Experts' Comments & Mine
These commentaries are worth reading because of their authors' fine reputation, integrity, and patriotism.Tuesday, September 26, 2006
From a former US Ambassador to Thailand...
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Thailand faced untenable choice
DARRYL N. JOHNSON
GUEST COLUMNIST
Tanks in the streets! Cancellation of the constitution! Dismissal of the parliament and the cabinet!
Such scenes have played out in Bangkok 18 times since the overthrow of the absolute monarchy in 1932. But the last serious coup attempt, in 1991, failed largely due to the king's intervention on behalf of demonstrating students. This time the king has not intervened. In fact, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's deteriorating relationship with the palace contributed to his overthrow -- the coup makers dedicated their action to the king.
Political tension had been growing since January, when Thaksin's family members sold their 49 percent stake in the Shin Corp., Thailand's largest telecom company, to the investment arm of the Singapore government, achieving a return of about $1.9 billion -- on which they paid virtually no taxes. The public outcry was deafening and Thaksin was forced to call snap elections on April 2 to try to regain his mandate.
But the opposition boycotted the elections, which fatally tainted the outcome. Two days later, Thaksin announced he would step down, which calmed the political storm. As a result, the most important event of the year in Thailand, the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the king's accession to the throne in June 1946, went forward with full ceremony. It demonstrated the overwhelming reverence and love that the Thai people hold for their monarch.
Soon after that, though, the political temperature began to rise again as the "caretaker" prime minister began acting as though he was mainly taking care of his own interests and suggested that he may have second thoughts about stepping down. New elections, scheduled for Oct. 15, had to be rescheduled.
More important, Thaksin made some remarks that seemed to question the king's role and the chairman of the King's Privy Council, former Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanond, publicly criticized Thaksin. This open display of tension between the palace and the government was untenable. Thus, when Thaksin was in New York for the U.N. General Assembly, the military commanders moved to overthrow Thaksin.
The first challenge for Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin and his fellow plotters will be to restart the machinery of government. The new leadership clearly relishes the public support they have received so far and hope to thwart any opposition to their actions. They will face a range of lingering problems, including the continuing violence in the Muslim-majority region in the provinces bordering Malaysia (the fact that Sonthi is a Muslim could help).
The second challenge is to figure out what to do about Thaksin. They have said he can return to Thailand, but added that he could face charges for actions during his tenure in office. One possible solution would be to permit him to transfer some of his wealth out of Thailand, in return for a promise to leave and never return. Such a "Thai-style" solution has worked in the past and has avoided bloodshed.
The third challenge is how and when to restore democratic institutions. Sonthi has announced he would step aside after two weeks and turn over the reins of authority to a civilian prime minister. He pledged the conclusion of a new constitution and elections within one year.
Since 1992, Thailand has developed vibrant democratic institutions, including a feisty parliament, many active non-governmental organizations, a lively press and a varied cultural scene. The welcome accorded to the new regime will be measured, in large part, by its handling of these dynamic elements of Thai society and by fulfilling their pledge to restore democracy.
Early signs are encouraging; there has been no bloodshed and no organized opposition. The Bangkok elite clearly welcomes this move, and while some Thaksin loyalists may grumble and some may demonstrate, it is unlikely they will mount a serious challenge to the new rulers.
It is unlikely Thailand's external relations will be affected. Thailand's neighbors are more interested in stability than political process. The U.S., Thailand's formal ally and long-time friend, should urge the early restoration of democratic institutions and call for calm. The U.S. should also express regret that the new rulers resorted to unconstitutional means to overthrow an elected leader.
But we should recognize that many in Thai society--not only the military--felt they had an untenable choice. The U.S. should criticize the process, but not the results.
Darryl N. Johnson, former U.S. ambassador to Thailand, is an instructor at Jackson School at the University of Washington.
From Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sep 26 2006, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/286406_thailand26.html
***
I wish Dr. Rice and President Bush get to read your opinion, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you for your sensitivity, consideration, understanding, and thorough knowledge of Thailand!!
