Thailand: Another Coup Would Be A Disaster

[geriatrickid]

The army admits that the soldiers fired after been shot at, I would do that also if I was in the firing line and my mates were shot. The reds will never admit something, they are a bunch of liars. Do not tell me that there were not armed men in black on the red side and in my opinion they fired and threw bombs also. That's what they promised to do anyhow.

If you did this in any western army and depending upon circumstances, the Russian and Chinese army, you would be arrested and sent for court martial. Weapons are not discharged randomly into crowds where there are non combatants. The target must be identified and only that target is to be taken out. Even in Israel, the IDF does not discharge live ammunition into crowds unless there is a clear target. In Afghanistan, neither the Canadian nor the British soldiers will fire into a hostile crowd despite taking fire. If the troops in Afghanistan can demonstrate discipline under far more difficult circumstances, then it is not unreasonable to expect similar conduct under far less difficult conditions as was the case in Bangkok.

Based upon the preliminary autopsy results that have been released, many of the UDD protestors that were killed or injured were shot in the back. This suggests to me that this wasn't a case of the units discharging weapons actually targeting identified hostile targets.

[animatic]

Most of the problems we are having now can be laid on the taint (whether real or imagined) of the military coup and its effect on the current constitution and government.

i totally agree with that. love or hate Taxin, he was a democratically elected PM with 2-3 years left to serve. he should have been impeached for corruption and the courts to decide his guilt. everything has gone nom-up since the coup and i don't see it will ever recover.

Thaksin was a "democratically" elected PM that dissolved parliament and called elections. Those elections were invalidated by the Consititution courts prior to the coup.

At the time of the coup, Thaksin was the care-taker PM appointed by the King.

A expired caretaker PM. who had retired after a meeting at the palace, and then on his own un-retired.

He had no mandate and no official position except his retaking his position after quiting publicly.

No doubt these acts were not seen at the time as those of a stable mind.

[animatic]

There is no logical reason for another army coup.

Except if it is lead by a pro Red group of traitors.

Any coup is by definition treacherous, but even worse grossly stupid and bad for Thailand.I have no doubt there will be those on this forum that defend any future coup just as many including yourself defended the last one.

I only defended removing Thaksin from his false control of the remnants of government.

He had quit and then changed his mind. I never defended the coup per se.

Coup d'etate means simply to remove the head of state.

Hypothetically:

If that head is rotten or treacherous, then a coup can be seen as justified,

since it is removing a treacherous head. If that head is not legally in office...

And regardless of Thaksin's whining he wasn't necessarily legally in the job.

He had quit his 'appointment' and then unilaterally took the job back.

Not to say a coup is good, but not all coups are the same,

nor are all situations fitting under a blanket definition.

Edited April 15, 2010 by animatic

[ovaltina]

I see another Thailand English language media is now headlining "Army admit firing live rounds at protestors".

So first the Abhisit/Suthep circus says no soldiers had live ammo.

Then they change that story and say they had some but only fired in the air.

Then they change that story and say had some, fired in the air and only if needed, but not directly at protestors.

Now finally they admit they had live ammo, they fired directly at protestors.

This immoral and parliamentary coup made government is a national disgrace, in fact, its now a worldwide disgrace for Thailand to have them in power and to lie so much.

They got caught out as too many people have camera's video and mobile phone camera's - its 2010 and not 1992.

Why is Anupong not demanding Abhisit resign ? Why has Abhisit not resigned ? Why has Suthep not resigned ? Why has Anupong not resigned ?

Following this you can now see why "THEY" want a coup.

If a coup happens the Democrats can escape their dissolution charge. All those in the government and Army responsible for the deaths can get immunity. They can take Democracy away from the people and "appoint" a government in the "New Politics" way.

That is why it is highly important that Abhisit dissolves the house and calls for elections. A coup should not be allowed to happen or all those guilty will attempt a whitewash.

The "THREAT" of dissolution against the Democrats is just a threat, its a "gun to the head" to make them comply with the demands of certain people for a coup, and then "new politics" of no democracy.

