Political Games Retired Generals Play: Thai Talk

[webfact]

THAI TALK

Political games retired generals play

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- It was the mother of all ironies when the old coup-maker of 2006, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, was made the head of a House committee for national reconciliation - which may include a move to undo all the things the coup had claimed to achieve. And he doesn't seem too bothered with that.

General Sonthi's public position now is: "Don't ask me about the past. We must only look into the future."

It's a new paradox when the current Defence Minister, ACM Sukhampol Suwannathat, is compelled to complain that reporters keep asking him about the possibility of another coup when in fact "all military commanders know what's right and what's wrong".

ACM Sukhampol, who was one of the victims of the 2006 coup, has taken a public stand and insisted: "The future won't be a repeat of the past."

What that really means remains a mystery.

Have the two generals finally agreed to patch things up?

Not really. But both, in their own ways, are trying to ensure their own political survival by burying the past. Sonthi is trying to play the role of a national reconciliator, while Sukhampol is attempting to rein in the military establishment without provoking it into a new round of confrontation.

The defence minister, known to be close to fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, has softened his approach towards the top brass, especially Army Commander-in-Chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha. He has backed down, at least for now, from his initial demand that the Defence Council Act be amended so that the politically-appointed defence minister has full authority over the hiring and firing of military personnel.

The Defence Council Act had been introduced precisely to prevent politicians from "interfering" in military appointments, by according the authority over transfers of military personnel to a committee that represents the various branches of the armed forces, instead of granting that all-embracing influence to the defence minister.

This particular issue had initially threatened to pit Thaksin's appointee to the Defence Ministry against the entrenched military chiefs. Sukhampol, who was moved from the Transport portfolio to Defence to ensure the legislative change, has more or less struck a compromise with the top brass. Power sharing seems to have been the unannounced "middle path" between the new defence minister and the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Evidence of such a climb-down on both sides was ACM's response to a reporter's direct question: Will Army chief General Prayuth be in his post until his official retirement in 2014?

"If we continue this way, there is nothing. He will be there until the end of his term. We should cut off the past. We will judge things by their present merits. We won't dig up old stuff, otherwise we can't put an end to things."

Perhaps both sides have reached similar conclusions that a face-off would be mutually damaging and that the public is keeping a close watch to decide which side is more democratic and responsive to public sentiments.

General Sonthi, in his own way to rewrite history perhaps, has also officially accepted a set of proposals from the Phra Pokklao Institute (King Prajadhipok's Institute), part of which clearly suggest that the commission set up by the coup-makers in 2006 with authority to punish "those committing actions damaging to the state" was illegitimate and its activities should be nullified. The institute wants all decisions reached by the panel to be reviewed by the normal judicial process.

In other words, if General Sonthi, in his new role as a politician trying to undo his own past military actions, endorses the proposal, it would be tantamount to condemning his own past deeds - a potentially disastrous backtracking on his own part.

If they weren't so weird, the games being played by these two retired generals would be quite amusing. But this is no reality show. It's about a country's future, and it affects every citizen's life.

-- The Nation 2012-03-15

[bobmac10]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

[scorecard]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

All very nice armchair comment, possibly relevant is some countries, suggest you get some deeper insights into Thailand, which yes has had many coups, some instrumented by ruthless nasties, and some who were trying to be the democracy watchdog. It certainly is a mixed bag.

True democracy required politicians who respect and enhance the foundations of democracy, actively and visible respect and enhance the checks and balances, never ever actively & knowingly abuse the powers they hold whilst in elected office (or anytime) actively respect the judicial processes, and actively respect and support freedom of speech. And requires role models who display to my kids (and hopefully yours) upstanding values and morals.

Respect for the foundations of democracy doesn't include making public statements (including to the foreign press) like 'democracy is not important for Thailand, democracy is not needed in Thailand, my aim is not democracy'., and doesn't include severely intimidating the press. It also doesn't include large scale open nepotism to move family members into numerous positions of strong power, and doesn't include open manipulative of massive numbers of voters with a carrot on a stick, and doesn't include changing serious laws to benefit your own family.

