Thai Society At Risk, For Goodness' Sake: Army Chief

[webfact]

Society at risk, for goodness' sake

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

Thai society appears heavily afflicted by the cult of the "good person". Vote for "good people", Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha said this month. Many more have expressed similar views as the general election draws near.

The problem is, whose "good people" should we vote for and how is a "good person" defined?

The belief that there exists a single, universally accepted notion of a good person/politician too conveniently neglects the fact that there exist competing ideologies, interests and classes that would certainly ensure different notions of good person/politician in any society.

Consider some aspects of the following "good people".

"Good person" No 1: Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the Democrat Party, is a "good man" in the eyes of his supporters. This is despite the fact that in late 2008, the "Democrat" Party dispatched a very senior member to hold the crucial government-coalition talks at the residence of then Army chief General Anuphong Paochinda. The Army has since expanded its influence in politics with no "withdrawal date" set.

Abhisit is a "good man" to his supporters even though he presided over the bloodiest military suppression in Bangkok's history. Between April and May 2010, at least 92 persons died, mostly red shirts, and 2,000 were injured. Not a single letter of condolence from this "good man" was ever sent to any relatives of the largely unarmed red shirts who were killed.

This "good man" (khon dee) did express regret a year later. However, it came just a week before the general election, after he trailed big in all public polls, and at a political campaign rally. He also had conveniently forgotten to point out that the burning of buildings in Bangkok and elsewhere came after the month-long bloody suppression, and did not take place right after the first slaughter of 20 people on April 10.

"Good person" No 2: Thaksin Shinawatra is a good man from his supporters'/fans' perspective. His supporters do not really recall (or care for?) the 2,000-plus extrajudicial killings during Thaksin's war on drugs or the deadly Tak Bai/Krue Se incidents in the deep South. Never mind if Thaksin was corrupt, abusive, authoritarian and even a megalomaniac in the eyes of millions while in power, because millions more Thais adore the man and his populist policies. Thus his younger sister, the Pheu Thai Party's prime-ministerial candidate Yingluck, must be good too.

"Good person" No 3: Army chief Prayuth. He is "good" despite crucially taking part in the September 2006 military coup and the bloody crackdown of April-May 2010.

"Good person" No 4: Yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy co-leader Sondhi Limthongkul is a "good man" to his followers although his current "Vote No" campaign is a slightly veiled open invitation for another Army/invisible hand(s) to meddle "legitimately" in post-election politics.

"Good person" No 4, No 5 and more? The so-called "invisible hand(s)" are also still seen by millions as a "good bunch of special people". They manipulate politics from behind and through proxies and propaganda while the mainstream media either support them or, out of fear of "legal" prosecution and social sanction, simply exercise self-censorship. A large but decreasing number of Thais still believe in their "goodness" despite rumours, critical private discussions and the lack of transparency, accountability and legitimacy.

Many Thais continue to root for their good people. Like football hooligans, it doesn't matter whether the referee is right or wrong, they will boo him if the call goes against their team. Their team can do no wrong.

Thailand is ruled by these "good people" to the point where the rule of law, free and fair elections, voices of the voters, good governance, transparency and accountability count for little. Many simply want their good man/woman to rule the country, through whatever means, because of their "goodness".

-- The Nation 2011-06-29

[RedNIvar]

Yep, way too many good people out there. How do you rank saints? This is the Thai dilemma in the upcoming election.

[hellodolly]

Not really that familiar with all that is pointed out.

But I am with some of the items and the points were taking out of context.

Such as presiding over a bloody conflict the Nation forgot to mention he did not start it and good person number 1 was protecting Thailand in the only way the instigators would allow.

Yes he presided over it. It was his duty to do so Any one in the PM position would have had to do the same thing It is there job.

Can you imagine good person number 2 with his bloody record in the position of PM? Now that is scarey.

[OzMick]

Sorry if a little off topic, but too good not to share given the current situation. Ross writes for the Sydney Morning Herald.

ROSS GITTINS To boil it down, the reason Greece is in so much trouble is that every Greek wanted a government that did all the expensive things governments do, but none wanted to pay tax.

46

[scorecard]

Not really that familiar with all that is pointed out.

But I am with some of the items and the points were taking out of context.

