Do You Still Support The 2006 Coup ?

[mc2]

in 2009 we can see the results of the coup - polarized society, division, we have assassination attempts, civil disobedience and mob protests, 3 years of instability and puppet governments, bitterness, wounds that will take years to heal, all a huge mess and no end in sight.

We don't know what the outcome may have been if there were no coup, but surely it would have been better than the mess we're now in.

[wasabi]

Never supported it. Changing the rules mid game is cheating.

[Oberkommando]

If you know your Thai history, and the long, continuous military interference in Thai politics, you could never support a coup for whatever reason.

With the coup they have destabilised Thailand and set the economy back decades.

Look at the farce that has followed the coup; airport shut-downs, violence in Bangkok, escalation of violence in the Southern Provinces, judicial coup, blockades of government house etc, etc, etc.

The damage, both economically and to Thailand's reputation internationally is immeasurable.

Yet they seem dead set on sending the country further down the abyss with ridiculous localist economic policy and draconian laws and punishments for thought crimes.

Glad I won't be here to see it completely disintegrate when the inevitable happens.

[kenai]

Never supported it.

It took at least 14 years of advances away - This was all about control. In order to gain the control they put the entire country into jeopardy.

Thailand at one time had the hopes and potential to become a leading SE Asian country, one that others would look up to. I'm not getting that impression anymore.

The international media described it as a bloodless coup.. the actual coup may have been but it's after affect is not.

It is the working class and poor that is affected the most, but it really was not good for anyone.

[DP25]

Yes, but they should have done it while Thaksin was in the country.

[Koo82]

What can they do if they want power and do not want to run for election campaigns, knowing they can never win an election? Guns and tanks are from our tax. Did they use their own money to make a coup? Are they getting poorer after a coup? No. And no one questions where they get the money from. They only question one person: Thaksin.

By the way, another coup took place last year too but with another name.

[Scott]

I never supported the coup and it now seems pretty obvious it was a mistake.

[Koo82]

We, the reds, are against coups. That was why we came on 8th April to protest against Prem, Surayud, Abhisit and all people in the dark. This is just one part of the day outside Government House. The red line was so long that it crossed Equestrian Statue of King Rama V and was flowing to Baan Si Sao where Prem lives. We could not have space to even stand.

[Jingthing]

None of the above.

Here is my view which none of your choices cover:

-- Thaksin was an out of control dictator, corrupt, criminal thief, vote buyer, involved as PM in the murder of many innocent Thais, Muslims and related to his so called drug war though pinning him for this does not seem to be a Thai priority.

-- Thaksin's massive ego threatened _________.

Something had to be done. Thailand, when it has to do, does coups. There have been so many. It has been the Thai way. Hopefully, this can change someday, but something had to be done.

So, yes, I supported the coup, because there was no other way to remove the out of control dictator.

But, after that ... problems.

The coup government was horrible. They weren't as bad as Thaskin but still horrible and the country went backwards.

Also, Thaksin would not go quietly into the night which is the expected, accepted proper POLITE Thai way for disgraced ex Thai pols to behave. He wanted power back. At any price. It was reasonable for the coup makers to expect that Thaksin would behave differently, but he didn't, he went postal.

So I put the blame on Thaksin for tearing this country apart after the coup. The people who did the coup did not realize just what a noxious force of division and destruction Thaksin turned out to be. How could they have known? How could they have predicted he would self destruct this way, destroying himself and severely threatening Thailand. I can't blame them for this miscalculation.

Thus I can't really say either thing:

it was worth it

and I also cannot say

it was a mistake.

I can say it is a BLOODY MESS.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[dave111223]

Thaksin was corrupt and had many different conflicts of interest. But at least he got shit done.

The country was certainly better off under one corrupt, but elected, official than a whole army of unelected corrupt officials.

[Jingthing]

The country was certainly better off under one corrupt, but elected, official than a whole army of unelected corrupt officials.

Yeah I am sure the families of the murdered Thais under his regime share your sentiment.

We don't know what the outcome may have been if there were no coup, but surely it would have been better than the mess we're now in.

How can you possibly assert that? There is nobody who knows what would have happened in that scenario.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[farseer]

Would never support a coup, as past history has shown the Thai generals and their lackeys to be completely useless..

[MiG16]

So, yes, I supported the coup, because there was no other way to remove the out of control dictator.

since 2006 I hear that phrase repeated over and over. first by those that conducted the coup and the PAD, and broadcasted and repeated again and again.

