Thaksin Wants To Make Deals: Suthep

[Bagwan]

Do people realise that if Thaksin was assassinated Yingluck would become Prime Minister?

You can't fool most of the Thai people most of the time but when you do, you can inflict your brand of misery on them for the next four years.

[MILT]

Do people realise that if Thaksin was assassinated Yingluck would become Prime Minister?

You can't fool most of the Thai people most of the time but when you do, you can inflict your brand of misery on them for the next four years.

What a great post! Thanks!

[thaicbr]

Do people realise that if Thaksin was assassinated Yingluck would become Prime Minister?

Only long enough for one of the deputy prime ministers to go to the ATM for the money to pay the knock off man. Again.

I'm sure his son will know someone

You can't fool most of the Thai people most of the time but when you do, you can inflict your brand of misery on them for the next four years.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[smedly]

Thaksins deal offer to selected opposition members -

"I am authorised to tell you TS will pay you xx million baht if you ........"

It's all about money

[JohnAllan]

Noppadon Pattama said, these visitors were not likely to discuss the Cabinet reshuffle, because Thaksin respected his sister's decisions.

Of course he does! Why would Thaksin question her implementing his own 'proposals'?

Edited June 16, 2012 by JohnAllan

[JohnAllan]

The Democrats didn't accomplish much, but they didn't do anything bad. Corruption was minimal (in compare with Thaksin times). For dictator Thaksin is the worst Thailand could get. Any boring Democrat government is way better.

Check the Transparency International Corruption Index, corruption has stayed pretty constant in Thailand regardless of who is in charge.

Also, given a choice between a corrupt democracy and a corrupt military dictatorship, I'll choose democracy. Apparently I'm in the minority on this in TV.

You must be reading a different TIC index to the one I looked at. It's fluctuated by a good 40% over recent years, generally in the wrong direction. Added to that is the widely held view that the index's methodology is grossly inefficient.

Edited June 16, 2012 by JohnAllan

[heybruce]

Check the Transparency International Corruption Index, corruption has stayed pretty constant in Thailand regardless of who is in charge. Also, given a choice between a corrupt democracy and a corrupt military dictatorship, I'll choose democracy. Apparently I'm in the minority on this in TV.

Now why would you leave out an important word in the title of your quoted index. "PERCEPTIONS" are something quite different to actual occurrences, and must allow for differences in freedom of the press, the number of defamation suits being lodged, and a financed slur campaign being waged. But that doesn't help your position, does it?

]Check the Transparency International Corruption Index, corruption has stayed pretty constant in Thailand regardless of who is in charge. Also, given a choice between a corrupt democracy and a corrupt military dictatorship, I'll choose democracy. Apparently I'm in the minority on this in TV.

You must be reading a different TIC index to the one I looked at. It's fluctuated by a good 40% over recent years, generally in the wrong direction. Added to that is the widely held view that the index's methodology is grossly inefficient.

OzMick: Yes, it is a corruption perception index, and, since corrupt governments don't report their extortion and bribes, it is considered the best indication of corruption in a country. It has serious limitations, but it's the best available measure. Do you know of a better one?

JohnAllan: 40%? The measures I saw had fluctuations between 3.2 and 3.8 for the last ten years. How do you calculate 40%?

If either of you can cite some credible measures that indicate a significant drop in corruption after Thaksin was deposed by the military coup, I'm sure many people would be interested in this information.

Edited June 16, 2012 by heybruce

[OzMick]

OzMick: Yes, it is a corruption perception index, and, since corrupt governments don't report their extortion and bribes, it is considered the best indication of corruption in a country. It has serious limitations, but it's the best available measure. Do you know of a better one?

JohnAllan: 40%? The measures I saw had fluctuations between 3.2 and 3.8 for the last ten years. How do you calculate 40%?

If either of you can cite some credible measures that indicate a significant drop in corruption after Thaksin was deposed by the military coup, I'm sure many people would be interested in this information.

Well if you can't understand that perceptions are subject to a number of variables not necessarily linked to the level of corruption, I'll try to explain some to you.

1/ Thaksin starts suing for defamation every time a newspaper or critic suggests he is corrupt, there are less reports of corruption, perception of corruption drops while corruption is actually rampant.

2/ After coup with increased press freedom and Thaksin corruption cases big news, everybody is talking about corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption..............who knows.

3/ Thaksin funds propaganda campaign against Democrat government, including accusations of corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption ????

The links between perception and reality are tenuous at best, and some of the biggest cases of corruption may not be known about for years after the event, if ever.

