Can A Thai Pm Fire A General

[Capealava]

Obama fires General McChrystal.

The separation of the Military and Government is the cornerstone to valid functioning democracies such and England, France, USA, ,ect. Would Thailand face another coups if the military was interfered with by a duly elected Government in Thailand ?

[kokesaat]

I think the country has other ways of dealing with renegade generals.....as evidenced on May 13th. Wait a minute....come to think of it, the general was fired (at).

[cdnvic]

Yes. Thaksin made his own cousin, Gen. Chaiyasit Shinawatra the head of the Army.

Please limit the discussion to Thailand, not the recent changes in the US command in Afghanistan.

[mark45y]

The PM cannot fire a general but a general can fire a PM. Thailand has been under military rule since WWII therein lies the problem. The PM and the Thai people don’t know Thailand has been under military rule since WW II.

[cdnvic]

The PM cannot fire a general but a general can fire a PM. Thailand has been under military rule since WWII therein lies the problem. The PM and the Thai people don't know Thailand has been under military rule since WW II.

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

[Chunky1]

Mark should be banned from insulting the wonderful Thai political institute.

[cdnvic]

Mark should be banned from insulting the wonderful Thai political institute.

Nah, he just exaggerated a bit too much.

[CPH]

According to the Thai Constitution the Government and the Military is at the same command level, meaning to say the PM cannot order the military to anything at all. Strange but true. Part and conquer.

[Capealava]

According to the Thai Constitution the Government and the Military is at the same command level, meaning to say the PM cannot order the military to anything at all. Strange but true. Part and conquer.

Thank you for the info. No wonder Thailand can never move forward.

[mark45y]

According to the Thai Constitution the Government and the Military is at the same command level, meaning to say the PM cannot order the military to anything at all. Strange but true. Part and conquer.

In recent times Thailand has had 17 different constitutions. Did you check them all?

[Hog Head]

I believe that the only time it can be done is under emergency law and the General refuses to follow government orders.

In actual practice that seems not to be the case or perhaps I am confusing refusing to follow orders with inaction

[doggie888888]

A Thai PM can fire a general as much as he can weed out corruption.

[JusMe]

Have to grow a pair first.

[Jingthing]

Actually, the OP's premise is wrong. Obama did not "fire" a general. No U.S. president has the power to fire any general.

http://www.slate.com/id/2257952/

I realize we are not here to talk U.S. politics, but I thought it important to debunk the very premise this thread is based on.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[Samuian]

According to the Thai Constitution the Government and the Military is at the same command level, meaning to say the PM cannot order the military to anything at all. Strange but true. Part and conquer.

Thank you for the info. No wonder Thailand can never move forward.

It has moved since 1932 an incredible "bit", but then those who deny this and prefer to believe it's a military ruled state are welcome to do so.

However, does anyone know if this "the Government and the Military is at the same command level" has been in the previous Constitutions the same or was it changed/added in the 2007?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

According to the Thai Constitution the Government and the Military is at the same command level, meaning to say the PM cannot order the military to anything at all. Strange but true. Part and conquer.

Thank you for the info. No wonder Thailand can never move forward.

It has moved since 1932 an incredible "bit", but then those who deny this and prefer to believe it's a military ruled state are welcome to do so.

However, does anyone know if this "the Government and the Military is at the same command level" has been in the previous Constitutions the same or was it changed/added in the 2007?

The real answer to that may be: Does it matter? When an entity has demonstrated 17 times in recent history that they can throw a constitution in the recycle bin, why does it matter what any of those say? The de facto situation is that elected government don't run this place. I'm not crying about it, but do see it for what it is.

Edited June 25, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Livinginexile]

There are a lot of Generals in the Thai army and you would be SHOCKED if you knew how incredibly wealthy they all are

[waza]

There are a lot of Generals in the Thai army and you would be SHOCKED if you knew how incredibly wealthy they all are

Hmmm interesting, where can I find this information?

