The Military Must Learn To Respect The Law And The Govt: Thailand

[tlansford]

- snip for quote levels -

Can you please explain how a coup is democratic. Lots of countries have democracies but they weren't the results of coups they were the reults of elections. A minority stages a coup and that is democracy? geez I would hate to live under your regime. The likes of Burma and many other places around the world were the results of coups, democracies I think not.

I will try. I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance, used when politicians begin to exploit the democratic system. Thaksin was blatantly corrupting democracy, enacting laws for his own benefit, stacking the police and military with his family members, buying up opposition politicians.

Burma, and other countries that have coups, are military junta dictatorships, Thailand is not. Elections were held in Thailand reasonably quickly after the coup, and Thaksin's party allowed to regain power. That they were caught in electoral fraud and bribery is the risk that they took, and paid the price for.

Ozmick, with all due respect, and I know we don't agree (at all) politically, but I think you are living in some kind of bizarre dream-land.

The pro-cons of the coup overthrowing Taksin have been debated already, I don't intend to go into that.

Rather the statement : " I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance"

A military that is responsible only to itself, and answers only to itself in no way shape or form can be a check, nor a balance.

If you think the military is only accountable to itself I would humbly suggest that you don't fully understand Thai culture. Thailand is such an insular society I would suggest, unless you come from a long line of sharecroppers or are a migrant worker, that there are only 2-3 degrees of separation between all Thai people. Those at the top and those nearer the bottom. The military here may be part of the kleptocracy, but its not oppressive in any way. Not to Thais anyway.

I don't feel that you have addressed how the military is accountable.

And my point to Ozmick was that an unaccountable military is neither a check, nor a balance. In fact, in my home country, a fully accountable military is not even part of the equation when Americans discuss "checks and balances"... Nor is it in **any** other democracy that I am aware of. The military serves the people (ie: civilian gov't). Nothing else.

[serenitynow]

I will try. I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance, used when politicians begin to exploit the democratic system. Thaksin was blatantly corrupting democracy, enacting laws for his own benefit, stacking the police and military with his family members, buying up opposition politicians.

Burma, and other countries that have coups, are military junta dictatorships, Thailand is not. Elections were held in Thailand reasonably quickly after the coup, and Thaksin's party allowed to regain power. That they were caught in electoral fraud and bribery is the risk that they took, and paid the price for.

Ozmick, with all due respect, and I know we don't agree (at all) politically, but I think you are living in some kind of bizarre dream-land.

The pro-cons of the coup overthrowing Taksin have been debated already, I don't intend to go into that.

Rather the statement : " I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance"

A military that is responsible only to itself, and answers only to itself in no way shape or form can be a check, nor a balance.

If you think the military is only accountable to itself I would humbly suggest that you don't fully understand Thai culture. Thailand is such an insular society I would suggest, unless you come from a long line of sharecroppers or are a migrant worker, that there are only 2-3 degrees of separation between all Thai people. Those at the top and those nearer the bottom. The military here may be part of the kleptocracy, but its not oppressive in any way. Not to Thais anyway.

I don't feel that you have addressed how the military is accountable.

And my point to Ozmick was that an unaccountable military is neither a check, nor a balance. In fact, in my home country, a fully accountable military is not even part of the equation when Americans discuss "checks and balances"... Nor is it in **any** other democracy that I am aware of. The military serves the people (ie: civilian gov't). Nothing else.

That's all true but you need to take stock of where you are. This isn't America and this isn't a democracy. Change comes incrementally, or at least you'd better hope so. It will take years or decades to move Thailand to that place you think it should be. As most of my Thai friends tell me, "You have to wait for all the old people to die for things to get better". The younger generation are pretty clear on what is required in a true democracy, but Thai culture prohibits them from sharing these views with their elders.

[letitbe]

why should it the government dont respect law and its owner Mr Taksin certainly does not

[scorecard]

Congratulation to Pavin Chachavalpongpun. A well written column that makes a lot of sense.

I'm also happy that The Nation published it. A good evolution for the Thai press.

Little by little we go back to normal. The coup can't be erased by a decree but freedom of speech will help us to understand what went wrong during the past 5 years and how not to repeat the same mistakes.

And let's not forget that man who caused the coup was responsible for severe intimidation of the media and journalists and used public TV and radio to broadcast continuous spin and whitewash of his actions and their consequences. And he made it very clear that discussion from ministers, permanent heads of ministries etc., was not available, at all, just do as your told.

