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

[gemini81]

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.

He did get things done quickly, but way too quickly, I agree. They lacked long-term consideration of effects and consequences. (Not thinking of the long term nor consequences seems to be a repeated trait for this slick weasel). Businessman he was (though betrayer and swindler) but politician he isn't. Example: he cut the military and gov't workers' budgets drastically in south thailand without thinking of the effects it would have. It snowballed into what we now still have, a huge increase in violence, whereas before buddhists and muslims tolerated each other and even travellers could go to visit the 3 southernmost provinces.

[hammered]

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.

It could be said that the rule of law doesnt work where there is no democracy as we have witnessed around many places in the world recently. Im sure all those nasty demonstrators broke a bunch of laws while ousting old Mubarak etc

Thailand aint going to become a democratic paradise overnight even if such thing exists anywhere but through all the excesses, abuses, trials and tribulations along with all the good stuff it needs space and time to work its own way out over the years. Things like coups just set it back and make it potentially more difficult. The majority in this country have only very recently begun to realise their power and they are going to take time to adapt to using it, but surely that this is developing is only a good thing as poor are not the group practicing all the corruption that people rail against, so ultimately it is in their interests to recognize where it comes from and to use their democratic majority to reduce it. This may take time and also involve their economic situation improving but with their inbuilt majority and democracy that cannot be averted either.

[backtonormal]

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.

The Thai people all knew of Thaksins misdemeanours yet 20,000,000 still voted him back into power. Thaksins crimes will pale into insignificance once we see the crimes of Abhisit and Suthep. Expect something soon from the police who are now investigating the events of last May. Please dont cry about the findings claiming they are biased. The Democrats had over 12 months and produced nothing. At the point of conviction we shall have an amnesty for all. The Dems will keep out of the Nick and Thaksin will come home. Everybody happy

[OzMick]

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

Since when is Thaksin an elected leader? He is a fugitive criminal banned from politics, with more charges yet to be heard, and "politically motivated" doesn't absolve the underlying crimes.

"The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling." Yes, it is telling me that they are justifiably afraid to hold their former position publicly. The red shirt thought police will protect their govt, and if it means intimidating nay-sayers, too bad.

[backtonormal]

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.

If you fast forward 5 years you will see a completely different Thailand but Thaksin will have much more power than he does now. Work it out for yourself

[whybother]

The Thai people all knew of Thaksins misdemeanours yet 20,000,000 still voted him back into power. Thaksins crimes will pale into insignificance once we see the crimes of Abhisit and Suthep. Expect something soon from the police who are now investigating the events of last May. Please dont cry about the findings claiming they are biased. The Democrats had over 12 months and produced nothing. At the point of conviction we shall have an amnesty for all. The Dems will keep out of the Nick and Thaksin will come home. Everybody happy

Keep up. The investigation of various deaths from last year have been back and forth from the DSI and the police several times.

What are Abhisit and Suthep going be charged with as a result of these autopsies? The report has already basically blamed at least a couple of the deaths on the army. How does that lead back to Abhisit?

[whybother]

If you fast forward 5 years you will see a completely different Thailand but Thaksin will have much more power than he does now. Work it out for yourself

And you support that?

[hammered]

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

Since when is Thaksin an elected leader? He is a fugitive criminal banned from politics, with more charges yet to be heard, and "politically motivated" doesn't absolve the underlying crimes.

"The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling." Yes, it is telling me that they are justifiably afraid to hold their former position publicly. The red shirt thought police will protect their govt, and if it means intimidating nay-sayers, too bad.

the coup overthrew a democratic system. It didnt just overthrow a PM who may have resigned or may not.

It isnt the red shirt threats that have led to virtually everyone who once supported it or was ambivalent to it now thinking the coup was a disaster. That has been caused by the initial inability of the coupmakers to govern, the creation of a level of division unseen before the coup, and the complete ineptitude and corruption of the favored Abhisit government, and of course it eventually coming to people gunned down on the streets. All of this came after a coup that was meant to make everything right. Is it any surprise to see even those who supported it now thinking it an error?

