Jump to content

New Army chief’s pro-coup stance ahead of polls angers many


webfact

Recommended Posts

New Army chief’s pro-coup stance ahead of polls angers many

By KAS CHANWANPEN 
THE NATION

 

6e402ce6f3c0ab4e46612a9ea083cf7e.jpeg

Army chief General Apirat Kongsompong

 

THE NEW Army chief will find it difficult to justify any more coups after scholars, politicians and activists loudly rejected his statement that the military might take control again if political upheavals re-emerge.

 

Army chief General Apirat Kongsompong’s reluctance to safeguard democracy prompted anti-junta sentiment among political activists who were united in insisting that coups were unjustifiable.

 

Political scientist Piyaphob Mahamad yesterday pointed out that the use of military force is never a sustainable solution in politics. 

 

“Political turmoil is a classic reason the military uses to back its intervention,” he said. “But there’s no way of justifying it. A coup will only destroy democracy in the long run. The best way to deal with political conflict is to simply respect the rules and laws as well as election results.”

 

Piyaphob said the military should learn from past experiences, such as the popular uprising that erupted in May 1992 as the result of a coup. 

 

Many other politicians and political activists voiced similar opinions, and questioned whether the street rallies and clashes that led to the last coup had been spontaneous or engineered specifically to pave the way for a military takeover. 

 

Pheu Thai politician Watana Muangsook said the military had tried to legitimise its unlawful action, but in reality it only staged a coup to protect its own interests. 

 

“The Army chief’s statement only undermines the atmosphere for trade and investment. This makes it worse for the economy that is already in recession, which actually also resulted from the [2014] coup,” he said.

 

Red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikua said political unrest should never be used to justify a coup, adding that he also believed street rallies had been designed especially to prompt military intervention. 

 

But when it came to the red-shirt protest, what followed was a massacre not a coup, Nattawut said sarcastically.

 

Other politicians, including Pheu Thai’s Chaturon Chaisaeng and Democrat Nipit Intrasombat, said the new Army chief’s statement may have stemmed from his lack of knowledge about politics. 

 

Chaturon, however, said Apirat’s statement may have damaged Thailand’s credibility and affected its reputation internationally. It may have also adversely affected trade and investment, he added. 

 

Meanwhile, Nipit said Apirat should take lessons from his predecessor when it comes to holding this powerful position and understand that political disagreement can never be a reason to stage a coup. He added that everybody, including the Army, should do their duty. 

 

Thailand is one of the few countries being ruled by a military-led government. Since the Siamese Revolution brought democracy to the country some 86 years ago, the military has staged 18 successful coups. 

 

Despite strong opposition to the frequent disruption of democracy, the new Army chief insisted on taking a pro-coup stance in his first press conference on Wednesday. He did so with elections set to take place in a few months – four years after a coup-installed government prepares to step down.

 

However, Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan, a member of the ruling National Council for Peace and Order, defended Apirat yesterday, saying he was only stating a common truth. 

 

Later he admitted that a coup should not take place in future and that Apirat’s statement should not affect the upcoming election.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30356744

 
thenation_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-10-19

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, webfact said:

However, Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan, a member of the ruling National Council for Peace and Order, defended Apirat yesterday, saying he was only stating a common truth. 

Meaning what? That the Thai people (and others with an interest in this country) should just accept it? Apirak is clearly as dumb as his father who rose to supreme commander without a shred of intellect and was completely subordinate to Hia Su. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the first few lines of the report, I decided to stop because I feel the report is the same predictable old hat dribble with unsurprising content.

 

Thai fickle nature will always prevail and so will the obsession for power plus high so greed, whilst suppressing the masses.

 

I believe Thailand has had more forced military rule coups compared to other countries in recent decades and look at the impact it has created.

 

That's something to be proud of.

 

Not!

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Should be expecting a coup or counter coup regardless of the election outcome.

 

The traditional circles are looking to change players, but not the theatre.

 

Same as it ever was.

The next coup will be quite different in manner and substance with the new sheriff in town and allegiance switched. The regular coup regiment may be stopped before they enter the city. They will not be welcome by those 'educated' Bangkokians with flowers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lupatria said:

That's what they did. Wasn't there a judge ruling the coup was legal?

All twelve of Thailand's military coups have been deemed legitimate and that should say something about a fundamental flaw in the real power behind the governance of Thailand.

Prayut's coup did violate the 2006 Constitution and organic laws. It is for that fact that the NCPO granted itself unilateral amnesty past, present and future. So how then could the court rule Prayut's coup was still legal?

“It is pertinent that the power of the judiciary works in tandem with military power in order to legitimize and support the power of the coup-makers and the legal system of the coup-making order,”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2017/05/30/judiciary-legitimized-coup-supported-junta-thai-lawyers-allege/

Thailand's judiciary must reach beyond the rule of law established by the constitution and penal code to legitimize military coups. This reach must go beyond the sovereignty of the nation by the Thai people. From the same article:

"The rights group said the courts were quick to rule that the coup-makers held sovereignty and were thus legitimate." (my underline emphasis)

Edited by Srikcir
missing word
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, YetAnother said:

his stance is disturbing, his seeming lack of intelligence and tact even more so

Tact in the military is the same as using  "military intelligence" - an absolute conflict in language use. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

All twelve of Thailand's military coups have been deemed legitimate and that should say something about a fundamental flaw in the real power behind the governance of Thailand.

Prayut's coup did violate the 2006 Constitution and organic laws. It is for that fact that the NCPO granted itself unilateral amnesty past, present and future. So how then could the court rule Prayut's coup was still legal?

“It is pertinent that the power of the judiciary works in tandem with military power in order to legitimize and support the power of the coup-makers and the legal system of the coup-making order,”

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2017/05/30/judiciary-legitimized-coup-supported-junta-thai-lawyers-allege/

Thailand's judiciary must reach beyond the rule of law established by the constitution and penal code to legitimize military coups. This reach must go beyond the sovereignty of the nation by the Thai people. From the same article:

"The rights group said the courts were quick to rule that the coup-makers held sovereignty and were thus legitimate." (my underline emphasis)

"All twelve of Thailand's military coups have been deemed legitimate.."

 

Deemed legitimate by whom?  How can something that violates the constitution be legal?  How can any legitimate judicial system not deem a violation of the constitution as illegal?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...