Key Element Missing In Thai Army 'Coup Plot' - A Good Excuse

[webfact]

ASK THE EDITOR

Key element missing in 'coup plot' - a good excuse

By Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

Words of wisdom have it that you can never discard the possibility of a military coup in Thailand. So is Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva safe?

The current coup rumours were based on what was perceived by some as a political impasse. According to the "deadlock" school of thought, Abhisit, because of his disastrous handling of the Thai-Cambodian territorial conflict, has come as far as he could, and although he has repeatedly promised an early election, that wouldn't help. Under present political circumstances, the only alternative to Abhisit is a Pheu Thai-led government, which would be too close to Thaksin Shinawatra for comfort.

In other words, if both the Democrats and Pheu Thai are bad for Thailand, there's going to be only one option left. The question, therefore, is how practical or plausible that "option" is. The answer is: "Not much."

A coup now would be illogical. In a democracy, no coup is logical, you may argue, but a coup now would be even "more illogical" than any others given the looming election. Men in uniform could roll out tanks to expel politicians who are allegedly corrupt, abusive and intolerable and who refuse to go away. But in Abhisit's case, what can the military say when a prime minister is promising an early election every other day? Can they really tell him, "We know you are giving it back to the people, but we want you to leave at gunpoint, anyway"?

The 2006 coup was very different. Thaksin called a new election from an omnipresent position. He knew he was unbeatable election-wise and so did his opponents. Abhisit will call a new ballot from a shaky position, so nobody would be able to accuse him of trying to give himself with a fake new "mandate".

Of course, if Abhisit lets it drag on past April, the "illogical" argument may lose weight. But again, a coup as the country edges towards an election requires a very good script to answer both domestic and international critics.

Now, to the issue of who could do it. Most eyes have been on Army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha. If soft-spoken, diplomatic soldiers like Anupong Paochinda could do it, how can we trust an aggressive, sometimes belligerent character like Prayuth, who, additionally, is a well-connected guy with favourable ties with people who matter in various sectors?

But Prayuth has chosen to be diplomatic on the Cambodian affair. In fact, on the matter of the controversial Cambodian monastic sanctuary built on a disputed area at the border, he sounded more cautious and polite towards Cambodia than the Thai Foreign Ministry. If he launched a coup against Abhisit, the conventional "explanation" to the Thai public couldn't include accusations that the government was "weak" when it came to national sovereignty. That would leave Prayuth with little to utilise as a pretext.

Then there's the issue of "motivation". Most coups in the past happened because perceived or proclaimed serious threats against the country's beloved institution, and politicians in power were implicated in such threats, if not directly deemed to be those threats themselves. Whatever people criticise Abhisit for, he can hardly be accused of being disloyal.

Another conventional motivating factor is perceived threats against the military establishment. Abhisit has been respectable in this regard, never trying to politicise the military. Critics will argue he has just been the military's "good boy", which, however, raises the question why a "good boy" would have to be booted out.

This leaves "corruption" as the only viable pretext. This excuse, however, requires assets seizure, a court trial and all. For any ambitious general out there wanting to explore this avenue, all he needs to do is look back and see how difficult it was even against one Thaksin Shinawatra.

-- The Nation 2011-02-04

[jackr]

Reckon there should be a coup for arbitrarily bringing in daft laws, like the no beer in national parks thing. Seriously, though, even a slight hint of a coup with what has to be the soundest mind to ever by PM of muang Thai... who wrote this?

[Thaddeus]

... who wrote this?

Tulsathit Taptim.

[AZBill]

If corruption was a reason for a coupe in Thailand there would be one every day! The truth is that Thais do not care about how corrupt their politicians are as they are culturized to accept it as business as usual. It doesn't matter who their leaders are or what party they are from they will all steal from the public coffers. This is a country where a successful campaign slogan would be: VOTE FOR ME! I NOT STEAL SO MUCH!

[asiawatcher]

Papers must be getting desperate for articles if they have to keep regurgitating something that is not even a remote possibility.

[animatic]

There is no logical reasoning for a coup now,

except for PTP's fear mongering attempts fo make it seem so.

The Cambodian issue is not a disaster, though PAD TPN UDD try their best to make it seem so.

Veerra going to jail is only a disaster for Veera and certain narrow-viewed nationalist groups.

For the nation it is just more BS, and only a real hassle for those with border ties of commerce and family.

Yes, seems like a slow news day.

