Nobel Laureate Sen Faults Western Media Coverage Of Thai Unrest

[webfact]

NOBEL LAUREATE

Sen faults western media coverage of unrest

By Thanong Khanthong

Professor Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate in economics, said there was a "gross oversimplification" in the way international media reported the Thai conflict as a class war between the rich and the poor.

Speaking to reporters after his lecture on Peace, Violence and Development in Modern Societies at the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Sen did not offer a cause for the Thai conflict and violence, or recommend remedies for the complex situation.

He said he was sceptical about the international media - such as the BBC, CNN and even the New York Times - over its reporting of the Thai disturbances.

"The BBC, CNN and even the New York Times reporting certainly does not help when it describes the conflict as a class war between rich and poor. It's a gross oversimplification," he said.

Sen said he did not know enough about Thailand to describe or explain its troubles as a class war. But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said.

Sen has been a frequent visitor to Thailand. He said he loves this country and is aware of the political crisis going on - the upheavals in April and May with their heavy casualties and deep-running struggle for power.

Asked about the justification of using armed forces to quell protesters, Sen said bringing in the military to tackle riots must be done in extraordinary situations. Even in India, he said, sometimes it is necessary to use the military to deal with riots, which get out of control.

The military are there to be used both for handling external threats and also for subduing domestic riots, he said.

Sen disagreed with any attempt to view human insecurity or violence from a one-dimensional approach. He disproves the thesis of Samuel Huntington, author of "Clash of Civilisations", who views the global conflict as a religious war or a cultural clash.

Sen said many elements are at play at the same time within human beings or plural identities.

He cited an example of a district in Germany, which had the highest incidence of community cooperation and shared responsibility. "But people in this district also throw bricks at immigrants," he said. "So what is good in a community might not be good for others from the outside," he said.

In spite of its economic progress, the world appeared to be tilting towards more violence and less human security. Sen said although economic growth had reduced poverty and increased opportunity, there was no guarantee we would enjoy peace. For instance, there are the new security threats of terrorism and epidemics.

"We should not be surprised that not every good thing leads to another good thing," he said.

-- The Nation 2010-07-21

[dom samui]

''Sen said he did not know enough about Thailand to describe or explain its troubles as a class war.''

''He said he loves this country and is aware of the political crisis going on.''

Amen

[geriatrickid]

I believe that the professor is guilty of an oversimplification himself. The foreign media he cited, did not label the events as a class struggle. Yes, some reports highlighted that there were significant socio economic differences between the two opposing sides, but that's about it. They did discuss motives on both sides of the conflict.Perhaps the gentleman has allowed his own bias to colour his perception. He is an intelligent and remarkable individual, but his time at Cambridge is showing. His specialty is welfare economics, and I do not doubt his expertise in that area. However, his views as to the origins of conflict are outdated, much as the once worshipped Alan Greenspan's views on free market self regulation were proven outdated during the recent financial market crisis. This is not Dhaka, Bangladesh circa 1955.It is unpleasant for many people including the professor to accept that the origins of conflict are the battle over scarces resources. India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources. Thailand and Cambodia's conflict is motivated in part by land and watersheds, but mostly over lucrative energy claims. Wars in Africa are fought over access to mineral wealth, and on and on it goes. Neither side in the Thai conflict wants to admit to it, but one of the driving forces was the fight over access to the trough of wealth that comes with political power. It is not politically correct to say that. Corruption drives almost all conflicts in Thailand, and mentioning corruption to someone like the professor just won't do.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Thanks for that analysis.

I would only add that the BBC's overall Leftist slant makes them an easy target for attacks, whether they have been guilty of bias in a particular instance or not.

[hyperdimension]

But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said.

He should have said "the richest Thai man outside the country", and add that this man fled to escape numerous corruption charges and is now wanted for terrorism.

He should have at least mentioned corruption to add to his argument that it's not just a simple "class war".

