Gen Suchinda came out to give an interview on the current political scene, with flashbacks of his experience in staging a coup in 1991.

Thai politics has not yet evolved significantly since then. By the way, Suchinda stepped down from political power after the 1992 May tragedy. The followings are excerpts of Suchinda's interview.(March 12, 2007):

Q : Every coup has resulted in a setback to Thai democracy.

A : The coup results in a setback because there is no way out. In every coup, the politicians also concur. The politicians are to blame too. They have also called for the coup (laughing) because they cannot win in the election.

Q : Thaksin Shinawatra' strategy is to rely on the global forum to surround Thailand.

A : That's because we can't find any of his wrongdoings. If there are the lawsuits and the court hands down the verdict, then the people will not cheer for him again. Then the people will know the truth. So they have to push for those involved to accelerate (the legal proceedings). I don't know who holds the power to impose the punishment.

Q : The National Security Council is seen to be too polite. They are not decisive enough in tackling the problems. 

A : Those who do not know the law have asked why they did not seize complete power like the time of the National Peace Keeping Council. Gen Sithi Jiraroj (who then headed an asset examination committee) still feel sorry until now because he believed an advice from somebody who accused us of setting up a kangaroo court (to seize assets of the politicians). We should let (the politicians) defend themselves in court. We went along with this recommendation and let the cases go to court. In the end, all the cases were let go.

Q : Has this coup been decisive enough? 

A : If it had been decisive, they would have seized the assets of the politicians from the outset. Investigating the assets is a difficult matter. The government officials and others all belong to the previous government. How do we know who is who? The authorities at the upper level would like to go after the cases, but the evidence is not passed over.

Q : Are there any cracks within the National Security Council?

A : A lot of people have been talking about this matter. I don't think it happens because nobody would like to state a coup for himself alone. It can't happen because nobody would then lend the support. One just can't say, "Hey, since I am not appointed as army chief, let's have a coup." This would never succeed. The military would not provide support anybody staging a coup for himself.

Q : The National Security Council might stage a coup again to seize complete power.

A : A lot of people, including the astrologers, have also talked about this. I think it might be possible. But I don't know in what form the coup would be staged. But it might be staged to resolve all the chronic problems, like the time when Gen Thanom Kittikachorn, the then prime minister, staged a self-coup. This is possible. Perhaps they might want to achieve the goal that they can't do. One police officer told me that he would be happy to treat me with one table of Chinese food if the government could nab even one (corruption case). The Asset Examination Committee does not know what it is doing.

Q : Would it be right or wrong if the National Security Council wants to hold on to its power afterward?

A : They have got the lesson. They should not commit the same mistakes of the past. I don't think the military reformers now would like to get involved in politics again.

Q : Do you think the interim government will stay on until the end of its tenure?

A : They have to go to the end. Otherwise, it will get worse. They have to complete the term. The election must be held. What is most fearful is the disunity of the people in the country. The disunity is rather serious and is difficult to resolve for when one party takes power, it looks upon the others as enemies.

Q : Does this interim government manage the country in the right direction?

A : People are saying that this government lacks performance. I don't understand what kind of deadlocks they are facing. The law might not give them enough power. Officials are also afraid that they might get sued later on. Suppose they have found a ground of corruption in one case. They bring the case to court. But when the court hands down the verdict otherwise, they will get sued (from the defendant). The director-general will also face the lawsuit. So they decide not to do anything (laughing).

Q : The prime minister has begun to feel stressful. He might cave in.

A : Anybody serving as prime minister must sacrifice himself. But the mess at the systems will have to be resolved. He might not be able to show his performance because of several problems. Thaksin (Shinawatra) is a man of high calibre. Everybody agree that when he was prime minister, he was able to push out numerous projects. The projects might be good or bad, I don't know. But he is a man of quick action, a manager. Anybody who succeeds him will face a daunting task. One thing that Thaksin has got it wrong is that he would support any province that supported Thai Rak Thai. This goes against the principle of democracy.

Q : Are there any problems that might put a brake on the political situation?

A : There won't be any problem, except the constitution and the economy. All the parties now lend support, except Thai Rak Thai. But, as suggested by the astrologers, we have to be careful over this delicate period of March and April (laughing).

Q : Can the old regime return to power?

A : There is a good chance that they can return to power once there is an election. Other parties have to be afraid of (Thai Rak Thai). Their populist policies are still very popular with the people. So the asset examiners will have to speed up their works. They have to prove their wrongdoings or corruption. How much the brokers or sisters have taken away. Some people used to be declared bankrupt, but now they are millionaires.

Q : Do you agree with the idea that the prime minister does not need to come from the election?

A : I agree with this idea 100 per cent because if any of politicians are ready to assume this position, they would not let others to take it. But now we just look at this issue as a continuation of power (of the military leadership). We can't tackle this problem alone without resolving the longer-term problem. I don't agree with the constitution that dwells on details until we cannot move. The constitution must not have too many articles. It should be written in broad term, so that we can fill up the details in the organic law.

I don't agree with a public hearing on the constitution either. The people don't know anything. Even myself have not read the old constitutions. The people would not know how many articles in the constitution there are.