There Is No Such Thing As A Good Thai Military Coup

[zthyadat]

If Thai politicians weren't so hopelessly corrupt there would be no need for the army to throw them out when things get out of hand.

The only fix is to improve governance in Thailand - when a politician breaks the law they lose their seat and go to jail. No deals, no amnesties and no rewriting the law to let them off the hook (honestly, how pathetic).

When enough politicians are rotting in jail the others will start to get the message and things will improve.

I know, I know, don't hold your breath.

Taiwan got there somehow and most Taiwanese were very pleased about it - former leader in prison for corruption, which was unthinkable just a decade ago. It has raised the bar the public has set for politicians.

[gemini81]

The only side in need of a coup at this time is Team Thaksin.

My thoughts exactly. And if he wasn't taken out, it would've been the next Kim Jong Il in thailand.

[truethailand]

General Prayuth has me worried when he speaks, he's outspoken, fine, but he doesn't come across as very smart. What worries me too is that a PT government might deliberately go on the offensive, goading the general into a coup, which might not be as smooth as the previous one, ultimately proving disastrous for the military, the general, and ultimately Thailand as a whole.

"Who wants to stage a coup at this time?" from the OP. So, the last coup was justified and another one is not ruled out. I doubt the trigger will be a new PT government. The financial markets have a shrewd idea of what the catalyst might be. As reported, General Prayuth makes it sound like it is just a matter of when.

I wish I could have explained it so eloquently. Its certainly coming and it wont be nice this time

[truethailand]

"If I had known this would be the trend, I should have done it myself. That's because if you knew how to stage a coup, then you can build democracy. End of story. But what they did was to tear up the constitution and draw up a new one. That's why Thailand has had so many [torn-up] charters."

HOW CAN STAGING A COUP BUILD DEMOCRACY? I am confused.

A coup can build democracy if those in power are by-passing the democratic checks and balances.

Coups here and most other places having nothing to do with building true democracy. They are to do with retaining and reinforcing power so effectively keeping your snout in the trough. Dont you have homework to do

[rubl]

Coups here and most other places having nothing to do with building true democracy. They are to do with retaining and reinforcing power so effectively keeping your snout in the trough. Dont you have homework to do

You also have some homework to do I think.

Those who forget the past as condemned to make the same mistakes again.

[asiawatcher]

If Thai politicians weren't so hopelessly corrupt there would be no need for the army to throw them out when things get out of hand.

The only fix is to improve governance in Thailand - when a politician breaks the law they lose their seat and go to jail. No deals, no amnesties and no rewriting the law to let them off the hook (honestly, how pathetic).

When enough politicians are rotting in jail the others will start to get the message and things will improve.

I know, I know, don't hold your breath.

Absolutely and a great post.

[seri thai]

Don't the courts deal with lese majeste?

"We already have a democracy under the monarchy. Other countries may have democracy but they don't have the institution of the monarchy like the one we have."

If the translation is correct, thats my quote of the year :jap:

[cdnvic]

Discussion of The Monarchy in a political context is a violation of Thai law. Do not even think of making it part of this discussion please.

[phetaroi]

I love the way Thais think:

Example 1: "We already have a democracy under the monarchy."

Example 2: "if you knew how to stage a coup, then you can build democracy."

[phetaroi]

"I think - finally we can close the book on the use of military coups to press the "reset" button in Thailand."

I've been hearing that same refrain for over 20 years.

[phetaroi]

Coups here and most other places having nothing to do with building true democracy. They are to do with retaining and reinforcing power so effectively keeping your snout in the trough. Dont you have homework to do

You also have some homework to do I think.

Those who forget the past as condemned to make the same mistakes again.

As are those who dwell on the past.

[Siam Simon]

If Thai politicians weren't so hopelessly corrupt there would be no need for the army to throw them out when things get out of hand.

The only fix is to improve governance in Thailand - when a politician breaks the law they lose their seat and go to jail. No deals, no amnesties and no rewriting the law to let them off the hook (honestly, how pathetic).