However, there are a few things in the article that I don't agree with. Here are some truths not mentioned in the article:
1. Thaksin's relationship with the king had nothing to do with his own downfall. It is his
1.1 EXTENSIVE CORRUPTION NETWORK WITHIN HIS GOVERNMENT, HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, AND HIS PARTY MEMBERS;
1.2 QUESTIONABLE AND UNETHICAL BUSINESS DEALINGS that intended to benefit himself, his families and cronies;
1.3 TRANSFER OF PUBLIC ASSETS TO HIS OWNERSHIP by privatizing state enterprises, putting them in the stock market where their shares were bought up by him and his cronies;
1.4 EXTENSIVE ABUSES OF POWER in appointing cronies in important positions;
1.5 SEVERE WIDESPREAD VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS by the police;
1.6 ACTING AS IF THAILAND WERE HIS PRIVATE COMPANY; AND
1.7 CONSPIRING WITH ANOTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL STRATEGIC BUSINESSES THAT PUT THAILAND'S NATIONAL SECURITY AT RISK (isn't this TREASON??)
that finally brought him down.
2. The King KNOWS His rights and duties. He KNOWS when He should or should not intervene. How would the whole world view Him had He endorsed the protesting parties and people against the democratically elected politicians despite their buying, cheating, and bribing methods of winning votes? He had to let the situation to take care of itself. NO ONE can expect His Majesty to be the referee every time there is a fight. He MUST remain neutral.
3. The coup team did not attribute the reason of their action only to protect the King. Rather, the extensive corruption and the pitching of people against people (a potential civil war ignition point) are their reasons from which they based their decision. The reason why there was a picture of them going in to the palace and looking like they got His blessing was because they had to inform Him.
His Majesty could do nothing except acknowledging their action. He NEVER says He endorsed this action. But we will never know what He thought. We can only speculate that His Majesty must be happy now that His people will not be killing one another because of ONE EVIL PRIME MINISTER.
4. The coup happened in part because Thaksin was preparing to appoint his cronies in the armed forces, including the police force, to control strategic positions; therefore, they would strengthen his grip on power, rendering him the virtually untouchable mafia boss who owned Thailand. The promotion list was with him when he travelled to the US.
5. Thaksin was given too many chances to correct himself or get out of politics in a nicer fashion. The reason he decided against it was because of the fear of asset seizure. Inquiries into his business empire, along with his cronies', are underway.
6. Thaksin was in the middle of a televised announcement of a state of emergency. He was about to demote Gen. Sonthi and put his own military men in power. This was hastily done, maybe a few hours after the rumor of a coup reached him in New York.
7. Foreign governments may have agreed to do business with Thaksin's telecommunications conglomerate. He may have agreed to aid them, give something to them, or made certain promises in exchange. Whether this is true or not will soon be revealed. Thaksin NEVER had the interests of the country at heart but would do anything to profit himself.
8. Many foreign governments, including the UN, had rushed to judgment and quickly blasted this necessary military takeover without seeking the truth. If a leader is good and is loved by the people, such action will not be successful.
9. Thai people who had been protesting against Thaksin for more than 8 months are NOT stupid people who were fooled into joining this crusade. We are educated and well-informed middle-class citizens whose taxes, rights, and freedom were abused and robbed by the Thaksin administration.
10. Thaksin's men systematically shut the voices of opposing media and took control of national broadcast systems and newspapers. Then they put on the air programs that kept people entertained without substances. No bad news or economic truths were allowed. Upcountry "grass-root" electorates were pampered with deceitful government programs paid for by the middle-class's taxes.
There are a lot more cases that spand all aspects of governing over which Thaksin exercised illegal and selfish power for his own and his cronies' prosperity.
Stay tuned to updates on corruption probes in the days to come.
Anyway, I am grateful for this article, Mr. Ambassador!! - The Desperate Seeker
Thailand faced untenable choice
DARRYL N. JOHNSON
GUEST COLUMNIST
Tanks in the streets! Cancellation of the constitution! Dismissal of the parliament and the cabinet!
