Revise The Law Only If It Benefits Society As A Whole: Thai Opinion

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

The Nation

Red shirts' call for more government say in the annual military reshuffle must not be seen as a self-serving move for one group of power-holders

The call for an amendment to the Defence Ministry Administrative Act must be considered carefully to ensure that any change in the law will serve the public interest and not be seen as politically motivated.

The red-shirt movement and the Pheu Thai Party have suggested an amendment to the Defence Ministry Administrative Act so that politicians in power will be able to step in to have a say in the reshuffling of ranking military officers. This is what the Thaksin Shinawatra government attempted to do before he was ousted in the September 2006 coup. The Pheu Thai-led government apparently wants to have a big say in the military reshuffles in order to reduce the power of the current Army top brass.

While any legislative amendment is a natural process to update the law in line with changing circumstances, this particular amendment should be executed for the public interest, not to serve any particular group of people.

The campaign to amend the act is being spearheaded by two leaders of the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) - Natthawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan. The two have come out to incite red-shirt supporters to call for the amendment of the act on the ground that the law prevents the elected government from having significant influence in the military reshuffles. As a way to campaign for the change, the two DAAD leaders have mobilised red shirts to oppose the proposed reshuffle of Army officers this year.

The two red-shirt leaders claim that the act was enacted by the Council for National Security (CNS), the 2006 coup-makers, and that most of those who took part in drafting the law are officers from the Army's "Eastern Tigers Faction", including former defence minister General Prawit Wongsuwan. As a result, the two DAAD leaders claim, the act is poisoned fruit left by the dictatorial CNS.

The Defence Ministry Administrative Act was enacted during the term of the interim post-coup government of then prime minister General Surayud Chulanont, to prevent politicians from changing the military reshuffle list, as had happened in the past. The act is aimed at allowing the armed forces to check and balance their own power by taking care of the reshuffles to create internal unity, which is essential for national security.

Now the Yingluck government has control of both the administration and the legislative branch, as well as having control of key security agencies like the police, the Interior Ministry and the National Security Council. The move to amend the act would enable the government to more or less resume control of the reshuffles within the armed forces.

Pheu Thai MPs and red-shirt supporters, especially former military officers in the party, have now come out to campaign against the act by gathering the signatures of mostly red shirts to support the amendment. Such former military officers include ACM Sumet Phomanee and Lieutenant General Ma Phognarm. They are collecting the signatures and submitting them to the Cabinet to propose a bill to amend the act. They say that the amendment comes in response to the wishes of the people.

The amendment campaign is in response to what the red shirts claim is this year's reshuffle seeing Class-12 officers, who were classmates of General Prayuth Chan-ocha, promoted to powerful positions. They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year's crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions.

The question is whether these are good enough reasons for a legislative amendment. This act, like any piece of legislation, can always be amended in accordance with circumstances. But in this case, politicians need to convince the public of the need to amend the act so that it will better serve the interests of the country and people.

This proposed amendment should not serve the personal agenda of leading red shirts or the vendetta of any group of people against another group. If this turns out to be the case, when a new power group comes into office, the act will simply be revised again to serve the interests of those new politicians in power. And the basic integrity of the legislation will thus be compromised.

-- The Nation 2011-10-12

[OzMick]

" They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year's crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions."

Jatuporn et al have an interesting perspective. They protest promotions of these military leaders for carrying out legitimate orders of the government of the day. Should that be a punishable offence? Should they have refused legitimate orders, which would be tantamount to a coup?

[Buchholz]

" They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year's crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions."

Jatuporn et al have an interesting perspective. They protest promotions of these military leaders for carrying out legitimate orders of the government of the day. Should that be a punishable offence? Should they have refused legitimate orders, which would be tantamount to a coup?

Similarly, Jatuporn et al "received rewards and promotions" themselves by being placed high on the Pheu Thai Party-list MP roster.

.

[jayboy]

" They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year's crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions."

