Times And Economist's Recent Cover Stories

[noctiluca]

Hi there,

I haven't written in this forum for a while, apart from occasional lurking, so I think I'll start something I found interesting. I had a chance to browse through the cover stories on both magazines, and found one of them perplexing.

But first, I'll be honest here that I'm actually a Thai, not a foreigner. However, I have always been fascinated with how foreigners think of Thailand, from non-native's perspective so to speak. That is why I like to read through some postings here.

Back to the topic, I found that both of them have similar view on the current political situation, but for some reason, I get the feeling that they also differ on one particular issue, or rather person, Toxin. Oooppppss!! Sorry, I mean our "beloved and sacrificing" Thaksin.

I understand how or why foreigners may not look at the outcome after the election in the positive light. I realize if you go with democracy rule books, this is bad democratically. It does set a bad precedent that an elected governmental leader could be overruled or toppled over by just a handful of an unruly mob gang (of course, termed by the government!) storming the streets of Bangkok. What an undemocratic or backward this country is, you may think.

I like the Time's article in that, although it does not agree with the way it turned out, it does address that Thaksin is not a savior for the country either, i.e. he is bad for Thailand, but the success of the protesters' demand for him to step down (although he won the election, which he has no good reason to dissolve the house in the first place except to save his behind) is equally bad, if not worse. On the other hand, the Economist's seems to bicker against the move by the protesters, and even praises many of Thaksin's policies.

But do you sincerely believe that Thailand is better off with Thaksin in the long run, with the interest of Thai people at heart? Of course, some would argue that Thaksin may be a better person at helm in terms of foreign investors/workers who work or invest in Thailand. Is this truly the case? Perhaps, someone could point that out to me. But is that in the benefit of the country and the people in the long run? Or is it in the benefit of just some particular group of people's wallets? Do many foreigners really prefer Thaksin, and does it matter?

I have to admit one thing the TRT government is very good at is its PR. Furthermore, they have almost all the resources and outlets they can ask for at hands, either by ways of business or intimidation. Granted, some of its policies have merits, for example the 30 Baht health scheme. To the outsiders, particularly Westerners, this is something to sing praise about Thaksin and his government, that finally the power that be turn their precious time to attend to the poor. But, if you look closely, does this scheme really work effectively and efficiently? Their intention is something to commend about, but are they really sincere in helping the poor and provide access to health care for all its citizens? Or whether they have something else in mind, voters in the next round of election perhaps? Just take a look at public hospitals or health care centers around the country, and you'll see what I mean. It's a known fact that the quality and service of most of these places deteriorate after they were forced into this program. Many hospitals almost run into bankruptcy and doctors desert these public hospitals to more lucrative private ones, leaving more pressure and burden to the ones who stay behind. This does not help anybody at all in the long run. But what did the government do? They do their best to silence those who oppose or question their "champion" scheme, while nothing improves in practice. How long can this go on before it collapses entirely, and drag somebody else with it?

I know quite a few of Thaksin's policies are good in theory, but almost all of them are disaster in practice (exception may be the OTOP program), and I suspect that it is mostly due to insincerity to tackle the real root causes of problems on his part. To me, the selling of his assets to Temasek is not why so many people came out on the streets to drive him out of office. It's only one of countless problems that get accumulated over the years since he came to power. The least of it is his insincerity, arrogance, stubbornness, foul mouth, and holy-than-thou attitude. Remember the "UN is not my daddy" remark he made a few years ago? What an embarrassment to Thai people. Not to mention his blindness to his cronies' corruptions. And the list goes on.

Back again to the topic (sorry about my babbling ), I wonder if the Economist writer really spent enough time at all in Thailand to understand the situation before writing that article. Could it be that he/she applied the Western democracy standard to Thailand's? I admit Thailand has a long way to go in term of true democracy, at least in the Western sense. But is it justifiable to do so? Granted, each person has his/her own opinion. Besides, I don't think we see the last of Thaksin yet. At the very least, he is still pulling some strings from behind the scene.

What I am worried more is the wedge between the educated urban people and the upcountry poor. I have never seen such a contrast black and white view of Thai people regarding anything until Thaksin. It is cynically funny that there seems to be a parallel world between Thailand and the US. Never once before the country is so divided because of one person. I just hope we all have enough sense to pause and reflect, then heal our differences. Otherwise, there might not be Thailand as we know it.

