Thailand Near Bottom On Peace Index

[ColPyat]

Thailand near bottom on Peace Index

Thailand is one of the least peaceful countries in the world and is ranked behind neighbours Indonesia and Cambodia in a new assessment, the Global Peace Index.

Out late last month, the GPI places Thailand at 105 of 121 countries on the index. Indonesia is at 78 and Cambodia 85. In the Asia-Pacific region only Burma, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan score worse.

The GPI describes Thailand's state of peace as "very low", with risks of violent demonstrations, terrorist acts and a high level of violent crime and political instability.

The index scores countries from one to five, with one being a "very high state of peace". Thailand scores 2.49, just a little better than Burma at 2.52 and is ranked at 108. Norway is the world's most peaceful country with a score of 1.35. It is followed by New Zealand at 1.36, Denmark with 1.37, Ireland at 1.39 and Japan on 1.41.

The least peaceful country on the list is Iraq. Its score is 3.43. Next to bottom was Sudan at 3.182. Israel scored 3.03, Russia 2.90 and Nigeria rated 2.89.

The United States also didn't fare too well, being ranked 96 with 2.317, just ahead of Iran at 97th with 2.32. The Economist Intelligence Unit and an international team of academics and peace experts compiled the list. It was the first time any index had ranked nations by their peacefulness.

It uses 24 indicators - including military spending, access to "weapons of minor destruction", guns, small explosives, corruption and respect for human rights.

The index is tested against a range of potential drivers, or determinants of peace - including levels of democracy and transparency, education and material well-being.

It uses the latest figures from a wide range of sources, including the World Bank and the United Nations.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/06/04...es_30035941.php

[torito]

It is ok...it will take only 10 points to be better than USA!

[ColPyat]

Nobody interested?

Is it only me that thinks this a bit sobering?

[jdinasia]

did you read the whole silliness that piece was based on? Just not a valid form/context (not to mention the dating of the info in the study .... <much was 2004-2005> etc etc etc etc

drivel!

[ColPyat]

did you read the whole silliness that piece was based on? Just not a valid form/context (not to mention the dating of the info in the study .... <much was 2004-2005> etc etc etc etc

drivel!

No, i didn't. Care to provide a link, please, so i can make up my mind if that indeed was "silliness"?

Edited June 4, 2007 by ColPyat

[lannarebirth]

Nobody interested?

Is it only me that thinks this a bit sobering?

I believe this is the 3rd thread this week on this topic. As my grandfather used to say "paper never refused ink". I'm sure there's an equivalent saying fior the digital age.

[jdinasia]

it was posted as a link in the TRT dissolution thread .... but good on you quoting something you had not looked at!

[A_Traveller]

Link to originating source.

Peace Index

Regards

PS The reason that there may have been little interest herein is that there was an earlier thread:-

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=123211

Dated 31st May

[ColPyat]

it was posted as a link in the TRT dissolution thread .... but good on you quoting something you had not looked at!

Actually - i have looked at the Nation story, and posted it to invite comments. I did not invite personal attacks though.

Anyhow - thanks to A_Traveler i had a brief look at it (i will read further though). What i found rather interesting is the list of individuals and organizations that seem to disagree with your view on this being "drivel".

If you criticize it, then please be a bit more fatual.

I know that it appears to be fashionable to come out with all sorts of indexes now, but at least this one here does not originate in a country that has a rather lousy human rights record, such as the Happiness Index.

Edited June 4, 2007 by ColPyat

[jdinasia]

DRIVEL .....

just because something silly comes out but quotes someojne respectable ... does NOT make the silliness respectable

[ColPyat]

DRIVEL .....

just because something silly comes out but quotes someojne respectable ... does NOT make the silliness respectable

What would you call then blanket statements with judgments without any reasoned argumentation?

[A_Traveller]

The concept is interesting, and has a more than passing relationship to the Economist Intelligence Unit approach. The idea is to take authoritative sourced data and then apply a transformation to provide a single number. Problem with any such an exercise is in the weighting of such a calculation and the risk that you find yourself in the 'Drakes Equation' conundrum.

Regards

[lannarebirth]

The concept is interesting, and has a more than passing relationship to the Economist Intelligence Unit approach. The idea is to take authoritative sourced data and then apply a transformation to provide a single number. Problem with any such an exercise is in the weighting of such a calculation and the risk that you find yourself in the 'Drakes Equation' conundrum.

Regards

I think the issue of deciding how to weight criteria is made easier by deciding on the rankings first.

