Thousands Protest Outside Thai Privy Council Chairman's Home

[bkkandrew]

Referendum and election coming, no serious violence so far.Please elaborate regarding failures of the junta.

How long have you got?!?

[younghusband]

We clearly live in entirely different regions of Thailand younghusband. I do not know a single Thai person who supports Thaksin. And if you will take another look at the results of the last election I think you will find a substantially large enough population was so disenchanted as to vote "no vote" resulting in only a single elected member of Parliament in the entire Southern region.

So, if an entire region choosing to be disenfranchised still accounts for most in your book, so be it. We beg to differ.

As to the idea that there was no violence at Prem's house, well, I guess I'd like to see some proof that it was all staged, which is what you appear to be implying.

Personally, I have no opinion on Prem as a politician one way or another but find it very disturbing that some elements apparently feel that a violent reaction towards an old man is somehow acceptable. Better to demonstrate against the military. Don't you think?

You are right of course that in the South, Thaksin and the TRT found very little favour partly because it is a traditional Democrat stronghold and partly because of the disaffection in the mainly Muslim provinces.Still I'm slightly surprised you have never met a Thai who supported Thaksin, since most of the country voted for him.

I don't think the demonstration at Prem's house was staged and I am sure there were some rowdy elements.I do have an opinion of Prem which is he is a man of considerable stature and integrity:his role in the illegal military coup remains obscure although the available evidence does not portray a flattering portrait.Still that is for historians to assess, but he is certainly not somehow above criticism.

[Mid]

Opinion

Stoppage time :It's time to rethink what 'mob rules' we can accept

Targeting the head of the Privy Council in a political campaign is intriguing, but it's conceivable if we scrutinise the background of Thailand's ongoing crisis.

Published on July 25, 2007

Marching protesters to his residence is not unimaginable, neither are the apparent attempts to provoke violence. What's more disturbing in the wake of Sunday's near miss though is the general assumption that things would have turned out differently if someone had died or been seriously injured.

Tulsathit Taptim

[bingobongo]

Referendum and election coming, no serious violence so far.Please elaborate regarding failures of the junta.

What have they made better? Just an armed gang that would wash dishes in the west, had hey been released to sniff into the civilization. Much like the Burmese "leaders".

Carrying guns, never elected, not accountable to anyone but free to make decisions.

There were no arrests and no protests before they rolled the tanks into the city.

All they wanted is Thaksin's money, for them, still desperately chasing it. It's pathetic to watch how money hungry the junta is.

If they stand for an elections, in any form, they would not radiate any confidence.

Let's see what Thais have to say with the ballots.

Before that happens, I am afraid, the junta would do a thing or two to rig it. They will never ever have Thaksin's kind of support. Possibly, no elections come any time soon.

well stated and oh so true

[Tony Clifton]

If you would take a moment to look past this event you will see that this is a very personal attack on Prem. Prem is not the issue here as I see it but more of a revenge attack. If there is anti-government, anti junta protests, why go after a person who transcends several governments including Thaksin’s and for the most part is unchanged. Think what was going on just a year ago at this time when it became clear Thaksin was going after prem because he stood in his way. Prem is not the key to changing the country even that the TRT / PTV / Thaksin group would make you want to think. That lies with the Junta, and the PM at the moment.

Note the size of the rock in post #32, that had to be brought in as you would not find a rock that big just laying around in Bangkok. Even at an excavation site there is mostly if not all dirt and mud. This was clearly well planned and scripted in advanced.

As reported TRT members were seen paying people and in my mind this spells Thaksin. It is the only plan of action Thaksin has left, he has played all his cards as far as I can see. He is the only person that can benefit from this and can still fund it. The other lesser players PTV TRT have similar agendas because soon or later the will be at the top of the list of the bad boy hunters.

John K wrote: "It is the only plan of action Thaksin has left, he has played all his cards as far as I can see"

John - I think that is far from the reality. Thaksin has bought Man City. There he will wine and dine the 'Great & the Good and the Bad".

