Army Will Always Be A Part Of Thai Politics

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Big brother will admonish naughty siblings

By The Nation

Unless we honestly clean up our act, the Army will always be a part of Thai politics

It seems like a done deal with deputy Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha getting ready to succeed General Anupong Paochinda as the Army chief.

Prayuth has already said that he wishes to keep the Army out of politics but realises that such a task may be difficult given the current political and security environment. He said troops have returned to their barracks for now but may still be needed to keep peace and order as the political battle simmers on.

On the surface, Prayuth's comments sound fine until one thinks a little harder about the logic behind them. Because the Army has been at the centre of the country's political crisis following the 2006 coup, it is hard to digest such statements from the top brass.

Prayuth may wish to keep the Army out of politics. But if he is a professional sodier, as he has said he is, then he must keep the Army out of politics.

Moreover, Prayuth has said that although troops have returned to barracks, the current security situation might requires them to come back out and get involved again.

Unfortunately, the notion of civilian supremacy - much less military responsibility and accountability to the public - has yet to register in the mind of the country's armed forces.

Looking back over the past few decades, the Army's track record in the country's political affairs hasn't been very honourable. In this context, one can't really dismiss Prayuth's statement as simply a wrong choice of words. It would be wishful thinking on our part to do so, given the history of the institution.

The bottom line is that our military has yet to come to terms with the very concept that it is a servant of the country, duty bound to defend it and defer to civilian supremacy in government. Theoretically, elected civilians are accountable to the public, although in reality there is a big gap between this ideal and its implementation. But we must stay the course if democracy is to work in Thailand.

We like to call ourselves democratic, yet we always permit the military to enter our lives, be it in development, countering narcotics, or in non-traditional security such as during floods and other natural disasters. Even in defending the revered institution of the monarchy, we allow the military to come into our affairs and be the main flag-bearer or champion of the cause.

Strange as it may seem, every time the Army intervenes in the form of a coup, it is always done in the name of democracy. The last time, it was also done in the name of the monarchy, with the military claiming to be defending the revered institution against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Beside the fact that the Army was unable to uproot all that Thaksin had planted into the Thai social-political-bureaucratic system, it also unintentionally dragged the monarchy into the political realm when it cited the defence of the institution as justification for the coup. Shouldn't the fact that the Army was ousting a grossly corrupt man be enough justification for the public?

And while Thaksin blames the Army for his current predicament, he, too, shares the blame for helping pave the way for the Army to re-enter politics and national affairs.

It was Thaksin who permitted the Army to run wild all over the Malay-speaking South, after he and his people had failed to curb the ongoing insurgency there. The Army thus received from Thaksin a needed springboard into national affairs, and then mostly kept civilians out of the picture in the deep South.

Of course, we know how sophisticated the military can be in carrying out campaigns to win hearts and minds. Today, unfortunately, one can't really talk about a solution to the conflict in the deep South without thinking about how the Army will participate.

Perhaps it is we who are to blame. Instead of tossing hot potatoes to the military - thinking that the soldiers will return to barracks like good boys when all the dirty work is done - we should take control of our own destiny.

Essentially, this means accountability, transparency and the eradication of corruption. If we cannot, the military will always be looking over our shoulders.

-- The Nation 2010-08-14

[chantorn]

Always? As though the army can tell the future.

[rfukata]

that is the sad part of this. maybe the army should rename itself of its true identity.

[geriatrickid]

The author let something slip when he tried to blame Thaksin for the situation in the south. He actually admits in a roundabout way that elected officials rule at the pleasure of the military;

It was Thaksin who permitted the Army to run wild all over the Malay-speaking South, after he and his people had failed to curb the ongoing insurgency there. The Army thus received from Thaksin a needed springboard into national affairs, and then mostly kept civilians out of the picture in the deep South.

