The mystery surrounding the number of generals in our nation’s armed forces is, in fact, described as “highly confidential” by the Ministry of Defence. This isn’t just a fun secret but a matter shrouded in the cloaks of national security concerns. Recently, the Office of the Permanent Secretary for Defence delivered a rather cryptic response to the House Committee on Military Affairs, which had requested details about the planned downsizing and the number of generals across the military branches.
Apparently, the Ministry of Defence believes that the total count of military personnel, especially higher-ups like generals, should be kept under wraps to prevent any possible risks to state interests. Quite the cloak-and-dagger scenario, don’t you think? However, amidst all this secrecy, a broader strategy is in play. The armed forces are diligently working to trim down the number of generals acting as special experts, experts, and operational officers. Their grand restructuring scheme aims for completion by the year 2030.
The Ministry proudly notes that so far, they’ve managed to slash 330 positions, with another 70 jobs set to vanish into thin air between 2025 and 2028. Not everyone, however, is buying this whole classified storyline. Enter Jirat Thongsuwan, a fiery People’s Party MP hailing from Chachoengsao, who couldn’t resist criticizing the ministry’s shifty stance.
He passionately questioned, “Since when is the number of armed forces generals considered highly confidential? Who exactly is being shielded from this knowledge?” With a hint of rebellion, he provided his own answer: “Taxpayers.” In his view, Jirat argued that disclosing the number of generals would not compromise national security, but perhaps, the security of specific military officials with vested interests.
Amidst the debates and mysteries, there is a positive note from the government’s cabinet—a new development! They have greenlit, at least in principle, a draft royal decree that lays the groundwork for financial support towards the military’s early retirement program. Deputy government spokesperson, Karom Phonphonklang, revealed this hopeful avenue that anticipates the armed forces’ planned downsizing by 5% by 2027. Also, it targets a 50% cut in the number of generals in those three pivotal categories by 2028.
So, while the exact count of generals might remain as elusive as ever, it is clear that a significant reshuffling and reduction is on the horizon. The stage is set, the plans are laid, and only time will tell if these military maneuvers will achieve the intended goals. Until then, the whispers of classified figures and secretive reductions will keep echoing, sparking curiosity and conversations far and wide.
I think it’s crazy that the number of generals is such a secret. Aren’t taxpayers funding their salaries?
If it’s for national security, then it should stay secret. We don’t want to give enemies any advantage.
A secret count doesn’t deter enemies; it just raises questions about accountability. Transparency builds trust.
I agree with Intellectus. How can we hold them accountable if we don’t know the facts?
Maybe it’s not just about security. Could it be about some officials trying to hide inefficiencies or something worse?
That would be real shady. I wonder how many generals are just there for show and not really doing anything useful.
This whole thing smells like a cover-up! They’re protecting certain people, not state secrets.
Honestly, it seems like a power play. Hiding numbers to keep control.
Why would they need to cover up? People just love conspiracy theories.
When there’s smoke, there’s usually fire. Just wait and see!
Jirat Thongsuwan raises a good question. Why is the number of generals confidential? Is it a matter of pride?
Not pride, more likely politics. Numbers probably reflect political clout more than competence.
If that’s the case, it’s the kind of politics that costs taxpayers dearly.
This downsizing plan by 2030 sounds ambitious. Will it actually happen? Will it be effective?
Government plans rarely go 100% as stated. Time will tell if their actions match their words.
It’s just another empty promise. Too many interests are at stake for a true change.
Generals have been vital to state security throughout history, but transparency should still be key.
Totally agree, but sometimes transparency can be dangerous too. Balance is difficult.
I find it strange how they’re slashing positions but not clearly stating how many positions there were initially.
They’re only saying as much as they have to. Lack of clarity leaves less room for scrutiny.
The claim about early military retirement funding is just a way to pacify the public, nothing more.
The secrecy in military numbers reminds me of how corporate finances are kept under wraps. For control?
At times, having closed books is essential. But it should never be an excuse for lack of accountability.
What if these generals are vital in some other capacity we don’t know about? Just playing devil’s advocate.
With progress, we need to rethink what should be kept secret and what shouldn’t.
The interaction between public transparency and national security is like a tightrope walk, and our officials aren’t always the best acrobats.
Larry D, you’re spot on. The line between what’s necessary to know and what’s dangerous to know is thin and easily crossed.
Imagine if they actually laid out the real numbers! Would we even know all the implications?
My sixth-grade class could probably handle their ‘secrets’ better. Honesty couldn’t hurt.