BigFishEatLittleFish

Of interest is that SE Asia, long influenced by England, follows English defamation law (http://en.wikipedia...._defamation_law) Some have argued that English defamation law is a human rights violation and too restrictive. It is one of the few if not only exceptions to the rule that you are, as defendant, innocent until proven guilty. This is because the burden of proof in an English defamation lawsuit lies with the defendant, not the plaintiff. The defendant must prove the defamatory statement is true, unlike the American rule which is the opposite. This is a formidable obstacle to overcome as defendant, because the defendant may not have evidence to prove the truth of the alleged defamatory statement, even though "it is obvious" or "everybody knows it". Because of this, some SE Asian countries, like Singapore, have been accused of misusing English defamation law for political purposes, though what is misuse is in the eyes of the beholder. Bottom line: in this part of the world (SE Asia) be careful as to what you commit to writing about a third person.

Well, we seem to have a bit of a shortage of non-fiction here, so here are a few offerings taken from the chapter on "doing business" in my book:

Here is a promising book. Note the sad last line in the review below. Not sure I agree with it but I plan to read this book.

http://www.economist.com/node/21538093

Jim Thompson

Boat against the current

The disillusionment of a man of charm

Nov 12th 2011 | from the print edition

The Ideal Man: The Tragedy of Jim Thompson and the American Way of War. By Joshua Kurlantzick. Wiley; 253 pages; $25.95 and £17.99. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

HE WAS the Jay Gatsby of Bangkok: rich, charming, glamorous and endlessly hospitable, but with something mysterious in his background. The mystery only deepened with his death. On Easter Sunday in 1967 Jim Thompson left the cottage where he was on holiday in the Cameron Highlands in Malaysia, apparently for an afternoon walk. He vanished. Despite a huge conventional search operation (followed by more exotic efforts involving psychics and a Gurkha parachuted into Cambodia), no trace was ever found of him. A library’s-worth of conspiracy theories has never explained his disappearance.

The secret in Thompson’s background—and source of many of the conspiracy theories—was of the spooky variety. He was an agent for the OSS, the precursor to the CIA, posted to South-East Asia at the end of the second world war. He befriended anti-colonial forces in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. This was both a personal inclination and his mandate as a spy. The organisation, according to Richard Harris Smith, its biographer, had some “recurrent themes: democratic, social, progressive reform”.

Thompson felt betrayed by America’s rejection of these ideals in favour of alliances with anti-communist forces, however corrupt and undemocratic. Joshua Kurlantzick, now at the Council on Foreign Relations, portrays him as on the losing side in a battle in post-war Washington, as McCarthyite frenzy turned American foreign policy into a “with-us-or-against-us” crusade against communism. As a result, in Indochina, and in Thailand itself, America usually found it was on the side of the bad guys. Complex nations were grotesquely simplified for the voters back home and the boys sent to fight abroad. President Kennedy deliberately mispronounced Laos as “Lay-os”, lest Americans think he wanted to go to war with a small bug.

After government service, Thompson built up the Thai silk business that bears his name and collected artefacts to adorn the Bangkok house which is still on the tourist itinerary. He became a fierce critic of America’s policy in the region. This mattered since he was, in the 1960s, “the best-known private citizen in South-East Asia”. The Kennedys, the Eisenhowers, Truman Capote, Somerset Maugham and “nearly every prominent royal or heiress in Europe”; they all came to dinner chez Jim when they graced Bangkok.

Perhaps Thompson was subject to a contract killing by business rivals in Bangkok. He ended up betrayed both by his own country, America, from whose east coast upper classes he hailed and whose ideals he cherished, and by his adopted home, Thailand, to whose welfare and culture he had devoted himself.

The book fails, though, to explain why Thompson was so fascinating. It tells of his talents, knowledge, contacts, wit and urbanity, but it does not convince. He remains an elusive, insubstantial figure, if a very sad one, summed up by a journalist who knew him: “At the end, these foreigners realise they have no home.”

A rather sad review of Jim Thompson's life. At one point it was a "must see" stop on the tourist itinerary--today I'm not so sure.

http://www.economist.com/node/21538093

Jim Thompson

Boat against the current

The disillusionment of a man of charm

Nov 12th 2011 | from the print edition

The Ideal Man: The Tragedy of Jim Thompson and the American Way of War. By Joshua Kurlantzick. Wiley; 253 pages; $25.95 and £17.99. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

HE WAS the Jay Gatsby of Bangkok: rich, charming, glamorous and endlessly hospitable, but with something mysterious in his background. The mystery only deepened with his death. On Easter Sunday in 1967 Jim Thompson left the cottage where he was on holiday in the Cameron Highlands in Malaysia, apparently for an afternoon walk. He vanished. Despite a huge conventional search operation (followed by more exotic efforts involving psychics and a Gurkha parachuted into Cambodia), no trace was ever found of him. A library's-worth of conspiracy theories has never explained his disappearance.

'It wasn't me.'

The alleged crook may be more clever than some of you realize. It's a well known secret that many law firms will not prosecute embezzlement by employees since it looks bad to clients (shows a lack of internal controls). I know of some big law firms where there was this failure to prosecute, as well as another firm that bravely did prosecute. Perhaps the crooks know this fact and hence don't really try and be too clever when fleecing their employers?

