Thai Army Has Veto Power Over Key Issues: Robert Amsterdam

[folium]

No, you are right, generally speaking.

Yet there are facts that are hard to ignore no matter what viewpoint you subscribe to. No one tried to refute Amsterdam's bias, for example. Some tried to prove that military indeed controls the country but came out short - TMB, appointments made five years ago, arms procurement - none of this supports Amsterdam's idea, only provides fodder for endless argument on the role of military in Thai history.

Why would anyone bother to look at where Amsterdam is coming from? Unless you are totally tone deaf and the rest, he is a toady lawyer saying what he is paid to say, end of story.

What is of more interest is whether or not his key claim is true, namely that the military have a veto over politics in Thailand today.

The irony is that there is no "endless argument" about the role of the military in Thai history, at least to anyone with a modicum of understanding.

The 1933 army coup transformed this country from an absolute monarchy to a military dictatorship. Playing their Cold War cards astutely this was preserved for the next 50 years or so.

"Irrational exuberance" in the form of the Thammasat bloodbath in 1976, and the events of Black May in 1992 underlined the need for a more subtle approach but hardly marked a disappearance of the military from the front row of Thai politics.

As a side issue a recurring image from my late teenage days is the cover image of the punk band Dead Kennedys album "Holiday in Cambodia" (1980) which I, naively, at the time thought underlined the brutality of what was happening in Kampuchea. Little did I know that this was military-sponsored mayhem in Bangkok and the image was that of a dead Thai student's corpse being mutilated by a military-sponsored Red Gaur member.

As previously stated if the military really has faded into obscurity why the necessity, apparently, to ensure that coups remain above the law, and why are the actions of the military whether down south, or in terms of ludicrous arms procurement programmes, or in terms of provoking/prolonging border skirmishes with Cambodia beyond reproach and are apparently unaccountable to any form of legal restraint or oversight.

Turkey has called the bluff of its military and is now jailing those who have broken the law. Myanmar might break the link between its military and their current constitutionally enshrined status above the law, will Thailand ever get to such a position?

I won't hold my breath to wait for Myanmar to shake off 49 years of military rule, but sadly they might (possibly) sort it out faster than this country resolves 79 years of military interference.

Edited February 9, 2012 by folium

[hellodolly]

Interested to note that the issue of the military hierarchy rent seeking via the process of arms procurement is apparently too problematic to discuss. But of course we have been reassured that there is no money to be made in the military today.

And of course the military retired from politics having killed too many citizens in 1992. Thus the notion that characters such as Prayuth exert any influence on this country is frankly implausible.

Actually the debate over the Nittirat group and their proposed constitutional amendments shines a light on many aspects of power in this country.

Previous posters have mentioned the issue of equality before the law, or how the lack of it plagues Thailand. At present by means of a special clause in the constitution any acts carried out during a coup by the instigators, cannot be deemed illegal and therefore no criminal charges can be brought against those who usurp power.

Article 15 of the proposed constitutional amendment covers this bizarre anomaly (see below and taken from a longer piece at:

http://asiancorrespo...titution-draft/

15. Defence against Usurpation

• Create a separate section in the new constitution concerning the “Nullification of the Legal Effects of a Military Coup d’Etat”, whose content is drawn from Nitirat’s proposal concerning the nullification of the legal effects of the 2006 coup.

• Citizens have the right and duty to use any means to resist against attempts to take away the supreme power from the people (usurpation).

• Specify that usurpation is a criminal act, and that after the supreme power of the people has been returned to the people, the usurpers must be prosecuted. Allow the period of prescription to start when the supreme power has been returned to the people.

Perhaps this explains why Prayuth has been so outspoken (and which would have seen him fired from his post in any normal country) on this matter and by wrapping up the constitutional amendments with Article 112 lese majeste reform, tries to conceal his desire to keep military coups legal.

What other country has legalized military coups? The military has no power.....?? Not only has it exercised this power 18 times against both the monarchy and civilian governments but can do so without any legal implications.

This is the linchpin of the military's continued presence in the power structure of Thailand. Until this article is introduced as part of the constitution they can do as they wish and all the respective players know this. Hence the present government's dramatic u turn in regard to its appetite for constitutional reform. Probably another opportunity lost to bring some semblance of normality to Thailand.

An absence of accountability gives almost limitless power whether that concerns staging coups, padding procurement contracts or extra-judicial killings in the southern provinces. Time to put the military genie back in its bottle because who "guards us from the guardians"?

Also it is not just the simple red/yellow, TS/military debate. Under the last government the border clash with Cambodia underlined the fact that the army could decide to wage war on its terms and timescale, and with little regard for the government of the day, whatever its colour.

All very nice, some good discussion points, but there's two sides to this coin.

In many countries elected officials have morals, the vast majority in Thailand don't and like it or not until we see a strong picture of respect for the law and equal application for the law, and until we see a general picture leaders who are role models then there is a need for a watchdof / a relief valve, or whatever you like to call it.

Comparison of Thailand to other countries is fine, but it's not fine to 'demand' that Thailand should / must look like the rest of the world, or must look like the 'first world' countries, many of which are not necessarily good role models.

