jayboy

It makes a difference to the point you were making, because that point was, unless i somehow misread it, why would the Economist not be objective.

I take your point but your original post suggested that The Economist had somehow and for reasons unknown slipped from objectivity when discussing Thailand.If that isn't a fair summary, please correct me.

But The Economist has never been other than openly subjective on all matters.That doesn't mean it hasn't been fair.On Thailand I believe it has been excellent and not just recently: for all the bizarre gossip (the Howard Moon stuff) it has never been other than sceptical about Thaksin.

Incidentally as a general observation I think all news reports are usually subjective.There are very few hard facts that taken together as a story that will be accepted by all people of good faith

I think there is something of a misconception that you are perpetuating here that foreign newspapers or journals categorised as being reputable are somehow above taking a position.

Opinion pieces in the Economist for some time now have consistently taken the same position, which is fine, they are after all opinion pieces.

I accept that The Economist - while also providing reportage embodied in oped pieces - is primarily a journal of opinion (some would say opinionated!), and thus by definition subjective.I'm not sure however this makes any difference to the point I was making.

Leaving The Economist to one side for a moment, it's very striking how certain strands of society in Thailand criticise foreign media organisations (most notably CNN and the BBC) to the point of demonising their people on the ground.I suspect it's an elite Thai trait, namely a profound dislike of having dirty linen examined by outsiders.The same principle applies to the UN:I well remember Thaksin's impatience at the suggestion outsiders might have something useful to say about how the country conducted itself.

The Economist, for whatever reason, has long since ceased reporting on political matters in Thailand with any sort of objectivity.

In your opinion perhaps.For others The Economist has been generally first class on its Thailand reporting and commentary.

The question you have to answer is why any reputable foreign newspaper or journal should wish to be biased or have any interest in being prejudiced about Thailand.You can talk about The Economist being in the pay of Thaksin (via Howard Moon!) or you can talk about a neo liberal conspiracy, but these explanations are frankly rather far fetched if not unbelievable.

The explanation that the critics never are prepared to consider is that The Economist (and let's be honest the vast majority of all high quality foreign media outlets) is simply pointing out a few home truths.

Totally ridiculous and politically motivated comments.

Tell that line of yours to K. Devakula, who was team Thaksin,

who was saying EXACTLY this in op eds, all but alternating with Korn, before PPP fell. They were both in agreement about the lack of ANY action to stave of the WORLD crisis. And that it was critical that some steps be taken. Somchai was oblivious. And though not in lock step once K. Korn was in office, K. Devakula was not more than pointing out issues to keep looking at the last few years. Both men see the bigger picture than just power struggles in Thailand.

One has to note, if one bothers to look beyond the nostrils, that NO COUNTRIES have gotten out of this unscathed. Many are on the brink of collapse. Makes no difference if Thailands investors were 'exposed to USA loans', because the fall out was far from ONLY in USA. It was a world wide crash, and affected everyone in Asia including China.

I wasn't making a comment with a political agenda, simply pointing out the excellent professionals at the BOT and MOF provide a continuity transcending whatever government is in power.The governments in Thailand since the Asian financial debacle of the late 1990's -when a great many lessons were learnt - have performed well.

It's not very clear what your rather confused comments regarding Devakula are meant to convey..that Thailand should somehow have taken steps to forestall the global financial crisis? Get real.

I never suggested that Asia was immune to the Western created crisis, simply that it was in a much stronger position and its financial institutions were much more robust.In fact Asia, including Thailand, has shrugged off its effects and - unlike the US and most of Europe (Germany being the exception) - is moving strongly forward.

Anand Panyarachun (ex Prime Minister of Thailand) was asked on BBC Hard Talk if the Military would stage another coup if Pheu Thai won.

He said "he didn't think so".

True, but in answering the question twice by Hardtalk's Stephen Sackur, he said he was "hopeful" the army wouldn't and was "confident" the army wouldn't.Well which is it asked Sackur, "confident" and "hopeful" have different meanings.Clearly Anand was not used to being asked difficult questions by reporters and put on a generally lacklustre performance,far outshone by Abhisit and Sulak who were also interviewed in the BBC Hardtalk series.Disappointing because in some ways Anand is a great man and has long been one of my heroes.He also tried to be patronising and dismissive of Sackur's understanding of Thailand's uniqueness, always an indicator of a Thai being on the losing side of an argument.It doesn't really work when dealing with a well briefed and highly intelligent journalist like Sackur.And yet one can't help liking and admiring Anand.His heart is in the right place: I know for a fact that when the BBC's Jonathan Head was being persecuted by military cheerleaders Anand was one of the very few prominent Thais who defended him openly.