Edited October 12, 2011 by scorecard

[scorecard]

This person isn't pro-Thaksin and if you know the history of Thammassat and its stand against military dictatorships you'll know that he's right. However, he's treading a dangerous line if you read between the lines of what he's saying. Students at Thammassat have frequently been the target of military and extrajudicial police purges in the past because they have spoken up too often about freedom and democracy. During bad old days students there were hung from trees and beaten to death.

Yes he is pro-thaksin, research some of his previous interviews on Channel-News Asia.

[serenitynow]

Research a little bit about the North, the South, the East and the West of Thailand.

The RTA does what it wants with accountability to nobody.

Look at the last 30 years.

To put it another way, can you show any instances of RTA accountability ??

Any ??

I guess you didn't get as far as my last sentance which stated "Not to Thais Anyway". They are accountable to the extent that they wish to continue to earn fron their various scams and budget lootings. If they overstep, as in 1992, that all goes away. It was Thaksin who brought them back to having a political influence. Their influence and bite on the treasury was on the wane for a decade after the 1992 coup, until Thaksin re-polticized them. He's doing the same again now.

[serenitynow]

This person isn't pro-Thaksin and if you know the history of Thammassat and its stand against military dictatorships you'll know that he's right. However, he's treading a dangerous line if you read between the lines of what he's saying. Students at Thammassat have frequently been the target of military and extrajudicial police purges in the past because they have spoken up too often about freedom and democracy. During bad old days students there were hung from trees and beaten to death.

Yes he is pro-thaksin, research some of his previous interviews on Channel-News Asia.

Of course he's a Thaksin stooge. I wonder who pays for his chair in Singapore:

Edited October 12, 2011 by serenitynow

[metisdead]

Some posts have been removed as posters have deleted quoted post headers as they 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.

[tlansford]

-snip for quote level -

Can you please explain how a coup is democratic. Lots of countries have democracies but they weren't the results of coups they were the reults of elections. A minority stages a coup and that is democracy? geez I would hate to live under your regime. The likes of Burma and many other places around the world were the results of coups, democracies I think not.

I will try. I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance, used when politicians begin to exploit the democratic system. Thaksin was blatantly corrupting democracy, enacting laws for his own benefit, stacking the police and military with his family members, buying up opposition politicians.

Burma, and other countries that have coups, are military junta dictatorships, Thailand is not. Elections were held in Thailand reasonably quickly after the coup, and Thaksin's party allowed to regain power. That they were caught in electoral fraud and bribery is the risk that they took, and paid the price for.

Ozmick, with all due respect, and I know we don't agree (at all) politically, but I think you are living in some kind of bizarre dream-land.

The pro-cons of the coup overthrowing Taksin have been debated already, I don't intend to go into that.

Rather the statement : " I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance"

A military that is responsible only to itself, and answers only to itself in no way shape or form can be a check, nor a balance.

It's the check you get when you don't have a balance. Fix the governance, put politicians under rule of law along with everyone else and the coups will go away. Because there will be no need for them.

Leave the system broken and...well we already live there.

Looking at the current events over the last 5 years, even the run up to the last election, and I would propose that the military is a destabilizing force, not a balance, not a check.

[serenitynow]

I will try. I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance, used when politicians begin to exploit the democratic system. Thaksin was blatantly corrupting democracy, enacting laws for his own benefit, stacking the police and military with his family members, buying up opposition politicians.

Burma, and other countries that have coups, are military junta dictatorships, Thailand is not. Elections were held in Thailand reasonably quickly after the coup, and Thaksin's party allowed to regain power. That they were caught in electoral fraud and bribery is the risk that they took, and paid the price for.

Ozmick, with all due respect, and I know we don't agree (at all) politically, but I think you are living in some kind of bizarre dream-land.

The pro-cons of the coup overthrowing Taksin have been debated already, I don't intend to go into that.

Rather the statement : " I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance"

A military that is responsible only to itself, and answers only to itself in no way shape or form can be a check, nor a balance.

It's the check you get when you don't have a balance. Fix the governance, put politicians under rule of law along with everyone else and the coups will go away. Because there will be no need for them.

Leave the system broken and...well we already live there.

Looking at the current events over the last 5 years, even the run up to the last election, and I would propose that the military is a destabilizing force, not a balance, not a check.

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Edited October 12, 2011 by serenitynow

[Roadman]

It's the check you get when you don't have a balance. Fix the governance, put politicians under rule of law along with everyone else and the coups will go away. Because there will be no need for them.

Leave the system broken and...well we already live there.

Well done Crushdepth.