[larvidchr]

Stats. like this is always problematic, and open to all sorts of speculation, it does however provide pretty strong hints, just look at it, Norway in top Irak in the bottom, nothing wrong with that I think, so maby Thailands place isen't far of the mark

Kind regards

[jdinasia]

The concept is interesting, and has a more than passing relationship to the Economist Intelligence Unit approach. The idea is to take authoritative sourced data and then apply a transformation to provide a single number. Problem with any such an exercise is in the weighting of such a calculation and the risk that you find yourself in the 'Drakes Equation' conundrum.

Regards

I think the issue of deciding how to weight criteria is made easier by deciding on the rankings first.

LOL .. yeppers ....

paid for by the council for democracy ? a CIA front? or just some nutters?

[Scott]

Thanks for posting it Colpyat, it's interesting. I don't usually trust these sorts of things because there is often a "political" agenda in the weighting of things that put certain countries or groups at a disadvantage and the fact that this is done on purpose is my cause for concern.

However, in spite of that, it does give us some useful information. Like others, I found it sobering.

The last bit of information that I had (a month or so ago) was that Sudan was more dangerous and had a higher death rate than Iraq, which leads to wonder about the weighting of things. Anyone have any insight on that?

[jdinasia]

Thanks for posting it Colpyat, it's interesting. I don't usually trust these sorts of things because there is often a "political" agenda in the weighting of things that put certain countries or groups at a disadvantage and the fact that this is done on purpose is my cause for concern.

However, in spite of that, it does give us some useful information. Like others, I found it sobering.

The last bit of information that I had (a month or so ago) was that Sudan was more dangerous and had a higher death rate than Iraq, which leads to wonder about the weighting of things. Anyone have any insight on that?

the info they are using is mostly 2005-2006 ... but reading all the info on it ... well it's pretty silly overall

[ColPyat]

the info they are using is mostly 2005-2006 ... but reading all the info on it ... well it's pretty silly overall

Would you mind please, and stop trashing my thread with these sort of comments. If you are critical of this report, then please with reasoned replies and not just comments such as "silly", "drivel", etc...

[chuchok]

the info they are using is mostly 2005-2006 ... but reading all the info on it ... well it's pretty silly overall

Would you mind please, and stop trashing my thread with these sort of comments. If you are critical of this report, then please with reasoned replies and not just comments such as "silly", "drivel", etc...

He can't help himself.As soon as there is a slightly negative comment about Thais etc,jd rides in on his white hourse.....I dunno what's worse......Thailand lovers that can't see the wood for the trees,or the haters that have the same attitude.Either way,they are all wearing blinkers.

[ColPyat]

He can't help himself.As soon as there is a slightly negative comment about Thais etc,jd rides in on his white hourse.....I dunno what's worse......Thailand lovers that can't see the wood for the trees,or the haters that have the same attitude.Either way,they are all wearing blinkers.

Often they are the same. Many of the most cynical Thailand haters were some time in the past the most ardent Thailand lovers. And all for the wrong reasons...

[A_Traveller]

Have to say that I don't see the concept as 'silly', though the methodology needs to be understood. No one has come up with a ranking system which meets all the objections, but I would take the view that on the surface the rationale behind this process appears to be valid. If someone has the time maybe they'd like to critique the protocol.

Regards

[ColPyat]

Have to say that I don't see the concept as 'silly', though the methodology needs to be understood. No one has come up with a ranking system which meets all the objections, but I would take the view that on the surface the rationale behind this process appears to be valid. If someone has the time maybe they'd like to critique the protocol.

Regards

Thank you.

And yes, critical views based on rationale are always welcome.

[jdinasia]

the info they are using is mostly 2005-2006 ... but reading all the info on it ... well it's pretty silly overall

Would you mind please, and stop trashing my thread with these sort of comments. If you are critical of this report, then please with reasoned replies and not just comments such as "silly", "drivel", etc...

The 2005/2006 was a direct response to a question asked above ... using out of date info sure strikes me as silly but since this is YOUR thread (and has been covered in the past ,,, tata!)

[A_Traveller]

JD not sure what your point is here. In most cases authoritative and audited figures, especially from governments may be 6 to 12 months 'old'. The aim here is to ensure wherever possible that the figures are consistent country to country. By definition any anaylsis needs a representative data set.

If I've misunderstood your point, I apologise.

Regards

[jdinasia]

JD not sure what your point is here. In most cases authoritative and audited figures, especially from governments may be 6 to 12 months 'old'. The aim here is to ensure wherever possible that the figures are consistent country to country. By definition any anaylsis needs a representative data set.

If I've misunderstood your point, I apologise.

Regards

12 months qould include 1/2 of 2006 .... but none of 2005

but here

Measures of militarisation

Nine of the indicators are related to a country’s military build-up—reflecting the assertion that the level of militarisation and access to weapons is directly linked to how at peace a country feels internationally. Comparable data are readily available from sources such as the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).

* Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP

* Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people

* Volume of transfers (imports) of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people

* Volume of transfers (exports) of major conventional weapons per 100,000

* UN Deployments 2006-07 (percentage of total armed forces)

* Non UN Deployments 2006-07 (percentage of total armed forces)

* Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people

* Ease of access to small arms and light weapons

* Military capability/sophistication

does this not strike you as nuts?

"how at peace a country feels internationally"? so we are measuring feelings? that's something not even a shrink would try on entire populations

How big your military is ...? doesn't matter that you have not been at war etc .... armed services personnel? if they don't fight then ...... UN deployments? NON UN Deployments? oi!

thought we should add to this

Weighting the index

The research team apportioned scores based on the relative importance of each of the indicators on a 1-5 scale. The consensus scores for each indicator are given below in Table 1.

Two sub-component weighted indices were then calculated from our group of indicators, 1) a measure of how at peace internally a country is; 2) a measure of how at peace externally (its state of peace beyond its borders). Our overall composite score and index was then formulated by applying a weight of 60% to our measure of internal peace and 40% for external peace. The heavier weight applied to internal peace was agreed within the group, following robust debate. The decision was based on the innovative notion that a greater level of internal peace is likely to lead to, or at least correlate with, lower external conflict—in other words, if ‘charity begins at home’ - so might peace.

Edited June 5, 2007 by jdinasia

[Felt 35]

Thailand lovers that can't see the wood for the trees,or the haters that have the same attitude.Either way,they are all wearing blinkers.

[A_Traveller]

JD sorry still don't get it.

Consolidated and audited figures will always take time to deliver, so your point is not valid. It is not at all unreasonable to use the numbers within that range of 'age'. I think present US Census figures range, according to department from 2000 through to 2005. Economic figures are usually newer, but audited 'blue book' {sorry I don't know the US technical term} are on average 2 to 3 quarters behind.

On the second section, it makes sense to me, review the spending, the rate of armed forces employment, the probable distribution of weapon systems {i.e ArmaLites, vs ManPads, vs Artillery}, their force projection statistics {internal control CS Gas etc. vs external projection ManPads}, commitment to peacekeeping activities.

On the third an honest review of the active process which led to the analytic viewpoint they decided to use, again with reasonable assumptions behind it laid out clearly.

As say I really don't see your argument that this analysis is not worthy of detailed consideration.

By the by the link below provides a list of those who endorsed the principal of the research and view it as a platform for further analysis.

Endorsers

/edit typos //

Edited June 5, 2007 by A_Traveller

[Thaddeus]

As my grandfather used to say "paper never refused ink". I'm sure there's an equivalent saying fior the digital age.

Ferrite has never refused a magnetic charge?

(even that would be out of date now)

Silicon has never refused being implanted.

(yep.... that's better )

[jdinasia]

JD sorry still don't get it.

Consolidated and audited figures will always take time to deliver, so your point is not valid. It is not at all unreasonable to use the numbers within that range of 'age'. I think present US Census figures range, according to department from 2000 through to 2005. Economic figures are usually newer, but audited 'blue book' {sorry I don't know the US technical term} are on average 2 to 3 quarters behind.

On the second section, it makes sense to me, review the spending, the rate of armed forces employment, the probable distribution of weapon systems {i.e ArmaLites, vs ManPads, vs Artillery}, their force projection statistics {internal control CS Gas etc. vs external projection ManPads}, commitment to peacekeeping activities.

On the third an honest review of the active process which led to the analytic viewpoint they decided to use, again with reasonable assumptions behind it laid out clearly.

As say I really don't see your argument that this analysis is not worthy of detailed consideration.

By the by the link below provides a list of those who endorsed the principal of the research and view it as a platform for further analysis.

Endorsers

/edit typos //

Sooooooo if your country is at peace with its neighbors and internally, yet has a strong military and military budget ... supports UN actions across the globe in war torn areas .... your peace index sucks .... but if you spend squat etc etc etc

as far as the endorses go ... well ... do they even know what it is about? My number for Desmond Tutu is out of date or I'd call and ask if he thought that peace was a good idea and then if he knew ANY of the specifics of this group using his name.

I still have not found where the funding is coming from ... I'll look later ... <being socially liberal does NOT preclude having a mind ... >

[A_Traveller]

Sooooooo if your country is at peace with its neighbors and internally, yet has a strong military and military budget ... supports UN actions across the globe in war torn areas .... your peace index sucks .... but if you spend squat etc etc etc

No read the methodology.

Regards

PS It would appear that the initiative comes for a businessman, Steve Killelea, founder of Integrated Research