.

Before the actual fighting began, BBC reported, from an Army source, that Thai Army soldiers had <quote> "live ammo and permission to fire directly on protestors *if the soldiers were under fire*". I'm not in Thai Army but they said on TV they had permission to return live-with-live fire.

The whole thing is ridiculous. There isn't a nation on Earth where you would march through the streets of the capital for 4 weeks splashings HIV/hepC buckets of human blood around, carrying pickaxe handles/guns/grenades in plain view, harming the small business local communtiy & tourism industry, attacking police and soldiers - and expect no reaction from the state.Those other states, which by no coincidence, have no coups.

Most states would have locked up all the leaders and hardcore followers on day 2. And confiscated weapons on day 1. Thai Govt. has been adopting the Bruce Lee 'art of fighting without fighting' and other very noble Buddhist non-violence approaches for 4 weeks, down to and including kind warnings ~"we hope the red's don't hurt themselves by blood-donations in unsterile environment". That gentle arms-length approach works great in judo, and films, and as a personal philosophy, but not against a small army of bribed & armed anarchists. I don't see how the Thai government have been anything but almost excessively restrained and kind-hearted throughout this, or what other nation state on Earth you are making comparisons to.

Where are you living, Narnia ?

Edited April 15, 2010 by ovaltina

[MengWan]

But there was a coup which never should have happened. 2006

Thaksin and his cronies would have met their fate anyway

Those societies who do not "need" coups are stable, mature, honesty-driven and able to

resolve conflicts without resorting to violence ...

I am sure that Thailand is none of that, so I strongly doubt that "Thaksin and his cronies"

would not be where they were, maybe even "higher-up", as a 100% Dictator, african-style ...

Edited April 15, 2010 by MengWan

[Thanh-BKK]

Most of the problems we are having now can be laid on the taint (whether real or imagined) of the military coup and its effect on the current constitution and government.

i totally agree with that. love or hate Taxin, he was a democratically elected PM with 2-3 years left to serve. he should have been impeached for corruption and the courts to decide his guilt. everything has gone nom-up since the coup and i don't see it will ever recover.

Hi.

Thaksin was NOT "elected", he BOUGHT the election. If you pay people to vote for you then "elected" you become, but certainly not democratic.

Thaksin's own words: "You can't impeach me". So much for that possibility - he had his cronies in the right places to make sure he could not legally/democratically be removed.

Thaksin, at the time of the coup, was only a caretaker PM and as such was well over the time a caretaker is allowed to hold such position.

Thaksin's puppet party PPP's only goal, after the coup, was to amend the constitution in such a way that vote-buying becomes legal and Thaksin himself would be declared innocent of any charges.

As is PTP's goal. They don't give a hoot for country and people, they only care for one person, Thaksin. Money can't buy love - but it can buy pretty much everything else, in Thailand at least.

Right now a fresh coup would indeed be the only way to end the deadlock because if this current red fiasco ends in a win for the reds, the streets will be filled with yellows and it will continue just as it is right now, only with different colour t-shirts. Probably a good many of the protesters will even be the same, after all they do get paid to "protest" and would likely (just like with the votes) protest happily for the other side as long as the payments keep coming.

This country is definitely not ready for real democracy, as long as people keep selling their votes every election will be unfair regardless which side wins but specially if someone like Thaksin wins them who really has no other agenda than filling his own bank accounts.

Best regards......

Thanh

[koosdeboer]

The army admits that the soldiers fired after been shot at, I would do that also if I was in the firing line and my mates were shot. The reds will never admit something, they are a bunch of liars. Do not tell me that there were not armed men in black on the red side and in my opinion they fired and threw bombs also. That's what they promised to do anyhow.