I'll say it again; I shudded to think where Thailand would be today if the 2006 coup had not happened. The possible / probable scenario, today, if he had not been removed is nothing less then frightening.

Agreed

All though I do not approve of coups they are the last line of defense against dictatorship.

Until Thailand can upgrade the level of honesty in the government they are the only thing between Thailand and a dictator.

Look at the war on drugs not one thing being done to arrest police and soldiers involved in the trade. Doesn't speak well for the police does it. O wait I forgot their chief is hand picked by the would be dictator Thaksin no wonder they are bullet proof.

If the government would clean itself up there would be no need for protection from an inside Thailand Thai wannabe dictator. Or one in Dubai.

Where would Thailand be today if the army had not stepped in to stop the red shirts attempt to stage a coup. The police were useless and so was the PT. In fact the PT was rooting for them and embraced them when they got the leadership on a minority vote.

[hellodolly]

Folium, you can list all kinds of faults with Thai military but controlling Yingluck's government is just not one of them, no matter what other issues you have with it.

Meantime in a separate thread Jatuporn cried about imminent coup again.

"Everybody knows", right.

Ok, is the "Brunei Declaration" a total fabrication? Is it utterly implausible that the 3 groups allegedly represented at the series of meetings in Brunei and Dubai actually worked out a compromise that would keep all 3 happy? If it is a total fabrication is it not strange how things have panned out since the election?

google Shawn Crispin Asia Times Online for his June 30th 2011 piece for more details. ATOL, which you probably know, was set up by Sondhi Limthongkul, leading light in PAD and no shrinking violet in terms of supporting the military.

On 'Brunei Declaration':

http://web1.iseas.edu.sg/?p=4186

Here is the opening paragraph. kinda looks like the whole story of the army running things isn't true herewe are 6 months later and no Coup except in the mind of people under Thaksins direction er payroll.

Any attempt to disband the PT by a court.

Pure and simple pie in the sky for the sake of a lot of money.

After the Puea Thai Party’s victory in Thailand’s election Sunday, the main question is whether the army and the traditional elite will refrain from overturning a result which they clearly find unpalatable. If they refuse to accept the democratic outcome, a Puea Thai government could be short-lived. The military removed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006 and the courts removed Prime Ministers Samak Sundaravej and Somchat Wongsawat in 2008.

[hellodolly]

No, you are right, generally speaking.

Yet there are facts that are hard to ignore no matter what viewpoint you subscribe to. No one tried to refute Amsterdam's bias, for example. Some tried to prove that military indeed controls the country but came out short - TMB, appointments made five years ago, arms procurement - none of this supports Amsterdam's idea, only provides fodder for endless argument on the role of military in Thai history.

Why would anyone bother to look at where Amsterdam is coming from? Unless you are totally tone deaf and the rest, he is a toady lawyer saying what he is paid to say, end of story.

What is of more interest is whether or not his key claim is true, namely that the military have a veto over politics in Thailand today.

The irony is that there is no "endless argument" about the role of the military in Thai history, at least to anyone with a modicum of understanding.

The 1933 army coup transformed this country from an absolute monarchy to a military dictatorship. Playing their Cold War cards astutely this was preserved for the next 50 years or so.

"Irrational exuberance" in the form of the Thammasat bloodbath in 1976, and the events of Black May in 1992 underlined the need for a more subtle approach but hardly marked a disappearance of the military from the front row of Thai politics.

As a side issue a recurring image from my late teenage days is the cover image of the punk band Dead Kennedys album "Holiday in Cambodia" (1980) which I, naively, at the time thought underlined the brutality of what was happening in Kampuchea. Little did I know that this was military-sponsored mayhem in Bangkok and the image was that of a dead Thai student's corpse being mutilated by a military-sponsored Red Gaur member.

As previously stated if the military really has faded into obscurity why the necessity, apparently, to ensure that coups remain above the law, and why are the actions of the military whether down south, or in terms of ludicrous arms procurement programmes, or in terms of provoking/prolonging border skirmishes with Cambodia beyond reproach and are apparently unaccountable to any form of legal restraint or oversight.

Turkey has called the bluff of its military and is now jailing those who have broken the law. Myanmar might break the link between its military and their current constitutionally enshrined status above the law, will Thailand ever get to such a position?

I won't hold my breath to wait for Myanmar to shake off 49 years of military rule, but sadly they might (possibly) sort it out faster than this country resolves 79 years of military interference.

Well you are entitled to your opinion but would you not say the army in regards to the red shirts were called in they did not come in and take over such as they did in 2006.

You call it military interference. when they do what the government asked them to do and you call it military interference.When they step in and stop Thailand from being taken over by a would be dictator.Just what is it you expect the army to do let a Dictator take over or a gang of thugs stage a coup.

It would help if you could tell us the answer to that. And I am not really interested in the army of 80 years ago or 20 years ago.

Try to keep it to today's army.

Your references to years ago just go to show you don't know what is happening today. You are using a tried and true trick of magicians misdirection. Sorry it won't wash with me.