He now says that he prefers to live in China. China casts an envious eye on Thai food production. Who knows what deals he has done if they promise him help back to power? He has powerful friends there.

He is pulling the strings from afar. He still has huge support in the North and Northeast of Thailand.

Thaksin has a few Aces up his sleeve yet !

I fear you are right. I wonder how long before they send out a hitman?

Rich

Given the choice between Thailand and Thaksin there's no choice for Chinese.

Chinese have already shown how they would treat him. He could privately meet whoever he wants but any politically imapporpirate activities will be out of question.

Do not overestimate Thaksin's influence in China because of past deals. I think if there's a choice to be made between Thaksin and Thailand, Thaksin will come second. The fact that he's met Thai politicians in China doesn't mean he had permission to hold politically inclined meetings there as a tourist. I'm convinced that's where he'll get busted and get deported. A Chinese minister has recently received a death sentence for accepting bribes.

[aaaaaa]

interesting things a trivial Google search can give. try look for keywords "Prem Tinsulanonda"

the very first result is website:

Biography and photographs of the soldier, statesman and Regent of Thailand.

www.generalprem.com

now, correct me if I am worng, but I checked it by wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent

A Regent, from the Latin regens "who reigns" , is a person selected to act as Head of state (ruling or not) because the ruler is a minor, not present or debilitated. Thus, the common use is for an acting deputy governor. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "A person appointed to administer a State because the Monarch is a minor, is absent or is incapacitated."

well, with all due respect to HM The King, the fact that it is an officla website with "Autorized biography", and many other things, and at the same time the word Regent of Thailand used in search results, with very clear meaning of this word - already says a lot - doesn't it?

especially the part about minor....

the only other case of a person being Regent of Thailand ismentioned regarding HM Queen Sirikit, while HM THe King was a monk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirikit

Regency

When the King undertook a period of service as a Buddhist monk in 1956 (as is customary for all Thai Buddhist males), Sirikit became Regent.

and it is said that due to Her excellent performance in that role she was made a Queen Regent.

it certainly strange the this word term "Regent Of Thailand" is used to a person who supposed to be apolitical and merely a coulsior-like or advior role ! especially on the website which is apperently official.

yes, the easiest answer is: the mistake made by webmasters of that website, sort of "lost in translation" staff... but the fact is fact - it is there, on the very top of search results in Google.

and even if it is indeed a mistake, since amoung that same website among his ranks and titles (http://www.generalprem.com/ranks.html) word "Regent" isn't mentioned, it is not a big secret that he had a certain role in last coup. like, according to wikipedia again (which gives the 3rd result in Google search results for Prem):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Tinsulanonda

Role in political crisis and 2006 coup

Prem was involved in the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 and played a key role in the subsequent September 2006 military coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra....

Prem's role in the coup and the subsequent junta was harshly criticized. Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Chulalongkorn University noted that "General Prem has been compromised. He can’t have it both ways. He got so involved [in politics] and now he wants to be untouchable. But we are in a big mess and people want to know who is responsible...

5th result from Google is an article from Forbes, with articles dated merely 3 days after coup:

Former Thai PM Prem Tinsulanonda had key role in coup - analysts

09.22.2006, 07:36 AM

The king's top adviser and respected former premier General Prem Tinsulanonda was key to this week's military coup and is likely to play a vital role in any new political order, analysts said....

Sources close to the coup said Prem, the former commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Army backed the military takeover and helped convince the king to give his approval, seen as vital in keeping the country calm...

Prem is the key link between the military and the monarch, but the extent of any role he played remains hazy...

