Thai Army chief's remark draws strong criticism

[webfact]

Army chief's remark draws strong criticism



BANGKOK: -- Army commander-in-chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha came under strong criticism by both several retired senior government officials and protest leaders when he compared caretaker government as an owner of the company and he himself is an employee.

Gen Prayuth said Wednesday during a press interview about anti-government protesters’ repeated call for action by the Army to the stubborn caretaker prime minister to still remain in office (despite losing in several court cases).

The army chief then compared him to an employee of a company.

“How can employees fire owner of company. It’s not possible.”

Enraged by what was described as unreasonable comparison, a former permanent secretary said the army chief was wrong in making the comparison.

He said the company here referred to a country.

He said the caretaker government is not the owner of the country but it’s the people who own the country.

So if the caretaker government repeated wrong doings it is like its executives repeated doing wrong, then the people who are owners of the company or country have the right to kick them out.

Director of the Mongkutwattana hospital Maj-Gen Rienthong Nenna also voiced disagreement to the army chief’s remark.

He said the caretaker government is just employee who takes the role of executive to run the company on behalf of the owner or shareholders.

If executives do wrong, then the owner or shareholders can dismiss them.

In such case of the company being the country and the people are owner of the country, they therefore can legitimately dismiss the government or executives who do wrong, he explained.

Several PDRC leaders also voiced opposition to the army chief’s remark saying he should make a better comparison because the country is not the company while the owner of the company is not the caretaker government.

It’s the people who owns the country and has the right to fire executive of the company who have bad performance.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/army-chiefs-remark-draws-strong-criticism/


-- Thai PBS 2014-04-03

[Snig27]

It seems Maj-Gen Rienthong Nenna and the unnamed "former permanent secretary" are perhaps struggling with the core concept of democracy. They would do well to ask others not stuck in Thailand's dark totalitarian past as they seem to be. The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process. Gen Prayuth is completely correct in his interpretation - he does work for the people's elected government.

The PDRC long ago lost the plot so their comments - as usual - are someone irrelevant. They represent nobody apart from those pulling their strings above them (and that ain't the people of Thailand).

[pookiki]

Prayuth's comparison is correct. The detractors of his statement point to the role of the 'people' to ultimately rule and that is correct. But it is not the role or the military to enforce it's own perception of 'justice' on the elected leaders of the nation. The way for the people to express their will is through democratic elections.

[bigbamboo]

Didn't Khun T refer to himself as Thailand's CEO?

I guess now he's moved on and up he thinks of himself as life president instead.

Edited April 3, 2014 by bigbamboo

[pmugghc]

It seems Maj-Gen Rienthong Nenna and the unnamed "former permanent secretary" are perhaps struggling with the core concept of democracy. They would do well to ask others not stuck in Thailand's dark totalitarian past as they seem to be. The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process. Gen Prayuth is completely correct in his interpretation - he does work for the people's elected government.

The PDRC long ago lost the plot so their comments - as usual - are someone irrelevant. They represent nobody apart from those pulling their strings above them (and that ain't the people of Thailand).

If the government breaks the law or regulations then impeachment is another constitutional way to throw out member(s) of the government.

[MGP]

Didn't Khun T refer to himself as Thailand's CEO?

I guess now he's moved on and up he thinks of himself as life president instead.

Yes, he refered himself as Thailand's CEO in several occasions. Although he was fired, he is still a powerful shareholder controlling the assets via Skype.

The Downfall of Thaksin Shinawatra’s CEO-state

http://nautilus.org/apsnet/0634a-rowley-html/#axzz2xnhsPwzp

Thaksin still very much the CEO of this govt

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thaksin-still-very-much-the-CEO-of-this-govt-30201913.html

[jonclark]

The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process.

Apologies for cutting out most of your post - but I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

If a government (and i'm not being specific to Thailand here) is generally making a complete mess of running the country and the population are unhappy. And the next election is a few years away. Do you think that the people have to put up with 2 more years of incompetent government before they can reject them electorally or should they be more pro active?

I guess what i'm alluding to is which is more important - democracy or competent rule?

[smutcakes]

The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process.

Apologies for cutting out most of your post - but I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

If a government (and i'm not being specific to Thailand here) is generally making a complete mess of running the country and the population are unhappy. And the next election is a few years away. Do you think that the people have to put up with 2 more years of incompetent government before they can reject them electorally or should they be more pro active?