[Roadman]

Folium, you can list all kinds of faults with Thai military but controlling Yingluck's government is just not one of them, no matter what other issues you have with it.

Meantime in a separate thread Jatuporn cried about imminent coup again.

"Everybody knows", right.

Ok, is the "Brunei Declaration" a total fabrication? Is it utterly implausible that the 3 groups allegedly represented at the series of meetings in Brunei and Dubai actually worked out a compromise that would keep all 3 happy? If it is a total fabrication is it not strange how things have panned out since the election?

google Shawn Crispin Asia Times Online for his June 30th 2011 piece for more details. ATOL, which you probably know, was set up by Sondhi Limthongkul, leading light in PAD and no shrinking violet in terms of supporting the military.

On 'Brunei Declaration':

http://web1.iseas.edu.sg/?p=4186

Here is the opening paragraph. kinda looks like the whole story of the army running things isn't true herewe are 6 months later and no Coup except in the mind of people under Thaksins direction er payroll.

Any attempt to disband the PT by a court.

Pure and simple pie in the sky for the sake of a lot of money.

After the Puea Thai Party’s victory in Thailand’s election Sunday, the main question is whether the army and the traditional elite will refrain from overturning a result which they clearly find unpalatable. If they refuse to accept the democratic outcome, a Puea Thai government could be short-lived. The military removed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006 and the courts removed Prime Ministers Samak Sundaravej and Somchat Wongsawat in 2008.

Why was it no suprise that the author of the Brunei Declaration is no other than Thaksin, Niarat Group and Red supporter and symphasier Pavin Chachavalbongpun himself. Geez, the guibility of some to take what this guy writes as balanced is the same as Jataporn and his monthly coup allegations.

[Siam Simon]

Thanks for the attempts at intelligent debate, folium (and, to a lesser extent, Scorecard). As you can see, things easily return to type on here.

[whybother]

Thanks for the attempts at intelligent debate, folium (and, to a lesser extent, Scorecard). As you can see, things easily return to type on here.

"return to type"

As shown by your standard of commenting on the posters.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[volk666]

None of the above has anything to do with how Yingluck's government runs things now, oh well, enjoy your endless talk on military past misbehavior.

That 1976 massacre happened under police watch, btw, the army were there and there's nothing for them to be proud of, but the actual desecration of the corpses happened in the area surrounded by the police with current government supremo Chalerm "guarding" the place himself. Nothing happened and no one died there, according to his version.

Later in the day the army staged a coup, at least in part due to things getting out of hand at Thammasat.

BTW, who controls Chalerm now? Who has ever controlled Chalerm?

Jayboy, re Amsterdam's substance - why don't you start the ball rolling yourself and show us any evidence that current government is under military control.

Yesterday Thaksin's buddy, the Defense Minister, told Jatuporn to shut his hole and don't spread coup rumors, and even threatened him with prosecution. What do you make of that? Who controls Sukhumpol? He was appointed there to take government control of military reshuffle. What do you make of that?

[waza]

None of the above has anything to do with how Yingluck's government runs things now, oh well, enjoy your endless talk on military past misbehavior.

That 1976 massacre happened under police watch, btw, the army were there and there's nothing for them to be proud of, but the actual desecration of the corpses happened in the area surrounded by the police with current government supremo Chalerm "guarding" the place himself. Nothing happened and no one died there, according to his version.

Later in the day the army staged a coup, at least in part due to things getting out of hand at Thammasat.

BTW, who controls Chalerm now? Who has ever controlled Chalerm?

Jayboy, re Amsterdam's substance - why don't you start the ball rolling yourself and show us any evidence that current government is under military control.

Yesterday Thaksin's buddy, the Defense Minister, told Jatuporn to shut his hole and don't spread coup rumors, and even threatened him with prosecution. What do you make of that? Who controls Sukhumpol? He was appointed there to take government control of military reshuffle. What do you make of that?

The Election Commission yesterday resolved to disqualify Monchai Chartwattanasiri, a Pheu Thai Party MP from Buri Ram, for vote buying.

Chalem is also writing a law that says they never allow any amendment to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, while Asterdam says, its a major impediment to democracy.

This government is a circus but it lacks a true ring leader.

[volk666]

Yesterday it was reported that Chalerm promised to issue a government decree stipulating that 112 will never be amended. He also promised the campaigners that no matter how many signatures they collect his party will not allow deliberation of their proposals in the parliament.

To which one of the campaigners replied that Chalerm is the worst and wondered who elected him. I don't know what to think. Who elected this government? The military? Democrats? Yellow shirts?

[folium]

Interested to note that the issue of the military hierarchy rent seeking via the process of arms procurement is apparently too problematic to discuss. But of course we have been reassured that there is no money to be made in the military today.

And of course the military retired from politics having killed too many citizens in 1992. Thus the notion that characters such as Prayuth exert any influence on this country is frankly implausible.

Actually the debate over the Nittirat group and their proposed constitutional amendments shines a light on many aspects of power in this country.

Previous posters have mentioned the issue of equality before the law, or how the lack of it plagues Thailand. At present by means of a special clause in the constitution any acts carried out during a coup by the instigators, cannot be deemed illegal and therefore no criminal charges can be brought against those who usurp power.