'Prem will continue to be the senior-most figure behind the scenes,' the analyst said.

so, no wonder a lot of people have decided that enough is enough and it is time to take an action - to make him quit. and even less wonder that it has caused such a reaction. in fact, many feel that last Sunday events were the evidence of how important his role is:

23 July 2007

Clashes in front of a royal advisor’s house irk the junta

“We always went before with huge amounts of people but the police never reacted like this,” Weng said. “It shows we hit at the heart of the junta. We hit Mr Prem just to expose that he is the mastermind behind the coup.”

The melee raised eyebrows in a capital where such clashes are rare even though protests, tanks on the street and even small bombs are quite common. Ever since publisher Sondhi Limthongkul launched a street protest campaign to oust deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra in November 2005, fears of violence have proved unfounded.

Indeed, the very sight of protestors clashing with police immediately draws comparisons to the Bloody May incident of 1992 in which soldiers started shooting and killing peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators.

the fact remains that he was involved in coup, despite the definition of his position as an advisor. that was allegedly the main accusation by the group which clashed with police on Sunday. and he himself never denied it either as I recall - pls correct me if I am wrong.

he is 86 y.o. and respected enough, done a lot for country and HM The King. why not resign and make the things calm down in the country before such important coming events as Aug 19 and later the General Elections ? surely as the person who has most urged the unity of nation, he would see the wisdom of such action - for the sake of country's well-being and national unity. then why doesn't he?

[meom]

Why doesn't he resign? Because he has to finish the job which is to lay the foundation for a smooth succession. In my opinion that's what the whole coup was all about but we can't really discuss this here which is a pity.

[A_Traveller]

On the apparent Regent issue raised herein. Constitutional duties of The President of the Thai Privy Council include informing Parliament of the council's decision on who will be the King's successor should he not have named one and acting as regent in the King's absence.

Therefore Prem is a regent but only in titular form whilst HM(s) are in the country. There is no confusion here.

Regards

[John K]

I coup probably say this in two posts but I think in this case one will do.

First the word 'junta' seems... well never mind seems, it a trigger word. However in this case it may be time to add another definition in the dictionary.

In this case the new added dictionary definition would be:

A group of <country> nationals who are loyal to monarchy and country and who had the means to overthrow (a corrupt, damaging and dictatorship seeking government) in an effort to restore democracy.

So far all the attack or negative comments by posters about the junta have been applying dictionary definitions that don’t match the actions of this junta. The negative attacks have been on the word ‘junta’ that I am sorry to say don’t match what is going on (at the moment) in Thailand.

The pro Thaksin group is doing it’s best to make the junta act like one of the other definitions but thus far have failed. If it was a junta by the definitions posters have been assuming, this and other threads that cite repeated rallies would be truncated to just one event.

The second part of this post cites the Bangkok post that simply states what I have seen.

http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/25Jul2007_news01.php

a few key excerpts:

(Gen Surayud)

''They have demonstrated their intention of undermining the highest institution on which the country and people rely,'' he said.

According to the statement, the constitution clearly stipulates that His Majesty the King appoints the privy councillors and the council president, all of whom provide him with advice.

The Privy Council, therefore, represents a crucial component of the highest institution.

Edited July 25, 2007 by John K

[Plus]

the fact remains that he was involved in coup

THE FACT!!!

After all these research I don't see a single fact that Prem was involved.

"Prem was involved in the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 and played a key role in the subsequent September 2006 military coup ... " - simply states wikipedia without giving ANY sources. Wiki quotes Thitinan Pongsudhirak raving against Prem, but personal rave is not a fact.

And the quote stressed by Aaaaa himself: "the extent of any role he played remains hazy..." Yes, he could have approved the coup after the fact and his approval meant a lot but that is not a sign of involvement. Millions of people approved the coup after it happened.

Yes, Prem rallied the troops for months before the coup, but at that time situation was unpredictable - Thaskin publicly resigned and was out of the country, courts were ready to jail the EC. The coup didn't seem necessary, not until Thaksin came back, took PMship again, and couldn't commit himself regarding new elections. Generals who WERE involved probably knew that they would have Prem's support, they didn't need to ask for his permission and they didn't need his orders - they were in a full control themselves.