[hammered]

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.

If you fast forward 5 years you will see a completely different Thailand but Thaksin will have much more power than he does now. Work it out for yourself

Entirely caused by the coup and mistakes of his opponents that have left him stronger than in 2005

[thaihome]

Entirely caused by the coup and mistakes of his opponents that have left him stronger than in 2005

Spending a few hundred million USD to keep things destabilized certainly has helped, don’t you think?

TH

[Farang0tang]

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.

Agreed.

And that is the Thai mindset. A proven stratagem, employed throughout their history.

[OzMick]

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

Since when is Thaksin an elected leader? He is a fugitive criminal banned from politics, with more charges yet to be heard, and "politically motivated" doesn't absolve the underlying crimes.

"The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling." Yes, it is telling me that they are justifiably afraid to hold their former position publicly. The red shirt thought police will protect their govt, and if it means intimidating nay-sayers, too bad.

the coup overthrew a democratic system. It didnt just overthrow a PM who may have resigned or may not.

It isnt the red shirt threats that have led to virtually everyone who once supported it or was ambivalent to it now thinking the coup was a disaster. That has been caused by the initial inability of the coupmakers to govern, the creation of a level of division unseen before the coup, and the complete ineptitude and corruption of the favored Abhisit government, and of course it eventually coming to people gunned down on the streets. All of this came after a coup that was meant to make everything right. Is it any surprise to see even those who supported it now thinking it an error?

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

[hammered]

Entirely caused by the coup and mistakes of his opponents that have left him stronger than in 2005

Spending a few hundred million USD to keep things destabilized certainly has helped, don’t you think?

TH

Of course Thaksin's fighting has continued things. Does a coup justify the ousted and their supporters to fight back or not though?

A lot more money than that has been spent to try and undo his support too, and not very succesfully

[hammered]

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

My position is simple. There were democratic institutions in place that could have resolved the problems. There is no need to overthrow the system before it even has a chance to resolve things.

It was by the way an overthrow of a system and not just a government. The senate were tossed, the constitution was ripped up etc. Why is that not the overthrow of a system?

[animatic]

The Thai people all knew of Thaksins misdemeanours yet 20,000,000 still voted him back into power. Thaksins crimes will pale into insignificance once we see the crimes of Abhisit and Suthep. Expect something soon from the police who are now investigating the events of last May. Please dont cry about the findings claiming they are biased. The Democrats had over 12 months and produced nothing. At the point of conviction we shall have an amnesty for all. The Dems will keep out of the Nick and Thaksin will come home. Everybody happy

Keep up. The investigation of various deaths from last year have been back and forth from the DSI and the police several times.

What are Abhisit and Suthep going be charged with as a result of these autopsies? The report has already basically blamed at least a couple of the deaths on the army. How does that lead back to Abhisit?

Actually the reports don't point to anything but individual incidents of possibly excessive force from individual army units. And one friendly fire incident. 13 cases in questioon, and always the red cry is 90+.

But absolutely NO global orders to kill protestors from the government side. But that is the holy grail for the red side, they want nothing more but to side line their enemies from ever offering a challenge to their leaders rule ever again. That is their only hope.

Actually your nick not withstanding this is anything BUT back to normal. It's back to one side having the control for a spell. How they deal with the use and abuse of power has much to say with how long this flip side of NORMAL will last in practice.

20 million was enough for a return to power, but the exercise of power is what is make or break. Control of the electorates perceptions is the big enchilada, and that is much harder to control in the long run,

and hard to do with out stepping on enough to toes to make counter moves viable, and in many cases preferable to NORMAL.

But there is nothing normal these days, extraordinary is more like it.

Edited September 21, 2011 by animatic

[JAG]

Some might say that things political are absolutely normal. A democratically elected government under the inevitable threat of a coup if it upsets the Generals, and their shadowy masters.

How great the threat is is debateable, but it is present.

[Buchholz]

If you fast forward 5 years you will see a completely different Thailand but Thaksin will have much more power than he does now.

