Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Whereas Thais and the Thai media really have a handle on the situation in their nation which is creeping inexorably towards becoming a failed state.

Wow! Talk about a biased article full of BS and flawed statistics. What a waste of my reading time

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The idea of elected governors is very important and could potentially help the North and Northeast more than the South, if the don't elect the same shockers that they elect to Parliament. Budgetary expenditures are lavished on Bkk way out of proportion to its population and share. of GDP. All other regions including the Central plains foot the bill for this disparity. But the inequality is worst of all in the Northeast and is reflected in measures of healthcare, education, housing etc. Inevitably low government spending on their education and healthcare results in low income in a vicious circle that no Central govt will ever bother to address properly.

Unfortunately vested interests in centralisation run deep and this will not be surrendered without a fight.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

"...her decision to remove the country's head of national security in 2011, in favour of a relative"

Does this not speaks volumes on the kind of government this country had suffered under for almost 3 years?

No foreigner can tell Thailand what to do or give advice.

No way.

Yes foreigner known nothing.

Look how much better Thailand's medical compared to the USA

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

What is complete garbage about it? To me it gives a fair assessment of what both groups issues are and arrives at the obvious summary that Thailand is going down the toilet fast unless both groups pull their heads in and put Thailand first instead of their own agendas.

I agree. It's not complete garbage. While I agree and disagree with some points, the one that stood out most for me is the call to have elected provincial governors. I'm guessing the PTP and UDD don't like that because it strikes at the core of their power. It does seem more democratic to me and I believe that decentralization is a very good thing. So along with allowing an elected governor, having the police force report to the provincial authority instead of the central government is also a good idea, just as was proposed earlier (by the PDRC, the Democrats, the Reform Now? I forget who.).

While fairly even-handed, there is one important factor barely touched upon in this Economist editorial. I trust I will not be moderated for mentioning that the future of a very important Thai institution will be crucial also to the political direction of the country in coming years. One could almost say pivotal, if that doesn't sound too hub-like.

That's what all this is about. Jockeying for position for what will happen.

I'm with Chelseaboy. Why does this article talk about a "self imposed exile"? I thought there was a criminal conviction with a 2 year jail sentence if he stepped foot into the Kingdom. That's what the Amnesty Bill was about, wasn't it? This "authoritative and well thought through" monograph seems to leave that part out. Or do I have my facts wrong?

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Correct in parts

Unlike US economy growing

Unlike Russia people living longer nt less

Unlike Spain Ireland Greece incomes employment and opportuniies up

SNAFU

Siam normal always Falangs upset

No regime means no more borrowing ,Likebelgium a prolonged management of sevice by civil servats without interference and business as usual wont all be bad nor a coup.

Investors don't care about democracy human rights they are happy to invest in China Vietnam etcWhat they do like is stability.

If a few hotheads alrrady facing serious charges can be cooled off /out or silenced until an inevitable new page we may find the London journals other insights that certainly cannot be aired here reveals the end game.

Street violence,islamic terrorism and druggies can be dealt with theres a will and I sense a new broom is being prepared for that day.

This still leeave the corruption and impunity culture which is endemic,Perhaps the land people are just different,I mean there is no corruption in USA ,no hi-sos in UK or bent cops in Spain,China Mexico.

Of course unles you are an undocumented flotsam we are free to leave

some recent economist articles are too hot to air on here so you need to check their archives or get banned .

a respected journal for investors

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

"the Constitutional Court demanded that the prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra (pictured), step down with nine members of her cabinet over her decision to remove the country’s head of national security in 2011, in favour of a relative."

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Hahaha.

They aren't trying to write war and peace. So which major details did they omit to say? Or is everything just hunkey dorey in the land of smiles/street protests?

I wonder if Thailand might not have been seriously damaged for FDI by this . This story is being read and listened to by a lot of people in the west. Some people are quite gobsmacked that u can just remove a PM like this, for such an apparently trivial thing.

This Thailand welly speshun, falang no undursatan rubbish is wearing thin.

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

I agree the good sense of elected provincial governors.Don't see it happening any time soon.

As to Jonathan Head it really is absurd to describe him as heavily Thaksin sympathetic, and in these sensitive times you should be more careful.