No one can say with any degree of certainty that Prem gave orders to start the coup. To me it seems unlikely, and, most importantly, unnecessary.

>>>>>

Perhaps Weng is right - they did hit at the heart of junta - the soldiers are united around the King and they won't let mobs break their defenses and attack Privy Council President. Weng will have a lot to answer for it, though.

Mobsters acted as if they want to appear more loyal than Prem and the generals, and take over their place. Good luck. They might end up being tried for treason.

Attacking the "heart of junta" - has he got any idea of where it might be and where such attacks might lead him?

[younghusband]

the fact remains that he was involved in coup

THE FACT!!!

After all these research I don't see a single fact that Prem was involved.

"Prem was involved in the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 and played a key role in the subsequent September 2006 military coup ... " - simply states wikipedia without giving ANY sources. Wiki quotes Thitinan Pongsudhirak raving against Prem, but personal rave is not a fact.

And the quote stressed by Aaaaa himself: "the extent of any role he played remains hazy..." Yes, he could have approved the coup after the fact and his approval meant a lot but that is not a sign of involvement. Millions of people approved the coup after it happened.

Yes, Prem rallied the troops for months before the coup, but at that time situation was unpredictable - Thaskin publicly resigned and was out of the country, courts were ready to jail the EC. The coup didn't seem necessary, not until Thaksin came back, took PMship again, and couldn't commit himself regarding new elections. Generals who WERE involved probably knew that they would have Prem's support, they didn't need to ask for his permission and they didn't need his orders - they were in a full control themselves.

No one can say with any degree of certainty that Prem gave orders to start the coup. To me it seems unlikely, and, most importantly, unnecessary.

>>>>>

Perhaps Weng is right - they did hit at the heart of junta - the soldiers are united around the King and they won't let mobs break their defenses and attack Privy Council President. Weng will have a lot to answer for it, though.

Mobsters acted as if they want to appear more loyal than Prem and the generals, and take over their place. Good luck. They might end up being tried for treason.

Attacking the "heart of junta" - has he got any idea of where it might be and where such attacks might lead him?

I agree the evidence is shrouded at present but I think it is reasonably clear at minimum the coup would not have proceeded without Prem's tacit endorsement.I also agree with you that whether he played a central or marginal role is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.We keep coming back to the same question - what was the coup for? Some will argue that it was because Thaksin had distorted the democratic process, and had overreached himself in terms of self aggrandisement and corruption.Others will argue that the coup was engineered by essentially old fashioned vested interests, comprising of feudal, military and corporate elements, who were outraged that their economic and business fiefdoms were threatened.My own position is to consider both views have important elements of truth.

I wonder if there is any dim recognition of the irony of suggesting "mobsters" (ie democracy activists) being tried for treason.In many countries the junta leadership would be heading (if they were lucky) for a long spell behind bars.

[younghusband]

Younghusband, please don’t take this as a flame, but if someone dumped out a bottle of Pepsi and replaced it with orange juice, I think you will still call it Pepsi.

Thank you for this contribution which in sophistication and intelligence is certainly of a standard we have come to expect from you.

Thank you for just adding confirmation you have not a clue what is going on.

Many times I want to engage you in a debate but I feel like I am talking to someone who can’t see other opinions are more realistic and won’t back down even in the face of logic. To debate required the ability to listen as well as speak.

Thank you for your interesting contribution.I apologise for not being unable to debate with you but there seemed little I could add to your amusing and perceptive remark about Pepsi and orange juice.As to your more general point, you have certainly set an impressive example in your many posts of willingness to listen politely and amend opinions in the face of knowledge, logic and intelligence.I suppose the high quality of your posts is supported by your intimate knowledge of Thai history, culture and politics.Anyway you obviously spend a lot of time in reading up on the subject matter.Well done and hope to hear a lot more from you.

