General Sonthi Faces Tough Question Over Forces Behind Thai Military Coup

[webfact]

ANALYSIS

Sonthi faces tough question over forces behind coup

PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- Will Thai society ever discover whether there was a mastermind behind the 2006 coup beyond General Sonthi Boonyaratkalin? Perhaps you can try to read between the lines on what Sonthi said yesterday and decide.

More than five years after the September 19, 2006, military coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra, coup leader General Sonthi - now an MP and chairman of the House Committee on National Reconciliation - was asked in front of national media by veteran politician Sanan Kachonprasart: Were Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanond and the bureaucratic elites behind Sonthi and the coup, as had been alleged by red shirts?

Sanan, de facto leader of the Chart Thai Pattana Party, took Sonthi by surprise by saying that unless Sonthi came clean and clearly affirmed that neither Prem nor the bureaucratic elites, known as amataya, were behind the coup, many red-shirt supporters of Thaksin would continue to believe so.

"Who was behind the coup?" Sanan asked at a symposium on national reconciliation hosted by Sonthi, who was sitting not too far away. "Was it you or did you not have any personal motivation? Please speak the truth, or else the public will continue to doubt. Before we can reconcile you must speak the truth and clear the doubt."

Sonthi's reply was enigmatic. He began by saying no one should ever doubt his loyalty to His Majesty the King, and then added: "I don't think I can answer. For some questions, you can't answer even if you are dead. When the time comes it will reveal itself." He added that no good would result if he revealed it now. He then urged everyone to forget the past and think about today and try to build the future. He complained that he could no longer wear a red necktie, which was his favourite tie colour, since opponents of the coup and supporters of Thaksin had adopted red as their colour.

So he opted to wear a light-blue tie instead.

-- The Nation 2012-03-22

[mrtoad]

Sanan - another one of DL's crooked puppets.

[AGareth2]

should be a locked topic

very dangerous ground if the defacto leader of the coup is not talking

Edited March 22, 2012 by AGareth2

[hellodolly]

Sounds to me like an attempt to white wash Thaksin.

[jayboy]

Sounds to me like an attempt to white wash Thaksin.

Are you suggesting that awkward facts be buried if they threaten to to undermine your rather one dimensional narrative of recent Thai history?

[scorecard]

Sanan - another one of DL's crooked puppets.

Agreed.

Sanan, himself convicted and punished for eelction fraud asking for honest answers, what a joke.

[geriatrickid]

Sounds to me like an attempt to white wash Thaksin.

???? How is it an attempt o whitewash Thaksin? Thaksin did not order the coup.

The General refuses to provide an honest statement. What is he afraid of and what is he covering up?

Why is the General afraid to be honest?

If he feels the coup was justified, then come clean and say why he believes that and who else was responsible.

[NanLaew]

He claims that "no good would result if he revealed it now" because nobody has his back on the current reconciliation path. He is now just an MP and despite getting himself the Chairmanship on the official but toothless reconciliation circus, he has no safety net unlike the rewrite of the Constitution that happened under his watch which has the "get of of jail free card" for the coup leaders, including himself.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[animatic]

Sounds to me like an attempt to white wash Thaksin.

???? How is it an attempt o whitewash Thaksin? Thaksin did not order the coup.

The General refuses to provide an honest statement. What is he afraid of and what is he covering up?

Why is the General afraid to be honest?

If he feels the coup was justified, then come clean and say why he believes that and who else was responsible.

Or maybe he feels, rightly, that it is not for him to speak for others.

They are perfectly able to speak for themselves, if they choose to.

Secondly, someone may have been happy it removed Thaksin, but not happy it was a coup.

So it can't be said they backed it.

This is partly a way of creating and definitive enemies list, a la Nixon,

or Joe McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunt in the 50's, many people declined to

implicate others for what they said privately, while some others did so,

and their naming names has gone down badly in the cold hard light of history.

This is an attempt reinforce the Red brigades existing prejudices,

but they will believe what they want anyway. Outing others is not the way of reconciliation,

and the likely outcome is if he DID'T name someone the Reds Want to blame,

they would still think he is lying anyway.

Really no point in his saying anything at all.

Edited March 22, 2012 by animatic

[Tywais]

CAUTION!

This topic will be tightly monitored. Any post going off topic and especially falling afoul of the forum rules will be unceremoniously removed. Stepping on forum rule #2 will result in warnings/suspensions.

[Pseudolus]

I would not think he has left his army background that far behind. So many things happening in Thailand bring to mind Myanmar; the country is not balancing no the edge, but the route has been mapped for when they chose to take that journey. Will be interesting to see what happens at the next flood when the knights in khaki come to the rescue again.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

This seems pretty typical in this sub-forum, focusing and bad-mouthing the person who asked the question, rather than the question itself, which is both legitimate AND highly interesting.

But not as interesting as Sonthi's reply, who basically admitted that he was acting on orders, while choosing not to disclose exactly from whom.

As this is the prevailing suspicion anyway, it's good to hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak.