As to the FT report, I'm equally puzzled at the suggestion it was written to support the Thaksin faction.

Why do you think western journalists have an agenda? What's in it for them?I think they just want to report a story.

There are many locally based western academics and journalists who understand the position intimately - but stil broadly reflect the BBC, Economist, NYT,FT position.

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Hahaha.

They aren't trying to write war and peace. So which major details did they omit to say? Or is everything just hunkey dorey in the land of smiles/street protests?

I wonder if Thailand might not have been seriously damaged for FDI by this . This story is being read and listened to by a lot of people in the west. Some people are quite gobsmacked that u can just remove a PM like this, for such an apparently trivial thing.

This Thailand welly speshun, falang no undursatan rubbish is wearing thin.

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

Maybe they are right and it was a trivial reason to remove an elected prime minister.

The cable is broken. Since Suthep and his poodles spit on Democracy and a Constitutional Court downgrades an (HM) appointed care taker PM. Is any Court now investigating who occupied an Int. Airport in 2008 and punishes those fools? Yingluck is a few days PM off and foreigners get stranded at border (runs). Brace for extreme xenofobia next months......

Hahaha.

They aren't trying to write war and peace. So which major details did they omit to say? Or is everything just hunkey dorey in the land of smiles/street protests?

I wonder if Thailand might not have been seriously damaged for FDI by this . This story is being read and listened to by a lot of people in the west. Some people are quite gobsmacked that u can just remove a PM like this, for such an apparently trivial thing.

This Thailand welly speshun, falang no undursatan rubbish is wearing thin.

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

I agree the good sense of elected provincial governors.Don't see it happening any time soon.

As to Jonathan Head it really is absurd to describe him as heavily Thaksin sympathetic, and in these sensitive times you should be more careful.

As to the FT report, I'm equally puzzled at the suggestion it was written to support the Thaksin faction.

Why do you think western journalists have an agenda? What's in it for them?I think they just want to report a story.

There are many locally based western academics and journalists who understand the position intimately - but stil broadly reflect the BBC, Economist, NYT,FT position.

" There are many locally based western academics and journalists who understand the position intimately - but stil broadly reflect the BBC, Economist, NYT,FT position."

well said jayboy

And this is what Nomura Securities included in their advice to their clients

The Court’s decision not to bar all members of her cabinet from office, may be considered something of a surprise, even though we see it as consistent with the “limbo” view of Thai politics for the past eight years or so and, in particular, since November 2013.

No wonder investors are getting nervous .

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Hahaha.

They aren't trying to write war and peace. So which major details did they omit to say? Or is everything just hunkey dorey in the land of smiles/street protests?

I wonder if Thailand might not have been seriously damaged for FDI by this . This story is being read and listened to by a lot of people in the west. Some people are quite gobsmacked that u can just remove a PM like this, for such an apparently trivial thing.

This Thailand welly speshun, falang no undursatan rubbish is wearing thin.

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

I think it is largely impossible for anyone to report this because they cannot mention the highest institution and any obvious implications.

Don't moan when the western media is pro democracy and anti juristorcracy. The pursuit of democracy isn't smooth but continuing forward is in many's opinions better than constantly resetting and going backwards.

Thailand: Everything is broken

Of course everything is broken, because you (Thai people) let it happen. And now you cry. Boo hoo hoo!

Your constitution is a convoluted mess. Your laws are written by self-serving lawmakers designed with loopholes to indemnify them. Your culture promotes corruption on every level and worships unquestioned authority. Your education system is designed to keep you ignorant and compliant.

So, what you gonna do? Still cry, or throw all this mess out and start anew? My bet is: more boo hoo hoo..., prove me wrong, you buffaloes!

apologies, the heat go to me

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

"the Constitutional Court demanded that the prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra (pictured), step down with nine members of her cabinet over her decision to remove the country’s head of national security in 2011, in favour of a relative."

All 10 of them should be behind bars, but thanks for reminding us bent she is. And congrats on picking up that typo, you are one hell of a sleuth.

Thailand: Everything is broken

I've had things that broke. Before they broke they were usually bent or crooked. I still have the ones I fixed on time.