Such scenes have played out in Bangkok 18 times since the overthrow of the absolute monarchy in 1932. But the last serious coup attempt, in 1991, failed largely due to the king's intervention on behalf of demonstrating students. This time the king has not intervened. In fact, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's deteriorating relationship with the palace contributed to his overthrow -- the coup makers dedicated their action to the king.
Political tension had been growing since January, when Thaksin's family members sold their 49 percent stake in the Shin Corp., Thailand's largest telecom company, to the investment arm of the Singapore government, achieving a return of about $1.9 billion -- on which they paid virtually no taxes. The public outcry was deafening and Thaksin was forced to call snap elections on April 2 to try to regain his mandate.
But the opposition boycotted the elections, which fatally tainted the outcome. Two days later, Thaksin announced he would step down, which calmed the political storm. As a result, the most important event of the year in Thailand, the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the king's accession to the throne in June 1946, went forward with full ceremony. It demonstrated the overwhelming reverence and love that the Thai people hold for their monarch.
Soon after that, though, the political temperature began to rise again as the "caretaker" prime minister began acting as though he was mainly taking care of his own interests and suggested that he may have second thoughts about stepping down. New elections, scheduled for Oct. 15, had to be rescheduled.
More important, Thaksin made some remarks that seemed to question the king's role and the chairman of the King's Privy Council, former Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanond, publicly criticized Thaksin. This open display of tension between the palace and the government was untenable. Thus, when Thaksin was in New York for the U.N. General Assembly, the military commanders moved to overthrow Thaksin.
The first challenge for Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin and his fellow plotters will be to restart the machinery of government. The new leadership clearly relishes the public support they have received so far and hope to thwart any opposition to their actions. They will face a range of lingering problems, including the continuing violence in the Muslim-majority region in the provinces bordering Malaysia (the fact that Sonthi is a Muslim could help).
The second challenge is to figure out what to do about Thaksin. They have said he can return to Thailand, but added that he could face charges for actions during his tenure in office. One possible solution would be to permit him to transfer some of his wealth out of Thailand, in return for a promise to leave and never return. Such a "Thai-style" solution has worked in the past and has avoided bloodshed.
The third challenge is how and when to restore democratic institutions. Sonthi has announced he would step aside after two weeks and turn over the reins of authority to a civilian prime minister. He pledged the conclusion of a new constitution and elections within one year.
Since 1992, Thailand has developed vibrant democratic institutions, including a feisty parliament, many active non-governmental organizations, a lively press and a varied cultural scene. The welcome accorded to the new regime will be measured, in large part, by its handling of these dynamic elements of Thai society and by fulfilling their pledge to restore democracy.
Early signs are encouraging; there has been no bloodshed and no organized opposition. The Bangkok elite clearly welcomes this move, and while some Thaksin loyalists may grumble and some may demonstrate, it is unlikely they will mount a serious challenge to the new rulers.
It is unlikely Thailand's external relations will be affected. Thailand's neighbors are more interested in stability than political process. The U.S., Thailand's formal ally and long-time friend, should urge the early restoration of democratic institutions and call for calm. The U.S. should also express regret that the new rulers resorted to unconstitutional means to overthrow an elected leader.
But we should recognize that many in Thai society--not only the military--felt they had an untenable choice. The U.S. should criticize the process, but not the results.
Darryl N. Johnson, former U.S. ambassador to Thailand, is an instructor at Jackson School at the University of Washington.
From Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sep 26 2006, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/286406_thailand26.html
***
I wish Dr. Rice and President Bush get to read your opinion, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you for your sensitivity, consideration, understanding, and thorough knowledge of Thailand!!