He very likely will and it'll be a shame.

I foresee a constitutional amendment that will allow him to be leader for longer than the current 8 years. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if it's as President then and not Prime Minister.

.

[gemini81]

The Thai people all knew of Thaksins misdemeanours yet 20,000,000 still voted him back into power. Thaksins crimes will pale into insignificance once we see the crimes of Abhisit and Suthep. Expect something soon from the police who are now investigating the events of last May. Please dont cry about the findings claiming they are biased. The Democrats had over 12 months and produced nothing. At the point of conviction we shall have an amnesty for all. The Dems will keep out of the Nick and Thaksin will come home. Everybody happy

Keep up. The investigation of various deaths from last year have been back and forth from the DSI and the police several times.

What are Abhisit and Suthep going be charged with as a result of these autopsies? The report has already basically blamed at least a couple of the deaths on the army. How does that lead back to Abhisit?

Because backtonormal doesn't have much working knowledge of how the system here works, and is in denial that the military made their decisions to fire on their own and out of necessity.

He claims the things against Abhisit...eh...like what? Now look at the charges and convictions against thaksin, and the other 9 to 12 charges that could be used against thaksin at the court's disposal if they wanna point out more of his wrongdoings....which is everything within his realm, unfortunately.

Edited September 21, 2011 by gemini81

[Buchholz]

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

My position is simple. There were democratic institutions in place that could have resolved the problems. There is no need to overthrow the system before it even has a chance to resolve things.

It was by the way an overthrow of a system and not just a government. The senate were tossed, the constitution was ripped up etc. Why is that not the overthrow of a system?

To each their own position. Mine is that the Senate then was under Thaksin's control as well as the 97 constitution was abused by him, which the new constitution sought to redirect with just a few changes that helped to ensure that a megalomaniac didn't abuse the system. The democratic institutions then were being either controlled or manipulated and proved ineffective in both controlling him and resolving the problems.

.

[Siripon]

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

My position is simple. There were democratic institutions in place that could have resolved the problems. There is no need to overthrow the system before it even has a chance to resolve things.

It was by the way an overthrow of a system and not just a government. The senate were tossed, the constitution was ripped up etc. Why is that not the overthrow of a system?

The system had a chance in 2001 to clean up politics but some judges found Thaksin not guilty of hiding millions of baht in his servants' names, because they said they were afraid of mobs.

The EC was in Thaksin's pocket.

His brother-in law had jumped over 20 senior policemen to reach a senior rank, his cousin had done the same in the army.

None of the charges Thaksin faces today would have seen daylight if he had remained in power because his money and autocracy rode roughshod over any democratic institution. And to this day, do you know of any democracy where the party leader demands the MPs write and sign letters of resignation which must be handed to him before they have the right to stand as an MP! Is this democracy?!

Edited September 21, 2011 by Siripon

[tlansford]

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

My position is simple. There were democratic institutions in place that could have resolved the problems. There is no need to overthrow the system before it even has a chance to resolve things.

It was by the way an overthrow of a system and not just a government. The senate were tossed, the constitution was ripped up etc. Why is that not the overthrow of a system?

agreed - facts are facts. Not just the PM, but a new constitution.

[gregb]

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

My position is simple. There were democratic institutions in place that could have resolved the problems. There is no need to overthrow the system before it even has a chance to resolve things.

It was by the way an overthrow of a system and not just a government. The senate were tossed, the constitution was ripped up etc. Why is that not the overthrow of a system?

Totally and completely incorrect. Thaksin had a stranglehold on every institution within the government. There was not a single branch of the government at the time that would force Thaksin to submit to the rule of law, and more importantly he wouldn't have accepted any such ruling even if it was handed down. If you think he would have then you don't know anything about the man you are fighting for.

The only way to remove the criminal Thaksin regime in 2006 was for the military to do exactly what they did. The mistake was not the coup, but failing to follow through on what was necessary to truly eliminate the man and his influence.

