Staunch Thaksin Foe Takes Command Of Thai Army

[Pib]

the armed forces can quickly remove a civilian govt from power...just ask Thaksin.

nearly six years is not what I would nearly call "quickly"

But when the armed forces finally decided to move against him, it was no drawn out fighting in the streets thing...it was overnight coup, clean & swift, and apparently Thaksin didn't see it coming as he was at the United Nations getting ready to deliver a speech (which he didn't get to deliver). Then again, maybe he did have a feeling and decided it might be best to be out of town, but I doubt he knew the coup was coming as the trip to the UN and his speech had been planned months in advance. It was almost like the armed forces flipping a light switch off and on....off goes the switch and Thaksin is out of power; on goes the switch and a new guy is in power.

[Thai at Heart]

Ah. Thailand. The wonderful developed democracy, where the army chief is selected to "support the government", or "do the government's bidding".

This ladies and gentleman will continue to be the single biggest hurdle to stable politics in this country. There is absolutely no point in elections, parties, parliaments, as long as those in green can step in at any time.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Presumably appointing a hardline anti-redshirt as Army C-in-C is part of Abhisit's reconciliation process.

spot on!!!

[RKASA]

the armed forces can quickly remove a civilian govt from power...just ask Thaksin.

nearly six years is not what I would nearly call "quickly"

18 in 80 or another in 6 years would seem quickly if one comes from a country that hadn't had one in over 200 years.

[IAMSOBAD]

General I heard you read TV all the time. So I want to be the first to wish you well and hope you can control violent people who are being misled by crooked wannabe leaders.

P.S. General do you have any pull at immigration?

How about a 5 year retirement visa and no more 90 day reporting. Farang are not your enemy so throw us a bone.

[letitbe]

Not good news... when will Thailand learn to keep politics out of the services - better to have chosen a 'neutral' - which they all should be of course.

Good news. Thailand is not ready for full democracy and for better or worse the army have been a stabilizing force for last 30 years or so. Im not in favor of keeping poor poor but Taksin and his thugs are not a way forward. That IMHO would only risk a Mugabwe, Hussain, Hitler or the like all of whom were elected. When thugs get leave the red opposition then maybe a decent opposition can develop who care about Thailand and people instead of the interests of one man and controlled by one man. Things are improving slowly for the poor. I admit very slowly but does Thailand and its poor really need a French revolution or a savior like Hitler. At whatever cost Thailand needs a period of peace and if that means clamping down hard on red thugs who preach violence and have shown their desire to destroy so be it. We forang with our western values and ideas should not try and put our ways and way of doing things on Thailand. After all is USA wonderful democracy so good for USA poor with its tent cities huge murder and crime rate and total obsession with materialism.

[letitbe]

Well sorry if I didn't touch your intellectual buttons but frankly anybody I find such observers using Amsterdam-esque PR-ridden vocabulary such as "elite consolidating their power" cringe worthy.

In my view (and a fair number of others) this is nothing more than a measured response to the biggest proven, real threat to Thailand's stability in a large number of years. Given the actions of the red shirts earlier this year and the ongoing bombing campaign around the city almost daily a more moderate person filling such a position would do little to ease concerns of a large number of ordinary Thais.

Of course a decision like this is going to irk a large number of red supporters and sympathisers (hi). But what sort of response were they expecting?

Spot on agree 100%

[Roadman]

Not good news... when will Thailand learn to keep politics out of the services - better to have chosen a 'neutral' - which they all should be of course.

Good news. Thailand is not ready for full democracy and for better or worse the army have been a stabilizing force for last 30 years or so. Im not in favor of keeping poor poor but Taksin and his thugs are not a way forward. That IMHO would only risk a Mugabwe, Hussain, Hitler or the like all of whom were elected. When thugs get leave the red opposition then maybe a decent opposition can develop who care about Thailand and people instead of the interests of one man and controlled by one man. Things are improving slowly for the poor. I admit very slowly but does Thailand and its poor really need a French revolution or a savior like Hitler. At whatever cost Thailand needs a period of peace and if that means clamping down hard on red thugs who preach violence and have shown their desire to destroy so be it. We forang with our western values and ideas should not try and put our ways and way of doing things on Thailand.

Well said and very correct.

The Army are the only stability Thailand has. Its politics are a joke and its cop force are even a bigger joke. And people on here want the Army to stay out of politics? Apart from the quick and painless removal of a thieving scumbag they pretty well have been for perhaps one of the longest periods of time in this so called democratic period.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Roadman

[overhaul38]

Lets all try to visualize a non-political military. Nope..I can't either.