The problem with the convicted criminal Thaksin lovers like Pavin Chachavalpongpun and the Nitirat Group is all they can see as the solution is do away with the coup and all will be fixed. It will be for the convicted criminal Thaksin, but the creditibility of their proposal goes down the toilet as it does not address the real issues of the law in Thailand via the judicary and police being a joke. If the Thaksin lovers would come out and with their proposals include your "Fix the governance, put politicians under rule of law along with everyone else" and would add "that it is enforced without prejudice" then I a full supporter of the Army as the check and balance for criminals like Thaksin and all others would fully agree with them. While the corruption stays at all levels in Thai socity with the lack or corruption of law and enforcement then the Army is the final check and balance. It is not ideal when compared with the very few correct democracies in the world (and I for one do not hold the USA up as one) but when you have loose cannons like Thaksin, Jataporn and Sah Dueang running amok then it fits Thailands current needs.

And for whoever said the Army is not accountable to anyone then that is incorrect. They are accountable to His Most Royal and Revered Highness, the Thai people and Thailand, and the last and current general take that responsibility with full loyalty unlike most of the corrupt (Abhisit excluded) scum that govern Thailand. And given that there has only been one coup in the last two decades and justified by what are Thailands needs to remove a criminal and not some USA democratic fantasy model, then I would see that the modern Army generals have been very correct in their very infrequent needs to check and rebalance corrupt thai governance.

[KKvampire]

I suppose it should work the other way too. BP has an article where Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha was inspecting RTA sand-bagging in Pathum Thani when he was verbally abused by red-shirts.

Even when they are working their butt off to help............... Personally, I would have ordered the troops to take a few hours rest, but I'm petty like that.

While we are discussing respecting the law, it is reported that R. Amsterdam is in BKK despite having lesse majeste charges brought over his book on the BKK Red-shirt uprising (he call it something different, of course). As another US citizen was recently arrested on similar charges, it will be interesting to see if having your employer's BIL as CoP makes for the usual double standards.

He should defend himself, then he will have 2 fools for clients.

Amsterdam was on the RED TV channel yesterday spouting his garbage and lies at some Red public statement making , Surrounded by his thug pals and telling the Red audience what they wanted to hear regarding last years riots, He must have had the nod as with so many others , any crimes commited pre PTP election are null and void, a sort of amnesty decided by politicians.

[Thai at Heart]

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Ain't marketing a wonderful thing. Precisely how would I tell someone with an arsenal of guns behind them that I don't want them to take control of my country. It isn't as though they don't have any history (in recent decades) of shooting protesters. So, putting a few garlands on a tank might by good for a photo op, but I wouldn't necessarily take it to believe 100% that they are seen as some wonderful benevolent force, selflessly serving the country.

As for the "vast" majority supporting the army, they can always enter an election to find out.

[serenitynow]

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Ain't marketing a wonderful thing. Precisely how would I tell someone with an arsenal of guns behind them that I don't want them to take control of my country. It isn't as though they don't have any history (in recent decades) of shooting protesters. So, putting a few garlands on a tank might by good for a photo op, but I wouldn't necessarily take it to believe 100% that they are seen as some wonderful benevolent force, selflessly serving the country.

As for the "vast" majority supporting the army, they can always enter an election to find out.

Do you think the military has killed more people or less people than the police force these past 10 years? I'm not making the argument that the military is a benevolent force. My argument is that given the other power centers, that it acts as a countervailing force. Sure it's a shitty way to run a country, but do you think it's worse than this administration placing it's close relatives at the top of the police , army and court system? Seriously?

[hammered]

Looking at the current events over the last 5 years, even the run up to the last election, and I would propose that the military is a destabilizing force, not a balance, not a check.

They are a check and balance on protecting their interests!

[hammered]

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Ain't marketing a wonderful thing. Precisely how would I tell someone with an arsenal of guns behind them that I don't want them to take control of my country. It isn't as though they don't have any history (in recent decades) of shooting protesters. So, putting a few garlands on a tank might by good for a photo op, but I wouldn't necessarily take it to believe 100% that they are seen as some wonderful benevolent force, selflessly serving the country.

As for the "vast" majority supporting the army, they can always enter an election to find out.

Do you think the military has killed more people or less people than the police force these past 10 years? I'm not making the argument that the military is a benevolent force. My argument is that given the other power centers, that it acts as a countervailing force. Sure it's a shitty way to run a country, but do you think it's worse than this administration placing it's close relatives at the top of the police , army and court system? Seriously?