Really? Let's consider this gem. (All you Thaksin bashers out there are going to be hard pressed to dance around the underlying truth.) The army did not listen to Mr. Thaksin, because it considers itself above the rule of elected officials. It was not Mr. Thaksin's fault because the army ignored the instructions of an elected government. General Prem of the Royal Guards said as much. Why would Mr. Thaksin have been any different than the elected officials that preceded or followed him? It is particularly insulting to one's common sense to have the author attempt to pass of his misleading statement as fact. After all, Mr. Thaksin was overthrown by means of a military coup. The current PM is to a large extent at the mercy of the military as he too serves at the pleasure of the military

[Thailand]

At least in Myanmar they are up front about who has the most influence/control over the country.

Not so here and unlikely to change in the near future.

[Pib]

The Army is a "Third Hand" (i.e., behind the scenes) political power broker in Thailand--the most powerful broker.....and periodically becomes a very visible and loud pounding hard ruler (i.e., military coup) who then slowly fades to behind the scenes operations/power brokering again. TIT

[SpoliaOpima]

The author let something slip when he tried to blame Thaksin for the situation in the south. He actually admits in a roundabout way that elected officials rule at the pleasure of the military;

It was Thaksin who permitted the Army to run wild all over the Malay-speaking South, after he and his people had failed to curb the ongoing insurgency there. The Army thus received from Thaksin a needed springboard into national affairs, and then mostly kept civilians out of the picture in the deep South.

Really? Let's consider this gem. (All you Thaksin bashers out there are going to be hard pressed to dance around the underlying truth.) The army did not listen to Mr. Thaksin, because it considers itself above the rule of elected officials. It was not Mr. Thaksin's fault because the army ignored the instructions of an elected government. General Prem of the Royal Guards said as much. Why would Mr. Thaksin have been any different than the elected officials that preceded or followed him? It is particularly insulting to one's common sense to have the author attempt to pass of his misleading statement as fact. After all, Mr. Thaksin was overthrown by means of a military coup. The current PM is to a large extent at the mercy of the military as he too serves at the pleasure of the military

Revising history again, kid? Col Thaksin removed the military from command in the south and replaced the high command with his police cronies. The army had things more or less under control. It would have been a lot better if they had disobeyed executive orders and kept the ISOC under the RTA.

The current PM is to a large extent at the mercy of the military as he too serves at the pleasure of the military

Of course, as has every govenment since the first military coup d'etat, ie, the 1932 revolution. If the Tai Rouge seriously wanted to change that, they would have taken the government's Nov election compromise. Instead they wanted an immediate dissolution so that they could get their main into the C-o-C's seat instead of Gen Prayuth. Both sides needed to win before the August military reshuffle. Had the Tai Rouge got what they wanted, they would have ruled with military backing same as the current coalition.

[givenall]

Always? As though the army can tell the future.

Which army?

Every faction have their own army and police

[selftaopath]

At least in Myanmar they are up front about who has the most influence/control over the country.

Not so here and unlikely to change in the near future.

Some wonder how things would be different if there was a reliable police force and/or judiciary in Land of Scams (LOS).

[Roadman]

At least in Myanmar they are up front about who has the most influence/control over the country.

Not so here and unlikely to change in the near future.

Some wonder how things would be different if there was a reliable police force and/or judiciary in Land of Scams (LOS).

I wonder such. Probably as much chance of getting a cop force that you could have full faith to honour as the 1st defender of all the people as seeing pigs fly.

I am pleased the Army are there and long may they be there while the "Khwai Burmese Border" model or "I am supreme Commander" model of politics is being forced or played out. The role the Army plays is moderate compared to other bordering and less stable countries. The current system is far from acceptable if you think western democratic systems but hey TiT with a cop force that is totally corrupt.

And I think it is just as clear here as for Myanmar who has final call. The mirrors and smoke are pretty flimsy.

[chainarong]

The biggest problem for Thailand is that the generals haven't quiet come to terms with a civilian government running the show,although running in the shadows , to save face, they are in charge of key departments, this was the trade off for a civilian government, pity ,generals are war mongers , because that's their trade, so they only know confrontation, generals should do what they think they know best at running, an army and let the people run the country.

