Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[steveromagnino]

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.

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 have some idea how the articles get written, but then again, I guess not being in media I perhaps would not know as much as some.

All I can comment on are areas i know something about, and the Economist is like any publication; they get some stuff right, and some stuff not so right. More stuff right than wrong for sure, and the wrong is usually what i consider to be a simplistic view of the situation rather than outright wrong - like how they cover things in the South Pacific or little countries or with little issues I suppose; I don't think for instance that they have a sound understanding of the luxury apparel industry for instance; not compared to others I consider to be more expert anyhow. Many of the topics I would have thought might be more interesting they don't cover at all; but after all it is only so big and they can only cover so much; what i consider incredibly interesting right now in say the luxury industry, they do not and usually just go and chat to their mates at the big fashion houses. Their business, not mine.

Since one of my friends involved heavily in the red shirt faction described Economist as pretty simplistic and didn't really believe they would ever truly understand the situation here (not that she thought it was that complicated, just that it is hard to get the relative weights and importance of the various pieces of information right) I tend to think that my guess; that most political situations worldwide get reduced by the media to a simplistic picture which we can understand but may not necessarily be entirely accurate, tends to apply here.

I don't doubt they can open the doors to speak to opinion leaders - the fact they are talking to Thaksin Sondhi et al shows they get the face time - but at the end of the day I think that interview was soft, it allowed mistruths through unchallenged suggesting the interviewer either didn't know enough to challenge or wanted a piece matching their perception and my general opinion of the Economist is they don't have the same view I do regarding the red shirts/yellow shirts/everyone else - that's their style and they have the information to make conclusions, they have to sell papers, I don't. Just as I could never support Chavalit or Samak because of personal dislike based on knowledge beyond the scope of the general op piece in Matichon, I am sure Economist have the same biases and influences that even when attempting to be neutral, affect all of us in life and the conclusions we reach - I do read Chomsky and such after all so I'm not quite of the 'wake up each week and read the Economist to know what i should be thinking' mindset just yet.

But just because it's in the Economist, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Nor do I think they have more contacts, and more access to information than a well informed person with access to the inner circle in TRT, the red shirts and some of the Democrats party might. I don't know how many staff they have here these days; I was under the impression it was one main correspondent who covers 4 countries as I recall from a conversation a few years ago; maybe things are completely different now, maybe they have an entire office based here.

I'd rate Crispin and FEER in the past as considerably more perceptive and 'on the ground' but again, personal opinion.

As to who reads Economist and who read TV - no idea on either and I don't write to the Economist too often (Somchai I think in 2003 was about the last time) so I guess that leaves me posting here doesn't it.

I suppose it is somewhat interesting that media were sued and muzzled so much during the TRT years, and yet now the claims of the red shirts includes the importance of free speech and adjustments to the lese majeste laws that they did nothing about during their years in power.

Therefore, in some ways I would think The fall and rise of Reginald Shinawtra might be a little more appropriate, as he didn't get to where he is by providing press freedom or adjusting lese majeste laws.

Also, when Khunying Pojaman walks past, I do here that booorp baarrrp sound as well.

Edited October 21, 2009 by steveromagnino

[DP25]

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.

Edited October 21, 2009 by DP25

[samran]

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.

[jayboy]

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.

[samran]

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.

I choose not to be taken seriously. Seriously: Cant....Be....Arsed. You are right. No proof, just years of disapointed sighs after reading the two columns that Australia tends to get every month or so in the economist.

I'll go stare at my Honours Degree in Economics and Masters of Public Policy on the wall instead. At least I'll feel smart tonight.

Actually, Lost is on...I'll go watch that. Enough potification. Do that too much already.

Edited October 21, 2009 by samran

[hammered]

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.

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

[Yoshitaka]

http://images.google.co.th/images?hl=en&am...a+peron+madonna

I'll rather Mad'onna than Pokemon any day.

[hammered]

According to Chavalit Hun Sen has built a nice house for Thaksin to stay in whenever he goes to Cambodia. If true wonder if it abuts the houses of Vatana and Kamnan Poh? Not sure it would be too healthy for Thaksin to go too close to the latter these days after failing to deliver on the deal. Nah thinking about it it probably wont be like old times.

