Former Thai PM Thaksin: "I'm Calling It Quits"

[Plus]

Come on, he was holding an executive position there, whether he has any ifluence on their editorial line or not is anyone's guess.

Given the Economist's consistent pro-Thaksin stance it's difficult to ignore the connection, though.

I remeber their first articles, in early 2006, raised quite a few eyebrows here. Now we can guess why.

You yourself might remember how I was wondering when the Economist would start praising other populist politicians like Chavez, why restrict their admiration only to Thaksin. Now I know the reason. I might be wrong, but, as I said, it's difficult to ignore the connection.

[animatic]

From the website I mentioned earlier:

"Over 21 years in Asia based mainly in Hong Kong, Sam spearheaded the effort of two global media companies, namely The Economist Group and Dow Jones, in transforming their respective conference activities into an actual growth-oriented and profitable business units. While in The Economist Group, Sam was also made responsible for The Economist Group’s conference business for the United States and Latin America, with the aim of facilitating a similar business turnaround for The Economist brand."

It's not "just" organising conferences. This guy has a lot of weight in these companies.

PLus I don't read it that way.

This guy is in charge of trade shows and business conferences,

and showing the flag for brand recognition.

Yes he gets a lot of phone time with executive assistants and schedualing

and making the thing turn a profit, rather than be a loss.

My ex brother in law had almost the EXACT job description.

Some theme is passed down from above with a list of potential clients,

He gets a few heavy swingers on the dias and does a bunch of ads and mailings.

Sure there's a decent budget, but heavy hitter in this group?

Naw, middle management, department head. Trade conference specialist.

I did video jobs for this sort of chap in NYC back in the day.

Including Dow Jones, Knight-Rider, Reuters and Economist.

Filler and intros for the shows booth ads etc.

He went to the Economist to try and make their conferencing turn a profit,

and left before it did...? hhmm.

Now he has a 1 year old start up 'Growth Fund' in Singapore.

What perfect timing for a financial start up,

No wonder he took Dr. T's offer for a little office gig...

Yeah lose the goatee dude!

[younghusband]

Come on, he was holding an executive position there, whether he has any ifluence on their editorial line or not is anyone's guess.

Given the Economist's consistent pro-Thaksin stance it's difficult to ignore the connection, though.

I remeber their first articles, in early 2006, raised quite a few eyebrows here. Now we can guess why.

You yourself might remember how I was wondering when the Economist would start praising other populist politicians like Chavez, why restrict their admiration only to Thaksin. Now I know the reason. I might be wrong, but, as I said, it's difficult to ignore the connection.

I know you have to argue your corner but really what you say doesn't hang together.

[hammered]

From the website I mentioned earlier:

"Over 21 years in Asia based mainly in Hong Kong, Sam spearheaded the effort of two global media companies, namely The Economist Group and Dow Jones, in transforming their respective conference activities into an actual growth-oriented and profitable business units. While in The Economist Group, Sam was also made responsible for The Economist Group’s conference business for the United States and Latin America, with the aim of facilitating a similar business turnaround for The Economist brand."

It's not "just" organising conferences. This guy has a lot of weight in these companies.

PLus I don't read it that way.

This guy is in charge of trade shows and business conferences,

and showing the flag for brand recognition.

Yes he gets a lot of phone time with executive assistants and schedualing

and making the thing turn a profit, rather than be a loss.

My ex brother in law had almost the EXACT job description.

Some theme is passed down from above with a list of potential clients,

He gets a few heavy swingers on the dias and does a bunch of ads and mailings.

Sure there's a decent budget, but heavy hitter in this group?

Naw, middle management, department head. Trade conference specialist.

I did video jobs for this sort of chap in NYC back in the day.

Including Dow Jones, Knight-Rider, Reuters and Economist.

Filler and intros for the shows booth ads etc.

He went to the Economist to try and make their conferencing turn a profit,

and left before it did...? hhmm.

Now he has a 1 year old start up 'Growth Fund' in Singapore.

What perfect timing for a financial start up,

No wonder he took Dr. T's offer for a little office gig...

Yeah lose the goatee dude!

Lets be honest all and sundry hire PR and media spibn doctors to manipulate their image. I cant say Thaksin doing so bothers me. It is part of the modern world.

