit near Pattaya. However, the 2.41 km long track is nowhere near to the standard to host Formula One, having only been the venue to national and regional championship touring car races – a costly reconstruction is virtually unavoidable.
The other option is of course a very attractive one, albeit very challenging:
On possible circuits, Mr Chumpol said he favoured Rajdamnoen Avenue (…)
Ministry of Tourism and Sports spokesperson, Watchara Kannikar (…) added: “Initially, the budget was Bt10 billion. However, it is possible that the cost will triple.”
Although racing on city street requires a lower initial budget, there will be additional costs that could cause opposition. They include the annual closure of roads for set-up, building stadiums annually and noise prevention measures.
“Chumpol catches F1 fever“, TTR Weekly, March 14, 2012
No doubt temporary street race circuits like Monaco and Singapore serve here as ideal role models, the latter being the season’s only night race. However, given Bangkok’s notorious traffic problems, one can hardly imagine what would happen if a substantial part of the city would be blocked for weeks.
Costs are indeed a potential problem for hosting a Grand Prix. The Singapore Grand Prix was estimated to have cost $120m with the government paying 60 per cent of it. Also, another question is whether or not Thailand has an big enough fan base for the sport that can also afford to pay the (more than often very expensive) tickets to see the event.
That’s not to say that Thailand does not have any tradition with Grand Prix racing – it’s just been quite a long while though. Prince Birabongse is so far the country’s only Formula 1 driver, starting out in the first years of the F1 World Championship between 1950-55. Before that, he organized a race in Bangkok on a 3.22 km circuit around Sanam Luang and the Royal Palace. However, the even was supposed to take place on December 10, 1939 – and was subsequently cancelled due to the second World War.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.
Tongue-Thai’ed! Part XII: Dumb questions, dumb answers
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 19, 2012
“Tongue-Thai’ed!” encapsulates the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.
We all know the special role the Thai military plays in the country’s politics and also the apparent entitlement with which they are participating in the system:
Thailand continues to allow professional officers to take on explicitly political roles, both before and after retirement. Part of the attraction is certainly financial, but the trend is also born of a culture that sees no problem with army involvement in national politics.
Third, civil society and the media are not currently forcing the army into ever-greater professionalisation, since the latter is adept at hiding its political activities; it has seemingly mastered the dark arts of public-relations spin.
“Thailand’s soldiers of political fortune“, by Desmond Ball and Nicholas Farrelly, East Asia Forum, January 7, 2012
However, we also all know the army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha’s blunt outspokenness and more than often unfortunate handling of the media. So, with the still on-going debate about a potential pardon for Thaksin, the press went to somebody who’s apparently most suited to say something on this matter.
The outcome is not surprising, as an audio clip titled “Army chief fumes!! Press bombards him with questions on [Thaksin] pardon” reveals:
Prayuth: “Who’s petitioning for a pardon [for Thaksin]? The military?”
Reporter: “Pheu Thai does it!”
Prayuth: “Then leave it to them!”
Reporter: “But the Democrat Party is against this…!”
Prayuth: “That’s the Democrat Party – who the hell do you think I am?! A political party, the Thailand Party?! If you want everyone to accept it, then [you must have] reconciliation! If not, you have to keep doing it. If that fails, then the whole country will kill each other! Do you want this to happen?!”
Reporter: “There are efforts to reinvestigate [Thaksin's] cases…!”
Prayuth: “So what? Then they should do that – that has nothing to do with me! Why are you asking me?! The military has nothing to do with it! It’s YOU who’s asking too much! You’re asking me about everything. You’re asking me too many questions, so you might think that I have much power! Why are you asking me that? It’s got nothing to do with me! But I still answer it! I’m still being considerate to you, I still answer to you – otherwise you won’t have any news to write and then you blame me for it! Then I give an answer, people will say I have [too] much power! We don’t! The army is under the constitution, the army is under the rule of the ministry of defense, under the control of the government. The army chief does not have any powers – not at all!”
Audio: “14/03/55 ผบ.ทบ.ฉุน!! ถูกสื่อซักนิรโทษฯ“, Manager Radio, March 14, 2012 – translation by me
As usual, the army chief shows once again that he is in desperate need of media training and even the most hotheaded football manager is more confident at giving interviews than Prayuth. First he reacts very snootily to the reporter’s questions and then digs himself a deeper hole with every sentence – whilst giving a glimpse into his black-and-white perception. And his insistence that he and the armed forces do not have any powers – well, there’s no need to explain much (see above).
On the other hand (and I can’t believe I’m saying this): Prayuth has a point! Bear with me here – Prayuth’s complaint that the press is apparently asking him about nearly anything, regardless if he has anything to do with the issue, showcases some problems with the Thai press (see above) and the need to collect soundbites even just for the sake of it.
Prayuth (and his ego) traps himself with the belief that somebody of his rank needs to say something in order to show authority – even if he has no clue whatsoever. That leaves us with a chicken-or-egg situation in which the Thai press corps should ask the right questions to the right people and in which the army chief should consider – well, nearly everything!
If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.
Thai Navy’s $250m submarine plan scuppered
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 14, 2012
The Thai Navy’s desire to have a submarine fleet has existed for as long as the doubts surrounding the submarines’ real-life strategic utilization. Over the course of 2011, it appeared that they came one step closer to realization when the Thai government was reportedly ready to earmark $681 million dollars for a submarine fleet and was ready to buy decommissioned submarines from the Germans. The number of the soon-to-be purchased subs varied somewhere between two and the maximum of six.
With the change of government in August last year the plan was in jeopardy – even a small glimmer of hope was shattered thanks to a mix-up by prime minister Yingluck. Nevertheless, the Navy was still gunning for a purchase and still in late February, defense minister Air Chief Marshall Sukampon Suwannatat threw his support behind the project.
However, today…
Navy chief Admiral Surasak Runroengrom conceded yesterday the Navy would no longer push for the purchase of four used submarines with a Bt7.6 billion [$250m] price tag from Germany.
“The deadline for purchase passed on February 29, and the Navy will not seek to keep the buying option,” he said.
Surasak said the Navy had done its best but failed to push through plans for the deployment of the submarines.
Following a series of reviews, Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat reportedly finalised his decision to scuttle the project. He has yet to instruct the Navy on whether to come up with a spending plan for new submarines.
“Navy torpedoes Bt7.6-billion submarine project“, The Nation, March 14, 2012
Industry sources say that two have been already purchased by the Columbians and that there was tough competition over the remaining four. It appears that in this particular case Thailand has been out-bid by other countries interested in the 35-year old diesel submarines, as the anticipated price tag has risen from THB 5.5bn [$180m] to THB 7.6bn [$250m] within a few weeks.
This setback for the Thai Navy comes during a time of an apparent arms race in the region, as several other neighbors such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam will buy or already have bought submarines. It seems for the navy the only way to “gain respect from the others”, as uttered by the then-navy chief back in 2010, is to buy some impressive hardware. Whether or not any of them will be seen in practical use is a whole different story, but given its dodgy equipment procurement history (here and here), that has never stopped the armed forces from going on shopping sprees in the past.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.
