Jump to content

Pheu Thai-Linked General Gets Top Defence Job


webfact

Recommended Posts

MILITARY RESHUFFLE

Pheu Thai-linked general gets top Defence job

PIYANART SRIVALO,

OLAN LERTRATTANADAMRONGKUL,

PANYA THIEWSANGWAN

THE NATION

30166618-01.jpg

An Army general close to the ruling Pheu Thai Party has been appointed permanent secretary for defence, according to military reshuffle lists that received royal endorsement yesterday.

General Sathien Permthong-in, chief adviser to the Royal Thai Armed Forces, becomes the Defence Ministry's top bureaucrat effective today.

The transfer lists - undersigned by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra - cover 584 senior officers in the Defence Ministry, the Royal Thai Armed Forces headquarters, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

The military reshuffle was delayed as Defence Minister General Yuthasak Sasiprapha reportedly failed to agree with top commanders of the armed forces about appointees to certain positions, including that of the permanent secretary for defence.

General Thanasak Patimaprakorn, the armed forces' chief-of-staff, has been appointed supreme commander of the armed forces.

Army chief-of-staff General Dawpong Rattanasuwan, the chief architect of last year's dispersal of massive street protests by the red shirts, becomes deputy Army commander-in-chief.

Admiral Surasak Runroengrom, a special adviser to the Navy, has been appointed commander-in-chief of the Navy, replacing Admiral Kamthorn Pumhirun, who retired yesterday.

The royal endorsement includes the controversial transfer of National Security Council chief Thawil Pliensri to an advisory post attached to the PM's Office. The transfer could be overruled if the Civil Service Commission's committee on morality rules that the transfer was unfair, as alleged by Thawil.

In a related development, the ruling Pheu Thai Party is likely to push for an amendment to the Defence Ministry Act giving the defence minister greater say in the annual reshuffle of senior armed forces commanders, a member of the party's legal team said yesterday.

Pheu Thai MP Pirapan Palusuk said the law, drafted by the post-coup government of General Surayud Chulanont, limited the defence minister's powers, though the minister should in fact be considered the top leader of the armed forces.

"The party is likely to push for amendment of the law. We will discuss it soon," the MP said.

The law contains provisions that are aimed at preventing political interference in the armed forces' annual transfers of senior commanders.Pirapan voiced his backing for a proposal by fellow Pheu Thai MP Korkaew Pikulthong, who is also a leader of the red-shirt movement, to amend the law. He asked Korkaew to make a written proposal to the party so that the legal team could discuss the matter.

"This matter has been discussed within the party. Many people in the party agree that the law limits the powers of the defence minister," he said.Meanwhile, Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha said yesterday that Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan has the right to organise a protest by his red-shirt supporters against the promotion of Army officers involved in last year's dispersal of red-shirt street demonstrations. However, he warned that such freedom of expression should not be exercised in a way that violates the law or infringes on other people's rights.

Prayuth said soldiers simply do their duty and do not want to get involved in conflicts between any groups.

"We need unity now, in order to overcome our country's obstacles together. If we continue to fight against each other, it's the people who will lose opportunities," he said.

Defence Minister General Yuthasak Sasiprapha yesterday said the promotion of the officers in question followed proper legal procedures and that the officers abided by the law in performing their duty regarding last year's protest dispersal.

Senior Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban, who oversaw the break-up of the protest, said yesterday that Jatuporn should not resort to mob rule to force others to do his bidding. Suthep called on the government to ensure the law is enforced if the red shirts violate the law.

nationlogo.jpg

-- The Nation 2011-10-01

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can see which way this will be going.

Remember the dark years aka the Bush2step?

Yes, who can forget!

Here's the scenario (modified to fit the circumstances):

1- Posts will be given out based on ideological adherence instead of competence (the rot has already set in)

2- The hidden agenda is brought out and put into action (Not a Coalition of the willing but a simple 1 man invasion)

3- All goes rapidly downhill due to (choose 1 or more options) incompetence, corruption, lack of or bad planning, whistleblowers and other evil-doers, croynism leads to rapid fossilization, opaqueness slowly becomes translucent until transparency lets the sun shine through once more >> leads to exposure and public knowledge / outrage and cries of "We've been F$#@&d again".

BTW, Phases 2 and 3 only kick in when its safe to bring the don back from exile in (take your pick (Sicily, Montenegro, Dubai, Phnom Pen). I'm sure he'd make a great guest of honor at a BBQ in Crawford but his Sriracha is still too hot for Thai-US relations right now. Besides W don't like being used, he's a user.

DB

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the talk here of the Democrats being a government installed by the Army, I can't remember one such article stating "Democrat Linked General Gets Top Defense Job", or even any of the jobs not at the top.

Perhaps because they already had the jobs? Some might say that is why/how the Democrats ended up in Government! :rolleyes:

Edited by JAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the talk here of the Democrats being a government installed by the Army, I can't remember one such article stating "Democrat Linked General Gets Top Defense Job", or even any of the jobs not at the top.

The article would have read "Military-linked Democrat gets Top Government Job",

or something similar...

smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought the re-drafting of the constitution ensured that the military didn't get interfered with by the government in power?

If that is what your favorite Red Shirt media has been telling you, then you have been mislead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A post has been removed as the discussion was about HM the King in a political context:

Many people have been losing their posting rights or receiving suspensions because they continue to make comments on the Monarchy, and members of the Thai Royal Family in a political context. This is in violation of Thai law which explicitly states that The Monarchy is above politics.

- Do not make any accusations about any individual's or groups' loyalty toward The Monarchy.

- Do not speculate on the opinions of any member of The Royal Family.

- Do not discuss succession or speculate on the future of The Monarchy.

This includes hinting at, joking about, or using innuendo about the above, or referring people to outside information containing such things.

While we do not wish to needlessly restrict discussion of current events in Thailand, it's necessary that we put the above restrictions in place to ensure that local laws and customs are honoured, and the forum remains a viable news source for Thailand's expat community.

You may see some news articles referring to such things, but remember that they have expensive legal teams that vet the quotations first, and you/we don't.

Thank you for your co-operation and understanding.

The moderating team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought the re-drafting of the constitution ensured that the military didn't get interfered with by the government in power?

If that is what your favorite Red Shirt media has been telling you, then you have been mislead.

pffft, do you ever take a day off... it's tiring.

it was a question

i thought they changed around parts of the constitution so that the military would have more say on who they appoint and less political interference

is there any truth to that notion? anyone know about this?

trolling tawp aside of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...