Jump to content

Is It Time To Move On Five Years After The Coup?


Recommended Posts

Posted

BURNING ISSUE

Is it time to move on five years after the coup?

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

What did you do five years ago when you heard that another military coup was being staged? Did you support it or were you against it? Or did you just sit by idly?

Some Thais might find these questions trivial. However, those who did support the September 19, 2006 coup - whether openly or not - now want their role in it to be remembered differently. This writer chanced upon a number of people who now say that they never really supported the coup even though they were appointed to the National Legislative Assembly, which replaced the House of Representatives under the military junta. Others, who did literally nothing to oppose or condemn the coup, now vocally reject the idea they were ever "coup fodder" and like to repeat this new version of their personal history at every opportunity.

These people include academics, intellectuals and human rights activists, some of whom, ironically, been trying to free the people of Burma from the yoke of ruthless generals.

There are too many to name here, but in keeping with the Thai media's practice of naming just the initials of some controversial figures, I can think of Prof S W, activists Mr S H and Mr B T, well-known intellectual Dr G A among others.

The mainstream media has also overwhelmingly supported the 2006 coup - reason being that they hated the-then premier Thaksin Shinawatra and were at the receiving end of control and interference.

Citing from a paper on the Thai media's political bias, that I jointly wrote with Jiranan Hanthamrongwit, which was included in "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand" as part of King Prajadhipok's Institute Yearbook No 5 (2008/2009), here's what we found papers were reporting five years ago:

Khom Chad Luek, a Thai-language sister paper of The Nation, dubbed the military action as a "Coup for the Nation" in its September 22, 2006, editorial.

Thai Rath, one of the Kingdom's most-read newspapers, explained to its readers in its September 22, 2006, editorial as to how this coup d'etat was different from others.

The Nation's editorial of September 21, 2006, stated: "the coup must… restore the confidence of democracy-loving Thais…

Furthermore, [the coup-makers] must show that this time democratic development will be sustainable and the democratic system that will result will come equipped with in-built self-correcting mechanisms so that military coups can be put to rest for good".

Also on the same day, Matichon, a leading Thai-language newspaper, explained in its editorial why there was "a need" for a coup and even suggested what the coup-makers should do.

Today most of these papers would rather forget what they published five years ago and some even claim they never supported the coup.

Most editorials on Monday, September 19, did not touch upon the 2006 coup as the mainstream media continued to perpetuate belief in their role as the guardians of Thai democracy.

Though one paper did try to take things a step further. Yesterday, Matichon opened its editorial by stating: "Nobody supports staging a coup, but at the same time, most of the people will not put up with a selfish, corrupt government either…"

The red shirts, meanwhile, spent very little time reflecting on the abuses Thaksin committed during his time, because their leader, Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn, declared loudly at a gathering marking the fifth anniversary of the coup, that Thai people were "the most democracy-loving people in the world".

We should perhaps forgive people who can, upon reflection, admit that they were wrong or had made a mistake. The country can then learn and move on.

nationlogo.jpg

-- The Nation 2011-09-21

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

The road that the Thaskin rules Thailand (TRT) party, has moved on to Pardon Thaskin Party (PTP). The divisions in Thailand were/are for the most part created by propaganda by Thaskin and his boys. One can see it emerging again with the alignment of certain individuals in key positions that will at best allow the return of Thaskin and his quest to be on top, and that is what blinds him and causes miscalculations and mistakes and why he finds himself where he is at. Nothing in this Government policies indicates a long term solution to the prosperity of this country. It is time to move on and create a real government that people will vote for because of sound policies, no corruption= not pay offs and popular policies that will not work in the long term. Someone posted that Thailand is a joke at best in the international community, and sadly this is true.

Posted

The road that the Thaskin rules Thailand (TRT) party, has moved on to Pardon Thaskin Party (PTP). The divisions in Thailand were/are for the most part created by propaganda by Thaskin and his boys. One can see it emerging again with the alignment of certain individuals in key positions that will at best allow the return of Thaskin and his quest to be on top, and that is what blinds him and causes miscalculations and mistakes and why he finds himself where he is at. Nothing in this Government policies indicates a long term solution to the prosperity of this country. It is time to move on and create a real government that people will vote for because of sound policies, no corruption= not pay offs and popular policies that will not work in the long term. Someone posted that Thailand is a joke at best in the international community, and sadly this is true.