Article 15 of the proposed constitutional amendment covers this bizarre anomaly (see below and taken from a longer piece at:

http://asiancorrespo...titution-draft/

15. Defence against Usurpation

• Create a separate section in the new constitution concerning the “Nullification of the Legal Effects of a Military Coup d’Etat”, whose content is drawn from Nitirat’s proposal concerning the nullification of the legal effects of the 2006 coup.

• Citizens have the right and duty to use any means to resist against attempts to take away the supreme power from the people (usurpation).

• Specify that usurpation is a criminal act, and that after the supreme power of the people has been returned to the people, the usurpers must be prosecuted. Allow the period of prescription to start when the supreme power has been returned to the people.

Perhaps this explains why Prayuth has been so outspoken (and which would have seen him fired from his post in any normal country) on this matter and by wrapping up the constitutional amendments with Article 112 lese majeste reform, tries to conceal his desire to keep military coups legal.

What other country has legalized military coups? The military has no power.....?? Not only has it exercised this power 18 times against both the monarchy and civilian governments but can do so without any legal implications.

This is the linchpin of the military's continued presence in the power structure of Thailand. Until this article is introduced as part of the constitution they can do as they wish and all the respective players know this. Hence the present government's dramatic u turn in regard to its appetite for constitutional reform. Probably another opportunity lost to bring some semblance of normality to Thailand.

An absence of accountability gives almost limitless power whether that concerns staging coups, padding procurement contracts or extra-judicial killings in the southern provinces. Time to put the military genie back in its bottle because who "guards us from the guardians"?

Also it is not just the simple red/yellow, TS/military debate. Under the last government the border clash with Cambodia underlined the fact that the army could decide to wage war on its terms and timescale, and with little regard for the government of the day, whatever its colour.

All very nice, some good discussion points, but there's two sides to this coin.

In many countries elected officials have morals, the vast majority in Thailand don't and like it or not until we see a strong picture of respect for the law and equal application for the law, and until we see a general picture leaders who are role models then there is a need for a watchdof / a relief valve, or whatever you like to call it.

Comparison of Thailand to other countries is fine, but it's not fine to 'demand' that Thailand should / must look like the rest of the world, or must look like the 'first world' countries, many of which are not necessarily good role models.

I'll say it again; I shudded to think where Thailand would be today if the 2006 coup had not happened. The possible / probable scenario, today, if he had not been removed is nothing less then frightening.

Agreed

All though I do not approve of coups they are the last line of defense against dictatorship.

Until Thailand can upgrade the level of honesty in the government they are the only thing between Thailand and a dictator.

Look at the war on drugs not one thing being done to arrest police and soldiers involved in the trade. Doesn't speak well for the police does it. O wait I forgot their chief is hand picked by the would be dictator Thaksin no wonder they are bullet proof.

If the government would clean itself up there would be no need for protection from an inside Thailand Thai wannabe dictator. Or one in Dubai.

Where would Thailand be today if the army had not stepped in to stop the red shirts attempt to stage a coup. The police were useless and so was the PT. In fact the PT was rooting for them and embraced them when they got the leadership on a minority vote.

In an ideal world the military could operate as the last line of defence for a nation under threat of tyranny. Sadly most coups in Thailand have ushered in a period of military tyranny. After the bloody debacle of 1991-92 one key lesson learnt by the RTA was to cede the limelight as quickly as possible to civilians.

Another poster charmingly suggested that as I kept mentioning the past I obviously don't understand what is happening in the present.

I would suggest that an understanding of the past is essential to having an understanding of the present, as is the realization that what happens in the public eye is often nothing more than a distraction while the real business is conducted out of sight. Frustrating as this is to anyone trying to analyze and make sense of current events, this is how business is conducted here. This therefore means that it is very unlikely anybody, apart from the immediate players (and sometimes not even them) will really know what is going on. Hence all the endless debates by largely uninformed pundits in forums such as these, as we all speculate on motive and agendas.

IMHO the military of any nation needs to be a non-partisan, apolitical professional organization that carries out the lethal projection of force as requested by the government of the day.

In Thailand the military has enjoyed too much power for too long to be able to fulfill this role at present. Its unaccountability in legal terms, the apparent desire to keep coups beyond legal reproach, the undertaking of foreign policy and war-making/prolonging (the Preah Vihar incident et al last year) all highlight an unhealthy state of affairs.

If the Brunei Declaration has any basis in fact, the meeting of a potential government-to-be with representatives of the 2 key institutions of this country (one being the military) underlines that the power of the military, while less visible, remains intact.

If you read the article I highlighted earlier in full rather than just the first paragraph, events since the election become easier to understand. The reluctance of the government to tackle constitutional reform indicates that there are likely to be a series of red lines that have been laid down which the government would cross at their peril.

I would love to think that it is all a bluff and the military would never again try to usurp power from an elected government but "saving the nation" is powerful motivation.

Unfortunately the role of the military as long stop, saviour of the nation from tyranny only makes sense and has any justification if the military is truly non-partisan & apolitical with only the best interests of the nation at heart.

