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

[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?

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.

Why don't you propose an alternative to the coup?

It seems to me that the people here who supported the coup are the ones short on ideas and long on rhetoric.

[tlansford]

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!

Ah, yes, those were the days, back when we Americans supported the military dictatorships in Thailand, never mind that we would never have accepted that in our own country.

[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.

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

It helps if you were here to fully appreciate the level of power consolidation that was occurring.

.

[JurgenG]

It's getting really tiring to reply again and again to the same biased arguments.

Just lets state some facts : When Thaksin was in charge, the PAD was allowed to stage street protests that turned so nasty that the army had to interven (official version), leading to the 2006 coup. Fast forward, Abhisit now in charge, the army shoots at the crowd killing 91 innocent civilians.

It doesn't take a genius to understand what really happent, especially since the PAD disbanded just after the coup, "mission accomplished" .

Thaksin was never a despot. He had a popular mandate, and lead the country according to this mandate, but never had the total control on the country as some falsely still pretends. And his response to street protests was democratic and measured as shown above. The same can't be said about the puppet government of Mr Abhisit. There is no democracy when the army shoots at the crowd !

[hanuman1]

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?

Uncle Rubl, your comments are always welcome.

As I mentioned, Thaksin has never had anywhere near the kind of stranglehold on power that those rulers you refer to above have had. You suggest that he could somehow build up that kind of power (massive secret service agencies, widespread disappearances, political prisoners etc etc) and make good on the 'rule for 20 years' quote.

You use the word 'might', and in the same sentence suggest that this speculation is cause enough to stage an illegal coup.

I think the largest single voting block of the Thai electorate would require something a bit more concrete than that kind of speculation before they feel easy about a coup, as shown in the last election.

[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?

Uncle Rubl, your comments are always welcome.

As I mentioned, Thaksin has never had anywhere near the kind of stranglehold on power that those rulers you refer to above have had. You suggest that he could somehow build up that kind of power (massive secret service agencies, widespread disappearances, political prisoners etc etc) and make good on the 'rule for 20 years' quote.

You use the word 'might', and in the same sentence suggest that this speculation is cause enough to stage an illegal coup.

I think the largest single voting block of the Thai electorate would require something a bit more concrete than that kind of speculation before they feel easy about a coup, as shown in the last election.

I suggest that all the actions to tear down checks and balances was for some sufficient reason for a coup. If no coup k. Thaksin would have 'won' another election with a majority and interpret that as approval of all his actions past and present (including the amply rich tricks). It is you who started comparing with rulers with a far stronger stranglehold.

We can see almost daily that for Pheu Thai, UDD MPs and others number one issue is 'get back Thaksin', that poor, misunderstood amply rich person he had the audacity to say something like "I'm rich enough not to need to be corrupt'. Some seem to blame the coup for the need of red-shirts to arise and be 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' all in the name of DL Thaksin.

The single largest voting block (aka Pheu Thai and/or red-shirts) is 47% of the electorate who cared to vote, that leaves 53%, and of course 15M voters for Pheu Thai is not a majority of Thai.

[scorecard]

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?

Uncle Rubl, your comments are always welcome.

As I mentioned, Thaksin has never had anywhere near the kind of stranglehold on power that those rulers you refer to above have had. You suggest that he could somehow build up that kind of power (massive secret service agencies, widespread disappearances, political prisoners etc etc) and make good on the 'rule for 20 years' quote.

You use the word 'might', and in the same sentence suggest that this speculation is cause enough to stage an illegal coup.

I think the largest single voting block of the Thai electorate would require something a bit more concrete than that kind of speculation before they feel easy about a coup, as shown in the last election.

I suggest that all the actions to tear down checks and balances was for some sufficient reason for a coup. If no coup k. Thaksin would have 'won' another election with a majority and interpret that as approval of all his actions past and present (including the amply rich tricks). It is you who started comparing with rulers with a far stronger stranglehold.

We can see almost daily that for Pheu Thai, UDD MPs and others number one issue is 'get back Thaksin', that poor, misunderstood amply rich person he had the audacity to say something like "I'm rich enough not to need to be corrupt'. Some seem to blame the coup for the need of red-shirts to arise and be 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' all in the name of DL Thaksin.

