lookpedkeeray

General Surayud Chulanont would be a good choice.

Well sorry.. regardless of if he's actually a good choice, keep in mind the headline would read:

"Thai military steps aside. General Sonthi replaced by......... General Surayud"

Not saying it therefore won't happen, but if they have any sense at all then they pick a civilian with some international experience as well as being seen as neutral at home.

Then again.. this could be difficult if qualified civilians don't like the implications of the job.

I passed through Chiang Mai yesterday and noticed the continuing military presence, the complete erasing of Thaksin / TRT signage (I recall public transport trucks had them plastered all over). Are people in Chiang Mai as happy as they currently seem in Bangkok?

If you don't like it go home.

Heh, the eternal cop out against people caring enough about Thailand to speak out. But since you mentioned it, I am indeed considering that. I learned a lot last week. Especially that Thailand is best enjoyed on a beach chair with a coconut shake. Don't worry, it's not like I'm selling the cars and packing up, but to make any kind of further commitment, business, personal, family... I am reconsidering. Thailand may get away with it this time, but the precedent has been set. (And was always set, I just only realized it last week.)

The majority of the Thai people are happy with this turn of events.

A short memory can be a blessing. The majority of the thai people were happy with the turn of events in 1991. Please tell me you don't need me to remind you of what happened scarcely a year later. But even if all remains well: the precedent has been set. What will happen 15 years from now?

I can think of a few western countries that might benefit from a militaty coup to shake up the system

I can't.

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Camera-toting Thais and foreign tourists posed alongside tanks adorned in flowers and chatted up soldiers in Bangkok on Saturday, the capital's hottest attraction since a military coup four days ago.

Personally I think this is nothing short of an outrage. I'll get to the Thai people doing this a bit further on, but first as far as foreign tourists are concerned treating this as a fun attraction:

"Western tourists lucky to be born in democracies with no military involvement in politics grinning and posing in front of tanks and soldiers for photos is truly pathetic and only gives some kind of foreign endorsement to this illegal seizure of power.

The fewer military regimes in the world the better and Thailand was making some genuine progress towards developing a democratic and pluralistic society,perhaps more than any country in this region.The military had been kept out of power for some 14 years, but now it seems that the men in uniform who think they have some kind of divine right to rule are back.

Imagine a military takeover in your country.How would you feel about Asian tourists happily snapping shots of themselves with soldiers while your political rights were being suspended?True there were serious questions to be asked about the Thaksin government and at least nobody seems to have been hurt this time(contrast with the killings in 92 and the 70s) but tourists,presumably with the benefit of some kind of liberal education, should know better than to treat the fate of the entire Thai nation as some crass photo opportunity."

Now, secondly, especially in Bangkok it seems there are Thai people doing the same.. Giving flowers and candy to soldiers. Apparently the reality that Thailand's democracy and "People's Constitution" was thrown out on a relative whim doesn't matter to them. They enjoyed 15 years of prosperity, freedom and democracy because of courageous Thais who protested, and died, at the hands of the army a mere 15 years ago around Democracy Monument and Ratchadamnoen Klang.

To be giving flowers to soldiers and tanks now is nothing short of a betrayal of the courage and achievements of those who fought and died during Black May of 1992.

I think tourists would do well to stay well clear of the military.

If you have as we do in Thailand, a large number of the electorate who are not highly educated and someone with a lot of money pays for their vote.......... Is that Democratic and correct in your opinion ??

My opinion doesn't matter much, so be sure to pass your suggestion on to the people who will be drafting the next constitution; something like "Only people who have at least completed Mathayom 6 are allowed to vote".

That should set things straight.

May I remind everyone that she was a democratically elected government minister?

Please find out what the word means and use it correctly in future ...

It means getting more votes than everyone else.

And to pre-empt the vote buying argument: When your electorate is rich, you can buy votes by promisting tax cuts and other economic measures. Everywhere in the world people vote for the guy who gets the most money into their pockets.

No, it's not right, but many people seem to completely discount the opinions, needs and aspirations of up country folk, merely because they also received that couple hundred baht at the election party.

There's a good letter in The Nation about this today:

Upcountry poor will bear the brunt of the results

It's interesting to note that in retrospect the greatest threat to Thailand's democracy was not Thaksin, who admittedly did do damage to independent checks-and-balances mechanisms and was self-serving. Rather the major danger to democracy was the elite of Bangkok.

This newspaper has provided an ideal and constant example of what people who form Bangkok's intelligentsia think. Opinion pieces too numerous to mention hammered Thaksin with a verve that is usually reserved elsewhere for true dictators (I'm talking Pol Pot style tyranny, not a guy who sells off rights to the country's mobile phone services) and also were repeatedly condescending concerning Thaksin's rural support. The message: The ignorant masses in the countryside vote for Thaksin; the better educated here in Bangkok know better.

The message now to the people in Isaan is this: your votes don't count and neither do your opinions. You voted for Thaksin both out of ignorance and greed - his populist programmes did more for rural healthcare than any prior administration sure, but this came at the expense of your Bangkok betters. Once again the unfortunate axiom that upcountry people elect a government, but Bangkok gets rid of them holds true.

Now we have a military junta in place. This is what Bangkok's "democracy advocates" have basically allowed to happen. Bangkok's elite couldn't be happier (I do not buy for a minute the dodgy polls your newspaper publishes, which says everyone loves the coup) but I'm left to wonder who gets the dung-flavoured end of the stick?

Foreign reaction to this coup is almost entirely negative, with the sole major exception of China (that in itself is very telling) and foreign direct investment is bound to suffer, and tourism to drop. The people who will suffer are not the smug, gloating elite of Bangkok, but the "grassroots people", the people who work low-end jobs in the tourist industry, and if the economic effects are strong enough layoffs are bound to follow in every sector. It's done now and cannot be reversed, but I hope that if the junta does allow free elections in a year's time, whatever the results, if Thaksin or someone is elected by the majority of Thai people, that the same situation does not repeat itself. I hope Bangkok's elite can put aside its self-serving condescending ways and allow the institution of democracy to cement itself in this country.

Marshall Law

Bangkok

Note that I wasn't just being cute with that remark.

Last week's events show clearly that you cannot count on ANY investment or commitment to Thailand to hold up when laws, governments, policies and even the whole constitution can be thrown out on a relative whim.

I like Thailand more than any other place in the world, but last week's events were very enlightening to me personally. This is not a political/legal system where I can feasibly run a business, buy/lease land or raise my children. (Yes, I realize it never was that to begin with, but I personally only realized it last week.)

If I'd enjoy gambling then there's better places to do it.

I'll give you one Ronald McDonald Happy Meal Club card for two Thailand Elite cards. Trade?

Why is anyone bothering with Thai news media at this point in time?

And, anything with a percentage sign on the pages of the Bangkok Post has always been iffy at best.

May I remind everyone that she was a democratically elected government minister?

What specific policies or actions would you consider vile?

Why should she not return to Thailand?

Why should she not re-enter politics?

NOTE: These are just questions, not opinions for or against anyone.