In hindsight all the limited coup did was kick the can down the road a bit. The bloody battle for control that will finally resolve this is yet to come.

[hanuman1]

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

My position is simple. There were democratic institutions in place that could have resolved the problems. There is no need to overthrow the system before it even has a chance to resolve things.

It was by the way an overthrow of a system and not just a government. The senate were tossed, the constitution was ripped up etc. Why is that not the overthrow of a system?

Totally and completely incorrect. Thaksin had a stranglehold on every institution within the government. There was not a single branch of the government at the time that would force Thaksin to submit to the rule of law, and more importantly he wouldn't have accepted any such ruling even if it was handed down. If you think he would have then you don't know anything about the man you are fighting for.

The only way to remove the criminal Thaksin regime in 2006 was for the military to do exactly what they did. The mistake was not the coup, but failing to follow through on what was necessary to truly eliminate the man and his influence.

In hindsight all the limited coup did was kick the can down the road a bit. The bloody battle for control that will finally resolve this is yet to come.

The only way to remove the criminal Thaksin regime in 2006 was for the military to do exactly what they did.

Are you presuming that Thaksin wouldn't have allowed free and fair elections to subsequently take place had he not been illegally ousted? Or that he would have survived growing protests if enough of the population became fed up with his governance? Big presumptions to make, methinks.

Rulers with a far stronger stranglehold on power than Thaksin ever had (see the Middle East etc) have shown you can't keep popular resentment down indefinitely.

Edited September 21, 2011 by hanuman1

[rubl]

Are you presuming that Thaksin wouldn't have allowed free and fair elections to subsequently take place had he not been illegally ousted? Or that he would have survived growing protests if enough of the population became fed up with his governance? Big presumptions to make, methinks.

Rulers with a far stronger stranglehold on power than Thaksin ever had (see the Middle East etc) have shown you can't keep popular resentment down indefinitely.

Even though not addressed to me, may I reply none the less?

K. Thaksin was very busy to stack the deck in his favour. Putting his people (family included) in positions to make sure that a 'fair' election would see him as powerful winner. Without the army stepping in, k. Thaksin might really make good on his saying 'rule for twenty years'.

Rulers with far stronger stranglehold have indeed shown that eventually people will rise up. So tell me, how long was President Mubarak in office (30 years), how long president Gaddafi (40 years), how long our dear leader family in the Democratic Republic of North Korea (66 years)? You have indefinite patience, my dear chap?

Edited September 21, 2011 by rubl

[gk10002000]

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?

Basically, you can't just toss out the constitution when convenient as was done and has been done repeatedly. The coup was just a variation on a theme. Judicial, Legislative and other "branches" that I can't name here, should stand behind the constitution and the law of the land. Anything else is arbitrary.

[Buchholz]

Are you presuming that Thaksin wouldn't have allowed free and fair elections to subsequently take place had he not been illegally ousted? Or that he would have survived growing protests if enough of the population became fed up with his governance? Big presumptions to make, methinks.

Rulers with a far stronger stranglehold on power than Thaksin ever had (see the Middle East etc) have shown you can't keep popular resentment down indefinitely.

Even though not addressed to me, may I reply none the less?

K. Thaksin was very busy to stack the deck in his favour. Putting his people (family included) in positions to make sure that a 'fair' election would see him as powerful winner. Without the army stepping in, k. Thaksin might really make good on his saying 'rule for twenty years'.

Rulers with far stronger stranglehold have indeed shown that eventually people will rise up. So tell me, how long was President Mubarak in office (30 years), how long president Gaddafi (40 years), how long our dear leader family in the Democratic Republic of North Korea (66 years)? You have indefinite patience, my dear chap?

Patience, indeed.

Your excellent examples of autocratic dictators foretells what would have been Thailand's future.

.

[OzMick]

"the coup overthrew a democratic system" Pure crap! There was an election held which voted in PPP. Were they not democratically elected (vote buying aside)? Where were the coup protesters while they were in power?

Tell me now it is coincidence they didn't appear until power changed hands?