Agree, thaksins smoke and mirrors machine includes some clever (but in most cases immoral) people, and it needs to be watched very carefully. His smoke and mirrors machine is also very good at mass manipulation (again mostly people with no values or morals).

Last years we heard lots of smoke about democracy, equal justice for all, no double standards. None of it came with even one word of explanation, no structured discussion, nothing, zero.

And for all the smoke what do we now see, as mentioned by MILT, nothing more than benefits for thaksin and his cronies, and nothing to move Thailand forward, to close the gap / to build a civil society.

Posted

Democracy, to work effectively, relies on a set of rules of behaviour which in turn rely on character traits such as honesty and integrity in poiticians. Of course these are often lacking, but when the lack is discovered, those caught out are expected to resign gracefully. A good example is a current case of a NSW politician who signed a false Statutory Declaration, and resigned from parliament when the declaration was proved false.

In some countries there is a legal mechanism which will come into effect if a recalcitrant (Mr Mahathir's favourite word!) politician refuses to go quietly.

In other cases shame and the humiliation are sufficient.

But what happens when there is no legal mechanism and and the politician has no shame because his ego refuses to let him believe that he can do wrong? In Thailand's case they had a caretaker PM who refused to call an election; who had openly entertained conflicts of interest and reaped the rewards; who was elevating relations into positions of power in the police and military; who stifled the press with law suits and intimidation. When there is no legal process, you use an illegal one.

Many people here saw the coup as a step towards democracy, not away. All you had to look past was the simplistic view that once elected, a PM has the right to do whatever he likes for as long as he likes. It is a false view, mandates expire, had expired, and with that all rights to hold office.

Pravit says that with hindsight, supporters of the coup are changing their viewpoint. How much of that has to do with an administration that resembles a Shin family business, with PTP now having it's own paramilitary wing, and the return of Thaksin seeming ever more likely? How much risk would YOU be prepared to take to defend history?

The coup is now painted as the blackest evil. In fact it is a facade, a flag of convenience, a rallying point for the simple and gullible who cannot understand, or more likely have never been told, why the coup occurred. Where were the spontaneous protests during the appointed administration and during the time PPP were in office? But as soon as a non-Thaksin biased administration takes office, they begin. It took time to set up the "democracy schools" with their 3 basic messages - Thaksin good, coup bad, we was robbed.

Posted

Wouldn't this article thread be a good place for people to recount their support / opposition to the coup and why they took that position?

I'll kick it off, but mine is not a pattern for most to follow since I came to Thailand for the first time after the coup.

I don't today support the coup, and I doubt that I would have been in favor of the coup at the time. That said, it is clear from the information available that the country needed to move past Thaskin. In and of himself, recent events in the years preceding the coup showed that Thaskin's administration did some things which were good for the Thai people (healthcare). The same administration was not apparently a friend of free speech, nor a defender of human rights, nor a promoter of real democracy (even though the party continued to come in first in election after election...). There are many details and events which paint this picture and I won't go into them here.

The obvious problem of a coup of any sort, military, judicial, ..., is the disrespect for democracy. A coup is a short-cut to government change - but it is poison to a democracy. A change through the mechanisms provided by the 1997 constitution may have taken longer, may have required more effort, and certainly would have required an opposition party capable of winning an election, but without a doubt, change through a messy democratic process would have been preferable to a clean-cut of a military coup with the collateral damage we see now for Thai democracy.

Thoughts?

Posted (edited)

I'm no fan of Thaksin, but... :rolleyes:

on a more serious note, the "what if" scenario was discussed just yesterday in yet another thread regarding the coup, beginning here:

Sure would be nice if we didn't have to jump so much between threads on the same topic, but oh well.

.

Edited by Buchholz
Posted

Someone posted that Thailand is a joke at best in the international community, and sadly this is true.