Such as presiding over a bloody conflict the Nation forgot to mention he did not start it and good person number 1 was protecting Thailand in the only way the instigators would allow.

Yes he presided over it. It was his duty to do so Any one in the PM position would have had to do the same thing It is there job.

Can you imagine good person number 2 with his bloody record in the position of PM? Now that is scarey.

Agree, well said!

[baboon]

Thailand is not in peril. There is too much real estate involved.

[scorecard]

Part quote from article:

".....Abhisit is a "good man" to his supporters even though he presided over the bloodiest military suppression in Bangkok's history. Between April and May 2010, at least 92 persons died, mostly red shirts, and 2,000 were injured......"

"....bloodiest military suppression in BAngkok's history...."

I suggest this is wrong!

The earlier coup conducted by suchinda and cohorts gunned down over 200 unarmed civilians who were just protesting and not involved in activities like building baricades, not involved in burning down government buildings, shopping centres etc., and were not inciting others to bring gasoline to BAngkok, etc. And on top of that 200+ bodies disappeared and have never been found.

There are also other earlier examples there was severe violence including the public hanging of university students.

Abhisit did not set out to gun people down, he set out to try to contain the situation and to return BAngkok to normalcy.

But, no matter how you see it, the deaths are very regrettable.

[OzMick]

" He also had conveniently forgotten to point out that the burning of buildings in Bangkok and elsewhere came after the month-long bloody suppression, and did not take place right after the first slaughter of 20 people on April 10."

Perhaps because it was part of the plan?

The term slaughter, to me indicating deliberate killing, always seems mis-applied in regard to these events. From past experience with military rifles, I can assure that a 30 round magazine fired into a packed crowd would cause multiple deaths - I'm thinking 20+. Why? Unless they strike bone, copper jacketed military rounds will pass through a body, or if they strike bone they tend to fragment and the fragments will emerge causing further injury. A 7.62 NATO round will pierce a 2 foot diameter hardwood tree; in VN an Aus killed 2 fellow servicemen and permanently disabled a third with the one shot.

Given that the normal carry was 5 magazines or 150 rounds PER SOLDIER, it becomes patently obvious that no free-for-all shoot-to -kill order was given or condoned. I am sure (at least hope) anyone with any military experience would agree.

[Thaddeus]

Part quote from article:

".....Abhisit is a "good man" to his supporters even though he presided over the bloodiest military suppression in Bangkok's history. Between April and May 2010, at least 92 persons died, mostly red shirts, and 2,000 were injured......"

"....bloodiest military suppression in BAngkok's history...."

I suggest this is wrong!

The earlier coup conducted by suchinda and cohorts gunned down over 200 unarmed civilians who were just protesting and not involved in activities like building baricades, not involved in burning down government buildings, shopping centres etc., and were not inciting others to bring gasoline to BAngkok, etc. And on top of that 200+ bodies disappeared and have never been found.

There are also other earlier examples there was severe violence including the public hanging of university students.

Incidents like those can be conveniently forgotten, depends on who has the blood stained hands.

[isanbirder]

I thought 'good people' were those who paid B.1000 per vote; those who pay more are 'very good people'.

[KireB]

Why? Unless they strike bone, copper jacketed military rounds will pass through a body, or if they strike bone they tend to fragment and the fragments will emerge causing further injury. A 7.62 NATO round will pierce a 2 foot diameter hardwood tree; in VN an Aus killed 2 fellow servicemen and permanently disabled a third with the one shot.

Given that the normal carry was 5 magazines or 150 rounds PER SOLDIER, it becomes patently obvious that no free-for-all shoot-to -kill order was given or condoned. I am sure (at least hope) anyone with any military experience would agree.

Not in defense of the Thai military, cause they are a group of fascists in their own, but I do agree with you.

It's almost a miracle that 'only' 92 people died last year. Bangkok turned into a complete battle ground for almost 2 months with numerous and daily shootouts between army and 'mysterious' militias (read Red/Dubai) and groups of motor taxi guys. Daily grenade attacks on government buildings and banks (that held Thaksin's money) where common; invasion of hospitals; attacks on sky-train stations; soldiers being molested and robbed of their vehicles and guns; storming and takeovers of television stations; do I need to go on . Basically a complete staged (yes Mister T. STAGED!) revolt against a, in terms of the constitution. democratic Government!

