Coups Don't Solve Problems: Thailand

[webfact]

'Coups don't solve problems'

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Nearly six years have passed since the coup of September 19, 2006, yet those who were so loud in denouncing it have done little to free Thailand from the fear of yet another putsch, because no reforms have been introduced within the Army.

Chanakarn Phundeam-vong, a former member of the "19 September Network against Coup d'Etat", the first active group to come out in opposition to the coup, said the power structure in the Army remained the same.

"There have been calls for [military] reform, but nothing has been done," she said.

Chanakarn added that even though the Constitution clearly states that staging a coup is illegal and unconstitutional, it never stopped the elite from supporting them. She said this had to change and people had to face up to the fact that democracy was globalising.

Chulalongkorn University political scientist Puangthong Pawakapan said that though a coup d'etat was still a possibility, the red shirts would not put up with it, so it would be very difficult to govern the country even if a coup were successful. "Those who are contemplating it must be stupid," she said.

Chanakarn added that if a coup were to be staged, it would almost inevitably erupt into a civil war.

However, Puangthong lamented the lack of a public discourse on the subject.

Sirote Klampaiboon, a human-rights lecturer at Mahidol University and another active opponent of the 2006 coup, agreed with Puangthong, saying that the Army could only make a move if it had support from certain groups.

He called on the government to introduce some legal measures that make future coups d'etat illegal, adding that they could start by having those responsible for the one in 2006 face justice.

"Those who were involved in the coup should not be granted amnesty," Sirote said, adding that the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy and the multicoloured shirts would stop looking at coups as a "solution" for everything.

"In the end they had to hold an election anyway, so the 2006 coup was pointless," Sirote said.

-- The Nation 2012-06-16

[Unkomoncents]

The longer-term problem is that in a country with as strong a predilection for complacency as Thailand, crippling protests and coups will simply become accepted as part of the normal administrative dynamic.

[OzMick]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

[theblether]

Coups are bad for business, for investment, for democracy, for tourism, and for the international image of Thailand.

However the last coup was a great result for Thailand........which just goes to show how much of a dog TS is.

[somtumlion]

I have long maintained that the Thai military was unprepared for the intense media exposure they garnered internationally, during the last coup. The world changed dramatically between 1991 and 2006, and the rise of of social media and 24 hour news that is hungry for any story really shined a light on Thailand in a way that the military were not comfortable with.

I think the days of military exerting themselves in this fashion has ended. They, like most cockroaches, hate the light, and scurry for cover when the light is on them (also include Thai politicians in this metaphor as well. They will content themselves to manipulate from behind the scenes, rather than openly stage a coup again.

[SuneeTH]

Coups solve problems.

It did remove a Montenegrin dictator from being a second Hitler of the world.

Well done coups. Can we have more now?

[backtonormal]

'"Sirote Klampaiboon, a human-rights lecturer at Mahidol University and another active opponent of the 2006 coup, agreed with Puangthong, saying that the Army could only make a move if it had support from certain groups.'"

Support from certain groups is what its all about. With the defamation laws designed to cripple any criticism of these certain groups will see you loose your shirt in a one sided court. The people that need to know who these certain groups are, do know who they are but cannot openly discuss their role in the last 60 years of political instability in Thailand.

These groups of people have ensured that they retain the wealth of the nation and nobody has opportunities and most received a third class education. Those that suggest that Thaksin was plundering the nation may be correct but what they are not admitting that whatever Thaksin snaffled away for himself is a spit in the Chao Prayha river compare to the money that has been stolen from the nation in the last few decades.

Its time to rewrite the defamation laws and allow the media to drop a big spotight on some of these power families. Certain laws have been created and upheld to protect certain families. Defamation is not the only such law.

[billd766]

'"Sirote Klampaiboon, a human-rights lecturer at Mahidol University and another active opponent of the 2006 coup, agreed with Puangthong, saying that the Army could only make a move if it had support from certain groups.'"

Support from certain groups is what its all about. With the defamation laws designed to cripple any criticism of these certain groups will see you loose your shirt in a one sided court. The people that need to know who these certain groups are, do know who they are but cannot openly discuss their role in the last 60 years of political instability in Thailand.

These groups of people have ensured that they retain the wealth of the nation and nobody has opportunities and most received a third class education. Those that suggest that Thaksin was plundering the nation may be correct but what they are not admitting that whatever Thaksin snaffled away for himself is a spit in the Chao Prayha river compare to the money that has been stolen from the nation in the last few decades.