When politicians actively trample on all of the above, citizens have a right to rebel and protest, and in some immature democracies it unfortunately means coups. But hopefully of course Thailand can in the near future become more mature politically and negate the need for someone to press the 'reset' button.

[bigbamboo]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

If the country had honest politicians then maybe the military would stay in their barracks and play with their expensive army toys.

[OzMick]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

Has it occurred to you that the reason Thailand has more coups than many African countries is that the Thai military doesn't seize power to rule, but in fairly short order resorts to its own form of democracy? Whereas African, Caribbean and South American coups usually result in military dictatorships that last for the life-time of the dictator (albeit sometimes short) or even longer.

Could it even be that the Thai model is preferred to the Burmese, Cuban, Libyan, or El Salvador?

[BigJohnnyBKK]

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

Maybe incredible to you, but that is the reality here and isn't likely to go away. Keep in mind that it's very unlikely anything of the sort could be done without the support of the most important families that in effect own the country. That is where the real power lies, not in the public-facing institutions created as window-dressing to allow Thailand to pretend it's a real democracy.

True democracy required politicians who respect and enhance the foundations of democracy, actively and visible respect and enhance the checks and balances, never ever actively & knowingly abuse the powers they hold whilst in elected office (or anytime) actively respect the judicial processes, and actively respect and support freedom of speech. And requires role models who display to my kids (and hopefully yours) upstanding values and morals.

When politicians actively trample on all of the above, citizens have a right to rebel and protest, and in some immature democracies it unfortunately means coups. But hopefully of course Thailand can in the near future become more mature politically and negate the need for someone to press the 'reset' button.

If the country had honest politicians then maybe the military would stay in their barracks and play with their expensive army toys.

Solutions will only come from the people themselves expecting public servants to actually work for the public interest - the country as a whole rather than just their connected network, which on both sides resembles nothing more than mafia - and having the confidence to hold them accountable.

Not likely within the lifetime of anyone reading this. The fundamental problems won't go away, and they ensure that only selfish idiots succeed in Thai politics.

[bobmac10]

Yes, I agree, no feudal lord could have remained in power without the backing of his army, and the wealthy families here (including the ex-military bosses) know they have the military to look after their interests. I suppose it's not so unusual when you consider that less than 100 years ago, the country was run on a completely feudal basis, ordinary folk had no rights or power. It took Europe more than 100 years to attain full democracy, with many bitter wars and revolutioins before monarchies became anachonistic. I'm just watching the tv series The Tudors at the moment, and old King Henry certainly used his absolute power whenever it suited him. It's easy for us to compare our modern democratic standards with theirs, when they are still evolving.

[animatic]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

All very nice armchair comment, possibly relevant is some countries, suggest you get some deeper insights into Thailand, which yes has had many coups, some instrumented by ruthless nasties, and some who were trying to be the democracy watchdog. It certainly is a mixed bag.

True democracy required politicians who respect and enhance the foundations of democracy, actively and visible respect and enhance the checks and balances, never ever actively & knowingly abuse the powers they hold whilst in elected office (or anytime) actively respect the judicial processes, and actively respect and support freedom of speech. And requires role models who display to my kids (and hopefully yours) upstanding values and morals.

Respect for the foundations of democracy doesn't include making public statements (including to the foreign press) like 'democracy is not important for Thailand, democracy is not needed in Thailand, my aim is not democracy'., and doesn't include severely intimidating the press. It also doesn't include large scale open nepotism to move family members into numerous positions of strong power, and doesn't include open manipulative of massive numbers of voters with a carrot on a stick, and doesn't include changing serious laws to benefit your own family.

When politicians actively trample on all of the above, citizens have a right to rebel and protest, and in some immature democracies it unfortunately means coups. But hopefully of course Thailand can in the near future become more mature politically and negate the need for someone to press the 'reset' button.