Remember the group of red hooligans (April 10th, hours before the first casualties) tried to invade an army base in Bangkok? The army used water canons and rubber bullets. All live on National TV! Imagine this happening in any other country! What is the reds would have attacked an American army base or the president himself (Pattaya 2 years ago)? The death toll would have been enormous! Abhisit and his government did 'relatively' well and stayed cool for as long as they could.

Abhisit even offered early elections in an open,on tv, negotiation with the reds, that was first accepted and after a couple of text-message-bleeps refused (from Dubai most probably!).

The casualties (deaths) started on april 10th at night, when militias attacked and killed army personnel. That's when it really kicked off.

How on earth could any government where in the world have reacted different?

[aaacorp]

Not really that familiar with all that is pointed out.

But I am with some of the items and the points were taking out of context.

Such as presiding over a bloody conflict the Nation forgot to mention he did not start it and good person number 1 was protecting Thailand in the only way the instigators would allow.

Yes he presided over it. It was his duty to do so Any one in the PM position would have had to do the same thing It is there job.

Can you imagine good person number 2 with his bloody record in the position of PM? Now that is scarey.

Mmm, except in middle east those days, no PM would have the sent the army with live munitions, they would prefer rubber bullets, lacrymo gaz, water cannon....No army would have shot people in a temple from a BTS bridge with live munitions

[Thaddeus]

Not really that familiar with all that is pointed out.

But I am with some of the items and the points were taking out of context.

Such as presiding over a bloody conflict the Nation forgot to mention he did not start it and good person number 1 was protecting Thailand in the only way the instigators would allow.

Yes he presided over it. It was his duty to do so Any one in the PM position would have had to do the same thing It is there job.

Can you imagine good person number 2 with his bloody record in the position of PM? Now that is scarey.

Mmm, except in middle east those days, no PM would have the sent the army with live munitions, they would prefer rubber bullets, lacrymo gaz, water cannon....No army would have shot people in a temple from a BTS bridge with live munitions

I'm sorry but, the armed forces tried the rubber bullet/water cannon route earlier. They work fine for crowd dispersal, but when small pockets of it start to fire live rounds at you, I doubt that most professional soldiers anywhere in the world would have reacted differently.

[Britannia]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

[KireB]

Mmm, except in middle east those days, no PM would have the sent the army with live munitions, they would prefer rubber bullets, lacrymo gaz, water cannon....No army would have shot people in a temple from a BTS bridge with live munitions

In normal democracies the police would do its work and crowd control units are well trained and unbiased. In Thailand the police did its work a bit too fanatic during the yellow protests with several people killed and did nothing during the red protests. One crime organization protecting the other (or the same).

That the government-supporting-part of the army shot those people is only suggestive and it makes no sense what so ever in the bigger picture. Why would the government shoot people in a temple under the recording eyes of the international media! But than again, its suggestive and I', afraid that those who gave snipers the order to kill will never be prosecuted. One can only guess! Or use logic thinking skills!

Referring to a classic movie: Why did this happen? Who had the power to cover up? Who benefited?

[scorecard]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

"....fair and unbiased...." Think you need to do some further research.

[cloudhopper]

Yep, way too many good people out there. How do you rank saints?

Don't worry Gen. Prayuth will be there to help god sort them out.

[Britannia]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

"....fair and unbiased...." Think you need to do some further research.

Research is for academics, research is studying reports, taking on board opinion you agree with and dismissing opinion you dont agree with,

If you want knowledge and not belief, you have to have the experience yourself, so unless you were in many places at the same time and witnessing for yourself, then you only have belief and not knowledge

Belief is subject to change, knowledge can not be changed.

The article was unbiased, that means not taking side.

Edited June 29, 2011 by metisdead
Please use default forum font when posting.

[gregb]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

You are probably correct, but only because you setup a straw man. Most people aren't saying "they are all wrong and we are all right". Well, maybe some of the reds are. But most others are saying our side has many problems, but Thaksin is truly evil and anything is better than him.

Recognizing the realities of moral character is neither bigotry nor arrogance. It is honesty. I might call Abhisit good, in that I think he sincerely wants to implement an egalitarian society. Beyond that, I don't think there are any others currently on the ballot, and one good man doesn't make a government. I think if you truly want to elect good people, you must do as the PAD say and vote NO, and keep voting NO until people of good moral character are placed on the ballot for you to choose.