[jayjayjayjay]

You can read my post going back 5 years or more. This is the reason Thailand will not develop past it's existing level of distribution of wealth. What the army wants the army will get. Only a true civil war will change this. In the mean time, I think the country runs ok, just ok, not great. Do I personally like it, well, it's livable, and does offer freedoms that the west suppress. But, don't for a minute try to convince me the Democrats, PAD are any better than Thaksin or the Reds. As for Thaksin having to share the blame for the Army reentering politics, rubbish to the author. They never left, however, it was the first time in 20 years THEY felt threatened.

[geriatrickid]

Revising history again, kid? Col Thaksin removed the military from command in the south and replaced the high command with his police cronies. The army had things more or less under control. It would have been a lot better if they had disobeyed executive orders and kept the ISOC under the RTA.

On the contrary, you either are ignorant or are ignoring the recent political history of the south. It is all about the army refusing to allow an elected government to govern.

From 2002-2004 PM Thaksin Shinawatra stated attempted to respond using civilian means. The police are a "civilian" agency. When dealing with internal matters, it is the police that are used first. This approach is common around the world.

2002,2003: Up until 2002, the attacks are low key consisting of drive by shootings and random killings. In 2001, 19 policemen were reported murdered and 50 attacks were reported. In 2002, the manner of attacks changes with police stations attacked and arms stolen. For 2002, 75 insurgency-linked attacks with 50 deaths are reported. The number increases to 119 in 2003 and almost 100 dead. By the end of 2003, it appears that the attacks are now better organized and planned.

2004: Two key points in the timeline occur: On Jan. 2004, the army munitions depot in Narathiwat is attacked and looted. 4 senior officers are killed and the army demands an immediate response. Thaksin responds to the army's demand and to increasing political pressure. The military takes charge in Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat as of Jan. 2004.

On 28 April 2004, the Krue Se Mosque "massacre" occurs. This is considered to be one of the holiest mosques in Pattani, and 32 insurgents flee to take refuge in the mosque following a number of attacks. A 7 hour standoff ensues between the insurgents and General Pallop, ISOC Deputy and the commanding senior army. Pallop ordered that the mosque be taken and it is alleged that all insurgents be killed. The assault occurs as large crowds were gathering to ask for a peaceful resolution. General Pallop allegedly disobeyed a direct order from Defense Minister Chavlit Yongchaiyudh to show restraint and to negotiate, no matter how long it took. The government's position followed Standard operating practice around the world for such incidents. A government investigative commission that included former military officer participation concluded that the army had behaved improperly. May 3, 2004 Senator Kraisak Choonhaven during a Senate hearing on the goes on record by stating that the autopsies of the deceased in the mosque appear to have been executed as their hands were bound and they had been shot in the head. The Pallop-Chavlit affair is considered a watershed moment as this is when the civilian government attempted to control the military and the military refused a direct order from the defense minister. Pallop is sacked and the army is upset. (Yes or NO? This did happen right?)

During this year, the army has full authority in the south. Deaths increase significantly and allegations of killing squads along with targeted assassinations are made. Multiple human rights abuses are alleged.

2005: March, 2005 following the mosque massacre, respected former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun is appointed chairman of the National Reconciliation Commission. This man has been a vociferous critic of Thaksin and the approach to dealing with the southern insurgency. He is considered a friend of the army. Instead of backing the army; he comes out and makes recommendations in June 2005. The Thaksin government says that it will implement key components of the recommendations.

General Prem Tinsulanonda formerly of the Royal Guards and president of the Privy Council says NO. The changes cannot be implemented

Despite the military being in charge, multiple bombs are set off in Songkhla on April 3. In July a major attack is launched in Yala. The military which had taken charge of operations is considered by some to have been publicly humiliated. It demands more power. The military is now working at cross purposes to Thaksin. In an attempt to reign in the military, Thaksin passes an edict which gives him greater oversight of the army and the army is angered.