If you did this in any western army and depending upon circumstances, the Russian and Chinese army, you would be arrested and sent for court martial. Weapons are not discharged randomly into crowds where there are non combatants. The target must be identified and only that target is to be taken out. Even in Israel, the IDF does not discharge live ammunition into crowds unless there is a clear target. In Afghanistan, neither the Canadian nor the British soldiers will fire into a hostile crowd despite taking fire. If the troops in Afghanistan can demonstrate discipline under far more difficult circumstances, then it is not unreasonable to expect similar conduct under far less difficult conditions as was the case in Bangkok.

Based upon the preliminary autopsy results that have been released, many of the UDD protestors that were killed or injured were shot in the back. This suggests to me that this wasn't a case of the units discharging weapons actually targeting identified hostile targets.

Never heard of collateral damage also.

But of course there were no man in black with weapons and the soldiers were killed and wounded by their mates.

[chainarong]

I see another Thailand English language media is now headlining "Army admit firing live rounds at protestors".

So first the Abhisit/Suthep circus says no soldiers had live ammo.

Then they change that story and say they had some but only fired in the air.

Then they change that story and say had some, fired in the air and only if needed, but not directly at protestors.

Now finally they admit they had live ammo, they fired directly at protestors.

This immoral and parliamentary coup made government is a national disgrace, in fact, its now a worldwide disgrace for Thailand to have them in power and to lie so much.

They got caught out as too many people have camera's video and mobile phone camera's - its 2010 and not 1992.

Why is Anupong not demanding Abhisit resign ? Why has Abhisit not resigned ? Why has Suthep not resigned ? Why has Anupong not resigned ?

Following this you can now see why "THEY" want a coup.

If a coup happens the Democrats can escape their dissolution charge. All those in the government and Army responsible for the deaths can get immunity. They can take Democracy away from the people and "appoint" a government in the "New Politics" way.

That is why it is highly important that Abhisit dissolves the house and calls for elections. A coup should not be allowed to happen or all those guilty will attempt a whitewash.

The "THREAT" of dissolution against the Democrats is just a threat, its a "gun to the head" to make them comply with the demands of certain people for a coup, and then "new politics" of no democracy.

.

A coup, now what colour T-Shirt will I need for that, maybe grey?? I bet 2/1 0n a coup,in two weeks.

[retdson]

Thaksin was NOT "elected", he BOUGHT the election. If you pay people to vote for you then "elected" you become, but certainly not democratic.

Thanh

Elections everwhere are 'bought'. Tax breaks, school subsidies, medical care, pensions, etc,etc. People vote in their own interests. That's how it works.

[noel2499rk]

Hi.

Thaksin was NOT "elected", he BOUGHT the election. If you pay people to vote for you then "elected" you become, but certainly not democratic.

Generally people receive money from more than one party and then make a decision on which to vote for although not ideal this is still more democratic than being installed by the army. All electorates are bribed to some extent in the west right wing parties bribe the electorate by offering them tax cuts.

Right now a fresh coup would indeed be the only way to end the deadlock because if this current red fiasco ends in a win for the reds, the streets will be filled with yellows and it will continue just as it is right now, only with different colour t-shirts. Probably a good many of the protesters will even be the same, after all they do get paid to "protest" and would likely (just like with the votes) protest happily for the other side as long as the payments keep coming.

Why do you still think the reds are only there because they are being paid, don't you think if they were only there to make money they would have looked at what happened on saturday and thought this isn't worth the money, how much are they being paid if its enough get shot and killed for.

The reds are on the streets because of a coup why would another one send them home?

Do you really have such a low opinion of Thai people that you think none of them can have any deeply held political convictions at all, and that the only reason they make any decisions is financially motivated.

This country is definitely not ready for real democracy, as long as people keep selling their votes every election will be unfair regardless which side wins but specially if someone like Thaksin wins them who really has no other agenda than filling his own bank accounts.

It is safe to assume that all Thai politicians are corrupt, as with all corrupt systems the corrupt in power will not allow any clean politician to rise to the top as he they would not trust him in regards to blowing the whistle on them.

The least corrupt branch of government appears to be the judiciary, any clean up must start with them locking up politicians ( including Thaksin),generals and policeman this can be done under a democratic system but will take time.