I havent got much knowledge of political /democratic or governance processes

but in my simplistic way of thinking this is what I felt:

if today we let a group of gathering mob under the influence of a media mogul whose relationship with current Prime minister had turned sour be able to topple an elected government, whats to stop the same man to use that influence in the future against a different personality he doesnt like or no longer gains favours from?

I wish my sentiments were proven wrong. but the events of 2008 with more street protests and demanding at least 2 other PMs step down, or the more recent 2009 protest by a different group, sadly confirms the fears I had back in 2006.

and no I do not believe a coup was the only way to remove Thaksin or put a check and balance on his government. just prior to the coup (about less than a month I think?) the entire Elections commission had been replaced (with the former ones charged and jailed for inappropriate use of power or something like that)

this to me was an indication that the courts were operating independently and were not under threat from government/executive.

at the same time, the media criticised and questioned some of Thaksin actions and policies. again a clear indication of an independent media that is able to act as the real watchdog of democracy.

add to that a politically more aware middle class, who are capable of choosing with their votes. for instance in his first term Thaksin was extremely popular with the middle class/businesses due to their faith in his ability as a businessman. hence they voted for him (using support in Bangkok as a rough guide). However, during second term when there was more and more talk of nepotism, many began to sway away from liking Thaksin.

all the above clearly tells me that a proper democratic process could certainly have been used to remove Thaksin. at the time of coup (2006), I shared these sentiments with friends, and my caveat then was that, yes I believe a coup is not the only way to remove Thaksin, but it may take longer time. however, now that we are 3 years down the track, yet we are still debating what and how to really get rid of Thaksin. so perhaps I misjudged by thinking the democratic way will take longer than the undemocratic way. even with the coup, 3 years later and he is still not 'removed' is he

ohhhh, did I make my views about the coup known?

[Jingthing]

3 years later and he is still not 'removed' is he

He is removed but his rot has overtaken the entire country. He will never be PM again nor will he ever be the puppetmaster again. Abhisit, a pretty good chess player (yes he had help) gave Thaksin enough rope to hang himself, and Thaksin obliged and met his Waterloo at Songkran.

But his disintegration continues to be very disruptive. Much of this great unpleasantness could have been avoided if he just played the polite game. I realize the reds believe he fought on for idealistic purposes, for the people. I don't believe that for one second.

To be perfectly honest, I do respect people who are against coups. It is always debatable how bad a dictator has to be to justify that the means justify the ends to remove him. Some cases are totally clear. Hitler should have been removed no matter what. Pol Pot should have been removed no matter what. Marcos probably should have been removed no matter what. Maybe Thaksin didn't quite reach these heights (although he is comparable to Marcos), so its going to be debatable whether this was really justified or not for quite some time. Its still very fresh here.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[MayBeLater]

None of the above.

Here is my view which none of your choices cover:

-- Thaksin was an out of control dictator, corrupt, criminal thief, vote buyer, involved as PM in the murder of many innocent Thais, Muslims and related to his so called drug war though pinning him for this does not seem to be a Thai priority.

-- Thaksin's massive ego threatened _________.

Something had to be done. Thailand, when it has to do, does coups. There have been so many. It has been the Thai way. Hopefully, this can change someday, but something had to be done.

So, yes, I supported the coup, because there was no other way to remove the out of control dictator.

But, after that ... problems.

The coup government was horrible. They weren't as bad as Thaskin but still horrible and the country went backwards.

Also, Thaksin would not go quietly into the night which is the expected, accepted proper POLITE Thai way for disgraced ex Thai pols to behave. He wanted power back. At any price. It was reasonable for the coup makers to expect that Thaksin would behave differently, but he didn't, he went postal.

So I put the blame on Thaksin for tearing this country apart after the coup. The people who did the coup did not realize just what a noxious force of division and destruction Thaksin turned out to be. How could they have known? How could they have predicted he would self destruct this way, destroying himself and severely threatening Thailand. I can't blame them for this miscalculation.

Thus I can't really say either thing:

it was worth it

and I also cannot say

it was a mistake.

I can say it is a BLOODY MESS.

Got to love Jingie and his simplistic views created after finding this country three years ago on the map.

MBL

[Jingthing]

Got to love Jingie and his simplistic views created after finding this country three years ago on the map.

MBL

What are you talking about? 3 years? Where did you get that? I suppose from my handle registration, how stupid to make assumptions based on that.

So instead of personal attacks and strange wrong ones at that, please share your sophisticated views on the subject, OK?

Edited May 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[Texpat]

It will take Thailand 20 years to get back to the position it was in early '06.

Pure folly to out a popularly elected leader who had set the economy straight, was tough on Thailand's debilitating drug problem, did fantastic work in the provinces and upset the elitist slobs in Bangkok.