By the way, Chavalit is off to see old pals Chamlong and Sondhi soon too. Dont yer just love all this hug in.

[samran]

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.

[Rumfoord]

http://images.google.co.th/images?hl=en&am...a+peron+madonna

I'll rather Mad'onna than Pokemon any day.

your are a misogynist and you fail with your attempt to tell a joke.

please note: the official humour directive is already third world, para-banana-commies and that Thaksin himself returns as Mercedes Sosa errrm sing a song widow in the garlic business. or similar. japanese toys and philosemitic popstars are off topic, the latter also taboo.

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.

for your own nick and role play, please consider that on this board gender bender people are lobby free, don't get much support, met with prejudices and if you are one day a male and next day a female personality it is more likely that you get banned as troll than find a home in one of the gender specific sub forums Ladies in Thailand for her, ICCT in Thailand for him or Bikes in Thailand for them.

[hammered]

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.

[jayboy]

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.

[steveromagnino]

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.

Well, as an example, I found one article online about NZ's change in government, where Economist basically praise the outgoing PM and say the new guy has their work cut out for them.

Full article refer to the issue on Nov 13, 2008: Key change for Kiwis.

They first lead by stating 'Labour has presided over huge reductions in government debt and unemployment, steady GDP growth, the creation of savings schemes and bilateral trade deals. Earlier this year, New Zealand became the first developed country to sign a free-trade agreement with China.'

Hmmm....seems like a really good government.

Whereas the reality is that Labour government basically did nothing to generate significant growth in NZ; this was the result of rising housing prices and resultant domestic consumption as well as a few key export industries with growth in commodity prices; almost any NZer will tell you that the cost of compliance to set up an SME (the lifeblood of many economies around the world and particularly NZs to create net new jobs according to academics like Drucker) skyrocketed.

The article also failed to comment on the fact that 3 out of 5 of the highest paid jobs in NZ are now within the government and the state and state related business has soaked up a ton of workers in recent years and had a lot of workers in indsutry relating to domestic consumption; of course with the benefit of hindsight we now see the decrease in unemployment which has since been completely reversed and is now at its highest point I think since the Tom Yum Goong crisis.

One would expect that employment growth would be a key number to consider and that's been going down (although still positive) since around 2004.

And of course GDP growth; at the time of writing, NZ had just experienced 2 of what would be 5 quarters of contraction; not what most would describe as 'steady GDP growth'. In fact in terms of annual economic growth, the trend had been downward since 2000 when Labour took power; positive, but at a reducing rate before going negative as labour got voted out. And by quarter, there was not steady growth at all, rather a big drop in 2001 Sept 11; a big increase in 2002-2004 and then down again. Prior to 9-11 the NZD was at 40c to 1 USD having been in freefall since labour got into power..... 9-11 changed the perception that NZ was a safer place; NZ saw migration, investment in the cheap dollars and boomtimes came for a while...but that was despite labour and there is minimal evidence to suggest much proactive effort here; rather labour cancelled the previous campaign proposed promoting NZ and they ended up with the rather average 100% pure NZ; again a fluke in the making as LOTR came out not long after and helped push the campaign ahead for tourism plus the perception of being cheap and safe.

Savings schemes: I presume Economist believes that somehow Labour convinced NZers to stop frivolous spending and created savings schemes that did not exist previously with Kiwisaver, a scheme that right now has too many providers and some industry insiders believe will not break even for another 10 years; a scheme with I think 40% participation which is IMHO surprisingly high and quite interesting for that reason since in 1997 NZers overwhelmly rejected a compulsory superannuation savings scheme. Worthy of more than just a mention as a savings scheme I would have thought, but like so many things in NZ, you'll never read about them in the Economist when they can right about Bersusconi or someone else 'more worthy' Right now Kiwisaver is not guaranteed by the govt and there is a potential of a huge bailout in future should some of the providers collapse and voters need to be kept happy; it's not exactly cutting edge to implement a savings scheme with govt policy that forces employers to subsidise their worker's retirements, which is how Labour did it (yet another reason why the NZ economy is stuttering at the moment; so many ways to make the employer pay for everything). What Economist did not comment on is that a large number of NZers choose to buy property and Labour's inability to rein that in has led to the same issues occurring elsewhere in an economy that relies heavily on net migration to offset the 'brain drain' (also not mentioned by the economist); the world market and cheap credit to keep going; not some saving scheme.

