jayboy

I can't. It was pretty obvious to me, save for Al Jazeera, that most western television journalists got all their talking points from the UDD Media Center. They disgraced themselves IMO and it's a shame that the vast majority of those who viewed their "reports" would not have known they were being fed a pack of lies. I've never looked at news reportage the same way since.

I see.Most Western journalists got it wrong because they were brainwashed by the UDD.(Can you name the minority that did get it right?)

It's ironic you mention Al Jazeera since its documentary fronted by Rageh Omah was the most devastating critique of the injustice that led to the crisis in the first place.

Nick, many people, some of whom actually try to be very objective .. such as Hammered, (appear to-- from the post above) see a bias in your writing. Many people who are biased in their reporting get almost unfettered access to opposing viewpoints/camps. That doesn't speak to their bias at all and instead speaks to the people in the opposing camps wanting to be "on the record" or at least not completely unrepresented in reports even from those that are biased against them. You are again making the argument that it has to be only one of two ways. Fallacious argument.

No doubt Hammered will speak for himself (if he wishes to) but I believe this member has completely misrepresented his position on Nick Nostitz.The distinguishing characteristic of Nick, whom I know only from his writings, is a compelling honesty.It's a flattering comparison but he reminds me of Orwell's reporting on the Spanish Civil War.Orwell, to use Hammered's phrase, obviously had his sympathies but that's a long way from suggesting his reporting was biased.He reported the truth as he saw it even if it was sometimes uncomfortable,( and Nick has often pointed out blunders and excesses on the redshirt side).

Frankly the forum is fortunate to have someone's of Nick's calibre contributing.It would be tragedy if he was driven out by shrill military cheerleaders.

Dear Jayboy:

Re: Thaksin personally paid off the IMF:

1. As said, this is not a one off rural myth, it has been mentioned many many times before, perhaps you should upgrade your google skills, or be a bit more honest.

2. My Thai adult (30 yr old) son did not misunderstand, he was born in Thailand, he speaks perfect Thai and perfect English. He's an astute well informed man who follows politics in depth.

Scorecard

I'm perfectly prepared to accept I have got this wrong, and that for some reason this has passed me by.To conclude this matter can you identify some references (given my poor google skills) to the suggestion Thaksin paid off the IMF loan himself? You say Jatuporn makes this claim so a credible external reference to this would settle the matter.

As I had expected a long silence from those who were peddling this myth.It's not a big deal and I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty but it's a good example of how fantasy among the politically partisan can take wings.I was told the other day in all seriousness by a Sino Thai matron in my neighbourhood that Thaksin's lawyer had been responsible for the seizure of a Thai aircraft in Germany.I nodded politely.The two scenarios are much the same.

Dear Jayboy:

Re: Thaksin personally paid off the IMF:

1. As said, this is not a one off rural myth, it has been mentioned many many times before, perhaps you should upgrade your google skills, or be a bit more honest.

2. My Thai adult (30 yr old) son did not misunderstand, he was born in Thailand, he speaks perfect Thai and perfect English. He's an astute well informed man who follows politics in depth.

Scorecard

I'm perfectly prepared to accept I have got this wrong, and that for some reason this has passed me by.To conclude this matter can you identify some references (given my poor google skills) to the suggestion Thaksin paid off the IMF loan himself? You say Jatuporn makes this claim so a credible external reference to this would settle the matter.

Another example of 'believing'.

The food vendors in my soi are very red and very vocal. In May last year they were very revved up.

One incident, they all came back from a rally at Rajaprasong talking about how thaksin paid off the IMF loan with his own money and didn't want any reimbursement. My Thai adult son tried to explain some facts to them, he quickly gave up because they angrily refused totally to listen. They claimed that jatuporn and others up on the stage were holding up copies of a receipt and documents that proved the money came personally from thaksin. And they also mentioned that abhisit and korn (who had make some comment that it was untrue thaksin paid the debt) were liars and should be punished.