I wonder if the poster meant "some within the expat community" instead of "international community"

While politics here can seem sadly comical more often than in other places, one only needs to look at the strength of the baht and decline in other currencies to gain perspective. With all the turmoil here, internationally speaking it is surprisingly viewed as being as being a fairly stable & safe investment internationally.

Posted (edited)

Wouldn't this article thread be a good place for people to recount their support / opposition to the coup and why they took that position?

I'll kick it off, but mine is not a pattern for most to follow since I came to Thailand for the first time after the coup.

I don't today support the coup, and I doubt that I would have been in favor of the coup at the time. That said, it is clear from the information available that the country needed to move past Thaskin. In and of himself, recent events in the years preceding the coup showed that Thaskin's administration did some things which were good for the Thai people (healthcare). The same administration was not apparently a friend of free speech, nor a defender of human rights, nor a promoter of real democracy (even though the party continued to come in first in election after election...). There are many details and events which paint this picture and I won't go into them here.

The obvious problem of a coup of any sort, military, judicial, ..., is the disrespect for democracy. A coup is a short-cut to government change - but it is poison to a democracy. A change through the mechanisms provided by the 1997 constitution may have taken longer, may have required more effort, and certainly would have required an opposition party capable of winning an election, but without a doubt, change through a messy democratic process would have been preferable to a clean-cut of a military coup with the collateral damage we see now for Thai democracy.

Thoughts?

Quote from you post: "A change through the mechanisms provided by the 1997 constitution may have taken longer, may have required more effort, and certainly would have required an opposition party capable of winning an election, but without a doubt, change through a messy democratic process would have been preferable to a clean-cut of a military coup with the collateral damage we see now for Thai democracy."

Nice text book theory but what you don't mention is that the paymaster had deliberately (say again deliberately) destroyed and/or severely intimidated most of the checks and balances, intimidated the electoral commission and they were caught and several electoral commissions went to jail, severely intimidated the media* and sued many journalists for doing nothing than what journalists should be doing. Plus let's also mentioned his close relative (a very senior army general) caught red-handed falsifying voting records. Plus by the time of the coup he had moved numerous family members into positions of great power. Plus the judiciary severely intimidated.

With all that said, do you really think the standard mechanisms of democracy would have removed him?

It's also a moot point whether at some stage Thailand needed to go through this mess, to get to the other side.

*You say you came here after the coup. Are you aware of the incident (before the coup) when a foreigh journalist asked the paymaster an embarrassing question?

The paymasters response was: "Idiot scum", and the said journalist was deported the next day. A number of other foreign journalists were at various stages also deported because they wrote things (in some cases supported by footage etc) which the paymaster didn't like.

Plus, nightly the state run (state controlled) news TV channel showed item after item of twisted rubbish all designed to make the paymaster look good. In many instances the facts were very obviously twisted or cleansed, relevant points deliberately not mentioned, etc., and an insult to the intelligence of all Thais.

Edited by scorecard
Posted

Wouldn't this article thread be a good place for people to recount their support / opposition to the coup and why they took that position?

I'll kick it off, but mine is not a pattern for most to follow since I came to Thailand for the first time after the coup.

I don't today support the coup, and I doubt that I would have been in favor of the coup at the time. That said, it is clear from the information available that the country needed to move past Thaskin. In and of himself, recent events in the years preceding the coup showed that Thaskin's administration did some things which were good for the Thai people (healthcare). The same administration was not apparently a friend of free speech, nor a defender of human rights, nor a promoter of real democracy (even though the party continued to come in first in election after election...). There are many details and events which paint this picture and I won't go into them here.

The obvious problem of a coup of any sort, military, judicial, ..., is the disrespect for democracy. A coup is a short-cut to government change - but it is poison to a democracy. A change through the mechanisms provided by the 1997 constitution may have taken longer, may have required more effort, and certainly would have required an opposition party capable of winning an election, but without a doubt, change through a messy democratic process would have been preferable to a clean-cut of a military coup with the collateral damage we see now for Thai democracy.

Thoughts?