" There is something creepy about the way that the exiled, unelected Mr Thaksin has been calling the shots from Dubai. "

Indeed, there is something very creepy about it. This is the best sentence of this opinion article. There is something profoundly creepy about Thaksin calling the shots from Dubai. There is also something profoundly unconstitutional about it, as well. He was not elected. Therefore, he has no business directing this administration. He has no constitutional business receiving Pheu Thai cabinet ministers on a frequent basis to hone policy points. He has no constitutional business directing cabinet meetings through sykpe. To be sure, there is no parallel to this in the West. The West - it is true - do not have an " agenda " regarding the political climate in Thailand. The problem - understandably - is that it simply can't be fit into a thirty-second soundbite, and as such corners get tapered for more immediate Western consumption and recognition. It is naturally understandable that the West would immediately see elections as the be-all and end-all of the solving of all problems. The reasons for that are simple. Elections generally do a cracking good job of that, and when they don't, there are a reasonable number of stringent checks and balances through the courts to help ensure that it does. But for that to occur, there has to be a bedrock of unquestioned support for the judicial system. In Western countries - by and large - there is. Therefore it works, as it is supposed to. Secretary of State John Kerry was right when he said that elections were only one component of a democracy - a vital part, to be sure - but only one part. He also was quick to stress that their has to be a judicial underpinning, as indeed there does in every civilized society. Democracy cannot act independently of that, although Pheu Thai and the UDD would have us believe that it can. Mr. Kerry also assumes naturally that the elections must also be free and fair. The West assumes that all that is in place already. But the problem is that the mechanisms that protect the sanctity of the electoral system are not enforced, and have in fact been abused, promulgating a cycle of corruption that enters a kind of perpetual loop year after year. Quite a number of foreign journalists concur with this, but they are still hamstrung by the condensing of the reports, and that keeps their audience from the complex historical perspectives that are ultimately key to understanding it and how it has evolved.

The other point that is well raised in the article is the question of decentralization. And yet here again, that does not in itself guarantee a break with corrupt practices, either in the run up to elections, or after them. Ethics therefore must remain first and foremost the first line of business in the area of free and fair elections. And for that, there has to be respect for the vigilance of the independent agencies. Or in other words, all the things Pheu Thai and the UDD want to dismantle.

This article also promulgates a Western fantasy. Yingluck did not receive a " landslide " victory in 2011. She received 48.41 % of the vote. That's not a landslide. Phue Thai received 265 seats out of a possible 500. That's not a landslide. Thaksin invited a number of party leaders to cobble together a buffer coalition for his sister, resulting in about 300 seats. That also is not a landslide. This point should be beyond opinion. It is fact.

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

I agree the good sense of elected provincial governors.Don't see it happening any time soon.

As to Jonathan Head it really is absurd to describe him as heavily Thaksin sympathetic, and in these sensitive times you should be more careful.

As to the FT report, I'm equally puzzled at the suggestion it was written to support the Thaksin faction.

Why do you think western journalists have an agenda? What's in it for them?I think they just want to report a story.

There are many locally based western academics and journalists who understand the position intimately - but stil broadly reflect the BBC, Economist, NYT,FT position.

" There are many locally based western academics and journalists who understand the position intimately - but stil broadly reflect the BBC, Economist, NYT,FT position."

well said jayboy

And this is what Nomura Securities included in their advice to their clients

The Court’s decision not to bar all members of her cabinet from office, may be considered something of a surprise, even though we see it as consistent with the “limbo” view of Thai politics for the past eight years or so and, in particular, since November 2013.

No wonder investors are getting nervous .

My feeling is they adjudicated like that so as not to be seen as too biased but in reality it could be that compromise is not what the country needs.

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Hahaha.

They aren't trying to write war and peace. So which major details did they omit to say? Or is everything just hunkey dorey in the land of smiles/street protests?

I wonder if Thailand might not have been seriously damaged for FDI by this . This story is being read and listened to by a lot of people in the west. Some people are quite gobsmacked that u can just remove a PM like this, for such an apparently trivial thing.

This Thailand welly speshun, falang no undursatan rubbish is wearing thin.

the bit hey missed out is the reason why the Shinawatras need to be removed from Thai politics......murder, corruption, theft and blackmail. THAT is the bit the western media always omits because of the Robert Amsterdams of this world , because of lack of knowledge, because of lack of understanding about just what an egotistical little criminal TS is!!!!!!!! THAT is why this is tabloid garbage!!