Its time to rewrite the defamation laws and allow the media to drop a big spotight on some of these power families. Certain laws have been created and upheld to protect certain families. Defamation is not the only such law.

Who would write these laws? The politicians who have a vested interest in things staying the same.

Who would enforce these laws? The police who have a vested interest in things staying the same.

Until you can start in the beginning and instil honour, ethics and morality in people there will always be a me, me , me attitude.

You need to start at the early days of school and it will take 2 or 3 generations assuming you start NOW.

[Reasonableman]

Honour, ethics and morality?? Isn't that reverse Darwinism? If you can't beat 'em... Fight fire with fire... Go with the flow, etc. As resources become more scarce, we can probably only expect competition to increase. In that case, the secular rule of law, honor, ethics and morality, are only consolations/straws to clutch at for the weaker losers. Just an observation of a social process.

[topcrumpet]

'"Sirote Klampaiboon, a human-rights lecturer at Mahidol University and another active opponent of the 2006 coup, agreed with Puangthong, saying that the Army could only make a move if it had support from certain groups.'"

Support from certain groups is what its all about. With the defamation laws designed to cripple any criticism of these certain groups will see you loose your shirt in a one sided court. The people that need to know who these certain groups are, do know who they are but cannot openly discuss their role in the last 60 years of political instability in Thailand.

These groups of people have ensured that they retain the wealth of the nation and nobody has opportunities and most received a third class education. Those that suggest that Thaksin was plundering the nation may be correct but what they are not admitting that whatever Thaksin snaffled away for himself is a spit in the Chao Prayha river compare to the money that has been stolen from the nation in the last few decades.

Its time to rewrite the defamation laws and allow the media to drop a big spotight on some of these power families. Certain laws have been created and upheld to protect certain families. Defamation is not the only such law.

Who would write these laws? The politicians who have a vested interest in things staying the same.

Who would enforce these laws? The police who have a vested interest in things staying the same.

Until you can start in the beginning and instil honour, ethics and morality in people there will always be a me, me , me attitude.

You need to start at the early days of school and it will take 2 or 3 generations assuming you start NOW.

Superb observations. The very nature of education and social structure would have to change immensely in Thailand.The rather sad state of mind at present means the majority of people here are not only disempowered but also often believe they are not worthy of attention.

[tomross46]

The 1932 coup led by Pridi, was hatched in France when a group of Siamese rick school kids and members of the royal family got the allowance cut by the ambassador. They did not take into considerat the world wide recession, they only wanted money. they came back to Siam an started a clandestin political party called The People Party.

During that time the budget had been cut for all government offices, and the military. These elite were use to the dole passed out and did not want it to stop, when it was cut back they revolted and declared a constitutional democracy. That was 80 years ago and we still do not have a democracy.

[BrianCR]

Can I please request that all democratic military coups take place either on a Monday or Friday, so giving the sane a long weekend break? Thank you in advance.

[jayjayjayjay]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

This is where you are wrong belong belief. If the country had continued to run under Thaksin tyranny, then eventually the electorate would have turned against him, no matter how much money he could or would have spent on elections. Simple answer is that if that course had been allowed to run then the electorate would have gotten what it wanted and we would be in a much more stable politicial environment now. Your hatred of everything Thaksin shields your common sense.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[TheCure]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

I pity you .

[bigbamboo]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

This is where you are wrong belong belief. If the country had continued to run under Thaksin tyranny, then eventually the electorate would have turned against him, no matter how much money he could or would have spent on elections. Simple answer is that if that course had been allowed to run then the electorate would have gotten what it wanted and we would be in a much more stable politicial environment now. Your hatred of everything Thaksin shields your common sense.

I seem to remember that the final straw was his attempted interference in the military, specifically in annual promotions to key positions. If he had taken control of the armed forces he would have had total control and you know what that means.. But Prem cooked his goose for him... alledgedly.

Curiously the country did rather well post coup economically in very trying times during the credit crunch, largely thanks to restrained (comparatively) leadership and ministers appointed largely on merit (eg Korn). Then you know who stuck his oar in and the good ship Thailand sprung a leak.