Edited July 21, 2010 by hyperdimension

[Samuian]

Well, it's not oracle, neither a miracle, makes me aware to take EVERYTHING reported by the mainstream media, with a pinch of salt...

Main stream media seems to rest it's "head" comfortably on the cushion of being widely accepted for "honest" reporting and well paid jobs, no matter what!

Opens up the question: "where is this going to end?" if Reporters, Journo's and their Editors not to double check, to try to confirm certain stories truth, their base, the way it has reached the news desk's, if the information received should be distributed to the public, via the media they are working for... will this finally cause the death of main stream media by the internet's free media, like forums, div. blogs, twitter and the many social networks....?

[Thai at Heart]

So that makes it all ok then.

How about,

"Nobel Laureate finds fault with Army intervention in Thai politics"

"Nobel Laureate finds fault with rich poor gap in Thailand"

"Nobel Laureate finds fault with Red/Yellow lack of political ethos"

"Nobel Laureate finds fault with Democrat /Bhumjaithai/PTP corruption"

"Nobel Laureate finds fault with .............

Shooting the messenger is always a wonderful pastime in Thailand, and us poor farangs couldn't possibly understand the subject. But then even the local media fail to handle the ENTIRE subject anyway.

[asawant03]

I believe that the professor is guilty of an oversimplification himself. The foreign media he cited, did not label the events as a class struggle. Yes, some reports highlighted that there were significant socio economic differences between the two opposing sides, but that's about it. They did discuss motives on both sides of the conflict.Perhaps the gentleman has allowed his own bias to colour his perception. He is an intelligent and remarkable individual, but his time at Cambridge is showing. His specialty is welfare economics, and I do not doubt his expertise in that area. However, his views as to the origins of conflict are outdated, much as the once worshipped Alan Greenspan's views on free market self regulation were proven outdated during the recent financial market crisis. This is not Dhaka, Bangladesh circa 1955.It is unpleasant for many people including the professor to accept that the origins of conflict are the battle over scarces resources. India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources. Thailand and Cambodia's conflict is motivated in part by land and watersheds, but mostly over lucrative energy claims. Wars in Africa are fought over access to mineral wealth, and on and on it goes. Neither side in the Thai conflict wants to admit to it, but one of the driving forces was the fight over access to the trough of wealth that comes with political power. It is not politically correct to say that. Corruption drives almost all conflicts in Thailand, and mentioning corruption to someone like the professor just won't do.

[bajajvivek]

he does makes sense when he says

"But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said."

If it wouldn't had been for Mr T's money, was it possible what all happened? Most media reports especially some very big names did report it as a struggle between rich and the poor. That's what everyone who was outside Thailand hear. That's what was fed to the international community. We living in Thailand did had more details but not the outsiders.

I believe that the professor is guilty of an oversimplification himself. The foreign media he cited, did not label the events as a class struggle. Yes, some reports highlighted that there were significant socio economic differences between the two opposing sides, but that's about it. They did discuss motives on both sides of the conflict.Perhaps the gentleman has allowed his own bias to colour his perception. He is an intelligent and remarkable individual, but his time at Cambridge is showing. His specialty is welfare economics, and I do not doubt his expertise in that area. However, his views as to the origins of conflict are outdated, much as the once worshipped Alan Greenspan's views on free market self regulation were proven outdated during the recent financial market crisis. This is not Dhaka, Bangladesh circa 1955.It is unpleasant for many people including the professor to accept that the origins of conflict are the battle over scarces resources. India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources. Thailand and Cambodia's conflict is motivated in part by land and watersheds, but mostly over lucrative energy claims. Wars in Africa are fought over access to mineral wealth, and on and on it goes. Neither side in the Thai conflict wants to admit to it, but one of the driving forces was the fight over access to the trough of wealth that comes with political power. It is not politically correct to say that. Corruption drives almost all conflicts in Thailand, and mentioning corruption to someone like the professor just won't do.

[Samuian]

he does makes sense when he says

"But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said."