[heybruce]

OzMick: Yes, it is a corruption perception index, and, since corrupt governments don't report their extortion and bribes, it is considered the best indication of corruption in a country. It has serious limitations, but it's the best available measure. Do you know of a better one?

JohnAllan: 40%? The measures I saw had fluctuations between 3.2 and 3.8 for the last ten years. How do you calculate 40%?

If either of you can cite some credible measures that indicate a significant drop in corruption after Thaksin was deposed by the military coup, I'm sure many people would be interested in this information.

Well if you can't understand that perceptions are subject to a number of variables not necessarily linked to the level of corruption, I'll try to explain some to you.

1/ Thaksin starts suing for defamation every time a newspaper or critic suggests he is corrupt, there are less reports of corruption, perception of corruption drops while corruption is actually rampant.

2/ After coup with increased press freedom and Thaksin corruption cases big news, everybody is talking about corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption..............who knows.

3/ Thaksin funds propaganda campaign against Democrat government, including accusations of corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption ????

The links between perception and reality are tenuous at best, and some of the biggest cases of corruption may not be known about for years after the event, if ever.

What is your point, that we shouldn't attempt to measure corruption because it's hard? I disagree. Besides, Transparency International has been doing this for along time and has a lot of experience working around bias caused by restrictions on free speech. From their own website:

"The 2011 index draws on assessments and opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. These surveys and assessments include questions related to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and the effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

Again, it's not perfect, just the best available measure of corruption. Their methodology has sufficient credibility for the results to be used by respected news organizations and governments around the world.

So on my side, I'm citing a respected source for corruption measurements that show no significant change in corruption after the military coup, and you are citing--what? Everybody says Thaksin was corrupt, and I'm not disputing this, but no one is showing evidence that corruption declined after he was deposed. If corruption was the justification for the military coup, it seems like it was a wasted effort.

[ThaiOats]

OzMick: Yes, it is a corruption perception index, and, since corrupt governments don't report their extortion and bribes, it is considered the best indication of corruption in a country. It has serious limitations, but it's the best available measure. Do you know of a better one?

JohnAllan: 40%? The measures I saw had fluctuations between 3.2 and 3.8 for the last ten years. How do you calculate 40%?

If either of you can cite some credible measures that indicate a significant drop in corruption after Thaksin was deposed by the military coup, I'm sure many people would be interested in this information.

Well if you can't understand that perceptions are subject to a number of variables not necessarily linked to the level of corruption, I'll try to explain some to you.

1/ Thaksin starts suing for defamation every time a newspaper or critic suggests he is corrupt, there are less reports of corruption, perception of corruption drops while corruption is actually rampant.

2/ After coup with increased press freedom and Thaksin corruption cases big news, everybody is talking about corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption..............who knows.

3/ Thaksin funds propaganda campaign against Democrat government, including accusations of corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption ????

The links between perception and reality are tenuous at best, and some of the biggest cases of corruption may not be known about for years after the event, if ever.

What is your point, that we shouldn't attempt to measure corruption because it's hard? I disagree. Besides, Transparency International has been doing this for along time and has a lot of experience working around bias caused by restrictions on free speech. From their own website:

"The 2011 index draws on assessments and opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. These surveys and assessments include questions related to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and the effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

Again, it's not perfect, just the best available measure of corruption. Their methodology has sufficient credibility for the results to be used by respected news organizations and governments around the world.

So on my side, I'm citing a respected source for corruption measurements that show no significant change in corruption after the military coup, and you are citing--what? Everybody says Thaksin was corrupt, and I'm not disputing this, but no one is showing evidence that corruption declined after he was deposed. If corruption was the justification for the military coup, it seems like it was a wasted effort.

Think you're missing the point in Oz's last sentence.

[Skywalker69]

Do people realise that if Thaksin was assassinated Yingluck would become Prime Minister?

You can't fool most of the Thai people most of the time but when you do, you can inflict your brand of misery on them for the next four years.

What a great post! Thanks!

+1

[waza]

OzMick: Yes, it is a corruption perception index, and, since corrupt governments don't report their extortion and bribes, it is considered the best indication of corruption in a country. It has serious limitations, but it's the best available measure. Do you know of a better one?

JohnAllan: 40%? The measures I saw had fluctuations between 3.2 and 3.8 for the last ten years. How do you calculate 40%?

If either of you can cite some credible measures that indicate a significant drop in corruption after Thaksin was deposed by the military coup, I'm sure many people would be interested in this information.

