I’m heading to the coast for a couple of days so won’t be posting. In the interim here is something from today’s Nation to mull over:
Coup leaders tighten gripTroops shifted to key locations in capital. Sonthi denies split in CNS or coup against Surayud
Troops shifted to key locations in capital. Sonthi denies split in CNS or coup against Surayud Senior Council for National Security (CNS) members moved to consolidate its power yesterday in an apparent bid to clamp down on remnants of the previous regime. Top military leaders in the junta flatly denied rumours sweeping the capital over a coup attempt to seize power from the CNS-installed Surayud government. Reported troop movements were described in a running message on Army-run TV Channel 5 as necessary “rotation” to facilitate some strategic adjustment.
Although the CNS leaders denied any bid to remove Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, several sources said it was understood that the CNS would now bypass the Surayud government in dealing with major security threats, following the New Year bomb attacks in Bangkok. The rumours revolved around deputy CNS chief Lt-Gen Saprang Kalayanamitra, but in an interview he denied plotting against Surayud, who he admitted might have been “too nice”.
“There’s only an adjustment of internal strategy so we can deal more effectively with those who have ill intentions toward the country,” Saprang said. A reliable source said that late last night, Saprang, CNS Sonthi Boonyaratglin and Surayud were meeting at the Army Headquarters in Bangkok. Sources said Saprang has been rather unhappy with the soft approach of Surayud in dealing with the remnants of the Thaksin Shinawatra regime, which has allegedly been rocking both the government and CNS.
Surayud is scheduled to travel to Chiang Mai today to take part in a charity event to raise funds for the victims of civil strife in the South. The CNS give itself more teeth by adopting a revolutionary decree empowering the prime minister to execute those who commit crimes against the country, the sources said.
Rumours have abounded about conflicts within the CNS – and between the CNS and the Surayud government – over how to deal with deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. These conflicts reportedly intensified in the wake of the bomb incidents.
Army chief and CNS head General Sonthi Boonyaratglin denied troops were mobilised from the Second Army Region base in Nakhon Ratchasima. “There’s no such movement,” the leader of the September 19 coup said.
He also dismissed speculation the September 19 coup leaders were about to stage another coup to boost its own power.
Assistant Army Commander in Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda also denied the intense rumours. He said there would neither be a coup to topple the interim leadership nor an internal coup to boost the power of the CNS.
“I can guarantee 1,000 per cent that there will be neither [type of] coup,” he said, totally denying rumours about troop mobilisation.
However, the Army did rotate troops to guard some 300 locations – with five to six men at each site – in the capital as preventive measures after the deadly bombs on New Year Eve, he said.
The latest coup rumours began on Wednesday night, following the bomb attacks in Bangkok on Sunday night. The rumours intensified yesterday evening, with 9.30pm proclaimed as the time the coup would be launched.
At about 8pm last night after the rumour had spread widely, the junta made a televised announcement on the Army-run TV 5 denying troops were being mobilised with ill-intent.
“The army urges all citizens not to believe the rumour and be confident in the junta’s ability to control the situation. By now, the Army chief General Sonthi has assured the situation is normal,” it said.
Another message run on TV5 said the Army chief would give an interview on the “Siam This Morning” programme at 6.20am today.
“Please stay tuned”, it said. The running message also sought understanding from people for any inconvenience caused by troop rotations.
One rumour had tanks rolling from Nakhon Ratchasima province in the Northeast – where the second Army region is stationed – to Bangkok, while the Army TV was relaying the message to cool down public tension.
But Lt General Sujet Watanasuk, commander of the Second Army Region, dismissed the report, saying that a certain group of ill-intentioned people had tried to spread gossip to create chaos.
“There was a rumour throughout the day that the coup would take place in the second and third Army regions. I saw no reason why the military needs to make a coup again,” he said.
A deputy chairman of the CNS also dismissed a rumour about a new coup following an alleged rift among the eight CNS members. He believed it would not happen, but said nothing would “guarantee” it would not really take place.
“The coup is unlikely to happen because all military groups understand they have the same mission – to solve the national crisis,” Air Chief Marshall Chalit Pukpasuk said.
