jayboy

Sorry, I just assumed you would have given sufficient time to NM to give a reasonable basis to such strongly strongly expressed opinions.

How many issues of The Sun newspaper would you be required to read to form a reasonably accurate opinion on its content and value?

So you can't tell the difference between a brain dead tabloid and NM? Dare I say that's your problem not mine.

On the precise relationship between ANU and NM, I have no idea but I would be surprised other than the university providing a platform it went any further.If you are genuinely interested suggest ask ANU or NM.

edit: debating lesson 2: Question the opponents intellecutal capability, focus on that, and their apparent lack of thoughful consideration on a matter. Then ignore any other question was asked for you.

Are you giving me advice or suggesting this is a debating rule I follow? All a bit "intellecutal" for me, I'm afraid.

I've only read NM a handfull of times (get ready for verbal tomato throwing Samran..., erm, um sorry, rational debating) but who would if each time they went to look at it their imediate reaction was "<deleted>???" Or are you suggesting I waste my time, and 'give it a chance' in the hope that it would get better.

Sorry, I just assumed you would have given sufficient time to NM to give a reasonable basis to such strongly strongly expressed opinions.Clearly you haven't.Whether you do so or not is entirely up to you but I find your use of the word "shallow" deeply ironic.

Challenging and intellectually demanding journals or forums aren't for everybody.Don't worry about it.

I am a bit miffed that anytime I get onto the site I think I'm reading a pro-thaksin blog. Must be my lack of intellectual undertanding of these things...dunno.

That's the crux of it isn't it, not tedious exchanges on the ANU or the Economist.There really is a school of thought that NM is somehow a pro - Thaksin blog.All I can say to that is that perhaps you're not reading it very carefully particularly as The Great Satan has hardly been the main focus of attention for several months.I suppose Thaksin is so demonised in Thailand now that this kind of extreme view is quite common.

If there is a theme to NM I suppose it is that, whatever circumstances brought it about - and Thaksin certainly played a part, the people of Thailand now look much more sceptically at the small unrepresentative group that "knows what best" for the majority but in fact act in their own greedy and selfish interests.

Not much point in responding to this silliness if the author thinks NM is sponsored by ANU, or that it is a TRT mouthpiece.Do I detect the green eyed monster - "pretending to be an expert" - at work? Some -including the genius who labelled NM "laughable" - seem to have overlooked that different opinions are on offer at NM, and diverse opinion is encouraged.

I tend to agree on Crispin as one of the more interesting local source, always compelling although sometimes off target.Like many foreign residents I sense divided loyalties in his articles.Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks steve r for that detailed analysis of an Economist article on New Zealand.You're probably right that the Economist doesn't devote huge resources to NZ, but then which international organization does? I have to admit my eyes do rather tend to glaze over when there is "serious" discussion of NZ, but that I freely admit is my fault and does me no credit.In all honesty some countries should be thankful they are on boring side.NZ has much to be proud of, including a literary tradition which would be impressive for a country ten times its size.

Green with envy? No. I do better work than they do.

Sponsored/hosted...whatever you call it...http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/about/

It is an ANU website...money to run it needs to come from somewhere. They are writing this stuff while on the ANU payroll. ANU lets this stuff be published under their domain. ANU ads for their Masters in Asia Pacific Studies (would you like fries with that?) are on their home page. If that isn't sponsored, I don't know what is.

All I want to ask is, why the agression Jay Boy? Living in Tugranong got you down?

I'm afraid you don't advance your case with this post.Whether your work is "better" or not is impossible to gauge without seeing it.So far the evidence is not very compelling with your dismissal of NM content as "this stuff." You also overlook that NM contributors form a diverse and eclectic group (including Chis Baker for example) representing many different strands of thought, certainly not a monolithic block.

I have no idea who or what is Tugranong.If you have some beef with the NM/ANU relationship I suggest you take it up directly with ANU (perhaps enclosing some samples of your work).

You aint reffering to one of the NM guys currently researching garlic prices are you

I suspect I've seen Mr. Walker at a FCC function. If it is the one in the same, he certainly likes the sound of his own voice.