If it wouldn't had been for Mr T's money, was it possible what all happened? Most media reports especially some very big names did report it as a struggle between rich and the poor. That's what everyone who was outside Thailand hear. That's what was fed to the international community. We living in Thailand did had more details but not the outsiders.

I believe that the professor is guilty of an oversimplification himself. The foreign media he cited, did not label the events as a class struggle. Yes, some reports highlighted that there were significant socio economic differences between the two opposing sides, but that's about it. They did discuss motives on both sides of the conflict.Perhaps the gentleman has allowed his own bias to colour his perception. He is an intelligent and remarkable individual, but his time at Cambridge is showing. His specialty is welfare economics, and I do not doubt his expertise in that area. However, his views as to the origins of conflict are outdated, much as the once worshipped Alan Greenspan's views on free market self regulation were proven outdated during the recent financial market crisis. This is not Dhaka, Bangladesh circa 1955.It is unpleasant for many people including the professor to accept that the origins of conflict are the battle over scarces resources. India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources. Thailand and Cambodia's conflict is motivated in part by land and watersheds, but mostly over lucrative energy claims. Wars in Africa are fought over access to mineral wealth, and on and on it goes. Neither side in the Thai conflict wants to admit to it, but one of the driving forces was the fight over access to the trough of wealth that comes with political power. It is not politically correct to say that. Corruption drives almost all conflicts in Thailand, and mentioning corruption to someone like the professor just won't do.

.... good point,the very essence of the invented "Struggle poor against rich" comedy... by director T.S.

There is a Interview with Kasit... pointing in the same direction, why people, even so called "observers" fail to see the actual background of this whole, entirely instigated farce?

There are many incentives on the desks now, and are being implemented, right, now but a fact is that there will ALWAYS, globally be a "gap between rich and poor, between have's and have not's and this fact makes it easy to find something and pick on it rhetorically ...

[Hannibal]

I completely agree with Sen,

"He said he was sceptical about the international media - such as the BBC, CNN and even the New York Times - over its reporting of the Thai disturbances.

"The BBC, CNN and even the New York Times reporting certainly does not help when it describes the conflict as a class war between rich and poor. It's a gross oversimplification," he said."

I don't think as one poster said, that the BBC can get away with their disastrous reporting on the grounds that they are generally a left leaning organisation. They still need to follow a professional and objective path to accurate reporting whatever their inherent bent or bias.

Those reporting fro CNN were just as bad - as though the conflict could be simplified as a class war between rich and poor people. Many of the leaders were not poor at all and there were many reports that Jatuporn bought a huge chunk of land just before he gave himself up. I wonder where that money came from? Not really rocket science is it?

And Sen is absolutely right when he talks about Thaksin leading a war while representing poor people. What pray has that man got in common with the downtrodden masses?

There was an interesting blog about it here with an interesting exchange of views - http://www.ajarn.com...or-broken-news/

There were many threads on Facebook, too. A lot of people, farang and Thai, were very disappointed with the overall coverage and I think they were right to be. Newspapers love to make up David and Goliath stories and appeal to the masses in a simplified way.

H

[bajajvivek]

"India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources."

this is not true, i can assure you that.

I believe that the professor is guilty of an oversimplification himself. The foreign media he cited, did not label the events as a class struggle. Yes, some reports highlighted that there were significant socio economic differences between the two opposing sides, but that's about it. They did discuss motives on both sides of the conflict.Perhaps the gentleman has allowed his own bias to colour his perception. He is an intelligent and remarkable individual, but his time at Cambridge is showing. His specialty is welfare economics, and I do not doubt his expertise in that area. However, his views as to the origins of conflict are outdated, much as the once worshipped Alan Greenspan's views on free market self regulation were proven outdated during the recent financial market crisis. This is not Dhaka, Bangladesh circa 1955.It is unpleasant for many people including the professor to accept that the origins of conflict are the battle over scarces resources. India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources. Thailand and Cambodia's conflict is motivated in part by land and watersheds, but mostly over lucrative energy claims. Wars in Africa are fought over access to mineral wealth, and on and on it goes. Neither side in the Thai conflict wants to admit to it, but one of the driving forces was the fight over access to the trough of wealth that comes with political power. It is not politically correct to say that. Corruption drives almost all conflicts in Thailand, and mentioning corruption to someone like the professor just won't do.

