There Is No Such Thing As A Good Thai Military Coup

[TAWP]

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

Yes we can since you are not factually correct.

History revision or just not paying attention to 'current events' when everything went down?

Edited November 19, 2010 by TAWP

[Siam Simon]

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

In view of the current state of affairs, it's kind-of obvious that he hadn't wrestled complete control, don't you think? Anyway, we can hope that the 'stooge' who was brought in by the uglies who ousted the ugly who stepped out of line will turn into all their worst nightmares. I'm rooting for him. I won't be rooting for any of the uglies, whatever side of the political divide they hail from.

[whybother]

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

Yes we can since you are not factually correct.

History revision or just not paying attention to 'current events' when everything went down?

Jayboy has been incredibly silent since he has been asked by several posters to explain why it can't be denied.

[Siam Simon]

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

Yes we can since you are not factually correct.

History revision or just not paying attention to 'current events' when everything went down?

Jayboy has been incredibly silent since he has been asked by several posters to explain why it can't be denied.

Who pushed that elected government into the corner that made them nominally unelected? My opinion is: A very powerful bunch of rival uglies who were being pushed away from the trough.

[whybother]

Who pushed that elected government into the corner that made them nominally unelected? My opinion is: A very powerful bunch of rival uglies who were being pushed away from the trough.

"Nominally unelected"??

Thaksin dissolved parliament to try and get some of his corrupt deals through, didn't he?

[Siam Simon]

Who pushed that elected government into the corner that made them nominally unelected? My opinion is: A very powerful bunch of rival uglies who were being pushed away from the trough.

"Nominally unelected"??

Thaksin dissolved parliament to try and get some of his corrupt deals through, didn't he?

I'm not defending the corruption of the Golden Boy-gone-wrong. Are you defending his equally corrupt former patrons who removed him and, later, his proxies?

[whybother]

Who pushed that elected government into the corner that made them nominally unelected? My opinion is: A very powerful bunch of rival uglies who were being pushed away from the trough.

"Nominally unelected"??

Thaksin dissolved parliament to try and get some of his corrupt deals through, didn't he?

I'm not defending the corruption of the Golden Boy-gone-wrong. Are you defending his equally corrupt former patrons who removed him and, later, his proxies?

Not in this discussion.

What I am trying to do is get a general understanding as to whether there was an elected government at the time of the coup.

The facts, as I understand them, indicate that there wasn't.

[cdnvic]

Removed one post. Thai law is Thai law, and it's rules about discussion of the Monarchy are not up for debate.

[SomTumTiger]

Jayboy is entitled to his own opinions, but is not entitled to his own FACTS lol

[animatic]

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

Yes we can since you are not factually correct.

History revision or just not paying attention to 'current events' when everything went down?

Jayboy has been incredibly silent since he has been asked by several posters to explain why it can't be denied.

Who pushed that elected government into the corner that made them nominally unelected? My opinion is: A very powerful bunch of rival uglies who were being pushed away from the trough.

Not elected,

resigned and awaiting a new election to be properly run.

Who you ask: Thaksin himself.

The down fall of Thaksin was 100% brought on by his own hubris and arrogance.

[cdnvic]

One personal attack deleted.

[jayboy]

Jayboy is entitled to his own opinions, but is not entitled to his own FACTS lol

I don't think I have actually questioned the facts presented by those who deny an elected government was overturned in 2006.I have rather raised doubts relating their significance to the question at hand, and for the need for them to be interpreted as well as taking into account certain other "facts".Above all, I have stressed the need for common sense and context.The 2006 was an extra constitutional event and a blow against democracy, with long term consequences that I suspect have not been fully worked out yet.Now if someone argued that all that is broadly accepted but in the circumstances of the time, it was the least bad option (Jdinasia's line I recall), that's a perfectly reasonable point of view and one in my heart of hearts I have some sympathy for.But to predicate a case on the technical details advanced so far doesn't carry the case very far.

[jdinasia]

Jayboy is entitled to his own opinions, but is not entitled to his own FACTS lol

I don't think I have actually questioned the facts presented by those who deny an elected government was overturned in 2006.I have rather raised doubts relating their significance to the question at hand, and for the need for them to be interpreted as well as taking into account certain other "facts".Above all, I have stressed the need for common sense and context.The 2006 was an extra constitutional event and a blow against democracy, with long term consequences that I suspect have not been fully worked out yet.Now if someone argued that all that is broadly accepted but in the circumstances of the time, it was the least bad option (Jdinasia's line I recall), that's a perfectly reasonable point of view and one in my heart of hearts I have some sympathy for.But to predicate a case on the technical details advanced so far doesn't carry the case very far.