Now now Samran you must remember you must listen to your intellectual betters on matters you have no real intellectual understanding of unless I am wrong ands you are currently studying asian studies 101. You just arent allowed your own opinions on these things if they are in any way divergent to those who teach on some asian studies course and who run a website that in the past turned itself into a work of tabloidal buffoonery with labels like PASD for PAD and Dems except when they..... for Democrats. Even TV deletes for that kind of thing. Must admit NM has improved recently in that respect wiht the contributions of one person noticeably less in the same period.

hehe

I prefer to stick to my own contacts and charge people lots of money when they need advice.

Always wondered why ANU sponsored a site like NM...after all it is my sometimes tax payer money subsidising it, but I guess freedom of the press and all that. I think historially their articles only served to make them look explcitly one sided which is the last thing you want if you are pretending to be an expert on these things.

Who knows, maybe people thought that they were a TRT mouth piece, or maybe they are picking up lots more consulting assignments these days that they feel the need to pick up their game. Who knows?

Not much point in responding to this silliness if the author thinks NM is sponsored by ANU, or that it is a TRT mouthpiece.Do I detect the green eyed monster - "pretending to be an expert" - at work? Some -including the genius who labelled NM "laughable" - seem to have overlooked that different opinions are on offer at NM, and diverse opinion is encouraged.

I tend to agree on Crispin as one of the more interesting local source, always compelling although sometimes off target.Like many foreign residents I sense divided loyalties in his articles.Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks steve r for that detailed analysis of an Economist article on New Zealand.You're probably right that the Economist doesn't devote huge resources to NZ, but then which international organization does? I have to admit my eyes do rather tend to glaze over when there is "serious" discussion of NZ, but that I freely admit is my fault and does me no credit.In all honesty some countries should be thankful they are on boring side.NZ has much to be proud of, including a literary tradition which would be impressive for a country ten times its size.

You aint reffering to one of the NM guys currently researching garlic prices are you

I suspect I've seen Mr. Walker at a FCC function. If it is the one in the same, he certainly likes the sound of his own voice.

Now now Samran you must remember you must listen to your intellectual betters on matters you have no real intellectual understanding of unless I am wrong ands you are currently studying asian studies 101. You just arent allowed your own opinions on these things if they are in any way divergent to those who teach on some asian studies course and who run a website that in the past turned itself into a work of tabloidal buffoonery with labels like PASD for PAD and Dems except when they..... for Democrats. Even TV deletes for that kind of thing. Must admit NM has improved recently in that respect wiht the contributions of one person noticeably less in the same period.

I know of Mr Walker (NM) but he is not the ANU friend I mentioned.

Needless to say no details provided of the Economist's deficiencies on its Australian coverage.Fair enough, it's hardly very important.

Now now Hammered let's not get carried away.Opinions, preferably justified or documented, are always welcome.Some of the most interesting and well informed people I have met in Thailand have no degree at all let alone one in Asian studies.NM has its faults but the intellectual content is quite high and unlike some other forums (cough cough) is not censored or self censored.

The test is this (because I know from your previous posts you have a brain).Check out the Economist's coverage of any other country and see whether it is as simplistic as you believe it is on Thailand.If you can't, then consider perhaps that the problem is with Thailand not the Economist.

The Economist's coverage of Thailand is so laughably simplistic that it has made me wonder if their coverage in other countries is equally inept. In short, a newspaper I subscribed to for years is no longer bought because I can not trust them.

They don't do justice to most of SE Asia and the Pacific. Their coverage of Australia is shallow at best, which is strange as it is one of the largest economies in the region, 4th largest in terms of funds under management, economic miracle of the world etc etc etc. You get something as straight forward as Australia wrong, you have no hope of getting Thailand right.

This is a prescriptive definition and your basic assumption simply isn't true (getting "something as straightforward as Australia" wrong, itself a simplistic assumption).It's certainly not the view of one my friends, who is a lecturer in politics at ANU.Show some evidence of what you claim, and you might be taken seriously on this matter.

IMHO a fiscally responsible leader doesn't need to buy votes with popularist policies or cash payments; instead they win through leading a team that complies with the letter and spirit of the law and generates then implements policies creating genuine long term sustainable growth across all sectors of the economy and society which leads to a position of moral leadership as they are recognised among their peers as a truly worthy person to lead a country.

