Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[steveromagnino]

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.

Edited October 20, 2009 by steveromagnino

[RickBradford]

Hands up who gives a flying fck what The Economist thinks here, or anywhere.

Not many on ThaiVisa, for sure, but overall, somewhere upwards of 1 million (circulation figure) of the world's leading politicians, business people, academics and educated classes.

So an interview with Thaksin will resonate among those influential people; The Economist is written and edited by people with a strong free-market/democracy bias, hence they dislike anything that smacks of entrenched unelected authority or hereditary privilege, so you can see what their position on Thailand is likely to be.

Not a few issues of The Economist have been banned here for the tone of their articles on VVVIPs in this country.

[steveromagnino]

Hands up who gives a flying fck what The Economist thinks here, or anywhere.

Not many on ThaiVisa, for sure, but overall, somewhere upwards of 1 million (circulation figure) of the world's leading politicians, business people, academics and educated classes.

So an interview with Thaksin will resonate among those influential people; The Economist is written and edited by people with a strong free-market/democracy bias, hence they dislike anything that smacks of entrenched unelected authority or hereditary privilege, so you can see what their position on Thailand is likely to be.

Not a few issues of The Economist have been banned here for the tone of their articles on VVVIPs in this country.

3 I think- could be wrong though; not that many at all. And actually, as I recall, one was banned in the mid 2000s for an article relating to Thaksin who also got a couple of journos deported for the FEER thanks to saying something not so complimentary. Not sure I would have thought a political figure needs protection, but such were the heady days of TRT during the period that Thailand plunged from top 30-40 in the world for press freedom to outside the top 100.

why they think TRT has a strong freemarket democracy bias I don't know. I can understand why they do such a poor job of writing about Thailand, NZ etc - they basically don't have people on the ground to cover off the issues and as a result usually make a hash of it.

Personally, I think overall it is a great read; I enjoy the wit, the majority of what they say, but they do certainly like to pick a side early and they stick with it. but they are miles off reality when it comes to Thailand.

Edited October 20, 2009 by steveromagnino

[jasreeve17]

Personally, I have a much higher respect for the Economist than I do the army controlled Thai media.

I don't like MrT, but he WAS voted in, several times.

The yellows are a pathetic puppet of the army and elites, but their greed will shake each other apart (as they are currently doing).

The Dems have never given anything to the Thai people which is why they have never won an election in their history. Abhisit appears to be a decent bloke, but how many decent blokes go to Eton and work with army coups to get power... Sounds a bit like Mugabe, Pol Polt and Idi Amin to me...

Those of you who think MrT will not be back are fooling yourselves. EDIT the yellows elites have two options:

1) Move away from politics, and let the majority decide (i.e. the reds).

2) Start slaughtering the Thai masses.

Both have problems:

1) The reds are very corrupt too, but they allow the middle classes to grow which is the most important aspect of enabling democracy.

2) The elites can never win in the end, democracy is out of the bottle and will come no matter how many tens (or hundreds) of thousands they masacre; again...

If Prem lives on for a good few years longer, he's in very big trouble... History, and the Thai people will demonize this man.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Lite Beer

[RickBradford]

why they think TRT has a strong freemarket democracy bias I don't know.

"One person one vote" would do it.

The Economist's writers hate unelected and entrenched privilege; they're always railing against the British monarchy and House of Lords, so their position on Thailand is bound to be fairly entrenched.

[DP25]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

The Economist only cares about free markets. They have come to believe that Thaksin is the champion of these ideals and should be supported, regardless of his massive human rights atrocities, corruption, or anti democratic tendencies. It's not a coincidence that a former employee of the Economist left to go work for Thaksin's NGO.

[steveromagnino]

Both have problems:

1) The reds are very corrupt too, but they allow the middle classes to grow which is the most important aspect of enabling democracy.

2) The elites can never win in the end, democracy is out of the bottle and will come no matter how many tens (or hundreds) of thousands they masacre; again...

If Prem lives on for a good few years longer, he's in very big trouble... History, and the Thai people will demonize this man.

I would not quite agree...

My own opinion: the red shirts do not have the support of the middle class which is why PPP gets its votes from rural N and NE Thailand and not the cities as was the case for TRT in 2005; just as many Dems hate the yellow shirts a large number of the Puea Thai voters are pro Thaksin but may not really care much about democracy other than what it is now that they get to vote - reducing everything down to 2 categories of people is nonsensical which is why politicians love to do it.