The way to do this is make the country more democratic not less, starting with a media free to criticize and investigate all aspects of Thai society the biggest hurdle at the moment to democracy working is the unwillingness/inability of the Thai media to report on Political or police corruption.

[jayboy]

If that head is rotten or treacherous, then a coup can be seen as justified,

since it is removing a treacherous head. If that head is not legally in office...

And regardless of Thaksin's whining he wasn't necessarily legally in the job.

He had quit his 'appointment' and then unilaterally took the job back.

Not to say a coup is good, but not all coups are the same,

nor are all situations fitting under a blanket definition.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

Absolute nonsense of course but there is a certain malicious pleasure in seeing the knots these coup apologists get tied up in.

[way2muchcoffee]

If that head is rotten or treacherous, then a coup can be seen as justified,

since it is removing a treacherous head. If that head is not legally in office...

And regardless of Thaksin's whining he wasn't necessarily legally in the job.

He had quit his 'appointment' and then unilaterally took the job back.

Not to say a coup is good, but not all coups are the same,

nor are all situations fitting under a blanket definition.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

Absolute nonsense of course but there is a certain malicious pleasure in seeing the knots these coup apologists get tied up in.

So no gray area then? Coup - bad. Army - bad. No difference as to they type of coup being held? No analysis of underlying motives? No discussion of whether or not people are killed?

It seems to me that we have a redshirt coup in the making right now. The redshirt movement does not just consist of the protesters. It is much larger than that. People have been killed. There has been war in the streets. Is this equally unacceptable? This is a violent attempt to overthrow a legal sitting government.

Edited April 15, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Squigy]

I am of the opinion that Thai Coup's never do work. And after the number of attempts in the past they all have failed to deliver the goods. Somebody earlier on commented that the Military is never trained to run a country and that is true. And most likely the reason why in the past they have all been failure's.

What is needed to go forward is a Independent Body who has the Power to investigate the people behind the troubles in Thailand. The paymasters of these troubles. The people who are paying the money in bribes and taking money in corruption, regardless of what shirt they wear to be brought to account. These people who are in these troubles for political and financial gain are the ones that should be brought to their knees.

If they are a corporation, if they are a company, if they are an Institution these people must be brought to their knees.

Most of the hundred's or so military General's should all be fired and given no pension whatsoever.

All the Heads of the Thai Bureaucracy must go the same way. Sorry no pensions either.

All Governors of the provinces should all be fired as well. Sorry no pensions.

These above people (and more) have been rorting the system for years and years. Hence no pensions.

MP's and PM's are only allowed to spend max of 5 years in Parliament. No pensions.

Only then can Thailand start becoming a State in this World.

I often spend Sunday Brunch at a Hotel in Bangkok and it is an eye opener. You have all these "elites and their families" running riot in the restaurant. Tables of 20 + people is not uncommon and I wonder who is picking up the Bill.. Not them I am sure.

[noel2499rk]

A few interesting article's from world media sources here.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/id...0100413?sp=true

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/world/asia/15thai.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...latestheadlines

Edited April 15, 2010 by noel2499rk

[animatic]

If that head is rotten or treacherous, then a coup can be seen as justified,

since it is removing a treacherous head. If that head is not legally in office...

And regardless of Thaksin's whining he wasn't necessarily legally in the job.

He had quit his 'appointment' and then unilaterally took the job back.

Not to say a coup is good, but not all coups are the same,

nor are all situations fitting under a blanket definition.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

Absolute nonsense of course but there is a certain malicious pleasure in seeing the knots these coup apologists get tied up in.

So no gray area then? Coup - bad. Army - bad. No difference as to they type of coup being held? No analysis of underlying motives? No discussion of whether or not people are killed?

It seems to me that we have a redshirt coup in the making right now. The redshirt movement does not just consist of the protesters. It is much larger than that. People have been killed. There has been war in the streets. Is this equally unacceptable? This is a violent attempt to overthrow a legal sitting government.

Yes it would appear that way.