[Jingthing]

Tex, you left out all the bad stuff. How convenient.

[Jingthing]

Never supported it. Changing the rules mid game is cheating.

If you follow your logic, Thaksin should submit to Thai justice instead of running off with multiple passports.

[flying]

I never supported or would support a coup.

Most have summed it up very well here.

Edited May 11, 2009 by flying

[mahtin]

Well, this is a first.

I find myself in total agreement with good old Jingers.

[Jingthing]

I bet you a lot of people who supported the coup are embarrassed about it now. Come out, come out, wherever you are. The truth shall set you free. Red lunatics in the land!

Edited May 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[JetsetBkk]

Yeah I am sure the families of the murdered Thais under his regime share your sentiment...

I'd be very interested to read any contemporaneous posts on this forum that criticised Thaksin's "War On Drugs" (January - April 2003).

Please post a link if you can find one.

[mc2]

So I put the blame on Thaksin for tearing this country apart after the coup. The people who did the coup did not realize just what a noxious force of division and destruction Thaksin turned out to be. How could they have known? How could they have predicted he would self destruct this way, destroying himself and severely threatening Thailand. I can't blame them for this miscalculation.

<deleted> u thought after the coup every one would go home and live happily ever after ? The coup makers were the biggest bunch of fools , their "grand plan" backfired in a HUGE way. Of course they make up a boogy man and antagonize him to take the heat off themselves.

The coup makers have been meddling for 3 years. It wasn't just one mistake, it was cold, caluculating efforts over a 3 year period ... including as koo82 said, a "silent coup" in 2008. It was this that aggrivated the problems, not your boogy man.

[Jingthing]

I don't believe the coup makers thought Thakky would go psycho. He has hurt himself personally. He could have made a deal, stayed out of prison, keep most of his money, and also his Thai diplomatic passport. That would be normal for Thailand. If he had shut up, he would be better off, and Thailand wouldn't be nearly as DIVIDED as it is now.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Jingthing

[Ricardo]

in 2009 we can see the results of the coup - polarized society, division, we have assassination attempts, civil disobedience and mob protests, 3 years of instability and puppet governments, bitterness, wounds that will take years to heal, all a huge mess and no end in sight.

We don't know what the outcome may have been if there were no coup, but surely it would have been better than the mess we're now in.

The polarisation didn't just start in September 2006, it had been created during the years of TRT/Thaksin in government, the coup was just the standard Thai attempt to press the 'reset-button'.

We, the reds, are against coups.

Which is why the red-shirts attempted one themselves over Songkran ?

Oh sorry, that wasn't the red-shirts, setting fire to buses or seizing APCs or killing normal people on the streets of Bangkok, and we hadn't been promised Thaksin would return to lead us from the front, we didn't threaten to blow up gas-tankers or throw any molotov-cocktails at the army-HQ, it wasn't us who stopped the trains or broke up the ASEAN-meeting.

Our leader Jatupon didn't promise to take the fight underground, resort to extreme measures, or later claim to have been set-up by the government when a SoE was declared ? Our hero Thaksin didn't call for his followers to bring their children & grand-children onto the streets to fight for democracy, while getting his own loved-ones to safety, because what he knew was coming ?

Too late, Koo, to claim that "the reds are against coups", or for Thaksin to claim that he didn't incite it all.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Ricardo

[ThNiner]

The polarisation didn't just start in September 2006, it had been created during the years of TRT/Thaksin in government, the coup was just the standard Thai attempt to press the 'reset-button'.

Exactly, when Thaksin announced that he would only work for the provinces that voted for him and his party, what did that do to the country? United it? It's just a blind and dishonest assessment to say that the coup divided the country. The division happened long before that. And since after the coup, Thaksin have had several chances to really unite the country, but he didn't. He's still willing to do anything at the expense of the entire country, so he could get his money and power back.

[geriatrickid]

Hmm, I never thought that when a military junta overthrew an elected government, even if a flawed elected government, that the word mistake would be used without other descriptive phrases such as; Criminal, primitive, contemptuous, brutal, illegal, evil and agents of corruption.

The army should concentrate on such things as in protecting the borders of thailand from trafficers in drugs, humans, endangered species and illegally harvested timber. Oh wait, they can't becuse it's a lucrative part of...................

[pnustedt]

The coup was an illegal act and those responsible for it should be brought to justice.

[mc2]

The coup was an illegal act and those responsible for it should be brought to justice.

prem is mostly responsible for the coup, that guy should be behind bars instead of his scapegoat, thaksin.