It wont however change that Thaksin as head of a government responsible for an estimated 2500 extra-judicial deaths in a short time frame, or the biggest infringement of what most consider a democratic right in Thailand's recent history, identifies himself as particulalryt undemocratic. Although Thaksin may try to spin this it is the one thing irrefutable action that shows he does not actually have democratic credentials. A kind of to have democracy you must destroy democratic rights version if you like.

For balance I would also add that the current metamorphosis of the PAD and in particular Sondhi have an equally warped approach to democracy of to save democracy you must destroy it by doing away with elections.

Not much of a choice and if anyone can get beyond the I must have a horse in the insane race to the edge of the cliff then maybe something positive can come of it all. Sadly I doubt this will happen as the lunatics on both sides are probably out of control. The PR war enters a new and hideous stsage of lies, manipulation and attempts to retain the true believers and insane on both sides.

[younghusband]

Lets be honest all and sundry hire PR and media spibn doctors to manipulate their image. I cant say Thaksin doing so bothers me. It is part of the modern world.

It wont however change that Thaksin as head of a government responsible for an estimated 2500 extra-judicial deaths in a short time frame, or the biggest infringement of what most consider a democratic right in Thailand's recent history, identifies himself as particulalryt undemocratic. Although Thaksin may try to spin this it is the one thing irrefutable action that shows he does not actually have democratic credentials. A kind of to have democracy you must destroy democratic rights version if you like.

For balance I would also add that the current metamorphosis of the PAD and in particular Sondhi have an equally warped approach to democracy of to save democracy you must destroy it by doing away with elections.

Not much of a choice and if anyone can get beyond the I must have a horse in the insane race to the edge of the cliff then maybe something positive can come of it all. Sadly I doubt this will happen as the lunatics on both sides are probably out of control. The PR war enters a new and hideous stsage of lies, manipulation and attempts to retain the true believers and insane on both sides.

Quite so, but the point under discussion was whether this odd looking Moon fellow with a past record of organizing Economist conferences (booking halls, sending out flyers,placing "nibbles" in break-out rooms etc) might have had some influevce in determining Economist editorial policy.Only in the minds of the paranoid I say.

[DP25]

You yourself might remember how I was wondering when the Economist would start praising other populist politicians like Chavez, why restrict their admiration only to Thaksin. Now I know the reason. I might be wrong, but, as I said, it's difficult to ignore the connection.

Politicians who engage in wanton extra judicial killings for political purposes and the suppression of free speech get a free pass from The Economist as long as they are for free trade and Capitalism.

[sriracha john]

PM worried about Thaksin's return, media claims

PM Somchai was not in his usual self after he avoided greeting the media while entering the acting government house at Don Mueang Airport on Wednesday morning. The media speculated that the premier could be concerned over PPP MP Sa-nguan Pongmanee’s comment about ousted PM Thaksin’s announcement to return to Thai politics and the probability that Thailand could be divided into two countries due to the ongoing political turbulence. At the same time, Public Health Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, who is known to be a committed supporter of Thaksin, expressed confidence that the return of Thaksin would not heat up the political situation. He believed the ex-PM’s address to his supporters would not instigate disunity since he has the right to clarify his actions, especially his decision not to appeal against the court’s verdict in the Ratchadapisek land case. Police Captain Chalerm, however, declined to comment whether he could be one of the figures who could be chosen as the next PM and the likelihood of him to return to the Interior Minister’s post. He only said he is happy to

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=132137

Edited November 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[Plus]

He wasn't hired by the Economist to put nibbles on the tables like some kind of caterer.

He went out to present Economist brand to the world, albeit not in the media but in conference business.

Maybe in their group they competely separate the two but I have no doubts that the conferences he organised under their name got plenty of favourable coverage.

His main area of expertise is networking and bringing people together, inspiring them do what he wants. Did he have any inlfuence in his own company? Strange question - they wouldn't have hired him otherwise.

Did the editors listen to him? It's not NY Times, their Hong Kong office is a small place for a networker of his status, he surely knew everyone very well.

Bottom line - of all possible reasons for Economist's strange line on Thaksin, Sam's employment as his PR guy is the most plausible.