This is nigh on impossible as no human operates without some bias or preference and defining the best interests of the nation is usually shaped in past experience, hence the importance of understanding the past to unlock the present.

In 2008 the RTA categorically refused to move against the PAD protestors occupying the 2 airports and Government House. In April 2010 no such qualms were on display when asked to move on the red shirt protestors. Such partisan displays undermine their credibility as servants of the nation.

Any illegal activity needs to face the full weight of the law, whether it be coup-plotting/execution, corruption, extra-judicial killings, drug trafficking etc, and irrespective of whether the perpetrators are military or civilian, red or yellow shirted.

Hence the military with their undue,long-held and fiercely guarded influence over politics are part of the problem not a means of providing a solution. I keep bringing up Turkey as there the government under Erdogan have reached a similar conclusion and are now ensuring that the formidable Turkish military become servants rather than masters of the state and nation. Hopefully one day Thailand will be able to follow a similar path.

[wxyz]

Rant much?

Thank Buddha for the military. Saving Thailand from a megalomaniac.

meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny)

n.

1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Edited February 10, 2012 by wxyz

[Macmundi]

Just jail Amsterdamn and throw him some BS offense so he sits in a Thai prison and be a bitch in jail. In Thailand, anything's possible. Anyway, solicitors are the prostitutes of society. You can pay them to do anything, even turn right into wrong and vice versa.

[MikeOboe57]

I keep bringing up Turkey [...]

You shouldn't. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk set this country up as secular state with a strict separation of state and religion. The Turkish Army sees itself as the guardian of this legacy.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is busy trying to turn Turkey into an islamic republic and correctly sees the armed forces as major stumbling block for his plans.

So don't paint Erdogan as a shining beacon for democracy. He is anything but, and certainly no role model for Thailand. In 2011, Turkey was the worst violator of press freedom in Europe, according to the European Court of Human Rights. Like Thaksin, Erdogan personally sues journalists and cartoonists who are critical of him.

[folium]

I keep bringing up Turkey [...]

You shouldn't. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk set this country up as secular state with a strict separation of state and religion. The Turkish Army sees itself as the guardian of this legacy.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is busy trying to turn Turkey into an islamic republic and correctly sees the armed forces as major stumbling block for his plans.

So don't paint Erdogan as a shining beacon for democracy. He is anything but, and certainly no role model for Thailand. In 2011, Turkey was the worst violator of press freedom in Europe, according to the European Court of Human Rights. Like Thaksin, Erdogan personally sues journalists and cartoonists who are critical of him.

Never said that Erdogan was a saint and he certainly has an unpleasant authoritarian streak about him, but his extraction of the military from politics is definitely the right thing to do for Turkey.

A coup a decade was the average run rate and the Turkish military built up a considerable economic presence in between supporting organizations like the Grey Wolves and generally acting in a highly partisan manner while wrappiing themselves in the banner of "national guardians". Whether or not Ergenekon and the "deep state" actually exist is still unclear but the Turkish military have been a stumbling block in the development of Turkey.

All sounds rather familiar.

Edited February 10, 2012 by folium

[TAWP]

I keep bringing up Turkey [...]

You shouldn't. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk set this country up as secular state with a strict separation of state and religion. The Turkish Army sees itself as the guardian of this legacy.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is busy trying to turn Turkey into an islamic republic and correctly sees the armed forces as major stumbling block for his plans.

So don't paint Erdogan as a shining beacon for democracy. He is anything but, and certainly no role model for Thailand. In 2011, Turkey was the worst violator of press freedom in Europe, according to the European Court of Human Rights. Like Thaksin, Erdogan personally sues journalists and cartoonists who are critical of him.

Never said that Erdogan was a saint and he certainly has an unpleasant authoritarian streak about him, but his extraction of the military from politics is definitely the right thing to do for Turkey.

A coup a decade was the average run rate and the Turkish military built up a considerable economic presence in between supporting organizations like the Grey Wolves and generally acting in a highly partisan manner while wrappiing themselves in the banner of "national guardians". Whether or not Ergenekon and the "deep state" actually exist is still unclear but the Turkish military have been a stumbling block in the development of Turkey.

All sounds rather familiar.

A stumbling block towards the development of a Islamofascist-state, agreed.

But some people that that development is worse than the alternative.

All sounds rather familiar...

[NxaiPan]

Interesting article recently published on this subject.

Seems that some things never change in LOS. See below:

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/01/07/thailands-soldiers-of-political-fortune/

[hellodolly]

I keep bringing up Turkey [...]

You shouldn't. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk set this country up as secular state with a strict separation of state and religion. The Turkish Army sees itself as the guardian of this legacy.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is busy trying to turn Turkey into an islamic republic and correctly sees the armed forces as major stumbling block for his plans.

So don't paint Erdogan as a shining beacon for democracy. He is anything but, and certainly no role model for Thailand. In 2011, Turkey was the worst violator of press freedom in Europe, according to the European Court of Human Rights. Like Thaksin, Erdogan personally sues journalists and cartoonists who are critical of him.