Well if you can't understand that perceptions are subject to a number of variables not necessarily linked to the level of corruption, I'll try to explain some to you.

1/ Thaksin starts suing for defamation every time a newspaper or critic suggests he is corrupt, there are less reports of corruption, perception of corruption drops while corruption is actually rampant.

2/ After coup with increased press freedom and Thaksin corruption cases big news, everybody is talking about corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption..............who knows.

3/ Thaksin funds propaganda campaign against Democrat government, including accusations of corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption ????

The links between perception and reality are tenuous at best, and some of the biggest cases of corruption may not be known about for years after the event, if ever.

What is your point, that we shouldn't attempt to measure corruption because it's hard? I disagree. Besides, Transparency International has been doing this for along time and has a lot of experience working around bias caused by restrictions on free speech. From their own website:

"The 2011 index draws on assessments and opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. These surveys and assessments include questions related to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and the effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

Again, it's not perfect, just the best available measure of corruption. Their methodology has sufficient credibility for the results to be used by respected news organizations and governments around the world.

So on my side, I'm citing a respected source for corruption measurements that show no significant change in corruption after the military coup, and you are citing--what? Everybody says Thaksin was corrupt, and I'm not disputing this, but no one is showing evidence that corruption declined after he was deposed. If corruption was the justification for the military coup, it seems like it was a wasted effort.

Ok the number a skewed because Thailand still had a Thaksin government til 2008, From 2008-2011 Thailand had coalition government. However, Thailands bureaucrats remained the obstensively the same.

"Much is forgiven when an economy scores high growth rates. In 2010, Thailand grew the fastest in 15 years. Yet stability matters, too. The longer Thailand goes without it, the further it falls behind China. Just a decade ago, Thailand was a democratic oasis in a region of autocrats. Today, it’s a political basket case.

Reflecting on Thaksin’s record, he notes:

It’s easy to forget how billionaire Thaksin bent Thailand’s leadership apparatus – the courts, bureaucracy and the military – to his will to benefit his business interests. Shares in the family media business, Shin Corp, surged after Thaksin’s sister won the election – it’s thought he will be calling the shots again, which would be great for Thaksin Inc...........Only it’s clear that Thaksin used his power while in office from 2001 to 2006 for personal gain.

It’s not a coincidence that Thailand has slipped to 78th among the 178 countries in Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index. In 2001, it ranked 61st........ There will, of course, be ongoing debate about the legacy of Thaksin’s term in office, but citing [only two figures from] Transparency International’s

corruption perceptions index

[for 2001 and 2010] is misleading.

http://asiapacific.a...ruption-record/

Edited June 16, 2012 by waza

[heybruce]

OzMick: Yes, it is a corruption perception index, and, since corrupt governments don't report their extortion and bribes, it is considered the best indication of corruption in a country. It has serious limitations, but it's the best available measure. Do you know of a better one?

JohnAllan: 40%? The measures I saw had fluctuations between 3.2 and 3.8 for the last ten years. How do you calculate 40%?

If either of you can cite some credible measures that indicate a significant drop in corruption after Thaksin was deposed by the military coup, I'm sure many people would be interested in this information.

Well if you can't understand that perceptions are subject to a number of variables not necessarily linked to the level of corruption, I'll try to explain some to you.

1/ Thaksin starts suing for defamation every time a newspaper or critic suggests he is corrupt, there are less reports of corruption, perception of corruption drops while corruption is actually rampant.

2/ After coup with increased press freedom and Thaksin corruption cases big news, everybody is talking about corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption..............who knows.

3/ Thaksin funds propaganda campaign against Democrat government, including accusations of corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption ????

The links between perception and reality are tenuous at best, and some of the biggest cases of corruption may not be known about for years after the event, if ever.

What is your point, that we shouldn't attempt to measure corruption because it's hard? I disagree. Besides, Transparency International has been doing this for along time and has a lot of experience working around bias caused by restrictions on free speech. From their own website:

"The 2011 index draws on assessments and opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. These surveys and assessments include questions related to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and the effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

Again, it's not perfect, just the best available measure of corruption. Their methodology has sufficient credibility for the results to be used by respected news organizations and governments around the world.

So on my side, I'm citing a respected source for corruption measurements that show no significant change in corruption after the military coup, and you are citing--what? Everybody says Thaksin was corrupt, and I'm not disputing this, but no one is showing evidence that corruption declined after he was deposed. If corruption was the justification for the military coup, it seems like it was a wasted effort.