The government is answerable to the people. Other power players are answerable to nobody, so I would guess most would say the less shitty arangement is where the government chosen by parliament gets to stuff the ranks with whoever it wants as they can be bunged out. As we saw the Abhisit regime stuffed every civikl service post they could with their friends and they were rejected by the people at the last election. If PTP go beyond what people will accept they too can be rejected. It just means having faith in a system where the people ultimately decide rather than a very small group of power players

[Thai at Heart]

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Ain't marketing a wonderful thing. Precisely how would I tell someone with an arsenal of guns behind them that I don't want them to take control of my country. It isn't as though they don't have any history (in recent decades) of shooting protesters. So, putting a few garlands on a tank might by good for a photo op, but I wouldn't necessarily take it to believe 100% that they are seen as some wonderful benevolent force, selflessly serving the country.

As for the "vast" majority supporting the army, they can always enter an election to find out.

Do you think the military has killed more people or less people than the police force these past 10 years? I'm not making the argument that the military is a benevolent force. My argument is that given the other power centers, that it acts as a countervailing force. Sure it's a shitty way to run a country, but do you think it's worse than this administration placing it's close relatives at the top of the police , army and court system? Seriously?

No, I challenge the idea that no one has come up with a better way to create the necessary checks and balances, so that the country doesn't need to resort to "welcoming" a coup. They have been at this democracy business for 70 odd years, and it has been messed around with what is it 17 times by the armed forces. Each time has caused various levels of mess and disruption.

This has led to the army becoming the acceptable final arbiter of problems instead of someone/s getting together and really writing a constiution and legal system that does get the result they want. I would presume that every time a constitution gets written the first paragraph in place is the get out of jail card for the coup makers. So, instead of the system righting it's own wrongs, developing a system to really fight corruption, developing a legal system that really works, the Thai people have come to understand that the army is the final arbiter of right and wrong in the country.

The system has been dislocated because of the army constantly re-setting the agenda because it sees fit. I don't think we can honestly say that every intervention that has occurred has been selflessly for the good of the country? The last time, they could say we did it to stop Thaksin, and then promptly gave themselves a monstrous budget increase that no one can really discuss debate or criticise. Where the statesmen come from to really create a functioning democracy that can survive the bad times and re-invent itself despite the protagonists constantly trying to derail it I don't know.

However, the first thing is that the judicial system has to change to effectively handle ALL cases impartially, no political influence, no bribes, no taking the side of business over the little guy just because it is "beneficial" to the country. Right must become right and wrong become wrong. Unfortunately, the idea of treating ALL equally under the law sounds very nice, but we know that there is a long way to go here.

Of course appointing politicians friends to positions isn't right, but then how can you effectively expose this and criticise it when there are defamation laws as they are in the country? How can you run a country when it appears that the army makes its own agenda in for example conflicting statements over the Phraer Viharn situation. All of these things need to be ironed out, and they aren't simple, but until these things are done there will ALWAYS be problems.

I don't expect Thailand to slavishly copy anywhere, but there is enormous experience to show why armies answer to politicians. Thailand may like it the way it is that the army appears above the law and can do what it wants. That is their perogative, but then they shouldn't be surprised when they run into criticism for having an unstable political system with a very corrupt armed forces. All players in the game politicians, the army, the legal system, the senate, the civil service, the police have to have their roles far more clearly defined to check and balance each other.

Having a situation where the only final arbiter of right and wrong is the army just makes it simple to not tackle the issues that need to be changed in the system to make it stronger, fairer, more equitable and more robust. A coup is a sticking plaster not a true remedy.

[OzMick]

The Army were dead right to oust Thaksin, Thailand was headed for another Phillipine-like, Marcos dictatorship with Thaksin at the helm.... the only way out was the quiet and silent coup. At that time almost no one in Thailand complained , it was so obvious what Thaksin was up to. It was a coup for the people and for freedom ..... and for "True Democracy"....!

Can you please explain how a coup is democratic. Lots of countries have democracies but they weren't the results of coups they were the reults of elections. A minority stages a coup and that is democracy? geez I would hate to live under your regime. The likes of Burma and many other places around the world were the results of coups, democracies I think not.

I will try. I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance, used when politicians begin to exploit the democratic system. Thaksin was blatantly corrupting democracy, enacting laws for his own benefit, stacking the police and military with his family members, buying up opposition politicians.

Burma, and other countries that have coups, are military junta dictatorships, Thailand is not. Elections were held in Thailand reasonably quickly after the coup, and Thaksin's party allowed to regain power. That they were caught in electoral fraud and bribery is the risk that they took, and paid the price for.