I think once there is an election the border committee will get on with it's job,

but they also have been waiting on a rules change/clarification law about authority,

and who vets the authority, such as senate etc..

[jayboy]

Broadly speaking I think the logic of Tulsathit's opinion piece makes sense.There is no discernible logic for a coup to take place now.Even the Thai army senior brass, notable for their short sightedness as much as their corruption, understand that a coup is like a nuclear threat.It can be used as a way to intimidate and threaten the Thai people, but once used the effects can be very unpredictable - particularly in the present circumstances where an inevitable transition is in the air.Again I broadly agree that Abhisit has done well aided by the resurgent economy and capable technical management by Korn etc.At the same time, and again I agree with Tusathit, he has been careful to be an uber loyalist even to the point of cynicism, eg ramping up (or perhaps taking no effective action) the lese majeste prosecution climate internally (see the editorial in the current Economist) while taking a moderate position on the matter to outsiders.Anyway that's part of the Thai game of politics and not in my view as important as often maintained.

More particularly Abhisit presents a fresh civilised face to the Thai elite and the outside world.I think it's fair to say that electorally the Democrats will probably improve their position and the fragmented Thaksinite parties will lose out, probably not a dramatic change but a discernible shift - all subjective of course and only proven at the polls.One key aspect here is the failure of the opposition forces, including the Reds, to produce a credible leadership.Reverting to the coup possibility therefore I think it's seen by the elite as a last resort.Before it's even contemplated there is a marked preference for the continuing judicialisation of politics (co-opting the courts and commissions, hysterical government propaganda, intimidation of the opposition (yellows and reds) to thwart the Thai people's wishes and retain the elite's consolidation of wealth and and more importantly power.Before the forum's defenders of repression and authoritarianism rush in, I should say I think it's quite possible that the Democrats and their unsavoury allies will prevail electorally without resorting to theses usual practices we have become familiar with.In sum therefore the outlook is sunny for Abhisit and the parties that support him, and a coup highly unlikely (because even by the boneheaded myopic standards of the Thai generals, it simply doesn't make sense.)

And yet and yet....

Despite all this the forces of reaction, cruelty and greed should not sleep too easily.Something has changed in Thailand (yes, Thaksin was a key catalyst) and further dramatic changes are in prospect.From my point of view I hope that Abhisit, in whom I continue to have faith, will be astute enough to usher in a fairer and more meritocratic country.I suspect there will be alliances and understandings formed in an attempt to bridge the gap between forces now violently opposed to each other.Though Thailand is changing, the spirit of pragmatism will live on.Internationally Thailand tends to get a passing grade because few countries wish to offend the elite (or particularly care one way or the other what the elite does to retain power).But events in Egypt suggest that a popular movement may not be crushed so easily in the future.Neither Asian or Western powers want to be seen defending an unpopular status quo.The scandalous prevarication on the murdered civilians earlier this year will be trick that's hard to repeat.

So in summary no coup in prospect.Abhisit could win the election without the usual hanky panky.Deference and feudal kowtowing ebbing away in Thai culture.Thailand will be subject to more international scrutiny in future.The country is shaking off its past as a snake discards its redundant skin.Finally although the trends are clear what should not overlook the possibility that a desperate elite won't resort to more repression and violence.That of course will be its death knell.

[virtualtraveller]

Read between the lines...

Even the PT know that a coup at this point would be illogical, the military can't actually govern by themselves, they need a democratic front and in the present administration they have the best option they could wish for. Why seize power from your allies, only to cause yourself greater ill feeling among the popular and international community.

What the coup mongers are doing (and there will always be plenty of people in Thailand to fuel the gossip of a coup) is setting up public opinion against any possibility of a coup in the future, since now is a ripe opportunity for 'rumours'. This will give the military something to think about if ever they should decide that a PT victory at the next poll is too unpalatable.

Remember, if PT come to power - and there is a distinct possibility - they will move much more quickly and boldly this time to vote out the 2007 charter and pave the way for a swift return of Thaksin, before the establishment has a chance to block their moves.

[rixalex]

Broadly speaking I think .... <snipped to save page space and avoid repetition>

An intelligent post that made interesting reading. Thank you.

(Just as a side note, your posts would be much easier to digest for the reader if you could throw in a space between sentences. They are free I believe.)

[jayboy]

Broadly speaking I think .... <snipped to save page space and avoid repetition>

An intelligent post that made interesting reading. Thank you.