Having spent some time with senior red shirt people, the conversations are interesting in that there is little similarity between the conversations; same as speaking to the yellow shirts; instead it is a loose coalition held together with common ideals; in the case of yellow shirts - get rid of Thaksin (the rest is window dressing mostly) and in the case of red shirts 'bring him back' is the most common one; the less common one is 'democracy' which is usually the more educated ones (and there are some PhDs in the redshirts, it isn't just upcountry folk) and almost always they have to come together with democracy as the addition; for instance if I'm pro democracy but I think Thaksin is a crook and a coward who won't serve time and face the charges he faces...so I have my red shirt with Thaksin f&*k off to jail written, do you really think the mobs will be happy to have me there cheering democracy?

Having spoken to rescue workers who have to deal with the mob beatings of alledged yellow shirters from time to time....methinks not!

'You are either with us, or you are against us'

'You are either pro gun control, or you condone murder'

'You are either pro democracy, or you're a yellow shirt wearing elitist that wants to deny the majority who voted in PPP/Puea Thai their rights in an election'

obviously the last one has some issues, since ignoring the cheating that went on, the Puea Thai/PPP never actually did reach a majority which is why they needed a coalition so they got into power in exactly the same way as the Dems did.....but I digress.

I have yet to see anything that the reds have promised, have done or plan to do that is going to 'allow the middle classes to grow' any more or any less than the current group we have in power.

This vision that the elite are trying to hold back the process of democracy is an interesting one, I think best to ignore the rhetoric of massacres; the only massacres of late occurred during the TRT democracy period - as no doubt you recall.

I suspect that Thaksin deserves a Mahathir/Berlsuconi/Joaquin Balaguer type character reference delivering some good, some bad; that's ignoring the inner workings of how he made his wealth since many of the magnates did it the same way; he merely hit the jackpot by cleverly avoiding the financial crisis caused by his friend PM Chavalit having already resigned his post in the ministry of finance coincidentally a few months earlier; unlike his competitors.

If one looks at intent and honor one of the two has more; hopeless PM I have to say, but he has honour and principles; didn't make a nice lazy few billion out of his PM time. Out of touch as could be expected at his age, but even so, he has guided Thailand (you could argue if you believe McCargo) past the idiocy of morons like Banharn and Chavalit. Unless you want to argue that either was any good as a PM!

The other has a taste for power, using government money as his own piggy bank and pilfered a ton of cash while building his own empire. Much better PM in most respects, but relative to a good PM like you might find elsewhere, a bit of a, and let's be kind, totally up himself and imune to good advice as even his consultants will tell you. That was his downfall; had he listened there were countless people telling him after the blatant profiteering on PTT and a few other deals to just take it a bit easy and deal with the oil crisis problems....no, he decided he needed to cash out of Shin and that was the beginning of the end. Then call an unnecessary election which was a screw up. Then resign from politics, then return.

As for Thaksin being a free marketeer; if economist actually looked at the FTAs, the way the country was run during TRT years, it was a step backwards not forwards for free trade. I don't see how handing out an effective monopoly to 7:11 for instance (CP, TRT family) and blocking the hyper markets (nasty foreigners) is pro free trade. Plenty more examples.

But right now we are at the abyss and all we have are two petty sides claiming the other side is all wrong and the rest of us in the middle with our legs spread and about to fall in.

As for "One person one vote" how come Thaksin can't suck it up that he got beat at that game and the government we have now is indeed, one person one vote?

I guess like the referendum, one person one vote only counts when you win, otherwise you claim of the tilted playing field. Funny how he didn't exactly spend much time evening up the playing field when he was in power; rather he spent it tilting it as far as he could. He had policies like if you don't vote for me, we'll withdraw all the aid from your province. He used his own TRT media machine (Ch 3, 5, 7,9; Thai Raht; all newspapers with AIS marketing budget allocations; media intimidation of the rest) to get the best possible angles and news about how great he was.....didn't see him talking too much about unfairness back then!

BTW TRT was voted in twice. Just for the record. In the election running unopposed they lost in so far they could not form a government as they could not secure every seat (even unopposed); aside from the election being annulled.

In closing, I also think the Economist in general is a great read. But I'm also aware of where and how the articles about Thailand get put together, and thus the biases and inherent slants that go into that.

I also happen to know the 'slickness' of the TRT media, PR and research machine relative to any party so I partly understand why; couple that with the desire to slot things into boxes and with limited time to cover anything with anything other than cursory depth and you have a recipe to trot out the popular line and lakorn soap opera we'll watch in 20 years - freedom fighter vs. the establishment. Democracy vs. elite.