Ozmick, with all due respect, and I know we don't agree (at all) politically, but I think you are living in some kind of bizarre dream-land.

The pro-cons of the coup overthrowing Taksin have been debated already, I don't intend to go into that.

Rather the statement : " I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance"

A military that is responsible only to itself, and answers only to itself in no way shape or form can be a check, nor a balance.

The RTA is responsible to the head of state and the nation, not the government of the day, and that is a check and balance.

Just because the populace gives a mandate to a party that is little more than a criminal conspiracy, doesn't mean that they are allowed to run amok changing laws to benefit (materially) themselves and looting the government coffers.

This is not Utopia where politicians are self-denying altruists aiming for the benefit of the nation, it is a land where thieves connive to benefit themselves and cronies, then refuse to investigate or prosecute the crimes that they commit, and to run scams like the rice-pledging scheme to benefit not the poor rice farmer, but their rich backers. If you can't accept that as fact, it is you that is delusional.

[hammered]

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Ain't marketing a wonderful thing. Precisely how would I tell someone with an arsenal of guns behind them that I don't want them to take control of my country. It isn't as though they don't have any history (in recent decades) of shooting protesters. So, putting a few garlands on a tank might by good for a photo op, but I wouldn't necessarily take it to believe 100% that they are seen as some wonderful benevolent force, selflessly serving the country.

As for the "vast" majority supporting the army, they can always enter an election to find out.

Do you think the military has killed more people or less people than the police force these past 10 years? I'm not making the argument that the military is a benevolent force. My argument is that given the other power centers, that it acts as a countervailing force. Sure it's a shitty way to run a country, but do you think it's worse than this administration placing it's close relatives at the top of the police , army and court system? Seriously?

No, I challenge the idea that no one has come up with a better way to create the necessary checks and balances, so that the country doesn't need to resort to "welcoming" a coup. They have been at this democracy business for 70 odd years, and it has been messed around with what is it 17 times by the armed forces. Each time has caused various levels of mess and disruption.

This has led to the army becoming the acceptable final arbiter of problems instead of someone/s getting together and really writing a constiution and legal system that does get the result they want. I would presume that every time a constitution gets written the first paragraph in place is the get out of jail card for the coup makers. So, instead of the system righting it's own wrongs, developing a system to really fight corruption, developing a legal system that really works, the Thai people have come to understand that the army is the final arbiter of right and wrong in the country.

The system has been dislocated because of the army constantly re-setting the agenda because it sees fit. I don't think we can honestly say that every intervention that has occurred has been selflessly for the good of the country? The last time, they could say we did it to stop Thaksin, and then promptly gave themselves a monstrous budget increase that no one can really discuss debate or criticise. Where the statesmen come from to really create a functioning democracy that can survive the bad times and re-invent itself despite the protagonists constantly trying to derail it I don't know.

However, the first thing is that the judicial system has to change to effectively handle ALL cases impartially, no political influence, no bribes, no taking the side of business over the little guy just because it is "beneficial" to the country. Right must become right and wrong become wrong. Unfortunately, the idea of treating ALL equally under the law sounds very nice, but we know that there is a long way to go here.

Of course appointing politicians friends to positions isn't right, but then how can you effectively expose this and criticise it when there are defamation laws as they are in the country? How can you run a country when it appears that the army makes its own agenda in for example conflicting statements over the Phraer Viharn situation. All of these things need to be ironed out, and they aren't simple, but until these things are done there will ALWAYS be problems.

I don't expect Thailand to slavishly copy anywhere, but there is enormous experience to show why armies answer to politicians. Thailand may like it the way it is that the army appears above the law and can do what it wants. That is their perogative, but then they shouldn't be surprised when they run into criticism for having an unstable political system with a very corrupt armed forces. All players in the game politicians, the army, the legal system, the senate, the civil service, the police have to have their roles far more clearly defined to check and balance each other.

Having a situation where the only final arbiter of right and wrong is the army just makes it simple to not tackle the issues that need to be changed in the system to make it stronger, fairer, more equitable and more robust. A coup is a sticking plaster not a true remedy.

Just disagree with the comment the army becomes the acceptable final arbiter. Those days are gone. Now they are just seen as a another power player with their own set of interests and a power player incapable fo running the country. That is the legacy of their recent polticsal intervantions of coup. behind closed barrack room doors and on the street.