The single largest voting block (aka Pheu Thai and/or red-shirts) is 47% of the electorate who cared to vote, that leaves 53%, and of course 15M voters for Pheu Thai is not a majority of Thai.

Agree with Rubl. And I don't see any validity in comparisons with hitler or whoever. There are worse people in history then thaksin, no doubt at all.

None of that reduces the fact the the paymaster was deliberately and willfully destroying democracy* and controls, and as mentioned many times before putting relatives into positions of high power, intimidating the press, changing laws for his own benefit, etc etc etc. (* and now of course he proclaims that he is and was always the champion of democracy and justice - as slimy and slippery as an eel, and about as trustworthy as an alligator.)

Whether he might have / or might not have established an even bigger stangehold on power in a further 20 years is irrelevant.

[tig28]

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.

"Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections"

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

Some weeks before these elections were due to be held ..... Thailand received the benefit of yet another coup ( #18 since 1931)

[hanuman1]

Uncle Rubl, your comments are always welcome.

As I mentioned, Thaksin has never had anywhere near the kind of stranglehold on power that those rulers you refer to above have had. You suggest that he could somehow build up that kind of power (massive secret service agencies, widespread disappearances, political prisoners etc etc) and make good on the 'rule for 20 years' quote.

You use the word 'might', and in the same sentence suggest that this speculation is cause enough to stage an illegal coup.

I think the largest single voting block of the Thai electorate would require something a bit more concrete than that kind of speculation before they feel easy about a coup, as shown in the last election.

I suggest that all the actions to tear down checks and balances was for some sufficient reason for a coup. If no coup k. Thaksin would have 'won' another election with a majority and interpret that as approval of all his actions past and present (including the amply rich tricks). It is you who started comparing with rulers with a far stronger stranglehold.

We can see almost daily that for Pheu Thai, UDD MPs and others number one issue is 'get back Thaksin', that poor, misunderstood amply rich person he had the audacity to say something like "I'm rich enough not to need to be corrupt'. Some seem to blame the coup for the need of red-shirts to arise and be 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' all in the name of DL Thaksin.

The single largest voting block (aka Pheu Thai and/or red-shirts) is 47% of the electorate who cared to vote, that leaves 53%, and of course 15M voters for Pheu Thai is not a majority of Thai.

I suggest that all the actions to tear down checks and balances was for some sufficient reason for a coup.

Absolutely agree. The 'some' being the establishment elite. It couldn't be 'the majority' because the majority had not made its displeasure at that tearing-down of checks and balances known yet. Had the majority been given time to express itself through elections, the country would have come out of the situation a much more mature state.

And as for the 'rule for 20 years' quote, do we have any pointers as to whether Thaksin was referring to the suppression of free elections or the winning of successive elections?

I think Thaksin made a lot of mistakes in the last year or two of his governance, but they pale compared to the mistake which the 2006 coup was. It was a bitter pill for him to swallow, but now the 'medication' seems to have worked and he's getting stronger all the time.

[tlansford]

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.

"Thaksin was a caretaker PM who failed to call elections"

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

Some weeks before these elections were due to be held ..... Thailand received the benefit of yet another coup ( #18 since 1931)

oh darn, ... the facts are getting in the way again...

[nurofiend]

Agree with Rubl. And I don't see any validity in comparisons with hitler or whoever. There are worse people in history then thaksin, no doubt at all.

None of that reduces the fact the the paymaster was deliberately and willfully destroying democracy* and controls, and as mentioned many times before putting relatives into positions of high power, 2 intimidating the press, changing laws for his own benefit, etc etc etc. (* and now of course he proclaims that he is and was always the champion of democracy and justice - as slimy and slippery as an eel, and about as trustworthy as an alligator.)

1 Whether he might have / or might not have established an even bigger stangehold on power in a further 20 years is irrelevant.