But sadly I guess I'm not 18 years old and I'm not a typical fox channel news viewer, so that's not quite enough depth for me.

It's not the only country they tend to do a hash job on either. Like I said early on, they do a great job where they have their main bases; UK, USA, Europe. And sometimes their indepth stuff is great also.

But they are only journos, and so they are always going to rely on information from the people they ask; who they ask tends to be who is in front of them the most. That's how the PR industry exists innit. It's not a bad occupation. Not as good as attending rallies, but neverthless not a bad way to earn cash making twits seem smart and bad guys seem honest.

Edited October 20, 2009 by steveromagnino

[Insight]

If Prem lives on for a good few years longer, he's in very big trouble... History, and the Thai people will demonize this man.

Frankly, I think you're completely off your rocker on this one. I don't know anybody who doesn't think think going after Prem is the last stroke of political suicide for Thaksin. The words "he's gone too far now" have been heard from several people.

But that's just my blinkered, uninformed based on the opinion of the people I work and socialise with.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Insight

[hammered]

Hands up who gives a flying fck what The Economist thinks here, or anywhere.

Not many on ThaiVisa, for sure, but overall, somewhere upwards of 1 million (circulation figure) of the world's leading politicians, business people, academics and educated classes.

So an interview with Thaksin will resonate among those influential people; The Economist is written and edited by people with a strong free-market/democracy bias, hence they dislike anything that smacks of entrenched unelected authority or hereditary privilege, so you can see what their position on Thailand is likely to be.

Not a few issues of The Economist have been banned here for the tone of their articles on VVVIPs in this country.

The economist is very influential in the western anglo-saxon english speaking diaspora and less so in the western non english speaking diaspora where its unregulated market philosophy isnt so accepted. The economist is usually viewed in the unregulated free market/regulated market framework in the west rather than anything to do with democracy. In Asia well it isnt that influential and with the rise of the Chinese role model for development vis-avis the western one.......

[hammered]

If Prem lives on for a good few years longer, he's in very big trouble... History, and the Thai people will demonize this man.

In a while Prem is going to have a very very important job and one that will mean his work is over. PTP/Thaksin want him out of the way now so he cant do that job. After he has his position will be cemented although he may change roles. Hope this aint too blunt.

[TheGoodDoctor]

Good posts, Steve.

"Lest I now be branded as a anti democracy yellow shirt (since that is the usual mode for a Thaksin supporter at this point, either I'm pro democracy pro Thaksin pro poor people, or I'm an elitist wanting to keep the poor down, kill the poor, take a holiday in Cambodia etc etc) ..........

But that's because there are several types of people in the world. One of those groups are people like me. Normal people. I like normal people."

Red Shirts

Yellow Shirts

The indifferent, unrepresented, powerless.

The third group has no political power whatsoever, so what does it even matter in the discussion of Thai politics?There are plenty of Americans who hate the two party system but its impossible for Independents to get elected.

The conclusion, to me, is that Thailand does in fact have a two party system. Both sides are terrible. The country is hopeless.

Edited October 20, 2009 by TheGoodDoctor

[katasyd]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

Thaksin's hired PR man used to work at the economist and several other publications.

Google Sam Moon.

This is Sam Moon’s profile:

Sam Moon has lived in and worked across Asia for the past 23 years working for The Economist, Dow Jones and his own company in partnership with BusinessWeek. Mr. Moon first met Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra 16 years ago and has remained in contact with him over the years.

http://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2008/11/1...om-the-outside/

Edited October 21, 2009 by katasyd

[Serpico]

I wonder why they don't hold a fair election and let the people decide?

[brahmburgers]

Interesting to read the interview from the Economist.

The first thing that stands out is the softball approach by the interviewer, plus his surface-only knowledge of recent political events in Thailand. He didn't have any follow-up questions.

The second thing that stood out, in my view, is how unclear T is in expressing himself. I acknowledge that Thai language (which forms the base of his thinking) rarely uses pronouns, but still, there are a lot of missing and mis-placed pronouns in T's answers, which make what he says unclear.

an example: "You cannot solve these problems without reconciliation. Why don’t you negotiate, find a solution? You act as if you can squeeze the red shirts, that one day they will get tired of coming out. I don’t believe that. You see elders, middle-aged and young generation. They will not give up. There is speculation in Bangkok that you are having negotiations with this elite that would allow you to come back and play a different role in society."