Think you're missing the point in Oz's last sentence.

No, I think I addressed his last sentence in the first three sentences of my reply. I underlined them to help you out.

[heybruce]

OzMick: Yes, it is a corruption perception index, and, since corrupt governments don't report their extortion and bribes, it is considered the best indication of corruption in a country. It has serious limitations, but it's the best available measure. Do you know of a better one?

JohnAllan: 40%? The measures I saw had fluctuations between 3.2 and 3.8 for the last ten years. How do you calculate 40%?

If either of you can cite some credible measures that indicate a significant drop in corruption after Thaksin was deposed by the military coup, I'm sure many people would be interested in this information.

Well if you can't understand that perceptions are subject to a number of variables not necessarily linked to the level of corruption, I'll try to explain some to you.

1/ Thaksin starts suing for defamation every time a newspaper or critic suggests he is corrupt, there are less reports of corruption, perception of corruption drops while corruption is actually rampant.

2/ After coup with increased press freedom and Thaksin corruption cases big news, everybody is talking about corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption..............who knows.

3/ Thaksin funds propaganda campaign against Democrat government, including accusations of corruption. Perception increases, level of corruption ????

The links between perception and reality are tenuous at best, and some of the biggest cases of corruption may not be known about for years after the event, if ever.

What is your point, that we shouldn't attempt to measure corruption because it's hard? I disagree. Besides, Transparency International has been doing this for along time and has a lot of experience working around bias caused by restrictions on free speech. From their own website:

"The 2011 index draws on assessments and opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. These surveys and assessments include questions related to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and the effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

Again, it's not perfect, just the best available measure of corruption. Their methodology has sufficient credibility for the results to be used by respected news organizations and governments around the world.

So on my side, I'm citing a respected source for corruption measurements that show no significant change in corruption after the military coup, and you are citing--what? Everybody says Thaksin was corrupt, and I'm not disputing this, but no one is showing evidence that corruption declined after he was deposed. If corruption was the justification for the military coup, it seems like it was a wasted effort.

Ok the number a skewed because Thailand still had a Thaksin government til 2008, From 2008-2011 Thailand had coalition government. However, Thailands bureaucrats remained the obstensively the same.

"Much is forgiven when an economy scores high growth rates. In 2010, Thailand grew the fastest in 15 years. Yet stability matters, too. The longer Thailand goes without it, the further it falls behind China. Just a decade ago, Thailand was a democratic oasis in a region of autocrats. Today, it’s a political basket case.

Reflecting on Thaksin’s record, he notes:

It’s easy to forget how billionaire Thaksin bent Thailand’s leadership apparatus – the courts, bureaucracy and the military – to his will to benefit his business interests. Shares in the family media business, Shin Corp, surged after Thaksin’s sister won the election – it’s thought he will be calling the shots again, which would be great for Thaksin Inc...........Only it’s clear that Thaksin used his power while in office from 2001 to 2006 for personal gain.

It’s not a coincidence that Thailand has slipped to 78th among the 178 countries in Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index. In 2001, it ranked 61st........ There will, of course, be ongoing debate about the legacy of Thaksin’s term in office, but citing [only two figures from] Transparency International’s

corruption perceptions index

[for 2001 and 2010] is misleading.

http://asiapacific.a...ruption-record/

I'm not sure what your point is here, but the article indicates that in terms of Corruption Perception Index score and ranking of least to most corrupt nations, in 2005, Thaksin's last full year in office, Thailand was at its least corrupt level of the past twelve years. After 2005, things got dramatically worse.

You'll have to explain " Thailand still had a Thaksin government til 2008", when the military coup was in 2006.

Regarding the part in the article about Thaksin consolidating power and enriching his family, I don't dispute that. However I don't think the military coup was the correct response, and I think another coup would be disastrous for Thailand. As I wrote earlier, given a choice between a corrupt democracy and a corrupt military dictatorship, I'll choose democracy.

[daboyz1]

This seems like some kind of Orwell Animal Farm gone bad.

[sscsamui]

Who do you think is more capable of making economical and political and social and rational decisions, the so called Elite or the Hillbilly Reds?

[hellodolly]

I am of the opinion that the best government for this country would be a dictatorial one -- and that's exactly what we would get from Thaksin. Unfortunately we've already seen what the Democrats have accomplished during their term -- HARDLY ANYTHING. The Dems are a scattered lot. Aside from the rampant corruption, they did little to nothing in terms of 'educating' the masses or making us any more confident in them than we are with the redshirts. Abhisit is the only person I would trust -- but he's surrounded by scumbags as bad (if not worse) as the reds.