As long as Thaksin continues stirring the pot the best laid plans of retired generals and others will be for naught. To ignore that malign influence, sitting like the proverbial 900lb gorilla in the corner, is to ignore the glaringly obvious. If anyone expects the army not to move, they must reign in Thaksins manipulations before they go to far. Because after a tipping point all pronouncements on potential actions / inactions, or backing of actions are irrelevant.

ie all bets then are off.

That really is the crux of the current problem and on going. I of course expect a usual suspects to whine, 'why do you drag Thaksin into everything??' The response being; Thaksin is doing it just fine himself, I'm just recognizing that obvious fact.

Edited March 15, 2012 by animatic

[tlansford]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

All very nice armchair comment, possibly relevant is some countries, suggest you get some deeper insights into Thailand, which yes has had many coups, some instrumented by ruthless nasties, and some who were trying to be the democracy watchdog. It certainly is a mixed bag.

True democracy required politicians who respect and enhance the foundations of democracy, actively and visible respect and enhance the checks and balances, never ever actively & knowingly abuse the powers they hold whilst in elected office (or anytime) actively respect the judicial processes, and actively respect and support freedom of speech. And requires role models who display to my kids (and hopefully yours) upstanding values and morals.

Respect for the foundations of democracy doesn't include making public statements (including to the foreign press) like 'democracy is not important for Thailand, democracy is not needed in Thailand, my aim is not democracy'., and doesn't include severely intimidating the press. It also doesn't include large scale open nepotism to move family members into numerous positions of strong power, and doesn't include open manipulative of massive numbers of voters with a carrot on a stick, and doesn't include changing serious laws to benefit your own family.

When politicians actively trample on all of the above, citizens have a right to rebel and protest, and in some immature democracies it unfortunately means coups. But hopefully of course Thailand can in the near future become more mature politically and negate the need for someone to press the 'reset' button.

True democracy does need people of integrity. It is also a government of the people, not of the military. Bobmac is right that democracy won't exist in Thailand except in name only until the military is not part of politics.

Your statements regarding politicians behavior are quite nice, but I have never seen that, not even in robust, functioning democracies. So I would say that while integrity and honesty are needed, there will always be exceptions, sometimes even a lot of exceptions. That is the case today every where in the world.

Finally, the quote which I believe you refer to was from Thaksin in 2001 and was this :

‘Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned…. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness, and national progress.’

[moe666]

Ban all generals and other officers from politics. In the US government workers could be used for political purposes by office holders until a law was passed making it illigal, cannot remember name of law but was passed in early 1900s. Thailand should do the same with military people no political offices.

[bobmac10]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

All very nice armchair comment, possibly relevant is some countries, suggest you get some deeper insights into Thailand, which yes has had many coups, some instrumented by ruthless nasties, and some who were trying to be the democracy watchdog. It certainly is a mixed bag.

True democracy required politicians who respect and enhance the foundations of democracy, actively and visible respect and enhance the checks and balances, never ever actively & knowingly abuse the powers they hold whilst in elected office (or anytime) actively respect the judicial processes, and actively respect and support freedom of speech. And requires role models who display to my kids (and hopefully yours) upstanding values and morals.

Respect for the foundations of democracy doesn't include making public statements (including to the foreign press) like 'democracy is not important for Thailand, democracy is not needed in Thailand, my aim is not democracy'., and doesn't include severely intimidating the press. It also doesn't include large scale open nepotism to move family members into numerous positions of strong power, and doesn't include open manipulative of massive numbers of voters with a carrot on a stick, and doesn't include changing serious laws to benefit your own family.

When politicians actively trample on all of the above, citizens have a right to rebel and protest, and in some immature democracies it unfortunately means coups. But hopefully of course Thailand can in the near future become more mature politically and negate the need for someone to press the 'reset' button.

As long as Thaksin continues stirring the pot the best laid plans of retired generals and others will be for naught. To ignore that malign influence, sitting like the proverbial 900lb gorilla in the corner, is to ignore the glaringly obvious. If anyone expects the army not to move, they must reign in Thaksins manipulations before they go to far. Because after a tipping point all pronouncements on potential actions / inactions, or backing of actions are irrelevant.

ie all bets then are off.