Serious question. Does anyone directing hostile comments my way on this subject even know what MSF did in Thailand or acknowledge the fact that MSF hasn't had much of a presence in Thailand for the past 18 months?

Reading this thread I tend to agree with GK on the specifics of this issue but it seems to me that Thailand is somewhat xenophobic. I've lived in countries like this before, and visited some (both Russia comes to mind, and Greece, both countries I'm very familiar with, having lived in them and visited them extensively). Basically these countries want you to visit--and then leave without doing much more than falling into tourist traps and spending your money. In the case of Russia, some NGOs were regulated and banned a few years ago. In the case of Greece, since the state religion is Orthodox Christian, various religious groups that proselytize were proscribed and regulated.

All of this in the name of national interest of course. Again, the business model the governments are promoting is simple: you are welcome, foreigner, to come here, spend your money, get drunk and act out various stereotypical roles assigned to tourists but when your tourist visa runs out, please leave (but come again next year, bring more friends, and spend more money).

It actually is very common world wide and throughout history. Back in the turn of the last century in the USA, Chinese and other Asians were not allowed to become citizens or to own property. That is clearly wrong but at the time the reverse was also true: Americans could not become citizens of Asian countries or to own property (if they wanted to) and had to typically live in ghettos and had special privileges and restrictions. The USA now has become anti-immigrant. All of this is a function of the worldwide recession too, as well as a reaction to the creative destruction unleashed by globalization.

Here in the Philippines where I am now, they have a similar structure to Thailand (foreigners must register every few months and cannot own property without a Philippine co-owner), but it seems to me--and maybe only because they speak English--that the Philippinos are slightly more friendly towards Americans like me than the Thais. Cost of living here is cheaper too, outside Manila, for anybody interested in relocating.

My guess is this guy won't be in charge by the end of the week. Some sort of arrangement will be made so that the developers will be made whole and then some before they lose their rice bowl.

The unasked question here: What were these park officials doing when these encroachments were occuring? Oh, I forgot. Their job is not to enforce these laws, it's to use their official positions for private gain. Enforcing the law? Where is the profit potential in that?

Besides, most of the parks that I've been to in Thailand are already trashed.

Yes, you are cynical but I see you know how things work. It's rare that structures are demolished (even in the USA) for zone violations. Typically the remedy is to pay a fine, maybe even a heavy fine that if not paid means the building is seized, then the structure is "grandfathered" so it can remain on park land. In this case, it could be the structures are cheap shacks and shoddy, so tearing them down is no big deal. But if multi-story concrete buildings I'm sure some very upset people will be applying pressure behind the scenes to reverse this decision.

Even in south Europe, where I live part of the year, and is a developed country, there is illegal building on park lands. Again, a heavy fine is paid and life goes on.

But I applaud Thailand for making such a statement--we'll see if it lasts. Typically decisions such as these that are reversed are not really reported much, since it's bad publicity. The good publicity is the reporting of these stories, which temporarily scares away some marginal developers who are thinking of building on public lands.

Are you kidding me. Human trafficking is happening all around the world, right under our noses. The transportation of cheap labor from country to country has been going on for decades, all of it completely legal of course.

If the west wants to stop human trafficking, then it had better get real with what its own companies are doing with their businesses before they point the bone at countries that are said to condone human trafficking. Fair rights for all workers is a good goal and should be the first step for organisations like the UN.

I agree with much your post. I think the human trafficking debate is simply an excuse by westerners to moralize.

I know somebody in South Europe, where I live some of the year, who basically is a people trafficker. He tells me the young girls are mostly prostitutes. He of course has a reason to lie, but it sounds believable. If you live on a farm and are young and beautiful, would your family sell you to pay some debt? Perhaps. But most likely you yourself would decide to either go into the sex trade or spend your life on the farm or marrying some rich person. That's pretty basic.

I think developing countries should solve their own problems, though it's OK for westerners to moralize and preach (it's their right to do so). The developing countries however don't have to listen.

Just remember, no matter what you say or do, there are no stupid questions. Just stupid people.

My god! All you need is an inkjet printer and you can pass off fake notes. That is the most unbelievable part.

Could thee reason why he got caught be that his copies weren't good enough to pay the BIB.

Who says he actually got away with getting anyone to accept any. Maybe a bar girl or two, but a taxi driver? You might as well hand it to a policeman.

Yes the NY Times had an article about Thailand about a month ago and pointed out the country seems to attract desperate people and criminals. This is one of them, though on a much smaller scale and much stupider scale than say Victor Bout. Hence he was caught.

The big fish seem to always get away.

About time!

With tongue in cheek, , perhaps we have failed to grasp the subtlety of the situation? The relevant passage is: "So the officer looked at him and said, 'You have been learning Thai for six years already. Is that right? 'The answer was yes so the officer looked at a nearby fish tank and said inThai, 'The big fish eat the little fish." The foreigner looked at him without a clue."

So you see my friends, this was a signal by the desk officer for the farung to whip out his wallet, pull out 1000 baht, and slip it across the desk with a smile, no?

BIG FISH EAT LITTLE FISH, or one hand washes the other, or you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours? Kapeesh?