Whether Thaksin or many of his predecessors pass such a definition of leadership is doubtful. Certainly most fail on the vote buying. Most fail on not implementing sustainable policies. Most have no morals and nor do their team.

Forget Thaksin.Do you honestly think Abhisit meets the criteria you specify? I hope that he might eventually but too early to say right now, and there's no moral leadership he can lay claim to.He's certainly borrowed a lot of the populist TRT policies though to some extent this has been hidden by necessary stimulus measures.He has yet to demonstrate his genuine independence, though his recent action on police appointments was encouraging.It's not just his peers that count by the way (some people continue to have problems in grasping this) but the people of Thailand.This will be tested by an election, assuming that the military and the courts don't attempt to rig matters again.I'm not of the school that demands an immediate election but I would have thought a vote of confidence (or otherwise) from the people of Thailand is needed by this time next year.

Why are you glad he is not a patrician?

The same thought occurred to me.I would have thought a patrician Ambassador was a positive, always assuming intelligence, diligence and humanity.Do we really want to be represented by commercial salesman types with dubious vowels as is often the case with Heads of Mission rather than someone with confidence, style and charm?

Several years ago a senior member of the British Embassy here told me that he was sure the Ambassador was well received here because he was more representative of the new Britain than some upper class stuff shirt.Very shortly afterwards a Thai mentioned to me how much his generation respected the classic English gentleman, and that in the past the British Ambassador was judged at least partly on how closely he approached that ideal.It struck me at the time as a rather surprising difference of opinion.The poor booby at the Embassy was quite convinced that foreigners would be impressed by the new style representatives of Blair's Britain.

The trouble is that the English gentleman is an endangered species, and will soon be extinct.Some on this forum can't get beyond the Monty Python sketch of upper class twits, but there was much more substance to the type.

It would be nice if the Economist did interview those in the south for a change. Thaksin was not nice to those folks down there, and there are other voices besides Bangkok, North, and the Northeast. Alas, I don't think they would be interested.

Some of the foreign publications believe that all poor Thai people come from the NE and all those people support Thaksin.

Anyone from the Central Plains is part of the elite.

People from the south are Muslim trouble makers and deserve everything that TRT gave them - the beheadings, the slaughters, etc.

As for rubber tapping, it is amazingly silent as the plantations aren't exactly a hive of nature; to be honest i have no idea how those people can do it day after day. That's a real day's work.

Not like sitting in an office and consulting to various govt types about how to run for office..... :-)

Economist tends to prefer to see things in black and white. Or in Thailand.....red and yellow. Not much in the story about southern politics that can be easily understood in 5 min, so it really is a bit of a tough one to tackle. Easier to just blame insurgents or bandits and claim they aren't patriots. Then associate the opposition party with them. And then spend as much time as possible preaching what a pack of pricks they are to the people in the N and NE who are too far away to really know for sure, and just believe what the nice square faced men tell them.

Are we talking about the same Economist here? Your summary of the Economist's position on Thailand is laughably off mark, not least that it is superficial.Do you have any idea how good is the Economist's range of contacts in Thailand? If not it would surprise you. Yet we get the same old prejudices month after month.It's not a one man band by any means, not least because of strict editorial scrutiny.Some genius even persists with the long discredited canard that Thaksin determines or influences content through his Howard Moon connection.

The test is this (because I know from your previous posts you have a brain).Check out the Economist's coverage of any other country and see whether it is as simplistic as you believe it is on Thailand.If you can't, then consider perhaps that the problem is with Thailand not the Economist.Of course the Economist does have its prejudices and can be preachy, but the reality is its coverage of Thailand has been illuminating and distinguished.One's doesn't have to agree with everything, but thought provoking it certainly is.

Incidentally rubber tapping is not that demanding, although it does mean getting up very early in the morning - which is the nicest time of day in Thailand.

Let's face facts.The Economist's readership base is a well off, sophisticated and well educated one.Thai Visa forum membership has no doubt many qualities but on the whole -obviously there are many exceptions - the aforementioned characteristics don't spring immediately to mind.