I agree with you there. But I think Abhisit needed Korn in control of fincance immediately to stave off the world economic crash, and that seemed more important than needing to keep Newin in line down the line. I have to agree with that too. PPP had utterly dropped the ball watching the international financial picture. Abhisit had 20+ years in Thai politics; a win is a win even if it is from a sacrifice bunt and not a grand slam.

A complete misreading of the Thai position in relation to the last financial crisis, specifically because after the 1997 crisis steps were taken to improve the capitalisation, governance and lending of the Thai banks.No Thai banks were exposed to the US housing market, dodgy deriviatives and frankly the sheer greed that was the downfall of Western banks, and the trigger for the crisis.Asia including Thailand was and remains in a strong position.As a point of detail it is inaccurate to blame any Thai government since 1997 for economic mismanagement.All have performed quite well and though Korn has a good record, no knowledgeable person would suggest PPP dropped the ball in relation to the international financial picture.It's not only silly and politically motivated, but betrays a lack of understanding how the Ministry of Finance and Bank of Thailand provide solid continuity and competence whatever government is in power.

It's typical of how much of the talk before the election is based on misrepresentation and partisan rehashing of events.

Occasionally one comes across an intelligent analysis of the deep deep changes in Thai society which are actually more significant than the electioneering squabbling of all sides, which will seem very dated in a few months time.The New York Times article below is a good example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/world/asia/01thailand.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=tptw

The outcome of this election has to be accepted. If it doesnt go the way, you or I or anyone else likes that is irrelevant. Thailand needs to move on

Absolutely yes, the election result must be accepted. I think if PTP win, as you predict, it will be, and if PTP get on with the job of running the country, Thailand will move on. If on the other hand they become totally preoccupied with undoing perceived injustices concerning their leader, this will not be accepted, and nor i think should it.

Do you think that a win for PTP should mean everyone lies down and accepts whatever meddling of the judiciary they so decide upon?

I dont have much time for PTP to be honest, but also to be honest if they push an amnesty for Thaksin it is something their voters want. If they win, there is little that can be done about any amnesty push as long as it is constitutional. And also to be honest, I think all political sides have already shown they dont mind a little meddling with things. And of course Abhisit and a few others could find themselves on the wrong side of the court if they lose power and as intimated by several democrats they dont expect the establishment to go out of their way to help him.

Hammered

You should see Crispin's latest at AT.Can't link for the usual reasons.

It's true that Apisit has looked ridiculous at times in this election campaign, for instance when he planted rice, he thrust the rice stalk in with his fingers half way up the stem, any farmer knows your thumb should be against the stem to offer support and form a hole as you press it into the mud.

He's a Tong Lor-Oxford protege as they say!

But it's not important, the point is he has an excellent grasp of issues facing the country, something sorely lacking in Yinglak, and her refusal to join the P net debate this Friday only leads to more doubt as to her ability to be the PM of Thailand.

I have just watched Khun Abhisit's interview with Stephen Sackur on Hardtalk.I must say I thought he handled himself very well, a bit irritated and tetchy at times, but overall very impressive - and as honest as it's possible to be as a PM defending his government.While I have sympathy with some of the redshirt aims (as do most well educated foreigners), I have to say that if I had a vote it would be for Abhisit.What struck me quite forcibly is that he was really doing his best to give intelligent and honest replies.(It helps that Sackur - a Cambridge graduate - is both intellectually incisive and thoughtful and I'm guessing perhaps a kindred spirit).I was also struck that in this interview at least Abhisit appeared ready if he gets a second term to deal with the country's structural problems including the army and lese majeste abuse.

Where did I say it was accepted? I said the dispute needed to be settled before the management plan was put forward, let alone accepted. The plan has been put forward, the WHC is considering accepting it. The dispute has not been settled. That is the issue. Political agenda is my diagnosis for your backfired attempt to sully my post.

You implied the plan had been accepted, but perhaps you were not expressing yourself very clearly.In any event you seem to understand the position now.Some of your other observations seem dubious and I suggest you read the UNESCO press release more carefully.

