Regime ducks for cover as blimp sinks

The big blimp with a Royal Thai Army label and highly visible bull's eye on its white body has been given the chop but the impression that the army is above scrutiny stays on.

The decommissioning of the pricey airship that was rarely used for its supposed services of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in the restive deep South highlights how cronyism is a prevailing mentality in Thai society, how the mentality underlines deepening social rifts and how it will prevent the country from progressing to become a freer and fairer one.

Atiya Achakulwisut is a columnist, Bangkok Post.

Ever since it was purchased eight years ago in 2009, the 42-metre-long spy blimp has drawn criticism. The deep South was burning. Insurgent attacks, including bombings and roadside ambushes, many of them fatal, occurred almost daily. And the army, headed at that time by the current Interior Minister Gen Anupong Paojinda, thought the best way to fight the ground-based, guerrilla-style insurgency was from a dirigible balloon.

In theory, the Aeros 40D airship nicknamed Sky Dragon should fly up to 3,000 metres where it would be impossible to hear, and out of shooting range. In reality, the zeppelin flew into "technical problems" as soon as it was scheduled for launch in January, 2010. Soon after, leaks were found. A test flight revealed the airship could only fly up to 1,000 metres, or only one-third of its stated specification. Despite the low altitude, the army signed off to accept its delivery. In 2012, the airship needed repairs which cost 50 million baht. It required 300,000 baht a month to keep it filled with helium to prevent further leaks. Later that year, it crashed and suffered extensive damage.

Not much was been seen or heard about the airship again until it made an emergency landing in 2014. Then last week, army chief Gen Chalermchai Sitthisad accidentally told reporters the controversial blimp had been decommissioned. Throughout its life, the blimp was less a spy than a stooge. Have I mentioned that it cost 340 million baht of taxpayer's money to buy the spy ship, but it stayed mainly in an expensive hangar? The good news may be that we won't be paying 300,000 baht a month to keep it inflated and inactive any more.

What is most interesting about the "eye-in-the-sky" airship project is how people involved with its purchase reacted to news about its going out of service. When first confronted by reporters about the death of the airship, Gen Anupong said he had no comment as he had retired seven years ago.

Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, who succeeded Gen Anupong as army chief, declined to comment. So did Deputy Prime Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwon who served as defence minister at the time of the procurement. Later, after Auditor-General Pisit Leelavachiropas vowed to investigate if malfeasance was involved in the procurement of the aerial patrol system which included the airship, Gen Anupong said he would not object to such a probe. He also defended the project saying it is only the balloon that has been decommissioned. The more expensive elements including military-grade cameras remain usable. They will be used to equip helicopters. The minister said he had followed regulations and procedures in approving the procurement.

This misses the point. At issue is not whether the airship programme is recyclable but whether it was worthy of investment in the first place. Also, is it enough for state officials to say they have followed regulations to claim their innocence from dereliction of duty? What if the procurement proved to be insensible, wasteful and ineffective? The scale of damage may be different but in principle how is the dysfunctional airship different from the controversial rice-pledging scheme?

Given how notorious the army's blimp has been, a tight-lipped response from the government normally keen on prosecuting those accused of graft or dereliction of duty seems out of place. It would appear the airship scandal will reaffirm a major fault in society that underpins so many of our maladies. Cronyism and a need to protect people deemed belonging to "our side" is often stronger than the law. Righteousness applies only to those who stand against us. Dereliction of duty is judged not by what you do but who you are aligned with.

Whether the little-used blimp should have been purchased at all remains the question. What is clear is the 340 million baht, or more than 400 million baht if maintenance and repairs are included, could have bought bomb body armour, cars or weapons that could have saved lives in the deep South. Now that it has gone to waste with the decommissioned blimp, who should take responsibility?