I keep my ear to the ground for urban myths like this, but I must admit I have never heard of this one before - specifically that Thaksin paid off the IMF loan personally.I have heard wild claims from all sides but this one has appeared from nowhere.Could your Thai adult son have misunderstood perhaps?It seems odd that this particular misapprehension was apparently confined to one soi.A Google search reveals nothing except your previous recounting of this story.

And yet in this very thread, with supreme irony, a forum member Noahvail responds to your anecdote:

Quote That's a perfect example of "a lie told often enoough becomes the truth" Unquote

When asked what she thought about the term "judicial coup" used by some foreign media to describe the legal problems against her and Pheu Thai, Yingluck said she did not want such a thing to happen again in Thailand.

Which foreign media might that be? The Economist perchance?

Amsterdam is obviously earning his money.

The term "judicial coup" is widely used both in the foreign and local media.Your heavy handed suggestion that Thaksin's PR man is bribing the Economist is not only lame and childish, but quite possibly defamatory.If you have evidence produce it.

With due attribution to G.K Chesterton.The Thai elite might wish to reflect.

The Secret People

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,

For we are the people of Thailand, that never has spoken yet.

There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,

There is many a free Khmer peasant who is richer and sadder than we.

There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.

There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;

You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:

Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords,

Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.

They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;

They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,

Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,

Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.

It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,

Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.

It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest

God's scorn for all men governing. It may be lao kow is best.

But we are the people of Thailand; and we have not spoken yet.

Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

You are really hung up on proof aren't you. Why do you insist on ignoring the obvious and throwing common sense out the window.

Yes I think proof of a proposition (or as close as possible to it) is to be preferred to hysteria and irrationality.

What you blithely describe as common sense (Thaksin controlling terrorist armies) would be seen by others as pure nonsense.I would say the same of the redshirt hotheads who have accused Abhisit of murder.

I am sure if you ask those independent election observers, they would probably tell you that PTP did use Thaksin to further their cause. That is against the law.

If Thaksin HAD kept out of politics, as he is supposed to do, then Yingluck wouldn't have been the #1 party list candidate, and PTP wouldn't have got as many votes as they did.

Unlikely as such a matter would not have been part of their brief.If you are so sure of the law you will be proved correct in the next week or so.

Some might bemusedly point out that the last government depended on a faction led by a banned politician.

Your last sentence smacks of desperation I'm afraid.Still not long to wait before matters are clarified.

A sad state of affairs when a certain group of people dressed in red shirts can dictate to the whole country what to do or else. The else being violence.

Yingluck knew from the start that her brothers acting as her campain manager and controlling of the PT was reason to have the EC invalidate her election.

Yet she choose to proceed with it.

She also knew her brother controlled a Terrorist army that would threaten Thailand with violence if they refused to turn and look the other way while they knowingly broke the law.

The really sad part is as was pointed out earlier if she is disqualified the PT will still seat the new PM. But these armed peaceful protesters are not paid to back PT they are paid to back a family.

Not really.The EC accepted her candidature but anyway we will not have long to wait to see whether you are right or wrong.The general view is that the unelected elites are not so completely stupid to intervene at this early stage.

You make a number of unsubstantiated charges, none of which have been proven and which are probably defamatory.

As Suranand Vejjaviva points out in the other paper the EC was created as an instrument of democracy and thus should serve the people's interest, not those elements which are trying to distort it.

I don't understand your last sentence.Are you suggesting the PTP and its coalition partners don't have a democratic mandate?

Where do you draw the line as to how much cheating you can do to win an election? If you cheat, and get a majority, have you really won?

The EC's job is to apply the law. They shouldn't ignore the law just because "it's the will of the people", especially if they don't know what the will of the people would have been if there was no cheating.

You've had a bit of a problem understanding basic statements over the last couple of days.

One draws the line at frivolous objections, of which there have been several.

All independent election observers have agreed that the recent elections were generally well conducted and fair.If there were substantive irregularities they obviously need to be looked into by the EC and other relevant bodies.

".......... its whole reason for existence is to reflect the fairly expressed will of the people........"