[sriracha john]

PM worried about Thaksin's return, media claims

PM Somchai was not in his usual self after he avoided greeting the media while entering the acting government house at Don Mueang Airport on Wednesday morning. The media speculated that the premier could be concerned over PPP MP Sa-nguan Pongmanee’s comment about ousted PM Thaksin’s announcement to return to Thai politics and the probability that Thailand could be divided into two countries due to the ongoing political turbulence. At the same time, Public Health Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, who is known to be a committed supporter of Thaksin, expressed confidence that the return of Thaksin would not heat up the political situation. He believed the ex-PM’s address to his supporters would not instigate disunity since he has the right to clarify his actions, especially his decision not to appeal against the court’s verdict in the Ratchadapisek land case. Police Captain Chalerm, however, declined to comment whether he could be one of the figures who could be chosen as the next PM and the likelihood of him to return to the Interior Minister’s post. He only said he is happy to

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=132137

How much longer can the meek and mild milktoast Somchai handle things while his rampaging warrior brother-in-law wages war? Days?

Now Chalerm outranks Thaksin as a current Police Captain is senior to a defrocked and stripped Police Lieutenant-Colonel.

Can Chalerm return to be Interior Minister in order to "properly administer" Thaksin's 7th Drug War and really, really get in on the inside loop?

If there weren't for so many Shinawatras waiting in line at PM like sister Yingluck, brother Payap, and cousin Chaisit...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/findpost-p2340445.html&hl=

Chalerm might have even had a shot at PM.

[sriracha john]

You yourself might remember how I was wondering when the Economist would start praising other populist politicians like Chavez, why restrict their admiration only to Thaksin. Now I know the reason. I might be wrong, but, as I said, it's difficult to ignore the connection.

Politicians who engage in wanton extra judicial killings for political purposes and the suppression of free speech get a free pass from The Economist as long as they are for free trade and Capitalism.

Exactly. Hiring one of their own Gordon Gekko wannabes doesn't hurt either...

[hammered]

PM worried about Thaksin's return, media claims

PM Somchai was not in his usual self after he avoided greeting the media while entering the acting government house at Don Mueang Airport on Wednesday morning. The media speculated that the premier could be concerned over PPP MP Sa-nguan Pongmanee’s comment about ousted PM Thaksin’s announcement to return to Thai politics and the probability that Thailand could be divided into two countries due to the ongoing political turbulence. At the same time, Public Health Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, who is known to be a committed supporter of Thaksin, expressed confidence that the return of Thaksin would not heat up the political situation. He believed the ex-PM’s address to his supporters would not instigate disunity since he has the right to clarify his actions, especially his decision not to appeal against the court’s verdict in the Ratchadapisek land case. Police Captain Chalerm, however, declined to comment whether he could be one of the figures who could be chosen as the next PM and the likelihood of him to return to the Interior Minister’s post. He only said he is happy to

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=132137

The leaks always contain the "threats" and the speeches never quite live up to them

[younghusband]

He wasn't hired by the Economist to put nibbles on the tables like some kind of caterer.

He went out to present Economist brand to the world, albeit not in the media but in conference business.

Maybe in their group they competely separate the two but I have no doubts that the conferences he organised under their name got plenty of favourable coverage.

His main area of expertise is networking and bringing people together, inspiring them do what he wants. Did he have any inlfuence in his own company? Strange question - they wouldn't have hired him otherwise.

Did the editors listen to him? It's not NY Times, their Hong Kong office is a small place for a networker of his status, he surely knew everyone very well.

Bottom line - of all possible reasons for Economist's strange line on Thaksin, Sam's employment as his PR guy is the most plausible.

I am slightly embarassed for you now.Of course you can get some on this forum to agree with you but is that satisfying for you? Let's leave aside the fact that the Economist line is broadly shared by ALL reputable international media.

Personally I don't think the Economist line on Thaksin (far from uncritical actually) is strange at all.Has its skewering of PAD and its gruesome leadership caused you some angst.

If you have issues with the Economist line I suggest you argue against them on their merits, rather than make foolish allegations about their past association with some conference organiser.Actually now I come to think of it didn't the Economist have difficulties with Thaksin when they published a supplement on Thailand during his premiership.I knew the correspondent who wrote it, a brilliant and well connected young Anglo- American who reported directly to London, nothing to do with HK.

Edited November 19, 2008 by younghusband

[Plus]

Don't forget that the guy worked for Wall Street Journal publisher, too.