[asawant03]

I think, there are some wrong notions about some of the international conflicts - and I am sure, every one of us have some or the other opinion which is mostly based on what we read in the newpapers, what we watch on TV and when some of us have friends who keep on sharing their views.<BR><BR>I just want to correct  what you all think about India and Pakistan conflict. The conflict has nothing to do with water sharing. India and Pakistan were given freedom by the British Govt in 1947. At that time, Kashmir though was part of India, the Hindu king wanted it to remain a sovereign state and Indian Govt agreed to it. This was a major mistake by the then Indian politicians including Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru. One of the reasons of Gandhi's death was due to his stupidity. He took his non-violence doctrine too far and thought that whole world will follow it. Pakistan and its politicians knew that Kashmir has lot of wealth in its land and main crop was what is known as Afim. This is used to produce not only certain medicinal drugs but is also an  ecstacy drug - known as heroin. Pakistan therefore wanted Kashmir and with a view to capture it, it's army with the help of China attacked Kashmir. Since Kashmir was always part of India, Indian army had to protect it. There was a war for more than 15 days and finally with the intervention of the Britsh Govt and USA, it stopped but a part of Kashmir since then is occupied by Pakistan. Now Pakistan claims that Kashmir is part of Pakistan and since then it finds some or the other excuse to wreck up this issue.<BR><BR>Everyone knows, Pakistan is a failed country. It is ruled by scoundrels who do not have morals, ethics and they speak whatever suits them at that moment. It also knows that to control political scenario, USA depends on them heavily and manipulates every issue so that USA can pour in more money in the country, half of which goes into the pockets of the so called politicians and other half in waging war against India. USA has ample proof of this but can't do anything. What I have stated here is factual scenario. It has gone so bad that now nobody wants to bell the cat. <BR><BR>Now, if you would compare what I have told you, possibly, there will be many of you who would say, I am stupid like some of you feel about Mr. Sen. Opinions differ and one must take that with a pinch of salt.

[bajajvivek]

Even opium and riches of land would not completely define the complete conflict between India and Pakistan. Its also about land and personal egos of the two nations. No amount of money can justify 50 years of war, deaths of innocent people, death of democracy, billions of dollars spent. all of this money could have been used for the welfare of these nations and both nations would progressed much more. Politicians of both nations have been using the issue to get mass support for their personal benefits. The money which has been spent so far on this war of 50 years would have bought much more land than Kashmir in any part of the world. Probably Hong Kong could have been leased again for another 50/100 years.

I think, there are some wrong notions about some of the international conflicts - and I am sure, every one of us have some or the other opinion which is mostly based on what we read in the newpapers, what we watch on TV and when some of us have friends who keep on sharing their views.<BR><BR>I just want to correct  what you all think about India and Pakistan conflict. The conflict has nothing to do with water sharing. India and Pakistan were given freedom by the British Govt in 1947. At that time, Kashmir though was part of India, the Hindu king wanted it to remain a sovereign state and Indian Govt agreed to it. This was a major mistake by the then Indian politicians including Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru. One of the reasons of Gandhi's death was due to his stupidity. He took his non-violence doctrine too far and thought that whole world will follow it. Pakistan and its politicians knew that Kashmir has lot of wealth in its land and main crop was what is known as Afim. This is used to produce not only certain medicinal drugs but is also an  ecstacy drug - known as heroin. Pakistan therefore wanted Kashmir and with a view to capture it, it's army with the help of China attacked Kashmir. Since Kashmir was always part of India, Indian army had to protect it. There was a war for more than 15 days and finally with the intervention of the Britsh Govt and USA, it stopped but a part of Kashmir since then is occupied by Pakistan. Now Pakistan claims that Kashmir is part of Pakistan and since then it finds some or the other excuse to wreck up this issue.<BR><BR>Everyone knows, Pakistan is a failed country. It is ruled by scoundrels who do not have morals, ethics and they speak whatever suits them at that moment. It also knows that to control political scenario, USA depends on them heavily and manipulates every issue so that USA can pour in more money in the country, half of which goes into the pockets of the so called politicians and other half in waging war against India. USA has ample proof of this but can't do anything. What I have stated here is factual scenario. It has gone so bad that now nobody wants to bell the cat. <BR><BR>Now, if you would compare what I have told you, possibly, there will be many of you who would say, I am stupid like some of you feel about Mr. Sen. Opinions differ and one must take that with a pinch of salt.

