Thai Army Has Veto Power Over Key Issues: Robert Amsterdam

[Insight]

two thoughts spring to mind...

Firstly if Thaksin did not exist would posters on this topic still be so keen on the military's existing legal right top stage a coup whenever it suits? Is this just Thai-style flawed democracy?

<snip>

What "military's existing legal right to stage a coup"?

The interim constitution made the actions of 2006 coup legal (after the fact). It says nothing about future coups.

But realistically, it's irrelevant if coups were legal or not. That wouldn't stop them. Would you really expect someone to perform a coup and then say "Arrest me, I broke the law"?

Let's not forget the only reason the tanks rolled was because of the complete disrespect law and order shown by the ruling, and then caretaker party - Thai Rak Thai.

The military where again required in the streets during the red shirt riots of 2009 and 2010, when the police force tasked with enforcing the law were completely unwilling to perform their duties effectively. 2010 was made all the more tragic by the presence of an armed militia, clearly tasked with assisting the red shirts.

Bottom line is to strengthen the judicial system and apply it fairly across the board, otherwise military intervention will likely be a key facet in Thai politics going forward. Can we trust Phua Thai to strengthen the judicial system as required?

Of course we can't.

[rubl]

What "military's existing legal right to stage a coup"?

The interim constitution made the actions of 2006 coup legal (after the fact). It says nothing about future coups.

But realistically, it's irrelevant if coups were legal or not. That wouldn't stop them. Would you really expect someone to perform a coup and then say "Arrest me, I broke the law"?

Amazing Thailand. Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act.

... end removed

whybother: The interim constitution made the actions of 2006 coup legal (after the fact). It says nothing about future coups.

folium: Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act.

Correction: any new coup would be subject to the current constitution. To remove the paragraph absolving the 2006 coupmakers would probably create an interesting legal problem with which various courts can be tied up with and keep dozens of lawyers employed for a decade or two. IMHO, that is.

Edited February 13, 2012 by rubl

[whybother]

Amazing Thailand. Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act.

From an earlier post:

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.

"Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act." - Incorrect. Under the latest constitution, the 2006 coup does not constitute a criminal act. It does not make any reference to any other coups - past or future.

I'm sure usurpation is already a criminal act, but that won't stop the people performing the next coup from making their usurpation legal.

Military coups are not legal, unless the people performing the coup make their coup legal. Be realistic! Someone who performs a coup will not put themselves up for legal justification.

[z12]

Amazing Thailand. Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act.

From an earlier post:

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.

"Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act." - Incorrect. Under the latest constitution, the 2006 coup does not constitute a criminal act. It does not make any reference to any other coups - past or future.

I'm sure usurpation is already a criminal act, but that won't stop the people performing the next coup from making their usurpation legal.

Military coups are not legal, unless the people performing the coup make their coup legal. Be realistic! Someone who performs a coup will not put themselves up for legal justification.

Goodness, coup d'etat is LEGAL when it is successful,

and NOT legal when it fails, then you will be charged and executed.

Edited February 13, 2012 by z12

[folium]

Amazing Thailand. Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act.

From an earlier post:

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.

"Coups under the latest constitution do not constitute a criminal act." - Incorrect. Under the latest constitution, the 2006 coup does not constitute a criminal act. It does not make any reference to any other coups - past or future.

I'm sure usurpation is already a criminal act, but that won't stop the people performing the next coup from making their usurpation legal.

Military coups are not legal, unless the people performing the coup make their coup legal. Be realistic! Someone who performs a coup will not put themselves up for legal justification.

Goodness, coup d'etat is LEGAL when it is successful,

and NOT legal when it fails, then you will be charged and executed.

As noted by Rubi miltary coups carry no penalty under the law as per the post 2006 constitution (which also absolved those involved in that coup from any legal sanction).

Whether or not anyone would be charged for any of the earlier coups is fairly unlikely.

Talking of previous coups, amazingly enough no one is quite sure how many there have been. See link below:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/03/08/counting-thailands-coups/

from this it seems there have been at least 22 with just over half being successsful. It also mentions (but not included in the 22) "silent coups" like that of 1980 that saw Prem come to power when the then government was apparently made a quiet offer it could not refuse.

It would be interesting to know how may of these plotters,usurpers faced legal action for their act.