When enough politicians are rotting in jail the others will start to get the message and things will improve.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Start issuing out long prison sentences and see what happens to corruption levels.

I agree as well.

1) HARSH sentences for members of the government and government agencies that are caught in corruption.

2) Banning from holding public office or from serving in the police/army/government service people that have beenconvicted of any crime that carries the possibility of a prison term that exceeds one year --- and banning them forever.

edit to add a few links

Thaksin dissolves Parliament

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/24/thailand.government/index.html

Thaksin steps down

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/thailand.politics/

I agree 100% with your points (1) & (2). And, as well as name-checking the ongoing dodgy-priced Gripen fighter jet deals, I've added a link of my own, both of which show that the current 'policeman' is no more trustworthy than the politicians he is 'policing':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10269170

Btw, both of the above dodgy procurements have been brokered by the same Thai company, who's first name is A and second is S .

Edited November 18, 2010 by Siam Simon

[mca]

I'd like to add a 3rd point to jd's list. Don't let politicians et al resign to avoid investigations and possible punishment over their alleged misdeeds. And then make them Deputy PM.

[jayboy]

Yet again Jayboy ---

Parliament had been dissolved --- Fact

Thaksin had publicly resigned his caretaker PM position ---- Fact

Thaksin stepped back in and picked up his caretaker position when there was no constitutional allowance for him to do so ---- Fact

The time allowed in the previous constitution for a caretaker government to be in charge had expired --- fact

An election was held that could not seat a government. --- Fact

Note --- I did not claim it was a "good coup" in my post above. I merely corrected another poster's statements (something you didn't do with my post.) My personal opinion is that the 2006 coup was, in fact, the least damaging of all the option that were on the table at the time. NOW I have stated my opinion ---

The statements you designate FACT don't really address my concerns outlined earlier.Facts have to be interpreted and their significance considered.

However your personal opinion "least damaging option" on the 2006 coup puts your FACTS in their appropriate subjective context.

Please feel free to counter anything I suggest is a fact that you can prove is not a fact. Otherwise you are simply obfuscating.

I tried to explain that facts need interpretation and assessment of context.It's not obfuscation.Nobody looking at your FACTS would really have any idea why the coup took place at all.Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.You can argue as Hammered does that Thaksin had made the situation untenable which I would elaborate as through corruption and alienating the Bangkok middle class.The army had its own reasons for the coup including its dissatisfaction with its budget.Lots of issues which don't need or can't be discussed here.What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

[SkyHigh]

A Coup is never done good.

It only favors those Thaksin haters who see this option as the only chance - let alone how evil it might seem.

When you take to power into your own hands and start judging others. It's dictatorship not democracy.

People say Thaksin is a corrupted politican.

Needless to answer. Now do they even find one in the office ?

Just for how long do you think Thaksin would serve as PM if there was no coup ? 8 yrs ? 12 yrs ?

He would have to step down since 2008. Even his proxy managed to get elected again.

Dems would have received more chance, gained more supports during 2008-2012

Thailand would have been in MUCH better shape.

Edited November 19, 2010 by SkyHigh

[jdinasia]

Yet again Jayboy ---

Parliament had been dissolved --- Fact

Thaksin had publicly resigned his caretaker PM position ---- Fact

Thaksin stepped back in and picked up his caretaker position when there was no constitutional allowance for him to do so ---- Fact

The time allowed in the previous constitution for a caretaker government to be in charge had expired --- fact

An election was held that could not seat a government. --- Fact

Note --- I did not claim it was a "good coup" in my post above. I merely corrected another poster's statements (something you didn't do with my post.) My personal opinion is that the 2006 coup was, in fact, the least damaging of all the option that were on the table at the time. NOW I have stated my opinion ---

The statements you designate FACT don't really address my concerns outlined earlier.Facts have to be interpreted and their significance considered.

However your personal opinion "least damaging option" on the 2006 coup puts your FACTS in their appropriate subjective context.

Please feel free to counter anything I suggest is a fact that you can prove is not a fact. Otherwise you are simply obfuscating.

