Thai Army chief's remark draws strong criticism

[robertson468]

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).

You didn't quite finish the quotation.."he does work for the people's elected government. And the Government work for the People". So many, particularly Politicians the World over think that the electorate are there for their convenience and are so wrong. Sure elections are designed to install the Party, but of the People's Choice. If they put the Country at risk, there is a mechanism for the People (at times the various Courts) to reprimand the Government, or if needed, remove them from office. Always, always remember, Politicians are the servants of the People.

[rijb]

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.

Thanks for clearing up Prayuth's simile. As usual, your regurgitation of Thai political events is as useful as tits on a fish. I stole that simile. But, I figured you wouldn't mind, like a centipede with 98 missing legs.

You might want to add a weather report to next your play-by-play. And maybe throw in a metaphor or two.

PS: You use of more than one paragraph has me concerned. Are you an impostor/imposter?

[noitom]

The concept of what he is trying to say is genuine, although he is not very articulate.

[Trouble]

If the Chief executive does wrong the stock holders vote him out the position. It is not up to the lower executives (Army in this case) to remove the Chief executive by force. So in that sense the General is correct. If the shareholders want a change they have a stockholders meeting and vote on a new Board and CEO (although in most cases the board hires the CEO who is also on the Board). The caretaker government in this case want a shareholders meeting and a vote. Simple really.

[fasteddie]

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

That's easy, Democracy, if the latter was the case most democratic countries would be in a near permanent state of anarchy!

That's what elections are for.

[fasteddie]

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...

Same sort of argument used by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and all other fascist dictators in history.

[Docno]

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...

I never cease to be amazed by the anti-democratic and elitist thinking expressed around here. The 'masses' only vote the way you don't like because they are bribed and manipulated... the military should run the country, not civilians. Some people are living in the 1920s.

[Edit: I just saw that the poster before me made the same point]

Edited April 3, 2014 by Docno

[fasteddie]

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.

"Being impartial means the judges make their decisions based on law and the facts presented"

Usually, but not in Thailand, most Thai judges are old guard appointees.

[aimbc]

True that an election is need in a democracy. But if the government steps out of the boundaries of their roles and duty, then accountability must be enforced. But this government has stretched the law to a fine thread and it finally broke. All these abuse of power should have been curbed a long time ago by law enforcement agencies, but it didn't. There is something awfully wrong with the system when the check and balance is broken. Reform is now needed to correct it. Or we will end up with the same vicious cycle. How much can they stretch the law to fit their needs. This goes with any government and not just this current one. But you must admit, this one takes the cake. Another Thaksin trademark.

[15Peter20]

Suthep's insurrectionists don't like the idea of a military being controlled by a democratically elected government. That would scupper their enduring wish for another coup. I thought this was a Nation piece - it's their kind of shtick.

Edited April 3, 2014 by 15Peter20

[Publicus]

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.

I see the posting police have rushed to the scene of the truth and will stomp it out until it is truth no more.

The self-appointed forum version of the PDRC guards and their PAD predecessor security guards.

Did you rat out your colleagues at work today too?

Edited April 3, 2014 by Publicus

[issanaus]

If the Chief executive does wrong the stock holders vote him out the position. It is not up to the lower executives (Army in this case) to remove the Chief executive by force. So in that sense the General is correct. If the shareholders want a change they have a stockholders meeting and vote on a new Board and CEO (although in most cases the board hires the CEO who is also on the Board). The caretaker government in this case want a shareholders meeting and a vote. Simple really.

In this case the board and the CEO resigned and they want to be re-elected without audited financial accounts or answering to charges of Insider trading and breach of fiduciary duty. In such case shareholders had redress to the courts whos decisions will be enforced by the regulatory authorities. CEO's and board members who act in this manner would face being banned from holding office, be subject to large fines and/or periods of imprisonment in most countries.

The 'lower executives" would be expected to stay working and follow the directions of the courts/regulator authorities.

[noitom]

The Thai army chief is not "media" ready.

[Yunla]

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.

He's the classic narcissist, and depending on the day of the week and probably time of day, he thinks he's Robin Hood, Joan of Arc, Taira no Kiyomori, and probably some of the more stylish solar deities too.

On the topic though, I think the Chief was right in many ways, and he was trying say something to diffuse the volatile situation, so I don't think he deserves the strong criticism mentioned. Most people understand they can vote out the ruling party, I think what he was saying went beyond that and was talking about the importance of being part of a successful team, and how in business there should be leaders who are worthy of the workers' support, this makes the operation run smoother.

[Muhendis]

There is a similarity between running a company and running a country. Sadly General Prayuth missed it.

The directors are the elected government.

2.

[Muhendis]

There is a similarity between running a company and running a country. The general however, missed the details.