Edited June 16, 2012 by bigbamboo

[Pseudolus]

Behind each coup is a lot of money changing hands or the desire for money to be changing hands in a different direction. Coups are the tell tale sign of a complete corrupt society. All this talk from Joe Thai Public being anti coup is burned to dust by the other notable poll where 80% of them actively condone and support corruption and extortion.

[jayjayjayjay]

Behind each coup is a lot of money changing hands or the desire for money to be changing hands in a different direction. Coups are the tell tale sign of a complete corrupt society. All this talk from Joe Thai Public being anti coup is burned to dust by the other notable poll where 80% of them actively condone and support corruption and extortion.

Yeah, like the CNS approving a 68 billion baht military package within days of taking over, and the military budget increasing in 2007 by 33.8% and 2008 by 24.3%. This in addition to the people serving General Prayuth having a 319.1 million secret support budget to promote junta support!!! Great economic theory behind these calls.

Money, it's all about power, thus controlling the money.

Source: Military Coup and Democracy in Thailand, Chairat Charonsin-o-larn, Thammasart University, Bangkok

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:cUiEt8TyctEJ:asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/chairat-2007.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESirZ7kmoDVqA_Hdobdvphs_HKzOhMF-SbyvNCHjB7sFW3XxY15CHVzxDh8-qrhFbQHMGz2_unB3vIfJ-k_lGYgykGX2uv-mHAe7YAuT2XevwhG0y74P7yscBuOcF2cqgiP4mRvl&sig=AHIEtbSQHIKbPUXMwjbMOzFfKv35Qor5Sw&pli=1

[Time Traveller]

Coups solve all the problems. Remind every citizen the military runs the show around here, and everyone else's opinions and lives mean nothing.

[ttelise]

Really. Wow. Just figuring this out.

[Roadman]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

This is where you are wrong belong belief. If the country had continued to run under Thaksin tyranny, then eventually the electorate would have turned against him, no matter how much money he could or would have spent on elections. Simple answer is that if that course had been allowed to run then the electorate would have gotten what it wanted and we would be in a much more stable politicial environment now. Your hatred of everything Thaksin shields your common sense.

More stable politicial environment now? Sure it would as there would be no right to question anything against him.

And once a tyrant and the scum that run with him place themselves above the law and any final check (in this case the Army) how do you then remove them? The electorate would eventually turn again him?...Wow...and when they did, do you think Thaksin the populist / dictator would give a toss what the electorate would think or be able to do against him. Have a look around the world right now where civil wars are being fought to rid countries of tyrants and scum like Thaksin. The cost is not only the eventual civil war regardless but also the years of tyranncy rule that still leave the lower social economic classes still where they were when they first paid their souls over for their ฿500 life pledge to their puu yai. Your common sense is lost behind your naivety.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Roadman

[Skywalker69]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

This is where you are wrong belong belief. If the country had continued to run under Thaksin tyranny, then eventually the electorate would have turned against him, no matter how much money he could or would have spent on elections. Simple answer is that if that course had been allowed to run then the electorate would have gotten what it wanted and we would be in a much more stable politicial environment now. Your hatred of everything Thaksin shields your common sense.

More stable politicial environment now? Sure it would as there would be no right to question anything against him.

And once a tyrant and the scum that run with him place themselves above the law and any final check (in this case the Army) how do you then remove them? The electorate would eventually turn again him?...Wow...and when they did, do you think Thaksin the populist / dictator would give a toss what the electorate would think or be able to do against him. Have a look around the world right now where civil wars are being fought to rid countries of tyrants and scum like Thaksin. The cost is not only the eventual civil war regardless but also the years of tyranncy rule that still leave the lower social economic classes still where they were when they first paid their souls over for their ฿500 life pledge to their puu yai. Your common sense is lost behind your naivety.

Good post!

[tlansford]

So what are the opinions related to the OP -

Chulalongkorn University political scientist Puangthong Pawakapan said that though a coup d'etat was still a possibility, the red shirts would not put up with it, so it would be very difficult to govern the country even if a coup were successful. "Those who are contemplating it must be stupid," she said.

What would be the possible reactions if there were another coup?

What would be the possible reactions if there were a judicial coup?

[tlansford]

I notice that the coup-lovers have come out of the closet, again. ...

And again. ...

And again.