Never said that Erdogan was a saint and he certainly has an unpleasant authoritarian streak about him, but his extraction of the military from politics is definitely the right thing to do for Turkey.

A coup a decade was the average run rate and the Turkish military built up a considerable economic presence in between supporting organizations like the Grey Wolves and generally acting in a highly partisan manner while wrappiing themselves in the banner of "national guardians". Whether or not Ergenekon and the "deep state" actually exist is still unclear but the Turkish military have been a stumbling block in the development of Turkey.

All sounds rather familiar.

folium

You carry on and on about the past and other countries. You then go on to claim the army is running the show here in Thailand.

Don't you feel a little silly when you stop to think the democrats are not in power despite according to your claims the army is really running the government.

Here we are 7 months after the election and there is no coup.

Just a lot of talk about it from for hire rabble rousers.

Perhaps if you could forget 1992 you might have a chance of seeing what is happening in 2012.

Maybe you are rite the army did not wait form the government to order them to help flood victims they got out on their own. The Government was busy posing for photo ops and trying to get a convicted criminal unconvicted.

[folium]

I keep bringing up Turkey [...]

You shouldn't. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk set this country up as secular state with a strict separation of state and religion. The Turkish Army sees itself as the guardian of this legacy.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is busy trying to turn Turkey into an islamic republic and correctly sees the armed forces as major stumbling block for his plans.

So don't paint Erdogan as a shining beacon for democracy. He is anything but, and certainly no role model for Thailand. In 2011, Turkey was the worst violator of press freedom in Europe, according to the European Court of Human Rights. Like Thaksin, Erdogan personally sues journalists and cartoonists who are critical of him.

Never said that Erdogan was a saint and he certainly has an unpleasant authoritarian streak about him, but his extraction of the military from politics is definitely the right thing to do for Turkey.

A coup a decade was the average run rate and the Turkish military built up a considerable economic presence in between supporting organizations like the Grey Wolves and generally acting in a highly partisan manner while wrappiing themselves in the banner of "national guardians". Whether or not Ergenekon and the "deep state" actually exist is still unclear but the Turkish military have been a stumbling block in the development of Turkey.

All sounds rather familiar.

A stumbling block towards the development of a Islamofascist-state, agreed.

But some people that that development is worse than the alternative.

All sounds rather familiar...

Off topic and somewhat facile, sadly also an unfortunate choice of epithet. Suggest you do a bit of reading up on the Grey Wolves, General Evren etc for a real taste of what a genuine fascist organization is all about.

For a fairly well balanced view on this issue: http://www.economist.com/node/21525457

If you would rather see a partisan military running a country instead of accepting the choice of the majority of its people does that make you a fan of the Burmese regime (unless of course Thein Sein's reforms are truly genuine and he is on the way to defanging the military in a way that many Thai politicians could only dream of), or those of Syria, N.Korea or Fiji, all of which exhibit a military that wraps itself up in the cloak of national protector from dangerous ideologies and/or external/internal threats?

Does Thailand deserve to be in such company? An overbearing military does few favours for the country and plenty for itself.

[Roadman]

Off topic and somewhat facile, sadly also an unfortunate choice of epithet. Suggest you do a bit of reading up on the Grey Wolves, General Evren etc for a real taste of what a genuine fascist organization is all about.

For a fairly well balanced view on this issue: http://www.economist.com/node/21525457

If you would rather see a partisan military running a country instead of accepting the choice of the majority of its people does that make you a fan of the Burmese regime (unless of course Thein Sein's reforms are truly genuine and he is on the way to defanging the military in a way that many Thai politicians could only dream of), or those of Syria, N.Korea or Fiji, all of which exhibit a military that wraps itself up in the cloak of national protector from dangerous ideologies and/or external/internal threats?

Does Thailand deserve to be in such company? An overbearing military does few favours for the country and plenty for itself.

Wow...Burma, N.Korea, Fiji !!!! Thailand same same? Wow...Yingluck really is a Thai Army General in drag. I learn new things every day.

[folium]

I keep bringing up Turkey [...]

You shouldn't. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk set this country up as secular state with a strict separation of state and religion. The Turkish Army sees itself as the guardian of this legacy. Recep Tayyip Erdogan is busy trying to turn Turkey into an islamic republic and correctly sees the armed forces as major stumbling block for his plans. So don't paint Erdogan as a shining beacon for democracy. He is anything but, and certainly no role model for Thailand. In 2011, Turkey was the worst violator of press freedom in Europe, according to the European Court of Human Rights. Like Thaksin, Erdogan personally sues journalists and cartoonists who are critical of him.

Never said that Erdogan was a saint and he certainly has an unpleasant authoritarian streak about him, but his extraction of the military from politics is definitely the right thing to do for Turkey. A coup a decade was the average run rate and the Turkish military built up a considerable economic presence in between supporting organizations like the Grey Wolves and generally acting in a highly partisan manner while wrappiing themselves in the banner of "national guardians". Whether or not Ergenekon and the "deep state" actually exist is still unclear but the Turkish military have been a stumbling block in the development of Turkey. All sounds rather familiar.

folium You carry on and on about the past and other countries. You then go on to claim the army is running the show here in Thailand. Don't you feel a little silly when you stop to think the democrats are not in power despite according to your claims the army is really running the government. Here we are 7 months after the election and there is no coup. Just a lot of talk about it from for hire rabble rousers. Perhaps if you could forget 1992 you might have a chance of seeing what is happening in 2012. Maybe you are rite the army did not wait form the government to order them to help flood victims they got out on their own. The Government was busy posing for photo ops and trying to get a convicted criminal unconvicted.