[cdnvic]

Posts commenting on moderation removed. Contact support@ if you have concerns.

[mark45y]

There are a lot of Generals in the Thai army and you would be SHOCKED if you knew how incredibly wealthy they all are

How many general officers are there in the Thai Navy, Army, Marines and Air Force?

[Roadman]

I think Thailand is moving forward. Rome wasn't built in a day.

My understanding of the general thrust of the Thai constitution (accepting that it is always getting fiddled with) was that it was a 50/50 deal between the Army and the Elected Government. Same common ground starting deal as a marriage or any bussiness deal. It can work when they all put their own selfish motives aside and work together for the common good of the country as Khun's Abhisit and Anupong showed in the recent unrest in Bangkok.

Trouble is when the two party's are more interested in their own importance and gains then it can turn to custard. And that is when the trust has to be in the Army and a sound General (with the moral principles of the King, the people, and the country's safety as No 1 priorities over their own gain) who will keep the likes of Thaksin at bay. Thankfully the Army control was taken from the likes of Chavilit's lot some time prior to Thaksin's election and accordingly kept from Thaksin's scumy reach with it's nurturing in the hands of Central Thailand sensibility, and that should continue that way for Thailand until such time as the police can demonstrate and deliver their fair guidance as 1st upholder of a democratic law.

[gregb]

According to the Thai Constitution the Government and the Military is at the same command level, meaning to say the PM cannot order the military to anything at all. Strange but true. Part and conquer.

Thank you for the info. No wonder Thailand can never move forward.

It has moved since 1932 an incredible "bit", but then those who deny this and prefer to believe it's a military ruled state are welcome to do so.

However, does anyone know if this "the Government and the Military is at the same command level" has been in the previous Constitutions the same or was it changed/added in the 2007?

The real answer to that may be: Does it matter?    When an entity has demonstrated 17 times in recent history that they can throw a constitution in the recycle bin, why does it matter what any of those say?    The de facto situation is that elected government don't run this place.     I'm not crying about it, but do see it for what it is.

That's not really fair WTK. The elected government most certainly does run the country, but there is a defacto power sharing arrangement with the military as a branch of government. Saying the civilian government has no authority just because the military sometimes plays trump cards is like saying the US civilian government does not run the country because sometimes the Supreme Court strikes down their legislation as unconstitutional. It is only our misguided Western sensibilities which draw invalid distinctions between absolute rule by a bunch of lawyers with their own agenda and absolute rule by a bunch of guys with guns and their own agenda. It all comes down to the people who are holding the reigns of these important positions and how corruptible they are.

Was ejecting the demagogue Thaksin really more extreme than the US Supreme Court ejecting Al Gore from the 2000 US elections? Many people will be horrified at the comparison and will immediately denounce me for even speaking such sacrilege, but the simple fact remains that both actions were undertaken by a branch of government for what they considered to be good and valid reasons. Neither action implies that civilians don't control the government. The Thai military is not going to stage a coup if there isn't a serious crisis, and it is irresponsible to suggest they would. 

Think of the military as a branch of the government. I beleive I remember reading that Abhisit did have the authority to remove Anupong from the chain of command during the emergency decree (however he could not "fire" him as such.) On the other hand, I think that that temporary reassignment would have been nullified as soon as the emergency decree was lifted. In that sense, the Thai military actually has less power than the US Supreme Court justices, who can never be sidelined at all during the tenure. And no, I don't have any more faith in the US Supreme Court than I do in Gen. Anupong. I think they are all equally corrupt and all equally honorable.

[mark45y]

Don’t want to get into a discussion of American politics but your comparison is way off base. Way off base.

Check out the procedures for removing a sitting President.

Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. Maybe you should find what branch of government handles impeachment proceedings.

Al Gore was never President.

To compare the Thai military with the Supreme court is simply a false statement with no basis in fact.