'I won't stage another coup to save my seat'

In my opinion, Thai politics is different from everywhere else in the world. There is every attempt to grab power. As Army chief, I deem it inappropriate for the military to get involved in politics which often strays from democratic principles. I stand neutral and will keep my subordinates away from meddling.

The current situation is like "no peace, no war". Normalcy should be when politicians offer policies and the people elect the majority to lead the government and the minority to join the opposition. It appears, however, that the race is about banding together as many MPs as possible to grab power by all means, including the killing of vote canvassers and vote-buying.

Politics is politics. I have no mandate to get involved with it. Should I be faced with political meddling, I think society will protect me. And I don't think society would want me to stray into political affairs. I won't follow the lead of certain individuals to interfere with politicians struggling to grab power.

These documents are classified and I don't comment on classified material. The Election Commission is in the position to clarify the matter.

I have no jurisdiction to rule whether the documents are authentic. My job is to launch an internal investigation to determine where there was a leak. It is up to the other camp (the People Power Party) to prove the authenticity and litigate if deemed necessary.

Speaking in general, I don't think the September 19 coup was a seizure of power. The coup was a suspension of power, which was then plagued by many problems. Following the suspension, we have tried to sort out the problems. At this juncture, the process involves the uncovering of wrongdoing. And the courts will eventually rule about right and wrong via due process.

The coup put the dispensing of power on hold but did not pass judgement.

I won't reply to this question. But I have already ordered everyone to stay neutral. Let's suppose my subordinates try to raise awareness against vote-buying, then a party tries to buy votes. This certainly clashes. I do my part. If that party wins, I will not interfere but allow the mechanisms to work it out. The people have passed their judgement. If this is fine, then fine by me. But if it is not fine, then it depends on how each mechanism would work.

There is nothing wrong. The situation has not gone wrong but is still a bit distorted. I would like to illustrate my point with an example. If I were a class president, then one day a group of seven to eight students accused me of cheating and I was suspended from power. I remained popular because of the support of other 30 students. I then put up a challenge and win the election.

Is this popularity real or an illusion? Your question isn't fair because you try to force me to answer a hypothetical scenario in which you mix an illusion with reality. The coup was not about the popularity of a leader or his bad administration of the country. It was about populism and a complex web of other issues.

If a good leader was elected, the problem would not have occurred. It is difficult to judge populism as good or bad. It appears to revitalise the economy, although no one knows its long-term consequences. A lot of people have benefited. But it is not worth it because populism triggered so much division and chaos. The system of checks and balances collapsed and there were so many power abuses.

Who has misgivings? Everyone? I am told by many that the armed forces are well behaved. I can do nothing else other than say what I mean and do what I say. Are media professionals bent on pushing me into politics?

My subordinates are exercising their right to promote democracy. At some level I see that activities of certain officers might be misconstrued. For example, the presence of soldiers in some villages might inhibit the movements of vote canvassers. And a certain party might protest about what it perceives as military interference. But I urge that party to look at the problem from a different perspective. The soldiers are fighting vote-buying, hence helping that party to ensure a free and fair vote.

Don't worry about it. I am not worrying myself. There is no justification to cling to the position of Army Chief. One day in this position means I have already served and done my job. I will be pleased if my successor is a more capable officer. Should I become a victim of injustice, I won't complain.

I am indifferent to such a scenario. If society does not want me to serve, then that is the end of me. What do you want me to do - stage another coup to save myself? I can say for certain that such a coup will not happen because no one will follow my order and society will not allow it. Who is stupid enough to circulate the idea that I might seize power after the balloting?

The security legislation is a major issue. To illustrate the importance of the legislation, I would like to draw an analogy about excavation. To dig the earth, you need various tools depending on the job required. But we have not had a specialised law to deal with security issues since the end of Communist insurgency.

The Criminal Code is enforced by police to tackle security-related offences. If this is sufficient, then the country has no need for the security legislation. But existing laws are inadequate to cope with emerging security threats.

Everyone should think for themselves whether transnational terrorism exists. If so, how are we going to face such a threat?

I believe the security legislation is necessary in the modern world. Without it, Thailand will have to keep on enforcing martial law in selected areas. For other countries, martial law means a state of war. To me, the legislation is the right tool to replace such an oversized tool as martial law.

I want the necessary tools to do my job and do not agree with amassing power. I just ask for provisions to empower me to issue orders for my subordinates to tackle security threats. Any excessive power can be cut during the vetting of the draft.

I am not involved in the drafting process. I think all legitimate and peaceful protests should be allowed in a democratic society. The public will decide on the response to the unruly crowds. As I said, I just want the legislation to enable me to run an agency in charge of security. I need enough power to administer, work and collect information before alerting police to make an arrest. It is not necessary to grant me the duties to arrest, detain and seize.