Dolly

Not quite sure where the flood relief comment came from but you seem to miss the main point. Namely that the Thai military have little concern about which civilian politician fronts up the government as long as they do not interfere with what the military sees as its turf and/or interests. Abhisit was just the last in a series of patsies put up for the role in the wake of the 2006 coup. Hence the extraordinary behaviour of the military over the border skirmishes with Cambodia last year.

If the Brunei Declaration is only partly true it highlights how the military places its interests above concern over the actual political party that sits in Government House. Why would the military need to stage a coup if none of its vital interests have been threatened? U turns over constitutional reform in the last few days suit the military fine.

If you want an in depth review of how the Thai military ticks please read all of this article:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MJ06Ae01.html

[rubl]

begin removed ...

In 2008 the RTA categorically refused to move against the PAD protestors occupying the 2 airports and Government House. In April 2010 no such qualms were on display when asked to move on the red shirt protestors. Such partisan displays undermine their credibility as servants of the nation.

... end removed

In 2008 the then government was more than happy to ask the police force to deal with the protesters. The police has special units trained for crown control, issued with crowd dispersal tools, etc., etc. As long as the police is doing (marginally) it's duty, there should be no need to ask the military to get involved. The use of faulty teargas grenades was a bit of a disaster, Gen. Chavalit stepped down to takes responsability (decent act with some Machiavellian touches).

In 2010 the police didn't do it's duty, was seen as participating (actively) with the protesters. That's why the then government asked the army to get involved. April 10th, 2010 was a disaster, amongst the protesters there were armed terrorists with rifles and grenade throwers. Even so a number of posters here complained that in a 'normal' democracy no government would involve the army, but use special trained police units only.

So to conclude: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Edited February 10, 2012 by rubl

[rubl]

begin removed ...

If you want an in depth review of how the Thai military ticks please read all of this article:

http://www.atimes.co...a/MJ06Ae01.html

I think this sentence from the article says it all:

"Thaksin's apparent attempts to expand his influence inside the military through a few key appointments have set the stage for continued tensions and mistrust."

[Siam Simon]

I keep bringing up Turkey [...]

You shouldn't. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk set this country up as secular state with a strict separation of state and religion. The Turkish Army sees itself as the guardian of this legacy.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is busy trying to turn Turkey into an islamic republic and correctly sees the armed forces as major stumbling block for his plans.

So don't paint Erdogan as a shining beacon for democracy. He is anything but, and certainly no role model for Thailand. In 2011, Turkey was the worst violator of press freedom in Europe, according to the European Court of Human Rights. Like Thaksin, Erdogan personally sues journalists and cartoonists who are critical of him.

Never said that Erdogan was a saint and he certainly has an unpleasant authoritarian streak about him, but his extraction of the military from politics is definitely the right thing to do for Turkey.

A coup a decade was the average run rate and the Turkish military built up a considerable economic presence in between supporting organizations like the Grey Wolves and generally acting in a highly partisan manner while wrappiing themselves in the banner of "national guardians". Whether or not Ergenekon and the "deep state" actually exist is still unclear but the Turkish military have been a stumbling block in the development of Turkey.

All sounds rather familiar.

And, just like in Thailand, the Turkish military have been heavily implicated in drug smuggling and all sorts of other large scale criminal money raising activities for decades.

[hellodolly]

begin removed ...

If you want an in depth review of how the Thai military ticks please read all of this article:

http://www.atimes.co...a/MJ06Ae01.html

I think this sentence from the article says it all:

"Thaksin's apparent attempts to expand his influence inside the military through a few key appointments have set the stage for continued tensions and mistrust."

Agreed the army was dead set against Thaksin's attempts to get his supporters in position of power. Just another step in stopping Thaksin desire to be dictator. Doing their job very well

the comment I through in a earlier post was a tongue in cheek backing up of foiums point that the army is running the government. Notice I said they did it on heir own not under orders from the government. They came later and as was to be expected did not ask for the army full cooperation. A lot of the soldiers were doing it voluntarily out of concern for their fellow man.

By the time the government figured out they had a real problem the army had already gone to work.

Edited February 10, 2012 by hellodolly

[rubl]

And, just like in Thailand, the Turkish military have been heavily implicated in drug smuggling and all sorts of other large scale criminal money raising activities for decades.

Do you have a similar quote comparing the Thai police force with one of another country? To quote Robert A. "as we all know ..."

[Siam Simon]

begin removed ...

In 2008 the RTA categorically refused to move against the PAD protestors occupying the 2 airports and Government House. In April 2010 no such qualms were on display when asked to move on the red shirt protestors. Such partisan displays undermine their credibility as servants of the nation.