[geriatrickid]

double post. mea culpa.

Edited July 22, 2010 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

I note the references to "alternative" media. Do those information sources really offer a more reliable alternative? How many times are we going to learn of some celebrity's death via twitter, when the celebrity is still quite alive? Alternative media are not held to the same standard as the much vilified mainstream media. Look at 2 recent examples, one of which played out this past week;

CNN sums it up nicely; Sheryl Sherrod, who is African-American, was forced out after conservative website blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a portion of a speech she gave in which she spoke of not offering her full help to a white farmer. The original post by Breitbart indicated the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred when she worked for the agriculture department, and news outlets quickly picked up on the story.However, the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred years before she joined the department, and her speech went on to explain how racial-based thinking must be overcome. In addition, the white farmer who Sherrod mentioned has told reporters that Sherrod helped him save his farm.

Fox commentator Glen Beck who sees a conspiracy in everything President Obama does, was practically frothing at the mouth over the incident. The truth was certainly much different that the blogosphere, twitterers and alternative news sources led people to belive. And everyone fell for it. A story about how someone overcame her own prejudices was twisted out of context by right wingers..

And then there was the horrible trafgedy of the Duke Lacrosse team accused of raping a stripper. Alot of good kids were ripped apart by the alternative left wing media sources. Cover up they screamed. On and on it went, until the story fell apart and the stripper's false claims were exposed. Had the families not had the money to do the job that the prosecutor and police did not do, innocent kids would have gone to jail.

So where does us leave us? Common sense. I don't know what has happened to basic common sense. In an increasingly complex world, people as a whole seem to have regressed in their demand for simplistic explanations for subjects that require some thought. We've become intellectually lazy, or maybe we are just so tired from the daily grind that we don't have time to consider these news stories

"India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources."

this is not true, i can assure you that.

&lt;deleted&gt;??? Your assurances? What is that supposed to mean? Your assurances do not change the reality. I am not taking sides in the Indian Pakistani dispute, but am simply stating what the consensus of all parties is. How about you take some time and look into the subject. Here are multiple views from all sides of the political spectrum, and by jingo, they all share a similar opinion. It's water. Kashmir is important. It has water. If it was a barren desert, no one would care.

http://www.nytimes.c.../21kashmir.html

http://www.henryjack...ies.asp?id=1230

http://www.nation.co...istan-drawn-NYT

http://www.onearth.org/node/1492

Edited July 22, 2010 by geriatrickid

[truethailand]

But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said.

He should have said "the richest Thai man outside the country", and add that this man fled to escape numerous corruption charges and is now wanted for terrorism.

He should have at least mentioned corruption to add to his argument that it's not just a simple "class war".

Where do you get this crap ' richest man in the country' check the forbes list and see who is the richest man in thailand, and all his wealth cannot be declared. The richest man in this country has more wealth than the next nineteen put together. Work that out and you will see thailands problem. Too many government workers trying to sway the opinion of simple farangs. We are not that simple. We do not believe thai tv. We can think for ourselves

[mazeltov]

I believe that the professor is guilty of an oversimplification himself. The foreign media he cited, did not label the events as a class struggle. Yes, some reports highlighted that there were significant socio economic differences between the two opposing sides, but that's about it. They did discuss motives on both sides of the conflict.Perhaps the gentleman has allowed his own bias to colour his perception. ...