[yoshiwara]

In my view (and a fair number of others) this is nothing more than a measured response to the biggest proven, real threat to Thailand's stability in a large number of years.

I think this sentence contains the nub of the problem. The question is 'Can there be change without it being perceived as instability?'. If you don't want change then over time you will end up facing a growing tide of dissatisfaction. On the scale of global political history, that is pretty much a given.

If you can conceive of how change can be a positive thing, then surely you must be prepared to give up a degree of 'stability', in order to achieve that change.

I know you will point to the radical fringes - the people who actually lit fires etc - among 'that' side, but given that they are only the militant/crazy end of a rather larger movement who would like to see change delivered peacefully (if at all possible), it does seem that people who yearn for 'stability' also don't actually want to see any change at all.

In line with what you say, you could add that the UDD striving to get k. Thaksin back don't want a real change, just the old situation back.

The red-shirts have valid grievances, but need to formulate a program and find some 'real concerned' leaders. Thai society has to move forward and preferrably in a relatively peaceful way.

Although PM Abhisit may want change, it starts to look more and more he's not willing to fight too hard for it. Or maybe he's just getting tired of the in-fighting, back-stabbing, etc. Well, he wanted to be a politician

The reds supporters wear a T-shirt with 'change' on it, but yes the only change they are interested in is the return of Thaksin.

Both in 2006 and Songkran 2009 and May 2010 Thaksin gave notice that it was the army leadership he wanted on the back of bringing down the state and returning his goodself to power.

The announcement re the new army leadership is the nail in Thaksin's political coffin that he's not coming back anytime soon except in chains.

One of his leaders is dead, most of the others are locked up, at least one is on the run and the headless clown Jatuporn doesn't know quite what to do.

Such has been the fate of the Thaksin 'elite'.

Edited September 29, 2010 by yoshiwara

[hanuman1]

In my view (and a fair number of others) this is nothing more than a measured response to the biggest proven, real threat to Thailand's stability in a large number of years.

I think this sentence contains the nub of the problem. The question is 'Can there be change without it being perceived as instability?'. If you don't want change then over time you will end up facing a growing tide of dissatisfaction. On the scale of global political history, that is pretty much a given.

If you can conceive of how change can be a positive thing, then surely you must be prepared to give up a degree of 'stability', in order to achieve that change.

I know you will point to the radical fringes - the people who actually lit fires etc - among 'that' side, but given that they are only the militant/crazy end of a rather larger movement who would like to see change delivered peacefully (if at all possible), it does seem that people who yearn for 'stability' also don't actually want to see any change at all.

In line with what you say, you could add that the UDD striving to get k. Thaksin back don't want a real change, just the old situation back.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but whilst the fact that a military coup remains unlawful and unconstitutional remains true, it bears out repetition in the face of those choosing to sweep it under the carpet.

In this case, your idea that the 'UDD striving to get k. Thaksin back don't want a real change' is founded on somewhat shaky ground since the 'change' that they 'don't want' was an illegal coup.

I've heard of people breaking the law because it benefits them, but to accuse someone of wanting to uphold the law because it benefits them is hardly a crime. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'd be the first to say Taksin should go to jail for crimes he has been proven as having committed. But why is it wrong to want to uphold the constitution of the land and give it more respect than either Taksin or those who ignore the coup which displaced him give it?

Edited September 29, 2010 by hanuman1

[Buchholz]

the armed forces can quickly remove a civilian govt from power...just ask Thaksin.

nearly six years is not what I would nearly call "quickly"

But when the armed forces finally decided to move against him, it was no drawn out fighting in the streets thing...it was overnight coup, clean & swift, and apparently Thaksin didn't see it coming as he was at the United Nations getting ready to deliver a speech (which he didn't get to deliver). Then again, maybe he did have a feeling and decided it might be best to be out of town, but I doubt he knew the coup was coming as the trip to the UN and his speech had been planned months in advance. It was almost like the armed forces flipping a light switch off and on....off goes the switch and Thaksin is out of power; on goes the switch and a new guy is in power.

There's been a fair amount of reporting that the coup was weeks, if not months, in the planning. Only the end resulting action of that planning, dumping square-head while he was in NYC, appeared as an overnight coup.

