Foreign press admit covering Thai conflict is tricky

[banglassie]

A bit OT, but I hate the people stating that as a foreigner you can "never understand Thai-ness"... Mostly stupid expats and backpackers or sofa-complainers back home who come with these claims, as well as some Thais.
That would mean all our multi-cultural society in Scandinavia can't understand "Swede-ness" etc? ... That's simply not true. While there are separatists of mainly Muslims and other groups not trying to integrate with the Swedish society and way of life at a larger scale, the same goes for many foreigners here in Meuang Thai who loves to complain, but never really try to blend in to the community...

I feel ashamed to say there's only about 4 westerners in our Amper, and as far as I know nobody knows their name or their nationalities, cause they never speak with anyone except their wives, won't let anyone borrow their precious bikes or similar etc. (and I don't mean strangers, but family members). Well, if that's the case no wonder "When the money runs out the family ends" goes for these guys...
I don't live in the Amper, we live in Bkk, but still most people around our neighborhood there knows who I am and I've been in their houses presenting myself and greeting them.
And yea, sometimes you might feel like people take advantage of you (and sometimes they actually do), but that being said, in most cases if you are willing to share and give, you will always get back many times more. At least that's my experience.

Edited January 19, 2014 by banglassie

[zabaleta]

Sorry to go slightly off topic but the BBC's Jonathan Head says the BBC had never taken side's.

i sincerely hope he's talking about this situation rather than the totally left-wing biased claptrap they come out with in the UK.

[Dogmatix]

Jonathan Head is just making pathetic excuses for his blatantly pro-Thaksinite presentations. Best to restrict him to 30 seconds because he does an even worse job, if he gets more time.

A couple of weeks ago he was given a few minutes and moved on from shots of the "ultra-royalist" (sic) protestors in Bangkok to a well groomed,obviously overseas educated woman pretending to be a farmer spouting perfect English in an idyllic rural setting. He has totally lost the plot.

Time for another round of cost cuts at the BBC. Please let Jonathan go and just use stringers in Thailand like most other news services. It's not very important to British viewers and this garbage is an utter waste of the BBC's limited resources.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

Sorry to go slightly off topic but the BBC's Jonathan Head says the BBC had never taken side's.

i sincerely hope he's talking about this situation rather than the totally left-wing biased claptrap they come out with in the UK.

They definitely took Jimmy Saville's side in actively aiding and abetting an outrageous child abuser for decades. Why do British people continue to put up with this outrageous abuse of their licence fees?

[zabaleta]

I thought that her problem on this interview was the language barrier. No one can be blamed for that (my English is also terrible). But I have asked my Thai relatives and friends, and they all say that when she talks in Thai Language she sounds no different than on this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kqVLGS79mA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttU1a81EkaU

uhh,come again??

can just imagine the reporter walking out of the room shaking his head with a wry smile.

[bobnuts]

At a forum on Thursday night about covering the protest, held at the Foreign Correspondents Club, Veronica Pedrosa from Al Jazeera shared her experience of interviewing caretaker PM Yingluck Shinawatra. She said Yingluck was so cautious in her responses, she could not "reach" the PM's real self.

I watched a bit of that interview, it was painful. Ms Shin appeared totally incapable of expressing herself and I rather got the impression it would have been no better if she had used a translater.

[jayboy]

Sorry, but isn't this just a puff piece by the Nation so that it can justify its criticisms of foreign media? Their journo attended the recent FCCT meeting and came away with the unenlightening thoughts that Yingluk is evasive and that Thainess is important.

Much of the foreign mainstream media is biased, and yet even the Thai media is afraid to express exactly why that is the case because it would open up a huge can of worms - hence the comfort blanket of Thainess. If you want some lengthy articles then try the Land Destroyer blog and Alt Thai News, plus any links from the sites.

It is also worth remembering that journalists have to follow their paymaster's editorial line or they will find themselves as independents. Look at any major news story in any country around the world; read a few mainstream media corps and a smattering of alternative sites. Then you'll see that the aim of news is not to tell the truth but to construct a narrative that their audience must believe in. A critical mind will believe nothing but instead construct their own map.

Voltaire's quote rings true throughout the ages: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Why do you recommend Land Destroyer and Alt Thai News? Isn't that the output of the crazed Tony Cartulucci (not his real name, he's from India or Pakistan), fan of North Korea and President Assad etc - conspiracy theorist extraordinairre and all purpose crackpot.

