Coups Don't Solve Problems: Thailand

[hansnl]

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.

You really think the electorate would have turned?

And you really think Mr T & co would not have taken measures against that possibility.

Exactly, common sense would do wonders for any country.

[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.

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.

You underestimate the electorate. Did you attend ANY elections, did you or were you at the ballot boxes in any elections from '97 to 2007? I attended all elections at various locations from Bangkok, Issarn to the north. People voted with equal commitment to whom them believed would service them best. Sure there was a lot of suspicious lobbying and parties behind each election, the worst case I witnesses was in Buriram and Surin provinces. Who was committing the most suspicious acts....... The Democrats! Go figure! Naive, I beg you to give some substantial proof of your own personal experience to support your post.

[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.

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.

.

That so called tyrant leader seams to be running the show again! Not to bad at the moment!

[jayjayjayjay]

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.

Singapore

[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?

.

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.

but what would happen if there were a military coup?

And if you do not like the term judicial coup, then what would happen if the courts dissolved the PTP in the current situation?

[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.

but what would happen if there were a military coup?

And if you do not like the term judicial coup, then what would happen if the courts dissolved the PTP in the current situation?

There are all kinds of reasons to dissolve the PTP (per the constitution) in the current situation, most blatant of which is the involvement of banned politicians in government. That's been going on for some time now. It has been going on due to great JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, allowing events to unfold as they will.

As for the notion that dissolving parties is a good idea, I'm against it. I think it exists in the constitution as a failsafe given the wide understanding that other "pillars of democracy" such as an effective policing mechanism exist only in name and cannot be relied on to discharge the duties they are responsible for.

Edited June 17, 2012 by lannarebirth

[OzMick]

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.

but what would happen if there were a military coup?

And if you do not like the term judicial coup, then what would happen if the courts dissolved the PTP in the current situation?

Either would quite likely lead to serious bloodshed. Which begs the question why did PTP so blatantly breach electoral law in the last election?

I see only one of 2 possibilities; defying the EC and daring them to act knowing it could cause civil strife, OR hoping to provoke it.

[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.

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.

And if a leech crawls onto your skin, do you allow it to eat its fill and then drop off naturally, hoping it's not carrying any disease? Is that common sense?

What would have happened if Thaksin had managed to install his family and cronies into enough positions of power that he could afford to do away with elections?

The only mistake that they made in the coup was not executing him. I doubt that mistake will be made twice.

[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.

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.

And if a leech crawls onto your skin, do you allow it to eat its fill and then drop off naturally, hoping it's not carrying any disease? Is that common sense?

What would have happened if Thaksin had managed to install his family and cronies into enough positions of power that he could afford to do away with elections?

The only mistake that they made in the coup was not executing him. I doubt that mistake will be made twice.

Who in this country has deliberately, on countless occasions approved of the undoing of democratic elections by means of a military coup ?

[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.

And if a leech crawls onto your skin, do you allow it to eat its fill and then drop off naturally, hoping it's not carrying any disease? Is that common sense?

What would have happened if Thaksin had managed to install his family and cronies into enough positions of power that he could afford to do away with elections?

The only mistake that they made in the coup was not executing him. I doubt that mistake will be made twice.

Who in this country has deliberately, on countless occasions approved of the undoing of democratic elections by means of a military coup ?

Go on then, tell us........

[volk666]

Who in this country has deliberately, on countless occasions approved of the undoing of democratic elections by means of a military coup ?

I'm not sure about "countless" democratic elections. I'm not aware of anyone prior to Thaksin claiming any kind of special mandate from the people, it was always elites messing with each other.

[OzMick]

Who in this country has deliberately, on countless occasions approved of the undoing of democratic elections by means of a military coup ?

OK, I give up. what's the answer?

[hellodolly]

'"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.

If a pad would install those things in people the current government would outlaw them rather than promote them.

They would find another way to personally enrich themselves.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and a reply have been removed.

[airconsult]

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.

Singapore?

[kerryk]

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.

And if a leech crawls onto your skin, do you allow it to eat its fill and then drop off naturally, hoping it's not carrying any disease? Is that common sense?

What would have happened if Thaksin had managed to install his family and cronies into enough positions of power that he could afford to do away with elections?

The only mistake that they made in the coup was not executing him. I doubt that mistake will be made twice.

Is advocating the violent overthrow of an elected government and murder of it's Prime Minister acceptable posting etiquette? Wow am I behind the times.

[animatic]

"...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..."

On the basic premise that future coups would be illegal, making it more illegal is not worth the paper it's printed on.

