jayboy

The headline states "Foreign Editorials Miss The Point On The Cause Of Thailand Crisis" Phetaroi agrees "I happen to agree, at least in general, that the American and world press doesn't "get it" in regard to the real causes of the May 19 rioting and arson." So what's your problem? There's no hint in the article of trying to blame foreigners for the problem s of Thailand, is there?

Agreed!

The Editorial tries to set the record straight, which th WP Article completely fails to address!

Which happened rather often relating to the "upheaval" of recent times in the world's leading media - and that leaves a lot to question!

Why should Thailand, it's Journalists, people concerned, just accept this rather distorted statement , by a renowned media as the WP?

Does it ever occur to apologists for the reactionary clique that controls Thailand that there is something rather odd in the fact that every reputable international media outlet somehow doesn't "get it" about Thailand? Could it be that they "get it" only too well? No news report is ever totally accurate and it's the habit of the apologists to seize on a mistake and hope to undermine the whole thesis.If this fails then the line is spun that Thailand is too difficult for foreigners to understand.What utter balderdash.The apologists argue for some weird form of Thai particularism:they have learnt nothing and they have forgotten nothing.When the whole corrupt and greedy reactionary edifice comes crashing down it will be interesting to see what alternative theories will be posited.But I expect the currently yapping Bangkok Sino-Thai middle class will transfer their loyalties in the time honoured way when the Thai people finally take control.

and in reality, who is thailand going to use them on ( defense or offense ) ?

Does it matter? There are not many countries at all in the whole world that don't have a military and all these countries' military have equipment and all this equipment costs money.

You could ask your question of any new military expenditure spent by any country in the world, but then again, it would be rather pointless as they all (except for a tiny few) have a military.

The Thai Air Force planes that had are relics from the 1950's. It's high time they were replaced.

You can't be defending the "toys for the boys" mentality of the Thai military, can you ??

This a relatively poor country and there are very many other needs that are far more deserving of limited government funds.

Education for one.

philw

To label a long overdue update of an important component of the military arsenal as "toys for boys" is nonsense. What I'm defending is the right for personnel in the military not to have work with antiquated, and thus extremely dangerous, equipment.

It's also a false argument to say that spending for education is contingent only upon the airman to continue to risk their lives unnecessarily on equipment that is 5 going on 6 decades old. They aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone with more than a day of military service, for any country, in their background is aware of the necessity for proper up-to-date equipment.

Up to date and safe equipment is one thing (and I agree the importance) but the military's needs should be carefully justified, costed and finally approved (or not approved) by the civilian authorities - specifically the elected government of the day.In Thailand this procedure does not work well and major arms purchases are not always justified adequately.As to the specific Swedish purchase the fact that the Thais are paying up to 30% over the usual price scarcely seems to attract comment.But in reality as all but the incurably naive understand it is this "full" price that mainly drives the transaction.

The Economist has been pretty much spot on from the beginning of this self-inflicted crisis:

"This week Thais were encouraged to call a hot line and speak their mind. As television cameras rolled, Mr Abhisit and his ministers took a few of the calls. ... There is a much more systematic way to find out what the Thai population wants. It is called an election."

http://www.economist...539306&fsrc=rss

I certainly don't agree that the Economist has been spot on. I suggest their analysis is severly lacking in accuracy and professionalism.

The Economist was, for decades, seen as highly credible, not any more.

Please be specific.

I doubt whether he has any real idea.It has become standard practice among some expatriates to rant about the Economist's coverage (or any coverage that questions the smug yapping Bangkok middle class perspective.)The usual angle is to come up with a rather superficial explanation of Thailand's parliamentary democracy, followed by a fatuous anecdote about what his Thai wife and her friends think.How the elite journalists at the Economist must be impressed.I have yet to see one defence of Abhisit's "dead man walking" government on this forum or anywhere else that wasn't intellectually impoverished and politically illiterate.

The Economist has been pretty much spot on from the beginning of this self-inflicted crisis:

"This week Thais were encouraged to call a hot line and speak their mind. As television cameras rolled, Mr Abhisit and his ministers took a few of the calls. ... There is a much more systematic way to find out what the Thai population wants. It is called an election."

http://www.economist.com/node/16539306?story_id=16539306&fsrc=rss

I certainly don't agree that the Economist has been spot on. I suggest their analysis is severly lacking in accuracy and professionalism.