Asked if he could tell [the public] that the coup would not take place, no matter what the condition was, Chalit said that no one could guarantee if it would not happen. But he believed that no one would stage a coup.
Apart from Chalit, the CNS members are Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, Gen Boonsrang Niumpradit, Admiral Sathiraphan Keyanond, Gen Winai Phathiyakul, Police chief Gen Kowit Watana, Lt-Gen Anupong Paojinda and Lt-Gen Saprang Kalayanamitra.
Earlier, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said citizens should be alert and prepare for a “new threat” to national security after the New Year bombs in Bangkok.
He said he had assigned the Internal Security Operations Command to ensure security in the capital and prevent a repeat of the bomb attacks.
Authorities had made some progress in collecting evidence that could lead to the arrest of culprits, he said.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Taxi Driver // Jan 5, 2007 at 4:30 pm
The overthrow of democracy by coup was a major setback for the country. Maybe many are now beginning to see why.
The penny may be dropping among those who cheered the coup that they may be the ones who were “ngoh” afterall, instead of the “ai baan norg” farmers & taxi drivers. So now, instead of being able to vote out an unwanted leader through the ballot box in relative safety, the Millions in Yellow may have to go thru another “Black May”, and a few more lives lost, before power will be stripped away from the those who gained it through their control the strongest instrument of organised violence in the country.
The best chance for unity is through representative politics via the ballot box (+ equality under law), not men with guns & tanks (and small explosive devices!). Unrepresentative politics will always lead to pressure valves popping, and in Thailand, when valves pop, people often die.
2 anon // Jan 5, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Don’t worry… we can still rely on the King (for now).
3 nganadeeleg // Jan 5, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I agree, Taxi Driver, it is a real mess – but I wonder: when was Thaksin going to be voted out?
It seems to me that Thaksin himself should take much of the blame, along with those who continued to vote for him.
I think you are being a little harsh on those of us who supported the coup (after the event), and hoped it would prove to be a circuit-breaker.
Coup or no coup, this sort of mess was inevitable unless Thaksin changed his ways.
4 Vichai N. // Jan 6, 2007 at 1:07 am
For a decade Thailand’s democracy was blooming after the 1997 constitution until this megalomaniac Thaksin burst into the political scene. Same thing happened in the Philippines where its democracy was derailed with the coming of Ferdinand Marcos.
Because both Marcos and Thaksin were playing really dirty and corrupt politics dismembering the foundations of their countries constitutional democracies to advance their personal interests. Worse both would NOT give up power ethically and both would stifle criticisms of any sort and during their rule democracy was only in name but had lost all substance and credibility.
The only reason Thaksin did NOT succeed to do a Marcos on Thailand was because of Thailand’s revered King who was in the way of the overly abusive constitutional disrespecting Thaksin. The military had always been royalist and Thaksin’s days were numbered from the first royal whisper.
It had never been easy to apply democracy in the Asian countries.
But whatever it is, Thaksin’s version of democracy is NOT what Thailand needs or will accept.
Whatever argument people will pose in the forums, the only democracy that would have any hope of success in Thailand would have to consider the participation of all the many vested interests in play in the Kingdom (royalty, military, business oligarchs, hopeful rurals, assertive middle class, etc.). It had always been a ‘give-and-take’ politics gentlemen, but somehow Thaksin and his TRT party focused on the ‘taking’ that resulted in their disgrace.
Thaksin is still a danger to Thailand only because this megalomaniac is still intent on returning to power, by whatever means.
Happy New Year bang was a reminder of Thaksin’s determination to return to power gentlemen.
5 polo // Jan 6, 2007 at 2:11 am
The Happy New Year Bang was only a sign that the military presided over by the king and Prem are just as divided into factions, corrupt and power hungry as they were in the Prem era and earlier.
6 patiwat // Jan 6, 2007 at 6:37 am
The junta is now taking a zero-tolerance policy to protestors.
26 Bo Bae Market vendors were arrested for participating in an “illegal gathering attended by more than 10 people.” See here.
