Thaksin Condemns Times Online For False Reporting

[Asa]

And that is the problem with the Democrat Party - they play political games as if it were the Thailand of the early 90's

I didn't read the 12 pages yet but there is half a page on the times which for sure will upset everyone in Thailand

LOL, Yes, 'Duh'.. Of course EVERYONE in their right mind is offended by the short article; Heck, Thaksin himself was exceptionally upset about it.

Why do you even bother to comment without reading what the man had to say? There was the obvious political talk intended to make him look good and his opponents bad, but this was probably one of the most insightful interviews related to Thailand that I've ever seen.

Mr. Thaksin was asked clearly leading questions about the monarchy, but he defended His Majesty and the Crown Prince fiercely, patiently and politely. (While aiming arrows at the usual people that are also agitated against at every single red shirt stage event.)

Never mind if you love or loathe Thaksin, it's an interesting read.

I could not agree more with Winnie. I read through the whole 12 pages, there was not a lese majeste case in the interview. Abhisit and his liuetenants know it, but act on the opportunity to take advantages. Why Thaksin is upset, I don't know.

[hammered]

Thaivisa.com may even come closest to an actual discussion, even though there's a lot of polarization here as well.

That is why TV remains my English Language personal favorite. It is never too good an idea to only hear what those with similar opinions to your own say imho and on TV you get all kind from true believers to soft supporters, doubters, curse on all their houses people and the completely drunk

[trogers]

It isn't: He was wrong to call it a lie, assuming that this was indeed the exact English word he used. He should have said 'distortion' 'out of context' 'misleading', 'unacceptable'. Which was pretty much what I read in his Thai language statement; he said he "felt saddened that his words were distorted." You have to be very careful with English language press and statements in Thailand; communication depends on taking a lot of care in analyzing what someone iis really trying to say. Sadely this doesn't happen enough, on BOTH sides in the current highly polarized climate.

I find it very difficult to have a political discussion with people on both sides.

I don't think I can quote Thai language in this forum, but it's on Thaksin's Twitter messages and probably other sources as well.

Hmmm...claiming miscommunication due to English? And he managed to defend his PhD thesis in front of a panel of his peers from USA?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I could not agree more with Winnie. I read through the whole 12 pages, there was not a lese majeste case in the interview. Abhisit and his liuetenants know it, but act on the opportunity to take advantages. Why Thaksin is upset, I don't know.

!! I don't know of any Thai who wouldn't be seething with rage at being misrepresented on a topic of such reverence !

'Upset' doesn't begin to describe it.

I feel a sense of shame myself at that piece of work from a generally respected Western news source. (No argument with the full interview, but with the article) All of this may very well get deflected towards 'the western press', and it wouldn't even be totally unjustified.

If I read Abhisit correctly, he asked both Thaksin AND the Times to clarify. That was a good response. Others in his government again went off the deep end, calling for Thaksin to be beheaded.

[ff978472]

Thailand's Thaksin in Cambodia: AFP photographer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091110/wl_as...diplomacyarrive

[jayboy]

the awakened Thai people

Were they genuinely awakened or were they simply duped into believing that a politician cared about them?

I think that the two positions you define are consistent with each other, in other words that Thaksin formulated policies for electoral advantage (but isn't what all politicians do?) and at the same time the Thai majority was politicised.The question whether the Thai people was duped by Thaksin is an interesting one.In a recent collection of essays the distinguished Australian economist,Peter Warr, convincingly makes the case that the impact Thaksin's populist policies was at best neutral.I suppose in some ways the perception is more important than some cost benefit analysis of populist measures.He seemed to offer the rural majority self-respect .

In a sense Thaksin doesn't matter now (sounds strange I know in light of current events !) but before long he will be gone.Enoch Powell once said all political careers end in failure and he was right.Personally Thaksin is not admirable and in my view the verdict of history will be that he was not a great man (like Pridi for example) but an important catalyst.There is in Thailand a particularly reactionary and self serving elite - now terrified and perhaps dangerous at the prospect of change - and it was a strange irony that someone like Thaksin was given the role of fighting for democracy.But history is full of such ironies.