Like I said, don't believe anything. However, this discussion seems to be about how apparently difficult it is to write insightful articles on Thai politics. Those blogs have a large back catalogue of articles and numerous links to external sources. You may not like how he joins the dots, but at least there is a large canvas. On Cartalucci himself, a simple search will reveal counter-articles; interestingly, many do not dispute his claims but charge him with telling only half the story. This is still better than the mainstream that gives out mere shadows. I do not expect balance from any party (mainstream or alternative) but can achieve balance through multiplicity.

I think that for an individual several steps removed from "the truth" yet having to live through some turmoil, the most important thing is to put together a reasonably accurate map of the situation. This does not necessarily require knowing every covert agreement, but it does need a multiplicity of sources and some thinking for oneself. I have no personal political belief and no flag to fly, but I am concerned about the safety and quality of life of myself and my family, and so my map of the situation is geared towards the relative evolution of freedoms and repressions - not always obvious from the surface news. I just hope the alarm bells don't go off too late.

(BTW the term "conspiracy theory" was invented in the 1960s as a derogatory term that the corporate mainstream media could use against anybody who gets close to the truth. A very good review of this can be found in a chapter in Sythetic Terror by Tarpley - I think one of the best books on the subject, sold on the back of 911 but over half of it is a history of confirmed covert actions, especially the "anni di piombo" (years of lead) in Italy.)

Sorry don't buy it.Cartalucci as a source cannot be taken seriously.The internet is swarming with these conspiracy theorists.If you consider him useful to invoke, so be it.You mention 9/11:needless to say Cartalucci sees it as an inside job.

[looping]

The difficulty that foreign correspondents are having with Thailand is precisely what Jonathan Head says - that the complexity of the situation here cannot possibly be condensed into a short time-frame - let alone 30 seconds. In this article, a journalist describes the difficulty in " getting through " to Yingluck in interview, while being flanked by a sea of male aides desperate to know if she is struck by how pretty the prime minister is - comes right to the heart of two key, related issues. As Yingluck is a proxy PM - a puppet, so to speak - her appearance, her prettiness - occupies a much larger dynamic of the package than would otherwise be the case. If she can't speak, that makes it even more important. If she doesn't understand what's going on, an even greater role than that still. Her English has improved - to her credit - though not to a considerable degree. But she is further handicapped by generalities, avoiding searching questions, and generally says nothing that a four year old girl could not be coached to mimic in a day. Journalists are hardened creatures. They know a smoke-screen when they see one. And yet - Yingluck poses special challenges in today's journalistic world. She's truly impossible to interview, as anyone who has seen them can attest, with the journalists clearly trying to enter what seems to be an unfathomable space. She's like George W. Bush without the intellect.

You want to make it all about Yingluk or would like to expand it to include Mr heads to head with Siri or Abhisit etc etc ? they are all a nightmare to talk to.

Ms Pedrosa is streets ahead of J.Head when it comes to HONEST journalism. question, Abhisit a nightmare to talk to ??? I would have thought he is one of the best English spoken Thai to interview, and pretty honest.

Absolutely!

Abhisit is EDUCATED, and has the skills for the job of PM. He is articulate in Thai and English and would be a great leader, given a proper chance (not like the last time when he was harassed and bullied by the red shirts leading up to the 2010 Shin dig).

The anti govt protestors should have agreed to an election on the proviso that it includes TELEVISED DEBATES BETWEEN ABHISIT AND YINGLUCK, as well as transparency regarding policies, with details of how they will be funded.

Even T himself refused to debate against Abhisit, I can only imagine how YL would do probably end in tears, she would play the victim I'm sure.

After debates, policies outlined, THEN AND ONLY THEN let the people decide who is more honest and capable to run the country.

[JoeThePoster]

foreign media do not understand "Thai-ness,"

Don't hold your breath for an explanation of Thainess.

[jayboy]

Jonathan Head is just making pathetic excuses for his blatantly pro-Thaksinite presentations. Best to restrict him to 30 seconds because he does an even worse job, if he gets more time.

A couple of weeks ago he was given a few minutes and moved on from shots of the "ultra-royalist" (sic) protestors in Bangkok to a well groomed,obviously overseas educated woman pretending to be a farmer spouting perfect English in an idyllic rural setting. He has totally lost the plot.

