While Thailand is still being ruled by the coup-installed government, the newly appointed army chief has already laid the foundations for a siege of the country's future democracy.
Gen Apirat Kongsompong said on Wednesday that once the country returns to civilian rule following a general election in February next year, he will not rule out another military coup d'etat if there is further mayhem caused by political conflict as has happened in the past.
Even though his remark does not envisage a particular plan to plot, or not to plot, a coup, given that he was responding to a point-blank question posed by the media, it does reflect a misguided notion which has been repeatedly used as justification for military intervention in politics in the past.
His remark, in fact, makes the country increasingly vulnerable to another coup because it sets a condition for it.
And such a condition can be easily exploited by anyone, including the army itself.
It is obvious that the army chief was referring to the pretexts for the 2006 and 2014 coups. Ahead of those two military takeovers, the colour-coded political conflict, that pitted opponents of the influential Thaksin Shinawatra political base against his supporters and democracy defenders, resulted in prolonged street protests spiralling into violence and bloody confrontation.
In fact, such political demonstrations are common in a democratic society and the conflict could have been resolved through political means if the army had not decided to intervene.
But the army itself made things worse by becoming partisan within the conflict, lending its support to the anti-Thaksin movement.
This is particularly evident from the prolonged street protests against the government of Thaksin's sister, Yingluck Shinawatra from 2013 to 2014, during which the military mobilised to defend the demonstrators.
The fact that the political conflict continued and was used as the pretext for the 2014 putsch in itself demonstrates that the previous 2006 coup failed to solve the root cause of the problem which partly lies in the partiality of the justice system.
Today, more than four years after the latest putsch, Thailand remains as divided as ever and the coup makers' pledge to bring about reconciliation is nowhere near achieving success.
The quiet and order gained as a result of the government's suppression and harsh use of the law to crack down on dissidents cannot be construed as peace and security.
It is obvious that the army chief cannot, or does not want to, see that the military is unable to solve political conflicts.
By setting political chaos as a predetermined condition for a coup, Gen Apirat merely invites it. Anyone who wants to overthrow an elected government can just organise a rally and stir up mayhem, using it as a pretext for military intervention.
In fact, whenever there are crowd-control problems, it is the job of security officers, the police and then the military if the situation spirals out of control, to maintain peace and order and enforce the law proportionately without taking sides in the conflict.
As long as the military cannot fulfil that expectation, it has no legitimate right to take over the much more difficult role of administering the country.
Gen Apirat is right in admitting that the military is inexperienced in politics because most of the time, he said, soldiers spend their time in the barracks and rarely encounter ordinary people.
His remark on Wednesday undermines not only the country's prospects of returning to stable democratic rule, but also international confidence in Thailand's political climate.
After the past two coups, it is time for Thailand's political conflicts to be handled through political means. The military's sole role in such a situation is to maintain peace and order. Anything more than that is not acceptable.