Currently he put Thaksin ad in Financial Times.

Back in 2006, pre-coup days, Economist clearly stood out in its coverage of Thaksin.

[hammered]

The economist, as others have mentioned, supports a fairly strong line of pre-free trade, pro-globalisation and pro-democracy where democracy is defined along the bush line of having elections. This is why the Economist always supported Thaksin.

The economist has been criticised particulalrly by Europeans as being too much on what was known as the anglo-saxon model. With the world economy now facing recession and it being blamed on the unfettered capitalist model favoured by the economist it will beinteresting to see how they develop a new line if at all. however, I would expect them to continue to like Thaksin style governments. Thaksins worst excesses liek the drug war would have created comment in the economist I would guess but would not be enough for them to withdraw intellectual support of the regime or model of government. Persoanlly I would criticise them for this but there are many in this money driven world who wouyld not agree with me and would find convenient excuses to support someone who successfully (or at least untikl 2005) ran an economy broadly on the lines international capital likes.

[Plus]

The Economist and WSJ were the first ones to express their support for Thaksin and condemn demonstrations against him as undemocratic, fully in line with official TRT propganda and comletely sidestepping the issues with corruption and populism.

That was out of the blue for all local pundits and observers. Major surprise, if not shock.

Do you want me to dig up opinions and editorials puzzled by Economist articles?

Until the emergence of Sam Moon there were no known links between those publications and Thaksin.

[Thai at Heart]

I think trying to imply that the economist editorial policy is in some way influenced by Thaksin is somewhat over the top. It's line has followed just about every other international publications line, and has often proven to be better researched and balanced than most of the others publications.

It has acknowledged the reality that Thaksin was accused of being involved in corruption, and reported on the extra judicial killings. It does believe that democracies work better than dictatorships so it was disappointed to see that Thailand couldn't keep it's system upright enough to the point that the coup could be avoided. It also recognises that Thailand's position between the commie and military countries to the North, East and West is very important to the future of the region. It tries to explain as well as it can the complex balance of monarchy, politics and statehood that exists in Thailand.

Just because it doesn't follow the line of virulently hating Thaksin and has tried to throw light on the possible motivations for the so called "elite" and the PAD doesn't make it wrong. I don't remember them writing that the downfall of Thaksin on a personal level was a bad thing. The economist is absolutely anti-corruption. They did find it rather strange that a democratic system could be thrown into chaos by a coup where people gave soldiers flowers. They did find it rather strange that the new constitution was written the way it was and try to explain the possible reasons behind it.

It is an international economics/political comment magazine with a pro-democracy, pro-free market attitude that is there for all to see.

If you want to put your side of the story, write them a letter, they are always willing to print logical and well presented arguments. Better still, send them an explanation of New Politics and see what they make of it.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Thai at Heart

[animatic]

Just look at this clown:

Acting Executive Director Sam Moon.

His resume includes The Economist, Dow Jones (publisher of Wall Street Journal), and Business Week.

http://www.tembusupartners.com/AboutTembus...44/Default.aspx

I agree this guy hasn't exactly got an intelligent looking face!

But just for the record I don't think he has had any editorial or journalistic background on the newspapers/journals named, just organising conferences.

Yeah, who's seriously going to hire Vin Diesel to run their Hong Kong PR office.

Maybe a penny stock boiler-room...

[mc2]

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asi...er_fights_back_

ANALYSIS: Thailand's fugitive former premier fights back

Asia-Pacific News

By Peter Janssen Nov 19, 2008, 6:17 GMT

Bangkok - It's been hard times for Thailand's former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the man who dominated the country's politics between 2001 to 2006 and continues to be the central character in the kingdom's on-going political drama.

Even with his brother-in-law, Somchai Wongsawat, in place as prime minister and the current cabinet packed with his cronies and nominees, Thaksin has been unable to prevent a series of legal setbacks that have seen him reduced from Thailand's most powerful politician to a homeless, wifeless, fugitive from the law.

Predictably, Thaksin has not taken his new status lying down.

'He is desperate,' said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's prestigious Chulalongkorn University. 'He has little to lose. His money is frozen, his family scattered. He's homeless and a homeless person is a dangerous person.