I believe the B30 health care scheme was originated under an earlier government. In any case, as it was at best underfunded, while it was a popular policy it caused a financial crisis in many hospitals. the Democrats both funded the scheme and reduced the price to zero, as the accounting cost more than the revenue.

Which mechanisms of the 1997 constitution allow for the removal of a PM who's mandate has expired and refuses to leave office or call an election? If a victory was to be so easily achieved, why didn't he call an election in the 5 and a half months between his resignation and leaving for an o/s trip?

Posted

The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling. Maybe Thailand needed that to happen to move to a point where there is no longer support for more coups and recognition that things need to be solved through democracy.

Another point is that you do not solve the problems of democracy through non-democratic intervention. Democracy is a developing, messy and not perfect system and it sometimes takes years to solve problems or excesses and it can be very heated. However, all that needs to be worked through. The problem now is that the problems and excesses of the coup need to be resolved before the those of democracy itself can. Undoing all the wrongs of before and after the coup is not going to be easy

Posted

The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling. Maybe Thailand needed that to happen to move to a point where there is no longer support for more coups and recognition that things need to be solved through democracy.

Another point is that you do not solve the problems of democracy through non-democratic intervention. Democracy is a developing, messy and not perfect system and it sometimes takes years to solve problems or excesses and it can be very heated. However, all that needs to be worked through. The problem now is that the problems and excesses of the coup need to be resolved before the those of democracy itself can. Undoing all the wrongs of before and after the coup is not going to be easy

Quote from hammered: "The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling."

Please share your evidence for this opinion.

Posted

The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling. Maybe Thailand needed that to happen to move to a point where there is no longer support for more coups and recognition that things need to be solved through democracy.

Another point is that you do not solve the problems of democracy through non-democratic intervention. Democracy is a developing, messy and not perfect system and it sometimes takes years to solve problems or excesses and it can be very heated. However, all that needs to be worked through. The problem now is that the problems and excesses of the coup need to be resolved before the those of democracy itself can. Undoing all the wrongs of before and after the coup is not going to be easy

What are the problems and excesses of the coup that need to be resolved? There have already been two elections. The constitution has been changed, so there is nothing to stop it being changed further.

Do you mean Thaksin's convictions and other charges that awaiting his return? Just because a group was especially assigned the task of investigating Thaksin doesn't make the crimes any less valid.

Posted (edited)

I think the Thai people are moving on and would like the government to move on also. Like it or not, Thailand was more prosperous and people were happier when Thaksin was in office.

Fortunately the farang hateful, spiteful Thai political self alleged experts have no say in anything and only are able to try to convince more moderate farang posters that everything is gloom and doom. It would appear that they would be happy to see another destructive coup.

Edited by Gary A
Posted

Coups are are an inevitable, and necessary part of Thailand's past, and future, until there is a legislative assembly in place that has arbitrary powers to halt, or remove a government on short notice.

Simply because of the mindset that the politicians have; when they think they have the people's mandate, they think they can do anything, lawful or un-lawful, and get away with it. The current/past constitution(s) are not powerful enough to remove elected (majority) governments for gross abuse of power, and/or worse treasonable offences.

Posted

In answer to the headline:

No, it is not time to move on. It is just the beginning of publicly unraveling the threads that comprised the reasons for the military to once again supplant a civilian government. This simply should not be an option in "modern" Thailand.

Eventually people should move on but some serious questions need to be answered:

* If the coup was for the good of the nation, as the perpetrators would no doubt say, what exactly was the Thaksin government doing that could justify even well-meaning people to do it?

* Most crucially, what role did unelected forces play and why does this continue in "modern" Thailand today?

* What deep need among voters does Thaksin appeal to, and why? Following the coup, why was there no real effort to accommodate the millions who voted for him over and over?

Posted

I think the Thai people are moving on and would like the government to move on also. Like it or not, Thailand was more prosperous and people were happier when Thaksin was in office.

Fortunately the farang hateful, spiteful Thai political self alleged experts have no say in anything and only are able to try to convince more moderate farang posters that everything is gloom and doom. It would appear that they would be happy to see another destructive coup.

