The heatedly debated 20-year national strategy proposal is not the result of a sudden decision, but actually is a plan hatched and nurtured over the last two years under the coordination of some of the key “Five Rivers” actors.
And unlike other developments that are critical to the country, including the previous charter draft that was killed before it was born, the national strategy has survived to fulfil senior officials’ wishes for a long-term vision to face modern challenges.
According to sources working close to the plan, the national strategy in its present form is a revised version of a “bureaucratic administration” committee under the now-defunct National Reform Council (NRC). The idea was developed by senior military officials on the panel.
The NRC first considered the conceptual framework in early 2015 when the bureaucratic administration committee met with its counterpart in the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) and agreed on the plan in principle, according to the latest 2016 report on the “preparation and implementation of the national strategy bill”, which sources revealed to The Nation.
The NRC later received a report on “the national strategy and the national strategy draft bill development” for deliberation. It endorsed the report on June 23 before proposing it to the prime minister on July 6.
Before that, during a June 30 meeting, the Cabinet had endorsed the 20-year national strategy development, which paved the way of an establishment of the “national strategy preparation” committee, instructing Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam to consult with the NRC to coordinate efforts.
The same source, who worked on developing a comprehensive reform framework, said the proposed national strategy committee in the report would not be the same as the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC) proposed in the previous charter draft, which was highly controversial given wide speculation that it was given power to overrule future governments. The source said the new committee was expected to give up the NSRRC’s role after the first five years.
The former Constitution Drafting Committee led by Borwornsak Uwanno also had proposed a similar “national strategy” committee, but the idea was only in its initial stages as the committee focused its efforts on the NSRRC, which was tasked with a broad spectrum of reform and reconciliation.
After the NRC voted down on the previous charter draft, the 2015 report and draft bill submitted to the government was considered by government legal advisers as invalid and to be discarded, the source said.
However, after the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) was appointed to replace the NRC to continue the reforms, a new “bureaucratic administration reform steering” committee was established, with some of the same figures sitting on the committee, the source said. The proposal was then brought back to the table.
Another source working close to the matter, who also preferred anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, told The Nation that the government had the national committee working on the content of the strategy, while the NRSA’s committee helped develop mechanisms to drive the strategy. These included the national strategy draft bill, he said.
The committee submitted a letter requesting the new Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) to address national strategy in the new charter draft, and it appeared in its Article 61 and 263 of its provisional chapter.
Last Tuesday, the committee then proposed a new report on the “preparation and implementation of the national strategy bill”, which also proposed a “national strategy” committee along with other points sent to the NRSA for deliberation. The NRSA endorsed it with a majority of 164 votes.
Pol Maj Yongyut Sarasombat, the NRSA’s committee chair, declined to give a full interview to The Nation, but said the committee would speed up its work and submit a review this week.
According to the committee’s meeting records from last Friday, the committee planned to revise some elements, including more being more specific about the new committee’s authority to “X-ray” future governments’ performance in regard to the strategy, and to alert concerned organisations in case of failure.
The revised report is expected to be submitted to the committee for endorsement today before it is forwarded to the government.
The first source said the currently proposed strategy committee could be considered weaker than the NSRCC because it did not include Army leaders. However, it apparently had more stringent authority to scrutinise future governments, which possibly prompted severe criticism of it although it has no special powers to intervene in time of crisis like the NSRRC would have. “I agree with the idea that we should have a national strategy, but the presently proposed structure and authority is too questionable and needs reconsideration,” said the source.
Sirote Klampaiboon, an independent political scientist, said the national strategy as proposed was highly questionable, including whether it could respond to the modern challenges given the complexity both at home and abroad.
“Public policies cannot be determined by a small group of people, but [should be] developed through a broad support via political revolution. They should help reflect people’s needs and connect to the people via political movements. With this idea developed, the learning process would be undermined.”
Strategies map out 20 years of potential threats
As the government’s 20-year national strategies become clearer, a mix of viewpoints has emerged.
Some people are looking at the process as a product of a military mindset and are cautious, while others believe the military approach may help steer the country in the right direction, which might be better than leaving the task to politicians.
Whatever the viewpoint, the military is trying to justify its approach, in part by identifying the range of potential threats that the strategies are meant to counter.
The Prayut government’s 20-year strategies are set to start in 2017. As revealed to The Nation by a military intelligence source, the long-term objectives aim to ensure that the country develops with stability and prosperity under the sufficiency economy philosophy.
The goals are for Thais to be happy, have high incomes and have a standard of living in keeping with developed countries. The strategies state that in society there must be equality, justice and economic competitiveness.
The strategies also address cyber threats, which the government views as a national threat.
National threats change quickly in accordance with border-less communication technologies. State websites have collapsed after attacks by anonymous hackers, resulting in operations ceasing temporarily.
The reasons behind the cyber attacks range from dissatisfaction with government policies to religious beliefs and political ideologies.
The military source said both conventional threats and new emerging threats were being considered.
Conventional threats spurred the deployment of troops in response to military clashes between Thailand and Cambodia. Military analysts believe this type of threat is unlikely to take place again given both sides have common interests such as economic benefits. For example, the two countries use energy sources in the Gulf of Thailand in overlapping areas.
The national strategic framework identifies threats to the country starting now and projecting to five, 10 and 20 years’ time. The government believes that over the next 20 years there will be new or unconventional threats that may be similar to present-day threats but different in detail.
Those threats include terrorism, although Thailand is not generally considered to be a prime terrorism target. The threat of terrorism, however, has intensified with advancements in technology and communications. Countries’ borders have become almost meaningless. Additionally, it has become necessary to prepare for threats such as sabotage and cyber attacks that destroy communications and threaten the economic system.
There are also threats from communicable diseases as many new diseases have emerged, spreading quickly and widely and often exceeding the capabilities of civilian healthcare responders.
Another threat that is considered as new relates to conflicts over natural resources.
Some of these threats are initiated as people carry out their normal daily routines, requiring constant vigilance and thorough monitoring of the possible indicators and precursors of a threat. Authorities have to evaluate both the intentions and capabilities of suspects to assess the possible threat level.
This is particularly true in the case of cyber attacks because just a single person can stage an attack and collapse a computer system, so the threat capability is clear.
For the most part, the 20-year national strategies focus on threats that derive from within the country.
Advocates of the national strategies point out that Thailand has never before mapped out such a comprehensive approach, as past governments generated contradictory policies based on political priorities and their popularity.