Yes the world is many shades of gray, no matter how some try endlessly for black and white.

And ignore the windup merchant, he always tries to get a flame war going. SOP.

[jayboy]

So no gray area then? Coup - bad. Army - bad. No difference as to they type of coup being held? No analysis of underlying motives? No discussion of whether or not people are killed?

It seems to me that we have a redshirt coup in the making right now. The redshirt movement does not just consist of the protesters. It is much larger than that. People have been killed. There has been war in the streets. Is this equally unacceptable? This is a violent attempt to overthrow a legal sitting government.

No I think we can be pretty clear that , regardless of "motive" or individual circumstances, a coup is very damaging.In Thailand of course it's often hard to determine what precisely the "motive" is because the predictable stale nationalist rhetoric is often very far from the true self serving reasons (greed,power,fear of the Thai majority).I think there is fairly complete agreement in influential Thai circles (okay it hasn't filtered through to some on this forum, but so what?) that the last coup and its disastrous aftermath was counter productive to elite interests.Thereafter the thuggery of the generals was replaced by a slightly more subtle judicialisation of politics.However even the latter has now been exposed for exactly what it is.Therefore it's with some interest that one awaits to see how the elite will look to rig the election when it's finally called.All one can say with confidence is that it will not be intelligent or well thought out, and that in current circumstances it will probably fail.Bottom line the greed,stupidity and brutality of elite interests will end up in a worse position than was really necessary given the ebb of power.

[gigiman]

Here's my take on the situation: From Day 1, the objective of the UDD has been to induce the Army into staging a coup. This is not because they want the military in charge - it is simply a method of bringing on early elections.

What the UDD wants is fresh elections - much sooner than December 2011. To get that, the existing government must be terminated. There are three main ways for that to occur:

1. The sitting government, led by Abhisit, throws in the towel - executes its own dissolution, and calls for new elections.

2. The coalition partners pull out of the coalition, causing it to fall below majority status in Parliament, and thereby being rendered void. The minor coalition partners either reconstitute a new parliamentary majority - possibly in coalition with PTP - or they announce that thy cannot form a government, and call for new elections.

3. The Army stages a coup, disbands the sitting government, and announces new elections.

If there are other choices, please suggest them.

The Red Shirts have been waiting for outcome #1 or outcome #2 to happen. So far, the sitting coalition has resisted calls for both outcomes - and I presently see no movement toward either. That leaves just approach #3.

From the standpoint of the UDD, they really do not care - they just want the Democrats out of power.

What makes it all work is the general understanding that the Thai Army does not want to (explicitly) run the country - to carry on the functions of national government. Unlike 50 or even 20 years ago, there is no military strongman who wants to personally seize and retain the role of head of government. So - I believe that the UDD would view it as a "safe" option, if all else fails. And - it appears that all else has failed.

The question now is: how nasty and threatening do the Red Shirts need to act, in order to induce the Army to say "enough is enough"? And - the Reds then have to play their cards just right - cause enough chaos and turmoil to induce the tanks to roll, but then quickly fold and become benign, in order to avoid becoming military targets.

And - because of the huge size of the Red Shirt mob, and the relative lack of political sophistication of the majority of the mob, the Red Shirt leadership has to figure out how to make everyone fall in line with a tricky game, almost simultaneously. And - I suspect that is why the Reds are shutting down Pan Fah Bridge - so as to bring everyone into one space. Now - they just have to carefully control the entrances and exits to one space, and flow communications within one gathering of supporters.

No matter what the Red Shirts say, the logistics of sustaining tens of thousands of protesters is a herculean task - and I think they are fervently hoping for a coup, sooner rather than later.

Hey, please don't refer to the red protesters as a mob with no political sophistication .

You are showing your prejudice by assuming these people are ignorant farmers from up country.

I have news for you ,, we know what we are fighting for and we are not " just paid to be here ".

I suggest no political sophistication is such things as illegally and undemocratically shutting down all media and internet content of the opposition,, and unleashing tanks, armoured personel carriers etc, and soldiers with real bullets against protesters.