[Maxi101]

Younghusband, please don't take this as a flame, but if someone dumped out a bottle of Pepsi and replaced it with orange juice, I think you will still call it Pepsi.

Thank you for this contribution which in sophistication and intelligence is certainly of a standard we have come to expect from you.

Thank you for just adding confirmation you have not a clue what is going on.

Many times I want to engage you in a debate but I feel like I am talking to someone who can't see other opinions are more realistic and won't back down even in the face of logic. To debate required the ability to listen as well as speak.

Thank you for your interesting contribution.I apologise for not being unable to debate with you but there seemed little I could add to your amusing and perceptive remark about Pepsi and orange juice.As to your more general point, you have certainly set an impressive example in your many posts of willingness to listen politely and amend opinions in the face of knowledge, logic and intelligence.I suppose the high quality of your posts is supported by your intimate knowledge of Thai history, culture and politics.Anyway you obviously spend a lot of time in reading up on the subject matter.Well done and hope to hear a lot more from you.

John has such a nice Logo, once I see it I just jump to the next, no need for headache.

[hammered]

the fact remains that he was involved in coup

THE FACT!!!

After all these research I don't see a single fact that Prem was involved.

"Prem was involved in the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 and played a key role in the subsequent September 2006 military coup ... " - simply states wikipedia without giving ANY sources. Wiki quotes Thitinan Pongsudhirak raving against Prem, but personal rave is not a fact.

And the quote stressed by Aaaaa himself: "the extent of any role he played remains hazy..." Yes, he could have approved the coup after the fact and his approval meant a lot but that is not a sign of involvement. Millions of people approved the coup after it happened.

Yes, Prem rallied the troops for months before the coup, but at that time situation was unpredictable - Thaskin publicly resigned and was out of the country, courts were ready to jail the EC. The coup didn't seem necessary, not until Thaksin came back, took PMship again, and couldn't commit himself regarding new elections. Generals who WERE involved probably knew that they would have Prem's support, they didn't need to ask for his permission and they didn't need his orders - they were in a full control themselves.

No one can say with any degree of certainty that Prem gave orders to start the coup. To me it seems unlikely, and, most importantly, unnecessary.

>>>>>

Perhaps Weng is right - they did hit at the heart of junta - the soldiers are united around the King and they won't let mobs break their defenses and attack Privy Council President. Weng will have a lot to answer for it, though.

Mobsters acted as if they want to appear more loyal than Prem and the generals, and take over their place. Good luck. They might end up being tried for treason.

Attacking the "heart of junta" - has he got any idea of where it might be and where such attacks might lead him?

Your last comment raises something that will not be openly discussed but has an impact on what is currently going on.

[Ricardo]

There were no arrests and no protests before they rolled the tanks into the city.

Perhaps the view from Tokyo is different, but we certainly saw at least a year of unrest, prior to the coup, and this was extensively discussed on ThaiVisa.

All they wanted is Thaksin's money, for them, still desperately chasing it. It's pathetic to watch how money hungry the junta is.

So why did it take them several months, after the coup, before they started to 'freeze' DL's bank-accounts here, note that the money is still only frozen & not seized, pending various court cases.

If they stand for an elections, in any form, they would not radiate any confidence.

So far the original junta, and Sorayud's government which they put into power, show no signs of wanting to remain in politics beyond holding the next election.

Let's see what Thais have to say with the ballots. Agreed.

Before that happens, I am afraid, the junta would do a thing or two to rig it. They will never ever have Thaksin's kind of support. Possibly, no elections come any time soon.

I hope you're wrong on this, let's wait and see whether progress towards elections continues, and meanwhile hope that TRT=PTV=DAAD fail in their violent efforts to disrupt that progress.

What can they hope to gain, from delaying the elections, and a return to normal Thai democracy ?

What do they or DL have to fear from this ?

[John K]

The way I see it is this is nothing more than a revenge attack on Prem by Thaksin. The timing is as such is because so far everything else he has tried has failed and he possibly sees this as the weak link in the chan.

