'NO COUPS' seems to be most precise and briefest message that the Thai armed forces could deliver to the public without a hitch especially in time of crisis or great doubt. However, when it comes to additional information and explanation, their military leaders are often at a loss.

At issue here these days are not simply just the guarantee of no military takeovers but the whole gamut of Thai military's engagement in domestic domains and their relationship with the regional and global community as well. On the top of that, there is an important issue of the public's right to know. Thailand is a democracy, albeit its defects, which has rules that the military must comply under a civilian government.

When it comes to communicating with the Thais and outside world on pivotal issues, particularly on security aspects, the military top brasses quite often take it personally viewing further enquiries from media or civil society groups as signs of mistrust and unnecessary provocations. They also take it for granted that outsiders must understand their goodwill and true intentions in a country with a constitutional monarchy.

Everybody knows the new army chief, Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, is a no-nonsense guy. Since he came to this eminent position last October, he has delivered strong messages every time he was in front of TV cameras stressing the noble role and dedication their soldiers hold in defending the country's sovereignty and protecting the throne. That much was clear. Somehow, he has not been able to communicate with the wider audience about the multi-facet roles of the Thai army in a more comprehensive context. His predecessor, retired Gen Anupong, was better - more measured and consistent in delivering the message concerning the army's duty and responsibility, which was initially perceived as a weak leadership.

Tough talk is one thing, sensible talk is another. Apparently, the latter's quality is often missing. Since the 2006 coup, the Thai military has been under the world's microscope due to bad publicity around the world about their purported actions, which was aided by systematic spins of anti-Thai military groups. Despite their good intention and goodwill, quite often, they yield opposite effects.

For instance, the whole Thai military establishment has been up in arms on the proposed stationing of Indonesian observers and the alleged use of cluster bombs. On the former, in the past one month, their leaders made numerous nonsense comments about the nature of third party facilitation, especially Asean, and various reservations over the proposed locations for invited Indonesian friends. Somehow, on this sensitive matter, the top echelon likes to speak instead showing off their ignorance rather than intelligence. There should be an army spokesperson solely on this matter who can provide clarity and information in Thai and English on why there have been delays in implementing the arrangement brokered by Asean. What were the issues at stake?