[jayboy]

And ignore the windup merchant, he always tries to get a flame war going. SOP.

In other words unable to counter reasonable arguments so resorts to personal abuse.

[anotherpeter]

Hey, please don't refer to the red protesters as a mob with no political sophistication .

You are showing your prejudice by assuming these people are ignorant farmers from up country.

I have news for you ,, we know what we are fighting for and we are not " just paid to be here ".

I suggest no political sophistication is such things as illegally and undemocratically shutting down all media and internet content of the opposition,, and unleashing tanks, armoured personel carriers etc, and soldiers with real bullets against protesters.

Tanks? Haven't seen any of those. Unleashing armoured personel carriers? Don't they just carry personel?

"Soldiers with real bullets against protestors" with bombs, grenades and, also, real bullets.

What ARE you fighting for (besides government dissolution)?

What will a red government do for the good of all Thailand?

Edited April 15, 2010 by anotherpeter

[way2muchcoffee]

So no gray area then? Coup - bad. Army - bad. No difference as to they type of coup being held? No analysis of underlying motives? No discussion of whether or not people are killed?

It seems to me that we have a redshirt coup in the making right now. The redshirt movement does not just consist of the protesters. It is much larger than that. People have been killed. There has been war in the streets. Is this equally unacceptable? This is a violent attempt to overthrow a legal sitting government.

No I think we can be pretty clear that , regardless of "motive" or individual circumstances, a coup is very damaging.In Thailand of course it's often hard to determine what precisely the "motive" is because the predictable stale nationalist rhetoric is often very far from the true self serving reasons (greed,power,fear of the Thai majority).I think there is fairly complete agreement in influential Thai circles (okay it hasn't filtered through to some on this forum, but so what?) that the last coup and its disastrous aftermath was counter productive to elite interests.Thereafter the thuggery of the generals was replaced by a slightly more subtle judicialisation of politics.However even the latter has now been exposed for exactly what it is.Therefore it's with some interest that one awaits to see how the elite will look to rig the election when it's finally called.All one can say with confidence is that it will not be intelligent or well thought out, and that in current circumstances it will probably fail.Bottom line the greed,stupidity and brutality of elite interests will end up in a worse position than was really necessary given the ebb of power.

Okay. I may not agree with your slant but I agree with the bulk of what you are saying.

I personally think the judicialisation of politics is a good thing, so long as the judges are honest and not corrupt. The more corrupt politicians whose misdeeds see the light of day the better. And I don't care which side they are on.

I think that dissolution of parties needs to stop, but the ban on individual politicians needs to be much longer. Guilty of corruption, vote buying, accepting illegal donations and it's a lifelong ban for the persons directly involved. We must remember this is elite versus elite that are warring now. What's happening on the street is just the outward manifestation.

Edited April 15, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[pornsasi]

Most of the problems we are having now can be laid on the taint (whether real or imagined) of the military coup and its effect on the current constitution and government.

i totally agree with that. love or hate Taxin, he was a democratically elected PM with 2-3 years left to serve. he should have been impeached for corruption and the courts to decide his guilt. everything has gone nom-up since the coup and i don't see it will ever recover.

Thaksin was a "democratically" elected PM that dissolved parliament and called elections. Those elections were invalidated by the Consititution courts prior to the coup.

At the time of the coup, Thaksin was the care-taker PM appointed by the King.

Yes he was legally the PM at the time of the military coup .

[clausewitz]

So no gray area then? Coup - bad. Army - bad. No difference as to they type of coup being held? No analysis of underlying motives? No discussion of whether or not people are killed?

It seems to me that we have a redshirt coup in the making right now. The redshirt movement does not just consist of the protesters. It is much larger than that. People have been killed. There has been war in the streets. Is this equally unacceptable? This is a violent attempt to overthrow a legal sitting government.