In any case, the people of this country seem to WANT to be ruled. They cannot make decisions for themselves based on morals -- that issue has effectively been dealt with through their conditioning in the education system and maintained through various government agencies specifically established to ensure that the population remains malleable and dense.

So who best to rule these people than someone who has the money and power to instigate and unify all the other corrupt agencies? It's not that Thaksin is good or anything -- but he's the biggest, baddest, most corrupt person you'd ever find. Perfect for the job.

The Democrats didn't accomplish much, but they didn't do anything bad. Corruption was minimal (in compare with Thaksin times). For dictator Thaksin is the worst Thailand could get. Any boring Democrat government is way better.

Have to disagree with you about the Democrat government being boring. They provided lots of excitement. With the help of the armed portion of the PT

Their real problem was not that they had bad ideas or corruption but that they did not have the support of the people. They never promised to make every body rich or fantastic wages or credit cards with a interest rate on them so you would have less money at the end of the day. All they would do is try to install policies that given time would work. Not policies that will be done right away and won't work.

And yes they also had corruption. People seem to forget that the forty votes that got them elected were all from Thaksin tranies.

[heybruce]

Who do you think is more capable of making economical and political and social and rational decisions, the so called Elite or the Hillbilly Reds?

So you're saying "Screw democracy, just let the elites run everything."

Does this view apply only to Thailand, or to the rest of the world as well?

[whybother]

What is your point, that we shouldn't attempt to measure corruption because it's hard? I disagree. Besides, Transparency International has been doing this for along time and has a lot of experience working around bias caused by restrictions on free speech. From their own website:

"The 2011 index draws on assessments and opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. These surveys and assessments include questions related to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and the effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

Again, it's not perfect, just the best available measure of corruption. Their methodology has sufficient credibility for the results to be used by respected news organizations and governments around the world.

So on my side, I'm citing a respected source for corruption measurements that show no significant change in corruption after the military coup, and you are citing--what? Everybody says Thaksin was corrupt, and I'm not disputing this, but no one is showing evidence that corruption declined after he was deposed. If corruption was the justification for the military coup, it seems like it was a wasted effort.

Did you read the part where they say you can't compare year to year?

Or did you read the date part about the dates of the reports used to make up the index?

[sscsamui]

Who do you think is more capable of making economical and political and social and rational decisions, the so called Elite or the Hillbilly Reds?

So you're saying "Screw democracy, just let the elites run everything."

Does this view apply only to Thailand, or to the rest of the world as well?

No,.... I am not saying Screw Democracy.... How can you have a true Democracy with Such a corrupt Gang of thing running it with the IQ the same as their shoe size.... There are a Very few persons in this government that have some smarts,,,, But Mr. TS has his carrot at the end of a stick and guess who is nibbling at it...

[birdpooguava]

"When Thaksin was running the government he was the centre of corruption, but in the Abhisit administration corruption had spread to to all ministries. I believe there is more corruption now than during the Thaksin administration,” Mr Sondhi Limthongkul said.

Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index gives a score out of 10 and the higher the CPI the less corrupt a country is perceived to be.

It’s interesting that Thailand’s numerical scores on the corruption index improved under Thaksin. They nose dived the year after the coup. So much for the theory that the coup was staged to end corruption or that it got less corrupt under Abhisit.

[smutcakes]

What is your point, that we shouldn't attempt to measure corruption because it's hard? I disagree. Besides, Transparency International has been doing this for along time and has a lot of experience working around bias caused by restrictions on free speech. From their own website:

"The 2011 index draws on assessments and opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions. These surveys and assessments include questions related to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and the effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

Again, it's not perfect, just the best available measure of corruption. Their methodology has sufficient credibility for the results to be used by respected news organizations and governments around the world.

So on my side, I'm citing a respected source for corruption measurements that show no significant change in corruption after the military coup, and you are citing--what? Everybody says Thaksin was corrupt, and I'm not disputing this, but no one is showing evidence that corruption declined after he was deposed. If corruption was the justification for the military coup, it seems like it was a wasted effort.

Did you read the part where they say you can't compare year to year?

Or did you read the date part about the dates of the reports used to make up the index?

So in essence what OzMick is saying is that because this corruption index indicates that actually corruption did not reduce under the Democrats and that it may have been worse, the index is complete rubbish.

I am sure he would have been as equally negative view on the accuracy of the index should it have shown a fall in corruption under the democratic/military government.