Just ignore the financial crisis that has hit the global economy since Thaksin was in office.

Posted

I think the Thai people are moving on and would like the government to move on also. Like it or not, Thailand was more prosperous and people were happier when Thaksin was in office.

Fortunately the farang hateful, spiteful Thai political self alleged experts have no say in anything and only are able to try to convince more moderate farang posters that everything is gloom and doom. It would appear that they would be happy to see another destructive coup.

Just ignore the financial crisis that has hit the global economy since Thaksin was in office.

also might ignore the prosperous times globally when Thaksin served. I think I recall reading that Thailand didn't even grow at the same rate the globally economy did during that period.

Posted

I think the Thai people are moving on and would like the government to move on also. Like it or not, Thailand was more prosperous and people were happier when Thaksin was in office.

Fortunately the farang hateful, spiteful Thai political self alleged experts have no say in anything and only are able to try to convince more moderate farang posters that everything is gloom and doom. It would appear that they would be happy to see another destructive coup.

Just ignore the financial crisis that has hit the global economy since Thaksin was in office.

also might ignore the prosperous times globally when Thaksin served. I think I recall reading that Thailand didn't even grow at the same rate the globally economy did during that period.

And that Thailand out performed most western economies during the Abhisit administration.

Posted

The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling. Maybe Thailand needed that to happen to move to a point where there is no longer support for more coups and recognition that things need to be solved through democracy.

Another point is that you do not solve the problems of democracy through non-democratic intervention. Democracy is a developing, messy and not perfect system and it sometimes takes years to solve problems or excesses and it can be very heated. However, all that needs to be worked through. The problem now is that the problems and excesses of the coup need to be resolved before the those of democracy itself can. Undoing all the wrongs of before and after the coup is not going to be easy

Most who supported the coup still support the coup. There are only a few who have changed their minds, and many who have are simply trying to curry favor with the new government who they view as the new power.

I completely support the coup, and I will support another one if the current government tries to absolve Thaksin of his crimes. Bloody or not, Thaksin will not be allowed to come back. I have faith that those people in this country of good moral character will rise to the occasion if that should occur. There has never been democracy in Thailand. Few in Thailand actually want it. It is mostly a show for the international community. Democracy means first and foremost respect for the rule of law, which is supreme to any vote. How can you have democracy in state where the vast majority feel corruption (aka breaking the law) is OK as long as they get a piece of the spoils? Answer, you can't, because they disregard the very foundation of what democracy actually means.

There is no democracy in Thailand. There never has been and there never will be because the people don't want it. I will fully support any military action necessary to make absolutely certain that Thaksin and the evil he represents does not return.

A military dictatorship is infinitely preferable to a Thaksin run dictatorship.

Posted (edited)

The use of democracy for creating a plutocracy is well known, but the actual use of democracy from democratic purposes in Thailand is equally unknown. We are moving on now, but right back to the same CHANGE of plutocracy we were in before the coup. And if it keeps on the SAME path yet again, then it will be coup again. But no roses this time, and 'the head of the hydra will not have a chance to rise again', no matter HOW anyone sees that phrase...

One can hope the more democratic elements win the peace afterwards, but as it stands now that is NOT POSSIBLE. Co-opted by mega big money, as is so painfully obvious now..

Democracy will not work if it is not at the fundamental heart of a grass roots group, rather than simply misused as code by the leadership to lure the average person to their beck and call. No matter how many times you SAY " Democracy " doesn't mean in any way that you are actually applying it in practice.

Edited by animatic
Posted (edited)

The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling. Maybe Thailand needed that to happen to move to a point where there is no longer support for more coups and recognition that things need to be solved through democracy.

Another point is that you do not solve the problems of democracy through non-democratic intervention. Democracy is a developing, messy and not perfect system and it sometimes takes years to solve problems or excesses and it can be very heated. However, all that needs to be worked through. The problem now is that the problems and excesses of the coup need to be resolved before the those of democracy itself can. Undoing all the wrongs of before and after the coup is not going to be easy

Most who supported the coup still support the coup. There are only a few who have changed their minds, and many who have are simply trying to curry favor with the new government who they view as the new power.