About the most aggressive thing I saw from prem was after Thaksin started to attack him last year was prem was seen wearing military greens as a sign of impending battle with Thaksin.

Prem simply stood very high in the public’s eye for respect back then and still does now as far as I can see. That made him somewhat bullet proof to Thaksin. If he was less than that Thaksin would still be in office and the country probably would have been renamed Thakland by now.

Thaksin needs to provoke violence as it fits his style. He tried to use the same tactic last year so he could assume the same powers in the south in Bangkok. Then he would for sure started to disappear people again.

I see younghusband still is having problems with metaphors.

[hammered]

the fact remains that he was involved in coup

THE FACT!!!

After all these research I don't see a single fact that Prem was involved.

"Prem was involved in the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 and played a key role in the subsequent September 2006 military coup ... " - simply states wikipedia without giving ANY sources. Wiki quotes Thitinan Pongsudhirak raving against Prem, but personal rave is not a fact.

And the quote stressed by Aaaaa himself: "the extent of any role he played remains hazy..." Yes, he could have approved the coup after the fact and his approval meant a lot but that is not a sign of involvement. Millions of people approved the coup after it happened.

Yes, Prem rallied the troops for months before the coup, but at that time situation was unpredictable - Thaskin publicly resigned and was out of the country, courts were ready to jail the EC. The coup didn't seem necessary, not until Thaksin came back, took PMship again, and couldn't commit himself regarding new elections. Generals who WERE involved probably knew that they would have Prem's support, they didn't need to ask for his permission and they didn't need his orders - they were in a full control themselves.

No one can say with any degree of certainty that Prem gave orders to start the coup. To me it seems unlikely, and, most importantly, unnecessary.

>>>>>

Perhaps Weng is right - they did hit at the heart of junta - the soldiers are united around the King and they won't let mobs break their defenses and attack Privy Council President. Weng will have a lot to answer for it, though.

Mobsters acted as if they want to appear more loyal than Prem and the generals, and take over their place. Good luck. They might end up being tried for treason.

Attacking the "heart of junta" - has he got any idea of where it might be and where such attacks might lead him?

Your last comment raises something that will not be openly discussed but has an impact on what is currently going on.

Especially if the current Internet rumour happens to be true...

Which at the latest it seems not to be

[blaze]

Prem simply stood very high in the public’s eye for respect back then and still does now as far as I can see. That made him somewhat bullet proof to Thaksin. If he was less than that Thaksin would still be in office and the country probably would have been renamed Thakland by now.

Please explain that. Because it sounds like you are conceding that Prem was indeed responsible for the fact that Thaksin is no longer in office- which would suggest that Prem was a key player if not the key player in the coup. I'm sure that's not what you intend to suggest---- is it?

[hammered]

There were no arrests and no protests before they rolled the tanks into the city.

Perhaps the view from Tokyo is different, but we certainly saw at least a year of unrest, prior to the coup, and this was extensively discussed on ThaiVisa.

All they wanted is Thaksin's money, for them, still desperately chasing it. It's pathetic to watch how money hungry the junta is.

So why did it take them several months, after the coup, before they started to 'freeze' DL's bank-accounts here, note that the money is still only frozen & not seized, pending various court cases.

If they stand for an elections, in any form, they would not radiate any confidence.

So far the original junta, and Sorayud's government which they put into power, show no signs of wanting to remain in politics beyond holding the next election.

Let's see what Thais have to say with the ballots. Agreed.

Before that happens, I am afraid, the junta would do a thing or two to rig it. They will never ever have Thaksin's kind of support. Possibly, no elections come any time soon.

I hope you're wrong on this, let's wait and see whether progress towards elections continues, and meanwhile hope that TRT=PTV=DAAD fail in their violent efforts to disrupt that progress.

What can they hope to gain, from delaying the elections, and a return to normal Thai democracy ?