No I think we can be pretty clear that , regardless of "motive" or individual circumstances, a coup is very damaging.In Thailand of course it's often hard to determine what precisely the "motive" is because the predictable stale nationalist rhetoric is often very far from the true self serving reasons (greed,power,fear of the Thai majority).I think there is fairly complete agreement in influential Thai circles (okay it hasn't filtered through to some on this forum, but so what?) that the last coup and its disastrous aftermath was counter productive to elite interests.Thereafter the thuggery of the generals was replaced by a slightly more subtle judicialisation of politics.However even the latter has now been exposed for exactly what it is.Therefore it's with some interest that one awaits to see how the elite will look to rig the election when it's finally called.All one can say with confidence is that it will not be intelligent or well thought out, and that in current circumstances it will probably fail.Bottom line the greed,stupidity and brutality of elite interests will end up in a worse position than was really necessary given the ebb of power.

Yes what has really got the old power grabbers worried is that they people are onto their manipulation of the political scene using the judiciary . And when chavalit revealed that Prem sent him a letter saying he could be seen as a traitor for joining the opposition party it all became clearer about the way policy is decided behind the scenes.

I just loved it when Prem admitted sending it and said in the same statement that he was not involved in politics- and actually he believes that he is not. He thinks politics is voting and democracy, while what he does is the real decision making.

[jayboy]

I personally think the judicialisation of politics is a good thing, so long as the judges are honest and not corrupt. The more corrupt politicians whose misdeeds see the light of day the better. And I don't care which side they are on.

I think that dissolution of parties needs to stop, but the ban on individual politicians needs to be much longer. Guilty of corruption, vote buying, accepting illegal donations and it's a lifelong ban for the persons directly involved. We must remember this is elite versus elite that are warring now. What's happening on the street is just the outward manifestation.

I agree the judicialisation of politics is a good thing in that it applies the rule of law.But justice must be fair and even handed and on these matters in Thailand there still remains reasonable doubt (some would add to put it mildly).

As to penalties for political corruption what you say is sensible.As a practical point of course penalties would need to be graded to suit the offence:this could be covered in legislation.

[anotherpeter]

Most of the problems we are having now can be laid on the taint (whether real or imagined) of the military coup and its effect on the current constitution and government.

i totally agree with that. love or hate Taxin, he was a democratically elected PM with 2-3 years left to serve. he should have been impeached for corruption and the courts to decide his guilt. everything has gone nom-up since the coup and i don't see it will ever recover.

Thaksin was a "democratically" elected PM that dissolved parliament and called elections. Those elections were invalidated by the Consititution courts prior to the coup.

At the time of the coup, Thaksin was the care-taker PM appointed by the King.

Yes he was legally the PM at the time of the military coup .

That's questionable given that as care-taker PM he should have had elections 6 months after the previous elections.

Ignoring that for a moment, he was legally care-taker PM. He was NOT the legally elected PM.

[pornsasi]

The army admits that the soldiers fired after been shot at, I would do that also if I was in the firing line and my mates were shot. The reds will never admit something, they are a bunch of liars. Do not tell me that there were not armed men in black on the red side and in my opinion they fired and threw bombs also. That's what they promised to do anyhow.

If you did this in any western army and depending upon circumstances, the Russian and Chinese army, you would be arrested and sent for court martial. Weapons are not discharged randomly into crowds where there are non combatants. The target must be identified and only that target is to be taken out. Even in Israel, the IDF does not discharge live ammunition into crowds unless there is a clear target. In Afghanistan, neither the Canadian nor the British soldiers will fire into a hostile crowd despite taking fire. If the troops in Afghanistan can demonstrate discipline under far more difficult circumstances, then it is not unreasonable to expect similar conduct under far less difficult conditions as was the case in Bangkok.

Based upon the preliminary autopsy results that have been released, many of the UDD protestors that were killed or injured were shot in the back. This suggests to me that this wasn't a case of the units discharging weapons actually targeting identified hostile targets.

Yes concurr . In Israel they use rubber bullets against palestinians that throw rocks at them LOL . Not peaceful protesters dancing , chanting and shaking hands with the soldiers . Sending the army front line with live bullets facing protesters was total madness . Shooting live ammo in the air also , never saw that in the west . Even rubber bullets very rare .