(Just as a side note, your posts would be much easier to digest for the reader if you could throw in a space between sentences. They are free I believe.)

Noted.I'm rubbish at typing.

Interesting article in the other newspaper today by Abhisit's ex-TRT relative (estranged I imagine).He talks about the current gossip of a coup as a massive "reset", the coup to end coups - involving mass pardons etc.He was dubious and so am I.Still he referred to what was possible at the 10% margin which I suppose is sensible particularly as we are dealing with bears of very little brain.

[truethailand]

Read between the lines...

Even the PT know that a coup at this point would be illogical, the military can't actually govern by themselves, they need a democratic front and in the present administration they have the best option they could wish for. Why seize power from your allies, only to cause yourself greater ill feeling among the popular and international community.

What the coup mongers are doing (and there will always be plenty of people in Thailand to fuel the gossip of a coup) is setting up public opinion against any possibility of a coup in the future, since now is a ripe opportunity for 'rumours'. This will give the military something to think about if ever they should decide that a PT victory at the next poll is too unpalatable.

Remember, if PT come to power - and there is a distinct possibility - they will move much more quickly and boldly this time to vote out the 2007 charter and pave the way for a swift return of Thaksin, before the establishment has a chance to block their moves.

To a point I agree with your post that what would drive another army intervention is the possibility that the PT take power at the next election. They must be prepared, if they believe PT will win an election to prevent that election, maybe why this Cambodia nonsense is allowed to roll on. if need be toss a few shells over and then the army has a reason to be in charge. Not a coup but a situation that does not allow an election. It sounds stupid but hey ...where r we!

[rixalex]

An intelligent post that made interesting reading. Thank you.

(Just as a side note, your posts would be much easier to digest for the reader if you could throw in a space between sentences. They are free I believe.)

Noted.I'm rubbish at typing.

Nah, your typing skills are just fine.

[jayjay0]

Read between the lines...

Even the PT know that a coup at this point would be illogical, the military can't actually govern by themselves, they need a democratic front and in the present administration they have the best option they could wish for. Why seize power from your allies, only to cause yourself greater ill feeling among the popular and international community.

What the coup mongers are doing (and there will always be plenty of people in Thailand to fuel the gossip of a coup) is setting up public opinion against any possibility of a coup in the future, since now is a ripe opportunity for 'rumours'. This will give the military something to think about if ever they should decide that a PT victory at the next poll is too unpalatable.

Remember, if PT come to power - and there is a distinct possibility - they will move much more quickly and boldly this time to vote out the 2007 charter and pave the way for a swift return of Thaksin, before the establishment has a chance to block their moves.

I can not agree with you on there being a chance of the PT taking over. They have pretty well discredited themselves.

By the way who is there leader I heard that Thaksin named his little sister but she didn't want the job?

Doe's she know some thing about him we don't.

How ever what you say about a coup if they were to come into power is true. There is no way the Army will allow a Government to stay in power that Pardons Thaksin and allows him back into power.

[phiphidon]

Read between the lines...

Even the PT know that a coup at this point would be illogical, the military can't actually govern by themselves, they need a democratic front and in the present administration they have the best option they could wish for. Why seize power from your allies, only to cause yourself greater ill feeling among the popular and international community.

What the coup mongers are doing (and there will always be plenty of people in Thailand to fuel the gossip of a coup) is setting up public opinion against any possibility of a coup in the future, since now is a ripe opportunity for 'rumours'. This will give the military something to think about if ever they should decide that a PT victory at the next poll is too unpalatable.

Remember, if PT come to power - and there is a distinct possibility - they will move much more quickly and boldly this time to vote out the 2007 charter and pave the way for a swift return of Thaksin, before the establishment has a chance to block their moves.

I can not agree with you on there being a chance of the PT taking over. They have pretty well discredited themselves.

By the way who is there leader I heard that Thaksin named his little sister but she didn't want the job?

Doe's she know some thing about him we don't.

How ever what you say about a coup if they were to come into power is true. There is no way the Army will allow a Government to stay in power that Pardons Thaksin and allows him back into power.

So the way forward for Thailand is a one party state i.e the Democrats and whatever small parties that are paid off with lucrative departments (see BJP and the Ministry of the Interior) to prop up the coalition with no opposition to think of and little in the way of checks and balances? I can see that appealing to certain people of power.