I guess what i'm alluding to is which is more important - democracy or competent rule?

I think if people are so unhappy then the Government would be forced into holding an election, so people could vote them out.

Which is what happened in this case, but unfortunately the main opposition did not participate, and the election was nullified.

[Scamper]

The intent of Prayuth remarks - that are being overlooked - is that he is stating that the army should not intervene. The simile he used to back it up was pretty lame, for all the reasons stated in this article. But the intent was that he wanted to reaffirm that the army was not to take an interventionist role. It is easy to see why Pheu Thai and the UDD like his simile, however. They actually agree that the Yingluck administration is a company and the Thai people are its employees ! But for those who interpret Prayuth's remarks as indication of a belief in enforcing his own perception of justice, are clearly reading a text that appears to allude everyone else.

So again, it should be made clear - Prayuth's simile was way off the mark. It can't be seriously defended. But the intent of the remark is key - in that he is trying to stake out a non-interventionist stance. One's guess is that Pheu Thai are in full agreement with that, with or without a credible simile.

[Artisi]

The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process.

Apologies for cutting out most of your post - but I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

If a government (and i'm not being specific to Thailand here) is generally making a complete mess of running the country and the population are unhappy. And the next election is a few years away. Do you think that the people have to put up with 2 more years of incompetent government before they can reject them electorally or should they be more pro active?

I guess what i'm alluding to is which is more important - democracy or competent rule?

I think if people are so unhappy then the Government would be forced into holding an election, so people could vote them out.

Which is what happened in this case, but unfortunately the main opposition did not participate, and the election was nullified.

and why would they participate when the whole system is broken, corrupt and fraught with manipulation and threats from a fugitive criminal who's only aim is to further his own enrichment at the expense of the Thai people. It's a pity other parties didn't participate as well as a show of displeasure of the current (care-taker) government.

[PREM-R]

The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process.

Apologies for cutting out most of your post - but I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

If a government (and i'm not being specific to Thailand here) is generally making a complete mess of running the country and the population are unhappy. And the next election is a few years away. Do you think that the people have to put up with 2 more years of incompetent government before they can reject them electorally or should they be more pro active?

I guess what i'm alluding to is which is more important - democracy or competent rule?

I think if people are so unhappy then the Government would be forced into holding an election, so people could vote them out.

Which is what happened in this case, but unfortunately the main opposition did not participate, and the election was nullified.

and why would they participate when the whole system is broken, corrupt and fraught with manipulation and threats from a fugitive criminal who's only aim is to further his own enrichment at the expense of the Thai people. It's a pity other parties didn't participate as well as a show of displeasure of the current (care-taker) government.

"and why would they participate when the whole system is broken, corrupt..."

You are talking about the same system that was in place just a few, short years ago when Suthep and Abhisit were running the country. If this system is now considered "broken and corrupt" why did they not do something about it when they were in government?

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Prayuth's comparison is correct. The detractors of his statement point to the role of the 'people' to ultimately rule and that is correct. But it is not the role or the military to enforce it's own perception of 'justice' on the elected leaders of the nation. The way for the people to express their will is through democratic elections.

Unfortunately if you don't behave yourself you have to be brought back into line ,total public disobedience cannot be tolerated, the police seem to be a side show, as far as law and order are concerned ,some would say they are to close to Dubai, someone has to call the shots , General Prayuth knows the situation, he has thrown the gauntlet down, now lets see who is listening.

[diehard60]

Didn't Khun T refer to himself as Thailand's CEO?

I guess now he's moved on and up he thinks of himself as life president instead.

I dont think so but it is for sure that supthep thinks he is the great dictator(suthep) of thailand

[diehard60]

Everyone knows he is 'in the pocket' of the PTP, and he also knows that the courts will bring the government down anyway, so he just lapping up the free cash.

Pathetic little man.

You have failed the people, your are a puppet now, and you are totally owned by Thaksin once you shook hands with the devil. You have to conform to them forever, lest they expose your corruption.

A disgrace to the crown.

Ok so you want he to bring the army out like 4 years ago and start killing people again. Why does your beloved suthep NOT go to thw court to face the CHARGES against HIM\!

[Spalpeen]

The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process.

Apologies for cutting out most of your post - but I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

If a government (and i'm not being specific to Thailand here) is generally making a complete mess of running the country and the population are unhappy. And the next election is a few years away. Do you think that the people have to put up with 2 more years of incompetent government before they can reject them electorally or should they be more pro active?