The one permanent result is that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored, patronised and overlooked.

Edited November 10, 2009 by jayboy

[Samuian]

His reaction calling parts of the article"blank lies" he must remember his "honest mistakes"!

The Times then publishing the full transcript speaks volumes!

As he is known to sue for xxx millions, the times will have the audio tape for further proof!

bulls eye!

He has blown it, getting more desperate, out and over!

[Wolfie]

<snip>and the completely drunk

Guilty as charged Mi'Lord

[Bagwan]

The Times is much more than just another newspaper. Just like the BBC it is a British institution and given to honest reporting. 'The Thunderer' has an enviable reputation built up over more than two centuries. It is the newspaper of choice of The Establishment and not given to sensationalism. As Jack Webb used to say in 'Dragnet', "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts". I would not be surprised if the Editor in Chief consulted with the SEAsian desk at the Foreign Office before publication of this story given that the UK would not want to see itself cast as stirring already troubled waters. That said, The Times vs Thaksin? No contest.

Some have said that Thaksin's English may not be the best - but, I suggest, good enough to get a Ph.D, or was the entire procedure conducted in Thai? I understand that in Texas the vernacular language is something similar to English.

It seems to me that Thaksin is blundering around and sorely missing Potjaman's guiding hand thus underlining who had the brains in that duo.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Bagwan

[scorecard]

the awakened Thai people

Were they genuinely awakened or were they simply duped into believing that a politician cared about them?

I think that the two positions you define are consistent with each other, in other words that Thaksin formulated policies for electoral advantage (but isn't what all politicians do?) and at the same time the Thai majority was politicised.The question whether the Thai people was duped by Thaksin is an interesting one.In a recent collection of essays the distinguished Australian economist,Peter Warr, convincingly makes the case that the impact Thaksin's populist policies was at best neutral.I suppose in some ways the perception is more important than some cost benefit analysis of populist measures.He seemed to offer the rural majority self-respect .

In a sense Thaksin doesn't matter now (sounds strange I know in light of current events !) but before long he will be gone.Enoch Powell once said all political careers end in failure and he was right.Personally Thaksin is not admirable and in my view the verdict of history will be that he was not a great man (like Pridi for example) but an important catalyst.There is in Thailand a particularly reactionary and self serving elite - now terrified and perhaps dangerous at the prospect of change - and it was a strange irony that someone like Thaksin was given the role of fighting for democracy.But history is full of such ironies.

The one permanent result is that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored, patronised and overlooked.

I wonder what you mean:

1. By your line "...it was a strange irony that someone like Thaksin was given the role of fighting for democracy...."

Thaksin of very recent times claims he's the champion of democracy. However during his reign he made several specific anti-democracy comments:

- "I'm not interested in democracy for Thailand"

- "Democracy is not important for Thailand"

Plus he intimidated the judiciary. Hardly the actions one would expect from a person seriously devoted to the building and maintaining of solid democracy.

Plus he solidly intimidated the media, both Thai and foreign, hardly the actions one would expect from a person seriously devoted to the building and maintaining of solid democracy.

Plus he oversaw the planned assassination of 2,500 Thais. Again, hardly the actions one would expect from a person seriously devoted to the building and maintaining of solid democracy.

Plus he bought the Election Commisioners (who were convicted and served time), again, hardly the actions one would expect from a person devoted to the building and maintaining of solid democracy.

2. By your line "...There is in Thailand a particularly reactionary and self serving elite ..." The words elite / elites, are currently bandied around quite a lot, and I doubt that anybody has a really clear understanding of what the words specifically mean.

I also wonder whether the words are just a manifestation of a PR ploy cleverly developed by Thaksin's PR machine. He and his minions have admitted that they use a high profile US based PR/lobbyist firm. I've seen the work of this 'industry' before. They can be very very clever at creating smoke screens. They can turn black into white.