[whybother]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

This is where you are wrong belong belief. If the country had continued to run under Thaksin tyranny, then eventually the electorate would have turned against him, no matter how much money he could or would have spent on elections. Simple answer is that if that course had been allowed to run then the electorate would have gotten what it wanted and we would be in a much more stable politicial environment now. Your hatred of everything Thaksin shields your common sense.

Do you mean like how the people have turned against their leaders in North Africa?

[Buchholz]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

This is where you are wrong belong belief. If the country had continued to run under Thaksin tyranny, then eventually the electorate would have turned against him, no matter how much money he could or would have spent on elections. Simple answer is that if that course had been allowed to run then the electorate would have gotten what it wanted and we would be in a much more stable politicial environment now. Your hatred of everything Thaksin shields your common sense.

Do you mean like how the people have turned against their leaders in North Africa?

On a more regional basis, the Philippines followed jayjayjay's philosophy and suffered immeasurably under two decades with Marcos with the reported loss of tens of thousands of Filipino's lives.

Tyrants like Marcos and Thaksin don't turn soft with age, they turn more tyrannical. There's nothing in Thaksin's rhetoric "TRT will rule for 20 years" or actions that would indicate any relaxing of his ever-tightening grip on the country.

.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

apropos of the above is Today's Thaksin-ism Quote of the Day:

June 17, 2012 (in Japan):

Although he was criticized for being too authoritarian and plutocratic during his term, Thaksin said he does not regret anything.

"If I were prime minister again, I'd do the same thing," Thaksin said.

http://www.yomiuri.c...20616002923.htm

btw, this was from an article where Thaksin delineates what the current Thai government policy is on another issue.... almost like he was the one in charge...

Thaksin seeks partnership in Myanmar

.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Buchholz

[Pseudolus]

Any coup that got rid of Thaksin was NOT pointless. The installation of anti-corruption measures has at least slowed the rapacious plundering of the country, and as more charges mount, will prevent the return of the main plunderer - unless he can get a white-wash.

This is where you are wrong belong belief. If the country had continued to run under Thaksin tyranny, then eventually the electorate would have turned against him, no matter how much money he could or would have spent on elections. Simple answer is that if that course had been allowed to run then the electorate would have gotten what it wanted and we would be in a much more stable politicial environment now. Your hatred of everything Thaksin shields your common sense.

Do you mean like how the people have turned against their leaders in North Africa?

On a more regional basis, the Philippines followed jayjayjay's philosophy and suffered immeasurably under two decades with Marcos with the reported loss of tens of thousands of Filipino's lives.

Tyrants like Marcos and Thaksin don't turn soft with age, they turn more tyrannical. There's nothing in Thaksin's rhetoric "TRT will rule for 20 years" or actions that would indicate any relaxing of his ever-tightening grip on the country.

.

Sorry to break it to you but some countries are actually better of run by a dictator as long as they remain non despotic (and there is the catch, absolute power corrupts absolutely). Philippines and Thailand are cases in point. The general public are so consumed in their own greed (with the safety net of a visit to a temple occasionally to get absolution for the other 360 days of greed, extortion, and general "i don't care unless it hurts me or enriches me personally" attitude. These societies benefit from a strong hand at the top and not allowing them to have any influence in actually running the country. Isn't it curious that any country that has a "get out of jail free" religion (catholic and Buddhist most notably) are usually the most corrupt and most likely to fall apart at the seams.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Pseudolus

[lannarebirth]

So what are the opinions related to the OP -

Chulalongkorn University political scientist Puangthong Pawakapan said that though a coup d'etat was still a possibility, the red shirts would not put up with it, so it would be very difficult to govern the country even if a coup were successful. "Those who are contemplating it must be stupid," she said.

What would be the possible reactions if there were another coup?

What would be the possible reactions if there were a judicial coup?

.

You remember what Johnny Carson used to say of his audience? "if I can get them to buy the premise I can't get them to buy the bit". Speaking of his comedy.

Anywhooo.. "Judicial coup" is just hyperbole Trying to establish the wrong premise? There are mechanism's by which a government acting unlawfully can be disbanded by court judgements. It is in no way a coup, It is per mandate of constitution. Military coups on the other hand are unlawful in themselves.

[ginjag]

Some coups DO solve problems, they clean up the vomit that exists. Problem is then the Thai's themselves they don't know right from wrong, whether it's in the home, upholding the law, money and power are on near all the populations minds, a disease that is ingrained. Because of this, Military involvement IS necessary here and always will be until you get rid of the national greed.