True --- you have ignored the facts while taking the point that the government in place in Sept 2006 was an elected government. You have used other people's posts to try and back this up. So yes, it is true you have not addressed the facts in evidence that the government in Sept 2006 that was replaced by the coup was not legitimate and while nominally more "democratic" than the post coup government --- it still wasn't elected. The final ruling on TRT and the elections showed that it wasn't ever really a democratic government to many people

As to your statement that the final ramifications of the 2006 coup may have not been fully realized is something I agree with, I would go further though and suggest that Thaksin's continuous erosion of the checks and balances required to have a functional democracy had been fully considered by some people and it is a reason that some people feel that the coup was the lesser of 2 evils.

[jayboy]

Jayboy is entitled to his own opinions, but is not entitled to his own FACTS lol

I don't think I have actually questioned the facts presented by those who deny an elected government was overturned in 2006.I have rather raised doubts relating their significance to the question at hand, and for the need for them to be interpreted as well as taking into account certain other "facts".Above all, I have stressed the need for common sense and context.The 2006 was an extra constitutional event and a blow against democracy, with long term consequences that I suspect have not been fully worked out yet.Now if someone argued that all that is broadly accepted but in the circumstances of the time, it was the least bad option (Jdinasia's line I recall), that's a perfectly reasonable point of view and one in my heart of hearts I have some sympathy for.But to predicate a case on the technical details advanced so far doesn't carry the case very far.

True --- you have ignored the facts while taking the point that the government in place in Sept 2006 was an elected government. You have used other people's posts to try and back this up. So yes, it is true you have not addressed the facts in evidence that the government in Sept 2006 that was replaced by the coup was not legitimate and while nominally more "democratic" than the post coup government --- it still wasn't elected. The final ruling on TRT and the elections showed that it wasn't ever really a democratic government to many people

As to your statement that the final ramifications of the 2006 coup may have not been fully realized is something I agree with, I would go further though and suggest that Thaksin's continuous erosion of the checks and balances required to have a functional democracy had been fully considered by some people and it is a reason that some people feel that the coup was the lesser of 2 evils.

Nothing new here but I'm puzzled by your comment about using other peoples posts.I'm aware I mentioned Hammered briefly the other day since he is respected across political differences.Is that what you meant?

As a matter of principle I don't invoke other members views as away of verifying my own anymore than I would invoke Wikipedia.I rely much more on reading (not just New Mandela!).To date I have come across no external source that argues as you do that the government overthrown by 2006 coup didn't have a constitutional and popular mandate.

[whybother]

Jayboy is entitled to his own opinions, but is not entitled to his own FACTS lol

I don't think I have actually questioned the facts presented by those who deny an elected government was overturned in 2006.I have rather raised doubts relating their significance to the question at hand, and for the need for them to be interpreted as well as taking into account certain other "facts".Above all, I have stressed the need for common sense and context.The 2006 was an extra constitutional event and a blow against democracy, with long term consequences that I suspect have not been fully worked out yet.Now if someone argued that all that is broadly accepted but in the circumstances of the time, it was the least bad option (Jdinasia's line I recall), that's a perfectly reasonable point of view and one in my heart of hearts I have some sympathy for.But to predicate a case on the technical details advanced so far doesn't carry the case very far.

Stating that the coup overthrew an elected government clearly shows that you are questioning (and ignoring) the facts.

edit: Denying, or not discussing, facts doesn't really help with the discussion. Whenever you point out your opinion that the coup overthrew an elected government with out backing it up with any facts, you will continue to be presented with the facts that back up other peoples opinions.

Edited November 20, 2010 by whybother

[jdinasia]

I suggest that Jayboy must have neither read the 1997 constitution nor much on the topic if he has not come across any other references to the government that was in place at the time of the 2006 coup was extra-constitutional. The "popular mandate" statement is simply obfuscation as well. Thaksin is "popular" now with some people that does not give him any LEGAL rights other than that of any other citizen (including coming back and serving his prison sentence)

edit to add --- by its very definition a "caretaker" government cannot be considered to have a mandate.

Edited November 20, 2010 by jdinasia

[cdnvic]

The topic here is not Jayboy. If you disagree with him, state it and move on.

[jayboy]

I suggest that Jayboy must have neither read the 1997 constitution nor much on the topic if he has not come across any other references to the government that was in place at the time of the 2006 coup was extra-constitutional. The "popular mandate" statement is simply obfuscation as well. Thaksin is "popular" now with some people that does not give him any LEGAL rights other than that of any other citizen (including coming back and serving his prison sentence)

edit to add --- by its very definition a "caretaker" government cannot be considered to have a mandate.

