C-in-C's advice ratchets up the worry factor

[Coss]

From Bangkok Post

 

Vote for good people. Think carefully before you cast your vote. Avoid a repeat of previous situations. Cast the vote that will make the country and monarchy safe.

 

His words seem like generic advice to a populace heading for the polling booths in two weeks' time.

 

But if it's so ordinary, why did almost every newspaper and media outlet in town splash his comments across their pages and screens?

 

The timing of his "special interview" is one thing. Why was it put on air on that day, disrupting the normal programming and right in the middle of the election? Why did he choose to talk to only two TV channels, which happened to be owned by the army? What was the urgency?

 

Of course, the army chief won't clarify these questions. In fact, he's vowed not to utter another word about the election till it's done. But these questions won't go away easily and they have certainly added to the uncertainty factor that has dogged the Thai politics for several years.

 

That the person giving out these seemingly harmless words of caution is the head of the powerful army is another factor. If there is anybody out there who is capable of staging a coup, it's going to be him. If that "coup-able" person has something to say, the whole country has no choice but to listen.

 

The whole country does not have to like his comment or the timing of his giving it, though.

 

It's true Gen Prayuth didn't name any party in his address. One has to read between the lines who he deems as "good people" and who he considers "impolite" or "wrongdoers".

 

To many analysts, it's not difficult to decode his speech. Reuters, for example, released an analysis that said Gen Prayuth's warning of a repeat of the old situation was "a not-so-subtle reference to a decade of elections won by Thaksin allies" and "a move to discredit Yingluck Shinawatra's Puea Thai Party and stem its momentum following opinion polls that show it is likely to win the most votes in the election".

 

What the army chief did bring into the election picture, ostensibly although probably without him realising it, is the monarchy.

 

If the timing of his giving some warning about the election was suspicious, his talking about the institution in this context is even more puzzling.

 

The army commander spoke at some length about the fact that there are some anti-monarchy elements at work which are bent on harming the throne. He warned the public to guard against these people, two of whom he did actually name. He also emphasised the need for some 40-50 million eligible voters to "come out and vote for change".

 

"Exercise your conscience and use your sense. Think carefully about your vote. You have to consider how to vote so that the country stays safe, so that the throne stays safe," Gen Prayuth said.

 

We will never know what the army chief's intention was that prompted him to put the protection of the monarchy into the context of the general election. What we see as a result, however, is in fastening the two issues together, Gen Prayuth could be seen as trying to turn this election into a referendum for the monarchy - an inappropriate and unnecessary move for the military leader.

 

Nobody is going to dispute the fact that this election holds a key to the future of Thailand - every general election can be a turning point in a country's politics and that is why it is an important event that generates a high level of attention everywhere. Still, an election is not a referendum on any particular person, party or issue and it should not be made to be so.

 

A general election is a means to select a government "of the people, by the people and for the people". As long as we are in this democracy game, we'd better play by its rules. Gen Prayuth may have his preference when he expressed his wish that voters pick "good people". However, if the people they finally choose are not deemed as "good" by the army chief, he'd have no choice but to respect their will.

 

What is interesting to me is, while the Election Commission went to such a great length as to bar all political parties from campaigning on the monarchy issue, it's the army chief who eventually brought the issue into the political context himself.

 

With the country's politics in a state of constant flux for the past many years, Gen Prayuth should have known what a precarious move he was making.

 

Atiya Achakulwisut is Deputy Editor, Bangkok Post.

[radioman]

Just trying to think of another 'democracy' in which a. The chief of the army would comment on a general election, and b. He would be given any more consideration than any other pundit.

 

What does this say?

[Gadfly]

But don't dare suggest that the military intervenes in Thai politics!

[Flashermac]

 

But in how many "democracies" would a PM appoint his brother and first cousin as heads of the army and police? In how many countries would the elected head of state interfere in military promotions? That sounds like a guaranteed way to piss off the career people affected.

 

[Gadfly]

You are right: many of things Mr. T did were outrageous or worse. But that doesn't justify the C-in-C's outrageous comments. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I was expecting better from the Dems. Boy, was I disappointed.

 

It's like a vicious circle here: one side pulls an outrageous stunt and that, somehow, makes it OK for the other side to pull an outrageous stunt. And that vicious circle has brought us to where we are today.

 

[Flashermac]

So the Army c-in-c is a Democrat politician? Interesting take you have on things - if you aren't red, you're a Democrat.

 

 

[beano]

I'm flying in Wednesday and a bit concerned that any unrest would close the airport.

Would the vote be counted and any reaction to the result be underway by then?

Assuming that the losers may take to the streets?

[kamui]

I'm flying in Wednesday and a bit concerned that any unrest would close the airport.

Would the vote be counted and any reaction to the result be underway by then?

Assuming that the losers may take to the streets?

 

It's pure speculation, but my completely uneducated guess is, that it will take a few days for any party to organize major disruptions...