Time for another round of cost cuts at the BBC. Please let Jonathan go and just use stringers in Thailand like most other news services. It's not very important to British viewers and this garbage is an utter waste of the BBC's limited resources.

You are talking nonsense.I have already posted Khun Anand Panyarachun's view that Jonathan Head is one of the finest foreign journalists working in Thailand, and I accord his opinion rather higher than yours.You are also lying about JH's pro-Thaksin presentations.If you mean he does not succumb to the Suthep inspired hysteria, he is simply doing his job as a journalist.Bit I suspect you have no evidence at all.I have seen several reports in which he did not mince words about Thaksin's weaknesses and crimes.You are also lying or perhaps too dense to understand that the report from the North East (Thai reporters tend not to bother leaving Bangkok to talk to redshirts) was genuine.

[atyclb]

Most International new organizations with branches in bangkok/thailand didn't cover the last protests very adequately (bangkok burned) some suspect they would miss the perks of living in thailand if their offices were to be closed by the government.

prostituting their journalism so to speak. i guess not inconsistent with some aspects of society

[CMfoodie]

I would love to report the truth but my "real self" is telling me not to.

[Old Man River]

Foreign press admit covering Thai conflict is tricky

Yep, if you find out too much, the snipers, hired by influential politicians will hunt you down and do everything to get you silenced...

To the best of your knowledge, since you bring this up, how many foreign press have been targeted because they knew to much?

The problem is most foreign journalists and almost all foreign politicians know too little, but think they know it all. Even those of us that have been here many years with "friends" are still learning.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Its not about getting silenced after the fact. Crazy defamation and less majeste law mean you darent say anything.

Its complicated for all journalists. In fairness, the freest discussion is on here.

Royalist discussions aside, politicians writing to Heads of State should at least get the basics right. In the past, this kind of stuff was not acceptable.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[atyclb]

I thought that her problem on this interview was the language barrier. No one can be blamed for that (my English is also terrible). But I have asked my Thai relatives and friends, and they all say that when she talks in Thai Language she sounds no different than on this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kqVLGS79mA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttU1a81EkaU

uhh,come again??

can just imagine the reporter walking out of the room shaking his head with a wry smile.

All of my thai friends that completed masters degrees in english speaking countries speak way better then YL.

Not to mention a daughter of HM that did an undergraduate degree at MIT and has a superb near native command of english

[MrSlatersParrot]

Sorry to go slightly off topic but the BBC's Jonathan Head says the BBC had never taken side's.

i sincerely hope he's talking about this situation rather than the totally left-wing biased claptrap they come out with in the UK.

Used to come out with.

Time's have changed

[moonao]

It also makes it a bit tricky when foriegn reporters get bashed, intimidated and attacked by bonehead yellow shirt protesters when the coverage is not to their liking.

And your proof that it is Yellow Shirts? Or is it you that has such a "bonehead" biased view?

I dont know if you have been living in a cave for the last 4 weeks, or you get your news soley from "The Nation", but you are obviously ignorant of the fact that at least one foriegn photo journalist was attacked by boneheaded yellow shirt protesters on the 25th November during a rally, followed up by a disgusting social media hate campain. Boneheaded is too nice a word for some of these people.

[Thai at Heart]

Sorry to go slightly off topic but the BBC's Jonathan Head says the BBC had never taken side's.

i sincerely hope he's talking about this situation rather than the totally left-wing biased claptrap they come out with in the UK.

Used to come out with.

Time's have changed

Its a relative I terms of importance.

Democracy is worth fighting for and defending. Democracy can be subeverted by corruption and should thus be strengthened.

So the obvious answer is to suspend democracy at the request of a bloke who has been accused of corruption.

Yes its complicated bwcuase thais are lying about the real reason they want to get rid of thaksin and democracy

[EricBerg]

The difficulty that foreign correspondents are having with Thailand is precisely what Jonathan Head says - that the complexity of the situation here cannot possibly be condensed into a short time-frame - let alone 30 seconds. In this article, a journalist describes the difficulty in " getting through " to Yingluck in interview, while being flanked by a sea of male aides desperate to know if she is struck by how pretty the prime minister is - comes right to the heart of two key, related issues. As Yingluck is a proxy PM - a puppet, so to speak - her appearance, her prettiness - occupies a much larger dynamic of the package than would otherwise be the case. If she can't speak, that makes it even more important. If she doesn't understand what's going on, an even greater role than that still. Her English has improved - to her credit - though not to a considerable degree. But she is further handicapped by generalities, avoiding searching questions, and generally says nothing that a four year old girl could not be coached to mimic in a day. Journalists are hardened creatures. They know a smoke-screen when they see one. And yet - Yingluck poses special challenges in today's journalistic world. She's truly impossible to interview, as anyone who has seen them can attest, with the journalists clearly trying to enter what seems to be an unfathomable space. She's like George W. Bush without the intellect.