Thaksin's fall from grace arguably started in August when the Bangkok Criminal Court found his wife Pojaman guilty of tax evasion and sentenced her to three years in jail.

Thaksin and Pojaman reacted to the verdict by seeking court permission to attend the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, where they promptly booked flights to London, arriving on August 11 to an extended stay in self-exile.

On October 21, Thaksin had his own legal reckoning when the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders found him guilty of abuse of power in 2003 for allowing his wife to successfully bid on a plot of prime Bangkok land at a government auction.

Then, adding insult to injury, the UK announced in early November that it had revoked both Thaksin's and Pojaman's tourist visas, in light of their court convictions, depriving them of their home away from home in London.

The Shinawatras own at least one residential building in London.

'The visa was the last straw,' said a close Thaksin associate, who blamed the UK visa decision on Thaksin's political enemies, even through the pro-Thaksin People Power Party is running the current government and theoretically controls the foreign ministry.

Although Thaksin has been denied a visa to Great Britain, the convicted premier still holds a diplomatic passport which his brother-in-law, Prime Minister Somchai, has refused to revoke.

Shortly after losing his British visa, Thaksin started to step up his offensive.

He vowed to make a phone-in speech to a rally on December 14th at which he will name all his political enemies.

There is some scepticism that he will indeed name all of his political enemies, as they are known to be many and some rather illustrious.

The Thaksin offensive gathered steam almost immediately after the nation came out of three days of official mourning to mark the royal funeral of Princess Galyani Vadhana, Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej's elder sister who died on January 2 at age 84.

On Monday, Thaksin took out advertisements in both the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, with his picture prominently displayed, to publicize his newly set up Building a Better Future Foundation, supposedly along the lines of a Ford Foundation or Rockefeller Foundation.

'The foundation is an effective tool to tell the world public who he is, while telling the Thai people directly that they should look to the future,' said a Thaksin associate, who asked to remain anonymous.

Most observers just see it as a publicity stunt abroad to accompany Thaksin's domestic push for a political comeback.

In fact, Thaksin has made it clear that he will announce his decision to re-enter Thailand's political fray during his planned phone-in speech to supporters on December 14.

'He has decided that he no longer wants to be attacked and cornered,' PPP member Jatuporn Promphan told The Nation newspaper.

Jatuporn confirmed that Thaksin had divorced his wife on November 14 as part of his decision to reenter politics, presumably to protect her and her assets from any fallout should his comeback fail.

Thaksin's main motivation for launching his offensive remains a mystery.

'It's very difficult to psychoanalyze him,' said Chris Baker, who has co-authored several books about Thaksin and recent Thai history. 'We don't know how much he is motivated by his money and how much he really believes that his coming back as the politcal saviour of Thailand.'

Thai authorities have frozen 76 billion baht (2.2 billion dollars) in Shinawatra accounts at Thai banks since Thaksin was toppled by a coup on September 19, 2006.

One thing is certain: Thaksin has divided Thailand like no other politician before him and his return to real power would inevitably lead to a deeper division in Thai society.

'I can't conceive of Thailand going back under Thaksin,' said Thitinan. 'No matter what he does the southerners will hate him, and the Bangkok elite will hate him. I can see a lot of civil strife.'

[Samuian]

.........edit.....The economist is absolutely anti-corruption. ..........edit...

It is an international economics/political comment magazine with a pro-democracy, pro-free market attitude that is there for all to see. .............edit...

.....edit....They did find it rather strange that a democratic system could be thrown into chaos by a coup where people gave soldiers flowers.!!!!!!!!!!!! They did find it rather strange that the new constitution was written the way it was and try to explain the possible reasons behind it....edit...

Well, well, well an opinion is an opinion, "they", whoever"they" might be, express just that, an opinion, THEIR opinion!

Besides, I do see a heap of controversy in the expressed opinions I have extracted and as shown above!

no further comment.....

"they are not necessarily right, simply because "they" express "they're" opinion about a situation, which has been a rather special one, coup or not coup, it was a necessary incision into and here all do agree complete corrupt governing body, being led into a rather dangerous, "one party, one power, one leader" de facto dictatorship, set up to channel funds into the party members pockets, manipulate the legal system to simply legalize their wrongdoings, or did I miss something then and now?.