Some of them are almost unbelievable, for instance the Manhattan coup of 1951 which saw the RTN trying to seize power. Having been crushed in 36 hours the government forces then apparently went on a killing spree with a resulting 1200 dead & 3000 injured (mainly uninvolved civilians).

[rubl]

begin removed ...

As noted by Rubi miltary coups carry no penalty under the law as per the post 2006 constitution (which also absolved those involved in that coup from any legal sanction).

... end removed

As indicated by rubl the 2006 coup makers have been absolved in the 2007 constitution. Any new coup would be judged against that constitution and not be automatically absolved, but maybe penalyzed. Read the 2007 constitution:

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html

[z12]

What I posted is the norm of course and even if the military is not running the country post coup d'etat, the civilians they allowed to run the country would never charge them.

Thailand has their own way of doing things and I doubt they would ever charge nor convict any military of a failed coup d'etat. Though it is hard to see how any military coup d'etat could fail, who would stop them?

Edited February 13, 2012 by z12

[longway]

For a more positive post on the Thai military check this one out:

http://www.atimes.co...a/NA06Ae01.html

The weird thing is that in any other country this is bread and butter MACP (military aid to the civil power) stuff and is the classic non lethal function of a military. Here it is viewed through the prism of regaining political prestige. Rather sad but somewhat indicative of where the Thai military has come to.

The point missed by allthese 'analyses' of your is that Thailand is not a democracy. Thailand only exists as it does because of the balance of power is split between the military and political structures, not in spite of it.

Until all sides are forced to follow the rule of law, thauland cannot and never will eb a democracy. the sad fact is that if the military would vanish from thailand tomorrow then thailand would be even less democratic than it is now.

You can argue all you want, but if a sitting PM can order the execution of thousands of suspected drug dealers without due process, then thailand is in now way shpae or form a democracy. just because it was 'popular' policy does not make it a democratic one. its just underlines how dangerous it is to put power into one set of hands in thailand.

its mob rule here not democracy and 2 centres of powers is nt necessarily a bad thing. reform the police first as they are the enorcers of teh law and the rest can falll into place, not to mention the poison to democracy that is vote buying.

This is classic chicken & egg stuff. One of the key reasons that Thailand is not a democracy is the military.

18 coups and lengthy periods of military dictatorships, with a more modern version of "power behind the throne" being played out in the last few years, have warped the sense of normality here and allowed undemocratic actions by both military and civilians to become expected and part of the fabric.

How can you expect any institution to respect the law when one of the 2 key institutions in this country wields a significant degree of economic, political and physical power without any accountability under the law?

Extra judicial murders instigated by civilians such as Thaksin are fundamentally wrong and in most countries illegal. So are the murders committed in 1991-92, 1976 and during other episodes as the military struggled with the CPT and other perceived enemies of the state.

At the end of the day, whether it be S.Africa or N. Ireland to achieve a lasting settlement and to allow a country to move on and allow its people to develop, all sides have to hold their breath, bury their indignation and fury and move on.

In N. Ireland Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, both of whom with actual blood on their hands, are now part of the political process and have helped bring about the political solution to a brutal, unwinnable situation.

Like it or not, just as the instigators and perpetrators of murders and coups in the last few decades have never been brought to court, it is very likely that the hated figure of TS will probably also avoid legal sanction.

As unpalatable as this may seem, if this is part of a normalization of affairs in Thailand, it would be a small price to pay. Every institution in Thailand will have to play its part in this process and the suggestions of the Nittirat committee are probably the likely direction of such a compromise.

In response to an earlier post Thailand does not rate that highly in SE Asia in terms of freedom of speech/the press (hardly surprising given the increasing numbers of convictions under an article of law currently under debate). Indonesia, the Philippines and E. Timor are all higher rated (see map below). In terms of a democratic report card, Thailand is only bested by E. Timor in SE Asia, but sadly still ranks as a "flawed democracy" in the EIU (Economist Intelligence Review) democracy report for 2011.

See free link to that report below:

http://en.wikipedia....Democracy_Index

The question I asked was which country in SE asia was more democratic or had a more free press in 2001. The 2011 situation only shows how bad it has gotten now, the reds a have been around for 5-6 years now, what have they contributed to te progress of democracy? A great fat ZERO. They are useless.