1 well it's very relevant to what a lot of people argue about him on here

2 Abhisit's government shut down more media outlets, be it newspaper, television or internet than thaksin ever did... i know the legality of some of these stations are questionable but pre-2006 the majority of internet censorship was pornographic, ever since is it's been growing steadily on a political basis

tell me, what did exactly tv stations and radio stations did thaksin's government shut down in the same manner as the junta and then the dems?... remember political internet censorship has been growing steadily since 2006, so you can't blame the military for that...

and i hope you don't base thaksin's intimidation of the press on his quarrels with that loony Sondhi!

Edited September 22, 2011 by nurofiend

[Emptyset]

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?

Not sure what you mean by this. Elections were held in April 2006, the coup was in September, when new elections were scheduled to be held in October - although it's true that these elections probably would've been delayed, due to the necessity of choosing new election comissioners (the previous ones having been jailed, remember?). It's obvious that Thaksin wasn't afraid of elections. After all, didn't he prove this when he held the one in April in an uncessary and ill-fated attempt to underline his legitimacy?

Anyway, it's obvious that Hammered is right. Whatever your stance is on coups in terms of principles, looking at the 2006 coup from a pragmatic perspective shows it to be a total failure, at least instrumentally (as post-coup the game plan was to totally extirpate Thaksin's influence and as Hammered notes Thaksin is much stronger now than he was then), if not morally...

I think there have been 11 coups in Thailand's history (including a couple of autogolpes), and to my mind, only two of them have been uniequivocally good: the 1932 coup which removed the absolute monarchy, and the 77 coup which replaced an extreme right-wing nominally civilian (but not elected) regime with a more moderate military regime. So it's rather ethically rigid and misguided to say all coups are wrong, but a coup for democracy is a very rare, almost non-existent occurence.

The rest of Thailand's coups have been entirely self-serving, of absolutely no benefit to the Thai people, in fact often massive steps backwards. Whilst I can appreciate why people backed the 2006 coup at first (I half-heartedly supported it myself), that doesn't mean those who carried it out weren't doing it mainly for their own benefit - after all the reasons for the coup relate mostly to Thaksin infringing on other powerful people's territory (wrt military reshuffles etc), taking up more of his fair share of the pie.

If Thaksin had been better at managing his relations with other elites & the military, the coup wouldn't have happened. The stuff about the coup being to restore democracy etc is just incidental - to them it was just a convenient justification - as when Suchinda removed the Chatichai govt, saying his motivation was to save the country from corrupt politicians. However, yes, Thaksin's abuses did give reason for people to support the coup and you could see why liberals rode with the coup backers against Thaksin at the time. But let's not pretend that the Thai military are good guys who step in to save democracy every time a corrupt authoritarian steps too far over the line.

They're completely fine with corrupt authoritarians (in fact Thai generals do tend to be corrupt authoritarians themselves) as long as they're getting their slice.

[nurofiend]

good original article btw

[Emptyset]

As I mentioned, Thaksin has never had anywhere near the kind of stranglehold on power that those rulers you refer to above have had. You suggest that he could somehow build up that kind of power (massive secret service agencies, widespread disappearances, political prisoners etc etc) and make good on the 'rule for 20 years' quote.

I think it'll become ever more difficult to acquire the kind of power which you speak of with the increasing influence of the internet and greater access to information. Egypt is a case in point isn't it? Perhaps the role of the internet and social networking in the revolution was overstated, but at the same time it can't be overlooked. Also, Thailand has long been a semi-democracy, a relatively free and open society, with an active civil society and a history of protest - so it's hard to believe that a despotic regime would last too long these days, at least without killing an awful lot more people than they had to in the past.

People like Thaksin can still end up in power for a lot longer than many genuine democrats would like (much like the very similar Berlusconi), but at the same time, whilst still elected, it's up to people to convince voters not to vote them in again and use mass protest as a legitimate means of dissent. Coups tend to have the opposite effect, as we've seen, even convincing many of these genuine democrats who previously opposed him that Thaksin must be supported as elected PM at a time when people are still willing to stage coups. In the long run, as you said, if the military/elite that opposed Thaksin had played by the rules (even though we accept Thaksin wasn't playing by the rules himself), he'd quite possibly be gone by now... by staging the coup and tearing up the rules, they just looked like hypocrites who have no interest in fostering genuine democracy.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Emptyset

[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?