What it says here in black and white is that the Thai army takes orders from others than elected government, parliament, etc. They take orders outside of democratic channels. This is not surprising, but it is surprising (and rather positive) to have it confirmed so plainly. I don't think it even matters which particular person, persons or entity they take orders from. What is says is that Thailand is ruled not by elected government and parliament. There's an elected government facade and to handle the day-to-day, but when push comes to shove it really isn't a democracy. (Ok, News at 11, but still. )

Edited March 22, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[smedly]

it's a can of worms and is probably best left tightly shut - sounds more like someone trying to start a witch hunt, is that really going to help anything, Thaksin gaining ground becoming more confident - in my opinion if things continue like this Thailand is heading for big civil problems like never seen before

[FangFerang]

My fiance found an old girlfriend's phone number in my phone. She saw the call records showed we had been talking recently.

She asked about it and I told her, "When the time comes, it will reveal itself."

When asked in court if I had indeed made an eco-intercession at the Whamo Bubble Factory, dire polluters of the dark climate of fear, I told the judge, "When the time comes, it will reveal itself."

When the hotel concierge asked if I would pay by credit card or cash I said, "When the time comes, it will reveal itself."

This was just today. Thanks for the inspired obfuscation. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

[phiphidon]

Sounds to me like an attempt to white wash Thaksin.

???? How is it an attempt o whitewash Thaksin? Thaksin did not order the coup.

The General refuses to provide an honest statement. What is he afraid of and what is he covering up?

Why is the General afraid to be honest?

If he feels the coup was justified, then come clean and say why he believes that and who else was responsible.

Or maybe he feels, rightly, that it is not for him to speak for others.

They are perfectly able to speak for themselves, if they choose to.

Secondly, someone may have been happy it removed Thaksin, but not happy it was a coup.

So it can't be said they backed it.

This is partly a way of creating and definitive enemies list, a la Nixon,

or Joe McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunt in the 50's, many people declined to

implicate others for what they said privately, while some others did so,

and their naming names has gone down badly in the cold hard light of history.

This is an attempt reinforce the Red brigades existing prejudices,

but they will believe what they want anyway. Outing others is not the way of reconciliation,

and the likely outcome is if he DID'T name someone the Reds Want to blame,

they would still think he is lying anyway.

Really no point in his saying anything at all.

Well it's very difficullt to argue the point with one arm tied up around your back and a gag on, so I'll leave it there.

[FangFerang]

. I don't think it even matters which particular person, persons or entity they take orders from. What is says is that Thailand is ruled not by elected government and parliament. There's an elected government facade and to handle the day-to-day, but when push comes to shove it really isn't a democracy. (Ok, News at 11, but still. )

Tragically true of the United States too. The elected officials make decisions as the puppets of their handlers.

[kerryk]

. I don't think it even matters which particular person, persons or entity they take orders from. What is says is that Thailand is ruled not by elected government and parliament. There's an elected government facade and to handle the day-to-day, but when push comes to shove it really isn't a democracy. (Ok, News at 11, but still. )

Tragically true of the United States too. The elected officials make decisions as the puppets of their handlers.

Perhaps you would like to compare the generals fired by the civilian government in Thailand with the generals fired by the civilian government in the US. American Presidents fire generals like Thai generals have coups. Not only are you in error but you are in error big time and your statement is not supported by history; not past or present.

[Insight]

Have said it before, but given the actions of the Thaksin clan over the past two years I believe more than ever that the coup was an attempt to save lives, rather than destroy democracy. AFAIR Chris Baker states similar theory in his book, Thaksin, but writes the theory off as being rumor-based and outlandish. However, note that this edition of the book was published before the 2010 chaos which featured actions by militant "rangers" Baker alluded to in his book.

Sonthi's words are already being used by the Thaksin clan to justify their own theories. Messy times ahead for Thailand, without a doubt.

[kerryk]

Have said it before, but given the actions of the Thaksin clan over the past two years I believe more than ever that the coup was an attempt to save lives, rather than destroy democracy. AFAIR Chris Baker states similar theory in his book, Thaksin, but writes the theory off as being rumor-based and outlandish. However, note that this edition of the book was published before the 2010 chaos which featured actions by militant "rangers" Baker alluded to in his book.

Sonthi's words are already being used by the Thaksin clan to justify their own theories. Messy times ahead for Thailand, without a doubt.

Simple really. You are saying that the end justifies the means.

[Insight]

Have said it before, but given the actions of the Thaksin clan over the past two years I believe more than ever that the coup was an attempt to save lives, rather than destroy democracy. AFAIR Chris Baker states similar theory in his book, Thaksin, but writes the theory off as being rumor-based and outlandish. However, note that this edition of the book was published before the 2010 chaos which featured actions by militant "rangers" Baker alluded to in his book.

Sonthi's words are already being used by the Thaksin clan to justify their own theories. Messy times ahead for Thailand, without a doubt.

Simple really. You are saying that the end justifies the means.

In a country with such an incredibly weak and fearful judicial system, quite possibly so...

[mrtoad]

This seems pretty typical in this sub-forum, focusing and bad-mouthing the person who asked the question, rather than the question itself, which is both legitimate AND highly interesting.

It would be legitimate if it was not for a self serving reason, Sanan is a tainted individual, hence it is perfectly legitimate to question his motives behind asking the question.

[webfact]

This topic is under Admin/Moderator review and we close it pending the outcome

/Admin

//CLOSED//