The Nittirat group is a side show that will achieve nothing.

One of the key reasons that Thailand is not a democracy is the military.

No the key reason thailand is not a democracy is because no-one in power is subject to the law. You guys bleat on and on about the military, its the police that are the key to moving this country forward and not one line is written by the reds or any of the so called democracy activists about how they drain and bleed this the country like parasites and do nothing of note to protect the human rights of common people when they are in the way of or attacked by the upper echeons of society here. Once laws are enforced, the whole patron-client network that pervades the country wil be undermined and will collapse, then you will see movement to democracy.

And the poison to democracy of vote buying is is just brushed under the carpet. Its astounding

I am sorry to say that your reply to me though appreciated is missing the point.

I say it again if the military were to vanish completely thailand would be even less democratic than it is now as the civilian route to power here is at essence mob rule.

Edited February 13, 2012 by longway

[tlansford]

- sniper -

The point missed by allthese 'analyses' of your is that Thailand is not a democracy. Thailand only exists as it does because of the balance of power is split between the military and political structures, not in spite of it.

Until all sides are forced to follow the rule of law, thauland cannot and never will eb a democracy. the sad fact is that if the military would vanish from thailand tomorrow then thailand would be even less democratic than it is now.

You can argue all you want, but if a sitting PM can order the execution of thousands of suspected drug dealers without due process, then thailand is in now way shpae or form a democracy. just because it was 'popular' policy does not make it a democratic one. its just underlines how dangerous it is to put power into one set of hands in thailand.

its mob rule here not democracy and 2 centres of powers is nt necessarily a bad thing. reform the police first as they are the enorcers of teh law and the rest can falll into place, not to mention the poison to democracy that is vote buying.

This is classic chicken & egg stuff. One of the key reasons that Thailand is not a democracy is the military.

18 coups and lengthy periods of military dictatorships, with a more modern version of "power behind the throne" being played out in the last few years, have warped the sense of normality here and allowed undemocratic actions by both military and civilians to become expected and part of the fabric.

How can you expect any institution to respect the law when one of the 2 key institutions in this country wields a significant degree of economic, political and physical power without any accountability under the law?

Extra judicial murders instigated by civilians such as Thaksin are fundamentally wrong and in most countries illegal. So are the murders committed in 1991-92, 1976 and during other episodes as the military struggled with the CPT and other perceived enemies of the state.

At the end of the day, whether it be S.Africa or N. Ireland to achieve a lasting settlement and to allow a country to move on and allow its people to develop, all sides have to hold their breath, bury their indignation and fury and move on.

In N. Ireland Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, both of whom with actual blood on their hands, are now part of the political process and have helped bring about the political solution to a brutal, unwinnable situation.

Like it or not, just as the instigators and perpetrators of murders and coups in the last few decades have never been brought to court, it is very likely that the hated figure of TS will probably also avoid legal sanction.

As unpalatable as this may seem, if this is part of a normalization of affairs in Thailand, it would be a small price to pay. Every institution in Thailand will have to play its part in this process and the suggestions of the Nittirat committee are probably the likely direction of such a compromise.

In response to an earlier post Thailand does not rate that highly in SE Asia in terms of freedom of speech/the press (hardly surprising given the increasing numbers of convictions under an article of law currently under debate). Indonesia, the Philippines and E. Timor are all higher rated (see map below). In terms of a democratic report card, Thailand is only bested by E. Timor in SE Asia, but sadly still ranks as a "flawed democracy" in the EIU (Economist Intelligence Review) democracy report for 2011.

See free link to that report below:

http://en.wikipedia....Democracy_Index

The question I asked was which country in SE asia was more democratic or had a more free press in 2001. The 2011 situation only shows how bad it has gotten now, the reds a have been around for 5-6 years now, what have they contributed to te progress of democracy? A great fat ZERO. They are useless.

The Nittirat group is a side show that will achieve nothing.

One of the key reasons that Thailand is not a democracy is the military.

No the key reason thailand is not a democracy is because no-one in power is subject to the law. You guys bleat on and on about the military, its the police that are the key to moving this country forward and not one line is written by the reds or any of the so called democracy activists about how they drain and bleed this the country like parasites and do nothing of note to protect the human rights of common people when they are in the way of or attacked by the upper echeons of society here. Once laws are enforced, the whole patron-client network that pervades the country wil be undermined and will collapse, then you will see movement to democracy.