I completely support the coup, and I will support another one if the current government tries to absolve Thaksin of his crimes. Bloody or not, Thaksin will not be allowed to come back. I have faith that those people in this country of good moral character will rise to the occasion if that should occur. There has never been democracy in Thailand. Few in Thailand actually want it. It is mostly a show for the international community. Democracy means first and foremost respect for the rule of law, which is supreme to any vote. How can you have democracy in state where the vast majority feel corruption (aka breaking the law) is OK as long as they get a piece of the spoils? Answer, you can't, because they disregard the very foundation of what democracy actually means.

There is no democracy in Thailand. There never has been and there never will be because the people don't want it. I will fully support any military action necessary to make absolutely certain that Thaksin and the evil he represents does not return.

A military dictatorship is infinitely preferable to a Thaksin run dictatorship.

Really much more simple.

Those that sided with the winners then, are now siding with those that lost before, but are now once again winners in this cycle. Very pragmatic, and since allegiances are typically to the highest person in their sphere in Kow Tow/ Feudal society, they are now cleaving to the current big dog on the block, for safety and profit.

If that dog loses again in awhile they will switch back.

Edited by animatic
Posted (edited)

In answer to the headline:

No, it is not time to move on. It is just the beginning of publicly unraveling the threads that comprised the reasons for the military to once again supplant a civilian government. This simply should not be an option in "modern" Thailand.

Eventually people should move on but some serious questions need to be answered:

* If the coup was for the good of the nation, as the perpetrators would no doubt say, what exactly was the Thaksin government doing that could justify even well-meaning people to do it?

* Most crucially, what role did unelected forces play and why does this continue in "modern" Thailand today?

* What deep need among voters does Thaksin appeal to, and why? Following the coup, why was there no real effort to accommodate the millions who voted for him over and over?

Suggest you read the whole thread and if really needed do a little more reading on this site, it will give you more answers to your question that you can cope with. But hey maybe you don't want the answers!

Thaksin is a marketer (but a highly immoral marketer). He realized (not rocket science by the way) that he could win massive numbers of votes with a few occasional handouts (paid for by taxpayers funds). He realized that he could easily make this look like he is the saviour of the poor. In terms of the last election the Dems failed badly at realizing they had to find a clever balance of offerings which reduced the thaksin appeal (cheap occasional hand-outs) and at the same time policies and actions which would take Thailand forward, aiming to build the circumstances whereby a bit longer-term a large percentage of the population could have a good quality of life through their own productivity.

Edited by metisdead
Repaired the reply, when replying to a quoted post, do not make your reply inside the [quote] tags.
Posted

The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling. Maybe Thailand needed that to happen to move to a point where there is no longer support for more coups and recognition that things need to be solved through democracy.

Another point is that you do not solve the problems of democracy through non-democratic intervention. Democracy is a developing, messy and not perfect system and it sometimes takes years to solve problems or excesses and it can be very heated. However, all that needs to be worked through. The problem now is that the problems and excesses of the coup need to be resolved before the those of democracy itself can. Undoing all the wrongs of before and after the coup is not going to be easy

Most who supported the coup still support the coup. There are only a few who have changed their minds, and many who have are simply trying to curry favor with the new government who they view as the new power.

I completely support the coup, and I will support another one if the current government tries to absolve Thaksin of his crimes. Bloody or not, Thaksin will not be allowed to come back. I have faith that those people in this country of good moral character will rise to the occasion if that should occur. There has never been democracy in Thailand. Few in Thailand actually want it. It is mostly a show for the international community. Democracy means first and foremost respect for the rule of law, which is supreme to any vote. How can you have democracy in state where the vast majority feel corruption (aka breaking the law) is OK as long as they get a piece of the spoils? Answer, you can't, because they disregard the very foundation of what democracy actually means.

There is no democracy in Thailand. There never has been and there never will be because the people don't want it. I will fully support any military action necessary to make absolutely certain that Thaksin and the evil he represents does not return.