Jatuporn et al have an interesting perspective. They protest promotions of these military leaders for carrying out legitimate orders of the government of the day. Should that be a punishable offence? Should they have refused legitimate orders, which would be tantamount to a coup?

I am responding in general terms only, because the precise circumstances of civilian deaths have yet to be established partly because the army has refused to cooperate in the inquiry.

The answer to your question is dependent on what constitutes "legitimate" orders.If there was any evidence of orders being given to fire live ammunition at unarmed civilians then those orders would not be legitimate.In this event the politicians and senior army officers concerned would be subject to charges.Orders are not "legitimate" merely because they have been given by those in authority.It would depend on the rules of engagement, and even then those rules would have to conform with legal criteria.As it happens my own belief is that the army performed its duties reasonably well and professionally, though there were some horrific abuses as noted by the HRW Report (the only credible report yet produced).The fog of war factor was certainly present with abuses I suspect on both sides the result of muddle rather than malevolence.Nevertheless Abhisit, Suthep and the generals involved have a case to answer but as I say against the background of the army's refusal to be accountable, I doubt whether we will ever get to the unvarnished truth.

[OzMick]

" They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year's crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions."

Jatuporn et al have an interesting perspective. They protest promotions of these military leaders for carrying out legitimate orders of the government of the day. Should that be a punishable offence? Should they have refused legitimate orders, which would be tantamount to a coup?

I am responding in general terms only, because the precise circumstances of civilian deaths have yet to be established partly because the army has refused to cooperate in the inquiry.

The answer to your question is dependent on what constitutes "legitimate" orders.If there was any evidence of orders being given to fire live ammunition at unarmed civilians then those orders would not be legitimate.In this event the politicians and senior army officers concerned would be subject to charges.Orders are not "legitimate" merely because they have been given by those in authority.It would depend on the rules of engagement, and even then those rules would have to conform with legal criteria.As it happens my own belief is that the army performed its duties reasonably well and professionally, though there were some horrific abuses as noted by the HRW Report (the only credible report yet produced).The fog of war factor was certainly present with abuses I suspect on both sides the result of muddle rather than malevolence.Nevertheless Abhisit, Suthep and the generals involved have a case to answer but as I say against the background of the army's refusal to be accountable, I doubt whether we will ever get to the unvarnished truth.

When the army is ordered to disperse/control a crowd, deploys in that mode, and the commander of the operation is killed in an M-79 grenade attack, then the term "unarmed civilians" becomes moot. At least some of the red-shirts were armed with military weapons (up to RPG), many others were lightly armed with weapons capable of causing serious injury or death (slingshots, petrol bombs, etc).

Given the firepower available to the army, and the limited number of deaths, many of which may not be attributable to them, there obviously was ROE that were fairly strictly followed. I havn't seen a breakdown of the numbers, but it seems the vast majority were young men, likely to be protagonists, rather than the older women who made up the a large proportion of the protesters.

The fellow shot in the foot while attempting to burn a truck should consider himself lucky to be alive, and that ROE were being applied.

[Thai at Heart]

Better question, why on earth does there need to be a yearly military reshuffle.

Maybe it wouldn't be such an attractive proposition to become a honcho in the top echelons of the army, if there wasn't a bloody YEARLY merry go round. If they had to wait 20 years for a promotion, maybe a few would retire instead of being simply "inactive".

[whybother]

While politicians continue to interfere in the military and the military continue to get involved in politics, there will be no solution to this problem.

The government of the day should have a say in the top appointments of the military *only when* changes at the top levels are required.

The government should not have any say in any other promotions or placements. That should be done by military boards and committees and only through merit based promotions.

[tlansford]

Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

It seems like more civilian control of the armed forces would benefit Thai society as a whole, doesn't it?

All major democracies have the military firmly under civilian control. Thailand may not be able to get to that point in a single step. That leaves a one-step-at-a-time approach the only option.

[serenitynow]

Better question, why on earth does there need to be a yearly military reshuffle.