Of course, this is a fairy tale and we all know it. The Thais are going to vote for whoever their patron is, and they are further going to demand that his transgressions be placed above the law. After all, he is sharing with them and they are pretty contemptuous of their fellow countrymen so who cares about everyone else. This is the reality in Thailand.

It isn't arrogance or bigotry that shapes what we have today. It is the genuine lack of a moral compass and respect for their fellow man displayed by many Thais, common or elite. As for the remainder who could not ordinarily be classified in this group, it is fear of further tyranny that is driving them to respond to the threat using the lowest common denominator of morality.

Edit: BTW, I would like to point out that the above displays my bias that egalitarian societies are better than totalitarian ones. This is, of course, a product of my Western upbringing. Someone without this inclination may not believe that his neighbor is the equal of himself. Given that slavery was tolerated in the US, this wasn't even true of the West 2 centuries ago. So I'm probably being unfairly judgemental in the above.

Edited June 29, 2011 by gregb

[OzMick]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

"....fair and unbiased...." Think you need to do some further research.

Research is for academics, research is studying reports, taking on board opinion you agree with and dismissing opinion you don't agree with,

If you want knowledge and not belief, you have to have the experience yourself, so unless you were in many places at the same time and witnessing for yourself, then you only have belief and not knowledge

Belief is subject to change, knowledge can not be changed.

The article was unbiased, that means not taking sides

you have no concept of "research" and very little of "unbiased". Emotive terms such as "slaughtered" are used, it is implied that the burning was a fair response to "months of oppression" and that Abhisit is heartless for not writing letters of condolence for people killed while taking part in an insurrection. I agree that it would have been nice of him to write letters to servicemen's families and those of innocent bystanders - he may well have done so.

Will you please stop spouting from your favourite self-help book.

[Britannia]

Taking on board opinion you agree with and dismissing opinion you don't agree with, This is called Ignorance.

Perhaps you should look for a self help book. maybe you need it, or maybe you should write one for the less educated, you can then advise them all 100,000 because they all must be evil, to buy a gun and shoot themselves, there problem solved

[letitbe]

Not really that familiar with all that is pointed out.

But I am with some of the items and the points were taking out of context.

Such as presiding over a bloody conflict the Nation forgot to mention he did not start it and good person number 1 was protecting Thailand in the only way the instigators would allow.

Yes he presided over it. It was his duty to do so Any one in the PM position would have had to do the same thing It is there job.

Can you imagine good person number 2 with his bloody record in the position of PM? Now that is scarey.

Mmm, except in middle east those days, no PM would have the sent the army with live munitions, they would prefer rubber bullets, lacrymo gaz, water cannon....No army would have shot people in a temple from a BTS bridge with live munitions

nonsense

[letitbe]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

true actually no politician is totally clean but would you prefer the meglomaniac Taksin and his murdering thugs or one of others

[jdinasia]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

true actually no politician is totally clean but would you prefer the meglomaniac Taksin and his murdering thugs or one of others

Bias is not bigotry. The article is not unbiased. The article in fact can be considered biased against "all of the above", it certainly makes judgement calls based upon opinion and not fact. Then again it is an Op-Ed piece and should be treated as such. (editorializing and opinion).

[MrChangers]

Not really that familiar with all that is pointed out.

But I am with some of the items and the points were taking out of context.

Such as presiding over a bloody conflict the Nation forgot to mention he did not start it and good person number 1 was protecting Thailand in the only way the instigators would allow.

Yes he presided over it. It was his duty to do so Any one in the PM position would have had to do the same thing It is there job.

Can you imagine good person number 2 with his bloody record in the position of PM? Now that is scarey.

Mmm, except in middle east those days, no PM would have the sent the army with live munitions, they would prefer rubber bullets, lacrymo gaz, water cannon....No army would have shot people in a temple from a BTS bridge with live munitions

I'm sorry but, the armed forces tried the rubber bullet/water cannon route earlier. They work fine for crowd dispersal, but when small pockets of it start to fire live rounds at you, I doubt that most professional soldiers anywhere in the world would have reacted differently.

