The Thai Constitution

[Lung Per]

In Western democracies the role and placement of the military is normally well defined in the constitution, i.e. the military is under the control and responsibility of the elected government, most often with the Chief of Defense being responsible to the Minister (Secretary) of Defense.

Now, I am fully aware of the present and past state of affais in Thailand and am not opening this thread to discuss, raise criticism or comment on the Thai system per se.

My purpose is simply to inquire whether anybody can quote the Thai Constitution as it relates to who is (supposed to be) in control of the Thai military and to whom the Thai Chief of Defense is responsible.

Again boys and girls, thread lightly, I am not talking about de facto circumstances but specifically what says the constitution.

Anyone having detailed and factual knowledge?

[STEVE G]

According to this translation, from a law office and not the government, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007) the only part relevant seems to be this:

National Security Policy

Section 77.
The State shall protect and uphold the institution of kingship and the independence and integrity of its jurisdictions and shall arrange for the maintenance of necessary and adequate armed forces and ordnances as well as up-to-date technology for the protection and upholding of its independence, sovereignty, security of State, institution of kingship, national interests and the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State, and for national development.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html#C01

If your interests are related to the 2006 Coup, Section 309 refers:

Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution.

B.E. 2549 Section 37 states:

All acts done by the Chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform which related to the seizure and control of the State administrative power on 19th September B.E. 2549 as well as any act done by persons involved in such seizure or of persons being assigned by the Chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform or of persons being commanded by the Chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform which done for such above act. All these acts, whether done for the enforcement in legislative, executive or judicial force as well as the punishment and other acts on administration of the State affairs whether done as principals, supporters, instigators or persons being commanded to do so and whether done on such date or prior to such date or after such date which if such acts may be unlawful, the actors shall be absolutely exempted from any wrongdoing, responsibility and liabilities.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2006/1.html

[Spitfire]

I wouldn't get too animated about it all as it's highly likely that it'll be properly changed at some point.

[Lung Per]

According to this translation, from a law office and not the government, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007) the only part relevant seems to be this:

National Security Policy

Section 77.
The State shall protect and uphold the institution of kingship and the independence and integrity of its jurisdictions and shall arrange for the maintenance of necessary and adequate armed forces and ordnances as well as up-to-date technology for the protection and upholding of its independence, sovereignty, security of State, institution of kingship, national interests and the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State, and for national development.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html#C01

If your interests are related to the 2006 Coup, Section 309 refers:

Any act that its legality and constitutionality has been recognised by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2549, including all acts related therewith committed whether before or after the date of promulgation of this Constitution shall be deemed constitutionally under this Constitution.

B.E. 2549 Section 37 states:

All acts done by the Chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform which related to the seizure and control of the State administrative power on 19th September B.E. 2549 as well as any act done by persons involved in such seizure or of persons being assigned by the Chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform or of persons being commanded by the Chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform which done for such above act. All these acts, whether done for the enforcement in legislative, executive or judicial force as well as the punishment and other acts on administration of the State affairs whether done as principals, supporters, instigators or persons being commanded to do so and whether done on such date or prior to such date or after such date which if such acts may be unlawful, the actors shall be absolutely exempted from any wrongdoing, responsibility and liabilities.

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2006/1.html

Thank you. My curiosity is of a political science/history interest and not specifically related to the 2006 coup.
I read that "The State shall" etc. etc. however, I do not see a clear definition of the line of command over the military. Unless of course "the State" is clearly defined as the elected government?
I guess I have to plough through more paragraphs of the constitution to get a clear answer (if there is one)?
Or my question should perhaps be boiled down to "Who presides by law over the military command in Thailand". Is it the elected government, is it His Majesty the King, or is the military an autonomous institution without parliamentary control?

[STEVE G]

"Who presides by law over the military command in Thailand"

It's not in the Constitution; I think the answer might lie in the Ministry of Defense act 1960 but I haven't found an English version of it yet.

[Takiap]

I would imagine the military is under the command of the elected government, at least on paper. In reality however, the Thai military seem to be independent. I personally can't see what the constitution has to do with this, since every elected or non-elected government simply changes the constitution. In fact, I can't understand why there is any constitution in the first place. If the current government wanted to do something which didn't fall in line with the current constitution, they would change or amend it, so why even bother having one?

[Norseman]

so why even bother having one?

[STEVE G]

This article goes some way towards explaining the situation:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... nd/mod.htm

[Lung Per]

I would imagine the military is under the command of the elected government, at least on paper. In reality however, the Thai military seem to be independent. I personally can't see what the constitution has to do with this, since every elected or non-elected government simply changes the constitution. In fact, I can't understand why there is any constitution in the first place. If the current government wanted to do something which didn't fall in line with the current constitution, they would change or amend it, so why even bother having one?

Thank you, but this is the kind of input that i am NOT looking for. I am looking for facts based in the constitution. If there are none, so be it. I suppose we are all aware of what the de facto situation is so no need to comment on that. As I said before, please thread lightly, this may well be a fragile subject...

[Lung Per]

This article goes some way towards explaining the situation:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... nd/mod.htm

Good. Thanks! This is much better detail than the CIA World Fact Book 2012