You want to make it all about Yingluk or would like to expand it to include Mr heads to head with Siri or Abhisit etc etc ? they are all a nightmare to talk to.

Ms Pedrosa is streets ahead of J.Head when it comes to HONEST journalism. question, Abhisit a nightmare to talk to ??? I would have thought he is one of the best English spoken Thai to interview, and pretty honest.

I am all out of LIKES but Mr Abhisit is very well spoken and comments he has made have all been on queue and target. And so was Thaksin thus making him popular.

And for that matter so was Hitler... I do see some similarities, Thaky and Hits both wanted total control

Though I deeply detest the missunderstood fugitive for what he did and still does to Thaiand and the people, there can NOT be a comparison to Adolf. That one is a whole different league and luckily quite unique in the history of mankind.

[saakura]

'Pedrosa said the people around the PM, many of whom are male, were very interested and asked whether she thought Yingluck was really pretty.'

Well, there's profound political analysis for you - never mind that the countries ruined, is the PM pretty? That face and status business will be the ruination of this country.

Well said. There are others equally obsessed about Abhisit being handsome and there are several of their supporters who may vote for them on this basis alone. A good looking leader should only be an added advantage.

[celso]

the PDRC want a better image in the foreign press, perhaps an easy place to start would be asking their protest-site guards to stop wearing faux-Nazi uniforms, complete with shiny helmets and red armbands...

[saakura]

I thought that her problem on this interview was the language barrier. No one can be blamed for that (my English is also terrible). But I have asked my Thai relatives and friends, and they all say that when she talks in Thai Language she sounds no different than on this interview:

uhh,come again??

can just imagine the reporter walking out of the room shaking his head with a wry smile.

All of my thai friends that completed masters degrees in english speaking countries speak way better then YL.

Not to mention a daughter of HM that did an undergraduate degree at MIT and has a superb near native command of english

Do you mean to say that the ability to speak english at a near native level or to be a good orator or debater is the primary requisite for leading a country? I think strong management, organisational strength, past performance, ability to express your thoughts clearly, in the language of the country's masses etc should be more important to deliver a party's manifesto promises. I think both Yingluck and Abhisit fail these. If they were not so utterly corrupt and egomaniacs, Thaksin or Suthep would have been better choices.

[Emster23]

Understanding Thai politics is like quantum physics, and think of scientist who said "Those who think they understand quantum physics don't understand quantum physics". My view is that it is all smoke and mirrors, except the smoke is dry ice and the mirrors are mylar.

[paz]

On Jonathan Head I once had the privilege (in 2009 from memory) of discussing his abilities with Anand Panyarachun,universally respected as a statesman.Khun Anand thought he (Jonathan Head) was the best foreign journalist operating in Thailand - though he also mentioned they had been to the same English public school so perhaps he was a bit biased in his admiration.

I think I know what's the interview you're talking about, I've watched it few times and recommend anyone to do the same. Panyarachun speaks about certain matters in such a surprisingly open and direct way. Thailand issues would be different if politicians of his stature were around now.

[Dogmatix]

It also makes it a bit tricky when foriegn reporters get bashed, intimidated and attacked by bonehead yellow shirt protesters when the coverage is not to their liking.

And your proof that it is Yellow Shirts? Or is it you that has such a "bonehead" biased view?

I dont know if you have been living in a cave for the last 4 weeks, or you get your news soley from "The Nation", but you are obviously ignorant of the fact that at least one foriegn photo journalist was attacked by boneheaded yellow shirt protesters on the 25th November during a rally, followed up by a disgusting social media hate campain. Boneheaded is too nice a word for some of these people.

Does this foreign photojournalist have a record of impartial reporting or do his reports tend to have a clear pro-Thaksin bias under a contrived veneer of impartiality? Did he behave in an aggressive and arrogant manner towards to provoke the assault? Is he a real photojournalist or just another wannabe posting stuff on obscure websites?