And the poison to democracy of vote buying is is just brushed under the carpet. Its astounding

I am sorry to say that your reply to me though appreciated is missing the point.

I say it again if the military were to vanish completely thailand would be even less democratic than it is now as the civilian route to power here is at essence mob rule.

"No the key reason thailand is not a democracy is because no-one in power is subject to the law."

Which includes the military, so we circle back to the original point...

Not that the military could just disappear tomorrow, but if they miraculously stepped out of politics, then it is highly unlikely that Thailand would be less democratic....

[folium]

Longway et al

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope I fear.

Why are the police so corrupt, ineffectual and derided? Because they are powerless. So like many powerless, spineless sad little bullies, they shake down those they can. Their corruption and lack of professionalism is widespread but actually of little real consequence.

When was the last time the police seized real power and shaped this country?

Like it or not so many of the fundamental issues of this country stem from the simple fact that key institutions retain way too much power and this is no state secret (and if it takes some lardy hired help like Mr Armstrong to point out the utterly obvious that is a sad indictment in itself). The rot is endemic to such an extent that no one has any respect for, or understanding of, right or wrong. Anyone in the slightest position of authority is almost expected to abuse that position because such a mindset comes from the top down.

Call their bluff and the whole sorry pack of cards comes tumbling down. Rather like the emperor's new clothes story, once the obvious is clearly stated, any sense of deference and awe is soon replaced by more powerful emotions, namely ridicule and rage. Ignore it or reap the proverbial whirlwind, which will be to everyone's detriment and regret, at least in the short term.

The military in any society has a fundamentally important role to play in terms of lethal force projection. It has to be a professional organization that uses that power responsibly, only when required, and with a clear understanding of what it implies. 80 years is far too long a time for that power to be misused. TS and all the other scumbag politicians are just the byproducts of a fundamentally flawed set up that desperately needs reform from the top downward.

Edited February 13, 2012 by folium

[rubl]

Longway et al

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope I fear.

Why are the police so corrupt, ineffectual and derided? Because they are powerless. So like many powerless, spineless sad little bullies, they shake down those they can. Their corruption and lack of professionalism is widespread but actually of little real consequence.

When was the last time the police seized real power and shaped this country?

... end removed

Folium, you've said many a true thing, but keeping on hammering against the Army and calling the police misbehaviour of little real consequence makes your arguments suspect. For rule of law the behaviour of the police force is equally or even more important. In everyday life you will see police here in Thailand which gives their misbehaving a greater impression especially to impressable youngster than whatever the Army does. When last did you see the Army? Oh, when they were helping all who were effected by the floods. Where was the police at that time, anyone remembers?

[longway]

"No the key reason thailand is not a democracy is because no-one in power is subject to the law."

Which includes the military, so we circle back to the original point...

Not that the military could just disappear tomorrow, but if they miraculously stepped out of politics, then it is highly unlikely that Thailand would be less democratic....

It does not circle back as the civilian authorities are also not subject to the law. In a country like thailand where there there are no checks and blannces to the the government in power, the military retains the legitimacy to stage coups and can act as a counter to their excesses, and vice versa, the civilian arm is necessry to rein in the army, when the checks and balances are present then the army's legitimacy to interfere with the government vanishes, then the army can be brought into the power of the government without any issue of 'veto' power, real or made up.

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope I fear.

Why are the police so corrupt, ineffectual and derided? Because they are powerless. So like many powerless, spineless sad little bullies, they shake down those they can. Their corruption and lack of professionalism is widespread but actually of little real consequence.

The police are are vital to a democracy, if they are powerless, then there is no democracy. You cant argue that the military is interfering with democracy as in this case it does not exist.

For rule of law the behaviour of the police force is equally or even more important.

exactly. when the common folk are battling with the uper echelons of society, there not a red shirt in sight, they have no interest in enforcing the rule of law and prtecting the rights of the common man, they are not interested in democracy.

Edited February 13, 2012 by longway

[folium]

Longway et al

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope I fear.

Why are the police so corrupt, ineffectual and derided? Because they are powerless. So like many powerless, spineless sad little bullies, they shake down those they can. Their corruption and lack of professionalism is widespread but actually of little real consequence.