The military is associated with a campaign to sway public opinion and to pressure the government. One example is Bangkok Senator Sophon Supapong attempt to incite a crisis by accusing the USA as being responsible, the "mastermind" of bomb blasts in Hat Yai. Perayot Rahimmula, Democratic MP and professor at the Pattani campus of the Prince of Songhla University joins him. They are unable to substantiate their allegations. Some of the allegations made are that Thaksin is a communist, that he wants to overthrow the monarchy and is trying to steal assets from PTT. Sophon is the former president of Banchot Petroleum and not happy with the PTT activity. He is later caught up in the scandal where it is alleged that over 100 supporters of the military junta were rewarded with lucrative "PR" contracts. http://www.nationmul...cs_30031650.php

2006, Thai Army Chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin makes the statement that communists are behind the insurgency and suggests a link to the Thai Rak Thai. Southern government officials including governors are surprised by the allegations and can find no evidence to support the allegations.

In 2006, Thaksin is ousted by an illegal military coup. Since that time, violence and death has increase in the Southern provinces.

All of the above is part of the historical record. It cannot be denied. (I have bolded some key names & events to encourage you to go and read more.) It wasn't about Thaksin. It was all about the army refusing to cede its power to an elected government. I believe PM Abhisit faces the same predicament: He has little control over the army.

Edited August 14, 2010 by geriatrickid

[gregb]

The army did not listen to Mr. Thaksin, because it considers itself above the rule of elected officials.

Wrong. Although the army does consider itself to be a watchdog of corrupt elected officials with a mandate to step in when they get too far out of line. I, for one, applaud them for this. They have proven themselves to be much more responsible than our so called "elected" officials.

It was not Mr. Thaksin's fault because the army ignored the instructions of an elected government. General Prem of the Royal Guards said as much. Why would Mr. Thaksin have been any different than the elected officials that preceded or followed him?

None of the other officials are demagogues intent on eviscerating the democratic institutions of this country. Thaksin was a particularly nasty evil that needed to be dealt with harshly. Nobody else since has risen to this level of malevolence.

It is particularly insulting to one's common sense to have the author attempt to pass of his misleading statement as fact. After all, Mr. Thaksin was overthrown by means of a military coup. The current PM is to a large extent at the mercy of the military as he too serves at the pleasure of the military

As it should be until the Thai voters begin to understand the responsibilities that a democracy carries along with the rights it endows. There needs to be an unelected group of responsible people to safeguard the country while the electorate becomes educated and responsible enough to handle the job themselves.

This is why England had a House of Lords for centuries. As an American I don't really understand the details of the non elected positions in the British government. I suspect today they are largely ceremonial, but I think only this year they finally decided to do away with all of them and move to a completely elected upper chamber.

In any case, Thailand needs the military to safeguard democracy until the Thai population is capable of doing it themselves, because we don't have a House of Lords. That is exactly what General Prayuth meant, and what both you and this author don't understand.

The Thai citizens will have taken a huge step towards this goal when they realize that criminals like Thaksin should be incarcerated for life, and that if they feel there are double standards, the solution is to help punish everyone else who has committed wrongs, not to burn down the country until the crimes of their saviour are forgiven. As long as even a single person still supports the square faced criminal, the military can not renounce its responsibilities to the country.

[mark45y]

The army did not listen to Mr. Thaksin, because it considers itself above the rule of elected officials.

Wrong. Although the army does consider itself to be a watchdog of corrupt elected officials with a mandate to step in when they get too far out of line. I, for one, applaud them for this. They have proven themselves to be much more responsible than our so called "elected" officials.

It was not Mr. Thaksin's fault because the army ignored the instructions of an elected government. General Prem of the Royal Guards said as much. Why would Mr. Thaksin have been any different than the elected officials that preceded or followed him?

None of the other officials are demagogues intent on eviscerating the democratic institutions of this country. Thaksin was a particularly nasty evil that needed to be dealt with harshly. Nobody else since has risen to this level of malevolence.