[rixalex]

I could not agree more with Winnie. I read through the whole 12 pages, there was not a lese majeste case in the interview. Abhisit and his liuetenants know it, but act on the opportunity to take advantages. Why Thaksin is upset, I don't know.

Whether there be an LM case in it or not, the fact that Thaksin rushed to try and distance himself from it tells you that it is sensitive stuff. The banning of the article seems if anything to be doing Thaksin a favour. If Abhisit wanted to take advantage surely the thing to do would be to have the full transcipt translated into Thai and available for Thai people to read.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The Times is much more than just another newspaper. Just like the BBC it is a British institution and given to honest reporting. 'The Thunderer' has an enviable reputation built up over more than two centuries. It is the newspaper of choice of The Establishment and not given to sensationalism. As Jack Webb used to say in 'Dragnet', "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts". I would not be surprised if the Editor in Chief consulted with the SEAsian desk at the Foreign Office before publication of this story given that the UK would not want to see itself cast as stirring already troubled waters. That said, The Times vs Thaksin? No contest.

Some have said that Thaksin's English may not be the best - but, I suggest, good enough to get a Ph.D, or was the entire procedure conducted in Thai? I understand that in Texas the vernacular language is something similar to English.

I don't really understand.. The transcript is out there and it clearly doesn't match the article...

So you can come to a conclusion just based on those two objective things out there, never mind what Thaksin said or claims he said.

So I'm not asking you to buy into Thaksin's response, I'm asking you if you think that the article is a good summary or representation of the interview transcript.

I think the Times has taken a good first step by making the transcript available, but a required second step would be a statement if they do or don't stand by their article, adn why (not).

Edited November 10, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[george]

Update:

Thaksin will be taken legal actions against over his interview: Suthep

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said Tuesday that government agencies concerned are considering legal actions against fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra related to his controversial interview with Times Online.

Suthep said Thaksin's interview hurt the feelings of Thais because he violated the monarchy.

"I believe Thai people could not tolerate with this," Suthep said.

He said the government would issue an explanation regarding to this to foreign media.

-- The Nation 2009-11-10

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I could not agree more with Winnie. I read through the whole 12 pages, there was not a lese majeste case in the interview. Abhisit and his liuetenants know it, but act on the opportunity to take advantages. Why Thaksin is upset, I don't know.

Whether there be an LM case in it or not, the fact that Thaksin rushed to try and distance himself from it tells you that it is sensitive stuff. The banning of the article seems if anything to be doing Thaksin a favour. If Abhisit wanted to take advantage surely the thing to do would be to have the full transcipt translated into Thai and available for Thai people to read.

Agreed. If I was Thaksin I would be considering to file an LM charge myself against the paper. (Note that fortunately I am not Thaksin, and that I would not file LM charges against anyone, unless there is absolutely no doubt there is clear malicious intent, and if LM laws were a little less draconian. I don't think this is the case with the Times.

[otherstuff1957]

Interestingly enough, the original story is blocked, but the full transcript is not. Quite frankly, the Govt. shot itself in the foot there, as they so often do. I didn't read the article before it was blocked, but the full transcript, while being a much franker discussion than is publically allowed, doesn't look overtly anti-royal to me.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Update:

Thaksin will be taken legal actions against over his interview: Suthep

He said the government would issue an explanation regarding to this to foreign media.

I can't wait to read that. They'll have a tough time explaning why someone should go to jail for, say, 12 years, based on the Interview transcript. If they try, Thaksin will be strengthened in his claim that charges are politically motivated.

See, it's very hard for either party to explain corruption charges to an international audience.. It quickly gets into the specifics of Thai tax and property laws, that nobody really understands.

However, a charge based on a public, 12 page interview transcript is something any Western journalist can understand and communicate in 10 minutes.

And, if they do try, then the entire Red movement is guilty of the same, so are they going to send all of them to jail? (Not saying they won't; that's the path the country seems to be on.)