When was the last time the police seized real power and shaped this country?

... end removed

Folium, you've said many a true thing, but keeping on hammering against the Army and calling the police misbehaviour of little real consequence makes your arguments suspect. For rule of law the behaviour of the police force is equally or even more important. In everyday life you will see police here in Thailand which gives their misbehaving a greater impression especially to impressable youngster than whatever the Army does. When last did you see the Army? Oh, when they were helping all who were effected by the floods. Where was the police at that time, anyone remembers?

And that's exactly the point I made earlier. The military helping out in civil emergencies is part of the job. It doesn't need a pat on the back and a job well done endorsement. In such situations the military has the equipment, the manpower and often the expertise that no other organization has; it's called doing your job. As someone with a fair degree of military experience, I fully get the fact that a key function of the military is to pick up the pieces when other organizations cannot/are unable to do so. And in that vein, and without being too macabre, a truly unpleasant version of picking up such pieces fell to my brother, who's first task, fresh out of Sandhurst, was being deployed with his Company to "tidy up" the debris field of the Lockerbie bombing incident in 1988. Not nice, but a job that needed to be done, a sentiment which neatly sums up the military's key function.

In any organization, civilian or otherwise, the tone and behaviour are set from above. If those at lower levels see disregard, bordering on outright contempt, for the law by those in more powerful/responsible positions, what do you expect? The pathetic standard of policing, similar to the beyond laughable behaviour of politicians, are all symptomatic of a far deeper malaise. Neither is inexcusable but the solution will probably require seriously invasive surgery if anyone is ever brave enough to elect to go down that route.

It goes against every grain in my body to criticize any professional military organization, but there is nothing sadder than seeing fundamental abuse of a vital institution.

[folium]

"No the key reason thailand is not a democracy is because no-one in power is subject to the law."

Which includes the military, so we circle back to the original point...

Not that the military could just disappear tomorrow, but if they miraculously stepped out of politics, then it is highly unlikely that Thailand would be less democratic....

It does not circle back as the civilian authorities are also not subject to the law. In a country like thailand where there there are no checks and blannces to the the government in power, the military retains the legitimacy to stage coups and can act as a counter to their excesses, and vice versa, the civilian arm is necessry to rein in the army, when the checks and balances are present then the army's legitimacy to interfere with the government vanishes, then the army can be brought into the power of the government without any issue of 'veto' power, real or made up.

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope I fear.

Why are the police so corrupt, ineffectual and derided? Because they are powerless. So like many powerless, spineless sad little bullies, they shake down those they can. Their corruption and lack of professionalism is widespread but actually of little real consequence.

The police are are vital to a democracy, if they are powerless, then there is no democracy. You cant argue that the military is interfering with democracy as in this case it does not exist.

For rule of law the behaviour of the police force is equally or even more important.

exactly

I think you are quoting both myself and tlansford so I will just address the comments attached to my quoted text (the second quote).

Whether it is the police or the military the key issue is that they do the job required of them in a professional manner. What you seem to ignore is the simple fact that the Thai military (or to be precise its leadership) has ensured that today this country has a flawed democracy and an utterly warped sense of what is normal. To all intents and purposes the military hierarchy has run this country for the last 80 years. All other institutions, whether it be the police, politicians, judiciary or anyone else, have had to adapt and shape themselves around this simple fact.

That it has taken a professional shiister on the scale of TS to shake up the military hierarchy's complacency simply reflects the scale of the problem that needs to be addressed.

[pastitche]

Longway et al

You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope I fear.

Why are the police so corrupt, ineffectual and derided? Because they are powerless. So like many powerless, spineless sad little bullies, they shake down those they can. Their corruption and lack of professionalism is widespread but actually of little real consequence.

When was the last time the police seized real power and shaped this country?

... end removed

Folium, you've said many a true thing, but keeping on hammering against the Army and calling the police misbehaviour of little real consequence makes your arguments suspect. For rule of law the behaviour of the police force is equally or even more important. In everyday life you will see police here in Thailand which gives their misbehaving a greater impression especially to impressable youngster than whatever the Army does. When last did you see the Army? Oh, when they were helping all who were effected by the floods. Where was the police at that time, anyone remembers?

