Bad excuse for the coup #3

Another typical reason by the anti-Thaksin people that becomes a typical justification for the coup is that Thaksin govt was so evil and could sink the country into the abyss. The coup is therefore a rescue.

Is Thaksin was really the worst crisis in the world, as the king put it and often quoted by Thaksin haters? Has anybody ever offer a substance to validate such an assessment? Is Thaksin regime as bad as Marcos, Suharto or the regime in Burma? Was the crisis so bad that it is about to take down Thailand into hell? The assessment of this kind is unavoidably subjective and debatable with no ending. The argument is therefore interpretive rather than empirical one.

As corrupt and abusive the Thaksin govt was, it was not as bad as so many other dictatorial regimes in Thai history or in the world. There is no possible explanation why it deserves to be toppled by any undemocratic means. Thaksin opponents, including many academics, lost their sense of perspective and their good judgment because they were consumed by hatred.

My views have usually been discredited by the argument that I am far away, not understanding well what is going on in Thailand, never experienced the real thing, and so on. In this case, it is the contrary, that is, being too close can be a problem. Being too close to a crisis, too intimate to the trouble, hearing, talking about it days and nights for months, one can be consumed by it. If one does not have a very strong principled stance and strong mind, it is easy to lose a good judgment and lost a sense of perspective (how to understand it in historical term and how to compare it with other corrupt regimes). Being to close is not always good. Being further away is in fact not bad at all for the assessment of an evil in this case. At least it requires me less strength to see things more calmly.

One may argue that each crisis is particular and cannot be compared easily. I absolutely agree. For this reason, the rhetoric "worst crisis in the world" is meaningless. But the rhetoric has been powerful. Many academics, PAD leaders and the PAD propaganda machine used it as fact to misleading and scare people. Thaksin could be the worst only in their narrow world, in their narrow perspective of history, especially in their own mind that is already consumed by hatred. Was Thaksin govt worse than the 30+ years of Suharto, the 20+ years of Marcos, and the 40+ years of military rule in Burma, all came to power by coups and bloodshed – therefore deserving a coup to topple him? Was his govt worse than 16 years of Sarit-Thanom-Prapass and deserved a coup? NO WAY. Anti-Thaksin people, including many leading academics lost their perspective, and adherence to principles, because they are consumed by hatred.

I totally disagree with Aj Saneh that the constitution was torn down by Thaksin before the coup. It was violated, ignored, and tampered with; probably similar to what Bush was doing now. But the constitution was still there to provide opportunities to fight the abusive regime. In fact many fights were successful and more were waging, thanks to the constitution. Saneh's assessment and the like are misleading and exaggerated to justify the coup backhandedly.

In my view, moreover, Thaksin the Evil has been created by the opponents too far too much too long until they themselves are consumed and haunted by it. They DEHUMANIZED Thaksin so much -- please do not forget how the dehumanization in Oct 6 that justified the killings-- that they themselves were too scared to let the Evil live a day longer. The assessment of Thaksin among the anti-Thaksin people were overwhelmed with hatred but not enough head. Aj Prawase should have applied many things he preaches to himself and the PAD. Hatred and ignorance are two of the three main types of Tanha.

Thaksin's control of media is a good example of being haunted by the one’s own exaggeration. Yes, he did interfered and tried to crush its opponent media. He tried to control the media-scape by all means. Such were abuses of power. But it was never able to control or manipulated to such extent that differing views were shut down. Critics were frustrated for being shut up but they were never being shut down. Anti-Thaksin publications were among the best selling titles. The Nation, Matichon, let alone the Manager and ASTV, were never closed down. Abuses of power and attempts to interfere with media are wrong and must be fought against. But Thaksin the Evil was not able to close our eyes, ears and mouths. The struggles against the interferences had been going on and could go on. The coup is not necessary. Who would dare to say that media freedom and freedom of expression with no fear is better under a coup regime? The coup is a มักง่าย way out.

Thaksin was said to control the judiciary and other accountability system by money and fear until the system doesn't work. For money, probably true. If true, it is a wrong-doing and he should be charged. Hope one does not say that the entire judiciary was bought out. If not earlier, moreover, in recent months the judiciary seemed working in favor of the opponents already, due to the royal intervention in April. Why was the coup needed?

As for fear, would a coup regime free the judiciary and people from fear? Thai judiciary has always been coward. It shamelessly surrenders to any and all power throughout history. (Did you see what Mr. Jaran Pakdeethanakul said -- the coup's order is equal to the King's one since the king approved and appointed the coup leaders! What a horrible reasoning!) Thai judiciary has always been smart in knowing which way the winds blow. Its recent defiance to Thaksin – a.k.a. Tulakarnphiwat -- was merely the result of their collective cowardice and surrender to another power – following the different winds. In fact Thaksin's regime of fear, if ever, was collapsing before the coup. That was why many were in his face in the shopping malls and street-sides. Despite that the PAD's undemocratic means (such as M.7) failed to topple Thaksin, popular pressure had yielded some results. For what is the coup needed?

We must fight a wicked government, but not by wicked means. We must not fight a crime by committing another crime. We must not fight a demagogue by authoritarianism. As I have said so many times: bad + wrong will never result in any thing good or right. Down the hill it only goes.