[smutcakes]

birdpoo,

You must realize that all these organziations accross the world are all complete rubbish, and you cannot trust them to be in anyway shape of form accurate. We have far more qualified and professional people on this site, like OzMick who can easily show these are all based on propoganda and press freedom. It would be interesting to see his qualifications on this type of thing in comparison to the associations who develop the studies? Ozmick, can we have your qualifications? As far as I am aware renting second hand scooters to farangs is pretty high up on the qualification list.

[whybother]

"When Thaksin was running the government he was the centre of corruption, but in the Abhisit administration corruption had spread to to all ministries. I believe there is more corruption now than during the Thaksin administration,” Mr Sondhi Limthongkul said.

Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index gives a score out of 10 and the higher the CPI the less corrupt a country is perceived to be.

It’s interesting that Thailand’s numerical scores on the corruption index improved under Thaksin. They nose dived the year after the coup. So much for the theory that the coup was staged to end corruption or that it got less corrupt under Abhisit.

I don't know where you got that link, since Transparency International says that the CPI is NOT designed to be compared over time.

6. CAN COUNTRY/TERRITORY SCORES IN THE 2011 CPI BE COMPARED TO THOSE IN PAST INDICES?

The CPI is not designed to allow for country scores to be compared over time. This is because the index draws on a country’s rank in the original data sources, rather than its score. A rank will always deliver only relative information – and therefore a ranking is a one off assessment. A country’s rank in a given data source can change a) if perceptions of corruption in other countries included in that source change or b ) if countries are added or removed from that data source.

In addition to that, if you really want to compare years, the drop in 2011 would be mainly due to the Democrats, since the CPI for 2011 was taken from December 2009 - September 2011.

5. WHAT ARE THE DATA SOURCES FOR THE CPI?

The 2011 CPI draws on 17 data sources from 13 institutions. The information used for the 2011 CPI is survey data from these sources gathered between December 2009 and September 2011. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and which measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector. TI ensures that the sources used are of the highest quality. To qualify, the data collection method must be well-documented and the methodology published to enable an assessment of its reliability. For a full list of data sources, questions asked, and the type of respondents for each country/territory, please see the CPI sources description document.

Edited June 17, 2012 by whybother

[OzMick]

birdpoo,

You must realize that all these organziations accross the world are all complete rubbish, and you cannot trust them to be in anyway shape of form accurate. We have far more qualified and professional people on this site, like OzMick who can easily show these are all based on propoganda and press freedom. It would be interesting to see his qualifications on this type of thing in comparison to the associations who develop the studies? Ozmick, can we have your qualifications? As far as I am aware renting second hand scooters to farangs is pretty high up on the qualification list.

Don't confuse my current hobby with my prior occupation. And no it had nothing to do with statistical analysis.

What I initially pointed out was that the word PERCEPTIONS had been deleted to claim that the figures quoted were actual corruption. The association may be well qualified and carry out the task of measuring perceptions quite well, and this may be the best known method of estimating corruption, but perception can be skewed by any number of factors.

Many perceptions are false, many wrongs are not perceived at all. Where are the factors for freedom of the press, availability of independent information, propaganda campaigns, level of education of those questioned, gullibility, cultural considerations, etc.

Perception does not equal reality. The sun doesn't rotate around the Earth, which is not flat, and you are not a handsome man or a sex machine.

Edited June 17, 2012 by OzMick

[birdpooguava]

Well please do share your OTHER statistics on corruption

[OzMick]

Well please do share your OTHER statistics on corruption

Do I NEED to have my own statistics to point the false claims about those presented by yourself and others?

Would you prefer lies, damned lies, or statistics? (Apologies to Twain)

[whybother]

Well please do share your OTHER statistics on corruption

It's not the statistics that is the problem. It's the interpretation.

[birdpooguava]

Well please do share your OTHER statistics on corruption

Do I NEED to have my own statistics to point the false claims about those presented by yourself and others?

Would you prefer lies, damned lies, or statistics? (Apologies to Twain)

Discounting the only independent information available because it conflicts with your party line;

[OzMick]

Well please do share your OTHER statistics on corruption

Do I NEED to have my own statistics to point the false claims about those presented by yourself and others?

Would you prefer lies, damned lies, or statistics? (Apologies to Twain)

Discounting the only independent information available because it conflicts with your party line;

I disputed the erroneous presentation of perception statistics as reality.

Have they buried Thaksin? Are you still trying to kiss his ring?