That really is the crux of the current problem and on going. I of course expect a usual suspects to whine, 'why do you drag Thaksin into everything??' The response being; Thaksin is doing it just fine himself, I'm just recognizing that obvious fact.

No, I have to disagree with you Animatic,

in a robust functioning democracy, bad political leaders and regimes come and go.

Can you imagine a situation where say, in the USA, the military stepped in when Jimmy Carter was elected and he began unraveling years of conservative government institutions, cutting back on the Military's budget etc etc or when Gough Whitlam was elected and the first thing he did was pull the troops out of Vietnam, angering many senior military brass?

No, of course not, a mature democracy is able to withstand the push from the right and the left, according to the flavour of the day or the appetite of the electorate. I think it is highly simplistic to say that Thaksin is the reason why the Thai military would be entitled intervene in politics again, when one needs to consider all the other occasions they have toppled governments, prior to Thaksin's arrival on the political scene.

[longway]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

It has the worst record of governments being toppled by the military in the world, yet was one of the most democratic nations, and arguably the most democratic, in SE asia and Africa in 2001. Coincidence surely???

[scorecard]

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

If the country had honest politicians then maybe the military would stay in their barracks and play with their expensive army toys.

Solutions will only come from the people themselves expecting public servants to actually work for the public interest - the country as a whole rather than just their connected network, which on both sides resembles nothing more than mafia - and having the confidence to hold them accountable.

Not likely within the lifetime of anyone reading this. The fundamental problems won't go away, and they ensure that only selfish idiots succeed in Thai politics.

Agree, it's not going to reverse within my lifetime, but I do believe that history will repeat itself similar to many countries - eventually there will be a better educated larger middle class who can and do voice a logical structured opinion, become very tired of the current scenario and demand change, but with logic and with clear objectives which the majority will embrace because it's credible, respects and benefits all.

Along with this 2 points:

- There are more and more Thais (and i'm not referring to the rich) who realize that in surrounding countries the majority have a much better quality foflife and realize that this is also possible in Thailand with the right people running the ship, and realize that in surrounding countries (not all) politicians and a different breed and the best interests of their country is their personal motive.

- There are many highly capable, sincere and honest Thais who right now avoid politics like the plague because they are not prepared, personally, to be associated with gangs of immoral thieves, but the day will come (above) when the 'time is right' and they will emerge any quickly take Thailand forward.

Is it tomorrow? Unfortunately no.

Edited March 15, 2012 by scorecard

[animatic]

As long as Thaksin continues stirring the pot the best laid plans of retired generals and others will be for naught. To ignore that malign influence, sitting like the proverbial 900lb gorilla in the corner, is to ignore the glaringly obvious. If anyone expects the army not to move, they must reign in Thaksins manipulations before they go to far. Because after a tipping point all pronouncements on potential actions / inactions, or backing of actions are irrelevant.

ie all bets then are off.

That really is the crux of the current problem and on going. I of course expect a usual suspects to whine, 'why do you drag Thaksin into everything??' The response being; Thaksin is doing it just fine himself, I'm just recognizing that obvious fact.

No, I have to disagree with you Animatic,

in a robust functioning democracy, bad political leaders and regimes come and go.

Can you imagine a situation where say, in the USA, the military stepped in when Jimmy Carter was elected and he began unraveling years of conservative government institutions, cutting back on the Military's budget etc etc or when Gough Whitlam was elected and the first thing he did was pull the troops out of Vietnam, angering many senior military brass?

No, of course not, a mature democracy is able to withstand the push from the right and the left, according to the flavour of the day or the appetite of the electorate. I think it is highly simplistic to say that Thaksin is the reason why the Thai military would be entitled intervene in politics again, when one needs to consider all the other occasions they have toppled governments, prior to Thaksin's arrival on the political scene.

I agree in general as policy and the ideal,

that a functional democracy should be allowed to function.

Of course Thailand is not and never has been a Functioning Democracy.