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

Your final sentence isn't pertinent.Of course Thaksin has no status at all now and whether he is "popular" or not has no constitutional relevance.

Actually I have read the 1997 constitution quite carefully, and thought Khun Anand's work on it was excellent, one of the greatest contributions by any Thai statesman in recent years.I confess not having read the Junta sponsored constitution though am aware of its main terms.Also I have also read the 2006 coup leader's statements in the last few days.They are unequivocal and completely back my reading (and that of all reputable commentators).It's ironic that to prove my point I have to invoke General Sondhi, the coup leader.

[whybother]

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

<snip>

How does an caretaker government have a democratic mandate? By definition, it is unelected. If it is unelected, there is nothing democratic about it.

Edited November 20, 2010 by whybother

[philw]

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

<snip>

How does an caretaker government have a democratic mandate? By definition, it is unelected. If it is unelected, there is nothing democratic about it.

Reading this is like attending the flat earth society.

Are some of you trying to pretend that there was not an armed military intervention in the governance of Thailand ???

The rest is semantics and the bullying tactics of the playground.

[rubl]

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

A caretaker government is a constitutional entity with limits to it's executive powers, duration, etc. The limits are defined to prevent action on controversial issues, prevent indefinite lingering on a.s.f.

Nothing to do with the 2006 situation though.

K. Thaksin dissolved the house in Feb 2006 for new elections April 2006. He had no constitutional need to do so, just being elected 11 months ago with a solid majority. The opposition boycotted the new elections and consequently TRT won again, but under suspicion of major irregularities. K. Thaksin resigned after a few days. At that stage the old government was no longer valid and the new one not yet installed, nor royally approved. After the Constitutional Court invalidated the April election a new one was planned for October 2006. Between April and September 2006 k. Thaksin simply continued ruling the country like a non-appointed dictator, pushing his people and family into positions of control (obviously they had the right capabilities for such positions). A return to a democratically ruled Thailand under k. Thaksin with TRT seemed to become a less likely situation. One of the reasons for the coup.

[rubl]

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

<snip>

How does an caretaker government have a democratic mandate? By definition, it is unelected. If it is unelected, there is nothing democratic about it.

Reading this is like attending the flat earth society.

Are some of you trying to pretend that there was not an armed military intervention in the governance of Thailand ???

The rest is semantics and the bullying tactics of the playground.

Having read all posts again on this topic, I can say no one pretended there hasn't been a coup. I wonder why you ask ?

The rest in many cases is logic with fallacies invalidating the logic, value and meaning of statements. As for the 'Flat Earth Society' I would like to ask your opinion on them, but I'm afraid it would be a wee bit off topic

[jayboy]

Having read all posts again on this topic, I can say no one pretended there hasn't been a coup.

That's obviously not the pretence since the coup happened.The "pretence", to use your expression, is that the 2006 coup did not illegally overthrow a properly authorised government under a democratic constitution.The logic which is stretched very thin behind this conceit is that because the administration was a caretaker one, it was somehow more justifiable to launch a coup d'etat.It is actually a rather poor basis to construct an argument in favour of the coup:there are many more convincing justifications.

As I have several times implied, this particular interpretation seems to be confined to a few members of this forum.I am still waiting evidence that any respected external authority thinks this way.Even the coup leader Sondhi didn't claim a legitimate government wasn't overthrown.If you think about it that's the whole point of a coup - to get rid of a legitimate government that you can't manage to replace by constitutional means.

[rixalex]

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

<snip>

How does an caretaker government have a democratic mandate? By definition, it is unelected. If it is unelected, there is nothing democratic about it.

My own feeling on this is that if a caretaker government is comprised of politicians who did not win the last successfully held election, it is unelected, but if it is formed out of the last government in power, it is considered elected, even if strictly and technically speaking, it is not.

With regards to Thaksin, there are so many clear-cut cases of abuse and wrong-doing that can't be argued against - although of course you can count on a red shirt giving it a shot - that i really don't get the need to argue on an issue that hinges on something of a technicality.

Just my opinion...

[whybother]

Having read all posts again on this topic, I can say no one pretended there hasn't been a coup.

That's obviously not the pretence since the coup happened.The "pretence", to use your expression, is that the 2006 coup did not illegally overthrow a properly authorised government under a democratic constitution.The logic which is stretched very thin behind this conceit is that because the administration was a caretaker one, it was somehow more justifiable to launch a coup d'etat.It is actually a rather poor basis to construct an argument in favour of the coup:there are many more convincing justifications.