What do they or DL have to fear from this ?

When the elections are over the world will breathe a sigh of relief and say hey Thailand is back. The new government will be seen as legitimate whatever make up it has. All the talk of 16 million supporters and three (well actually 2 real) elections will be history. TRT know ###### well that whoever controls the apparatus of state, the state purse strings and local and regional influential ones has a big advantage at elections. Quite how much it gained them votes when in power remains moot and a seperate point but they understand that power. With the loss of that power and the loss of significant factions from their party even if they as seems likely they put together a successor party it seems they are in a lot weakened position. Trying to create situations or outcomes where the election is delayed may well signify they beleive they will be beaten as things stand now, and things will move on with a new elected government not including them but recognized. Then a form of democratic normalcy is returned. That is of course until the next inevitable crisis or contradiction in Thai politics. Lets not forget that this is not the first ever coup in this country, which has a history of coups, counter coups and street protests.

[John K]

Prem simply stood very high in the public’s eye for respect back then and still does now as far as I can see. That made him somewhat bullet proof to Thaksin. If he was less than that Thaksin would still be in office and the country probably would have been renamed Thakland by now.

Please explain that. Because it sounds like you are conceding that Prem was indeed responsible for the fact that Thaksin is no longer in office- which would suggest that Prem was a key player if not the key player in the coup. I'm sure that's not what you intend to suggest---- is it?

Sorry if it came across that way, but at that moment in time Thaksin had not just one task to complete to solidify his grip. If you recall the threads of that time Thaksin had some issue with Prem, although at the moment it escapes me as to what the particulars were. However from memory; I tend to think Prem was favorable to the countries best interest and not Thaksin’s and opposed some of Thaksin’s moves. Because of the people’s high level of respect for Prem undecided people or people otherwise on the fence could be swayed by Prem. Remember Thaksin was looking for votes as the elections were nullified a few months earlier. Because of that Prem was just one of the things in his way from getting votes. Also there was the PAD that was the voice that could not be silenced. They too were eroding Thaksin’s voter base. He still had to find a way to clamp down on PAD and the only method he had that was iron clad and gave him 100% control was a state of emergency. Thaksin could not just change the laws back then because there was no Parliament at the time, so Thaksin had to use what was available.

There were a series of cumulative things that lead to the coup. Most of them were related to Thaksin flexing his muscles and not Prem taking some form of action.

Please take this as a loose summary of facts and generalizations. I am a bit press for time at the moment and I don't have time to get the specifics.

Edited July 25, 2007 by John K

[Tony Clifton]

John K, wasn't the issue back then around Thaksin's comment about an "influential figure"?

[younghusband]

Prem simply stood very high in the public’s eye for respect back then and still does now as far as I can see. That made him somewhat bullet proof to Thaksin. If he was less than that Thaksin would still be in office and the country probably would have been renamed Thakland by now.

Please explain that. Because it sounds like you are conceding that Prem was indeed responsible for the fact that Thaksin is no longer in office- which would suggest that Prem was a key player if not the key player in the coup. I'm sure that's not what you intend to suggest---- is it?

Sorry if it came across that way, but at that moment in time Thaksin had not just one task to complete to solidify his grip. If you recall the threads of that time Thaksin had some issue with Prem, although at the moment it escapes me as to what the particulars were. However from memory; I tend to think Prem was favorable to the countries best interest and not Thaksin’s and opposed some of Thaksin’s moves. Because of the people’s high level of respect for Prem undecided people or people otherwise on the fence could be swayed by Prem. Remember Thaksin was looking for votes as the elections were nullified a few months earlier. Because of that Prem was just one of the things in his way from getting votes. Also there was the PAD that was the voice that could not be silenced. They too were eroding Thaksin’s voter base. He still had to find a way to clamp down on PAD and the only method he had that was iron clad and gave him 100% control was a state of emergency. Thaksin could not just change the laws back then because there was no Parliament at the time, so Thaksin had to use what was available.