..........and there they were thinking that their job was to uphold electoral law. Misguided fools! And if the will of the people is UNFAIRLY expressed, should they act?

Of course the EC must uphold the law, and the reason for that law is to reflect the fairly expressed will of the people.

If you have any reason to believe the last election was unfair (a position none of the neutral observation agencies would agree with) you can provide the evidence.As it happens I am sympathetic to the complaints that many were unreasonably disqualified from voting (As Khun Chamlong has vigorously pointed out).This clearly needs investigation.

The Election Commission notwithstanding its origins has an important job to do.If it did not exist its functions would need to be performed by another body.I think therefore notwithstanding any reservations about its cautious approach it should be given the benefit of the doubt.At the same time most non partisan observers will recognise the danger of the EC perhaps involuntarily being enlisted in the battle between the unelected elites and the Thai people as whole.It's too early in my view to draw any conclusions on this front though clearly this needs to be monitored.The EC must do its job with care and urgency.But it must also bear in mind its whole reason for existence is to reflect the fairly expressed will of the people, not to kowtow to the forces wholly hostile to the Thai peoples democratic wishes.

I would have thought that their reason for existence is to uphold the election laws.

The will of the people can be used to change laws through parliament. It shouldn't be used to override existing laws.

Especially when it's potentially only the will of some of the people.

As Suranand Vejjaviva points out in the other paper the EC was created as an instrument of democracy and thus should serve the people's interest, not those elements which are trying to distort it.

I don't understand your last sentence.Are you suggesting the PTP and its coalition partners don't have a democratic mandate?

Who are the Election Commission and are they totally above board, independent , and untainted by any skeletons in the closet?

The Election Commission notwithstanding its origins has an important job to do.If it did not exist its functions would need to be performed by another body.I think therefore notwithstanding any reservations about its cautious approach it should be given the benefit of the doubt.At the same time most non partisan observers will recognise the danger of the EC perhaps involuntarily being enlisted in the battle between the unelected elites and the Thai people as whole.It's too early in my view to draw any conclusions on this front though clearly this needs to be monitored.The EC must do its job with care and urgency.But it must also bear in mind its whole reason for existence is to reflect the fairly expressed will of the people, not to kowtow to the forces wholly hostile to the Thai peoples democratic wishes.

Does this read better?

"The post was not being critical of the NYT article, just pointing out the term used in their article".

Not really I'm afraid.What is the "term" that you refer to and where does it appear in the NYT article?

Let me help ...

Dave highlighted a phrase used by the NYT that illustrates how some in the international media see the Pheu Thai party.

You are not actually helping.What "phrase" are you referring to ?

Probably best leave the original poster clear up the confusion?

The post was not being critical of the NYT article but rather to illustrate an example of the term being used by the international media.

Sorry but I don't understand the part beginning "but rather".

As published by the NYT

"supporters of Mr. Thaksin's Pheu Thai party"

Hmm interesting first post.

I think you will find that most international media outlets actually have no particular brief for one party or the other in Thailand.The New York Times report does identify some worrying aspects of judicial intervention in Thailand, but other respected journals have taken much the same line.The usual approach of the unelected elite and their supporters is to make unsubstantiated attacks on the newspaper or the journalists involved.Hardly ever does one see reasoned criticism, possibly because their case is so weak.

Specifically I don't think the NYT has come out in support of the PTP.However the PTP has just won a general election rather convincingly so it would be natural for leading newspapers in civilised countries to deplore the grimy and undemocratic judicial frivolities we now see happening in Bangkok - doomed to failure I suspect.However if the unelected elites are too stupid to see sense they, having fanned up the flames they will reap the hurricane (to mix metaphors)

If the charge against Yingluck is as stated why has any PTP MP been seated? It is a charge against the party surely and not against an individual. All the other reasons are because of individual circumstances.

Who knows? I understand the EC will meet next week and hopefully we will see these cases unblocked.No need for anyone to get too steamed up now.But the world is watching.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/world/asia/14thailand.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Rather than go back to the 1997 version, with all it's flaws, why not just fix the current one.