Edited November 10, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[mrtoad]

Interestingly enough, the original story is blocked, but the full transcript is not. Quite frankly, the Govt. shot itself in the foot there, as they so often do. I didn't read the article before it was blocked, but the full transcript, while being a much franker discussion than is publically allowed, doesn't look overtly anti-royal to me.

Agreed, but as soon as I read it - I knew that he was going to take some serious flack. To be honest Thaksin should by now, know better and should not have been so candid about it. For anyone that has spent anytime in Thailand, it's pretty clear that the whole issue is sensitive and that an LM case can easily be bought against someone on the slightest point. Love to put a few more points in, but I don't want to sail to close to overstep the mark.

Edited November 10, 2009 by mrtoad

[Thai at Heart]

Update:

Thaksin will be taken legal actions against over his interview: Suthep

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said Tuesday that government agencies concerned are considering legal actions against fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra related to his controversial interview with Times Online.

Suthep said Thaksin's interview hurt the feelings of Thais because he violated the monarchy.

"I believe Thai people could not tolerate with this," Suthep said.

He said the government would issue an explanation regarding to this to foreign media.

-- The Nation 2009-11-10

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

I think he should think very hard as to whether this makes a LM case, and whether or not it is truly, and I mean truly in the public interest to lodge such a case. Having him overseas escaping a corruption case is one thing that people can understand.

To the western world who don't understand how sensitive an issue LM actually is, they will probably see such a case concerning this article as very political which will in the long run only serve to help Thaksin in his quest to explain to the world that all the cases against him are politically motivated. It might not appear that it is that important globally whether he is charged or not, but you can imagine that the next time Abhisit is faced with questions from the international media he will have to explain over and over again why Thaksin has committed LM.

I can just imagine the ridiculous situation where freedom of speech activists domestic and foreign will have to defend the statements of a convicted felon and a person who in no way defended freedom of the press. If nothing else, this case might at least spark some debate about the LM laws, although I won't hold my breath.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[steveromagnino]

I wonder what you mean:

1. By your line "...it was a strange irony that someone like Thaksin was given the role of fighting for democracy...."

I think that's the irony; that someone who so clearly had no faith in the democratic system should be the one pushing so hard to get people talking about democracy - given all the points you name.

Personally, I think the guy was a one shot pony and managed to produce maximum 2 years of his time in power that were even close to any good; the rest of the time he basically did nothing.

I've yet to see any real tangible benefits other than freebies going to the rural poor, and a lot of the dependence on government inflated prices; subsidies and funds/debt forgiveness has made them MORE dependent on the state, not less. At the same time, the FTAs signed and the refusal to upgrade telcoms and IT or infrastructure has seen Thailand sacrificing agricultural medium value business (e.g. growing garlic/ginger/asparagus type products, which are now basically Chinese thanks to the FTA) in return for car parts, telco, sattellite etc deregulation in those markets; all of which have the so called elite business families involved. No improvements in education, press freedoms etc.

Jayboy - I've seen NESDB data directly that said the village fund was a dud mostly, but I am not sure which Peter Warr article you are referring to and it sounds like the scope is greater. It sounds very interesting; the guy writes some good stuff - the article of poverty reduction I think from 2008; can you reference for me as I'd like to read?

Incidentally, Thaksin is not alone when he is doing these interviews; there are his lobby/PR consultants briefing him; my guess is they have made some judgement call on the angle to take and perhaps expected a softer touch than this; the Economist and a few other publications tend to usually fall on the side of democratically elected leaders as we already discussed in another thread; so perhaps they misread slightly what the take out would be from the article.

This would not be the first miscalculation; Jakapop, choosing Samak, running the country so badly after forming the PPP coalition, stamping down on the PAD, the Songkran riots and trying to destroy ASEAN then pretending not to have done that; the outlandish claims of the slaughters which have never been in any way indicated to be true by any reputable source including doctors, hospitals, army, police, rescue workers, grass roots red shirters........ a battle plan is usually never perfect but man he has played the cards he had back in 2007 so badly. If he just had done the time, he'd be 3 years away from being in with a shot to play politics again.