UNDIPLOMATIC NOTE

British envoy puts record straight on Thai image

By The Nation

Britain's ambassador to Thailand, Quinton Quayle

-- The Nation 2009/10/20

Quinton Quayle, the name says it all. growing up on a daily diet of upper class persecution and sodomy in an all boys boarding school while mama and papa eat cucumber sandwiches with the queen. he should be having a whale of a time in Thailand

if you read this Mr. Quayle i apologise for being a low glass git.

Quite possibly you are indeed a low class git, but you should be aware Mr Quayle is far from being upper class - ordinary middle class like most of us, minor public school and second tier university.Very competent and affable, and formerly Ambassador to Romania.A fluent Thai speaker.I expect Sir Anthony who had a patrician background would have found him rather common, though he would of course have been too polite to say so.

Having said that it's certainly a comment on our times (and not a good one) that he felt the need to issue such an anodyne - "Amazing Thailand"- and contentless statement on a historic document.You can bet he would not have done so without clearing with his colleagues at the FCO.The slight irony is that such a statement, presumably aimed at the Thais, has in essence the same patronising attitude as the document it was attempting to correct.Would a serious and cultivated people give a toss about something a diplomat said about them over 40 years ago?

No, their stories are a lil more uniquely Thai and sophisticated. Take Khun Pan, Khun Chang for exsample. It has all the qualities of Romeo and Juilet only much more gritty, erotic, and distinctly Thai. Yet with even a basic understanding of the culture you can appreciate it's beauty.

Just because you can't relate to it, dosn't mean they don't have quality literature.

But you have completely failed to demonstrate this I'm afraid and Wiki cutting and pasting doesn't really add much to the discussion I'm afraid.Naturally there are some quite interesting Thai folk tales - often revolving around the court, temple or peasantry - as is the case in many S.E Asian cultures, often more of social or anthropological interest rather than literary merit.The best in Thai literature, such as it is, tends borrow heavily on much other greater and sophisticated cultures, notably Indian but overall it is simply not in the league as China, Japan, India, or even Vietnam.

However, the bullshit about history, dance, and architecture...no that's just dead wrong. Because all of these have their roots set in Thai culture hundreds of years prior. Personally I think most of the historical information was made too distant for him to get off his chinless champagne loving ass to find out about. You didn't have all the cool movies about Thai history like "Suryothai" "Khun Pan, Khun Chang", and "King Narisuan" to spark one's interest in their history and liturature. This ment you would have actually had to READ THAI to appreciate the litereture that he so quickly trashed. And I doubt he spoke Thai or made a real effort to find out.

Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful post reminding us of the need for intellectual rigour.Clearly what this diplomat needed was to sit through a number of the "cool movies" you mention (which would probably make him the first to do so without expiring from boredom), and thence to re-assess his view on the modest achievements of Thai culture.One small request, could you remind us of the great works of Thai literature that are universally acknowledged to rank with the best the rest of the world has to offer.

I particularly liked his closing comment:

"And if anybody wants to know what their culture consists of the answer is that it consists of themselves, their excellent manners, their fastidious habits, their graceful gestures and their elegant persons.If we are elephants and oxen they are gazelles and butterflies"

Thank you Jayboy for the the very interesting PDF of his whole report.

Having read it all, it is clear that this man was far from ignorant and it is a shame that the news article just concentrated on a few sentences to achieve their sensationalist ends.

Thanks.My earlier post was highly sarcastic -although it"s illuminating how many took it at face value- because the Ambassador was absolutely accurate in his comments, albeit over forty years ago.The strange aspect is how much is still relevant.

The Thais came out poorly too, in the eyes of Sir Anthony Rumbold, who served in Bangkok from 1965-67.

“They have no literature, no painting and only a very odd kind of music; their sculpture, ceramics and dancing are borrowed from others, and their architecture is monotonous and interior decoration hideous,” he recalled.

“Nobody can deny that gambling and golf are the chief pleasures of the rich, and that licentiousness is the main pleasure of them all.”

That is just so untrue.What possibly could have led a British Ambassador to make such ignorant comments?

There was a rabid anti-Soros campaign here, he even had to cancel his speech at FCCT once.

One of the leaders was Veera Somkwamkid (Preah Vihear rally last month). Not to be outdone, Weng Tojarakan, big red intellectual, was Veera's partner at that time.

