Thai military must hone its communications

Thai generals can also say: "7-eleven" and "ice cream" (Photo: Bangkok Post)

April 11, 2011
By Kavi Chongkittavorn
The Nation
 

"No coup" seems to be most precise and briefest message that the Thai armed forces could deliver to the public without a hitch especially in times of crisis or great doubts.

However, when it comes to additional information and explanations, their military leaders are often at a loss.

At issues here these days are not simply just the guarantee of no military takeovers but the whole gamut of Thai military's engagement in domestic domains and their relationship with the regional and global community as well. On the top of that, there is an important issue of the public rights to know. Thailand is a democracy, albeit its defects, which has rules that the military must comply under a civilian government.

When it comes to communicate with the Thais and outside world on pivotal issues, particularly on security aspects, the military top brasses quite often take it personally viewing further enquiries from media or civil society groups as signs of mistrust and unnecessary provocations. They also take it granted that outsiders must understand their goodwill and true intentions in the country with a constitutional monarchy.

Everybody knows the new army chief, Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, is a no none-sense guy. Since he came to this eminent position last October, he has delivered strong messages every time he was in front of TV cameras stressing the noble role and dedication their soldiers hold in defending the country's sovereignty and protecting the throne. That much was clear. Somehow, he has not been able to communicate with the wider audience about the multi-facet roles of Thai army in a more comprehensive context. His predecessor, retired Gen Anupong, was better — more measured and consistent in deliver the message concerning the army's duty and responsibility, which was initially perceived as a weak leadership.

Talk tough is one thing, talk sense is another. Apparently, the latter quality is often missing. Since the 2006 coup, the Thai military has been under the world's microscope due to bad publicities around the world about their purported actions, which was aided by systematic spins of anti-Thai military groups. Despite their good intention and goodwill, quite often, they yield opposite effects.

For instance, the whole Thai military apparatus have been up in arms on the proposed stationing of Indonesian Observation Team and the alleged uses of cluster bombs. On the former, in the past one month, their leaders made numerous nonsense comments about nature of third party's facilitation, especially Asean, and various reservations over the proposed locations for invited Indonesian friends. Somehow, on this sensitive matter, the top echelon likes to speak instead showing off their ignorance rather than intelligence. There should be an army spokesperson solely on this matter who can provide clarity and information in Thai and English why there have been delays in implementing the arrangement brokered by Asean. What were the issues at stake?

The lack of clarity also links to the recent widely report uses of cluster bombs by the Thai army during the 4-7 February border clash. There were no explanations from the Thai army prior to last week's condemnation by the global campaign group, Cluster Munition Coalition, which investigated the uses. Now, the Thai authorities are putting up a brave face — in Geneva, New York — trying to explain that the army has used Dual Purposed Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) in self-defence and with a strict compliance with international code of conduct. It was too late.

Indeed, Thailand could have done a better job in explaining itself as a country that enthusiastically signed the Ban Landmine Treaty during the previous Democrat-led administration. In fact, it is planning soon to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions which came into effect last year. Many countries have not signed the treaty include the US, China, Cambodia, to name but a few.

Strange but true, whenever there were controversies with the media and international community pertaining to neighboring countries, the Thai army repeatedly blames others government agencies, in particular Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for their stands and comments. It was as if the military leaders were staging a mutiny against the government. This kind of animosity could easily be avoided if Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha and Defence Minister Pravit Wongsuwan have done their home works well enough and clear with the concerned authorities ahead of time. Nobody expects the army to reveal national secrets but we must be able to speak in one unified voice in ways that would improve the public understanding at large. In the age of online global connectivity, it is better to be transparent and allow free flow of information.

After a nearly 10-month lull, suddenly the Thai armed forces are under scrutiny again as the planned election draws near. The political crisis and environments and the April/May event last year inevitably has increased levels of militarization of civilian activities. It is an irony as such eventuality has been the outcome of political mobilization by various mass movement groups.

With proper and carefully planned communication strategies and skills, the Thai military should be able to explain themselves clearly and weather the critical storms. They should take the clues and learn from the Asean neighbors such as Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. In the case of Indonesia, the transformation of its armed forces was phenomenal. Now, the Indonesian armed forces have become more professional and underlined the rapid consolidation of the world's third largest democracy.

Thailand, which had an earlier start in early 1990's as the leading proponent of so-called third wave of democracy, is no longer the example of democratic aspiration. The Thai armed forces can still perform this noble role if they choose to stay in the barracks and help to create a stable environment conducive for holding free and fair election. Again, their views and comments have to be weighed carefully — not the usual language coming from the usual gung-ho feeling.