The auditor-general also said an initial investigation by his office found that the submarine purchase deal was genuinely between the governments of Thailand and China. He added that no unauthorised individuals or private businesses were involved in the deal.

In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Pisit said that the office’s priority in conducting the probe was to evaluate whether the Yuan-class S26T submarine’s specifications would actually meet the Navy’s expectations as stipulated in its long-term strategy.

The submarines would come with four torpedos offered by the Chinese state factory. These, together with other weapons that the submarines will be equipped with, would also be evaluated in terms of worthiness – with their functionality excluded from criteria.

“Knowing too much about the security details would only land the office staff in trouble,” the auditor-general said. “Still, we will look at the justification behind the pricing, such as how long the Navy will be able to use the given weapons at this price and how their price tags are proportionate with the whole submarine.”

Amid speculation about the Bt13.5-billion Chinese submarine deal, the auditor-general is now one of few hopes for the public to probe this pricey deal, given its confidential status.

Activists approached the auditor-general’s office to file petitions seeking a probe. The office agreed to begin the inspection on Thursday, just a day before the Navy penned an agreement with China on the deal.

“It’s not too late at all to start tracking the deal,” Pisit insisted “Though the deal is already signed, our findings can lead to changes even to the signed agreement, if necessary.”

Many people would like the office to find out if the multi-billion-baht deal is worth the price tag? Pisit said the Navy’s explanations would be taken into account.

There is another information to be taken into account – a seven-year-binding status of this procurement. According to a legal expert, Preecha Suwannathat, the procurement might violate the budget bill, which stipulates |that any long-term budget needs to be approved within 60 days after the bill of that fiscal year is passed. Given that the current budget bill came into effect in October 2016, it would be against the law to approve this submarine procurement as late as April, Preecha said.

Pisit said it was for the Budget Bureau to explain whether the approval violated any law. On October 25, the Cabinet approved a list of prospective long-binding purchases from various governmental agencies, with the submarine procurement also on the list, he said.

On April 18, the Cabinet approved the pricey procurement in confidentiality. In 2015, the Yuan-class S26T first hit the headlines when the Navy began considering the possibility of acquiring a hardware that the Thai military has managed without for six decades.

Authorities – from the Navy to the junta-backed government – did provide explanations but never disclosed a single related document. But that has not stopped public scepticism over the use of taxpayer funds for the deal that is binding for seven years.

Reacting to the question whether the office was stopped from inspecting the procurement, Pisit stressed “No.”

“But we had to wait for the Cabinet’s approval to start the probe. We have to make sure that the procurement is final,” he said. “If it’s merely an initiative or a proposal and we probe, we could be accused of interfering,” he said.

He said the allocation of a budget, arrangement for payment of instalments, drafting procedure on the terms of reference, compliance with relative regulations will all be taken into account by the office to see whether the submarine deal is worth the state budget, he said.

Pisit said the answer to the question on whether it was necessary for the country to have a submarine, would depend on the reasons given, primarily by the Navy. And this is something all sides should pay heed to.” He said he personally thought it was necessary for the country to have submarines when considering the country’s marine long-term strategy.

“If we say we have a dog in the house, at least it can help scare off people with evil intentions,” said Pisit.