The controversial trail-running venue and resort built on army-controlled land in Nakhon Nayok should serve as another reminder of the lack of transparency in the armed forces' management of state property.
The issue made national headlines last week after it emerged that the project's developer, Athip "Got" Anantawan, husband of former beauty queen and charity founder Panadda "Bum" Wongphudee, had not obtained military permission to use the land.
The 23-rai plot is state-owned and under the army's custody, administered by the 12th Military Circle and the 2nd Infantry Division, King's Guard, in Nakhon Nayok. The Treasury Department, the original landowner, had allocated it to the Royal Thai Army decades ago for military training exercises.
At a press conference last week, the army said it lacked the budget to survey land encroachment, which it said had been taking place since March last year. It also said it preferred to use "political means" rather than law enforcement to deal with trespassers.
It is worth recalling that Ms Panadda publicly presented reporters with a sale-and-purchase agreement covering more than 100 rai of land as part of her explanation.
So far, the army has filed a complaint over the encroachment linked to the trail-running venue and resort development.
That response is not enough. As the authorised user of the land, the army has a duty to protect every rai of state property under its supervision, rather than allow it to be turned into a commercial trail-running and resort facility.
The case points to a much wider problem. The armed forces, under the Defence Ministry, are among the largest recipients of state land allocated by the Treasury Department, which is the biggest state landlord in the country.
The armed forces have been permitted to use about 6 million rai, or half of the department's 12-million-rai land portfolio. They have also received permission to use sizeable plots belonging to other state agencies and ministries.
While much of the Treasury Department land allocated to the military is used for defence purposes, other plots have been put to commercial use. These include petrol stations, fresh markets, convenience stores, golf courses -- including one near Don Mueang Airport and another near Chiang Mai Airport -- racecourses and boxing stadiums.
The armed forces have also developed land for welfare housing for military personnel.
The question is whether these commercial activities are consistent with the purposes for which the Treasury Department originally allocated the land. How much revenue do the armed forces generate from them? And is the financial management of these operations transparent?
There have long been complaints about vested interests in military land leasing, while army housing projects have faced allegations of corruption. Against this backdrop, the trail-running resort controversy is only a small part of a much larger issue.
It is time for the armed forces to open their land management and commercial operations to public scrutiny. Without proper monitoring and oversight, questions about transparency and accountability will persist, while state property entrusted to the military will remain vulnerable to exploitation for private gain.