13 replies to this topic

[Hedda]

We had a lively debate of the coup over dinner last night among some farangs, in a private home, so the discussion was quite candid.

What I found amazing about the discussion was the willingness of so many farangs, educated in the USA or western Europe, in countries where the military hasn't had real political power for centuries, who were prepared to accept the notion that a military coup was the only way to remove Thaksin Shinawatra and his TRT party from power.

What I found perplexing was the assumption that military leaders are somehow less corrupt than their civilian counterparts, as if they had some kind of national monopoly on patriotism and honesty.

That completely ignores the fact that military people have been involved in the daily affairs of the Thai government for generations, in actual positions held by army men in business suits, or behind the scenes in full military dress. As such, perhaps they are part of the probem, not its solution.

Frankly, if farangs educated in western democratic traditions are prepared to accept a coup d'etat as the way to resolve political problems, is it any wonder that the Thai people were throwing roses at tanks ?

.

[Gaybutton]

I agree that a military coup is certainly not the right way to do things, but looking specifically at this instance I can see the point of view that considers it justified. In my opinion, Thaksin was trying to do everything he could to set himself up as a dictator and if he was not stopped that's exactly what would have happened. If there was a way to stop him other than the coup, then of course that would have been the better alternative. In this instance, I think a coup was a lesser evil than allowing Thaksin to make Thailand his virtual fiefdom.

People keep bringing up the fact that a democratically elected government was ousted and they say it sets back democracy in Thailand. I don't agree with that point of view. As far as I could tell, democracy in Thailand ended the day Thaksin first took office and if he was not overthrown it would have stayed that way. So far the coup leaders do seem to be living up to their promises to step back and restore democracy to Thailand. I believe they are sincere and they mean what they say.

To my mind, if there is a truly scary aspect of the coup, it lies in the fact that the new administration apparently intends to bring Purachai back in some role. I just hope whatever it is, it won't be the same role he had before.

I understand what you mean when you say the military has been behind the scenes all along. Still, I can't help being reminded of a scene from the movie "Paint Your Wagon," in which Elizabeth is about to allow herself to be auctioned off, away from her husband. The husband says, "But you don't know what you'll get." Her response is, "I know what I've had."

[Dick]

As far as I could tell, democracy in Thailand ended the day Thaksin first took office and if he was not overthrown it would have stayed that way.

That doesn't make any sense. The man was first elected Prime Minister by a coalition of democratically elected MP's from TRT and Chart Thai parties. That may have led to terrible corruption, but there isn't a government on the planet that doesn't have corruption, including most of the western ones we all support as democracies.

The people in power now are exercising far more dictatorial power then Thaksin ever did.

[Snowy]

Dick, on Oct 14 2006, 06:25 AM, said:

The man was first elected Prime Minister by a coalition of democratically elected MP's from TRT and Chart Thai parties.

Thaksin was the creator and founding father of TRT and used his wealth to ensure that those who supported him were elected - that election was certainly NOT democratic because of the vote rigging and rampant vote buying that took place. Chart Thai joined in with TRT only to get "a slice of the action".
He became Prime Minister not by election but by the acclaim and gratitude of those who had joined his party with promises of power and money to follow.

Dick, on Oct 14 2006, 06:25 AM, said:

The people in power now are exercising far more dictatorial power then Thaksin ever did.

As for the people in power now, it is an INTERIM Government and a stop gap until a new constitution can be written and elections held. We will only be able to judge and criticise the new Government once these arrangements have been completed. In the meantime, did you expect the coup leaders to withdraw right away after the coup, thereby allowing Thaksin and his cronies to get back into power? That would have made the whole exercise pointless.

[UncleSam]

that election was certainly NOT democratic because of the vote rigging and rampant vote buying that took place.

Funny thing, I was here then and no one in government, from top to bottom, suggested that the election was illegal or invalid. Funny how history gets rewritten to suit the argument.

Hehehe....

[Gaybutton]

there isn't a government on the planet that doesn't have corruption

I can think of one: Bhutan. Other than that one, I can't think of any.

[Snowy]

Funny thing, I was here then and no one in government, from top to bottom, suggested that the election was illegal or invalid. Funny how history gets rewritten to suit the argument.

Hehehe....

That's because it was the TRT Government which was elected by the vote-rigging and vote buying ! You surely didn't expect them to complain, did you?

[BORG]

Snowy, I hope that last answer was tongue in cheek, because it sure isn't very accurate.

The last time I looked, Mr. Thaksin's first administration was approved by an election commission that he did not appoint or control yet and also received the approval of the monarch, with all that implies.

There were also many opposition members also elected to that parliament that were not TRT, who made no claims that the election was illigitimate because of fraud.

There was an independent judiciary that had failed by one vote 8-7 to find Thaksin guilty of failure to disclose assets. No one filed any lawsuits challenging the election results as rigged.

The mililtary establishment announced that it was done with interfering with politics now that a truly democratic government had been elected.

There was a vibrant free press which applauded Thaksin's election as a new day in Thai politics.

I think you have a very biased view of what actually preceded this coup. The fact that it apparently ended more corrupt than before does not mean it was not the lawful government.

[Snowy]

There was an independent judiciary that had failed by one vote 8-7 to find Thaksin guilty of failure to disclose assets. No one filed any lawsuits challenging the election results as rigged.