... end removed

In 2008 the then government was more than happy to ask the police force to deal with the protesters. The police has special units trained for crown control, issued with crowd dispersal tools, etc., etc. As long as the police is doing (marginally) it's duty, there should be no need to ask the military to get involved. The use of faulty teargas grenades was a bit of a disaster, Gen. Chavalit stepped down to takes responsability (decent act with some Machiavellian touches).

In 2010 the police didn't do it's duty, was seen as participating (actively) with the protesters. That's why the then government asked the army to get involved. April 10th, 2010 was a disaster, amongst the protesters there were armed terrorists with rifles and grenade throwers. Even so a number of posters here complained that in a 'normal' democracy no government would involve the army, but use special trained police units only.

So to conclude: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Fact is, uncle, the army had sided with the PAD in the illegal 2008 protests. And they continued to side with anti-Red Shirt counter-protestors during the 2010 protests. Attempts to present the army as an impartial entity acting on the orders of the government of the day are misplaced.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

In 2008 the RTA categorically refused to move against the PAD protestors occupying the 2 airports and Government House. In April 2010 no such qualms were on display when asked to move on the red shirt protestors. Such partisan displays undermine their credibility as servants of the nation.

... end removed

In 2008 the then government was more than happy to ask the police force to deal with the protesters. The police has special units trained for crown control, issued with crowd dispersal tools, etc., etc. As long as the police is doing (marginally) it's duty, there should be no need to ask the military to get involved. The use of faulty teargas grenades was a bit of a disaster, Gen. Chavalit stepped down to takes responsability (decent act with some Machiavellian touches).

In 2010 the police didn't do it's duty, was seen as participating (actively) with the protesters. That's why the then government asked the army to get involved. April 10th, 2010 was a disaster, amongst the protesters there were armed terrorists with rifles and grenade throwers. Even so a number of posters here complained that in a 'normal' democracy no government would involve the army, but use special trained police units only.

So to conclude: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Fact is, uncle, the army had sided with the PAD in the illegal 2008 protests. And they continued to side with anti-Red Shirt counter-protestors during the 2010 protests. Attempts to present the army as an impartial entity acting on the orders of the government of the day are misplaced.

Fact is I tend to believe people just on the blue colour of their eyes. Possibly my mistake, or to quote Robert A. again "we all know".

Anyway, facts need to be proven, rather than just stated. Otherwise one may just deemed to advocate one's opinion

Edited February 10, 2012 by rubl

[Siam Simon]

And, just like in Thailand, the Turkish military have been heavily implicated in drug smuggling and all sorts of other large scale criminal money raising activities for decades.

Do you have a similar quote comparing the Thai police force with one of another country? To quote Robert A. "as we all know ..."

Yes, uncle, the Thai police are just as implicated in illegal money raising activity.

[Siam Simon]

Never said that Erdogan was a saint and he certainly has an unpleasant authoritarian streak about him, but his extraction of the military from politics is definitely the right thing to do for Turkey. A coup a decade was the average run rate and the Turkish military built up a considerable economic presence in between supporting organizations like the Grey Wolves and generally acting in a highly partisan manner while wrappiing themselves in the banner of "national guardians". Whether or not Ergenekon and the "deep state" actually exist is still unclear but the Turkish military have been a stumbling block in the development of Turkey. All sounds rather familiar.

folium You carry on and on about the past and other countries. You then go on to claim the army is running the show here in Thailand. Don't you feel a little silly when you stop to think the democrats are not in power despite according to your claims the army is really running the government. Here we are 7 months after the election and there is no coup. Just a lot of talk about it from for hire rabble rousers. Perhaps if you could forget 1992 you might have a chance of seeing what is happening in 2012. Maybe you are rite the army did not wait form the government to order them to help flood victims they got out on their own. The Government was busy posing for photo ops and trying to get a convicted criminal unconvicted.

Dolly

Not quite sure where the flood relief comment came from but you seem to miss the main point. Namely that the Thai military have little concern about which civilian politician fronts up the government as long as they do not interfere with what the military sees as its turf and/or interests. Abhisit was just the last in a series of patsies put up for the role in the wake of the 2006 coup. Hence the extraordinary behaviour of the military over the border skirmishes with Cambodia last year.

If the Brunei Declaration is only partly true it highlights how the military places its interests above concern over the actual political party that sits in Government House. Why would the military need to stage a coup if none of its vital interests have been threatened? U turns over constitutional reform in the last few days suit the military fine.

If you want an in depth review of how the Thai military ticks please read all of this article:

http://www.atimes.co...a/MJ06Ae01.html

And the comprehension problem that Dolly has is that the army realised long before the last general election from their first class polling system that they would not be able to gerrymander the results of said election. So they had the choice of either negotiating with the representatives of the government that they knew said election was going to produce, or stage another outright coup and deal with it's resultant civil war. The result, of course, is that there has been a compromised move toward democracy. Small steps and all that.....

Edited to add: Fascinating and clearly well-researched article that you linked from AT, btw. Much of it obviously needs corroboration. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, emerges in that respect.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Siam Simon