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.

So then explain why a number of court decisions had gone against Thaksin if controlled everything, and if considering that had happened why there was a need for a coup when the judiciary was obviously not under his control. The senate was also a body elected by the people at that time.

Edited to add: and as other shave pointed elections were called. It wasnt Thaksin who feared elections at all but another group, and they still do with the irony being his party may not have done as well back in 2006 as they did recently as there was a lot more palpable criticism of him back then and the establishment hadnt really shown their shabby hand and the Dems had a better reputation and were led by Abhisit who at that point had done little controversial and certainly hadnt had the embarrassment of masses of deaths on his watch, and there wasnt even a red movement. It took the coup to make all of these little things somewhat detrimental to the establishment happen

Edited September 22, 2011 by hammered

[Buchholz]

You suggest that he could somehow build up that kind of power (massive secret service agencies, widespread disappearances, political prisoners etc etc) and make good on the 'rule for 20 years' quote.

I think it'll become ever more difficult to acquire the kind of power which you speak of with the increasing influence of the internet and greater access to information.

As well as the 2007 Constitution.

Probably why it's such a target.

[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!

Ah, yes, those were the days, back when we Americans supported the military dictatorships in Thailand, never mind that we would never have accepted that in our own country.

Yes the CIA certainly had a hand in it. The vestiges are still very much with us today, but that touches on things that cannot be discussed.

C'mon Rubi and the rest of the Thaisin-as-strongman alarmists: How does he compare to Sarit?You should really like him because Sarit at one time even staged a coup against the government he was already leading.

I nominate him as poster boy for the coupists. Maybe I'' even get him as my avatar pic.

[Buchholz]

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.

So then explain why

Let's let this guy explain...

Re some of the above posts. Lets put this in perspective.

On one side we have Mr. Thaksin and TRT. Initially they were sitting in parliament with a massive overall majority. They have virtually all the state institutions at both national and local level to do their bidding. They have virtually all of the police behind an rumors suggest half the military. The EC, OAG are their people. The constitutional court has overturned precedent in the past to find Mr. Thaksin not guilty. They have immense amounts of money. They have control over most of the countries influential ones. All of the TV media is more inclined towards them. Radio is a virtual TRT monopoly. Even the newspapers have to be careful or they lose their advertising. They have the their diplomats to spread the gospel worldwide. They allegedly have total control of both the caretaker and incoming senate. They even have some of the ultra nationalists like Samak backing them.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[Crushdepth]

"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?

I would agree with your position if the democratic institutions of Thailand were functional. The reality is that they were not (and still aren't). If the system was working a) Thaksin's abuses would have been contained by the legal system and there never would have been a coup, because he would have been dealt with by the system.

The fact is that the system failed to constrain Thaksin's abuse of power. The rest is history.

[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?

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.

Why don't you propose an alternative to the coup?

It seems to me that the people here who supported the coup are the ones short on ideas and long on rhetoric.

Why would you say that? It is nonsensical. I fully support the coup. The only problem I have with it is that they tried to compromise and make it a limited coup. They should have completely removed all elements of the Thaksin regime while they had the chance, but they didn't want to risk too much division in the country. That was their mistake.

I have no reason to come up with an alternative. I think the actions taken were the only appropriate ones. This isn't rhetoric. If you think there were alternatives to the coup to bring Thaksin to justice for his crimes, then please speak up. Here is your pulpit. Tell us how you would have resolved the Thaksin problem.

You are of the group stating the existing solution was wrong. So you must have an idea of an alternative. What is it? Which arm of government do you think would have fairly tried Thaksin for his crimes in 2006 before the coup? Which existing non military mechanism could have been used?

[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.

Why don't you propose an alternative to the coup?

It seems to me that the people here who supported the coup are the ones short on ideas and long on rhetoric.

Tom, I am saying there isn't one - at least one that works. If you want to condemn the coup, surely it is reasonable to offer the alternative rather than simply condemning it on priciple.

[chaoyang]

Ah, the golden years.