It is particularly insulting to one's common sense to have the author attempt to pass of his misleading statement as fact. After all, Mr. Thaksin was overthrown by means of a military coup. The current PM is to a large extent at the mercy of the military as he too serves at the pleasure of the military

As it should be until the Thai voters begin to understand the responsibilities that a democracy carries along with the rights it endows. There needs to be an unelected group of responsible people to safeguard the country while the electorate becomes educated and responsible enough to handle the job themselves.

This is why England had a House of Lords for centuries. As an American I don't really understand the details of the non elected positions in the British government. I suspect today they are largely ceremonial, but I think only this year they finally decided to do away with all of them and move to a completely elected upper chamber.

In any case, Thailand needs the military to safeguard democracy until the Thai population is capable of doing it themselves, because we don't have a House of Lords. That is exactly what General Prayuth meant, and what both you and this author don't understand.

The Thai citizens will have taken a huge step towards this goal when they realize that criminals like Thaksin should be incarcerated for life, and that if they feel there are double standards, the solution is to help punish everyone else who has committed wrongs, not to burn down the country until the crimes of their saviour are forgiven. As long as even a single person still supports the square faced criminal, the military can not renounce its responsibilities to the country.

Gregb said, “In any case, Thailand needs the military to safeguard democracy until the Thai population is capable of doing it themselves.

Democracy is a country run by representatives elected by the people. How can the military safeguard that if they continually overthrow governments elected by the people. What is it 17 coups in 30 years or something like that.

You don’t have democracy unless you have elected officials. What is the military safeguarding?

They may be safeguarding something but it is not democracy.

[HAL9000]

The army is for killing invading armies at the border. They have no role in crowd control unless you want to kill people. That's what armies do. Crowd control is police work.

The army needs to be under civilian control for military purposes only and stay out of politics and police work.

[way2muchcoffee]

A couple of interesting posts here. I tend to agree with gregb, but I can understand the arguments against as well. Tough situation. A military coup is totally inconsistent with democracy. But when that military coup deposes an extremely corrupt demagogue who is destroying the pillars of democracy then which is better - a nonviolent coup with support of the majority of the people, or a democratically elected dictator with only minority support? And what if it was majority support? Would it change anything?

These questions are difficult to answer. A person's take on this will determine which political grouping he aligns himself with.

Edited August 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[mark45y]

The army is for killing invading armies at the border. They have no role in crowd control unless you want to kill people. That's what armies do. Crowd control is police work.

The army needs to be under civilian control for military purposes only and stay out of politics and police work.

In the 60's America armed the police force and even gave them a navy. But the Army didn't like it and there was a war between the Army and Police force. The Army won and America went home.

Try reading operation seabord. I think that was the name or if not that will get you to the story.

[mark45y]

A couple of interesting posts here. I tend to agree with gregb, but I can understand the arguments against as well. Tough situation. A military coup is totally inconsistent with democracy. But when that military coup deposes an extremely corrupt demagogue who is destroying the pillars of democracy then which is better - a nonviolent coup with support of the majority of the people, or a democratically elected dictator with only minority support? And what if it was majority support? Would it change anything?

These questions are difficult to answer. A person's take on this will determine which political grouping he aligns himself with.

How does a politician get elected with only a minority? Bought or free or dumb a vote is still a vote. And how does one know the majority support the military coup with out an election?

[way2muchcoffee]

How does a politician get elected with only a minority? Bought or free or dumb a vote is still a vote. And how does one know the majority support the military coup with out an election?

A politician gets elected from a minority party through a coalition government. Post deposition polls would provide additional information.

Fair point about the military and majority. Again, however, one can estimate this from polls taken after a military coup, but admittedly with much less surety.

I must disagree with you on one point. A bought vote is not a valid vote. It is a perversion of democracy. The same is said of a military coup.

Note: The thoughts are clear in my head, but alcohol is impacting their expression in the written word. I shall try again at a later point. In my defense, it is 11:15 on a Saturday night. I'll probably read this and cringe tomorrow.

Edited August 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[elkangorito]

I'm with geriatrickid.