I tried to explain that facts need interpretation and assessment of context.It's not obfuscation.Nobody looking at your FACTS would really have any idea why the coup took place at all.Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.You can argue as Hammered does that Thaksin had made the situation untenable which I would elaborate as through corruption and alienating the Bangkok middle class.The army had its own reasons for the coup including its dissatisfaction with its budget.Lots of issues which don't need or can't be discussed here.What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

Actually a 'caretaker' government is NOT an elected government. Additionally, a government that is by nature extra-constitutional is not an 'elected' government.

I see that you continue not to address the basic facts I presented. Yes, that is obfuscation.

[whybother]

<snip>

Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.

<snip>

What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

Jayboy, can you please provide a time line of the events in the year before the coup that explains to a "blinkered propagandist" how an elected government was in place when the coup happened?

Just saying "an elected government was overthrown by the coup" does not make it true. It needs explaining.

[SomTumTiger]

There will be no coup, and its not for any of the internal reasons. It's entirely external. The the coup in 1991 went largely underneath the world's radar - internet and news were not what they are now. I think, in many ways, the 2006 reaction to the coup stunned the Thai military. They were not prepared for the instant and strong global backlash, brought about by the global 24 hour news machine, and the instant news service that is today's reality. They certainly don't want that bad press again, and I think - finally we can close the book on the use of military coups to press the "reset" button in Thailand. Only time will tell.

After 2006 the international criticism was incredibly mild. A few headlines that also showed flowers being given to troops. Some we dont support coup talk by a few friendly governments. A minor amount of military aid held back and nothing else. The western world in particular didnt give a toss about the coup beyond throwing a few platitudes around.

Of course that coup was against an elected government but one that had been undermined itself with its hideous human rights record and there were no deaths. A coup against the current government which hasnt killed thousands of its own people would be admittedly be harder to sell as would a coup against an incoming government after the next election. Of course if the country was in utter turmoil after say the disolution of yet another party and with more such cases to come would be a lot easier sell.

Then there is also the fact that this region is of strategic geo-poltical interest to say the least and no major government is going to put some set of ideals above the harsh reality of establishing or maintianing hegemony. If the army want a coup all they have to do is be united and have one, state they are going to return demcoracy when the corrupt are removed/when stability is restored and make sure the interests of certain powers are protected and not kill or jail too many people. By the way the US just got Bout. They owe Thailand one and in reality of the western democracies only what they say counts round here. Oh and China doesnt comment on internal events. Political reality.

Most people think there will be a coup at a certain time if stability is not certain and there will be no consideration for what is thought internationally at that time. As investors favour stability rather than type of government over everything else they have likely factored in such events.

Edited to add: I am not advocating a coup or supporting previous ones

I like your points hammered. I do think that, for the Thai military, the exposure that resulted from the coup, on the world media, was enough to give them pause. You are right that the reception was not harsh (at first), but the media have continued to hammer, and dig away, in countless interviews with countless people, about "getting Thailand on track after the last coup". I think that has made an impact.

I stand by my statement, I don't believe we will see another one. We have the right man in office to weather these "interesting" times, and I hope he is reelected by the next coalition to another 4 years after his term expires.

[jayboy]

<snip>

Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.

<snip>

What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

Jayboy, can you please provide a time line of the events in the year before the coup that explains to a "blinkered propagandist" how an elected government was in place when the coup happened?

Just saying "an elected government was overthrown by the coup" does not make it true. It needs explaining.

No, because to deny it is simply absurd.I doubt whether the fanatics - we know who they are - who purport to deny it realise how ridiculous they seem.

As Hammered points out:

"Of course that coup was against an elected government but one that had been undermined itself with its hideous human rights record and there were no deaths."

There are all sorts of reasonable points to be made e.g the coup was the least bad option,Thaksin brought it on himself etc (as well as the counter -arguments ).