[WAERTH]

Opinions are just that opinions. If we respect eachother we also respect eachothers opinions. Unfortunately that is a thing that is becoming harder and harder in this world.

People feel more and more that their opinions are the right ones and refuse to listen to other people. You can always disagree with someone but be polite about.

[Thai at Heart]

.........edit.....The economist is absolutely anti-corruption. ..........edit...

It is an international economics/political comment magazine with a pro-democracy, pro-free market attitude that is there for all to see. .............edit...

.....edit....They did find it rather strange that a democratic system could be thrown into chaos by a coup where people gave soldiers flowers.!!!!!!!!!!!! They did find it rather strange that the new constitution was written the way it was and try to explain the possible reasons behind it....edit...

Well, well, well an opinion is an opinion, "they", whoever"they" might be, express just that, an opinion, THEIR opinion!

Besides, I do see a heap of controversy in the expressed opinions I have extracted and as shown above!

no further comment.....

"they are not necessarily right, simply because "they" express "they're" opinion about a situation, which has been a rather special one, coup or not coup, it was a necessary incision into and here all do agree complete corrupt governing body, being led into a rather dangerous, "one party, one power, one leader" de facto dictatorship, set up to channel funds into the party members pockets, manipulate the legal system to simply legalize their wrongdoings, or did I miss something then and now?.

They found the coup strange because rarely are coups conducted in such a fashion. I distinctly remember them commenting on the fact that they saw the re-write of the constitution under an army led "junta" to be of concern. You believe it was a necessary incision, that is your opinion. Our opinions don't change anything in reality, we just debate them. I can't speak for them, but I believe what will lead Thailand out of this mess is the LAW and a change of the system. Until the SYSTEM is put together properly there will continue to be problems in Thailand. Umpteen constitutions in a limited amount of time all thrown away doesn't fill me with confidence.

I said that as far as I remember they expressed curiosity about these events instead of stating that it was blatantly right or wrong. Everyone has their opinion. They are able to print a global magazine out of having a respected opinion. Our opinions are fortunately or unfortunately limited to Thaivisa.

It doesn't need Thaksin's influence/money for the Economist to point out the problems with what has, is and will go on in Thailand.

[sriracha john]

People feel more and more that their opinions are the right ones and refuse to listen to other people. You can always disagree with someone but be polite about.

A concept that is persistently difficult for some to comprehend here.

[Ricardo]

You yourself might remember how I was wondering when the Economist would start praising other populist politicians like Chavez, why restrict their admiration only to Thaksin. Now I know the reason. I might be wrong, but, as I said, it's difficult to ignore the connection.

Politicians who engage in wanton extra judicial killings for political purposes and the suppression of free speech get a free pass from The Economist as long as they are for free trade and Capitalism.

This prompts one to ask, is it at all possible, that the Economist is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CIA ?

Roll-on 'Air Economist' ???

[Plus]

The Economist labelled PAD as "Enemies of Democracy" long before the coup, as early as March 2006, and steadfastily supported Thaksin ever since.

If you can find any other international publication (not connected to Sam Moon) that took that line as early as the Economist - let's see it.

If my memory serves me right - they were the first and only ones.

[younghusband]

The Economist labelled PAD as "Enemies of Democracy" long before the coup, as early as March 2006, and steadfastily supported Thaksin ever since.

If you can find any other international publication (not connected to Sam Moon) that took that line as early as the Economist - let's see it.

If my memory serves me right - they were the first and only ones.

But PAD are enemies of democracy, so the Economist was prescient.That is the the view of the entire reputable international press, but perhaps in your view they are also in recept of the Thaksin shilling.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound with your Moon theory?

[Plus]

What was so undemocratic about PAD in Feb-March 2006? They have even stopped protests in preparation for new elections.

You have no idea how naive you sound saying that Sam's PR work for Thaksin and Economist pro-Thaksin articles are a pure, unrelated coincidence.

I cant' prove it, of course, but I won't give Thaskin a benefit of doubt when it comes to manipulating the media.

[hammered]

The Economist labelled PAD as "Enemies of Democracy" long before the coup, as early as March 2006, and steadfastily supported Thaksin ever since.

If you can find any other international publication (not connected to Sam Moon) that took that line as early as the Economist - let's see it.

If my memory serves me right - they were the first and only ones.

