UPDATE: See below
Before we get to the denials. Thaksin wasn't stating that the meeting was to plan the coup, but it was a plan how to get rid of Thaksin. Gen. Panlop says they discussed the problems of the Thaksin government and how to solve it and that if it couldn't be done legally then a coup was needed. This would have been the crucial decision. Once it was decided how to act then the lower-level meetings could occur (i.e when the military were told to stage the coup). The military didn't need to be at the meeting as it was a meeting of strategy on what to do. You can see the implementation of the plan in the run up to the coup with a number of speeches being given.
You had Prem (with his jockey remarks) and numerous other important people/puu yai make statements in the lead-up to the coup (including Anand, Sumet) etc talking about how those with bad intentions will destroy the country. Just as important you had the judiciary in on the act.
First, by Charnchai Likhitjittha [who was President of the Supreme Court at the time and present at the Sukhumivit meeting] who was criticising politicians and calling for the judiciary to reform the system stating ''Corruption, vote buying at local and national levels, bidding for positions, bid rigging, lobbying for high positions, embezzlement of secret budgets and tax evasion are becoming the norm in society". Second, at the same conference, you also had Supreme Administrative Court president Akhrathorn Chularat state that the executive branch had to strictly abide by the law, be answerable to the judiciary and comply with the constitution and other laws. The law could be exercised to oust any government official who had a hidden agenda, he said.
Why the judges you ask? Well, you couldn't have the judges rule the coup and revocation of the constitution were illegal, could you? The military were always going to be on Prem's side as he could give them more money, but without the judges then the coup couldn't happen. Look what happened in Pakistan to see what happens when you don't have the judiciary on your side. You can also see the judges and others at work in the tape released in 2006 - see here and here. In addition, all 9 members of the Constitutional Tribunal which ruled to disband TRT and ban the 111 TRT executives were from the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court with Akhrathorn Chularat being the deputy of the tribunal - see the Tribunal's clarification (DOC).
h/t to a reader for some comments.
UPDATE: To clarify, the coup was to get rid of Thaksin. In order to properly get rid of him, it was not completely in the hands of the military. You can see the judiciary with the EC and the tape, the assets seizure (in 1992 it didn't work as the judiciary ruled the seizure illegal). This couldn't happen this time. The dissolution of TRT and Thaksin getting bail. Why else were the judges present?
3 hours ago
BP: You said, "Without the judges the coup could not happen", have you lost your sense of reasoning ?
BP Think you are off with this one. A coup anywhere immediately issues revolutionary orders which rewrite law. You dont need the judges. You just need your government sanctioned. Judges side with sanctioned governments. Thailand has loads of practice of this.
Veharachan :
You said, "Without the judges the coup could not happen", have you lost your sense of reasoning ?I'm going to object the same point BP made, but perhaps from different angle from Veharachan (I'm not quite sure what the latter means: BP should've said military ?)
If BP looks at all the previous coups, the role of judges was virtaully non-existent, apart from rubber-stamping them - the act which itself is not critical previouly. But in this coup their involvement has been from the begining and in fact still on-going (two electected governments overthrown by judges) This is unprecedented and constitutes, I argue, the differntia specifica of this coup. This is why I always insist that even to call this coup, a 'military' coup is highly misleading.
I know I don't understand Veharachan, but I am not sure that I understand Somsak's point. Seems to me that his view is similar to BP's?
Have updated the post.
"Why else were the judges present?"
A meeting of concerned citizens, worried about where the the country was headed? :)
btw, do we have an approximate date of when this meeting was held?
BP: You may want to go back to the 18 military takeovers in our history. The generals did not enlist top judges or consult them or ask them for strategic advice. The generals do not need them. Once the coup is successful, they seize the sovereign power, albeit temporary. They can pass legislation by edicts to tell judges what to do. They can even write and promulgate a constitution.
If you plan a coup you don't want to discuss it with judges because conspiracy to overthrow the government is illegal. If you are the top judge, you would want no part of it. Thaksin's story is flawed and you should not have bought it, even though you may have sympathy for him.
Dinners among friends and acquaintances take place routinely in Bangkok. Eating is our sport. Why would Thaksin wants to believe Punlop is beyond me. At one time he wanted to be PAD leader, an alter ego of Chamlong. His role in the massacre at Krue Se is still not fully explained. If Punlop says,"I have your back", you better run.
My point is this. BP argues that judges were there because the coup had to (to use his latest phrase) 'properly get rid of Thaksin or (previously) 'rule that the coup was ..[not] illegal'. And since the miliatary couldn't do these, judges were needed. This is to get things backward. I ask : why such 'propriety' was not critical in previous coups. The 1992 asset issue BP just cites proves my point: it wasn't felt critical to the sucess of the coup.
To be more direct: judges were there because it's their coup from the beginning or the coup of someone on whose behalf they were acting.
Veharachan said: "Thaksin's story is flawed..."
Interestingly, Piya Malakul's version of the events is flawed too. Have you read how Piya, the host of the dinner, basically embarrassed himself by messing up the chronology of events when he came out to deny Thaksin's accusations?
For a start, Piya said he invited General Panlop because Panlop was at the centre of the car bomb case. In reality the dinner took place three months before the car bomb thing. To me it’s just absolutely weird how Piya could so accurately foresee the future!
Piya also added that Pramote Nakorntap was invited because he was well-known for exposing the Finland Plot (the alleged plan of Thaksin and co. to overthrow the monarchy). Again, Pramote’s article on the Finland Plot was actually published twelve days after the dinner. Was Piya really able to predict the future, then?
Tumbler: Do you mind advising the date of the dinner? (please)
hobby:
The dinner was on 6 May 2006, days after the king gave that landmark speech about the election that was boycotted by the Democrats and other opposition parties.
The car bomb thing happened in August that year, three months after the dinner. And Pramote's article on Finland plot wasn't published until 18 May, several days after the dinner.
Tumbler: To be fair, Piya Malakul said he did not remember exact date of the dinner.
Thanks Tumbler.
At that time the country was already in turmoil and Thaksin was on the nose to a signifcant number of people (especially in the capital and down south), so it does not really surprise me that meetings were held amongst one group of elite to see what could be done about another group of elite.
So basically, I'm still waiting for more evidence of actual coup planning by those being accused.
It's a bit like that notorious phone tape, which did not really seem to prove anything other than a number of people were concerned, and looking for ways out of the mess.
What I suspect happened is that there was no real planning, but enough hints were already floating around to give Sonthi B & Co confidence that if they did act it would not be unwelcome.
That's just my theory, and I'm open to further evidence if it can prove anything one way or the other.
I also seem to recall after the coup, it took a few days for Surayud's name to be pulled out of the hat, and accept the PM position - At this stage I am not convinced that was just a ruse.
But then again, I'm just a casual observer and my opinion counts for nothing - if it was not so serious, it would all be quite quite amusing, especially watching Thaksin convince people he is a born again democrat, and getting the frozen money back is just a secondary consideration :)