With respect,rubl I believe that you are addressing the situation from the wrong perspective - yes the police in Thailand are a farcical organisation in many ways but is that perhaps an institutionalised situation where they are not meant to do anything other than what they already do, in other words to ignore the most serious criminal activity and play around the peripherary?

Military intervention in civilian affairs is inherently wrong, no matter what the militarily written constitution may piously say; it is not abou protecting but a carte blanche to allow unacceptable actions

Thailand needs a complete reorganisation of its institutional structure so that no-one, no matter "who my father is", is beyond the law. The people of this country do not believe that "all men are created equal" and have accepted that for generations; that is why I believe that occurrences such as a coup and inbuilt constitutional amnesty for the coup perpetrators (I don't like using calgaryll's word but can't think of a better) are accepted without huge public outcry. They accept that their superiors must know better and in any case "how does it affect me?"

I believe in democracy and that whatever faults it has, it's the best system we have ever developed. In spite of appearances, Thailand is not a democracy and not because of vote-buying, over-hyped campaign promises, or even because of poor education. These are the normal responses that TV produces from those who cannot accept that voters are not programmable.

The people of Thailand perhaps did not really vote for Thaksin, they know his history, they know that he was trying to get control of the military (and maybe its lucrative activities) and they know his motivations but they did vote against the elected government of the time and elected a government that may or may not be his plaything. Perhaps within the aliiance/organisation that is PT, there are others with an agenda that is not Thaksin's.

I hope so and I hope that in the future there will be a greater sophistication amongst Thai voters who will try to change the system to one where equality is available to all .

[longway]

I think you are quoting both myself and tlansford so I will just address the comments attached to my quoted text (the second quote).

Whether it is the police or the military the key issue is that they do the job required of them in a professional manner. What you seem to ignore is the simple fact that the Thai military (or to be precise its leadership) has ensured that today this country has a flawed democracy and an utterly warped sense of what is normal. To all intents and purposes the military hierarchy has run this country for the last 80 years. All other institutions, whether it be the police, politicians, judiciary or anyone else, have had to adapt and shape themselves around this simple fact.

That it has taken a professional shiister on the scale of TS to shake up the military hierarchy's complacency simply reflects the scale of the problem that needs to be addressed.

Without the military there would not be a thailand. there is plenty of stuff to criticise, but the fact remains that in 2001 thailand could be classed as one of the success stories of SE asia, in terms of relative prosperity and prospects, progress to democracy, a stable society, and a reasonably free press.

To put the responsibility of everything bad on the military's doorstep is a one eyed look, if they awere so powerful and responsible for all the bad, then they should be given credit for the good as well. Its a far more complex story than you make it out to be.

Thye have been in decline for a long time, its taken an out of control megromaniac to bring them out of the barracks and revive their power.

With respect,rubl I believe that you are addressing the situation from the wrong perspective - yes the police in Thailand are a farcical organisation in many ways but is that perhaps an institutionalised situation where they are not meant to do anything other than what they already do, in other words to ignore the most serious criminal activity and play around the peripherary? (part quote)

They are at the centre of serious criminal activity and responsible for much of it.

Edited February 13, 2012 by longway

[rubl]

begin removed ...

With respect,rubl I believe that you are addressing the situation from the wrong perspective - yes the police in Thailand are a farcical organisation in many ways but is that perhaps an institutionalised situation where they are not meant to do anything other than what they already do, in other words to ignore the most serious criminal activity and play around the peripherary?

... end removed

We're really getting into personal opinions here, mine included. Your view of the Thai Police Force I cannot agree with, which also means the rest is based on what I think is incorrect. To my believe the RTPF is really meant to act as such. The 'thin blue line' as some say.

BTW if your view were correct it would make remarks about 'on April 10th, 2010 why did the government ask the Army to disperse protesters and didn't use the police force as is normal in many countries' even more distorted than they already were at that time.

[z12]

I'll take the RTA over mr T.