But PAD are enemies of democracy, so the Economist was prescient.That is the the view of the entire reputable international press, but perhaps in your view they are also in recept of the Thaksin shilling.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound with your Moon theory?

In fairness it is also easy to create an arguement that the TRT and Thaksin were/are enemies of democracy (even if they dont mind elections), but as the TRT didnt mind free trade etc and supported elections the economist would give them a pass.

[sriracha john]

Police called on to hunt down Thaksin

Prosecution prepares to request his extradition

The prosecution yesterday called on police to track down fugitive former PM Thaksin after he decided not to appeal a guilty verdict. Fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra is now said to be in Dubai in the UAE. Sirisak Tiyaphan, Director-General of the Attorney-General's International Affairs Dept., said the police should start looking for Thaksin and inform the prosecution of his whereabouts. According to Sirisak, the police should coordinate with the Foreign Ministry and their missions overseas in locating Thaksin. The prosecution would closely follow up with the police, he said. Sirisak said that an extradition request has been drafted, ready to be adapted to fit the extradition laws of any country where Thaksin seeks exile. He noted that lack of an extradition treaty with a country in which Thaksin stays is not necessarily an obstacle as Thailand could offer a reciprocal deal. Thaksin's latest whereabouts is said to be Dubai, which has no extradition treaty with Thailand. Seksan Bangsomboon, the Chief Public Prosecutor, said the land case is final. He said he will submit Thaksin's document in which he waived his appeal to Mr Sirisak for use in seeking the extradition. The convicted ex-PM's phone-in to the Truth Today talk show at the Supachalasai stadium has been pushed forward by one day to Dec 13 from Dec 14. PPP MP Jatuporn Promphan, also a host of the talk show, said organisers moved the show forward a day, which Thaksin agreed to. Jatuporn said the highlight of Thaksin's phone-in will involve his plan to fight to return to politics.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/201108_News/20Nov2008_news03.php

[Thai at Heart]

What was so undemocratic about PAD in Feb-March 2006? They have even stopped protests in preparation for new elections.

You have no idea how naive you sound saying that Sam's PR work for Thaksin and Economist pro-Thaksin articles are a pure, unrelated coincidence.

I cant' prove it, of course, but I won't give Thaskin a benefit of doubt when it comes to manipulating the media.

On the basis that Thailand only gets small stories printed about it about once every couple of months, I think you are overplaying the importance of Thai politics on the world stage.

If it would be so easy for a tin pot politician such as Thaksin to buy the editorial influence of a publication like this, don't you think that Castro, Mao, Stalin and Kim Dong Il wouldn't have done so also. Blaming the Economist to come out and write the story first doesn't make their opinion invalid. They have an Editorial office in Bangkok and so are quite well placed to provide coverage. Just because it doesn't go with your particular ideas, doesn't mean it is in Thaksin's pocket.

Here is the link to their last story on Oct 23

Thaksin come home

Oct 23rd 2008 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

Nothing is forgiven; a prison cell awaits

www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470539

All pretty factual without getting into any pro or anti word slanging towards either side.

[Plus]

Thailand only gets small stories printed about it about once every couple of months,

Actually they have one or two stories EVERY week.

Majority of them are written in Hong Kong, where Moon was a star.

It's not too difficult for him to slip one or two favourable stories every now and then if he has good relationships with the editors.

Don't forget that at one point Thaksin has actually hired a PR firm to create an image of democracy defender in the international media.

>>>

From the following paragraphs it doesn't look like they gave him support for being pro-business:

"THIS newspaper has never been a great fan of Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand's embattled prime minister. His rise to power was fuelled by money, and his money obtained in part by patronage. When, in early 2001, he was on the point of winning his first election, we compared him to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. It was not intended as a compliment.

In office, Mr Thaksin has been a mixed blessing. He has handled the economy reasonably efficiently, and has therefore managed to afford the extravagant handouts with which he wooed the rural electorate in 2001, and again last year. In other spheres, though, his touch has been much less sure. Sheer governmental incompetence, for example, is the main reason why discontent in Thailand's Muslim south has bubbled over into insurrection and bloodshed..."

http://www.economist.com/research/articles...y_id=E1_VVSVNPN

Their support for him when discontent forced people on the streets was a big surprise for everyone. Suddenly they believed he was a champion of democracy.