The Economist was, for decades, seen as highly credible, not any more.

You forgot to mention the Economist is in Thaksin's pay through his Moon henchman (along with CNN.BBC,NYT,FT,WSJ etc etc)

For the less myopic, of course the EConomist hasn't always got it right on Thailand but it has raised important legitimate issues that the local press has evaded.So a valuable service has been performed.

I remain of the view that most highly educated resident farang in the liberal tradition are sympathetic to the red cause though with many many caveats.I am certain of this as of any opinion I have voiced on this forum.

We had this discussion before. When I said that most highly educated [and achieving] resident farang I knew saw the red movement as a sham, you responded sarcasticly, basically saying you didn't believe it. I work in Thailand among journalists and academics and have done so for over 20 years. My guess is you're retired.

I don't remember the exchange you refer to.Also with the greatest possible respect foreigners who are locally based journalists and "academics" are in the most part hardly high achievers.My guess, supported by a quick glance at your posting record, is that you are not mixing in the circles I refer to.But hey it's an anonymous forum - you can pretend to be anyone you like.

Actually he is a spoiled rich kid that resents the fact the regular people don't like his movies and they are never commercial successes.

He believes in freedom of speech, except when it's against his movies:

The softly-spoken director recalls being upset by Ladda's "very strong" comments about his work, coming as they did from a public figure: "I don't think she has a right to say that."

TH

Strange that one of Thailand's few internationally recognised artists attracts ignorant and philistine abuse like this.Perhaps not so strange since it's clear that many resent his criticism of the elite, made in a very public way as well.The comment by the Ministry of Culture official was pathetic but all too typical of a certain mindset

I've no doubt that the Red Apologies, sorry Apologists who are playing down the worth of this resolution would be singing a different tune had it gone the other way.

A classic example of personal self censorship. You only believe what you like to believe no matter what the truth is.

Mote and beam old boy.Have you actually read and understood what the resolution says or are you just going on the basis of the Thai Government's rather suspect triumphalism? Do you really believe that the House of Representatives intend the resolution to imply unqualified support for one side or the other?

Poppy Field Journal: Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil, by James Stent

The best overall summary I have seen, which does cover the issue of media coverage and a great deal else.

Some - notably the taliban whether of red or yellow stripe - in this forum - will not be pleased.However unprejudiced people will recognise the intelligence and knowledge.I don't know Jim Stent but he definitely falls into that category of highly educated and high achieving foreigners I have mentioned elsewhere.

You said "highly educated and high achieving" doesn't matter in an earlier post. Guess it only matters when they are pro-Red like you, as Stent clearly is, as any neutral party can see.

Stent reveals his true colours as soon as he invokes the false concept, 'the amat.' There is no such thing in Thailand as amat or phrai anymore. These were very specific roles under the absolute monarchy, revived by Thaksin as political jargon but without any basis in reality. If we could use these terms as loosely as Thaksin and his Reds have, than all the Red leaders and their recruited protestors would be bound together as amat and phrai, much more so than the protestors and the curent government.

I don't buy the 'awakening the masses' argument either. It glosses over the fact that the so-called masses (what he calls the 'masses, don't exist, as the Reds are far from being a majority) are being manipulated by elites. The awakening lasts only as long as they're following the script. As soon as things stabilise, they'll fall back asleep on cue. Even the ones who say 'Once I was stupid, but I'm not stupid anymore.' They *never were stupid*, but the UDD leaders try to make them feel that they were. More demagoguery.

These are both concepts invented and perpetuated by Thai demagogues, and I'm always surprised when otherwise intelligent foreigners fall for them.

Stent is also quite clearly pro-Red in his comparative analysis of the PAD and the UDD as well. He relies on stereotypes for the former while trying to dispel stereotypes of the latter. Can't have it both ways.

His essay wears the suit of intellect, but the actual arguments don't hold up. Stent should stick to the poppy fields, about which he is no doubt very knowledgable.