I was not thinking in terms of any party's political agenda but since you raise the matter, most sophisticated observers understand exactly why the Thai government is taking its current line - a desperate and in my view futile attempt to bring the "No vote" faction back into harness before the Thai people vote next week.

The border was demarcated in 1962

Why do people feel the need to wade in on a topic they know nothing about? The border was not demarcated in 1962. The ICJ ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia, and Thailand must remove its troops from the "vicinity". Nobody drew a line showing where that vicinity ended. Thailand grudgingly accepted the decision, but followed it. Between 1962 and 2008 the temple has belonged to Cambodia and the disputed land was shared by both, with Cambodians setting up market stalls, alongside Thais, to take advantage of (read into that what you will) the tourists coming from the Thai side. The current impasse came about when Cambodia single handedly put forward a management plan which included the disputed land as well as the temple. The matter of the disputed land clearly needs to be, and should have been, resolved before any management plan involving it was put forward, let alone accepted. Yet we continue to get dozens of posters here, whether through simple Thai bashing or a political agenda, trying to tell us the fault is entirely Thailands.

As an aside; shooting at the Thai army from a temple in the hope that the Thai army shoots back, haven't we seen that tactic used elsewhere too?

Thank you for expounding more exactly then my brief 1-liner reply to the 1-liner misrepresentation.

Your observations on postings in these temple threads is not solitary. The sort of thing you describes occurs on every one of the many threads.

Before weighing in with posts criticising the input of other members, some consideration should be given to checking the accuracy of your own position (that means both of you).

No management plan was accepted by the WHC, as the following UN press release makes clear.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38853&Cr=Heritage&Cr1=

Perhaps yet another smoke screen by the Democrats to make the opposition look bad ? This is politics, after all.

It's beginning to look like it after the complaint by the Democrats to the EC about Abhisit's Samut Prakan visit.A neutral witness (the blogger Andrew Barrow) was there the whole time and saw nothing untoward.The red protests were orderly and well controlled.

always worth mentioning that HRW has a very left-leaning agenda ... leaving many of their conclusions in question. The did, however, put together a decent report that seems to get most of the day to day facts right. If Thailand ever does a thorough investigation of the truth, this report would be a good starting point.

What exactly does he believe about the HRW report? Is concern for human rights "left leaning", and if so why? I would have thought right wingers and moderates also shared a concern for individual liberties. He questions HRW's conclusions because "left leaning", a meaningless caveat I would have thought in the context of events on the street, but goes on to say a decent report was produced.Thoroughly muddled thinking I'm afraid.I suppose he agrees with the parts of the report criticising the redshirts but not those parts criticising the army's brutality.

Huh?

The reds escalated the violence at every step. Anything else is simply not accurate. The police and the army failed to protect protesters at both Government House and at the airport. The police caused death at parliament house. Over the course of the PAD protests quite a few people were killed. Less than there were when the reds protested but that is solely due to the violence of the reds.

It is sad to see someone defending the reds when it was the reds that have proven to be outrageously violent at every turn.

It's sad to see someone reinterpreting history (and very inaccurately ) based it seems on his political prejudices including unquestioning support for the Thai army , whatever abuses and crimes it is responsible for

The fact is there is only one authoritative report so far, produced by Human Rights Watch.It is very fair minded and allocates blame where appropriate on both sides, uncomfortable reading both for diehard redshirts and military cheerleaders.If anyone hasn't seen it, I can provide a link.

Of course it's a pity (actually a total disgrace) the Thai Government hasn't made any progress with its investigation, probably because there's no political capital in it for them.Additionally the Thai army has refused to co-operate.

I'm not sure there were more than a couple killled in the PAD protests,very regrettable but more by police incompetence than anything else with unsuitable tear gas equipment.Quite different from the military's murderous intent of 2010.If one includes that PAD prat who blew himself up accidentally ferrying bombs around Bangkok the PAD total might be a little higher.

Your implausible explanation and attempted excuses are noted.

It is what it is. She holds up a 30,000 tablet computer with the obvious impression given that this what is going to be disseminated. If the cynical international media get that impression, her voting constituents absolutely do.

Clearly some of her backers are becoming rattled by her reoccurring gaffs, attempting to explain away grossly misleading campaigning with implausible explanations.

In light of Admin's notification, that's nothing more need to be said.