[creck]

From the Nation OP

“The 2006 coup was very different. Thaksin called a new election from an omnipresent position. He knew he was unbeatable election-wise and so did his opponents. Abhisit will call a new ballot from a shaky position, so nobody would be able to accuse him of trying to give himself with a fake new "mandate". ”

This paragraph is worrying. It comes extremely close to saying; had X been allowed to call an election he would almost certainly have got a mandate and it would have been “Fake”. This paragraph shows some kind of bias against democracy, which I cannot understand. Of course it may just be bias against Thaksin.

Belief in democracy means accepting a ballot result even when you don’t like it. Then waiting to ‘put it to rights’ at the next election, being sure in the knowledge that no parliament is permanent. Here seems to be the justification of a coup because ‘we knew’ the ‘wrong man’ would win an election!!

If vote rigging or vote buying is the problem then indeed, that should be attacked. That is not how it reads. It seems democracy has a long way to go before it is accepted here as a way of choosing governments.

[whybother]

So the way forward for Thailand is a one party state i.e the Democrats and whatever small parties that are paid off with lucrative departments (see BJP and the Ministry of the Interior) to prop up the coalition with no opposition to think of and little in the way of checks and balances? I can see that appealing to certain people of power.

No. The way forward is to not promise that Thaksin will be allowed back and forgiven for his crimes.

[hanuman1]

Broadly speaking I think .... <snipped to save page space and avoid repetition>

An intelligent post that made interesting reading. Thank you.

(Just as a side note, your posts would be much easier to digest for the reader if you could throw in a space between sentences. They are free I believe.)

Noted.I'm rubbish at typing.

Interesting article in the other newspaper today by Abhisit's ex-TRT relative (estranged I imagine).He talks about the current gossip of a coup as a massive "reset", the coup to end coups - involving mass pardons etc.He was dubious and so am I.Still he referred to what was possible at the 10% margin which I suppose is sensible particularly as we are dealing with bears of very little brain.

I thought the last coup was supposed to be 'coup to end all coups'. The practice of mass pardons and political rehabilitation is not new. It is the normal way to go after big upheavals in this country's political history and in my opinion one of the main reasons that the cycle of high level corruption has continued unabated over the decades.

No-one should be pardoned any more. Surely that's the way to spread the message of zero-tolerance for corrupt politicians.

[Roadman]

Coup...yawn, yawn, yawn.

Tulsathit Taptim and other Nation scribes...seriously are these people actually paid for this garbage?

[SomTumTiger]

Broadly speaking I think the logic of Tulsathit's opinion piece makes sense.There is no discernible logic for a coup to take place now.Even the Thai army senior brass, notable for their short sightedness as much as their corruption, understand that a coup is like a nuclear threat.It can be used as a way to intimidate and threaten the Thai people, but once used the effects can be very unpredictable - particularly in the present circumstances where an inevitable transition is in the air.Again I broadly agree that Abhisit has done well aided by the resurgent economy and capable technical management by Korn etc.At the same time, and again I agree with Tusathit, he has been careful to be an uber loyalist even to the point of cynicism, eg ramping up (or perhaps taking no effective action) the lese majeste prosecution climate internally (see the editorial in the current Economist) while taking a moderate position on the matter to outsiders.Anyway that's part of the Thai game of politics and not in my view as important as often maintained.

More particularly Abhisit presents a fresh civilised face to the Thai elite and the outside world.I think it's fair to say that electorally the Democrats will probably improve their position and the fragmented Thaksinite parties will lose out, probably not a dramatic change but a discernible shift - all subjective of course and only proven at the polls.One key aspect here is the failure of the opposition forces, including the Reds, to produce a credible leadership.Reverting to the coup possibility therefore I think it's seen by the elite as a last resort.Before it's even contemplated there is a marked preference for the continuing judicialisation of politics (co-opting the courts and commissions, hysterical government propaganda, intimidation of the opposition (yellows and reds) to thwart the Thai people's wishes and retain the elite's consolidation of wealth and and more importantly power.Before the forum's defenders of repression and authoritarianism rush in, I should say I think it's quite possible that the Democrats and their unsavoury allies will prevail electorally without resorting to theses usual practices we have become familiar with.In sum therefore the outlook is sunny for Abhisit and the parties that support him, and a coup highly unlikely (because even by the boneheaded myopic standards of the Thai generals, it simply doesn't make sense.)

And yet and yet....