I remain of the view that most highly educated resident farang in the liberal tradition are sympathetic to the red cause though with many many caveats.I am certain of this as of any opinion I have voiced on this forum.The terms amart and phrai are certainly anachronistic and there is an irony in their usage now.

Can anybody give any suggestions (apart from the obvious) why the recent court cases confiscating Thaksin's assets were completely side-stepped in this documentary?

It's not as if all journalists see it as an unrelated incident after all; the Bangkok Post had the entire protest under a special report on their website entitled something like "Thaksin's Asset Seizure: The Aftermath"

<snip> I watched the programme and there were several aspects supporting the Redshirt movement that just weren't mentioned by Alistair Leithead.So what? But it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism.I don't know why these people go off like a Catherine Wheel just because their particular perception isn't reinforced.

This post has been edited by Jai Dee: 12 minutes ago

Reason for edit: Flame deleted

I challenge your thinking in stating that "it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism" and "just because their particular perception isn't reinforced."

In my opinion, the picture put forward was totally distorted because it did not put forward that red shirt leaders openly had said that they would burn Bangkok already last year, it did not put forward that the red-shirt leader had encouraged people to burn Bangkok and it did not put forward that there are many witnesses saying that the reds were stock-piling accelerants in strategic positions around Central World long before they set fire to it

Simple question: Do you really consider that the picture put forward in the documentary was perfectly acceptable leaving the key information stated above out?

Simple question: Do you really consider that the the key information stated above can be classified as some people's particular perception of what happened?

Yes to both questions.There was a great deal left out that would be sympathetic to the Red movement as well.Part of the problem is that some crawl around the mosaic like angry ants, completely failing to see the big picture.It's just a piece of journalism and Leithead is a competent reporter.Just suck it up or find some news source that feeds your own prejudices if that's what you prefer.

Can anybody give any suggestions (apart from the obvious) why the recent court cases confiscating Thaksin's assets were completely side-stepped in this documentary?

It's not as if all journalists see it as an unrelated incident after all; the Bangkok Post had the entire protest under a special report on their website entitled something like "Thaksin's Asset Seizure: The Aftermath"

<snip> I watched the programme and there were several aspects supporting the Redshirt movement that just weren't mentioned by Alistair Leithead.So what? But it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism.I don't know why these people go off like a Catherine Wheel just because their particular perception isn't reinforced.

If they were trying to organise a face to face meeting then the chances are that it was just a financial services company offering savings plans, pensions and the like.

There are a number of them based in Bangkok and they act simply as a broker, offering products from some very large financial institutions. They are not a scam and you do (or at least should) get what you pay for, however..........

Thailand is very weekly regulated which leaves it wide open for cowboys to practice with low ethical standards. Although they are selling a real and legitimate product, some push whatever deal will make THEM the most commission regardless of what might be best for the client. There are a few good guys out there but it is best to be cautious.

The golden rule is NEVER talk to a Bangkok based financial advisor.

Reality is that a truth and reconcilliation approach as with an apology approach (Cameron comparison) happen when more time, blood and faces have flowed under the bridge. It then becomes easier to admit to and apologise for what "we" mostly meaning others have done. Right now in Thailand all the players are too close to the start of things

True for the Cameron apology (though he deserves credit nonetheless) but the South African process was very immediate and close to the Apartheid cruelties.I suppose a key distinction is that the ANC had won the political and moral case and were in command.In Thailand's case the victory has not yet been determined and one suspects there are more battles to come.

I expect Mr and Mrs Ceaucescu thought in much the same way not long before a rough and ready militia riddled them with bullets.

Fair analogy except that the tyrant Nicolae and Elena resemble Thaksin and Potjaman much more closely than the post-Thaksin era.

The difference being that they didn't face the same fate at the wall when the coup occurred.

Fair point but I wasn't really thinking about individuals.I was referring to the folly of ostrich like behaviour, pretending that huge social and pressures don't exist or can all be explained away by one evil genius whether it's Thaksin for some or Prem for others.

"Thai troubles"

what troubles? the rent-by-the-day red "campers" / arsonists were routed and are back in issan praying for rain .

we're all good

exactly, what "Reconciliation", who tries to split the nation?