It's assumed that the 'you' he keeps referring to, would be better stated by using the words; 'a person' or 'one'. However, if/when T is referring to the interviewer, would he also use the word 'you' ? And who is the 'you' referencing in the sentence in orange, above?

Here is another example of mixed-up pronouns, using T's words;

"I think they will keep bringing truth to the world, to the public. If the world listen to them, it will understand what’s going on. They will sympathise that the majority of people in Thailand, especially those who struggle in life, have been bullied. They bully me, they indirectly bully them because for the first time in their life they’ve been taken care of and helped, they see the light at the end of the tunnel for their life and their children. So they start to see that…"

Notice he starts out talking about 'they' (the Red Shirts) and then, uses 'they' (colored orange, above) to apparently talk about the bad people. Then, in the same sentence(!) he uses 'they' to talk about the good guys.

Third point: T continues to trot out lies:

"If I was in business, I would be worth more. Because I enter politics, I stopped doing business."

Yea sure. T stopped doing biz as a politician like the Williams sisters stopped playing tennis.

"Look at what happened in Din Daeng. The military with full battle uniform with M-16s, with live ammunition, they shoot at the people and dragged the bodies away. They take away all the films and cameras. Now we have injured people. You saw how they dragged the ladies. All the evidence is there."

Wrong, Mr. T, dead wrong. There has been no evidence of that. Not even Red Shirt sympathizers have any hard evidence. Besides being wrong, such words could be used to bolster the current gov't's accusations of treason against T.

In sum, T shows himself to be a befuddled person who can't think clearly, and has trouble telling the truth - even within a sympathetic interview with lightweight questions. Is this the sort of person the Reds want to take back control of government?

Edited October 21, 2009 by brahmburgers

[samran]

I wonder why they don't hold a fair election and let the people decide?

There was an election 19 months or so ago. I remember, I voted in it...

The results of that election give us the government we have now.

[TheGoodDoctor]

I wonder why they don't hold a fair election and let the people decide?

There was an election 19 months or so ago. I remember, I voted in it...

The results of that election give us the government we have now.

LOL

Funny how people get angry cause it was obvious that the coalition came together under questionable terms yet the same sort of thing was going on with TRT and it was OK.

Side A - You are corrupt self serving incompetent selfish fools

Side B - No, you are.

Both sides are right.

[geriatrickid]

Thaksin's hired PR man used to work at the economist and several other publications.

So what? It was a short stop, hardly enough to have any influence. Most of the staff changed in the interim. The guy now works for Jeddah Economic Forum, which does have influence.

Google that and please don't come back with there being some sort of secret conspiracy involving Cambridge University, former President Clinton, former Chancellor Schroeder, former PM Jean Chretien and many other reputable people. Mr. Thaksin cannot be faulted for seeking out the advice of knowledgeable and experienced people.

And yes, I sometimes read the Economist. I have been an avid reader dating back to my teenage years. It is a well written magazine and one that I usually agree with on social and political issues. I usually go a separate route on fiscal policy, but all the same, the Economist is fair and thorough. One of the few magazines that still has a good reputation

I found the Thaksin article insightful and informative.

Edited October 21, 2009 by geriatrickid

[samran]

I wonder why they don't hold a fair election and let the people decide?

There was an election 19 months or so ago. I remember, I voted in it...

The results of that election give us the government we have now.

LOL

Funny how people get angry cause it was obvious that the coalition came together under questionable terms yet the same sort of thing was going on with TRT and it was OK.

Side A - You are corrupt self serving incompetent selfish fools

Side B - No, you are.

Both sides are right.

I don't see the point why voters need to be dragged back to the polls every two minutes when a coalition changes. Coalition politics are how things work here. One day you are up, the next day you aren't.

[Jimjim]

After reading Thaskin prose and Steveromagnino prose. I sit on the fence, both say enough to support each argument.

But?

Who did the majority of the voters vote for and was Thaskin removed from power by the same ballot box.

I look at politicians worldwide, I see in the UK, the late Edward Heath (ex PM) died with a couple of million, yet been in public office or service most of his life. John Major now a millionaire, Tony Blair a kick in the butt off being a millionaire.

If they accumulated riches it was/were by using their public office and connections. Same as Italy's Beresconni (sic) et al.

Still, never seen enough reason or deeds to merit deposing him by a coup de tat. Except for others personal reasons.

I await the flames of righteous indignation!?!?