But correcting the sway of rampent corruption in government, parliament, ministries, and elections,

is the ONLY way to ensure future coups are not considered as necessary resets of the governmental structures.

Of course those most likely to be the targets of coups are those least likely to

reverse corruptions grand and malevolent hand stretching over the whole of Thailand.

And this statement in no way means change the form of government, but to

greatly INCREASE the checks, balances and PENALTIES imposed on those

in government service for corruption AND for those inducing or collaborating with them.

Edited June 18, 2012 by animatic

[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.

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.

And if a leech crawls onto your skin, do you allow it to eat its fill and then drop off naturally, hoping it's not carrying any disease? Is that common sense?

What would have happened if Thaksin had managed to install his family and cronies into enough positions of power that he could afford to do away with elections?

The only mistake that they made in the coup was not executing him. I doubt that mistake will be made twice.

Is advocating the violent overthrow of an elected government and murder of it's Prime Minister acceptable posting etiquette? Wow am I behind the times.

And behind the door, I think. I was commenting on history, and pointing out that people learn from their mistakes (except for idiots.)

[airconsult]

And if a leech crawls onto your skin, do you allow it to eat its fill and then drop off naturally, hoping it's not carrying any disease? Is that common sense?

What would have happened if Thaksin had managed to install his family and cronies into enough positions of power that he could afford to do away with elections?

The only mistake that they made in the coup was not executing him. I doubt that mistake will be made twice.

Is advocating the violent overthrow of an elected government and murder of it's Prime Minister acceptable posting etiquette? Wow am I behind the times.

And behind the door, I think. I was commenting on history, and pointing out that people learn from their mistakes (except for idiots.)

You wouldn't be nervous about a regime that executes it's opponents?

[OzMick]

And if a leech crawls onto your skin, do you allow it to eat its fill and then drop off naturally, hoping it's not carrying any disease? Is that common sense?

What would have happened if Thaksin had managed to install his family and cronies into enough positions of power that he could afford to do away with elections?

The only mistake that they made in the coup was not executing him. I doubt that mistake will be made twice.

Is advocating the violent overthrow of an elected government and murder of it's Prime Minister acceptable posting etiquette? Wow am I behind the times.

And behind the door, I think. I was commenting on history, and pointing out that people learn from their mistakes (except for idiots.)

You wouldn't be nervous about a regime that executes it's opponents?

"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination". Voltaire

[airconsult]

"...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..."

On the basic premise that future coups would be illegal, making it more illegal is not worth the paper it's printed on.

But correcting the sway of rampent corruption in government, parliament, ministries, and elections,

is the ONLY way to ensure future coups are not considered as necessary resets of the governmental structures.

Of course those most likely to be the targets of coups are those least likely to

reverse corruptions grand and malevolent hand stretching over the whole of Thailand.

And this statement in no way means change the form of government, but to

greatly INCREASE the checks, balances and PENALTIES imposed on those

in government service for corruption AND for those inducing or collaborating with them.

Not that I'm saying this was the case, but...

"Of course those most likely to be the targets of coups are those least likely to

reverse corruptions grand and malevolent hand stretching over the whole of Thailand."

Don't you find the reverse true too? In that many coups are performed by those seeking their own best interest ie. head in the trough - perhaps the Rhodesian coup is an example?

Actually looking at figures, the military expenditure in Thailand had dropped too low to maintain ability before 2006, but the increases afterwards point to a side-reason?

[airconsult]

Is advocating the violent overthrow of an elected government and murder of it's Prime Minister acceptable posting etiquette? Wow am I behind the times.

And behind the door, I think. I was commenting on history, and pointing out that people learn from their mistakes (except for idiots.)

You wouldn't be nervous about a regime that executes it's opponents?

"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination". Voltaire

But George Bernard Shaw said -

"Assassination is the extreme form of censorship"

Personally I'll take his opinion over Voltaire's on that thought.

Edited June 18, 2012 by airconsult

[thaisquibble]

I'm in favour of another coup, help keep the tourists away.

[airconsult]

I'm in favour of another coup, help keep the tourists away.

I know it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is serious - official estimates say 6.7% of GDP is tourism, (personally I think they should look again at all supporting service industries and find it's closer to 10%)

But at 6.7% that's about 40 billion THB. Of course, let's just give it up!

[OzMick]

You wouldn't be nervous about a regime that executes it's opponents?

"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination". Voltaire

But George Bernard Shaw said -

"Assassination is the extreme form of censorship"

Personally I'll take his opinion over Voltaire's on that thought.

While assassination is not something I would normally advocate, any student of history with 20/20 hindsight must admit that there are occasions where the death of one man may have prolonged the lives of many, even millions.