Edited January 19, 2014 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

Jonathan Head is just making pathetic excuses for his blatantly pro-Thaksinite presentations. Best to restrict him to 30 seconds because he does an even worse job, if he gets more time.

A couple of weeks ago he was given a few minutes and moved on from shots of the "ultra-royalist" (sic) protestors in Bangkok to a well groomed,obviously overseas educated woman pretending to be a farmer spouting perfect English in an idyllic rural setting. He has totally lost the plot.

Time for another round of cost cuts at the BBC. Please let Jonathan go and just use stringers in Thailand like most other news services. It's not very important to British viewers and this garbage is an utter waste of the BBC's limited resources.

You are talking nonsense.I have already posted Khun Anand Panyarachun's view that Jonathan Head is one of the finest foreign journalists working in Thailand, and I accord his opinion rather higher than yours.You are also lying about JH's pro-Thaksin presentations.If you mean he does not succumb to the Suthep inspired hysteria, he is simply doing his job as a journalist.Bit I suspect you have no evidence at all.I have seen several reports in which he did not mince words about Thaksin's weaknesses and crimes.You are also lying or perhaps too dense to understand that the report from the North East (Thai reporters tend not to bother leaving Bangkok to talk to redshirts) was genuine.

I am sure you are right Jayboy and perhaps my denseness got in the way of a deeper understanding of Mr Head's trenchant analysis of the Thai political situation. But you have to admit it was just jolly lucky that the diligent Mr Head happened to bump into a telegenic, well groomed, overseas educated female farmer in her early 40s, while wandering around the furrows doing his field research for this poignant story (it was in the Central region - he didn't make it to the Northeast). He could so easily have happened upon a battered looking specimen of an illiterate male farmer who, despite being more illustrative of the elites-poor divide, might not have been able to get the point over so articulately, even through an interpreter, or elicited the same heart rending sympathy. Also, attractive female farmers are something of a rarity as most tend to find alternative occupations early on. Check out the recent footage from Mr Head, if you don't believe me on this one. I may be dense but I am not a liar.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Dogmatix

[tingtongteesood]

The difficulty that foreign correspondents are having with Thailand is precisely what Jonathan Head says - that the complexity of the situation here cannot possibly be condensed into a short time-frame - let alone 30 seconds. In this article, a journalist describes the difficulty in " getting through " to Yingluck in interview, while being flanked by a sea of male aides desperate to know if she is struck by how pretty the prime minister is - comes right to the heart of two key, related issues. As Yingluck is a proxy PM - a puppet, so to speak - her appearance, her prettiness - occupies a much larger dynamic of the package than would otherwise be the case. If she can't speak, that makes it even more important. If she doesn't understand what's going on, an even greater role than that still. Her English has improved - to her credit - though not to a considerable degree. But she is further handicapped by generalities, avoiding searching questions, and generally says nothing that a four year old girl could not be coached to mimic in a day. Journalists are hardened creatures. They know a smoke-screen when they see one. And yet - Yingluck poses special challenges in today's journalistic world. She's truly impossible to interview, as anyone who has seen them can attest, with the journalists clearly trying to enter what seems to be an unfathomable space. She's like George W. Bush without the intellect.

I tried to give my friend a brief overview of the situation as I understand it earlier, took about 28 minutes just to lay out the facts without any in depth explanation, it is a little complicated for sure....

[noitom]

Does anyone have the actual video clip link to the Pedros/YL interview? The only thing available is the audio transcription reading by a news reader at AlJazeera.

[Thai at Heart]

The difficulty that foreign correspondents are having with Thailand is precisely what Jonathan Head says - that the complexity of the situation here cannot possibly be condensed into a short time-frame - let alone 30 seconds. In this article, a journalist describes the difficulty in " getting through " to Yingluck in interview, while being flanked by a sea of male aides desperate to know if she is struck by how pretty the prime minister is - comes right to the heart of two key, related issues. As Yingluck is a proxy PM - a puppet, so to speak - her appearance, her prettiness - occupies a much larger dynamic of the package than would otherwise be the case. If she can't speak, that makes it even more important. If she doesn't understand what's going on, an even greater role than that still. Her English has improved - to her credit - though not to a considerable degree. But she is further handicapped by generalities, avoiding searching questions, and generally says nothing that a four year old girl could not be coached to mimic in a day. Journalists are hardened creatures. They know a smoke-screen when they see one. And yet - Yingluck poses special challenges in today's journalistic world. She's truly impossible to interview, as anyone who has seen them can attest, with the journalists clearly trying to enter what seems to be an unfathomable space. She's like George W. Bush without the intellect.