Sorry for the long “on-and-on” post. Thanks for reading anyway, if you come this far. You are welcome to share your opinion.

[PeaceBlondie]

Hi there,

I haven't written in this forum for a while, apart from occasional lurking, so I think I'll start something I found interesting. I had a chance to browse through the cover stories on both magazines, and found one of them perplexing.

......Back again to the topic (sorry about my babbling ), I wonder if the Economist writer really spent enough time at all in Thailand to understand the situation before writing that article. Could it be that he/she applied the Western democracy standard to Thailand's? I admit Thailand has a long way to go in term of true democracy, at least in the Western sense. But is it justifiable to do so? Granted, each person has his/her own opinion. Besides, I don't think we see the last of Thaksin yet. At the very least, he is still pulling some strings from behind the scene.

What I am worried more is the wedge between the educated urban people and the upcountry poor. I have never seen such a contrast black and white view of Thai people regarding anything until Thaksin. It is cynically funny that there seems to be a parallel world between Thailand and the US. Never once before the country is so divided because of one person. I just hope we all have enough sense to pause and reflect, then heal our differences. Otherwise, there might not be Thailand as we know it.

Sorry for the long “on-and-on” post. Thanks for reading anyway, if you come this far. You are welcome to share your opinion.

thanks for your excellent post, noctiluca. In fact, I cropped your post because I only wanted to comment on the article in the Economist. The cover and its title was disgusting and I felt it was offensive to the Thai people. I wrote a critical letter to the editor. The cover title of that issue is, "A blow to Thai democracy." The cover photo is the ugliest possible depiction of the protest demonstrations, as if a Thai is rudely trying to stick his fist at the camera, at the Prime Minister, or at democracy. Anyway, here's my letter; I hope they publish it, as the Washington Post published my first letter to their editor.

Although the news article about Thailand's political problems was accurate enough, the editors who chose the cover photo for your April 8 edition showed extreme malice toward the non-violent supporters of true democracy who filled the streets of Bangkok in protest against their recklessly arrogant Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The now-former PM turned Thailand into a demockerycy. The protestors were not the ugly, violent mob which your cover suggested.

In fact, democracy - rule by the people and overseen by a benevolent King - has won the day.

Thank you.

Note to ThaiVisa: I honestly didn't think that much of the article itself, but the cover of the magazine really needed severe criticism.

[Arsenal]

Hi there,

I haven't written in this forum for a while, apart from occasional lurking, so I think I'll start something I found interesting. I had a chance to browse through the cover stories on both magazines, and found one of them perplexing.

......Back again to the topic (sorry about my babbling ), I wonder if the Economist writer really spent enough time at all in Thailand to understand the situation before writing that article. Could it be that he/she applied the Western democracy standard to Thailand's? I admit Thailand has a long way to go in term of true democracy, at least in the Western sense. But is it justifiable to do so? Granted, each person has his/her own opinion. Besides, I don't think we see the last of Thaksin yet. At the very least, he is still pulling some strings from behind the scene.

What I am worried more is the wedge between the educated urban people and the upcountry poor. I have never seen such a contrast black and white view of Thai people regarding anything until Thaksin. It is cynically funny that there seems to be a parallel world between Thailand and the US. Never once before the country is so divided because of one person. I just hope we all have enough sense to pause and reflect, then heal our differences. Otherwise, there might not be Thailand as we know it.

Sorry for the long “on-and-on” post. Thanks for reading anyway, if you come this far. You are welcome to share your opinion.

thanks for your excellent post, noctiluca. In fact, I cropped your post because I only wanted to comment on the article in the Economist. The cover and its title was disgusting and I felt it was offensive to the Thai people. I wrote a critical letter to the editor. The cover title of that issue is, "A blow to Thai democracy." The cover photo is the ugliest possible depiction of the protest demonstrations, as if a Thai is rudely trying to stick his fist at the camera, at the Prime Minister, or at democracy. Anyway, here's my letter; I hope they publish it, as the Washington Post published my first letter to their editor.

Although the news article about Thailand's political problems was accurate enough, the editors who chose the cover photo for your April 8 edition showed extreme malice toward the non-violent supporters of true democracy who filled the streets of Bangkok in protest against their recklessly arrogant Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The now-former PM turned Thailand into a demockerycy. The protestors were not the ugly, violent mob which your cover suggested.