'Labour was tainted by association. Clumsy legislation to make political-party funding more transparent appeared cynically self-serving. A law banning parents from hitting their children caused bitter division. Labour’s campaign theme of “trust” looked tired. Its attempt to link Mr Key with a 20-year-old shady foreign-exchange deal at a firm where he once worked looked desperate, and failed.'

This implies that it it was a coalition partner and lack of trust that drove NZers to vote out Labour. Actually, there are far more reasons than that. Mostly that more and more NZers were seeing that Labour was a useless government who had burdened the country with a high cost of state yet with diminished services; affluent people never liked labour from the get go since Labour first set up pointless bank operations (Kiwibank or whatever it was called run by Jim Anderton to provide affordable banking when in fact all the commercial banks just dumped their loser clients over to them); and didn't listen to them ignoring referendum results and doing deals for vaccines and the like without any real homework. Deliberately political grandstanding and image management rather than real work.

It does then point out these points in stating why national might have their work cut out for them, but in suggesting that Labour did a good job (by pointing out acheivements rather than listing for instance statistics that make NZ look bad such as rising crime stats or tax rates and by completely ignoring that NZ has had a few windfalls during the Labour years completely nothing to do with Labour, the Amcup; rugby world cup; lord of the rings; as well as of course benefiting from coming into power after the previous governments including labour had set up an economy that functioned efficiently and cost effectively - something Labour basically destroyed), they expose their bias and opinion because they don't clearly state most of the problems are a result of govt policy, just as the housing bubble stateside and situations like Madoff occurred from years of neglect and lack of regulation; the Economist gets it right for the big issues (housing bubble, etc) but seems to simply not bother for little markets and countries around the world - if I was them, I'd do the same, who cares about the ins and outs of a housing bubble in NZ???

'his amiable personality went down well in a lacklustre campaign.'

Actually, many people regard Key as a good man who is upfront and transparent, and Helen is a slick PR machine who will say and do anything and is a total control freak; so to describe what people liked as lacklustre is a word that many NZers would use interchangably for Key, Dunne, Clark, both parties - it is the quintessential word in NZ media and used whenever something else cannot be found. The campaign itself though? Not lacklustre; not much concrete in the policies but he was energetic, went and did the yards, and he won. To try to take this away from him with petty little comments like this combined with the praise for Clark? Hmmmmm bias and opinion (which is their right of course, as it is mine to disagree with them).

'NOT quite Obama v McCain. But New Zealand’s general election on November 8th also ushered in political change. '

Economist are tongue in cheek pointing out how small NZ is or trying to comment on the difference in political views between Key and Clark?

On balance, reading the article you would think Labour was the bees knees and national have their work cut out for them from external factors affecting the NZ economy.

Whereas many NZers would dispute that Labour squandered 8 years, made entrepreneurship impossible in NZ through excessive regulation, have not provided any long term benefits merely cashing in on a global boom and spending unsustainable surpluses, has not stopped the brain drain and while willingly getting the country into the business of running airlines and banks, at the same time spoke out against being involved in sporting events like the Amcup which is a huge industry for NZ and return on investment calculations suggest the industry to be far more profitable (just in PAYE tax of the employees of the syndicate) than some of the other schemes involved. And the voters - the majority who kicked labour and their dodgy coalition partner out (again a great story that we will never see in Economist, rather just the praise or Clark) - chose a new government on these terms - not helped by Clark supporting her lying partner Winston Peters and trying to push through a bunch of popularist measures to secure the vote at the end...in the end she was taking credit for something she didn't do, and we see the result now.

Of course, at the time, a more indepth reporter might have seen all of this; after all I don't live in NZ, I don't know the place that well but I can piece things together and there was ample local commentary to back up everything and more said above.

However, again, small country, long way away, so they do their best, and to someone with no real knowledge of the place, they would think as most do around the world, that Helen Clark was great, and like Australia, people only voted her out because they were bored. The reality is a bit different; some certainly did vote that way. Many did not.

That's about as simplistic as saying Australia II won the America's Cup due to the winged keel. Great reading. That's the popular line that most people believe.

