Regional Outlook : Military Leadership Under the Gun in Southeast Asia : Generals in Thailand, Indonesia and Myanmar face pressure to loosen their grip.

In a weekly ritual near the site of the demonstrations in May that left at least 50 people dead here, mourners wearing black garments gather to crush chili peppers with salt. The occult ceremony is designed to put a curse upon the country’s military leaders, whom the mourners blame for Thailand’s worst civil unrest in 20 years.

Whether the curse works or not appears problematic, since Thailand’s military leaders are facing an unprecedented assault on their powers and perquisites in the wake of the killings. Legislation has already sailed through the Thai Parliament, curbing the generals’ long grip on political power after Prime Minister Suchinda Kraprayoon, a former supreme commander, was forced to resign in disgrace.

Thailand is only one of the countries in Southeast Asia where the military’s role is being re-examined. Both Indonesia and Myanmar (formerly called Burma)--dominated by military or military-backed regimes dating from the 1960s--are seeing changes taking place.

In Indonesia, the military last month remained officially neutral for the first time in parliamentary elections. It has also begun to see some of its control of the private sector whittled away. There is even talk of friction between President Suharto and military leaders who are upset about the vast wealth being accumulated by Suharto’s children and a growing gap between rich and poor.

In Myanmar, since the retirement of the head of the military junta, Gen. Saw Maung, in April, a series of liberalizations has been implemented. In the latest move, the military regime began talks with opposition leaders in June in what they described as a step to return the country to democracy.

Critics complain that the steps appear largely cosmetic, but some diplomats say they detect signs that the generals are genuinely fed up with governing.

Vietnam, which has downsized its armed forces after four decades of Indochina conflict, has slashed the number of soldiers in the National Assembly. Even in the Philippines, considered one of the most democratic countries in Southeast Asia, President Corazon Aquino left office with a plea for the military to leave politics.

But it is in Thailand where the military is facing some of the strongest demands for change as the opposition to the violent suppression of May’s demonstrations continues to gather force.

Unlike Western countries such as the United States, where the military takes its orders from a civilian government, Thailand has allowed the military play a parallel and often dominant role.

The military has, in fact, ruled Thailand since the “revolution” of 1932 ended the absolute rule of King Rama VII. Since then there have been 17 military coups, 10 of them successful.

Not only do the generals command nearly 300,000 men in the armed forces, but they also control two television channels and five radio stations, run the Thai telephone system and port authority and have what amounts to executive authority over the country’s flag carrier, Thai Airways International, and the Thai Military Bank, one of the nation’s largest.

At least some of that authority may be diluted after the events in May and the political backlash that followed. So unpopular is the military now that the country’s current monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, rejected the military-backed candidate to replace Suchinda and instead chose Anand Panyarachun, a respected former diplomat and businessman, to serve as interim prime minister until fresh elections are held Sept. 13.

“The military has lost a lot of prestige,” Chamlong Srimuang, the leader of the pro-democracy forces, said in a recent interview with The Times. “It will take a long time to get that prestige back.”

Prime Minister Anand said in a speech this month that “we must begin a process of establishing civilian control over the armed forces and curbing their non-military activities.” He added that the officer corps must accept “that Thailand’s increasingly complex and pluralistic society requires not only a democratic form of government but also a well-defined differentiation of professional functions.”

Even Defense Minister Banchob Bunnag, appointed in the aftermath of Suchinda’s resignation, said that the military will have to reduce its involvement in politics.

Already, the changes are beginning to cut.

Anan Kalinta, a former air chief marshal who headed the communications authority of Thailand, was ousted from his job and replaced by a civilian last month. A military appointee, Anan had violated a law prohibiting officials in political posts from holding a state board chairmanship.

The Cabinet decided last week to scrap regulations at Thai Airways that make the air force commander the company’s honorary chairman. The move followed an open revolt by civilian employees against Air Chief Marshal Kaset Rojananil, the country’s supreme commander. The military is accused of a number of financial irregularities in the running of the airline.

With the military leadership feeling vulnerable, Kaset has refused to rule out the possibility of another coup. “We want to disassociate ourselves from politics, but if after the election a new government is formed by lousy parties, then the military has to intervene,” Kaset said last week.

Apart from its role in suppressing the May demonstrations, the military leadership has been accused of widespread corruption in the trade in timber and gems from neighboring Cambodia and Myanmar. A two-lane road from the northern Thai border to the headquarters of the drug czar of the Golden Triangle, Khun Sa, was built by a battalion of Thai army engineers. Army generals are frequent guests at Khun Sa’s house.

