"Never say never again"

Thursday, 3.40am, 21 Sept 2006 

My colleagues and I attended a press conference at the Foreign Correspondence Club of Thailand in Chidlom last night. 

We gathered that since the coup began, many foreign figures and the western media had immediately expressed hostility towards this extra-constitutional action, which many analysts had said would never be seen again in Thailand . They were wrong.  

The FCCT said in their announcement: “Thais themselves are hugely divided over Thaksin – a man of unbridled confidence who even his worst detractors would concede was probably the most successful Thai politician in history”. 

However, the current situation begs the question:”How long will the junta hold power? Who is the new interim prime minister? What reforms will be carried out on the ‘flawed’ 1997 constitution? What next?” 

The overarching sentiments of the Thais is a unwritten consent for the coup. That Thais had reached their limits and Westerners who protested did so because they did not understand the intricacies of Thai society. We are gentle, polite people. But please, don’t test our patience. 

Other sentiments include “It was necessary”. 

“We were left with no choice”.

“We were pushed to the corner”. 

“We had to do something or bear the consequences of allowing a selfish leader like Thaksin to go on…”

Those were the many apologies made by various groups to justify the coup.

Dr Thitinan Pongsudhiarak, professor at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok gave several reasons why the coup was necessary: 

1. the situation was like a pressure cooker which had boiled over;
2. Thaksin’s long standing tension with his army chief General Sonthi;
3. Government’s responsibility in allowing the Southern conflict to escalate; and
4. Thaksin’s mobilization of troops to enter Bangkok to pre-empt the coup; and
5. Thaksin’s attempt to remove General Sonthi, who is a close ally to the King, by a decree.

Then there is also the People’s Alliance for Democracy who were planning demonstrations against Thaksin in the city but had to call it off due to the coup. 

The situation warranted a military control, as some believed, violence was the only way left to get rid of Thaksin. 

Meanwhile, Senator Kraisak Chonhavan, former head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the coup was an attempt to defend the King. 

Thaksin was planning to upstage the King and plant his own order. Thaksin exploited the raw nerve of the Thai society. 

Yes, it was a setback to Thai democracy by at least 15 years. But it was a “crooked, twisted democracy under Thaksin”. 

The military was overwhelmed by their own presence and responsibility. But it is hoped they have learnt from the lesson of 1992, where bloody episodes took place. 

But remember, the military here is highly politicized and is bound to react to public pressure. Some people, like the senator, never felt so much hatred for anyone as for Thaksin, for the human rights violations, abuse of power, corruption and lack of legitimacy in governance. 

So, do not condemn the coup, he said. It does not represent a return to military rule. They will comply to norms of freedoms. Hopefully, this military coup is different from others. 

Ambassador Kasit Piromye, who knew Thaksin for many years, and have served in his government, had also turned against the embattled leader. 

One of the first tasks of Thaksin’s cabinet was to “influence and control” the Thais, he said. It came to a point where he had to decide not to support this government.

He also said, Free Trade Agreements negotiations with Japan was more a public relations and marketing ploy, but has nothing real on the ground.  Thaksin tried to install a one party system in Thailand. 

He had abused all state machineries and institutions, including being responsible for extra-judicial killings and the Southern Thai conflicts.Therefore, the Thais were left with only three choices: 

1. A one-party rule;
2. Continues people’s rally – which may turn bloody as Thaksin was planning to create chaos during the demonstrations;
3. A military coup, to seize power and rid Thaksin of his premiership.

So they chose a coup. It may be a setback for democracy, true. But it was a choice that was better than a one-party rule and a bloody confrontation with people’s resistance movements. 

About these ads