In USA comparably think pre-civil War proto democracy run by the likes of the later Boss Tweed, Tammany Hall 40 years earlier, but with and asian overlay.

Generally in the last 30 years it has been a Cleptocracy with an occasional Democracy facade.

In any case,

I wasn't talking about USA or France or UK or Oz, but Thailand and it's CURRENT affairs.

Those nations do have variations on mature, (your word), functioning democracies. And yet they DO have huge monied interests trying to subvert their democracies for their selfish interests; the current election is all about that at present.

But Thailand doesn't have the electoral resilience of USA, not by a far stroke.

So we can talk hypothetically, we can talk Utopia in it's finest aspects,

we can talk political theory like Infinite Jest war games till the cows come home.

But when talking about retired Thai Generals, and their machinations and manipulations, then you can NOT help but also discuss their alliances, and cross alliances and deal making, and the biggest variables in the current state of affairs. They all are interlocking cogs that multiple players are trying to spin for advantage, and as they do the fine Thai people are harmed or die.

Call them Mafia Dons, Feudal Warlords, Influential Persons, they all Kow Tow

up and down the chain of real and pseudo respect this society can not, or will not choose, to overcome.

There are two competing major clans dragging each other and their under-clans and minions to the edge of calamity. With the unreconstructed socialist and communists hanging on in case luck hits them. And a cast of the greediest and most amoral in them land ready to scrabble for position and advantage when the bosses give the signal. We are looking at '73 again, but with better technology to whip up the partisans and spread the propaganda and group control mechanisms.

Sure there is the precedent of past coups. but prior to '73 that was different people in most all case. So other than precedent it is a roughly clear slate, but a newer and different set of problems causing the issues. Ultimately the prevalence of post feudal kow tow is the main driving force, but modern man is using old world ways of life for modern purposes. That was then, this is now and must be seen as NOW. What is happening now in the culture and who is the driving forces or countervailing forces at play.

At this juncture Mature Democracy is no more than a catch phrase, and until this Liegelord battle for control is sorted out, there wil be naught by a facade of Democracy for external and self-blinded internal consumption.

I wish I could see it any other way.

A mature Democracy is my greatest wish for Thailand.

But the present dynamic makes it impossible to foresee soon.

Edited March 15, 2012 by animatic

[scorecard]

This is arguably the most significant article that has been listed for comment on this forum for a long time.

The role of the military in the past cannot be ignored. Thailand has one of the worst (if not the worst) record for elected governments being toppled by the military compared with any other nation. African countries don't come close.

It is quite incredible that an attitude exists within the military that they have the right to dismiss a government whenever they feel it is appropriate.

This is a culture within the military, junior officers seeing their commanders doing it and years later they do it too.

Until Thailand is prepared to place the military under civilian government control (who has the balls to do it?), the country has no hope of achieving true democracy, rule of law and a separation of the powers of government.

Unfortunately, I think it will come down to another insurrection (redshirts style) and next time many more thousands of citizens involved before the military gets the message that their number one role is to protect the kingdom from foreign threats and not to play politics.

All very nice armchair comment, possibly relevant is some countries, suggest you get some deeper insights into Thailand, which yes has had many coups, some instrumented by ruthless nasties, and some who were trying to be the democracy watchdog. It certainly is a mixed bag.

True democracy required politicians who respect and enhance the foundations of democracy, actively and visible respect and enhance the checks and balances, never ever actively & knowingly abuse the powers they hold whilst in elected office (or anytime) actively respect the judicial processes, and actively respect and support freedom of speech. And requires role models who display to my kids (and hopefully yours) upstanding values and morals.

Respect for the foundations of democracy doesn't include making public statements (including to the foreign press) like 'democracy is not important for Thailand, democracy is not needed in Thailand, my aim is not democracy'., and doesn't include severely intimidating the press. It also doesn't include large scale open nepotism to move family members into numerous positions of strong power, and doesn't include open manipulative of massive numbers of voters with a carrot on a stick, and doesn't include changing serious laws to benefit your own family.