-snip-

Who knows what he had really said and if he would had chosen the same headline and how much of what he said is not mentioned or repeated by the article.

I would be not surprise if that oversimplification is a result of The Nations way and style to edit their news.

[jayjay0]

But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said.

He should have said "the richest Thai man outside the country", and add that this man fled to escape numerous corruption charges and is now wanted for terrorism.

He should have at least mentioned corruption to add to his argument that it's not just a simple "class war".

Was he the richest Thai when he interred politics or was it through his corrupt way of doing business after interning politics that he gained that title?

[jayjay0]

I completely agree with Sen,

"He said he was sceptical about the international media - such as the BBC, CNN and even the New York Times - over its reporting of the Thai disturbances.

"The BBC, CNN and even the New York Times reporting certainly does not help when it describes the conflict as a class war between rich and poor. It's a gross oversimplification," he said."

I don't think as one poster said, that the BBC can get away with their disastrous reporting on the grounds that they are generally a left leaning organisation. They still need to follow a professional and objective path to accurate reporting whatever their inherent bent or bias.

Those reporting fro CNN were just as bad - as though the conflict could be simplified as a class war between rich and poor people. Many of the leaders were not poor at all and there were many reports that Jatuporn bought a huge chunk of land just before he gave himself up. I wonder where that money came from? Not really rocket science is it?

And Sen is absolutely right when he talks about Thaksin leading a war while representing poor people. What pray has that man got in common with the downtrodden masses?

There was an interesting blog about it here with an interesting exchange of views - http://www.ajarn.com...or-broken-news/

There were many threads on Facebook, too. A lot of people, farang and Thai, were very disappointed with the overall coverage and I think they were right to be. Newspapers love to make up David and Goliath stories and appeal to the masses in a simplified way.

H

You ask And Sen is absolutely right when he talks about Thaksin leading a war while representing poor people. What pray has that man got in common with the downtrodden masses?

The answer is they are the source of his power. The elite want nothing to do with him. He is not a team player

[jayjay0]

I note the references to "alternative" media. Do those information sources really offer a more reliable alternative? How many times are we going to learn of some celebrity's death via twitter, when the celebrity is still quite alive? Alternative media are not held to the same standard as the much vilified mainstream media. Look at 2 recent examples, one of which played out this past week;

CNN sums it up nicely; Sheryl Sherrod, who is African-American, was forced out after conservative website blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a portion of a speech she gave in which she spoke of not offering her full help to a white farmer. The original post by Breitbart indicated the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred when she worked for the agriculture department, and news outlets quickly picked up on the story.However, the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred years before she joined the department, and her speech went on to explain how racial-based thinking must be overcome. In addition, the white farmer who Sherrod mentioned has told reporters that Sherrod helped him save his farm.

Fox commentator Glen Beck who sees a conspiracy in everything President Obama does, was practically frothing at the mouth over the incident. The truth was certainly much different that the blogosphere, twitterers and alternative news sources led people to belive. And everyone fell for it. A story about how someone overcame her own prejudices was twisted out of context by right wingers..

And then there was the horrible trafgedy of the Duke Lacrosse team accused of raping a stripper. Alot of good kids were ripped apart by the alternative left wing media sources. Cover up they screamed. On and on it went, until the story fell apart and the stripper's false claims were exposed. Had the families not had the money to do the job that the prosecutor and police did not do, innocent kids would have gone to jail.

So where does us leave us? Common sense. I don't know what has happened to basic common sense. In an increasingly complex world, people as a whole seem to have regressed in their demand for simplistic explanations for subjects that require some thought. We've become intellectually lazy, or maybe we are just so tired from the daily grind that we don't have time to consider these news stories

"India and Pakistan's real fight is about water resources."

this is not true, i can assure you that.