Maybe it wouldn't be such an attractive proposition to become a honcho in the top echelons of the army, if there wasn't a bloody YEARLY merry go round. If they had to wait 20 years for a promotion, maybe a few would retire instead of being simply "inactive".

As Thailand is not a meritocracy and there is no rule of law, things seem to work best here when there is a certain tension between various power centers. Whether those power centers be the police, the army, the bureaucracy, politicians or those who cannot be named. It is Thailand's concept of "checks and balances". No it is not ideal but it has served the nation to a ceratin extent in the absence of any moral, law abiding persons rising to power.

Edited October 12, 2011 by serenitynow

[OzMick]

Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

It seems like more civilian control of the armed forces would benefit Thai society as a whole, doesn't it?

All major democracies have the military firmly under civilian control. Thailand may not be able to get to that point in a single step. That leaves a one-step-at-a-time approach the only option.

Right, and the next Shinawatra conscripted gets an elevator ride to general, next thing you know they command both the police and the army. Take a look at Cambodia, that's the result that you are advocating - PM for life, General son waiting to take over, opposition hounded out of the country, democracy at it's finest.

[whybother]

Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

It seems like more civilian control of the armed forces would benefit Thai society as a whole, doesn't it?

All major democracies have the military firmly under civilian control. Thailand may not be able to get to that point in a single step. That leaves a one-step-at-a-time approach the only option.

All major democracies don't have politicians promoting their relatives up the ranks either.

Politicians should have control of the top level appointments, but the rest of the promotions should be done internally based on merit.

[tlansford]

Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

It seems like more civilian control of the armed forces would benefit Thai society as a whole, doesn't it?

All major democracies have the military firmly under civilian control. Thailand may not be able to get to that point in a single step. That leaves a one-step-at-a-time approach the only option.

Right, and the next Shinawatra conscripted gets an elevator ride to general, next thing you know they command both the police and the army. Take a look at Cambodia, that's the result that you are advocating - PM for life, General son waiting to take over, opposition hounded out of the country, democracy at it's finest.

I stand by my statement. Democracies have the military under civilian control, that Thailand is clearly not there yet, and that the logical path will be a "process" of multiple steps. If there is a problem with the civilian gov't, that is a different issue.

Do you want to say that you believe that Thailand should not have the military under civilian control? Because if so, that would be an interesting argument to hear.

On the other hand, I am not, however, advocating anything that occurred under the pre-coup administration. Those are your words, not mine.

We are already aware of your position on "Thaksin, PM for life", but at least you have dropped the "refused to call elections" trailer.

[tlansford]

Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

It seems like more civilian control of the armed forces would benefit Thai society as a whole, doesn't it?

All major democracies have the military firmly under civilian control. Thailand may not be able to get to that point in a single step. That leaves a one-step-at-a-time approach the only option.

All major democracies don't have politicians promoting their relatives up the ranks either.

Politicians should have control of the top level appointments, but the rest of the promotions should be done internally based on merit.

While I agree with your statement, that also was not my point.

As for your statement, it addresses the patronage system in general as applied in Thailand, and - you know, the patronage systems in the UK, USA, France, and elsewhere look a little different, work a little different, but tend to smell the same.

That is not a justification for Thailand, but it add perspective. As so many point out, Thailand is a developing democracy (the optimists) or not a democracy at all (the pessimists), so if everything is not a bed of democratic roses, does that mean that a step in the direction to bring the military under civilian control is not, perhaps, still a reasonable thing to try?

[gl555]

" They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year's crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions."

Jatuporn et al have an interesting perspective. They protest promotions of these military leaders for carrying out legitimate orders of the government of the day. Should that be a punishable offence? Should they have refused legitimate orders, which would be tantamount to a coup?

I am responding in general terms only, because the precise circumstances of civilian deaths have yet to be established partly because the army has refused to cooperate in the inquiry.