Think back, ladies and gentlemen, to that time of yesteryear when a coup-meister finished the job and left no remnant of an elected government to muck about with the purity of military rule:

I bring you Field Marshall Sarit Thanarat!

[JurgenG]

Ah, the golden years.

Think back, ladies and gentlemen, to that time of yesteryear when a coup-meister finished the job and left no remnant of an elected government to muck about with the purity of military rule:

I bring you Field Marshall Sarit Thanarat!

The Paknam Incident was a military engagement fought during the Franco-Siamese War in July 1893. While sailing off Paknam through Siam's Chao Phraya River, three French ships were fired on by a Siamese fort and force of gunboats. In the ensuing battle, France won and proceeded to blockadeBangkok which ended the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paknam_incident

Edited September 23, 2011 by metisdead
Off topic post and comments edited out.

[chaoyang]

C'mon guys ... As you can tell, I'm really trying to promote this Sarit thing and no one seems to get excited.

I mean, what a guy. I'm jealous. $100 million, 100 concubines left behind in various states of mourning and no doubt undress, a 100-day royal funeral. And the poor certainly knew their place.

Can you imagine doing up the town with the guy? I think he really, really knew how to have a good time.

They just don't make them like they used to. I mean how many really good coups has Prem actually been involved in? Any?

Edited September 22, 2011 by chaoyang

[Siam Simon]

cut///So please share how the 'democratic institutions' could have fixed the situation?

Like they always do when a country's leadership oversteps it's welcome. In a democracy said leadership gets voted out. In other scenarios it eventually gets thrown out by people power, something that's happening at hearteningly rapid rates in the modern multimedia age . But what has this to do with a coup that took place to remove some nouveaux-riche from the feeding trough and re-establish the traditional pigs there?

[Buchholz]

cut///So please share how the 'democratic institutions' could have fixed the situation?

Like they always do when a country's leadership oversteps it's welcome. In a democracy said leadership gets voted out. In other scenarios it eventually gets thrown out by people power, something that's happening at hearteningly rapid rates in the modern multimedia age . But what has this to do with a coup that took place to remove some nouveaux-riche from the feeding trough and re-establish the traditional pigs there?

as hammered explained, the ability of the institutions to remove the tyrant was contrained.

It took over 20 years in the Philippines before their "people power" removed Marcos, which, as you say... is "eventually"

Re some of the above posts. Lets put this in perspective.

On one side we have Mr. Thaksin and TRT. Initially they were sitting in parliament with a massive overall majority. They have virtually all the state institutions at both national and local level to do their bidding. They have virtually all of the police behind an rumors suggest half the military. The EC, OAG are their people. The constitutional court has overturned precedent in the past to find Mr. Thaksin not guilty. They have immense amounts of money. They have control over most of the countries influential ones. All of the TV media is more inclined towards them. Radio is a virtual TRT monopoly. Even the newspapers have to be careful or they lose their advertising. They have the their diplomats to spread the gospel worldwide. They allegedly have total control of both the caretaker and incoming senate. They even have some of the ultra nationalists like Samak backing them.

[Siam Simon]

cut///So please share how the 'democratic institutions' could have fixed the situation?

Like they always do when a country's leadership oversteps it's welcome. In a democracy said leadership gets voted out. In other scenarios it eventually gets thrown out by people power, something that's happening at hearteningly rapid rates in the modern multimedia age . But what has this to do with a coup that took place to remove some nouveaux-riche from the feeding trough and re-establish the traditional pigs there?

as hammered explained, the ability of the institutions to remove the tyrant was contrained.

It took over 20 years in the Philippines before their "people power" removed Marcos, which, as you say... is "eventually"

Re some of the above posts. Lets put this in perspective.

On one side we have Mr. Thaksin and TRT. Initially they were sitting in parliament with a massive overall majority. They have virtually all the state institutions at both national and local level to do their bidding. They have virtually all of the police behind an rumors suggest half the military. The EC, OAG are their people. The constitutional court has overturned precedent in the past to find Mr. Thaksin not guilty. They have immense amounts of money. They have control over most of the countries influential ones. All of the TV media is more inclined towards them. Radio is a virtual TRT monopoly. Even the newspapers have to be careful or they lose their advertising. They have the their diplomats to spread the gospel worldwide. They allegedly have total control of both the caretaker and incoming senate. They even have some of the ultra nationalists like Samak backing them.