I agree that once it began, it was quick. That there was no drawn out effort to stop it or resist leads one to believe it was rather welcomed by many in the country. There was no shortage of flowers being presented gratefully to the Army afterwards.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

the armed forces can quickly remove a civilian govt from power...just ask Thaksin.

nearly six years is not what I would nearly call "quickly"

18 in 80 or another in 6 years would seem quickly if one comes from a country that hadn't had one in over 200 years.

Thaksin screwing the country for 6 years will never be classified as someone who came quickly. It was a long and slow and hard ride.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Buchholz

[asiawatcher]

"It also reflects how desperately the traditional elite want to hold on to power by putting their own people in key positions in the military," said Pavin, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

Prayut, who is being promoted from second in command, has long been seen as the top contender to replace retiring chief General Anupong Paojinda.

I can only assume that Maj-Gen. Prayut has the right qualities and met all the criteria to be commander-in-chief. The fact that he's anti-Thaksin is just a bonus.

Is there anyone who has better qualification and is available ?

I think he has the qualifications and on that basis irrespective of hardline against the red shirts, he may be able to resolve what the PM did not. It is however, comforting that should protests start again they will be dealt with the way they should have been dealt with in the first place. I support this move wholeheartedly for my family's safety. Another great move in the chess game of powerplay, Thailand politics. Love it. Thaksin - your move and 'check'.

[mca]

I can only assume that Maj-Gen. Prayut has the right qualities and met all the criteria to be commander-in-chief.

He certainly does. Been on the board of directors of a few companies like any self respecting high ranking army officer.

[Buchholz]

General Prayuth Chan-ocha played a key part in the army's efforts to recapture several key avenues in central Bangkok from protesters in May.

New Thai Army Chief Named

BANGKOK—Thailand's monarch confirmed a hawkish general as the country's next army chief Thursday, a move that means the army is likely to act more decisively to prevent any repeat of demonstrations by supporters of former Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra that transfixed Bangkok in April and May this year.

In the country's recent turmoil, who heads the army has been a key flashpoint and King Bhumibol Adulyadej's approval of General Prayuth Chan-ocha, a staunch Thaksin foe, will make it harder for Mr. Thaksin to influence politics in his homeland and mobilize his followers, analysts say.

Gen. Prayuth will replace General Anupong Paochinda who is scheduled to retire at the end of September. While Gen. Anupong initially appeared uncertain how to handle this year's massive street protests in Bangkok, even suggesting new elections should be held, Gen. Prayuth, 56 years old, is believed to be much more willing to take a harder line if Thaksin supporters, known as Red Shirts, take to the streets again.

Continues:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467333863739588.html

Wall Street Journal - September 3, 2010

Edited September 30, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

a hawkish general

Thaksin and his Reds should be very grateful that General Saprang Kalayanamitr was not made Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army.

Now, there's a hawkish general. He is the most "staunch-ist" of Thaksin's foes.

[Buchholz]

Staunch Thaksin foe takes command of Thai army

by Daniel Rook

AFP

Wouldn't want to say that Mr. Rook is a plagiarist, but more than a few similarities between his article and the one written by James Hookway for the Wall Street Journal nearly a month earlier

General Prayuth Chan-ocha, a staunch Thaksin foe

Wall Street Journal - September 3, 2010

[mkawish]

IMHO Mr Rook is sensationalizing this story.

The 2IC, a staunch monarchist from an elite unit, is promoted on the retirement of his boss, which is no surprise to anyone. Why then is it implied that favours are owed to and by the PM and the Army? Did anyone ever think that a pro-Thaksin general would get the job? Is there such a man?

It is suggested that it would be better if a neutral was put in charge. How does a military leader remain neutral when the remnants of armed insurrectionists are still carrying out a bombing campaign?

We'll see what the newly installed general would be able to do for the govt?

Hopefully, he'll be able to do lots more than the no good and no action Anupong who imho has been a disgrace to the uniform for his unwillingness and/or his inability to enforce law and order during his recent reign.

[Insight]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but whilst the fact that a military coup remains unlawful and unconstitutional remains true, it bears out repetition in the face of those choosing to sweep it under the carpet.

In this case, your idea that the 'UDD striving to get k. Thaksin back don't want a real change' is founded on somewhat shaky ground since the 'change' that they 'don't want' was an illegal coup.

I've heard of people breaking the law because it benefits them, but to accuse someone of wanting to uphold the law because it benefits them is hardly a crime. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'd be the first to say Taksin should go to jail for crimes he has been proven as having committed. But why is it wrong to want to uphold the constitution of the land and give it more respect than either Taksin or those who ignore the coup which displaced him give it?