Let's get your position on the hard questions - Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections; what right does he have to hold office? If he refuses to hold elections and to step down, what steps should have been taken to remove him?

Every time I put these to you, you disappear.

My position is simple. There were democratic institutions in place that could have resolved the problems. There is no need to overthrow the system before it even has a chance to resolve things.

It was by the way an overthrow of a system and not just a government. The senate were tossed, the constitution was ripped up etc. Why is that not the overthrow of a system?

Dodging the issue? Which institutions, what do they do to remove him, and how long does that take?

You criticize the coup but can't give me an alternative.

Yes the system was reformed, and anti-corruption measures were by far the biggest changes. I wonder why there was a need for that.

[chaoyang]

Even though not addressed to me, may I reply none the less?

K. Thaksin was very busy to stack the deck in his favour. Putting his people (family included) in positions to make sure that a 'fair' election would see him as powerful winner. Without the army stepping in, k. Thaksin might really make good on his saying 'rule for twenty years'.

Rulers with far stronger stranglehold have indeed shown that eventually people will rise up. So tell me, how long was President Mubarak in office (30 years), how long president Gaddafi (40 years), how long our dear leader family in the Democratic Republic of North Korea (66 years)? You have indefinite patience, my dear chap?

As opposed to 80 years of occasionally changing military dictators in Thailand. Such a much-better track record.

My favorite is Field Marshall Sarit, who before he died of alcoholism in 1963 at the age 50, had amassed $140 million, owned a trust company, a brewery, 51 cars, and some 30 plots of land, most of which he left to his dozens of mistresses.

Must have been a real party animal as well as a right-wing militarist and darling of the vested interests.

Ya, right, coups are the answer to all that ails!

[OzMick]

Since when is Thaksin an elected leader? He is a fugitive criminal banned from politics, with more charges yet to be heard, and "politically motivated" doesn't absolve the underlying crimes.

"The point that so many who supported the coup or were ambivalent to it now recognize it is a disaster is telling." Yes, it is telling me that they are justifiably afraid to hold their former position publicly. The red shirt thought police will protect their govt, and if it means intimidating nay-sayers, too bad.

the coup overthrew a democratic system. It didnt just overthrow a PM who may have resigned or may not.

It isnt the red shirt threats that have led to virtually everyone who once supported it or was ambivalent to it now thinking the coup was a disaster. That has been caused by the initial inability of the coupmakers to govern, the creation of a level of division unseen before the coup, and the complete ineptitude and corruption of the favored Abhisit government, and of course it eventually coming to people gunned down on the streets. All of this came after a coup that was meant to make everything right. Is it any surprise to see even those who supported it now thinking it an error?

May have resigned or not? That he did is historical fact. Can you point me to any section under any constitution that allows him to reverse that?

I will ask you again - What right to hold his position does a caretaker PM have when he has failed to call an election within the 6 months allowed?

[tlansford]

Are you presuming that Thaksin wouldn't have allowed free and fair elections to subsequently take place had he not been illegally ousted? Or that he would have survived growing protests if enough of the population became fed up with his governance? Big presumptions to make, methinks.

Rulers with a far stronger stranglehold on power than Thaksin ever had (see the Middle East etc) have shown you can't keep popular resentment down indefinitely.

Even though not addressed to me, may I reply none the less?

K. Thaksin was very busy to stack the deck in his favour. Putting his people (family included) in positions to make sure that a 'fair' election would see him as powerful winner. Without the army stepping in, k. Thaksin might really make good on his saying 'rule for twenty years'.

Rulers with far stronger stranglehold have indeed shown that eventually people will rise up. So tell me, how long was President Mubarak in office (30 years), how long president Gaddafi (40 years), how long our dear leader family in the Democratic Republic of North Korea (66 years)? You have indefinite patience, my dear chap?

Patience, indeed.

Your excellent examples of autocratic dictators foretells what would have been Thailand's future.

.

I find your comparison of 2006 Thailand with Egypt, Lybia, and then North Korea an exaggeration.