The 1997 constitution was a model of its kind drafted under the leadership of a highly respected statesman, Khun Anand , not a rigged constitution pushed through by a military junta.Nobody is suggesting the 1997 version shouldn't be adapted to the current situation but the suggestion that the rigged document should be the template is ludicrous.

For those unfamiliar with the background to the 1997 charter there is a paper by James Klein (a prominent foreign critic of Thaksin incidentally) of the Asia Foundation which may be helpful.Sorry I can't provide the link since it's in pdf format but googling will find it easily enough.

Bottom line Thaksin sees the 2007 charter as:

Having checks and balances he can't get around

So by going back to the '97 he can in someways reset the clock on several cases against him

And he will be back to his old level of control, which is exactly why they wrote the 2007.

There was a referendum and the public picked the '97. Yes. or No.

But he didn't get to control the referendum situation so he wants to redo.

The call for the restoration of the excellent 1997 constitution - or something very similar - has been called for by many across the political spectrum.

The junta's constitution was written to please the military and other non elected elite elements.The referendum passed not least because the military imposed government had made it clear it would be promulgated no matter what.Even so the close call in the popular vote was a slap in the face to the elite thugs.

I even read NewMandala which is amongst the most radical leftist tripe I have ever read. Then again choosing not to wear blinkers is important to me.

Spot the comical failure of logic here.

[quote name='Siam Simon' timestamp='1310322468' post='4549931'

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

Yes the hypocrisy and dishonesty are astonishing.Fundamental issue is of course that the Democrats are almost always unable to win elections, hence the drubbing they have just received.Therefore they (or to be precise the unelected elite elements behind them) rely on military coups, judicial intervention, rigged constitutions and other non electoral means of thwarting the Thai peoples wishes.The encouraging news however is that the more intelligent elements in the unelected elite realise the game is up and are serious about compromise.The alternative - ie the usual pattern of intervention - is generally understood would bring the country a disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

The statistics on books is interesting, but may not be representative of much. I know a great many people who read for professional growth. Trade journals etc.

Regarding reading habits between Westerners and people in Asia, I usually see Westerners with a book while riding on buses and at the beach. I seldom see a local doing that.

I'm not sure that what adults do or read is related to students' IQs.

Agreed. It's irrelevant to IQ scores.

It may be symptomatic, but not causative.

Reading among the non-elite in western countries arose from the wide availability of vernacular Bibles in the 16th and 17th centuries. Later, the concentration of people in cities and towns during the Industrial Revolution in Britain stimulated interest in social and political reform in which the working people could participate. People became interested in learning more about how society could be changed. This extended to the British overseas dominions - Canada, Australia, etc, The Education Acts of the 1870s together with the emergence of trade unions and adult education classes for working people (Mechanics Institutes, WEA, lending libraries, etc) stimulated further literacy and reading habits. People thought they could make a difference.

The above conditions, other than universal primary and secondary education, have not yet happened in Thailand. Buddhist chanting is in Pali. Trade unions are very weak. Few participate in adult education. Free libraries are conspicuous by their scarcity. The internet has very limited availability in many villages. People don't think they can make a difference. So why read? They can only have an impact by throwing their weight behind some powerful figure.

OK, so this may not be related to IQ scores, but then IQ scores themselves are not really relevant to anything much in real life.

Very interesting.All the factors you list are less influential in the UK today than say 130 years with the decline of the respectable and industrious working class, heavily influenced by a self improving trade union movement often combined with a non conformist religious faith (many of whose whose modern successors I suggest were absorbed by Thatcherism).If one examines the written evidence of the nineteenth century working class (letters, journals etc) one is struck by what seems to the modern observer to be fantastically high standards of literacy, grasp of grammar and syntax.

"Abhisit should be applauded for giving his all in competition, but gracefully accepting defeat."

It's gratifying to learn that Khun Abhisit's Etonian background has provided him with one of the major attributes of the English genius (or the Tim Henman factor for short).