As for Thailand.....well they use similar rhetoric to describe political situations the world over, so up to the reader to read enough then decide whether they agree or not.

To be honest, I think they have more idea on Thailand than NZ sometimes, as I recall their world fact book the last time I read it had some rather large factual errors in GDP, population etc for a couple of the smaller countries; typos most likely.

On balance still think they are great. Just don't believe everything.

As for NM, and all the other new age attempts to write, second rate writing (like mine) anywhere is fairly worthless. Some of what I've seen in NM fits that description. But not all, there are some very thoughtful people there; also as with anywhere, we don't all have to agree otherwise the world would be a pretty dull place.

But anyhow, just because it's in the Economist for me anyhow, I don't necessarily believe it is true, the example above shows why (I hope).

Edited October 22, 2009 by steveromagnino

[wayfarer108]

Walker/NM are laughable, IMO. I learn a lot more from Michael Connors/Sovereign Myth. And steve's right again, Crispin is the man for SE Asia, as far as resident correspondents go.

[hammered]

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.

As I say Jayboy it has improved recently and added a few new frontpagers. The time of the silly PASD for PAD and DFems except when.... seem to be over and Im sure you agree that it is for the better they are on a site which wants to be taken seriously . A forum based in Thailand has no choice but to be censored or self censord. NM isnt others are

[samran]

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?

[jayboy]

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.

[samran]

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?

Edited October 22, 2009 by samran

[sbk]

Lets remember to play nice, guys, there is no need to resort to name calling in order to make one's point.

[jayboy]

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).

[samran]

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).

hard to please arent you? Or maybe just a good debating technique? The other guy shows the evidence (ie ANU webpage, with ANU advertisments, the NM homepage saying they are hosted by ANU and links to PDF files where they say they've writting 1200 or so articles for NM - presumably on ANU's time) and you give the old 'this doesn't advance your case'....Thats first year debating technique 101 isn't it?

Well, I don't really have 'a case' apart from the contention that NM was sponsored by ANU...which it is...and which you took disproportionate offence to. Dunno why it was such a big deal that I pointed out that 'fact'...yes fact. I actually have no beef with ANU, it is a great school, have done a few subjects there myself, and quite like the place, though 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.

As for my work....I'm not looking for TV punter approval or credibility on that front. Otherwise I'd avertise here. My opinion is my own, and those of the clients who pay me and the firm I work for the advice I give them. And so far...it pays the bills. They keep coming back, and that is all that matters to me.

Anyway, lets see. I'll sit down with Stevo next week over a coffee (hey steve...you've got a fan in JB) and I'll figure out a way to write in 20,000 words or more why I am always dissapointed when I read the economist coverage of SE Asia and the Pacific and why I get the impression that NM is a pro-thaksin website, despite the fact that both these points are self evident in mine, and many other peoples eyes.

Edited October 22, 2009 by samran

[jayboy]

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.

[samran]

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.

there was no crux...

the economist is shallow and i am not a yellow...(geez I rhyme good).

ANU sponsors the site and NM, in my book, is far from balanced, which is what I though academics were supposed to be. I guess not.

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. Remember, first impressions count. The first half dozen impressions of the site were enough for me to make my conclusion. Or should I have known they are taking the Oprah route...sleazy tabloid stuff to begin with, before they flick the switch to "worthiness"?

As for the comment about the Thai people suddenly awaking to the fact that most of their elected leaders don't representative...since when has that been news? Are you implying NM is somehow responsible for that enlightenment?

Edited October 22, 2009 by samran

[jayboy]

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.

[samran]

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.

you are right..I am an intellectual lightweight. Like to swim at the shallow end of the brain pool. Tooooo stoopid with a short attention span. Maybe I'll wait to do my Phd on it....and find the time then to parse a web blog..

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.

Edited October 22, 2009 by samran

[rixalex]

Not much point in responding to this silliness if the author thinks NM is sponsored by ANU

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

Still interested to know what Mr Jayboy calls it...

[samran]

Not much point in responding to this silliness if the author thinks NM is sponsored by ANU

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

Still interested to know what Mr Jayboy calls it...

that is apparently not relevant now old chum.....

he asks the questions, but doesn't answer them. Can't expect an intellecutual superior to stoop to our level now can we?

[rixalex]

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?

[jayboy]

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.

[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.