There were a series of cumulative things that lead to the coup. Most of them were related to Thaksin flexing his muscles and not Prem taking some form of action.

Please take this as a loose summary of facts and generalizations. I am a bit press for time at the moment and I don’t have time to get the specifics.

This is almost beyond parody.And he wonders why people don't want to debate with him.

[John K]

John K, wasn't the issue back then around Thaksin's comment about an "influential figure"?

Yes that was the trigger, but I was trying to talk about the reason for that comment.

[John K]

Young husband your last comment has no meat (counterpoint) Please try to add something constuctive if you want to post.

[blaze]

John K, wasn't the issue back then around Thaksin's comment about an "influential figure"?

Yes that was the trigger, but I was trying to talk about the reason for that comment.

Which doesn't explain your statement that had Prem not been 'bullet proof', Thaksin would still be in office.

[Jai Dee]

Metropolitan Police is concerned over the disorder on Sunday

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Pol. Lt. Gen. Adisorn Nonsee (อดิศร นนทรีย์), affirms that the police will look after the protestors at Sanam Luang (สนามหลวง), and says riots can damage the national image.

Pol. Lt. Gen. Adisorn says the Metropolitan Police will impose measures to prevent possible disorder during the People’s Television (PTV) demonstration at Sanam Luang. He says the investigation on last Sunday's clash between the demonstrators and the security officials will be conducted impartially and with integrity. He views that the unrest incident could affect the upcoming constitution referendum and the general election.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Panithan Watanayakorn (ปณิธาน วัฒนายากร), a Political Science lecturer of Chulalongkorn (จุฬาลงกรณ์) University, suggests the authority to take legal actions if the core rally members have been found to violate the laws. Thus, members of the public would understand the situation.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 25 July 2007

[bkkandrew]

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Pol. Lt. Gen. Adisorn Nonsee (อดิศร นนทรีย์), affirms that the police will look after the protestors at Sanam Luang (สนามหลวง), and says riots can damage the national image.

Er, so can coups, corrupt authorites etc. Are the police going to investigate them too?

Edited July 25, 2007 by bkkandrew

[Plus]

It's pretty clear from Prem's own speeches that he wanted Thaskin to go, that doesnt' mean, however, that he actively planned a coup or anything "beyond" democratic means.

Singling our Prem as a coup mastermind is unreasonable and their attack on him is disproportionate - they just resent that Prem's opinion mattered more to the generals than anyone else's.

Actually the coup happened because all democratic means of removing Thaksin were subverted, or at least the generals didn't see anything that would have worked. In their eyes Thaksin clearly had no right to govern the country and they didn't trust, or couldn't wait for the only court case at the time that would have removed him - TRT dissolution case. Even when they created favourable conditions for justice to work its way it still took the court nine months to reach the veridict.

[Plus]

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Pol. Lt. Gen. Adisorn Nonsee (อดิศร นนทรีย์), affirms that the police will look after the protestors at Sanam Luang (สนามหลวง), and says riots can damage the national image.

Er, so can coups, corrupt authorites etc. Are the police going to investigate them too?

The coup was smooth as silk. Every news agencies reported on complete absense of violence, so the damage was minimal, and, in fact, cemented Thailand's reputation as peaceful, smiling nation.

[bkkandrew]

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Pol. Lt. Gen. Adisorn Nonsee (อดิศร นนทรีย์), affirms that the police will look after the protestors at Sanam Luang (สนามหลวง), and says riots can damage the national image.

Er, so can coups, corrupt authorites etc. Are the police going to investigate them too?

The coup was smooth as silk. Every news agencies reported on complete absense of violence, so the damage was minimal, and, in fact, cemented Thailand's reputation as peaceful, smiling nation.

So, if you were offered a position as adviser to TAT, you would encourage them to have a Coup, say twice a year, to further enhance the image of Thailand in the potential tourist's mind?