An independent judiciary is an oxymoron when applied during Thaksin's time as PM. He had enough of the judiciary in his pocket to ensure that any law suit against him or challenge to the election result would never come to court and in the very rare instances that it might there were enough judges in his pay or debt to ensure that he was not found guilty. Opposition MPs knew that any protest was futile and liable to having unpleasant consequences for those who might protest.

As for the asset disclosure case, the result was a travesty of justice. He transferred millions of Baht of his assets to his driver, housekeeper and others simply to avoid disclosing these (presumably ill-gotten) assets. One of his crony judges stated that he could not find Thaksin guilty because millions of people had voted for Thaksin and TRT in the election. What an absurd and convoluted logic! The other judges in his favour had similarly ridiculous reasons for throwing out the case against him.

Thaksin gained power by vote rigging and vote buying and by conning the mainly politically illiterate poorer classes in the countryside. He did the latter by bribing local officials and district and village elders with money and promises of political favours. He also stifled the press and media by buying up some, closing down others and, where he could not get his own way, slapping libel suits claiming hundreds of billions of Baht on anyone who stood in his way.

The Thaksin Government was neither legal or democratic. He was all set to use all the means mentioned above to gain a third term in power. Thaksin was a megalomaniac dictator who had to be stopped and the coup leaders were absolutely right to take action before Thaksin could do any further damage to what passed for democracy in Thailand.

The ballot box is the best solution to depose a Government in normal circumstances. In this case, a coup was the last resort because the election process was so perverted that any result gained via the ballot box would not be representative due to the corruption in, and manipulation of, the ballot process by those in power. That is what happened on 19 September.

[Bob]

"Thaksin gained power by vote rigging and vote buying and by conning the mainly politically illiterate poorer classes in the countryside."

In the west, that's simply called having the dead vote for you, promising a chicken in every pot, and advertising on television. Same same.

Some posters, like the some of the press, assert rather astonishing (and hardly factual) claims to support the revocation of a constitution by tanks. Corrupt is probably a description one could fairly pin on Shinawatra but a "dictator?!?" Somebody confuses the historical facts to justify an undemocratic outcome.

The #2 rich dude (Sondhi - about as much of a jerk as Thaksin) hated Thaksin's guts and staged many demonstrations calling for the non-democratic removal of Thaksin. Even though this guy had no ideas and couldn't get himself elected, he was allowed to hold all these rallies and publicly condemm Shinawatra. The
generals who "saved" the poor Thai people from Thaksin revoke a democratically adopted constitution, declare it illegal to assemble, illegal to protest, and illegal to criticize. I don't see much difference from that than what the Soviets did in eastern Europe in the 1950's (excepting, thankfully, no violence occurred during this coup).

You either believe in the rule of law and/or democracy or you don't. And believing in it "most of the time" while tossing aside those notions to justify the forced removal of Thaksin is slightly disingenuous to say the least (I'll be nice and not say "hypocritical").

[BORG]

In this case, a coup was the last resort because the election process was so perverted that any result gained via the ballot box would not be representative due to the corruption in, and manipulation of, the ballot process by those in power. That is what happened on 19 September.

That's what every dictator has said since human beings started voting.
Mature societies learn to deal with corruption by reforming themselves from within, and not resorting to guns.

[Snowy]

Mature societies learn to deal with corruption by reforming themselves from within, and not resorting to guns.

That really is a most stupid and infantile statement. How does a society reform itself from within when all the means of doing so are held by the very people who are corruptly governing the country? The situation in Thailand had many similiarities with Zimbabwe, except that there the police and army are firmly under the control of Mugabe and Zanu PF. Guns in this case were the only option other than to live under an increasingly entrenched and corrupt Government for tens of years to come - the longer the pre-coup situation existed, the more difficult it was going to be to make reforms. Thaksin's self-declared aim at one time was, after all, a one party state - an aim which he quickly disavowed when he realised he could not gain enough support from within his own party or from the country.

Anyway, no-one as far as I know has ever claimed that Thailand is a mature society. Its political system has always been far too volatile.

[Hedda]

"That really is a most stupid and infantile statement. How does a society reform itself from within when all the means of doing so are held by the very people who are corruptly governing the country? "

Drawing parallels to countries like Zimbabwe is not very helpful, for unlike President Mugabe, Thaksin was not the head of state nor the commander in chief of the army, since those dominant positions are reserved to the constitutional monarch in Thailand.

Thaksin's power base was political, based on organization, money and populist policies which engendered genuine support among the rural poor, whose plight had been long ignored among the political elite. As such, he clearly posed a challenge to the established political order, which has been anything but populist through much of recent history.

I seem to recall that Thaksin, your alleged dictator, said not less than 6 months ago, that all it would take to remove him would be "a whisper in my ear that it's time to go." Consider that before you accuse others of being stupid and infantile in their own anaylsis of the situation.
.

[Khor tose]

If I were going to compare Thailand to anywhere and anytime, I would pick Mexico under Porfino Diaz. A leader who happened to be 80 years old who ran the country for his own and his friends and family's established interest. Of course everyone became fed up and Mexico plunged into a 22 year civil war. I am not going to name who, in Thailand, he reminds me of, but ...................... Of couse, the Thai culture and the Mexican culture are very different, and yet, very much the same dynamics were in place.