&lt;deleted&gt;??? Your assurances? What is that supposed to mean? Your assurances do not change the reality. I am not taking sides in the Indian Pakistani dispute, but am simply stating what the consensus of all parties is. How about you take some time and look into the subject. Here are multiple views from all sides of the political spectrum, and by jingo, they all share a similar opinion. It's water. Kashmir is important. It has water. If it was a barren desert, no one would care.

http://www.nytimes.c.../21kashmir.html

http://www.henryjack...ies.asp?id=1230

http://www.nation.co...istan-drawn-NYT

http://www.onearth.org/node/1492

You say

So where does us leave us? Common sense. I don't know what has happened to basic common sense. In an increasingly complex world, people as a whole seem to have regressed in their demand for simplistic explanations for subjects that require some thought. We've become intellectually lazy, or maybe we are just so tired from the daily grind that we don't have time to consider these news stories

Yes what has happened to Common Sense. If common Sense was to be used a lot of the situations and solutions would be simplistic. I should have mentioned honesty in there also.

[ThaksinKharma]

But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said.

He should have said "the richest Thai man outside the country", and add that this man fled to escape numerous corruption charges and is now wanted for terrorism.

He should have at least mentioned corruption to add to his argument that it's not just a simple "class war".

Where do you get this crap ' richest man in the country'

From the Thaksin Associates thread:

Quote

Thaksin Shinawatra has some 300 to 400 billion baht worth of assets.

He is believed to be generating 4 to 5 billion baht in profits a year, and has in total 400 billion baht worth of total wealth.

No one else has that sort of money in Thailand.

[ThaksinKharma]

But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said.

He should have said "the richest Thai man outside the country", and add that this man fled to escape numerous corruption charges and is now wanted for terrorism.

He should have at least mentioned corruption to add to his argument that it's not just a simple "class war".

Was he the richest Thai when he entered politics

No, in 2001, his asset declaration was 569 million baht

http://www.bahtsold.com/news?id=2413

or was it through his corrupt way of doing business after entering politics that he gained that title?

from 569 million to 400 billion, you make the call.

Edited July 23, 2010 by ThaksinKharma

[Piengrudee]

We must look inside us, and admit that we were wrong. We do not need others to point out to us that we are wrong.

[nisakiman]

Where do you get this crap ' richest man in the country' check the forbes list and see who is the richest man in thailand, and all his wealth cannot be declared. The richest man in this country has more wealth than the next nineteen put together. Work that out and you will see thailands problem. Too many government workers trying to sway the opinion of simple farangs. We are not that simple. We do not believe thai tv. We can think for ourselves

Yes.

Frankly, any organisation that gives an award to the likes of Al Gore (Nobel peace prize? Purrlease...) does not inspire confidence. The fact that this guy Sen is a Nobel laureate means nothing. It certainly doesn't make him an expert on the recent upheavals in Thailand. ("Yeah, I go to Thailand for holidays a lot, so I really understand the situation...")

[Ulysses G.]

Fox commentator Glen Beck who sees a conspiracy in everything President Obama does, was practically frothing at the mouth over the incident. The truth was certainly much different that the blogosphere, twitterers and alternative news sources led people to belive. And everyone fell for it. A story about how someone overcame her own prejudices was twisted out of context by right wingers..

Actually, she was forced to resign by the Obama administration before the story ever aired on FOX. That is why most of the media bought the story without checking the facts. You can call Obama a lot of things, but "right-wing" is not one of them.

[zzaa09]

But there must be something more to the conflict when the poor happen to be led by the richest man in the country, he said.

He should have said "the richest Thai man outside the country", and add that this man fled to escape numerous corruption charges and is now wanted for terrorism.

He should have at least mentioned corruption to add to his argument that it's not just a simple "class war".

...or even made the attempt to understand contemporary Thai affairs and historiographical comparatives. Clearly, the distinguished gentlemen, {like most wannabe pundits} is vacant of the knowledge that is required to mouth off towards a respective subject matter.