When politicians actively trample on all of the above, citizens have a right to rebel and protest, and in some immature democracies it unfortunately means coups. But hopefully of course Thailand can in the near future become more mature politically and negate the need for someone to press the 'reset' button.

True democracy does need people of integrity. It is also a government of the people, not of the military. Bobmac is right that democracy won't exist in Thailand except in name only until the military is not part of politics.

Your statements regarding politicians behavior are quite nice, but I have never seen that, not even in robust, functioning democracies. So I would say that while integrity and honesty are needed, there will always be exceptions, sometimes even a lot of exceptions. That is the case today every where in the world.

Finally, the quote which I believe you refer to was from Thaksin in 2001 and was this :

‘Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned…. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness, and national progress.’

So I break that down to mean 'I will give you a good lifestyle and happiness and national progress but I will make all the decisions, no broad open discussion, period.' And I will order state financial institutions to loan money to Myanmar so that they can buy lots of big ticket items from my company (already guaranteed that the contract will go to my company), In other words a dictator.

So which is worse?

Dictators who suppress open discussion and change laws for their own benefit and put their relatives into positions of power, take vote buying and manipulation to new heights, openly destroy the checks and balances, intimidate the press, abuse their power and nobody is game enough to challenge them?

Or generals who press the 'reset' button with no bloodshed and return the country to elections within a quite reasonable period of time and make an attempt to change the constitution to drive down vote buying?

Edited March 15, 2012 by scorecard

[sbk]

Post deleted, Do not attempt to lead other members down a path that contravenes forum rules

[hanuman1]

Post deleted, Do not attempt to lead other members down a path that contravenes forum rules

Sorry, what I meant to say of course is that I can't believe how lucky we are to have the army protecting us and state institutions from some bad things that can happen.

[tlansford]

- snip -

All very nice armchair comment, possibly relevant is some countries, suggest you get some deeper insights into Thailand, which yes has had many coups, some instrumented by ruthless nasties, and some who were trying to be the democracy watchdog. It certainly is a mixed bag.

True democracy required politicians who respect and enhance the foundations of democracy, actively and visible respect and enhance the checks and balances, never ever actively & knowingly abuse the powers they hold whilst in elected office (or anytime) actively respect the judicial processes, and actively respect and support freedom of speech. And requires role models who display to my kids (and hopefully yours) upstanding values and morals.

Respect for the foundations of democracy doesn't include making public statements (including to the foreign press) like 'democracy is not important for Thailand, democracy is not needed in Thailand, my aim is not democracy'., and doesn't include severely intimidating the press. It also doesn't include large scale open nepotism to move family members into numerous positions of strong power, and doesn't include open manipulative of massive numbers of voters with a carrot on a stick, and doesn't include changing serious laws to benefit your own family.

When politicians actively trample on all of the above, citizens have a right to rebel and protest, and in some immature democracies it unfortunately means coups. But hopefully of course Thailand can in the near future become more mature politically and negate the need for someone to press the 'reset' button.

True democracy does need people of integrity. It is also a government of the people, not of the military. Bobmac is right that democracy won't exist in Thailand except in name only until the military is not part of politics.

Your statements regarding politicians behavior are quite nice, but I have never seen that, not even in robust, functioning democracies. So I would say that while integrity and honesty are needed, there will always be exceptions, sometimes even a lot of exceptions. That is the case today every where in the world.

Finally, the quote which I believe you refer to was from Thaksin in 2001 and was this :

‘Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned…. Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness, and national progress.’

So I break that down to mean 'I will give you a good lifestyle and happiness and national progress but I will make all the decisions, no broad open discussion, period.' And I will order state financial institutions to loan money to Myanmar so that they can buy lots of big ticket items from my company (already guaranteed that the contract will go to my company), In other words a dictator.

So which is worse?

Dictators who suppress open discussion and change laws for their own benefit and put their relatives into positions of power, take vote buying and manipulation to new heights, openly destroy the checks and balances, intimidate the press, abuse their power and nobody is game enough to challenge them?