The answer to your question is dependent on what constitutes "legitimate" orders.If there was any evidence of orders being given to fire live ammunition at unarmed civilians then those orders would not be legitimate.In this event the politicians and senior army officers concerned would be subject to charges.Orders are not "legitimate" merely because they have been given by those in authority.It would depend on the rules of engagement, and even then those rules would have to conform with legal criteria.As it happens my own belief is that the army performed its duties reasonably well and professionally, though there were some horrific abuses as noted by the HRW Report (the only credible report yet produced).The fog of war factor was certainly present with abuses I suspect on both sides the result of muddle rather than malevolence.Nevertheless Abhisit, Suthep and the generals involved have a case to answer but as I say against the background of the army's refusal to be accountable, I doubt whether we will ever get to the unvarnished truth.

I don't know about you but if I had a rifle and someone in front of me was firing at me, I sure as Hell am going to fire back. Even better when I have orders from my superiors to do so.

You want the soldiers and their superiors to be held accountable for the deaths? Sure, can we also hold accountable the armed Red Shirts, the Red Shirts arsonists and their leaders as well? "Justice" can't be one sided can it?

[OzMick]

Revise the law only if it benefits society as a whole

It seems like more civilian control of the armed forces would benefit Thai society as a whole, doesn't it?

All major democracies have the military firmly under civilian control. Thailand may not be able to get to that point in a single step. That leaves a one-step-at-a-time approach the only option.

Right, and the next Shinawatra conscripted gets an elevator ride to general, next thing you know they command both the police and the army. Take a look at Cambodia, that's the result that you are advocating - PM for life, General son waiting to take over, opposition hounded out of the country, democracy at it's finest.

I stand by my statement. Democracies have the military under civilian control, that Thailand is clearly not there yet, and that the logical path will be a "process" of multiple steps. If there is a problem with the civilian gov't, that is a different issue.

Do you want to say that you believe that Thailand should not have the military under civilian control? Because if so, that would be an interesting argument to hear.

On the other hand, I am not, however, advocating anything that occurred under the pre-coup administration. Those are your words, not mine.

We are already aware of your position on "Thaksin, PM for life", but at least you have dropped the "refused to call elections" trailer.

You advocate civilian control, without being specific. They control policy, budgets, equipment purchases, number in service, but not promotions and for very good reasons. They can allocate tasks during times of trouble such as now. Which countries have more control and in which areas? What else do you want, or are you trolling again?

[ozzieman05]

" They also say that Army officers who deployed troops during last year's crackdown on red-shirt protesters in Bangkok have received rewards and promotions."

Jatuporn et al have an interesting perspective. They protest promotions of these military leaders for carrying out legitimate orders of the government of the day. Should that be a punishable offence? Should they have refused legitimate orders, which would be tantamount to a coup?

I am responding in general terms only, because the precise circumstances of civilian deaths have yet to be established partly because the army has refused to cooperate in the inquiry.

The answer to your question is dependent on what constitutes "legitimate" orders.If there was any evidence of orders being given to fire live ammunition at unarmed civilians then those orders would not be legitimate.In this event the politicians and senior army officers concerned would be subject to charges.Orders are not "legitimate" merely because they have been given by those in authority.It would depend on the rules of engagement, and even then those rules would have to conform with legal criteria.As it happens my own belief is that the army performed its duties reasonably well and professionally, though there were some horrific abuses as noted by the HRW Report (the only credible report yet produced).The fog of war factor was certainly present with abuses I suspect on both sides the result of muddle rather than malevolence.Nevertheless Abhisit, Suthep and the generals involved have a case to answer but as I say against the background of the army's refusal to be accountable, I doubt whether we will ever get to the unvarnished truth.

I don't know about you but if I had a rifle and someone in front of me was firing at me, I sure as Hell am going to fire back. Even better when I have orders from my superiors to do so.

You want the soldiers and their superiors to be held accountable for the deaths? Sure, can we also hold accountable the armed Red Shirts, the Red Shirts arsonists and their leaders as well? "Justice" can't be one sided can it?

Are you saying the red shits want double standards

that work their way

Surely not the Red Shirts