A military dictatorship is infinitely preferable to a Thaksin run dictatorship.

I am glad to see honesty in stating a preference for military dictatorship over an elected leader you dont like.

It is also interesting to note that you equate those of good moral standing as people who agree with you. In this case it easy to say the majority of the people would not agree with you as there are plenty who either want Thaksin back or dont care and certainly as a combined group more than those representing your point of view. I guess you would be happy to see them all shot or something.

Sometimes the extreme views on here are incredible. There is virtually nobody who sees this as a good versus evil or right versus wrong issue whichever side people support. Even Sondhi who led the PAD demos have a far more nuanced view and iirc no longer supports the coup

Posted
Suggest you read the whole thread and if really needed do a little more reading on this site, it will give you more answers to your question that you can cope with. But hey maybe you don't want the answers!

Sorry to keep score, Scorecard, but I actually lived in Thailand throughout the Thaksin era and the coup (as well as long before that). My question was rhetorical -- I don't think Thaksin's many transgressions warranted a coup.

Posted
Suggest you read the whole thread and if really needed do a little more reading on this site, it will give you more answers to your question that you can cope with. But hey maybe you don't want the answers!

Sorry to keep score, Scorecard, but I actually lived in Thailand throughout the Thaksin era and the coup (as well as long before that). My question was rhetorical -- I don't think Thaksin's many transgressions warranted a coup.

"I don't think Thaksin's many transgressions warranted a coup. Your entitled to your opinion.

I also have lived here a very long time, and I very definitely don't agree with you.

Posted

I think the Thai people are moving on and would like the government to move on also. Like it or not, Thailand was more prosperous and people were happier when Thaksin was in office.

Fortunately the farang hateful, spiteful Thai political self alleged experts have no say in anything and only are able to try to convince more moderate farang posters that everything is gloom and doom. It would appear that they would be happy to see another destructive coup.

Just ignore the financial crisis that has hit the global economy since Thaksin was in office.

also might ignore the prosperous times globally when Thaksin served. I think I recall reading that Thailand didn't even grow at the same rate the globally economy did during that period.

And a further point, many credible economists have commented that thaksinomics are a recipe for longer-term disaster.

Posted (edited)

The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling. Maybe Thailand needed that to happen to move to a point where there is no longer support for more coups and recognition that things need to be solved through democracy.

Another point is that you do not solve the problems of democracy through non-democratic intervention. Democracy is a developing, messy and not perfect system and it sometimes takes years to solve problems or excesses and it can be very heated. However, all that needs to be worked through. The problem now is that the problems and excesses of the coup need to be resolved before the those of democracy itself can. Undoing all the wrongs of before and after the coup is not going to be easy

Especially when the wrongdoers (on all sides) are still in charge and pursuing their own interests (ie. more wrongs). Nothing is going to change until Thai society takes a serious interest in tacking corruption. Democracy doesn't work where there is no rule of law.

Edited by Crushdepth
Posted

Wouldn't this article thread be a good place for people to recount their support / opposition to the coup and why they took that position?

I'll kick it off, but mine is not a pattern for most to follow since I came to Thailand for the first time after the coup.

I don't today support the coup, and I doubt that I would have been in favor of the coup at the time. That said, it is clear from the information available that the country needed to move past Thaskin. In and of himself, recent events in the years preceding the coup showed that Thaskin's administration did some things which were good for the Thai people (healthcare). The same administration was not apparently a friend of free speech, nor a defender of human rights, nor a promoter of real democracy (even though the party continued to come in first in election after election...). There are many details and events which paint this picture and I won't go into them here.

The obvious problem of a coup of any sort, military, judicial, ..., is the disrespect for democracy. A coup is a short-cut to government change - but it is poison to a democracy. A change through the mechanisms provided by the 1997 constitution may have taken longer, may have required more effort, and certainly would have required an opposition party capable of winning an election, but without a doubt, change through a messy democratic process would have been preferable to a clean-cut of a military coup with the collateral damage we see now for Thai democracy.

Thoughts?