The army is not trained to deal with civilians troubles but the police are. If the truth ever gets out it will take many years. (Bloody Sunday Northern Ireland is a prime example of highly trained professional soldiers trying to control a crowd)

There have been a lot of mistakes made on both sides and each pointing the finger but for each finger you point three look back at you. I hope that after the elections Mrs Changers and myself can go about our business in our usual happy way but I have reservations.

[whybother]

The army is not trained to deal with civilians troubles but the police are. If the truth ever gets out it will take many years. (Bloody Sunday Northern Ireland is a prime example of highly trained professional soldiers trying to control a crowd)

There have been a lot of mistakes made on both sides and each pointing the finger but for each finger you point three look back at you. I hope that after the elections Mrs Changers and myself can go about our business in our usual happy way but I have reservations.

The Thai police aren't trained to deal with violent mobs.

Look at the mess they made of the yellow shirt protests, and during the red shirt protests they let the red shirts do what ever they wanted.

[Thaddeus]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

"....fair and unbiased...." Think you need to do some further research.

Research is for academics, research is studying reports, taking on board opinion you agree with and dismissing opinion you don’t agree with,

If you want knowledge and not belief, you have to have the experience yourself, so unless you were in many places at the same time and witnessing for yourself, then you only have belief and not knowledge

Belief is subject to change, knowledge can not be changed.

The article was unbiased, that means not taking side.

So, by that reckoning, The Sacking of Rome didn't happen, because you were not there, The Battle of Hastings didn't happen, because you were not there, The Attack on Pearl Harbour didn't happen, because you were not there and anything written about them or other events is pure nonsense because you didn't write it.

And knowledge can be changed, even more so in this day and age when almost everything that could be newsworthy is recorded and distributed. Now, history is not necessarily written by the winners.

That article is so biased just for it's very nature of trying to make one man who was trying to control an out of control situation, with another who was directly responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people, sound the same.

(BTW, a man did walk on the moon, despite the fact that you were not there)

[MrChangers]

(BTW, a man did walk on the moon, despite the fact that you were not there)

No he did not it was a Hollywood set!

Back to the article ...... I like the Football hooligan link. It does seem to me that all the parties supporters look at their own party as purer than the driven snow and anyone else is the work of Satan.

[tragickingdom]

Society is at risk from generals who do not know their place and think they are more important than a street sweeper or office clerk. As long as we know that Coup Takers are bad people than everything will fall into place.

[relidiousenut]

The article was fair and unbiased, I think so many miss the point, Biased is what decides how people vote, not reasoning. It is bigotry to say they are all wrong we are all right,

Arrogance and Bigotry, The article points out that all participating parties are far from squeaky clean, those that can not see it are indeed dinosaurs, small brain big action and eventually extinct so that the rest can move on. Sad so Sad

"....fair and unbiased...." Think you need to do some further research.

Research is for academics, research is studying reports, taking on board opinion you agree with and dismissing opinion you don't agree with,

If you want knowledge and not belief, you have to have the experience yourself, so unless you were in many places at the same time and witnessing for yourself, then you only have belief and not knowledge

Belief is subject to change, knowledge can not be changed.

The article was unbiased, that means not taking side.

So, by that reckoning, The Sacking of Rome didn't happen, because you were not there, The Battle of Hastings didn't happen, because you were not there, The Attack on Pearl Harbour didn't happen, because you were not there and anything written about them or other events is pure nonsense because you didn't write it.

And knowledge can be changed, even more so in this day and age when almost everything that could be newsworthy is recorded and distributed. Now, history is not necessarily written by the winners.

That article is so biased just for it's very nature of trying to make one man who was trying to control an out of control situation, with another who was directly responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people, sound the same.

(BTW, a man did walk on the moon, despite the fact that you were not there)

Knowledge belongs to the individual, Not so much what he/she saw/heard but how he/she interoperates it, Two children writing an essay on a day at the zoo will each write a different story, to each of them it is their own experience, to them knowledge but to one reading the essay it can only be belief. Which story do you believe?

All records written throughout history, have been written by some person much the same as reading a newspaper report today, written by a reporter you agree with or not agree with

People reading it today can agree or call it rubbish, but in 500 years from now, they will take it as history because it was written of the time.

Nearly all Sciences throughout history have been subject to change (the World is flat, No it is round) At the time you can not call it knowledge, it was belief and has changed, the belief changes but knowledge can not change. Knowledge belongs to the Individual