In fact, democracy - rule by the people and overseen by a benevolent King - has won the day.

Thank you.

Note to ThaiVisa: I honestly didn't think that much of the article itself, but the cover of the magazine really needed severe criticism.

I completely disagree.The photograph was fair comment and underlined one of the main points in the Economist editorial.Interestingly the editor of The Nation,Tulsathit Taptim, on April 12 attempted to rebut the Economist's arguments in an embarrassingly weak piece which failed to engage seriously with any of the points made and like some third world dictator ended up with a diatribe against elections as a measure of democracy

.As for the previous poster, I would only point out that it is fantasy to think that before Thaksin the middle class urban and rural population were united as one happy Thai family.The rural majority have always been patronised, exploited and generally treated with contempt.As the Economist article pointed out Thaksin is not an attractive figure and Thaksinomics was little more than old fashioned pump priming.Nevertheless, for his own political advantage no doubt, he was the first Thai leader to genuinely address the interests of the rural poor.

Getting back finally to the Economist article I think it is inexplicable and rather sad that so few on this forum and elsewhere are concerned at the disturbing and profoundly undemocratic nature of recent events.

[samran]

Getting back finally to the Economist article I think it is inexplicable and rather sad that so few on this forum and elsewhere are concerned at the disturbing and profoundly undemocratic nature of recent events.

I see where you are coming from, and I agree with you to an extent. However, Dear Leader himself had little regard for democratic institutions and independent checks and balances. Any that were established y virtue of the 1997 constitution, he went out of his way to nullify. He skewed the game in his favour in a most undemocratic way. Also due process was thrown out the window, for instance in his handling of the extra-judicical killings during the crackdown on drugs.

By definition, a protest will always be undemocratic. Any protest, in any democracy, is just about always done by a minority, whether it be unions, or more recently (for eg) the students in france.

Thaksin decided to live by the undemocratic sword, so he dies by it too.

[PeaceBlondie]

I agree with samran's post, except his point that any protest demonstration is by its nature 'undemocratic.' There's something wrong with that kind of definition. The rights of the people to freely assemble, to speak freely, and to petition their govt. in order to redress their grievances, is enshrined in Constitutions such as the American Bill of Rights

Mob rule, on the other hand, is what we did not see in the streets of Thailand. That would have been violent overthrow of the buildings, vandalism, personal-physical assaults, and total disregard of the institutions. Is there a Thai law requiring minority political parties to participate in rigged snap elections? I doubt it.

[Arsenal]

I agree with samran's post, except his point that any protest demonstration is by its nature 'undemocratic.' There's something wrong with that kind of definition. The rights of the people to freely assemble, to speak freely, and to petition their govt. in order to redress their grievances, is enshrined in Constitutions such as the American Bill of Rights

Mob rule, on the other hand, is what we did not see in the streets of Thailand. That would have been violent overthrow of the buildings, vandalism, personal-physical assaults, and total disregard of the institutions. Is there a Thai law requiring minority political parties to participate in rigged snap elections? I doubt it.

Very muddled and confused I'm afraid.Samran is correct to point out that most protest movements tend to be "undemocratic", as they do not always represent the majority view.Even when protest movements develop into revolutions the majority position is not always reflected.The American Revolution is a good example when very roughly only one third of the colonists supported the war against Britain.

I don't worry very much that the recent anti-Thaksin demonstrations didn't represent the views of most Thais.There's nothing wrong with urban middle class protests, and in fact most protest movements the world over tend to come from this group.It's incidentally just worth pointing out that for all Thaksin's faults he never showed any tendency to resort to violence as Suchinda did.Sometimes it's even necessary for an urban elite to catch the spirit of the times and take on a leadership position, for example as with the overthrow of Marcos or the recent change of government in the Ukraine.

No, the depressing and worrying aspect of recent events in Thailand relate to the reality that with all its imperfections there is an existing mechanism for democratic change.This was ignored by the PAD and most Democrats, although I am aware Khun Abhisit is seriously worried at the implications of recent events.For me while generally sympathetic to the protestors, there is something which makes my stomach turn at entrenched Bangkok based business interests desparate to get their snouts back in the trough.That's what it's all about and as for the rural majority...well, they're just ignorant peasants who vote as instructed by the puyay baan, aren't they?