[Thai at Heart]

Just disagree with the comment the army becomes the acceptable final arbiter. Those days are gone. Now they are just seen as a another power player with their own set of interests and a power player incapable fo running the country. That is the legacy of their recent polticsal intervantions of coup. behind closed barrack room doors and on the street.

Well yes. But someone stated that the "vast majority" support the army intervening. As you say, those days are long gone. The issue is that they may not be the acceptable final arbiter to the majority, but they come with guns, so it isn't as though anyone really has any choice.

It isn't even as though they are some unified force anyway, and don't anyone tell me that decisions to support or not support a coup taken by commanding officers are taken with some altruistic idea of saving Thailand. It is a business decision pure and simple.

[brianb1944]

this patriotic defender of democracy in Thailand, who chooses to live in Singapore, wouldnt be just a bit biased, would he?

[serenitynow]

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Ain't marketing a wonderful thing. Precisely how would I tell someone with an arsenal of guns behind them that I don't want them to take control of my country. It isn't as though they don't have any history (in recent decades) of shooting protesters. So, putting a few garlands on a tank might by good for a photo op, but I wouldn't necessarily take it to believe 100% that they are seen as some wonderful benevolent force, selflessly serving the country.

As for the "vast" majority supporting the army, they can always enter an election to find out.

Do you think the military has killed more people or less people than the police force these past 10 years? I'm not making the argument that the military is a benevolent force. My argument is that given the other power centers, that it acts as a countervailing force. Sure it's a shitty way to run a country, but do you think it's worse than this administration placing it's close relatives at the top of the police , army and court system? Seriously?

No, I challenge the idea that no one has come up with a better way to create the necessary checks and balances, so that the country doesn't need to resort to "welcoming" a coup. They have been at this democracy business for 70 odd years, and it has been messed around with what is it 17 times by the armed forces. Each time has caused various levels of mess and disruption.

This has led to the army becoming the acceptable final arbiter of problems instead of someone/s getting together and really writing a constiution and legal system that does get the result they want. I would presume that every time a constitution gets written the first paragraph in place is the get out of jail card for the coup makers. So, instead of the system righting it's own wrongs, developing a system to really fight corruption, developing a legal system that really works, the Thai people have come to understand that the army is the final arbiter of right and wrong in the country.

The system has been dislocated because of the army constantly re-setting the agenda because it sees fit. I don't think we can honestly say that every intervention that has occurred has been selflessly for the good of the country? The last time, they could say we did it to stop Thaksin, and then promptly gave themselves a monstrous budget increase that no one can really discuss debate or criticise. Where the statesmen come from to really create a functioning democracy that can survive the bad times and re-invent itself despite the protagonists constantly trying to derail it I don't know.

However, the first thing is that the judicial system has to change to effectively handle ALL cases impartially, no political influence, no bribes, no taking the side of business over the little guy just because it is "beneficial" to the country. Right must become right and wrong become wrong. Unfortunately, the idea of treating ALL equally under the law sounds very nice, but we know that there is a long way to go here.

Of course appointing politicians friends to positions isn't right, but then how can you effectively expose this and criticise it when there are defamation laws as they are in the country? How can you run a country when it appears that the army makes its own agenda in for example conflicting statements over the Phraer Viharn situation. All of these things need to be ironed out, and they aren't simple, but until these things are done there will ALWAYS be problems.

I don't expect Thailand to slavishly copy anywhere, but there is enormous experience to show why armies answer to politicians. Thailand may like it the way it is that the army appears above the law and can do what it wants. That is their perogative, but then they shouldn't be surprised when they run into criticism for having an unstable political system with a very corrupt armed forces. All players in the game politicians, the army, the legal system, the senate, the civil service, the police have to have their roles far more clearly defined to check and balance each other.

Having a situation where the only final arbiter of right and wrong is the army just makes it simple to not tackle the issues that need to be changed in the system to make it stronger, fairer, more equitable and more robust. A coup is a sticking plaster not a true remedy.

Good post and I agree with most of it. Obviously all these various institutions are infected by Thai culture which has been overlaid on all of them. It is a culture that does not in any way promote accountability, egalitarianism or social justice. Not in this life anyway. As the younger generation says, not much will change till the old people die. Maybe not even then.

Edited October 13, 2011 by serenitynow

[gregb]

I agree that defending military coups is dreadfully misguided especially if you consider Thailand's near permanent military dictatorship that happened in the late 60-70's era. However, democracy itself isn't protected by strong enough institutions to work properly. Too many of the elected officials basically bought their way. They are just doing what they are allowed to do because all the other parts of the government are failures. The judicial system, enforcement, etc.. is all corrupt and needs to be totally revamped.