Despite all this the forces of reaction, cruelty and greed should not sleep too easily.Something has changed in Thailand (yes, Thaksin was a key catalyst) and further dramatic changes are in prospect.From my point of view I hope that Abhisit, in whom I continue to have faith, will be astute enough to usher in a fairer and more meritocratic country.I suspect there will be alliances and understandings formed in an attempt to bridge the gap between forces now violently opposed to each other.Though Thailand is changing, the spirit of pragmatism will live on.Internationally Thailand tends to get a passing grade because few countries wish to offend the elite (or particularly care one way or the other what the elite does to retain power).But events in Egypt suggest that a popular movement may not be crushed so easily in the future.Neither Asian or Western powers want to be seen defending an unpopular status quo.The scandalous prevarication on the murdered civilians earlier this year will be trick that's hard to repeat.

So in summary no coup in prospect.Abhisit could win the election without the usual hanky panky.Deference and feudal kowtowing ebbing away in Thai culture.Thailand will be subject to more international scrutiny in future.The country is shaking off its past as a snake discards its redundant skin.Finally although the trends are clear what should not overlook the possibility that a desperate elite won't resort to more repression and violence.That of course will be its death knell.

Ok, this post is good enough to get you off my ignore list lol. Only the 2nd to have done so after Ulysses lol.

Good job!

[housepainter]

It's like dealing with naughty children all the time and I do grow tired of saying 'there there' and that it's only a grazed knee. Neither am I particularly fond of contemplating planting a kiss on the wound to my own kids let alone any Thai brats; urchin or eleite.

Thailand then. A land run by adult children, incapable of logical, rational understanding. Over subscribed in ignorance, superstition and good old fashioned plain stupidity. Oh, and contradiction; the good old about face save face 180 degree spin.

And for those of you of a shrinking violet disposition, the Sun newspaper has a reading age of 7. It caters to a leading first world nation by informing them of international news by way of a vocabulary that a 7 year old can understand. Therefore, when I say Thailand is actually run by those with the mental age of children, then it is not an exageration. It may be an underestimate of the collective stupidity found amongst the knuckle draggers both of parliament and the noble armed forces.

Thai Scrable boards have a maximum word length of 3.

The Thai equivalent of the school 11 plus exam is 11 plus out of a hundred as a pass rate.

The driving test we all know about. University degrees are given by way of attendance; 51% attendance, bum on seat equals a degree, and no you don't have to write anything. This is Thailand. And yet soem moron dares to imply cheating is possble at Oxford. About as possible as flying pigs or honest Thai Police. Make that honest Thai .................. [blank].

Before I do commence on this idle matter let me state that there is no need for action, concern, intervention or worry over some piece of land, temple, rift with a neighbour. It rumbles on whether it is about Thaksin, Hun Sen or a temple and a bit of land. Nothing ever develops into anything beyond bellicose belligerance belching. Grasp that and the rest of this nonsense unravels.

Firstly, any coup would be condemned by the civilised first world and Thailand as a consequence will suffer. No coup is justifiable. Full stop. At the same time we have umpteen instances of revolution on the streets and the world watches, accepting the peaceful protest of the civilian population.

But, and it's a big but, but as soon as any army starts shooting on the streets of anywhere, then the UN are already standing by ready to go in. That may not be a reaction here but the economic, diplomatic and international consequences would be grave.

Hence no coup. Besides, giving credit to a stable Thai society that has out manouvered the reds to the point of inconsequence, along with frustrating the yellows to the point of them leaping up and down desperate to be acknowledged, makes only for a good news day.

And newspapers don't like good news stories. It makes people happy. Example, 400 hundred die in Bolivian plane crash, is a good 'bad' news story. It's sad. But add ' Only one American killed' makes it a good news story that makes people, Americans at least, happy and therefore they don't want to run with it. Man dies in fire rescuing cat. Print that one. Man rescues cat from house fire. Pass.

There is a summer season in the UK where 'daft' news makes the headlines as eveyone is on holiday, there is no news, so the silly season is promoted. Three legged man runs for Isle of Man. Leopard changes its spots. Letter from Hitler turns up in Post. Glenn Miller found alive and well in Pattaya Piano bar. Elvis on vocals.

Need I say more?