1. The elected government has a similar role to a board of directors

2. The employees are the government workers in the various departments.

3. The electorate are the shareholders who can kick out the board of directors any time they want if they feel the company is underperforming.

[Spalpeen]

There is a similarity between running a company and running a country. The general however, missed the details.

1. The elected government has a similar role to a board of directors

2. The employees are the government workers in the various departments.

3. The electorate are the shareholders who can kick out the board of directors any time they want if they feel the company is underperforming.

.

True enough. This is the reason why the Feb 2nd election was obstructed. Everyone knows that the shareholders would have given the directors a renewed vote of confidence by a comfortable majority.

[Ricardo]

If the Chief executive does wrong the stock holders vote him out the position. It is not up to the lower executives (Army in this case) to remove the Chief executive by force. So in that sense the General is correct. If the shareholders want a change they have a stockholders meeting and vote on a new Board and CEO (although in most cases the board hires the CEO who is also on the Board). The caretaker government in this case want a shareholders meeting and a vote. Simple really.

Or maybe the military are more like the Regulatory-Authority, who step in when the Chairman & Board are out-of-control, perhaps ?

[binjalin]

good for him - actually 'getting it' with regards to the Army's role (i.e. non-political)

[binjalin]

There is a similarity between running a company and running a country. The general however, missed the details.

1. The elected government has a similar role to a board of directors

2. The employees are the government workers in the various departments.

3. The electorate are the shareholders who can kick out the board of directors any time they want if they feel the company is underperforming.

yes it's called an election

oh didn't we just have one? didn't the courts support the violent blocking of voting by minority thugs? setting the precedent "it's OK to block an election called by Royal Decree"?

[MGP]

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...).

Me, and most of my Thai friends and coworkers, unequivocally understand that HM's message was addressed to the ones that are not properly doing their job by being involved in rampant corruption, abuse of power and disrespect of law.

Edited April 4, 2014 by MGP

[Publicus]

There is a similarity between running a company and running a country. The general however, missed the details.

1. The elected government has a similar role to a board of directors

2. The employees are the government workers in the various departments.

3. The electorate are the shareholders who can kick out the board of directors any time they want if they feel the company is underperforming.

That's clean and neat so perhaps some day I'll ask you to do some charts and other graphics for me.

In the meantime however it needs to be noted that a company, certainly a private business / corporation, must earn a profit in order to exist, while a government is not a profit making entity. In Thailand being in government is highly profitable for the elites regardless of whether the elite's members are from Chiang Mai, Surat Thani, Bangkok, the UK or where ever.

Government exists to make the rules, not any profit. You miss that a company or corporation doesn't exist to take any levies of any sort from the general population, as in taxes. A company pays a dividend, it doesn't take money from you for itself under the pains and penalties of any resistance or evasion.

Gen Prayuth is inarticulate but so are his critics.

[tiffanystoyz]

Ok your saying that the people are employees? Sir you have that so wrong you Sir are the employee the company is the country and people who you work for. The people pay your wages The PM doesn't own the country that is legse de majesty. His royal highness might but not the PM. Now go turn yourself in.

[smedly]

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.

Yes in a normal society you are quite correct but even in the UK the army has been called onto the streets were the situation required it

If you think elections work here under the current system them you must have just wakened after sleeping for 30 years

Reforms - Referendum - Elections

and jail all those that are found to have been stealing from the Thai people for the last 3 years

[Thai at Heart]

If the Chief executive does wrong the stock holders vote him out the position. It is not up to the lower executives (Army in this case) to remove the Chief executive by force. So in that sense the General is correct. If the shareholders want a change they have a stockholders meeting and vote on a new Board and CEO (although in most cases the board hires the CEO who is also on the Board). The caretaker government in this case want a shareholders meeting and a vote. Simple really.

Since when is the army the employee and the pm the CEO.

I think if you asked 1000 PDRC supporters their view on this it would be completely different.

[northernjohn]

There is a similarity between running a company and running a country. The general however, missed the details.

1. The elected government has a similar role to a board of directors

2. The employees are the government workers in the various departments.

3. The electorate are the shareholders who can kick out the board of directors any time they want if they feel the company is underperforming.

That's clean and neat so perhaps some day I'll ask you to do some charts and other graphics for me.

In the meantime however it needs to be noted that a company, certainly a private business / corporation, must earn a profit in order to exist, while a government is not a profit making entity. In Thailand being in government is highly profitable for the elites regardless of whether the elite's members are from Chiang Mai, Surat Thani, Bangkok, the UK or where ever.

Government exists to make the rules, not any profit. You miss that a company or corporation doesn't exist to take any levies of any sort from the general population, as in taxes. A company pays a dividend, it doesn't take money from you for itself under the pains and penalties of any resistance or evasion.

Gen Prayuth is inarticulate but so are his critics.

Well you certainly are articulate you can spread B S in a most articulate manner.