The problem is there is a lack of strong leaders in Thailand who will follow ethical or moral principles. Once they get into office they are only interested in enriching themselves and screwing everyone else. It's always been like this in Thailand and probably always will until people are educated and raised with higher principles.

If you look at what Thai youth are like nowadays it's very unlikely there will be changes. In fact it will probably get a lot worse. The younger generation is politically inactive, materially selfish, and venal. Even more so than their parents who at least tried to take an active hand in reform back in the 70's.

I actually agree with everything here. But unfortunately, unless and until anything you have written above changes, everyone currently is left with only 1 of 2 choices. Either you support Thaksin or you support the military. Those are the two power cliques that are currently fighting for control of the country. You can try not to take sides, but I don't know anyone who is truly neutral. Everyone has a bias.

There is no third path today, and since I know how evil Thaksin truly is, and I have met so many genuinely good people who oppose him, it is a very easy decision for me to know which side is the noble one. So I support the coup, hope there is another one before civil war becomes a reality, and genuinely desire that one day in the future real changes will occur that will make decisions such as these unnecessary.

But sadly, that day isn't today, and right now the coup of 2006 is the only thing that stands between Thailand and Thaksin's tyranny. It was the right decision then, and should Thaksin try and return, it will be the right decision again. Thailand has not been democratic since Thaksin destroyed the fledgling attempt at it in 2001, and the reason all you have written above is true today, is that most Thais do not actually want democracy anyway.

[gl555]

Looking at the current events over the last 5 years, even the run up to the last election, and I would propose that the military is a destabilizing force, not a balance, not a check.

They are a check and balance on protecting their interests!

Well you're right but they're the lesser of two evils and right now, I prefer them then having Thaksin or his stooge doing whatever the hell they want.

[gl555]

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't like it and i know you don't like it, but the vast majority of Thai people tend to see the military as a stabilizing force.

Ain't marketing a wonderful thing. Precisely how would I tell someone with an arsenal of guns behind them that I don't want them to take control of my country. It isn't as though they don't have any history (in recent decades) of shooting protesters. So, putting a few garlands on a tank might by good for a photo op, but I wouldn't necessarily take it to believe 100% that they are seen as some wonderful benevolent force, selflessly serving the country.

As for the "vast" majority supporting the army, they can always enter an election to find out.

Do you think the military has killed more people or less people than the police force these past 10 years? I'm not making the argument that the military is a benevolent force. My argument is that given the other power centers, that it acts as a countervailing force. Sure it's a shitty way to run a country, but do you think it's worse than this administration placing it's close relatives at the top of the police , army and court system? Seriously?

No, I challenge the idea that no one has come up with a better way to create the necessary checks and balances, so that the country doesn't need to resort to "welcoming" a coup. They have been at this democracy business for 70 odd years, and it has been messed around with what is it 17 times by the armed forces. Each time has caused various levels of mess and disruption.

This has led to the army becoming the acceptable final arbiter of problems instead of someone/s getting together and really writing a constiution and legal system that does get the result they want. I would presume that every time a constitution gets written the first paragraph in place is the get out of jail card for the coup makers. So, instead of the system righting it's own wrongs, developing a system to really fight corruption, developing a legal system that really works, the Thai people have come to understand that the army is the final arbiter of right and wrong in the country.

The system has been dislocated because of the army constantly re-setting the agenda because it sees fit. I don't think we can honestly say that every intervention that has occurred has been selflessly for the good of the country? The last time, they could say we did it to stop Thaksin, and then promptly gave themselves a monstrous budget increase that no one can really discuss debate or criticise. Where the statesmen come from to really create a functioning democracy that can survive the bad times and re-invent itself despite the protagonists constantly trying to derail it I don't know.

However, the first thing is that the judicial system has to change to effectively handle ALL cases impartially, no political influence, no bribes, no taking the side of business over the little guy just because it is "beneficial" to the country. Right must become right and wrong become wrong. Unfortunately, the idea of treating ALL equally under the law sounds very nice, but we know that there is a long way to go here.

Of course appointing politicians friends to positions isn't right, but then how can you effectively expose this and criticise it when there are defamation laws as they are in the country? How can you run a country when it appears that the army makes its own agenda in for example conflicting statements over the Phraer Viharn situation. All of these things need to be ironed out, and they aren't simple, but until these things are done there will ALWAYS be problems.