[OzMick]

From the Nation OP

"The 2006 coup was very different. Thaksin called a new election from an omnipresent position. He knew he was unbeatable election-wise and so did his opponents. Abhisit will call a new ballot from a shaky position, so nobody would be able to accuse him of trying to give himself with a fake new "mandate". "

This paragraph is worrying. It comes extremely close to saying; had X been allowed to call an election he would almost certainly have got a mandate and it would have been "Fake". This paragraph shows some kind of bias against democracy, which I cannot understand. Of course it may just be bias against Thaksin.

Belief in democracy means accepting a ballot result even when you don't like it. Then waiting to 'put it to rights' at the next election, being sure in the knowledge that no parliament is permanent. Here seems to be the justification of a coup because 'we knew' the 'wrong man' would win an election!!

If vote rigging or vote buying is the problem the indeed, that should be attacked. That is not how it reads. It seems democracy has a long way to go before it is accepted here as a way of choosing governments.

It is only worrying if you accept it as fact. Thaksin was a reisigned and self re-appointed caretaker PM with only 1 mandate, to call an election, which he failed to do in the allotted time span. If he was so "unbeatable" why then did he not call the election and get his mandate? By simply nominating an election date, he could have short-circuited the coup.

IMHO he didn't call because he hadn't sufficient time to arrange the bribes, electoral fraud and vote-buying to assure his electoral win. His successors paid the price for their lack of discretion.

Edited February 4, 2011 by OzMick

[inmysights]

An intelligent post that made interesting reading. Thank you.

(Just as a side note, your posts would be much easier to digest for the reader if you could throw in a space between sentences. They are free I believe.)

Noted.I'm rubbish at typing.

Nah, your typing skills are just fine.

Yeah, it's just you're grammatical ones that suck.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

To me the key problem is the extent two which feudal kowtowing is embedded in the culture here - I doubt if a true grassroots uprising could take place here in the foreseeable future, and if it did it would be motivated by the have-nots looking to be taken care of in the face of dire need, not for the above abstract ideals.

Those of you talking about eliminating corruption here - what are you smoking? I don't know any Thai that would even consider such a possibility beyond the obvious lip service, it's certainly not a goal of anyone actually in politics. Among the non-elite people I've spoken to on these issues, most agree that Thaksin's big mistake was trying to cut "the opposition" out of too much of the goodies, trying to hog everything for his own patronage networks - if he had just been willing to share the spoils in a more reasonable way there would never have been any coup.

One very small step down the scale of reality is the idea of a "true democracy" whatever that might mean to you. As a Yank I love the ideal, but I'm the last to think it's the US (or any other major "democracy" is actually democratic in the sense of the government actually being "for the people" as in the common folk. The economic elite actually run the show in every country, with perhaps some *relative* exceptions in some of the smaller northern European utopias, and very few idealistic people remain that way as they work their way up in the established political system.

IMO the best one can hope for here is a relative, incremental change for the better toward a bit more fairness, a bit more meritocracy - the ability for hardworking intelligent people (rare in all societies) to be fairly rewarded for their efforts. This requires incremental improvements in rule of law, fair marketplace etc - never absolutely implemented anywhere and unlikely to happen in any significant way here anytime soon - but we can cheerlead from the sidelines for anything that helps move our beloved host country in that direction.

Talk of zero tolerance for corruption, getting rid of vote-buying much less the overall culture of patronage, is just so completely unrealistic it makes discussion of practical, possible changes difficult.

[tig28]

It is only worrying if you accept it as fact. Thaksin was a reisigned and self re-appointed caretaker PM with only 1 mandate, to call an election, which he failed to do in the allotted time span. If he was so "unbeatable" why then did he not call the election and get his mandate? By simply nominating an election date, he could have short-circuited the coup.

IMHO he didn't call because he hadn't sufficient time to arrange the bribes, electoral fraud and vote-buying to assure his electoral win. His successors paid the price for their lack of discretion.

Hi OzMick

Thaksin had a little more of a mandate than that!! He had the mandate of the voters of Thailand. I realise that some here would prefer to impose their views rather than accept the choice of the Thai voter ..... but....

Thaksin had achieved victory in 2001 and after serving the full term -- again in 2005 ( with the TRT: 374 seats / Democrats: 96 seats.) This trouncing of the Democrat party resulted in them choosing not to campaign in the 2006 election (called by Thaksin) ---- for very obvious reasons.

If he was so "unbeatable" why then did he not call the election and get his mandate? By simply nominating an election date, he could have short-circuited the coup.

Shortly after the 2006 election was declared invalid due to the placement of voting booths - a new election was called and set for 15 October 2006 -- This election date was affirmed by the signing of the royal decree on July 20, 2006.