As I have several times implied, this particular interpretation seems to be confined to a few members of this forum.I am still waiting evidence that any respected external authority thinks this way.Even the coup leader Sondhi didn't claim a legitimate government wasn't overthrown.If you think about it that's the whole point of a coup - to get rid of a legitimate government that you can't manage to replace by constitutional means.

Now you've changed "overthrow an elected government" to "overthrow a properly authorised government". That's fine. You're allowed to change your opinion.

Now, as to whether the Thaksin caretaker government was a "properly authorised government" is questionable. They were certainly initially "properly authorised", but given that they didn't organise new elections within the constitutionally allowed time frame, doesn't that mean they lost their authorisation? Or should they have been allowed to continue being a "properly authorised" caretaker government for as long as they wanted, ignoring the constitution?

[whybother]

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

<snip>

How does an caretaker government have a democratic mandate? By definition, it is unelected. If it is unelected, there is nothing democratic about it.

My own feeling on this is that if a caretaker government is comprised of politicians who did not win the last successfully held election, it is unelected, but if it is formed out of the last government in power, it is considered elected, even if strictly and technically speaking, it is not.

With regards to Thaksin, there are so many clear-cut cases of abuse and wrong-doing that can't be argued against - although of course you can count on a red shirt giving it a shot - that i really don't get the need to argue on an issue that hinges on something of a technicality.

Just my opinion...

If you stand down from an elected position, you are no longer the elected representative.

[animatic]

And to call the Thaksin Care taker PM-ship at the time of the coup as authorised you are again incorrect. To be properly 'authorized' he must return to the palace and be signed off on by HRM and then be published in the Royal Gazette. Only then is authorization properly done. Thaksin did neither of these things AFTER the palace accepted his resignation.

He was extra-constitutional, without a mandate

or a legal standing to take back the caretaker post.

Effectively a coup of government powers by his personal fiat.

Nothing more nothing less.

Edited November 20, 2010 by animatic

[whybother]

Reading this is like attending the flat earth society.

Are some of you trying to pretend that there was not an armed military intervention in the governance of Thailand ???

The rest is semantics and the bullying tactics of the playground.

Given the title of the thread is "There is no such thing as a good Thai military coup", it's all about the semantics, isn't it?

edit: And given the Red shirts use of semantics, IMO it's important to be clear on the meaning.

Edited November 20, 2010 by whybother

[rubl]

Having read all posts again on this topic, I can say no one pretended there hasn't been a coup.

That's obviously not the pretence since the coup happened.The "pretence", to use your expression, is that the 2006 coup did not illegally overthrow a properly authorised government under a democratic constitution.The logic which is stretched very thin behind this conceit is that because the administration was a caretaker one, it was somehow more justifiable to launch a coup d'etat.It is actually a rather poor basis to construct an argument in favour of the coup:there are many more convincing justifications.

As I have several times implied, this particular interpretation seems to be confined to a few members of this forum.I am still waiting evidence that any respected external authority thinks this way.Even the coup leader Sondhi didn't claim a legitimate government wasn't overthrown.If you think about it that's the whole point of a coup - to get rid of a legitimate government that you can't manage to replace by constitutional means.

It is interesting to see you question 'pretence' which I just wondered about why it was in philw's reply.

Following you go on with something I thought a tried to explain in somewhat more detail one or two replies before this one ( ).

The coup removed a PM with cabinet, that you may call unconstitutional. The PM with cabinet continued ruling without constitutional position, that you may also call unconstitutional. To choose the lesser of two evils is always good for many more discussions. Fact remains that the 'junta' stepped down to let an appointed PM with cabinet continue till new elections within a year. The PM removed by a peaceful coup is on record saying his party would rule for many more years. A majority in parliament, dictatorial tendencies. Some look, but don't see.

Edited November 20, 2010 by rubl

[jayjay0]

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

<snip>

How does an caretaker government have a democratic mandate? By definition, it is unelected. If it is unelected, there is nothing democratic about it.

Reading this is like attending the flat earth society.

Are some of you trying to pretend that there was not an armed military intervention in the governance of Thailand ???

The rest is semantics and the bullying tactics of the playground.

I agree it is like the flat earth society. Where did you see a post that said there was no armed military intervention in the Government of Thailand. Even jayboy admits that.

Did they ever figure out if the earth was flat or not?

Edited November 20, 2010 by jayjay0