We can only hope such "advice" does not really exist, and that it is all in the media's imagination. Even the most amateur political watchers know that Suchinda was doomed not because he had told a lie or failed to keep a crucial promise. The May 1992 uprising came about simply because the Thai public wanted a return to democracy and Suchinda becoming prime minister after an election denied Thais just that. The lie or broken pledge didn't matter. What did was that Suchinda was a general who had led a coup a year earlier, and he refused to go away after an election that people hoped would usher in a new democratic course.

Last Tuesday, Sonthi was given a great chance to boost the coup leaders' sagging popularity, but he blew it by refusing to give a clear-cut "No" when asked if he aspired to become prime minister. "That's too high a position," he said, but added: "I'm a Thai patriot and I'll do anything that will strengthen our country." Probably a statement made out of true patriotism, but a man in his position should have known that what he said would hardly "strengthen" the country at this time of turmoil, divide and prevailing mistrust.

It was another unnecessary slip, another blow to the Council for National Security's eroding credibility. That it came hot on the heels of the uproar over the non-elected prime minister proposal made it worse. It's either because the interim leaders are so naive, as they have always been labelled, or they have become bold and inconsiderate, which is more worrisome.

If Sonthi is truly patriotic, then he must consider that his rise to the premiership - or any general's rise to the premiership - will shatter everything. The coup was bad, albeit debatable, but a military-dominated post-election scenario would be much worse. Sonthi should have been unequivocal in this matter. He should have said: "I'm a patriot. And the objective of the coup is to give Thailand true democracy, so the next prime minister must come from the people."

Is that so hard to say? Sonthi had said something much bolder, albeit ironic. "Professional soldiers don't get involved in politics," he declared early last year. He has swallowed those words, for better or worse, and the reason why could be the reason why he was overly cautious in making his other crucial statement last week. Thailand's unique political crisis let him get away with the first broken vow, but the real judgement day for "professional soldiers" will arrive after the next election.

Some say we shouldn't read too much into Sonthi's statement. He made it clear he was not a "suitable choice", and coupled with the reiterated pledge to ensure an election takes place this year, that should be enough, it was argued. The point is, "not suitable" is not the right expression; it arouses suspicion rather than gives much-needed reassurance. Most people - whether they were supportive of or against the September 19 coup - want it to succeed because the uncertainties plaguing Thailand over the past two years are dragging the country backward. But we need some help from the coup leaders; we need them to improve their shaky credibility and carry the country through this most crucial period.

A monopoly on patriotism is dangerous; it has been proven time and again. The interim leaders, having stepped in amid a crisis of democracy, need to overcome that natural urge to assume that nobody loves the country as much as they do. They have come to fix a broken car and when their job is done the car's owner will have to take the steering wheel.