Get him and over!

Anyone comparing this home made Thai "Soap Opera" with Nelson Mandela and the southafrican story is making himself the laughing stock of the nation!

Reform the Bureaucracy, the educational system combined with a major clean up and move on!

All this reconciliation talk is nothing else then keeping the foot in the door....

Interesting position taken by the last few posters.No reconciliation needed because it's all about Thaksin.Just nail him and the red menace will evaporate.

Many deluded people think this way not just in Thailand but throughout history when confronted with powerful social and political movements.I expect Mr and Mrs Ceaucescu thought in much the same way not long before a rough and ready militia riddled them with bullets.

Ignore these geniuses.

BBC now off my watching list along with CNN.

Agree that aljazeera probably the most balanced.

Glad you appreciate Aljazeera.Did you enjoy its recent flagship programme on Thailand with Rageh Omar?

I don't know Jim Stent

You don't know him, but you know who he knows and what he knows about them? Interesting.

the writer knows Abhisit well and knows many others that know Abhisit well

Fascinating, isn't it?

OK, what are his character flaws? 

I'll pass on this one if you don't mind.Too nutty.

We also know nothing about the writer. 

Actually we do now since I have been researching him on Google and have made a couple of phone calls.

He is exactly as I expected from reading his piece.

If I had such ability to analyze another man's psychology using only spontanious knowlege, I could easily write an entire book about Mr. Thaksin's shortcomings as a human being.

I have no idea what you mean by "spontanious knowledge" but the difference is that the writer knows Abhisit well and knows many others that know Abhisit well.The high level farang world interacts with the amart, and is actually rather a small one.

My guess is that most of us in contrast don't know Abhisit at all.

Maybe Mr Naipaul measures men in a different way from me.

I think we can assume that is definitely the case.

Actually I don't disagree with you or Hammered.The private virtues are to be cherished, as is the love of family and friends.Ultimately for most of us these values transcend worldly success although they are not of course mutually exclusive.I know with your allusions to wife and mistress you refer to Naipaul.Has there ever been such a badly behaved man of genius, who remarkably hid nothing of his excesses from his biographer.

But Naipaul was making a point.The world is out there and has to be reckoned with.Worldly success is a yardstick of how we measure up.It doesn't mean we are better or worse men.

A well written article coached in carefully chosen words to appear neutral. There are, however, a couple of glaring omissions and points that need to be made.

The other telling item is his use of the word “amat”. This shows how much he is a tool of the UDD propaganda that brought that obsolete term back into common usage.

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on “Thai Particularism” in which he says fit into a pattern of belief by the “elite” and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

TH

There are some glaring omissions certainly.We all know what they are and why they are missing.

"Amat" is a widely used term and has no particular connotation.If you prefer the term "Establishment", that's fine.

I don't think the article is neutral, nor should it be.

His view of Abhisit as a bit wet behind the ears and unlikely to be effective may no longer apply. Nothing can change us like facing insurmountable crisis and I imagine Abhisit is not the person he was a couple of months ago. I don't know if he used the crying towels sent to mock him by the red leadership but with in a month, the same red leadership was fractured and many were shaking in their boots.

You do not seem to have absorbed,let alone addressed, the writer's devastating criticism of Abhisit at all.The article was written very recently and fully takes into account latest events

I dont buy into your theory of highly educated and high achieving foreigners by the way. That is to assume high achieving is definable in career terms rather than personal ones;)

"The world is what it is.Men who are nothing or allow themselves to be nothing have no place in it"

V.S Naipaul

The footnote caught my attention!

...Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network....

Well let's hope that the substance of the article pointing out government hypocrisy and muddled thinking relating to its own politically biased propaganda arms also caught your attention

Poppy Field Journal: Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil, by James Stent

The best overall summary I have seen, which does cover the issue of media coverage and a great deal else.

Some - notably the taliban whether of red or yellow stripe - in this forum - will not be pleased.However unprejudiced people will recognise the intelligence and knowledge.I don't know Jim Stent but he definitely falls into that category of highly educated and high achieving foreigners I have mentioned elsewhere.