However, there are a few things in the article that I don't agree with. Here are some truths not mentioned in the article:
1. Thaksin's relationship with the king had nothing to do with his own downfall. It is his
1.1 EXTENSIVE CORRUPTION NETWORK WITHIN HIS GOVERNMENT, HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, AND HIS PARTY MEMBERS;
1.2 QUESTIONABLE AND UNETHICAL BUSINESS DEALINGS that intended to benefit himself, his families and cronies;
1.3 TRANSFER OF PUBLIC ASSETS TO HIS OWNERSHIP by privatizing state enterprises, putting them in the stock market where their shares were bought up by him and his cronies;
1.4 EXTENSIVE ABUSES OF POWER in appointing cronies in important positions;
1.5 SEVERE WIDESPREAD VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS by the police;
1.6 ACTING AS IF THAILAND WERE HIS PRIVATE COMPANY; AND
1.7 CONSPIRING WITH ANOTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL STRATEGIC BUSINESSES THAT PUT THAILAND'S NATIONAL SECURITY AT RISK (isn't this TREASON??)
that finally brought him down.
2. The King KNOWS His rights and duties. He KNOWS when He should or should not intervene. How would the whole world view Him had He endorsed the protesting parties and people against the democratically elected politicians despite their buying, cheating, and bribing methods of winning votes? He had to let the situation to take care of itself. NO ONE can expect His Majesty to be the referee every time there is a fight. He MUST remain neutral.
3. The coup team did not attribute the reason of their action only to protect the King. Rather, the extensive corruption and the pitching of people against people (a potential civil war ignition point) are their reasons from which they based their decision. The reason why there was a picture of them going in to the palace and looking like they got His blessing was because they had to inform Him.
His Majesty could do nothing except acknowledging their action. He NEVER says He endorsed this action. But we will never know what He thought. We can only speculate that His Majesty must be happy now that His people will not be killing one another because of ONE EVIL PRIME MINISTER.
4. The coup happened in part because Thaksin was preparing to appoint his cronies in the armed forces, including the police force, to control strategic positions; therefore, they would strengthen his grip on power, rendering him the virtually untouchable mafia boss who owned Thailand. The promotion list was with him when he travelled to the US.
5. Thaksin was given too many chances to correct himself or get out of politics in a nicer fashion. The reason he decided against it was because of the fear of asset seizure. Inquiries into his business empire, along with his cronies', are underway.
6. Thaksin was in the middle of a televised announcement of a state of emergency. He was about to demote Gen. Sonthi and put his own military men in power. This was hastily done, maybe a few hours after the rumor of a coup reached him in New York.
7. Foreign governments may have agreed to do business with Thaksin's telecommunications conglomerate. He may have agreed to aid them, give something to them, or made certain promises in exchange. Whether this is true or not will soon be revealed. Thaksin NEVER had the interests of the country at heart but would do anything to profit himself.
8. Many foreign governments, including the UN, had rushed to judgment and quickly blasted this necessary military takeover without seeking the truth. If a leader is good and is loved by the people, such action will not be successful.
9. Thai people who had been protesting against Thaksin for more than 8 months are NOT stupid people who were fooled into joining this crusade. We are educated and well-informed middle-class citizens whose taxes, rights, and freedom were abused and robbed by the Thaksin administration.
10. Thaksin's men systematically shut the voices of opposing media and took control of national broadcast systems and newspapers. Then they put on the air programs that kept people entertained without substances. No bad news or economic truths were allowed. Upcountry "grass-root" electorates were pampered with deceitful government programs paid for by the middle-class's taxes.
There are a lot more cases that spand all aspects of governing over which Thaksin exercised illegal and selfish power for his own and his cronies' prosperity.
Stay tuned to updates on corruption probes in the days to come.
Anyway, I am grateful for this article, Mr. Ambassador!! - The Desperate Seeker
posted by A Desperate Seeker # 4:20 AM 
On the same topic
- The Sorry State Of Thailand
- The Dark Age Of Thailand, Part 1 | 2 | 3
- Shocking Images
- Tyrant's Guilts
- People's Responses
- Triumphant Victory of the Thais
- Chronicles Of A Fateful Day
- Foreigners' Lack of Understanding
- Voices of Conscience
Links
Archives
July 2006 August 2006 September 2006