The difference is Thaksin is a billionaire, not a millionaire. And he used his political power to make a loophole so he wouldn't have to pay about 26 billion baht in tax when he sold his company. So, see the difference between Thailand and the UK now? It's huge.

[Lite Beer]

Posts containing speculative comments about the Monarchy have been edited or deleted.

A reminder of the rule.

2) Not to express disrespect of the King of Thailand or anyone else in the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family. Discussion of the lese majeste law or lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family. To breach this rule will result in immediate ban.

[TheGoodDoctor]

The difference is Thaksin is a billionaire, not a millionaire. And he used his political power to make a loophole so he wouldn't have to pay about 26 billion baht in tax when he sold his company. So, see the difference between Thailand and the UK now? It's huge.

Thaksin is more gangster than businessman. It reminds me of a line from Scorsese's Casino.

"Tommy came up with a sure fire plan for making money. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told you to go @$@# yourself. What were you going to do, muscle Tommy? Tommy was the muscle."

[DegenFarang]

Says he doesn't have much cash 'all my money is frozen in Thailand'. What about the other 95% of his net worth he stashed overseas and hid in offshore corporations? And why does he keep making trips to offshore tax havens? Doesn't seem to want to talk about any of that. I don't know if he is financing the 'red shirts', nor do I care...but he is clearly still a very rich man.

[PeaceBlondie]

Back to the OP: Thaksin can go to some third-rate country (Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea; surely not Thailand), have a sex change operation, and return here as Eva Peron.

[otherstuff1957]

Stevemarigno's post really summed up the situation! The Reds and Yellows are far from monolithic blocks. There are some on both sides that are very far from being 'champions of Democracy', while there are others whose viewpoints are almost identical except for their feelings about Thaksin.

I don't have a crystal ball & can't predict whether Thaksin will come back or not, but, if he does the ensuing civil conflict will probably disillusion quite a few of his current supporters.

[hammered]

Stevemarigno's post really summed up the situation! The Reds and Yellows are far from monolithic blocks. There are some on both sides that are very far from being 'champions of Democracy', while there are others whose viewpoints are almost identical except for their feelings about Thaksin.

I don't have a crystal ball & can't predict whether Thaksin will come back or not, but, if he does the ensuing civil conflict will probably disillusion quite a few of his current supporters.

The sovereign myth blog covers this kind of analysis very well

[TAWP]

Good posts, Steve.

"Lest I now be branded as a anti democracy yellow shirt (since that is the usual mode for a Thaksin supporter at this point, either I'm pro democracy pro Thaksin pro poor people, or I'm an elitist wanting to keep the poor down, kill the poor, take a holiday in Cambodia etc etc) ..........

But that's because there are several types of people in the world. One of those groups are people like me. Normal people. I like normal people."

Red Shirts

Yellow Shirts

The indifferent, unrepresented, powerless.

The third group has no political power whatsoever, so what does it even matter in the discussion of Thai politics?There are plenty of Americans who hate the two party system but its impossible for Independents to get elected.

The conclusion, to me, is that Thailand does in fact have a two party system. Both sides are terrible. The country is hopeless.

That is just silly and shows your lack of understanding of politics here.

The 'Yellows' aren't even in the parliament now, even if some MPs there might like them. And many others don't or see them as a temporary tool that now has been used. Hence why they are not forming their own party. Not even the yellows think they are in power in any way.

And the clear majority of VOTERS are neither red nor yellow.

Hence your comparison to the US is severely flawed.

[jayboy]

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.

[Publicus]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

The Economist has made clear it is firmly opposed to the Yellows, along with everything the Yellows represent and hold dear. The Economist has been pretty straight with its readers.

Hands up who gives a flying fck what The Economist thinks here, or anywhere.

One here among us at the least, likely a small handful more. The forumist above already pointed out in his post the caliber of global readership the Economist has. I've been a subscriber for almost 20 years, I know the zine's point of view and its weaknesses and strengths which all contribute some to my own thinking. I welcome the Economist and its broad, varied reportage as a reference point relative to the rest of the world. The zine focuses well on Thailand so I commend it.

It's still a free country so go ahead and gripe. As we used to say in the army, it's every soldier's Right to gripe.

[h90]

Back to the OP: Thaksin can go to some third-rate country (Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea; surely not Thailand), have a sex change operation, and return here as Eva Peron.

And can have his "comeback" as first female Premier of Thailand

[wayfarer108]

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.

I'm a Thailand-based journalist and I agree with steveromagnino. The Economist's coverage of Thai politics is woefully shallow and inexpert.