I'm afraid you are not the sole judge of what needs to be said.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Yingluck and the PTP, but if every small incident (waving the Samsung tablet around) is puffed up into some kind of criminal act the debate becomes meaningless.

I suspect most people without an axe to grind wouldn't give this particular incident a passing thought.The point is that Thai children will be given an opportunity which most educationalists believe is very welcome.Of course this needs to be done cost effectively as the PTP education spokesman would be the first to agree.

I'm noting that Yingluck was showcasing an expensive branded tablet computer and that in the same breath the international media is indicating that is precisely what 1,000,000 students can expect to receive if the adult members of their family vote for PTP.

Do you think children (or for that matter adults) are going to listen to some staid news conference by Promphong or are they going to pay much more attention (and instill belief) in their future Prime Minister standing on stage proudly hoisting the electronic tablet in front of thousands in person?

It's chicanery and misleading at the very least. Much worst than that at it's worst.

The evil of it.I think the courts should be "directed" to deal with this act of ignominious act of bait and switch.It's comical that some think there's criminality here but then a sense of perspective is sometimes problematic.

Possibly she was holding up the nearest tablet to hand as a symbol.I guess that's too rational an explanation.

Clearly some of her critics are becoming badly rattled, seizing on the most insignificant issues where there's less than meets the eye.

"Ill-informed" by following the lead of the Potential Prime Minister.

You're saying we should discount what she says and shows and instead take the word of a hired mouthpiece?

If a 4,000 baht piece of plastic is what they are going to use, why on Earth show off a 30,000 tablet computer?

Misleading?

Buyer beware.

Your prejudices are showing.

I'm not sure the PTP education spokesman should be described as a hired mouth piece.

If your point is that Yingluck was holding an expensive branded item, that's noted.However it is perfectly possible to mass produce a functional tablet PC for a fraction of Bt 30,000.There is no siggestion Thai children will be issued with high end Apple or Samsung products/

She needs to show her 'democratic credentials', with a stronger speech warning her followers to permit others to campaign freely, she might perhaps do this by congratulating those who did so peacefully in Samut Prakan. But this might risk upsetting her UDD/Red-Shirt-leader running-mates, if they perceive her to be criticising last-year's tactics, dictated by her 'clone' from afar.

Huh?

As you suggest the redshirts protested in an orderly and peaceful manner at Samut Prakan yet The Nation report gives a completely opposite impression.The blogger Andrew Barrow who was actually there has commented The Nation report bears no resemblance to what actually happened - and he was there all the time.Barrow is no redshirt sympathiser and has written very warmly about Korn.He also earlier in the day at Samut Prakan noted that Abhisit had got a better reception than Yingluck.

So we seem to be faced here with a barefaced lie by Abhisit and the Democrat leadership (if what The Nation reports is true).The strategy is all too obvious but I think it will fail - if the PTP and the redshirts keep their cool.

Maybe she didn't understand, that this invitation is for party-leaders only, and that she's supposed to be the leader of Pheu Thai, not just their 'pin-up girl' ?

Thaksin could phone-in I guess ......

Probably time to get real.She knows she is way in front and that there's no guarantee a debate would improve her position.Exactly the same line taken by Tony Blair who always refused to debate.

As a matter of fact I think she's wrong and that she should debate.She would be a hard target for Abhisit despite his greater experience and eloquence.Joe Biden understood the problem when he debated Sarah Palin, and I imagine was happy with a draw.

What's wrong with having APC's and fighter aircraft to protect the country?

Protect the country against who precisely?

You also seem to misunderstand the role of the Thai armed forces.Its role is not to fight wars but to secure internal power and influence and make money for its generals.Protecting the country is way down the list of priorities.

I'd rather have Puea Thai give tablets to students than the Democrats wasting millions of Baht

The Samsung Galaxy Tab tablet computer program will run into the Billions (with a capital B ) also known as 1,000 million.

.

My understanding is that educationalists believe this is in principle a good idea.The legitimate question relates to cost and impact.There's no suggestion that Samsung Galaxy Tabs will be used other than Yingluck was brandishing one as an example.The PTP spokesman (on MCOT TV) advised relatively low end but servicable units would be purchased in bulk from China at a cost of Bt 4000 each on favourable financing terms.

So it seems Buchholz's comments are ill informed speculation.