Or generals who press the 'reset' button with no bloodshed and return the country to elections within a quite reasonable period of time and make an attempt to change the constitution to drive down vote buying?

If you read the quote again, you will see that you have broken it down incorrectly.

Thaksin was not, IMO, a friend of democracy nor a person of integrity, but your interpretation of the quote is plain wrong none-the-less.

(edit to add : your reference / comparison to the military coup & Thaksin ending with the statement, "nobody is game enough to challenge" him, was not true at the time of the coup, and certainly not true at the time that the coup planning took place. The coup was for the benefit of those who planned it. It had nothing to do with restoring democracy. The coup short-circuited the organs of democracy rather than use them.)

Edited March 15, 2012 by tlansford

[OzMick]

If he was wrong, what did Thaksin really mean?

[tlansford]

If he was wrong, what did Thaksin really mean?

There is nothing obtuse about the quote.

Please stop trolling & baiting.

[bobmac10]

How did this discussion turn into a Thaksin good or Thaksin bad poll?

The issue is whether Thailand is willing to become fully fledged democracy and place the military under civilian control.

People like Thaksin will come and go in politics, the issue is whether the democratic process is mature enough for a Thaksin to become unpopular and be voted out of office. Take our recent;y departed Mr Berlusconi from italian politics. It was widely reported that he controlled 70% of everything that the Italian people read or heard. He hung around a long time but eventually they tired of him and he had to go, no military coup involved. Democracy became stronger and Italy progressed a little further down that path towards true representation of the people. If the people made a mistake for voting for some charlatan, shouldn't they be able to learn from their mistake? This "reset" button that the military has the right to push whenever is absolute fantasy. Democracy will NEVER advance if this continues. Someone should write a book titled " The Fabulous Wealth of the Retired Thai Generals" and publish it in Thailand, that might fire up the middle class to pressure the military to butt out of politics. But it's not just about politics, it's about power and the privileges that come with it. The military elite in this country have used their positions to enrich themselves to obscene levels, when their wives can fly to Paris to go shopping while they have contributed to the rape of their natural environment (where did all those teak forests go?). Eventually the Thais will wake up, but it's been a long sad story.

[noitom]

Who holds the power to empower the Army "to decide?" Many other posters here have noted that it is the rich, elite, privileged class who manipulates and controls the non-military actions of the military such as deciding that a coup d'etat is in order. This has gone on in Thailand for as long as most of us have all been around. Leaving the issue of good, non-corrupt, and law enforcing government aside for a moment, what's preposterous is that the newspapers, and particularly The Nation, write this kind of tripe and babel as if no one really knows the truth and the public are idiots. The newspaper is actually "playing a game" more than the generals by pandering to them and empowering them with an overinflated sense of self importance and preoccupation by even covering it in this "context."

The generals love the celebrity and it validates their state of existence while at the same time, the press plays off the preposterous notion that no one knows or comprehends the truth about who controls them. Does the press truly believe that the average Thai reader is that ignorant of the reality of who controls the power? What does the press think it is doing by writing in this context of "gamesmanship" without exposing the true system of the military/elite establishment and military control? It seems to be condescending to the average Thai and Thai follower in that it ignores the truth. It is a basic flaw in Thai society when the press does not represent the "truth," a key element of any worthy newspaper's mission.

[khaowong1]

Yes, someone could write a book titled, "The fabulous wealth of retired Thai Generals" but I can pretty most guarantee you, it would never get published in Thailand or be allowed into Thailand, not to mention what would happen to his family here if it was a Thai author. Sorry, dream on.

[scorecard]

Yes, someone could write a book titled, "The fabulous wealth of retired Thai Generals" but I can pretty most guarantee you, it would never get published in Thailand or be allowed into Thailand, not to mention what would happen to his family here if it was a Thai author. Sorry, dream on.

Well why just retired generals, what about a very large percentage of the Thai police and a very large percentage of bureaucrats and senior & mid level public servants, then why not include the retired executives of agencies which scam poor folks into jobs abroad, ......