Quote from you post: "A change through the mechanisms provided by the 1997 constitution may have taken longer, may have required more effort, and certainly would have required an opposition party capable of winning an election, but without a doubt, change through a messy democratic process would have been preferable to a clean-cut of a military coup with the collateral damage we see now for Thai democracy."

Nice text book theory but what you don't mention is that the paymaster had deliberately (say again deliberately) destroyed and/or severely intimidated most of the checks and balances, intimidated the electoral commission and they were caught and several electoral commissions went to jail, severely intimidated the media* and sued many journalists for doing nothing than what journalists should be doing. Plus let's also mentioned his close relative (a very senior army general) caught red-handed falsifying voting records. Plus by the time of the coup he had moved numerous family members into positions of great power. Plus the judiciary severely intimidated.

With all that said, do you really think the standard mechanisms of democracy would have removed him?

It's also a moot point whether at some stage Thailand needed to go through this mess, to get to the other side.

*You say you came here after the coup. Are you aware of the incident (before the coup) when a foreigh journalist asked the paymaster an embarrassing question?

The paymasters response was: "Idiot scum", and the said journalist was deported the next day. A number of other foreign journalists were at various stages also deported because they wrote things (in some cases supported by footage etc) which the paymaster didn't like.

Plus, nightly the state run (state controlled) news TV channel showed item after item of twisted rubbish all designed to make the paymaster look good. In many instances the facts were very obviously twisted or cleansed, relevant points deliberately not mentioned, etc., and an insult to the intelligence of all Thais.

Coup + 1

:)

You expanded rather well on my points about free speech and democracy. Thaksin was a friend to neither.

Posted

Wouldn't this article thread be a good place for people to recount their support / opposition to the coup and why they took that position?

I'll kick it off, but mine is not a pattern for most to follow since I came to Thailand for the first time after the coup.

I don't today support the coup, and I doubt that I would have been in favor of the coup at the time. That said, it is clear from the information available that the country needed to move past Thaskin. In and of himself, recent events in the years preceding the coup showed that Thaskin's administration did some things which were good for the Thai people (healthcare). The same administration was not apparently a friend of free speech, nor a defender of human rights, nor a promoter of real democracy (even though the party continued to come in first in election after election...). There are many details and events which paint this picture and I won't go into them here.

The obvious problem of a coup of any sort, military, judicial, ..., is the disrespect for democracy. A coup is a short-cut to government change - but it is poison to a democracy. A change through the mechanisms provided by the 1997 constitution may have taken longer, may have required more effort, and certainly would have required an opposition party capable of winning an election, but without a doubt, change through a messy democratic process would have been preferable to a clean-cut of a military coup with the collateral damage we see now for Thai democracy.

Thoughts?

I believe the B30 health care scheme was originated under an earlier government. In any case, as it was at best underfunded, while it was a popular policy it caused a financial crisis in many hospitals. the Democrats both funded the scheme and reduced the price to zero, as the accounting cost more than the revenue.

Which mechanisms of the 1997 constitution allow for the removal of a PM who's mandate has expired and refuses to leave office or call an election? If a victory was to be so easily achieved, why didn't he call an election in the 5 and a half months between his resignation and leaving for an o/s trip?

coup + 2

:)

So far, every reference I have seen to the universal health care credits the Thaksin government. That's a different subject, but I agree that it could be improved.

Posted

Can't move on since the country hasn't learned from the past. Fast forward five years, and it's the same sh*t from the same *ssholes and the same old oligarchy trying to make their family a dynasty (the Shinawatra's). Until thailand removes this family from power once and for all, it'll keep going in the same cycles over and over again. I know most countries have a lot to work out, and progess is measured in slow steps. But altogether, it almost seems worse now than it was. Before, there was thaksin, a corrupt business man in power. He make mistakes due to corruption and trying to solve problems too fast (south thailand's budget cuts and the war on drugs). But now, there's a PM who just doesn't have a clue, and seemingly 3 PM's between her, the elder bro, and Chalerm. Hope future generations get more education and stop supporting this feudal style oligarchy ruled by the Shinawatras.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...