I guess what i'm alluding to is which is more important - democracy or competent rule?

.

Democracy, obviously. There's hardly a country on earth that has a truly competent government, but what on earth gave you the idea that an unelected junta appointed by God-knows-who would somehow be more 'competent' than the elected government? Not being elected virtually guarantees corruption and incompetence.

The current board of directors put their record before the shareholders on Feb 2nd and the coup mongers have blocked that process because they fear the truth.

[gabruce]

Prayuth's comparison is correct. The detractors of his statement point to the role of the 'people' to ultimately rule and that is correct. But it is not the role or the military to enforce it's own perception of 'justice' on the elected leaders of the nation. The way for the people to express their will is through democratic elections.

The way for the people is also to impeach government leaders when they can be convicted of wrong-doing! It's a common mechanism which is seldom used.

[risky11]

The problems with democracy are many. Regarding the "will of the people," the question is always "which people?" Elections can be rigged, the masses can be bribed and manipulated. Even when people elect their candidate, they realize too late that they were lied to and fooled again. Rulers exist to maintain order and restrain evil. Perhaps the military can do a better job than the civilians...

[Spalpeen]

The problems with democracy are many. Regarding the "will of the people," the question is always "which people?" Elections can be rigged, the masses can be bribed and manipulated. Even when people elect their candidate, they realize too late that they were lied to and fooled again. Rulers exist to maintain order and restrain evil. Perhaps the military can do a better job than the civilians...

.

You obviously haven't been here very long. I remember after the 2006 coup they appointed this elderly general as minister for communications. When a reporter interviewed him in his office she noticed that there was no computer on his desk, so she asked him if he used e-mail.

Not-at-all he replied. That whole internet thing is only a passing fad and soon the Thai people will return to their traditional values.

.

...........and they made him minister for communications.

"Perhaps the military can do a better job than the civilians" ? Catch yourself on!

[Leung Falang]

The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process.

Apologies for cutting out most of your post - but I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

If a government (and i'm not being specific to Thailand here) is generally making a complete mess of running the country and the population are unhappy. And the next election is a few years away. Do you think that the people have to put up with 2 more years of incompetent government before they can reject them electorally or should they be more pro active?

I guess what i'm alluding to is which is more important - democracy or competent rule?

Democracy is first every time. every time. This is a throw away world. Wives and husbands are thrown away. Competency should be handled at the ballot box. Opposition parties should present a platform that voters will embrace. The rise of T shows that the old way of doing business is not acceptable. I do agree that the way of T is also not acceptable.

[Utley]

People are splitting hairs. It sounded to me that the Army chief meant that the legally elected government is in charge - not the military.

[tingtongteesood]

Some people have too much time and just love to try and find things to complain about. Next !

[geovalin]

HM the King told recently to the civil servants to do their jobs.
Fascists (this is their nature) told to the civil servants to do not do their jobs.
Mr Prayut chose his side (even if a little voice inside him...).

[HUAHIN62]

It seems Maj-Gen Rienthong Nenna and the unnamed "former permanent secretary" are perhaps struggling with the core concept of democracy. They would do well to ask others not stuck in Thailand's dark totalitarian past as they seem to be. The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process. Gen Prayuth is completely correct in his interpretation - he does work for the people's elected government.

The PDRC long ago lost the plot so their comments - as usual - are someone irrelevant. They represent nobody apart from those pulling their strings above them (and that ain't the people of Thailand).

If the government breaks the law or regulations then impeachment is another constitutional way to throw out member(s) of the government.

Only if the judges is not owned. Just for your info 3 of the CC judges was appointed by the last junta and several others just after the previous judicial coup. The majority of the CC judges are thus seen as a product of unconstitutional actions and in the eyes of many are unfit to serve their present positions. For courts to be legitimate they need to be appointed in an impartial and constitutional way and must act in an impartial way.

[Baerboxer]

Didn't Khun T refer to himself as Thailand's CEO?

I guess now he's moved on and up he thinks of himself as life president instead.

I dont think so but it is for sure that supthep thinks he is the great dictator(suthep) of thailand

Yes he did. See post #6.

Suthep may well have delusions, but I doubt he really thinks his backers would allow him to become a defacto dictator.

Thaksin, on the other hand has no delusions about his belief that he should be the dictator. And in his party, he does call the shots.