Edited February 13, 2012 by z12

[volk666]

It's not like the police were ever so powerless. Thaksin, despite being the first ever PM that came out of police ranks (and married police general's daughter, too) had some very impressive role models.

with the drug traders, you must use hammer and fist , that is , act decisively and without mercy.

police general phao sriyanon once said "there is nothing under the sun that the thai police cannot do"

so i'm confident that drugs are something that the thai police can deal with.

thaksin shinawatr.

speech 14/1/2003.

the popular northeasten monk , luang pho khun parisuttho , praised thaksin to his face

"its good you were born to become powerful and help the nation , if you did not exist , ya ba would never be got rid of for sure ......since the time of field marshal sarit thanarat , now its you who has appeared as someone important to save the nation at the right moment.....dont bother putting drug traders in jail.....the sin from killing a ya ba trader is the same as from killing one mosquito. nothing to be afraid of.

MR , 30/9/2003

these quotes taken from the book "thaksin , the business of politics in thailand "

by pasuk phongpaichit and chris baker.

an easy to read (for a book about politics) and informative book about the rise of thaksin and his family and some insights into the strange world of thai politics.

Wikipedia even has a chapter called "Police Terror" in Phao entry.

http://en.wikipedia....d#Police_terror

Interesting factoid - Thaksin has exerted control over Thai politics for far longer than any of the military dictators of the past, and this is in the age where political shelf lives become shorter and shorter. Since Prem no one lasted longer than three years in charge here, for example.

[pastitche]

begin removed ...

With respect,rubl I believe that you are addressing the situation from the wrong perspective - yes the police in Thailand are a farcical organisation in many ways but is that perhaps an institutionalised situation where they are not meant to do anything other than what they already do, in other words to ignore the most serious criminal activity and play around the peripherary?

... end removed

We're really getting into personal opinions here, mine included. Your view of the Thai Police Force I cannot agree with, which also means the rest is based on what I think is incorrect. To my believe the RTPF is really meant to act as such. The 'thin blue line' as some say.

BTW if your view were correct it would make remarks about 'on April 10th, 2010 why did the government ask the Army to disperse protesters and didn't use the police force as is normal in many countries' even more distorted than they already were at that time.

begin removed ...

With respect,rubl I believe that you are addressing the situation from the wrong perspective - yes the police in Thailand are a farcical organisation in many ways but is that perhaps an institutionalised situation where they are not meant to do anything other than what they already do, in other words to ignore the most serious criminal activity and play around the peripherary?

... end removed

We're really getting into personal opinions here, mine included. Your view of the Thai Police Force I cannot agree with, which also means the rest is based on what I think is incorrect. To my believe the RTPF is really meant to act as such. The 'thin blue line' as some say.

BTW if your view were correct it would make remarks about 'on April 10th, 2010 why did the government ask the Army to disperse protesters and didn't use the police force as is normal in many countries' even more distorted than they already were at that time.

I really think that you should have read all of what I said or at least quoted it. I believe also that the Thai police should be in the forefront for control of civilian unrest; I suggest however that this is not the case for reasons that are probably obvious, other than the blatant "i'm not putting myself in there". It is clear that the police commanders have the same motivations as other Thai institutions, personal and organisational advantage.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I really think that you should have read all of what I said or at least quoted it. I believe also that the Thai police should be in the forefront for control of civilian unrest; I suggest however that this is not the case for reasons that are probably obvious, other than the blatant "i'm not putting myself in there". It is clear that the police commanders have the same motivations as other Thai institutions, personal and organisational advantage.

Maybe I cut a bit too much, my excuses for that. This time I did because the software used in this forum complained about mismatch of quotes/end-quotes, probably just meaning too many quotes.

I personally to try avoid saying 'obviously' or 'it is clear' as in most cases that's not the case to others. I'm sure I don't always succeeding in my good intentions though, I'm only human after all

[pastitche]

begin removed ...

I really think that you should have read all of what I said or at least quoted it. I believe also that the Thai police should be in the forefront for control of civilian unrest; I suggest however that this is not the case for reasons that are probably obvious, other than the blatant "i'm not putting myself in there". It is clear that the police commanders have the same motivations as other Thai institutions, personal and organisational advantage.

Maybe I cut a bit too much, my excuses for that. This time I did because the software used in this forum complained about mismatch of quotes/end-quotes, probably just meaning too many quotes.

I personally to try avoid saying 'obviously' or 'it is clear' as in most cases that's not the case to others. I'm sure I don't always succeeding in my good intentions though, I'm only human after all

Cheers rubl, I'm glad to hear that someone else has the same mismatch problems as I often do.