What's not debatable is whether an elected government was overturned.Even the military officers who planned and launched the coup don't make that childish claim.To do so is simply silly and not an area I'm prepared to discuss (at least with the fanatics: I'm prepared to discuss almost anything with intelligent reasonable people who understand give and take)

[jdinasia]

and yet again ---- the caretaker government that was replaced by the coup was both extra-constitutional and non-elected. Their time had expired and a caretaker government is a replacement government for an elected government. Thaksin disbanded the elected government when he dissolved parliament and only had until May to get a replacement government elected to remain within the bounds of the constitution that was in place at the time.

I usually agree with hammered, but obviously not in this case.

It is nice to see jayboy resort to more attacks to the posters at the end of his posts instead of attacking at the beginning! oooops it was at the beginning wasn't it?

No, because to deny it is simply absurd.I doubt whether the fanatics - we know who they are - who purport to deny it realise how ridiculous they seem.

Edited November 19, 2010 by jdinasia

[Pi Sek]

... Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.

<snip>

What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

I will deny that the coup overthrew an elected government... because it didn't. It overthrew one that had stayed in power, past its term, unlawfully. Whatever circumstances that led up to it not relinquishing power are totally irrelevant. There is a standard operating procedure for such circumstances, and they weren't followed. That's why TRT were illegal and that's the biggest justification for a coup. The government WAS elected - but only for a 4-year term. Therefore when the coup happened, it did NOT overthrow an elected government.

So, you see, it CAN and SHOULD be denied that an elected government was overthrown. But I suppose you already knew that, you've been told enough times. The way I see it, that makes YOU a "blinkered propagandist" as you put it.

[animatic]

and yet again ---- the caretaker government that was replaced by the coup was both extra-constitutional and non-elected. Their time had expired and a caretaker government is a replacement government for an elected government. Thaksin disbanded the elected government when he dissolved parliament and only had until May to get a replacement government elected to remain within the bounds of the constitution that was in place at the time.

I usually agree with hammered, but obviously not in this case.

It is nice to see jayboy resort to more attacks to the posters at the end of his posts instead of attacking at the beginning! oooops it was at the beginning wasn't it?

No, because to deny it is simply absurd.I doubt whether the fanatics - we know who they are - who purport to deny it realise how ridiculous they seem.

The most accurate that can be said is that:

'The coup makes delayed the coming election, to prevent a second sequential fraudulent round, and put in a constitution less easily jiggered by the ones known to have tried fraud on a grand scale.

With the proviso that 'the people' vote on it, and that it can be amended later, as they are doing now.

There was no elected government in power on Sept 19 2006.

There was an appointed cabinet being run by a resigned and then self-re-appointed Acting PM. who had NOT been reinvested by HRM at the palace as requiered by law.

[animatic]

... Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.

<snip>

What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

I will deny that the coup overthrew an elected government... because it didn't. It overthrew one that had stayed in power, past its term, unlawfully. Whatever circumstances that led up to it not relinquishing power are totally irrelevant. There is a standard operating procedure for such circumstances, and they weren't followed. That's why TRT were illegal and that's the biggest justification for a coup. The government WAS elected - but only for a 4-year term. Therefore when the coup happened, it did NOT overthrow an elected government.

So, you see, it CAN and SHOULD be denied that an elected government was overthrown. But I suppose you already knew that, you've been told enough times. The way I see it, that makes YOU a "blinkered propagandist" as you put it.

Not totally correct. Thaksin and TRT had been relected, but post Shin Corp sale to Temasek, there was an outcry, and Thaksin HIMSELF dissolved the government and legislature. That left ONLY him as 'Acting PM. with his cabinet for 6 months, and no other government bodies, except the courts and permanent ministries. When he failed to run an election properly he eventually timed out on his care taker mandate, eventually resigned, and a week later decided unilaterally to take the caretaker PM position back.

And then came the pathetically and transparently false 'attempt on his life' by one of Panlops aides underlings, and the game was a foot to create a ongoing state of emergency to allow Thaksin to illegally increase his control.

The Army decided that had to stop.

Edited November 19, 2010 by animatic

[whybother]

<snip>

Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.

<snip>

What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

Jayboy, can you please provide a time line of the events in the year before the coup that explains to a "blinkered propagandist" how an elected government was in place when the coup happened?

Just saying "an elected government was overthrown by the coup" does not make it true. It needs explaining.