[Baerboxer]

It seems Maj-Gen Rienthong Nenna and the unnamed "former permanent secretary" are perhaps struggling with the core concept of democracy. They would do well to ask others not stuck in Thailand's dark totalitarian past as they seem to be. The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process. Gen Prayuth is completely correct in his interpretation - he does work for the people's elected government.

The PDRC long ago lost the plot so their comments - as usual - are someone irrelevant. They represent nobody apart from those pulling their strings above them (and that ain't the people of Thailand).

If the government breaks the law or regulations then impeachment is another constitutional way to throw out member(s) of the government.

Only if the judges is not owned. Just for your info 3 of the CC judges was appointed by the last junta and several others just after the previous judicial coup. The majority of the CC judges are thus seen as a product of unconstitutional actions and in the eyes of many are unfit to serve their present positions. For courts to be legitimate they need to be appointed in an impartial and constitutional way and must act in an impartial way.

You are close, very close, to defaming the judges. Many people including one of PTP's spokespeople have been convicted.

Being impartial means the judges make their decisions based on law and the facts presented. It does not mean bending to PTP's will, accepting their pastries, or succumbing to their intimidation. PTP like everyone else are subject to the law, not above it as they often act.

[Artisi]

I think if people are so unhappy then the Government would be forced into holding an election, so people could vote them out.

Which is what happened in this case, but unfortunately the main opposition did not participate, and the election was nullified.

and why would they participate when the whole system is broken, corrupt and fraught with manipulation and threats from a fugitive criminal who's only aim is to further his own enrichment at the expense of the Thai people. It's a pity other parties didn't participate as well as a show of displeasure of the current (care-taker) government.

"and why would they participate when the whole system is broken, corrupt..."

You are talking about the same system that was in place just a few, short years ago when Suthep and Abhisit were running the country. If this system is now considered "broken and corrupt" why did they not do something about it when they were in government?

Why, it might have something to do with the agro' the government at the time were beating-off, instigated and directed by the fugitive criminal hiding overseas - and why were they causing trouble - because the PTP or whatever they were called at the time had had their snotty little snouts forced out of the trough and weren't getting their corrupt money anymore. However, they did, by corrupt means get back into government with their snouts straight back into the trough, only this time looking for and taking even bigger chunks.

[Artisi]

Didn't Khun T refer to himself as Thailand's CEO?

I guess now he's moved on and up he thinks of himself as life president instead.

I dont think so but it is for sure that supthep thinks he is the great dictator(suthep) of thailand

Yes he did. See post #6.

Suthep may well have delusions, but I doubt he really thinks his backers would allow him to become a defacto dictator.

Thaksin, on the other hand has no delusions about his belief that he should be the dictator. And in his party, he does call the shots.

You comment needs re-phrasing ; "Thaksin, on the other hand has no delusions about his belief that he should be the and will insist that he is dictator."

That of course will only ever be possible if his party can manipulate another win.

[icare999]

It seems Maj-Gen Rienthong Nenna and the unnamed "former permanent secretary" are perhaps struggling with the core concept of democracy. They would do well to ask others not stuck in Thailand's dark totalitarian past as they seem to be. The country does have the right to throw out a government but only via an electoral process. Gen Prayuth is completely correct in his interpretation - he does work for the people's elected government.

The PDRC long ago lost the plot so their comments - as usual - are someone irrelevant. They represent nobody apart from those pulling their strings above them (and that ain't the people of Thailand).

No the army have a duty to throw out a government if it basically acts as as one party dictatorship for one convicted evil man before the country turns totally into a one state one megalomaniac dictatorship such as Zimbabwe or North Korea

[TheReporter]

Sometimes the most intelligent people in Thailand could turn out to be such pathetic bunch of idiots, who are not able to see beyond their own personal greed and self-interests. If the elites are so anxious to rule the country, then show some leadership by coming up with feasible governance strategies rather than protests that cause the country billions and drive investors out of the country. While I give little credit to the current administration, it is all that the country has and I am quite certain that any new administration will be no different, in terms of effective govrnance and corruption free. Thailand breeds corrupted officials, due to its core integrity being promised from the onset. No government official in the country is considered to be not corrupted or not abusing his/her power for his/her own benefit. Every public official's hands are dirty and would never pass the integrity test.

[Mentors]

Ouch. Prajuth comes under pressure... and the world is watching him