[arminbkk]

Apparently some posters read into my previous post that I am a supporter of TS or RA.

I'm not.

My main point was the army veto and how the army holds the strings.

It just happened to be in an article about RA.

As far as I'm concerned, TS and RA can both go shuffle camel !@##) in Dubai.

[folium]

Apparently some posters read into my previous post that I am a supporter of TS or RA.

I'm not.

My main point was the army veto and how the army holds the strings.

It just happened to be in an article about RA.

As far as I'm concerned, TS and RA can both go shuffle camel !@##) in Dubai.

It's a sad and somewhat bizarre affliction that seems to plague some TV types. The mere hint of anything associated with TS sends them into a fit of rage and fury. Meanwhile the status quo remains much the same as it has for the last 80 years.

I understand that the RTA will be staging a march past in every major city on June 24th 2012 to commemorate the 80th anniversary of their seizure of power. Citizens are not to be concerned that this might be the 19th, 22nd or even 23rd coup attempt; (it is so hard to keep track) unless of course the country needs saving again. So "Keep calm and carry on" (as the Thai population has had to for 80 years) will be the mantra for June 24th.

Edited February 17, 2012 by folium

[rubl]

Apparently some posters read into my previous post that I am a supporter of TS or RA.

I'm not.

My main point was the army veto and how the army holds the strings.

It just happened to be in an article about RA.

As far as I'm concerned, TS and RA can both go shuffle camel !@##) in Dubai.

It's a sad and somewhat bizarre affliction that seems to plague some TV types. The mere hint of anything associated with TS sends them into a fit of rage and fury. Meanwhile the status quo remains much the same as it has for the last 80 years.

I understand that the RTA will be staging a march past in every major city on June 24th 2012 to commemorate the 80th anniversary of their seizure of power. Citizens are not to be concerned that this might be the 19th, 22nd or even 23rd coup attempt; (it is so hard to keep track) unless of course the country needs saving again. So "Keep calm and carry on" (as the Thai population has had to for 80 years) will be the mantra for June 24th.

This may surprise / disappoint / confirm, but the 24th of June (a Sunday) doesn't seem to have sufficient value to have a mention on my (Bangkok Bank supplied) calendar, neither deemed to be worthy of a substitute holiday (25th Monday) by the company here I work for.

Maybe folium has had access to documentation supplied to Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader Jatuporn who was given information about a coup by some US Intelligence Group?

Personally I'm surprise this particular OP hasn't died a natural death yet.

[tlansford]

two thoughts spring to mind...

Firstly if Thaksin did not exist would posters on this topic still be so keen on the military's existing legal right top stage a coup whenever it suits? Is this just Thai-style flawed democracy?

<snip>

What "military's existing legal right to stage a coup"?

The interim constitution made the actions of 2006 coup legal (after the fact). It says nothing about future coups.

But realistically, it's irrelevant if coups were legal or not. That wouldn't stop them. Would you really expect someone to perform a coup and then say "Arrest me, I broke the law"?

Let's not forget the only reason the tanks rolled was because of the complete disrespect law and order shown by the ruling, and then caretaker party - Thai Rak Thai.

The military where again required in the streets during the red shirt riots of 2009 and 2010, when the police force tasked with enforcing the law were completely unwilling to perform their duties effectively. 2010 was made all the more tragic by the presence of an armed militia, clearly tasked with assisting the red shirts.

Bottom line is to strengthen the judicial system and apply it fairly across the board, otherwise military intervention will likely be a key facet in Thai politics going forward. Can we trust Phua Thai to strengthen the judicial system as required?

Of course we can't.

A History of Thailand 2nd Edition pg 270

... Although coups seem common in Thailand, this was the first time in almost 50 years that a coup carried out by driving tanks into the capital had been a success. Although the operation went smoothly, there had been struggles in advance. The coup leader, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, had become army chief in 2005 after the king had refused to confirm Thaksin's candidate for the post. in the three months before the coup, Sonthi transferred over a hundred unit commanders in order to reduce the influence of Thaksin's allies. The tanks were not there as decoration.

This account points to a different reason to have the tanks in BKK for the coup.

[OzMick]

This account points to a different reason to have the tanks in BKK for the coup.

PPPPPP (Prior Planning..........etc)