No, because to deny it is simply absurd.I doubt whether the fanatics - we know who they are - who purport to deny it realise how ridiculous they seem.

As Hammered points out:

"Of course that coup was against an elected government but one that had been undermined itself with its hideous human rights record and there were no deaths."

There are all sorts of reasonable points to be made e.g the coup was the least bad option,Thaksin brought it on himself etc (as well as the counter -arguments ).

What's not debatable is whether an elected government was overturned.Even the military officers who planned and launched the coup don't make that childish claim.To do so is simply silly and not an area I'm prepared to discuss (at least with the fanatics: I'm prepared to discuss almost anything with intelligent reasonable people who understand give and take)

It's simple to deny, because a clear cut case can be put forward to EXPLAIN that an elected government was NOT in place at the time of the coup.

You can't even put up a case against ANY of the points raised earlier showing why there was not an elected government in place.

You raised some points about debating techniques in another thread a couple of weeks ago.

Now all you are capable of is stamping your foot on the ground and saying "Hmph. Is Not!!"

Only a blinkered propagandist can't explain their points of view.

Edited November 19, 2010 by whybother

[whybother]

... Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.

<snip>

What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

I will deny that the coup overthrew an elected government... because it didn't. It overthrew one that had stayed in power, past its term, unlawfully. Whatever circumstances that led up to it not relinquishing power are totally irrelevant. There is a standard operating procedure for such circumstances, and they weren't followed. That's why TRT were illegal and that's the biggest justification for a coup. The government WAS elected - but only for a 4-year term. Therefore when the coup happened, it did NOT overthrow an elected government.

So, you see, it CAN and SHOULD be denied that an elected government was overthrown. But I suppose you already knew that, you've been told enough times. The way I see it, that makes YOU a "blinkered propagandist" as you put it.

The government simply wasn't elected at that time. They were elected in 2005. Thaksin disolved parliament in 2006 for another election. The 2006 election failed to produce a valid result. End of story.

[jdinasia]

I agree with Jayboy's assessment of Hammerred. That doesn't mean that I don't disagree with him on occasion

I note also that Jayboy uses personal attacks again without noting any of the realities posted that contradict his stand.

Jayboy, you may want to talk about what you think are reasons behind something. Good for you! Ignoring the pertinent facts that are presented that clearly show that it was a 'caretaker' government that was replaced by the coup in 2006 is simply obfuscation. They are clear facts. I am not puting forward supposition about WHY the coup happened. I am stating clearly that it was not an elected government that was in place When the coup happened. (Who elects the PM? Parliament. Was there a sitting parliament at the time of the coup? No. Was the caretaker government extra-constitutional? Yes. etc).

So please continue your rants that have been clearly refuted

[rubl]

Anyway for anyone who's sick of this Rainman dialogue, I would recommend the account of the 2006 coup in any of Pasuk/Baker's recent publications on Thai contemporary history.

To understand the 2006 coup you must also look at the preceding months and the April 2006 elections.

Look at following wikipedia sections especially at the references.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_crisis_in_Thailand_(2005–2006)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Thai_coup_d'état

and as football is war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/6918718.stm

A complex issue with many conflicting views.

[Buchholz]

Just for how long do you think Thaksin would serve as PM if there was no coup ? 8 yrs ? 12 yrs ?

With Thaksin speaking, it was more like 20 years of ever-tightening rule.

As he had wrestled complete control, there's every indication with the megalomaniac that he would not have been satisfied with the 8 year limit and simply modify the law limiting him to such. The same as he had many other rules re-written to suit his taste.

He gave every indication that Thailand was looking at a Ferdinand Marcos-esque double decade-long tyrannical rule.

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies - Southeast Asian Affairs 2007

[animatic]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

R.W. Emmerson

Accent on foolish, if real facts are ignored endlessly,

to hew to a discredited point of view.

Edited November 19, 2010 by animatic

[seri thai]

Discussion of The Monarchy in a political context is a violation of Thai law. Do not even think of making it part of this discussion please.

My point, exactly!