I applauded the 2006 coup because it was bloodless. After around 100 people have died to satisfy the aspirations of one man, i view the situation slightly differently. If there was anything to show that the Thais have benefited from the change in government those deaths helped to achieve, I might feel otherwise.

[Moruya]

I quite enjoyed the last coup, it was great fun. My wife had some lovely photos taken of her atop a tank, all the friends and family I haven't spoken with for ages contacted me and Thailand just continued as normal.

[animatic]

"...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..."

On the basic premise that future coups would be illegal, making it more illegal is not worth the paper it's printed on.

But correcting the sway of rampent corruption in government, parliament, ministries, and elections,

is the ONLY way to ensure future coups are not considered as necessary resets of the governmental structures.

Of course those most likely to be the targets of coups are those least likely to

reverse corruptions grand and malevolent hand stretching over the whole of Thailand.

And this statement in no way means change the form of government, but to

greatly INCREASE the checks, balances and PENALTIES imposed on those

in government service for corruption AND for those inducing or collaborating with them.

Not that I'm saying this was the case, but...

"Of course those most likely to be the targets of coups are those least likely to

reverse corruptions grand and malevolent hand stretching over the whole of Thailand."

Don't you find the reverse true too? In that many coups are performed by those seeking their own best interest ie. head in the trough - perhaps the Rhodesian coup is an example?

Actually looking at figures, the military expenditure in Thailand had dropped too low to maintain ability before 2006, but the increases afterwards point to a side-reason?

I was talking strictly of the current Thai context.

Thailand is very little like other places, including countries with serial coups in their histories. Few coups ever happen without some self-interest involved, but that can also mean wanting the country to not collapse from corruption too. Which can benefit all, not just the few.

[airconsult]

You wouldn't be nervous about a regime that executes it's opponents?

"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination". Voltaire

But George Bernard Shaw said -

"Assassination is the extreme form of censorship"

Personally I'll take his opinion over Voltaire's on that thought.

While assassination is not something I would normally advocate, any student of history with 20/20 hindsight must admit that there are occasions where the death of one man may have prolonged the lives of many, even millions.

I applauded the 2006 coup because it was bloodless. After around 100 people have died to satisfy the aspirations of one man, i view the situation slightly differently. If there was anything to show that the Thais have benefited from the change in government those deaths helped to achieve, I might feel otherwise.

The only reason it was bloodless at the time, was it was quick, the roads into bangkok allowing opposing generals were blocked, and the people in bangkok all remembered the bloodbath of Black May in 1992.

[OzMick]

"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination". Voltaire

But George Bernard Shaw said -

"Assassination is the extreme form of censorship"

Personally I'll take his opinion over Voltaire's on that thought.

While assassination is not something I would normally advocate, any student of history with 20/20 hindsight must admit that there are occasions where the death of one man may have prolonged the lives of many, even millions.

I applauded the 2006 coup because it was bloodless. After around 100 people have died to satisfy the aspirations of one man, i view the situation slightly differently. If there was anything to show that the Thais have benefited from the change in government those deaths helped to achieve, I might feel otherwise.

The only reason it was bloodless at the time, was it was quick, the roads into bangkok allowing opposing generals were blocked, and the people in bangkok all remembered the bloodbath of Black May in 1992.

Well done then? I don't recall even a hint of protest (not to say there wasn't any), and certainly quite a bit of appreciation.

[airconsult]

But George Bernard Shaw said -

"Assassination is the extreme form of censorship"

Personally I'll take his opinion over Voltaire's on that thought.

While assassination is not something I would normally advocate, any student of history with 20/20 hindsight must admit that there are occasions where the death of one man may have prolonged the lives of many, even millions.

I applauded the 2006 coup because it was bloodless. After around 100 people have died to satisfy the aspirations of one man, i view the situation slightly differently. If there was anything to show that the Thais have benefited from the change in government those deaths helped to achieve, I might feel otherwise.

The only reason it was bloodless at the time, was it was quick, the roads into bangkok allowing opposing generals were blocked, and the people in bangkok all remembered the bloodbath of Black May in 1992.

Well done then? I don't recall even a hint of protest (not to say there wasn't any), and certainly quite a bit of appreciation.

What I remember from those who wanted to oppose was FEAR.

They were desperately afraid that if they said or did anything, they would end up like some of the people from 1992 - in a container at the bottom of the sea.

Perhaps in hindsight Gen. Sonthi wouldn't have done the same things as some of his predecessors, but who could be sure?

The RTA's actions at Tak Bai were firmly in people's minds as well.

Edited June 18, 2012 by airconsult