3x use of the word "coup" and one standard "I don't support Thaksin" disclaimer.

The reason the coup was warmly received was owing to the ongoing erosion of law by the Thaksin-led government that preceded it. For the record this does not just include the various AIS-related misgivings, but also an election which had to be nullified owing to the very suspect positioning of poll booths. Before the coup democracy in Thailand was a battered wife. What we've got now is the messy divorce.

[Huey]

Outstanding, I hope that under his leadership if the red shirt terrorists rise up again that he will have them swiftly crushed under heel, for the safety of Thailand's law abiding citizens and guests of the Kingdom.

[Buchholz]

and one standard "I don't support Thaksin" disclaimer.

that's the part that's always funny.

[Siam Simon]

and one standard "I don't support Thaksin" disclaimer.

that's the part that's always funny.

Ah, yes. The standard pro-Demo propagandist line: If you don't back the Dems 100% and don't make excuses on TV for their wrongdoings and alleged wrongdoings you're a sneaky, paid-by-Thaksin infiltrator .

[whybother]

and one standard "I don't support Thaksin" disclaimer.

that's the part that's always funny.

Ah, yes. The standard pro-Demo propagandist line: If you don't back the Dems 100% and don't make excuses on TV for their wrongdoings and alleged wrongdoings you're a sneaky, paid-by-Thaksin infiltrator .

Not pro-Democrat ... Anti-Red. Hating Thaksin is nothing to do with the Democrats.

Anti-reds always point out the joke of the standard statement "I support the red shirts (who support and are paid by Thaksin) but I don't support Thaksin.

[Buchholz]

Now that he has assumed command (as of today), I note that despite the "Staunch Thaksin Foe" moniker (given by journalist Thomas Hookway and later by Daniel Rook), General Prayuth Chan-ocha has plans to travel to the North and Northeast to visit relatives of those slain during May Mayhem 2010.

In contrast to his hard-line reputation, he's doing so in an effort to try and patch things up.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Newly appointed Thai Army Chief General Prayuth Chan-Ocha (right) and outgoing General Anupong Paojinda (left) salute during a handover ceremony at the Thai army headquarters in Bangkok.

AFP

[GarryP]

And he is planning to visit the masses in the North and North East quite soon according to a report in the BKK Post. A diplomatic visit or a vist to let them know whose boss now?

Edited October 1, 2010 by GarryP

[hanuman1]

and one standard "I don't support Thaksin" disclaimer.

that's the part that's always funny.

And I find all these pro-Democrat Taksin obsessives hilarious in the way they seem incapable of separating the concepts of 'naughty Taksin' and 'a more prosperous lower class'. Odd, they're pretty unrelated concepts, and these militaristic coup-lovers do seem so reasoned and educated.

Yes, you are all pro-Democrat in the same way you suggest red shirt sympathizers are all Taksin lovers. Sounds ignorant? Welcome to yourselves.

Edited October 1, 2010 by sbk
personal flame removed

[Buchholz]

I freely admit I am prejudiced against terrorists and also that I am interested in assisting the poor in improving their lives.

Once Thaksin is out of the workings of the PTP and it is in turn is divorced from the Red Shirts, perhaps your attempts to disconnect the three will sound more believable. Until then, it's laughable.

Pheu Thai Party Deputy Party Leader Surapong Towijakchaikun added that Thaksin, the Party’s policy maker, was still well-respected in the Party given he was an integral part of Pheu Thai and the Party could not do without him.

-- NNT 2010-09-30

[hanuman1]

I freely admit I am prejudiced against terrorists and also that I am interested in assisting the poor in improving their lives.

Once Thaksin is out of the workings of the PTP and it is in turn is divorced from the Red Shirts, perhaps your attempts to disconnect the three will sound more believable. Until then, it's laughable.

Pheu Thai Party Deputy Party Leader Surapong Towijakchaikun added that Thaksin, the Party’s policy maker, was still well-respected in the Party given he was an integral part of Pheu Thai and the Party could not do without him.

-- NNT 2010-09-30

Hmmm. This is interesting. I'm 100% in agreement with your first sentence, and I'm sure that we'd both like to see convicted criminals in jail whatever their office or social standing. So what's the stumbling block here?

We agree on so much and yet I'm a red-shirt terrorist apologist/Taksin lover, and you're a constitution-hating yellow-shirt militarist. I feel a song coming on....

Edited October 1, 2010 by hanuman1