"Why bother to fly with turkeys when could otherwise soar with eagles".

The turkeys on this thread explains so many reasons why the world has so many problems. At least representatively speaking.

[sirchai]

The Army is a "Third Hand" (i.e., behind the scenes) political power broker in Thailand--the most powerful broker.....and periodically becomes a very visible and loud pounding hard ruler (i.e., military coup) who then slowly fades to behind the scenes operations/power brokering again. TIT

Prayuth has already said that he wishes to keep the Army out of politics but realises that such a task may be difficult given the current political and security environment. He said troops have returned to their barracks for now but may still be needed to keep peace and order as the political battle simmers on.

They have teurned but........................................????????????????????????????/

[Buchholz]

You can read my post going back 5 years or more.

I tried to, but it seems you've only been a member of Thaivisa for 3 years with this nickname.

What nickname were you using on Thaivisa back then?

That way we could review them and discuss them with your current nickname, ok?

[Buchholz]

It wasn't about Thaksin.

It was all about the army refusing to cede its power to an elected government.

Interesting version of history.

In and amongst your several "allegedly's" in it, I noticed you failed to make any mention of Thaksin appointing his own cousin to be the Army Boss during the time-frame you wrote about. (he also tried to make his brother-in-law the Police Chief which would have been a nice tandem of power that he could control).

As Army Chief was he not beholding to his cousin for appointing him ahead of all the other generals that were more senior and more qualified than him?

Did he also "refuse to cede its power" to Thaksin?

[bangkokburning]

Pretty much sizes up the future of democracy in the nation.

The parliament is nothing but facade for the junta.

[SpoliaOpima]

[/size]From 2002-2004 PM Thaksin Shinawatra stated attempted to respond using civilian means. The police are a "civilian" agency. When dealing with internal matters, it is the police that are used first. This approach is common around the world.

An approach that failed miserably in Thailand, as the remainder of your selective timeline proved.

The army approach worked. The police in Thailand are miserably incompetent went it comes to insurgent movements. It was all about cronyism for Pol Lt Col Thaksin, not security.

[asiawatcher]

The author let something slip when he tried to blame Thaksin for the situation in the south. He actually admits in a roundabout way that elected officials rule at the pleasure of the military;

It was Thaksin who permitted the Army to run wild all over the Malay-speaking South, after he and his people had failed to curb the ongoing insurgency there. The Army thus received from Thaksin a needed springboard into national affairs, and then mostly kept civilians out of the picture in the deep South.

Really? Let's consider this gem. (All you Thaksin bashers out there are going to be hard pressed to dance around the underlying truth.) The army did not listen to Mr. Thaksin, because it considers itself above the rule of elected officials. It was not Mr. Thaksin's fault because the army ignored the instructions of an elected government. General Prem of the Royal Guards said as much. Why would Mr. Thaksin have been any different than the elected officials that preceded or followed him? It is particularly insulting to one's common sense to have the author attempt to pass of his misleading statement as fact. After all, Mr. Thaksin was overthrown by means of a military coup. The current PM is to a large extent at the mercy of the military as he too serves at the pleasure of the military

Revising history again, kid? Col Thaksin removed the military from command in the south and replaced the high command with his police cronies. The army had things more or less under control. It would have been a lot better if they had disobeyed executive orders and kept the ISOC under the RTA.

The current PM is to a large extent at the mercy of the military as he too serves at the pleasure of the military

Of course, as has every govenment since the first military coup d'etat, ie, the 1932 revolution. If the Tai Rouge seriously wanted to change that, they would have taken the government's Nov election compromise. Instead they wanted an immediate dissolution so that they could get their main into the C-o-C's seat instead of Gen Prayuth. Both sides needed to win before the August military reshuffle. Had the Tai Rouge got what they wanted, they would have ruled with military backing same as the current coalition.

