Updated: General threat

Yes, we are slow getting to this story at The Straits Times, and yet it loses little by being delayed.

The most significant statement made by The Dictator in an interview is that the “military’s power should not be curbed.” Would we expect a man who has overseen the gunning down of civilians and participated in the past two coups that seek to maintain elite and military power to say anything else? Nope.

He declares: “You cannot limit it, because the military is the one that always looks after the country.” By “looks after” he means organizing corrupt border trade, selling arms, organizing crime, repressing and murdering citizens, soaking up loot from weapons and other deals and overthrowing elected governments, amongst other crimes.

Update: In another report of the interview Prayuth did with Singaporean journalists, Channel NewsAsia sets out The Dictator’s three prerequisites for an election: “First, will the next election be peaceful? Secondly, who will be the next government? Will there be conflicts and protests again? Thirdly, will Thailand be able to continue with the various reforms?” Let’s rephrase it for him: There will be an election if it is guaranteed to produce a government that is acceptable to the military, palace and anti-democrats.

Prayuth also talked about the failures of previous military coups: “Of course, we have always supported democracy, when it is a genuine democracy. We do not want any other system. In the past, there were very few coups that could solve political problems, because coups were followed by quick elections, sometime too soon. The rush has prevented underlining problems from being resolved.” From what we know of The Dictator, we know he cannot understand democracy, so his first comment is nonsense. His view on coups failing because they led too quickly to elections shows his lack of knowledge of any events prior to 2006. His comment relates only to that event. Other putsches have not generally led to elections that were free and fair, and it was generally the longevity of military and military-backed conservative regimes that led to political uprisings.

His view of himself is typically delusional and displays an ignorance of the world of governance beyond Thailand’s corrupt, self-serving and ignorant military: “I use my power rightfully. My actions remain within the boundary of good governance. So I have nothing to fear…”. In this, “good governance” takes on new meanings that would stump political scientists.