It's not easy to admire speculators like Soros but it's ridiculous to blame them for currency crises.That is almost always the result of the incompetence of the financial authorities.Soros made billions on selling the British pound short in the early 1990's but he wasn't the cause of the pound's problems.The cause was the incoherent interest rate policy of the Bank of England.Ditto Thailand in 1997 and the pin headed politicians and officials who controlled financial and monetary policy, augmented by short sighted greed.Okay there was some fairly crappy advice from the IMF and World Bank specifically on deregulation, but the bottom line is that the Thais were entirely responsible for the debacle.The good news is that the necessary lessons have been well learned.

Blaming Soros is like blaming looters in New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina, ok not a brilliant parallel but you get my point.

It was, I just didn't see the economic utility in studying a dead language, instead I learned to speak Mandarin Chinese.

Actually -until the shrinking of universities' Latin/Greek departments in the last twenty years there used to be huge "economic utility" in studying Latin and Greek at a high level because along with the hard sciences a high classing graduate has demonstrated impressive powers of diligence and intellectual analysis.This would not necessarily apply to other liberal arts subjects but is more or less guaranteed in classical studies at of course the highest level.To my certain knowledge high paying investment banks in the 1980's were particularly keen to recruit classics graduates as trainees.

In 1980 I would have been 12 years old, despite my awesome looks and good humor, I doubt any investment bank would want me.

In 1989 you would have been 21, just the right age to enter the gates of Mammon.Armed with a magna cum laude in Latin and Greek from Harvard or similar you could now be a Goldman Sachs master of the universe, richer than any dream of Croesus..... and hated by everybody.

It was, I just didn't see the economic utility in studying a dead language, instead I learned to speak Mandarin Chinese.

Actually -until the shrinking of universities' Latin/Greek departments in the last twenty years there used to be huge "economic utility" in studying Latin and Greek at a high level because along with the hard sciences a high classing graduate has demonstrated impressive powers of diligence and intellectual analysis.This would not necessarily apply to other liberal arts subjects but is more or less guaranteed in classical studies at of course the highest level.To my certain knowledge high paying investment banks in the 1980's were particularly keen to recruit classics graduates as trainees.

1997, water long under the bridge, and that was all Soros' fault.

Care to explain because without clarification this is just a tired old piece of economic illiteracy.

Had to laugh when I read elsewhere today that Jatuporn Prompan claims that Chavalit has more democratic values than Prem, even though Chavalit has stated in the past he supports and wants to see a coup against the current government. With Jatuporn, if a coup benefits him and his group, it's called democracy, if it benefits another, it's called dictatorship. Jatuporn certainly helps his cause.

What one apparently just talks about, the other has actually masterminded.Jatuporn's point holds.

Personally, I think higher education is generally over-rated. I've rubbed shoulders with all sorts of folks, .....from dirt farming Akha to cum laude graduates from prestigious universities. There are some differences, to be sure, but intelligence and/or the enhancement of skills is not necessarily augmented by top-ranked university education.

Some of the biggest swindlers/connivers of the Wall Street melt-down of '08 were hot shot U graduates.

U education can be useful, but folks in their late teens through mid-twenties - what are they most dwelling upon? You guessed it; getting laid, partying, and rock & roll.

What a muddled post.To take just a few points.Nothing in this thread is about intelligence.If you said higher education is not for everyone you would have a reasonable point, particularly in the developed world where some end up in higher education when they would be more suited to a trade apprentice scheme (German style).In Thailand it's not really relevant..But you didn't.You said higher education is generally over-rated which is a statement almost totally devoid of meaning.To cap it all, your inane comment on Wall Street hotshots is really beyond words.Why dont you talk about Nobel science laureates where with almost without exception each is a ht shot U graduate, to use your rather revealing phrase.

Let me take a wild guess.You didn't graduate from a top rank university.

One sounds pretty 'jump and then rebound', come what may,

the other measured and considered in words and deeds.

I know which I prefer in a leader or elder statesman.

Who knows what Chavalit's motivation might be?

However on the subject of acts of betrayal against the country, I am not sure Jiew has offended - though plenty of foolishness in his past to be sure.

But as to the leader/elder statesman you refer to, the historians of the future will in my view not judge him kindly.In the current hothouse of Thai politics it's impossible for a cool calm take on his actions.