Well put - but remember the army backs the royal household and protects it and the Police are mostly opportunists at the non-specific command of Thaksin who came up (sort of) thru their ranks. The country remains divided of course and that is not going to change any time soon. At least the police saw in the confrontation there was no point taking on the army. That means stability may still exist. But the army in charge of the country? No way - look at what happened with the fiasco about withholding foreign income for 30 days. It wiped 800 Bn Baht from the stock exchange in 6 days until they reversed the decision. Businessmen they are not and ditto the police. Thailand still needs a governing hand but as clearly stated the kwai daeng had won the argument and the greed and stupidity kicked in thus they lost big time. It will be interesting to see what the next 12 months brings.

[chainarong]

Pretty much sizes up the future of democracy in the nation.

The parliament is nothing but facade for the junta.

For A junta , quiet correct.

[geriatrickid]

Well put - but remember the army backs the royal household and protects it and the Police are mostly opportunists at the non-specific command of Thaksin who came up (sort of) thru their ranks. The country remains divided of course and that is not going to change any time soon. At least the police saw in the confrontation there was no point taking on the army. That means stability may still exist. But the army in charge of the country? No way - look at what happened with the fiasco about withholding foreign income for 30 days. It wiped 800 Bn Baht from the stock exchange in 6 days until they reversed the decision. Businessmen they are not and ditto the police. Thailand still needs a governing hand but as clearly stated the kwai daeng had won the argument and the greed and stupidity kicked in thus they lost big time. It will be interesting to see what the next 12 months brings.

Your post highlights a perception that defies commonsense and the historical record.

the army backs the royal household and protects it

Really? That's what some of the army generals say, but is that really the case? I believe the public statements are an excuse to keep the army in its position of power. and that their actions and behaviour often demonstrates a divergence from that public position.

The crown has invested significant efforts into the preservation of Thailand's forests. This was done long before it was a trendy and I believe that it came from a genuine desire to ensure that the country had the forests in place to ensure the biodiversity and plant structure to retain water, to prevent soil erosion and to avoid turning the landscape into that which one now sees in some former east bloc countries.

And just who are some of the worst offenders? Which priviliged and protected group has allegedly done more to rip down important forests and to encroach upon protected spaces?

Last April, this comment was made in a speech; "In the country, there might be people who neglect their duties, but you can set an example that there are those who perform their duties strictly and honestly"

That is a statement that anyone with a sense of responsibility would interpret as saying, step up and do the right thing. Which army generals did that? It is not good enough to point fingers and go wahhh the red shirts did this or to cry the yellow shirts did that. Those that claim to be loyal servants should have heeded the advice and complied with a heartfelt request. All it takes is one to make the pledge.

I'm sorry, but I think some of the army's leadership are all about lip service. If they were truly righteous and loyal they would take a pledge of integrity and refuse to support any form of corruption. No more alleged purchases of rank. No more alleged using funds to purchase expensive personal use vehicles, no more alleged extravagent lifestyles. No more allegations of conscripts used as menial labour for personal benefit. It's time to get back to basics. Respect is earned.through leadership and actions.

Edited August 15, 2010 by geriatrickid

[phetaroi]

The army is for killing invading armies at the border. They have no role in crowd control unless you want to kill people. That's what armies do. Crowd control is police work.

The army needs to be under civilian control for military purposes only and stay out of politics and police work.

I'm going to pick on your post among the others because it is important to resist the temptation to think every nation's military should only be active in the way the American or British (for example) operates. It's simplistic to say that "the army is for killing invading armies". There is no universal rule that a military only operates outside the borders of its county; in fact, there have often been debates in the U.S. about whether that should be sacrosanct. In fact, the role in the U.S. is often fudged when the National Guard is "sent in" or the Army Corps Of Engineers operates within the country.

The role of the military in any country needs to be determined by that country. In the case of Thailand, a major problem -- in my view -- is not so much the involvement of the military in internal affairs, but (as demonstrated in the events moving up to May 19) the inability of the government to order the military to conduct necessary operations. Some would call that treason. I don't see the Thai military as being any more corrupt than the rest of Thailand. And, there has been evidence that many civilians overall approve of the military's role within the country.