In 1988, an audit by the U.S. Congress also found that Thai officers had siphoned off about $3.5 million in covert assistance that had been intended for anti-Communist Cambodian rebels.

“By and large, the military system stinks,” said Robert Karniol, Asia editor of Jane’s Defense Weekly, a respected British journal. “The majority of the leadership of the Thai armed forces are distracted by non-military pursuits such as business and politics.”

As a result, the armed forces, despite huge expenditures on arms and officer training in the United States, have not performed particularly well at their main job over the years. In 1988, the Thais were dealt a humiliating defeat from the tiny, poorly equipped Laotian army in a war over logging that cost the Thais at least 400 dead and $100 million.

“They got creamed,” said one foreign military expert. “The Thai army came off looking like comic opera.”

Indonesia

In Indonesia, violence against civilians has also helped to tarnish the military’s image. Last November, soldiers opened fire on mourners at a funeral in East Timor, killing at least 50 people. On June 27, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut $2.3 million worth of military assistance to Jakarta because of the killings.

In late May and early June, the courts-martial of nine soldiers and one policeman involved in the East Timor killings painted a picture of an undisciplined military corps.

Nonetheless, the military remains firmly entrenched in Indonesia’s political life. President Suharto, a former army general, is expected to seek a sixth term next year, and the army chief of staff, Gen. Try Sutrisno, is widely mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate.

Under Indonesian law, the armed forces, known as ABRI, have a dual function: responsibility for national security and the legal right to participate in the social and political affairs of the country. The military is given one-fifth of the seats in Parliament, and retired military officers hold key positions in Golkar, the government political party that won 68% of the vote in last month’s parliamentary election.

More important, the military dominates the bureaucracy of Indonesia, a nation of 183 million spread over thousands of islands. Out of 27 provincial governors, 12 are military men, mostly retired generals. The military also holds the reins of power in 134 local districts, compared to 165 held by civilians.

While the number of soldiers in civilian jobs is dropping, there are no plans to phase them out. “The circumstances require leaders who are firm, think systematically and understand management,” said Home Affairs Minister Rudini, who in the Indonesian tradition uses only one name. “Generally, officers have these abilities.”

The fact that the army stayed out of the parliamentary election campaign has convinced some Indonesians that the military is willing to allow a more assertive civilian role, in line with recent moves toward freedom of the press and expression.

“The elections showed that the military are above the fray,” said Jusuf Wanandi, who heads a Jakarta think tank. “No one has any illusion that change is going to happen overnight. It’s a very gradual process.”

In contrast to the military’s unpopularity in Thailand, many Indonesians--traumatized in the 1960s when the Communist Party was wiped out after a failed coup--appreciate the military’s role in preserving stability and the country’s economic growth.

At the same time, intellectuals and students complain that the military’s dominance stifles academic freedom and creativity.

Myanmar

The changes in Myanmar since the leadership shake-up in April have received a lot of press attention. But they have not convinced many people that the nature of the military regime there has been fundamentally altered.

The military junta, which is known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council, formally took power in September, 1988, after an estimated 2,000 people were killed when the military crushed pro-democracy demonstrations by university students. But many diplomatic analysts believe that Ne Win, the general who seized power in 1962, has been the real ruler of the country for the past 30 years.

Under SLORC, the military jailed thousands of opponents and forced tens of thousands of Muslims into neighboring Bangladesh. An election called in 1990 produced a landslide victory for the opposition National League for Democracy, but the army ignored the vote and detained hundreds of opposition politicians, including Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last fall.

The first whiff of change came when Saw Maung, the leader of SLORC, was replaced in April by another military man, Gen. Than Shwe.

While thousands remain jailed, the government has released 180 opposition figures from the capital’s Insein prison. And Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest in Yangon (formerly Rangoon), was allowed her first visit with her family in two years.

The government also announced a cease-fire in its wars with ethnic rebels, a truce that has largely held. But a promise by the government to begin repatriating 200,000 ethnic Muslims from Bangladesh has been ignored.

In late June, SLORC began its first dialogue with the opposition, saying that the talks were a prelude to a formal constitutional convention and the convening of parliament.

According to diplomats in Yangon, the military appears to want the creation of a parliament similar to China’s National People’s Congress, meaning that it would be attended by hundreds of representatives of many ethnic groups but wield no real power.

Still, a diplomat said that there are increasing signs of frustration among younger military officers.

“They seem committed to getting out of the halls of government,” he said.

Special correspondent Margot Cohen in Jakarta contributed to this article.