Anyway the good thing is that neither the red shirts , nor the legal soldiers started it all

[way2muchcoffee]

I personally think the judicialisation of politics is a good thing, so long as the judges are honest and not corrupt. The more corrupt politicians whose misdeeds see the light of day the better. And I don't care which side they are on.

I think that dissolution of parties needs to stop, but the ban on individual politicians needs to be much longer. Guilty of corruption, vote buying, accepting illegal donations and it's a lifelong ban for the persons directly involved. We must remember this is elite versus elite that are warring now. What's happening on the street is just the outward manifestation.

I agree the judicialisation of politics is a good thing in that it applies the rule of law.But justice must be fair and even handed and on these matters in Thailand there still remains reasonable doubt (some would add to put it mildly).

As to penalties for political corruption what you say is sensible.As a practical point of course penalties would need to be graded to suit the offence:this could be covered in legislation.

Agree. Nobody should be banned for taking home office supplies and the like. You're correct in saying that the punishment needs to fit the offense.

[pornsasi]

So no gray area then? Coup - bad. Army - bad. No difference as to they type of coup being held? No analysis of underlying motives? No discussion of whether or not people are killed?

It seems to me that we have a redshirt coup in the making right now. The redshirt movement does not just consist of the protesters. It is much larger than that. People have been killed. There has been war in the streets. Is this equally unacceptable? This is a violent attempt to overthrow a legal sitting government.

No I think we can be pretty clear that , regardless of "motive" or individual circumstances, a coup is very damaging.In Thailand of course it's often hard to determine what precisely the "motive" is because the predictable stale nationalist rhetoric is often very far from the true self serving reasons (greed,power,fear of the Thai majority).I think there is fairly complete agreement in influential Thai circles (okay it hasn't filtered through to some on this forum, but so what?) that the last coup and its disastrous aftermath was counter productive to elite interests.Thereafter the thuggery of the generals was replaced by a slightly more subtle judicialisation of politics.However even the latter has now been exposed for exactly what it is.Therefore it's with some interest that one awaits to see how the elite will look to rig the election when it's finally called.All one can say with confidence is that it will not be intelligent or well thought out, and that in current circumstances it will probably fail.Bottom line the greed,stupidity and brutality of elite interests will end up in a worse position than was really necessary given the ebb of power.

Okay. I may not agree with your slant but I agree with the bulk of what you are saying.

I personally think the judicialisation of politics is a good thing, so long as the judges are honest and not corrupt. The more corrupt politicians whose misdeeds see the light of day the better. And I don't care which side they are on.

I think that dissolution of parties needs to stop, but the ban on individual politicians needs to be much longer. Guilty of corruption, vote buying, accepting illegal donations and it's a lifelong ban for the persons directly involved. We must remember this is elite versus elite that are warring now. What's happening on the street is just the outward manifestation.

100% agree with you

[pornsasi]

That's questionable given that as care-taker PM he should have had elections 6 months after the previous elections.

Ignoring that for a moment, he was legally care-taker PM. He was NOT the legally elected PM.

Yes he was legally the PM , never said legally elected . Had there be no military coup he would have been the elected PM . This is the reason for the coup

[anotherpeter]

That's questionable given that as care-taker PM he should have had elections 6 months after the previous elections.

Ignoring that for a moment, he was legally care-taker PM. He was NOT the legally elected PM.

Yes he was legally the PM , never said legally elected . Had there be no military coup he would have been the elected PM . This is the reason for the coup

I was originally responding to a post that said he was legally elected at the time of the coup.

He was trying to become PM by changing the rules of the previously invalidated 2006 elections. That is one of the reasons for the coup, among many other things.

Edited April 15, 2010 by anotherpeter

[Neurath]

There are very good arguments for having a provision that dissolves political parties and bans party executives for 5 years should any members of that executive be found guilty of corruption of the electoral process. Very good arguments.