But that always leaves 2/3rds of the voting public that are NOT

and never were, for PTP/PPP/TRT. Even the one larger TRT coalition anomaly

was partly smaller parties blocks being sold to Thaksin before the election, not after.

You could of course say exactly the same about the government run by the Democrats.The distinction is of course is that the PTP/PPP/TRT has consistently been able to win elections.The Democrats very rarely have.

Not quite sure what the Democrats are complaining about.Abhisit doesn't get too bad a reception:in fact people quite like him (everybody likes a gent) regardless of politics.Suthep gets a poor reception because Thai people, outside his NST bailliwick, recognise a crocodile when they see one.According to Richard Barrow, blogger, Abhisit got a better reception in Samut Prakan - a so called Red stronghold - than Yingluck.

one hopes that this will be resolved before the election and brings the yellows back into the Dems fold

That would be like having had a malignant tumour cut out, one asked the surgeon to reinsert it.

Truth is we don't know that much about her but my initial favourable impression remains.

As far as not knowing much about her is concerned, this was actually the point i was making when we were discussing her alleged merits a week or so back. You were the one saying she was obviously intelligent and capable, and i was the one questioning how we could so quickly draw such a conclusion, bearing in mind what we have to go on is pretty thin - we have an education record that is ok but hardly dazzling, and we have a career history of only ever having worked for her brother's companies, making it hard to know whether those lofty positions, such as President of AIS, were earnt on merit.

Your counter-argument to that issue was sister of Thaksin or not, deadwood would not be tolerated, and to an extent i agree - if she was completely useless then she wouldn't have survived, but there is a big difference between middle-management and CEO material, or for that matter, middle management and leader of a nation material.

Anyway, as i say, my position then was one of, let's wait and see before we start any trumpet blowing. Now, a week or so on, having the benefit of seeing her in the public spot-light and in interview situations, i have to say that i feel fairly underwhelmed.

Just taking that interview that i linked to in my earlier post in isolation, i would have to say that if her stated position on encomic matters is coming out as jumbled and as nonsensical in surroundings as relaxed as those, how is she going to cope when really under pressure?

I was looking forward to hearing your opinion on what she said there, but you neglected to do so, prefering rather to speak of what you think other people's opinion is of her. For me, i'm rather more interested in hearing what you think. Yes, i know full well that as someone who can not vote, your opinion counts for nothing in terms of deciding Thailand's future, just like mine, but this forum is clearly not here for deciding Thailand's future, it is here for exchanging our own views, all of which are equal, voter and non-voter alike. Sorry for stating the obvious but it seems some people are unaware of all this, as shown by the daily repeated sentiments we see from certain posters along the lines of "you are not a Thai, you can't vote, stop expressing an opinion" (should be noted that these sentiments usually seem to be expressed when someone offers an opinion that differs from their own).

Anyway, i have digressed off onto a completely different topic, so just to try and end by bringing it back to my original point, if you care to offer your own opinion on the aforementioned interview, i would be interested to hear it.

Sorry I skipped the interview (I have a life to lead!) but have now seen it.I don't disagree with what most of what you say.She seems a pleasant bright person, not perhaps in Abhisit's academic achievement class of course, and with the usual mediocre English language capability I associate with Thai graduates of second tier US universities.But as with most Thais I am quite favourably impressed, but as you suggest it's not really possible to give a final verdict because she's so much terra incognita.If the Democrats ran a better campaign (abysmal so far) her star wouldn't be shining so brightly.I knew thee Democrats don't know how to win elections, but I'm amazed at the incompetence of their campaign.

The truth hurts doesn't it Weng? The Reds are masters at smeer campaigns, it's what they did all last year.

i think this is pretty tame from Abhisist

if it was me i would plaster Thailand with images of Bankok burning, town halls burning, men in black with AK47's, dead soldiers and many other stark reminders of what these reds are actually about

Thai people have short memories, its time for shock tactics to turn the tide and stop these anarchists getting into power.......

Or one could show photographs of unarmed civilians murdered by the Thai army which has refused to co-operate with subsequent enquiries.But that would be equally irresponsible and divisive as the suggestion above.

The trouble is that the Democrat Party has shown itself unable to win elections, having risen to power on the backs of soldiers, judges and Prem.AS the election draws closer the military cheerleaders are increasingly rattled as we can see.They find the prospect of the Thai people giving their decision very troubling.