Not that I have much to do with media, but a few of the people who know some of the interviewers have told me that the key journalists in the region are getting frustrated more and more by what they see as a twit who won't leave or face justice. They are apparently almost equally frustrated as to why the current democratically elected government don't just pull finger a bit more and deliver economic benefits at a faster rate, so that Thaksin simply becomes irrelevant.

I think that may be happening, but at a slower rate.

[jayboy]

The words elite / elites, are currently bandied around quite a lot, and I doubt that anybody has a really clear understanding of what the words specifically mean.

I also wonder whether the words are just a manifestation of a PR ploy cleverly developed by Thaksin's PR machine. He and his minions have admitted that they use a high profile US based PR/lobbyist firm. I've seen the work of this 'industry' before. They can be very very clever at creating smoke screens. They can turn black into white.

If you read my post rather more carefully you will see that nothing of what I say is inconsistent with your remarks, except for the part I have quoted where you descend into silliness I'm afraid.

By that I mean you seem to be questioning the existence of a ruling elite, to the point you suggest it's dreamed up by Thaksin's PR machine.Yeah, sure !!

[hammered]

I wouldnt advise anyone to discuss this too deeply which means this thread wont really go anywhere.

By the way, for those that arent aware the full transcript was put up by the times long before Thaksin's statement and wasnt a repsonse to it. They obviously anticipated a challenge to their story. Both story and transcript were posted by the same journo.

[TAWP]

From Times:

Mr Thaksin issued a statement saying that The Times’s report was “distorted” and “untrue”. The text of the interview, posted on Times Online, matches the recording of the conversation and was transcribed by a press representative of Mr Thaksin.

And I also think it is just a show that any parts of his interview would fall under LM.

I don't think LM covers irony. (Or dishonest praise.) It has to be overt with malintent.

[Samuian]

The words elite / elites, are currently bandied around quite a lot, and I doubt that anybody has a really clear understanding of what the words specifically mean.

I also wonder whether the words are just a manifestation of a PR ploy cleverly developed by Thaksin's PR machine. He and his minions have admitted that they use a high profile US based PR/lobbyist firm. I've seen the work of this 'industry' before. They can be very very clever at creating smoke screens. They can turn black into white.

If you read my post rather more carefully you will see that nothing of what I say is inconsistent with your remarks, except for the part I have quoted where you descend into silliness I'm afraid.

By that I mean you seem to be questioning the existence of a ruling elite, to the point you suggest it's dreamed up by Thaksin's PR machine.Yeah, sure !!

Reads like a response from HIS PR team!

Everyone else, no matter what the statement says is just plain "silly" after all, at least the statement, what a cheap

"argumentum ad persona"!

It valued and true because "You said it"... I have to remember this for the next argumentation.

[mrtoad]

I wouldnt advise anyone to discuss this too deeply which means this thread wont really go anywhere.

By the way, for those that arent aware the full transcript was put up by the times long before Thaksin's statement and wasnt a repsonse to it. They obviously anticipated a challenge to their story. Both story and transcript were posted by the same journo.

Well the "Dear Leader" does have some history with challenging the press if he doesn't think that it shows him "shining", so I am sure a respected newspaper like The Times knew very well that he would try and deny or distance himself, if it wasn't to his liking.

[LawnGnome]

the awakened Thai people

Were they genuinely awakened or were they simply duped into believing that a politician cared about them?

I think that the two positions you define are consistent with each other, in other words that Thaksin formulated policies for electoral advantage (but isn't what all politicians do?) and at the same time the Thai majority was politicised.The question whether the Thai people was duped by Thaksin is an interesting one.In a recent collection of essays the distinguished Australian economist,Peter Warr, convincingly makes the case that the impact Thaksin's populist policies was at best neutral.I suppose in some ways the perception is more important than some cost benefit analysis of populist measures.He seemed to offer the rural majority self-respect .