I don't expect Thailand to slavishly copy anywhere, but there is enormous experience to show why armies answer to politicians. Thailand may like it the way it is that the army appears above the law and can do what it wants. That is their perogative, but then they shouldn't be surprised when they run into criticism for having an unstable political system with a very corrupt armed forces. All players in the game politicians, the army, the legal system, the senate, the civil service, the police have to have their roles far more clearly defined to check and balance each other.

Having a situation where the only final arbiter of right and wrong is the army just makes it simple to not tackle the issues that need to be changed in the system to make it stronger, fairer, more equitable and more robust. A coup is a sticking plaster not a true remedy.

You've answered your own question. No one wants the military to decide what's wrong or right but as you yourself said, the judicial system is neither effective nor impartial. And the politicians are all friends and cronies. Now if these two problems were fixed then there really isn't any need for coups in this country. Unfortunately that isn't the case so the military will stay the final arbiter and when you have scum like Thaksin who sat on the PM's chair, I'm glad the military is right there ready throw people like these out of power.

[Thai at Heart]

You've answered your own question. No one wants the military to decide what's wrong or right but as you yourself said, the judicial system is neither effective nor impartial. And the politicians are all friends and cronies. Now if these two problems were fixed then there really isn't any need for coups in this country. Unfortunately that isn't the case so the military will stay the final arbiter and when you have scum like Thaksin who sat on the PM's chair, I'm glad the military is right there ready throw people like these out of power.

Well it is chickens and eggs. Part of the reason that the politicians and the judicial system don't do what they are meant to do is that the army is perceived as being to over-rule every thing should it choose to. Don't believe that the army is ever acting in the broader interests of everyone.

This concept of protecting the country can go as shallow or as deeply as they need it, but for example it extends to the idea preventing foreigners owning land or the restrictions that exist on foreign industry. They are there to maintain the political/economic status quo as much as they are to protect the country from any made up future threat. The economic status quo is a fairly wide ranging bunch of people but when a politician stands up to discuss liberalising for example the agriculture export industry or the banking system and people say it has to be in Thai hands, do you really believe a word that comes out of their mouth?

The politician claiming that liberalisation will benefit the people (or line his own pocket) ends up getting shouted down by a bunch of people who are currently lining their pockets anyway.

[Riely]

F this guy Nitirat. The Army was right to kick out that scumbag Taksin.

The Army has it's mandate, and it's not to respect the govt or crooks who bought their way into positions of power like Taksin, and his red shirt terrorists.

[tlansford]

I will try. I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance, used when politicians begin to exploit the democratic system. Thaksin was blatantly corrupting democracy, enacting laws for his own benefit, stacking the police and military with his family members, buying up opposition politicians.

Burma, and other countries that have coups, are military junta dictatorships, Thailand is not. Elections were held in Thailand reasonably quickly after the coup, and Thaksin's party allowed to regain power. That they were caught in electoral fraud and bribery is the risk that they took, and paid the price for.

Ozmick, with all due respect, and I know we don't agree (at all) politically, but I think you are living in some kind of bizarre dream-land.

The pro-cons of the coup overthrowing Taksin have been debated already, I don't intend to go into that.

Rather the statement : " I look at the coup as the ultimate check and balance"

A military that is responsible only to itself, and answers only to itself in no way shape or form can be a check, nor a balance.

The RTA is responsible to the head of state and the nation, not the government of the day, and that is a check and balance.

Just because the populace gives a mandate to a party that is little more than a criminal conspiracy, doesn't mean that they are allowed to run amok changing laws to benefit (materially) themselves and looting the government coffers.

This is not Utopia where politicians are self-denying altruists aiming for the benefit of the nation, it is a land where thieves connive to benefit themselves and cronies, then refuse to investigate or prosecute the crimes that they commit, and to run scams like the rice-pledging scheme to benefit not the poor rice farmer, but their rich backers. If you can't accept that as fact, it is you that is delusional.

The RTA is responsible to the head of state and the nation, not the government of the day, and that is a check and balance.

Please add some precision : who are the head of state and the nation ? From your response I doubt that you mean the PM and the voters.

[DocN]

F this guy Nitirat. The Army was right to kick out that scumbag Taksin.

The Army has it's mandate, and it's not to respect the govt or crooks who bought their way into positions of power like Taksin, and his red shirt terrorists.

Meaning, they are allowed anything they want and are not to be bothered by democracy or laws or other unneccessary stuff like that!? How do you like Myanmar, by the way?

[bendejo]

How about a bold call to the police force to respect the law?

Maybe even include the court system.