You want to make it all about Yingluk or would like to expand it to include Mr heads to head with Siri or Abhisit etc etc ? they are all a nightmare to talk to.

Ms Pedrosa is streets ahead of J.Head when it comes to HONEST journalism. question, Abhisit a nightmare to talk to ??? I would have thought he is one of the best English spoken Thai to interview, and pretty honest.

Absolutely!

Abhisit is EDUCATED, and has the skills for the job of PM. He is articulate in Thai and English and would be a great leader, given a proper chance (not like the last time when he was harassed and bullied by the red shirts leading up to the 2010 Shin dig).

The anti govt protestors should have agreed to an election on the proviso that it includes TELEVISED DEBATES BETWEEN ABHISIT AND YINGLUCK, as well as transparency regarding policies, with details of how they will be funded.

Even T himself refused to debate against Abhisit, I can only imagine how YL would do probably end in tears, she would play the victim I'm sure.

After debates, policies outlined, THEN AND ONLY THEN let the people decide who is more honest and capable to run the country.

You really think that abhisit has free rein to set policy on anything serious? This country desperately needs reform of many things.

To a great degree Thaksin has far more autonomy to set policy than abhisit ever has had.

[zabaleta]

Sorry to go slightly off topic but the BBC's Jonathan Head says the BBC had never taken side's.

i sincerely hope he's talking about this situation rather than the totally left-wing biased claptrap they come out with in the UK.

Used to come out with.

Time's have changed

no disrespect but 'used to come out with' and 'time's have changed' is absolute codswallop.

subscribe to the Daily Mail and you'll get daily reports of the BBC's left wing bias.

[gregb]

You want to make it all about Yingluk or would like to expand it to include Mr heads to head with Siri or Abhisit etc etc ? they are all a nightmare to talk to.

Ms Pedrosa is streets ahead of J.Head when it comes to HONEST journalism. question, Abhisit a nightmare to talk to ??? I would have thought he is one of the best English spoken Thai to interview, and pretty honest.

I am all out of LIKES but Mr Abhisit is very well spoken and comments he has made have all been on queue and target. And so was Thaksin thus making him popular.

And for that matter so was Hitler... I do see some similarities, Thaky and Hits both wanted total control

Though I deeply detest the missunderstood fugitive for what he did and still does to Thaiand and the people, there can NOT be a comparison to Adolf. That one is a whole different league and luckily quite unique in the history of mankind.

If only that were true, this world would be a much better place. Sadly, demagogues like Hitler are all too common in history, with only the extent of his depravity thrusting him to the pinnacle of a rather ignoble list. No, demagogues date back thousands of years, the very word being coined by the ancient Greeks. Thaksin most certainly meets this definition. I have a personal theory that all demagogues are also psycopaths, as only a psycopath would possess the characteristics necessary to rise to such a consideration, but there is no true study I know of which would confirm that hypothesis.

Do not automatically discount that which seems unpalatable. While it is ridiculous to say Thaksin is as bad as Hitler, that may only be due to circumstance and not because of inclination. Much like Hitler, Thaksin played to the emotions of his followers, and created a false enemny in the form of the "amart", that were responsible for all of the ills of the "prai". Just as the underlying resentment of the Jews in Nazi Germany did not make them responsible for all of the countries ills, the even less well defined "amart", while not being angels by any means, are not the whole of the reason for Thailand's trouble. Much like Hitler, Thaksin rallyed the people around himself as the solution to this false threat. And much like Hitler, he has a charisma that creates devout followers, or sworn enemies. There are few that have listened to him that have no opinion, and that opinion is largely based on personal, emotional proclivities.

There can and absolutely should be a comparison, as it is disingenuous not to consider the facts. While he has never been given the chances Hitler had to act on the situation, don't dismiss the fundamental truths without making a rational, informed choice. Demagogues are not uncommon in history, and the one unifying factor they always bring is that they destroy any democracy that gave rise to them.

It is not about control, or corruption, or any of a hundred other issues that people bring up when discussing Thaksin. It is about the methods he uses to gain the adoration of such a large segment of the population. Those methods fit a pattern, and sadly it is the exact same pattern Hitler used. That is what makes him dangerous, and that is why he must be purged for Thailand to continue.