[Thakkar]

I believe that the professor is guilty of an oversimplification himself. The foreign media he cited, did not label the events as a class struggle. Yes, some reports highlighted that there were significant socio economic differences between the two opposing sides, but that's about it. They did discuss motives on both sides of the conflict.Perhaps the gentleman has allowed his own bias to colour his perception. ...

-snip-

Who knows what he had really said and if he would had chosen the same headline and how much of what he said is not mentioned or repeated by the article.

I would be not surprise if that oversimplification is a result of The Nations way and style to edit their news.

I agree. The Nation article has a pro government slant, particularly trying to justify the military crackdown. Don't know what he said exactly on that issue as I can find no other reference to it. A Voice of America dispatch does however quote him on his faulting the western media on it's coverage of the Thai conflict and in that respect the Nation's reporting is verified by VOA.

[Thakkar]

I think, there are some wrong notions about some of the international conflicts - and I am sure, every one of us have some or the other opinion which is mostly based on what we read in the newpapers, what we watch on TV and when some of us have friends who keep on sharing their views.<BR><BR>I just want to correct  what you all think about India and Pakistan conflict. The conflict has nothing to do with water sharing. India and Pakistan were given freedom by the British Govt in 1947. At that time, Kashmir though was part of India, the Hindu king wanted it to remain a sovereign state and Indian Govt agreed to it. This was a major mistake by the then Indian politicians including Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru. One of the reasons of Gandhi's death was due to his stupidity. He took his non-violence doctrine too far and thought that whole world will follow it. Pakistan and its politicians knew that Kashmir has lot of wealth in its land and main crop was what is known as Afim. This is used to produce not only certain medicinal drugs but is also an  ecstacy drug - known as heroin. Pakistan therefore wanted Kashmir and with a view to capture it, it's army with the help of China attacked Kashmir. Since Kashmir was always part of India, Indian army had to protect it. There was a war for more than 15 days and finally with the intervention of the Britsh Govt and USA, it stopped but a part of Kashmir since then is occupied by Pakistan. Now Pakistan claims that Kashmir is part of Pakistan and since then it finds some or the other excuse to wreck up this issue.<BR><BR>Everyone knows, Pakistan is a failed country. It is ruled by scoundrels who do not have morals, ethics and they speak whatever suits them at that moment. It also knows that to control political scenario, USA depends on them heavily and manipulates every issue so that USA can pour in more money in the country, half of which goes into the pockets of the so called politicians and other half in waging war against India. USA has ample proof of this but can't do anything. What I have stated here is factual scenario. It has gone so bad that now nobody wants to bell the cat. <BR><BR>Now, if you would compare what I have told you, possibly, there will be many of you who would say, I am stupid like some of you feel about Mr. Sen. Opinions differ and one must take that with a pinch of salt.

Your anti pakistan bias is not surprising as this is the prevailing view in India and dissenting views are hard to come by. For one thing, a British installed Hindu Maharaja of a muslim majority state should never have had the right to decide for the people on such a momentous issue. Without going into a history debate, you should know that neither India or Pakistan are lacking in blame over the Kashmir issue. In both countries, jingoism and misplaced national pride have prevented any meaningful dialogue towards a resolution of the Kashmir issue. Meanwhile the hapless Kashmiries suffer daily degradations and deprivations. Your kind of talk does not help the situation.

I do agree with you that Kashmir is the gravel in the shoe of Indo-Pak relations.

[hammered]

Basically the BBC, CNN and the NY Times and every other world news source have been guilty of many things including providing state propaganda over a long period. Anyone judging the veracity of what they see in the news media needs to always take this into account. The world is now very much a belief based place where the truth is almost impossible to know and the role of the media in this in creating memes and beliefs is importnat. Having people especially in western countries think that their media is free, fair, balanced etc is paramount to those who control the media (and governmenty in most cases). Propaganda from a source that is considered as free and fair is a lot more effective than when it comes form a source that is tainted.