In a sense Thaksin doesn't matter now (sounds strange I know in light of current events !) but before long he will be gone.Enoch Powell once said all political careers end in failure and he was right.Personally Thaksin is not admirable and in my view the verdict of history will be that he was not a great man (like Pridi for example) but an important catalyst.There is in Thailand a particularly reactionary and self serving elite - now terrified and perhaps dangerous at the prospect of change - and it was a strange irony that someone like Thaksin was given the role of fighting for democracy.But history is full of such ironies.

The one permanent result is that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored, patronised and overlooked.

I find myself agreeing with Jayboy. This can't be good!

If only Thaksin were to take a trek in the forest and step on an unexploded landmine, we would all be rid of a huge problem, and his offing would serve as a valuable reminder about the daily deaths old unexploded ordinance still causes.

Edited November 10, 2009 by LawnGnome

[Golf]

It depends on the "view" of individuals, I guess. Some say he and Times did not say anything lese majeste. Someone else also say he intended to do so and so on. The fact is what he said in the interview created interests and controversy. That's exactly what he wants. But he may crossed the line about the King and that's why he trow the hot potato to the Times.

His days are numbered, and he has to do everything, desperately, to create a final showdown. Otherwise, his gargantuan assets will be seized and that means he won't be able to rock the boat outside Thailand for a long time.

It is just one of many Taksin tactics so Thailand cannot be at ease, unless he rules again.

Golf

[hammered]

Apparently Jatuporn has claimed that what he describes as the distortion of Thaksin's words were deliberatley planned. Guess the Abhisit government now controls western media just like Thaksin used to a few months ago.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

I wouldnt advise anyone to discuss this too deeply which means this thread wont really go anywhere.

By the way, for those that arent aware the full transcript was put up by the times long before Thaksin's statement and wasnt a repsonse to it. They obviously anticipated a challenge to their story. Both story and transcript were posted by the same journo.

I think I dispute that. I was aware of the link some time before it became a topic on this forum; I know the transcript wasn't up because in discussing the topic I did not want to post a direct link, but rather the instruction to search the Timesonline site. In doing so, all recent stories involving Thaksin came up, and initially only the article link came up, then the transcript was added later.

I'm not sure that this matters though; clearly the Timesonline realized the controversy that was caused, so they did the right thing in putting the full transcript up. I cannot fault them for doing that, no matter if they did it at the same time or after the original article.

[hammered]

I wouldnt advise anyone to discuss this too deeply which means this thread wont really go anywhere.

By the way, for those that arent aware the full transcript was put up by the times long before Thaksin's statement and wasnt a repsonse to it. They obviously anticipated a challenge to their story. Both story and transcript were posted by the same journo.

I think I dispute that. I was aware of the link some time before it became a topic on this forum; I know the transcript wasn't up because in discussing the topic I did not want to post a direct link, but rather the instruction to search the Timesonline site. In doing so, all recent stories involving Thaksin came up, and initially only the article link came up, then the transcript was added later.

I'm not sure that this matters though; clearly the Timesonline realized the controversy that was caused, so they did the right thing in putting the full transcript up. I cannot fault them for doing that, no matter if they did it at the same time or after the original article.

Thai time I read the full transcript yesterday morning before even reading the artcicle which was a position lower down the page of the journalist as it had been put up first. The Thaksin comment came out in the afternoon after the article and the transcript.

Edited to add: I also persoanlly wouldnt go so far as second guessing the Times on their motivation for putting up the transcript. Newspapers do not usually mind controversy indeed that is what sells them. They do however, like to make sure the information they base their stories on is out there especially if they suspect the story may be challenged.

Edited November 10, 2009 by hammered

[Rideau]

Hi WinnieTheKwai,

Thaksin had better sue The Times for its seriously false reporting. Don't you think so?