The government is not there to make a profit this is a true fact.

How ever it is not there for the politicians to fill there off shore bank accounts. You failed to articulate that. Also it is not there to command it is there to serve. Another point you have so adroitly evaded articulating.

Edited April 4, 2014 by northernjohn

[Publicus]

There is a similarity between running a company and running a country. The general however, missed the details.

1. The elected government has a similar role to a board of directors

2. The employees are the government workers in the various departments.

3. The electorate are the shareholders who can kick out the board of directors any time they want if they feel the company is underperforming.

That's clean and neat so perhaps some day I'll ask you to do some charts and other graphics for me.

In the meantime however it needs to be noted that a company, certainly a private business / corporation, must earn a profit in order to exist, while a government is not a profit making entity. In Thailand being in government is highly profitable for the elites regardless of whether the elite's members are from Chiang Mai, Surat Thani, Bangkok, the UK or where ever.

Government exists to make the rules, not any profit. You miss that a company or corporation doesn't exist to take any levies of any sort from the general population, as in taxes. A company pays a dividend, it doesn't take money from you for itself under the pains and penalties of any resistance or evasion.

Gen Prayuth is inarticulate but so are his critics.

Well you certainly are articulate you can spread B S in a most articulate manner.

The government is not there to make a profit this is a true fact.

How ever it is not there for the politicians to fill there off shore bank accounts. You failed to articulate that. Also it is not there to command it is there to serve. Another point you have so adroitly evaded articulating.

Well now you're going beyond the initial analogy, which is fine, as your point about a government not existing to command is relevant to the army.

That point would of course make you opposed to a government that commands, would it not, as in a council of military rulers that would be self-installed via martial law in a military mutiny coup d'état.

It would also place you in opposition to any thing such as an appointed and still anonymous "People's Council" that would be installed by undemocratic, even anti-democratic means, to itself arbitrarily and summarily -= exclusively - write "reforms" that perhaps only it likes that would then be imposed on the whole of the society.

One then could perhaps recognize and understand that the lead up to a referendum on any such "reforms" likely would be as tumultuous as the present chaos is and predictably originate from the absolutely excluded majority of the population, what might be called the other side. The only alternative to preclude such chaos would be to purge and repress, would it not.

Surely on can see this from a command government. Or maybe not.

[rebelplatoon]

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

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.

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

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..."

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?

If you had followed the news back then. Abhisit said that being a short time in government and in the way that happened he thought it improper to change major laws, or push through major projects. That is why. Besides that, the present government has pushed through a change of electorates, which make it impossible for anyone else to win. Unless they themselves are vanquished, which of course they have been, twice (PPP for electoral fraud and TRT for electoral fraud and vote buying) but they just changed the name of their party and it was "business" as usual.

In the case of the army chief referring to the country as if it's a company. The comparison doesn't fly to well, but what he meant to say was clearly: No interference, if even slightly possible. Which in itself is a good idea. Up until the point the people clearly state they have had enough. Besides the instances mentioned previously, there is also something called a popular revolt. Then there is the case where a government becomes incapable of running the country. In aptitude makes Thailand a floating target in ASEAN.

[PREM-R]

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.

Ah I think what you actually mean is that the party who had been elected by 'the people' for the previous 8 or 9 years or so had once again been overthrown by Army/Constitutional Court/Judiciary etc. The 'agro' of which you speak was brought about by Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Suthep calling the army to attack the protesters, resulting in the death of almost 100 of them. Mr.Abhisit is currently in court facing murder charges in relation to this while Mr. Suthep continues to ignore the summons to court on the grounds that "he is too busy". You refer to "the fugitive criminal hiding overseas", but do not mention Sondhi Limthongkul who has been charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to jail in a number of cases, including 'insulting the monarchy' but, as yet, has not spent any time in jail. You, and many more TV forum members, let your hatred of the Shins raise your emotions and so cloud your view of the real picture.

[Artisi]

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.

Ah I think what you actually mean is that the party who had been elected by 'the people' for the previous 8 or 9 years or so had once again been overthrown by Army/Constitutional Court/Judiciary etc. The 'agro' of which you speak was brought about by Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Suthep calling the army to attack the protesters, resulting in the death of almost 100 of them. Mr.Abhisit is currently in court facing murder charges in relation to this while Mr. Suthep continues to ignore the summons to court on the grounds that "he is too busy". You refer to "the fugitive criminal hiding overseas", but do not mention Sondhi Limthongkul who has been charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to jail in a number of cases, including 'insulting the monarchy' but, as yet, has not spent any time in jail. You, and many more TV forum members, let your hatred of the Shins raise your emotions and so cloud your view of the real picture.

A typical response direct from the Thaksin red manifesto, well done - but did you make sure you didn't forget to list everyone as per instructions.