7 Frustrated // Jan 6, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Thaksin will be voted out if the majority of Thai people see him useless or as a threat to their country, the country of 65 millions, not the country of few families. It is the duty of all Thai who think that they know all the bad about Thaksin to speak out, to convince the public not to vote for him or vote against him. If they can convince people they don’t have to worry that Thaksin will stay in Thai politics for ever. But, if the majority of people still see the good of Thaksin or if Thaksin can convince people other wise then he has every right get their votes and to be the leader of this country. Democracy needs participation of everybody in this country including those groups that Vichai mentioned (royalty, military, business oligarchs, hopeful rurals, assertive middle class, etc.) but only with the same weigth as the rest of Thai population, if not that is not democracy. The most important thing is that every Thai must be treated as equal at least in the eyes of rules or laws or constitution.
8 nganadeeleg // Jan 6, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Frustrated said: ‘The most important thing is that every Thai must be treated as equal at least in the eyes of rules or laws or constitution.’
In Thailand, some people are always more equal than others
(including under Thaksins ‘democracy’).
As for the masses voting out Thaksin, who would they vote in instead? – There is an inherent weakness in the democratic system in that it has a tendency to produce demagogues (as recognised by Plato 2300 years ago)
Democracy is not actually the problem, but rather the problem is human weak-mindedness in seeking to satisfy their desires at the expense of doing what is morally/naturally right.
Unfortunately it is rare for an individual to rise above those tendencies, even if it is a Buddhist ideal.
Therefore democracy is flawed, no matter how strong the constitution and checks and balances.
Perhaps HMK recognises this, and that is why he is promoting the sufficiency model.
There is not much chance for immediate improvement under the ‘new’ or ‘old’ regimes that eveyone is talking about, but if the sufficiency model can become entrenched in the education system from an early age, then I can see some hope for improvement in future generations.
Do not think I am singling out the rural poor for criticism as
my comments above apply equally to the rural & urban poor, middle class, rich, military and elite.
(they also apply to so called model western democracies, and not just to Thailand)
9 JB // Jan 8, 2007 at 12:16 am
Sawadee Pee Mai everyone.
I have to side with Khun nganadeeleg about ‘democracy itself not being the problem but rather the inherent human flaws’.
In Thailand it is nice to have HMK provide a father figure and HMK had been doing a wonder job for decades that the Thai people can really look up to him. HMK has the moral authority to do that, no one else come close.
The Thais are easily susceptible to be swayed by favours .. rurals or urbans alike. And politicians exploit this by vote buying and handouts and the latest craze, populist policies. Populist policies is ok to me, but vote buying and handouts do degrade the poor.
10 Taxi Driver // Jan 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Ngarnadeeleg the enlighened absolutism (or perhaps more accurately “Buddhist Despotism”) you espouse requires an important ingredient: “good” people to lead the country.
So who gets to decide on who is “good” to lead the country? (And who decides on who the deciders should be?).
Presumably the uneducated/uninformed who are easily fooled by demagogues are to be excluded. So who decides on who are uneducated/uninformed? Should everybody sit a test?
If you recommend the King as the “Decider”, then I ask you this question: who gets to choose the next King? The present King? What if his decision turns out to be incorrect (say the next decider turns out to be incompetent or just bad)? How do you remove the next “Decider” from office, and who do you replace him/her with? The chairman of the Privy Council? Who chose him/her to be chairman of the PC?
So you see, the question becomes: where does ultimate power lie? Who ultimately has the right to decide? In a democracy, its with the people (uneducated or not).
Surayud & Sonthi et al should have formed a “Good Persons Party” (”Pruk Khon Dee”) and contest the October elections, and let the people decide.
11 anonymous // Jan 8, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Don’t worry, Taxi Driver – Vichai’s blind faith in the throne will be exposed for the absurdity it really is when the Crown Prince becomes King.
Long live the Chakri Dynasty!
12 nganadeeleg // Jan 8, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Taxi Driver: I am prepared to concede that as far as political systems go, democracy is as good as it gets IF there are the appropriate checks and balances, and the majority of voters are educated and ethical.
In the absence of all of those factors, then I do not consider democracy any better than some alternative political systems.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.