Less than one month before these elections were due to be held ..... Thailand received the benefit of yet another coup ( #18 since 1931) and very obviously for the exact same reason that the Democrats chose to boycott the 2006 election.

Mick ... perhaps rather than asking an invalid question as you have done -- you might well ask yourself just why the Junta felt the people of Thailand needed a coup only a few weeks before they got to vote for whomever they chose.

[rubl]

Mick ... perhaps rather than asking an invalid question as you have done -- you might well ask yourself just why the Junta felt the people of Thailand needed a coup only a few weeks before they got to vote for whomever they chose.

In the few months leading to the coup k. Thaksin c.s. were very busy to get family and other supporters placed at key positions with whatever means available. This suggests that if the elections had been held they would most likely be the dirtiest of the decade. K. Thaksin has gone on record around that time (or was it a year earlier?) that he and TRT would/could rule for another 10 - 20 years. Very democratically of course

[tig28]

In the few months leading to the coup k. Thaksin c.s. were very busy to get family and other supporters placed at key positions with whatever means available. This suggests that if the elections had been held they would most likely be the dirtiest of the decade. K. Thaksin has gone on record around that time (or was it a year earlier?) that he and TRT would/could rule for another 10 - 20 years. Very democratically of course

Hi rubi

Obviously you are correct to some degree -- but the forces arrayed against him were far from insignificant and certainly without clean hands themselves ---- employing most (all ?) of the same electoral dirty tricks they railed against as the losers!!

It seems to me that the major complaint that the Democrats had ... was that Thaksin did most things more effectively than them!!!

This he seemed to do until the coup. Then the opposing forces got many things right:

EG: Changing the constitution so that:

Their illegal act/s -- was/were suddenly no longer illegal -- covering much more than just the coup.

An illegal act by one member of a political party --- resulted in the banning for 5 years of that parties entire executive. ( I really admire that one)

And doing exactly what you find so offensive when Thaksin did it --" supporters placed at key positions with whatever means available." and doing this for exactly the reason you attribute to Thaksin.

It seems sin is defined by who commits it -- not the inherent incorrectness of the act.

[Murgatroyd]

It's all very well to say "We'll have a General Election very soon" but it's only 12 weeks or so until Songkran again... the demonstrating season. Once there's a resurgence of civil unrest and disobedience the Prime Minister is in a perfect position to say: "We can't have an Election in this state of turmoil... we'll have to wait until all the trouble has stopped again". Then Thailand's back to where it was last year. Under those circumstances, and especially if the Army is called upon to dispell rioters, the Army may yet have the last word.

After all, it seems unlikely that the police are going to be any more effective in the face of mass civil disobedience than they were last year.

[bulmercke]

It's too risky for the Democrats to go to the country now. In short - they probably - as was last time - won't be able to win outright in a general election.

Hence to maintain the current power balance with the ruling elites and the Democrats running the show again is unlikely. The only other viable option is for the military to move in and so they will. And we all know on whose side they lay.

[rubl]

It's too risky for the Democrats to go to the country now. In short - they probably - as was last time - won't be able to win outright in a general election.

Hence to maintain the current power balance with the ruling elites and the Democrats running the show again is unlikely. The only other viable option is for the military to move in and so they will. And we all know on whose side they lay.

Dem's going to the country? Did you mean 'upcountry' ? Indeed the Dem's may not win an outright majority, but in a democracy that's not necessary either. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. The remainder spread over various smaller parties. This would give the Dem's first try for a coalition. If that would fail, it would be PTP's turn to give it a try.

The non-viable option is for the army to move in, so they won't.

PS almost forgot, like the post I reply to, all this is opinion

[bulmercke]

It's too risky for the Democrats to go to the country now. In short - they probably - as was last time - won't be able to win outright in a general election.

Hence to maintain the current power balance with the ruling elites and the Democrats running the show again is unlikely. The only other viable option is for the military to move in and so they will. And we all know on whose side they lay.

Dem's going to the country? Did you mean 'upcountry' ? Indeed the Dem's may not win an outright majority, but in a democracy that's not necessary either. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. The remainder spread over various smaller parties. This would give the Dem's first try for a coalition. If that would fail, it would be PTP's turn to give it a try.

The non-viable option is for the army to move in, so they won't.

PS almost forgot, like the post I reply to, all this is opinion

QUOTE(rubl):"It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less."

Source?