Firstly, there was a general election scheduled at the end of 2006 which the coup delayed for a year. Secondly, what happened in the Philippines thirty years ago bears no relation to the the force of events in the modern cyber age. Btw, did you ever meet sriracha john in the Phils? he lived there in the same period as you.

And I can only stand back and admire intelligent posters such as hammered who have their ears on the ground.

[Buchholz]

Like they always do when a country's leadership oversteps it's welcome. In a democracy said leadership gets voted out. In other scenarios it eventually gets thrown out by people power, something that's happening at hearteningly rapid rates in the modern multimedia age . But what has this to do with a coup that took place to remove some nouveaux-riche from the feeding trough and re-establish the traditional pigs there?

as hammered explained, the ability of the institutions to remove the tyrant was contrained.

It took over 20 years in the Philippines before their "people power" removed Marcos, which, as you say... is "eventually"

Re some of the above posts. Lets put this in perspective.

On one side we have Mr. Thaksin and TRT. Initially they were sitting in parliament with a massive overall majority. They have virtually all the state institutions at both national and local level to do their bidding. They have virtually all of the police behind an rumors suggest half the military. The EC, OAG are their people. The constitutional court has overturned precedent in the past to find Mr. Thaksin not guilty. They have immense amounts of money. They have control over most of the countries influential ones. All of the TV media is more inclined towards them. Radio is a virtual TRT monopoly. Even the newspapers have to be careful or they lose their advertising. They have the their diplomats to spread the gospel worldwide. They allegedly have total control of both the caretaker and incoming senate. They even have some of the ultra nationalists like Samak backing them.

Firstly, there was a general election scheduled at the end of 2006 which the coup delayed for a year. Secondly, what happened in the Philippines thirty years ago bears no relation to the the force of events in the modern cyber age.

And I can only stand back and admire intelligent posters such as hammered who have their ears on the ground.

Much can be learned from the Philippines experience. Thaksin followed many of the same sort of controls that Marcos had and there are many, many parallels between the two. To ignore history is to repeat it.

Facebook and Myspace and the internet in general, while impressively potent in 2011, wouldn't have mattered in 2006 in Thailand as it wasn't nearly that common or powerful, particularly in Thailand.

I agree that hammered's post of 2006 was astute and comprehensive at the time and clearly shows some of the many controls over Thailand that Thaksin had extended. Somehow it completely omits your saying that the internet could have stopped Thaksin then.

.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[metisdead]

A post has been removed as a poster had deleted quoted post headers as he had reached the maximum number of nested quotes allowed leading to misunderstanding of who posted what. When replying to certain parts of a post, learn how to use the Insert quotation feature.

In doing so, copy and paste your content in the middle of the

tags.

[nurofiend]

as hammered explained, the ability of the institutions to remove the tyrant was contrained.

It took over 20 years in the Philippines before their "people power" removed Marcos, which, as you say... is "eventually"

Re some of the above posts. Lets put this in perspective.

On one side we have Mr. Thaksin and TRT. Initially they were sitting in parliament with a massive overall majority. They have virtually all the state institutions at both national and local level to do their bidding. They have virtually all of the police behind an rumors suggest half the military. The EC, OAG are their people. The constitutional court has overturned precedent in the past to find Mr. Thaksin not guilty. They have immense amounts of money. They have control over most of the countries influential ones. All of the TV media is more inclined towards them. Radio is a virtual TRT monopoly. Even the newspapers have to be careful or they lose their advertising. They have the their diplomats to spread the gospel worldwide. They allegedly have total control of both the caretaker and incoming senate. They even have some of the ultra nationalists like Samak backing them.

jesus, you must be in the CIA...bringing up posts from way back when

hope you haven't got files on all of us

tho i'm not posting here long... under my current name anyhow!

Edited September 23, 2011 by nurofiend