Thailand: Everything is broken

Mai Pen Rai.

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Hahaha.

They aren't trying to write war and peace. So which major details did they omit to say? Or is everything just hunkey dorey in the land of smiles/street protests?

I wonder if Thailand might not have been seriously damaged for FDI by this . This story is being read and listened to by a lot of people in the west. Some people are quite gobsmacked that u can just remove a PM like this, for such an apparently trivial thing.

This Thailand welly speshun, falang no undursatan rubbish is wearing thin.

This is a good article and advocates some good ideas, like democratically elected provincial governors (which the undemocratic PTP don't want. The prefer to appoint their friends),

There has been some very "economic" reporting in the foreign media aimed at trying to trivialize the reason for her removal - like failing to mention the bit about moving him to make way so her ex-brother in law could be made national police chief. The nepotism and clear benefit to the "family" was mysteriously not mentioned. As you say "apparently" trivial when only a small part of the story revealed.

I find the Economist usually fairly good, unlike the BBC that relies on the heavily Thaksin sympathetic Head. The FT (Peel) report was even more selective and written to really prompt support for the Thaksin faction.

When Thais read the bs written by certain journalists, supporters of either camp, it hardly surprising they might thing foreigners don't understand. We know, of course they understand exactly what they write and how it might support their own agenda.

Maybe they are right and it was a trivial reason to remove an elected prime minister.

"an elected prime minister".............................Gee, did you just wake from a 3 year coma ? Or just have not taken any notice whatsoever of the goings on in the PTP since your darling was "democratically elected". Try to keep up will ya.

" There is something creepy about the way that the exiled, unelected Mr Thaksin has been calling the shots from Dubai. "

Indeed, there is something very creepy about it. This is the best sentence of this opinion article. There is something profoundly creepy about Thaksin calling the shots from Dubai. There is also something profoundly unconstitutional about it, as well. He was not elected. Therefore, he has no business directing this administration. He has no constitutional business receiving Pheu Thai cabinet ministers on a frequent basis to hone policy points. He has no constitutional business directing cabinet meetings through sykpe. To be sure, there is no parallel to this in the West. The West - it is true - do not have an " agenda " regarding the political climate in Thailand. The problem - understandably - is that it simply can't be fit into a thirty-second soundbite, and as such corners get tapered for more immediate Western consumption and recognition. It is naturally understandable that the West would immediately see elections as the be-all and end-all of the solving of all problems. The reasons for that are simple. Elections generally do a cracking good job of that, and when they don't, there are a reasonable number of stringent checks and balances through the courts to help ensure that it does. But for that to occur, there has to be a bedrock of unquestioned support for the judicial system. In Western countries - by and large - there is. Therefore it works, as it is supposed to. Secretary of State John Kerry was right when he said that elections were only one component of a democracy - a vital part, to be sure - but only one part. He also was quick to stress that their has to be a judicial underpinning, as indeed there does in every civilized society. Democracy cannot act independently of that, although Pheu Thai and the UDD would have us believe that it can. Mr. Kerry also assumes naturally that the elections must also be free and fair. The West assumes that all that is in place already. But the problem is that the mechanisms that protect the sanctity of the electoral system are not enforced, and have in fact been abused, promulgating a cycle of corruption that enters a kind of perpetual loop year after year. Quite a number of foreign journalists concur with this, but they are still hamstrung by the condensing of the reports, and that keeps their audience from the complex historical perspectives that are ultimately key to understanding it and how it has evolved.

The other point that is well raised in the article is the question of decentralization. And yet here again, that does not in itself guarantee a break with corrupt practices, either in the run up to elections, or after them. Ethics therefore must remain first and foremost the first line of business in the area of free and fair elections. And for that, there has to be respect for the vigilance of the independent agencies. Or in other words, all the things Pheu Thai and the UDD want to dismantle.

This article also promulgates a Western fantasy. Yingluck did not receive a " landslide " victory in 2011. She received 48.41 % of the vote. That's not a landslide. Phue Thai received 265 seats out of a possible 500. That's not a landslide. Thaksin invited a number of party leaders to cobble together a buffer coalition for his sister, resulting in about 300 seats. That also is not a landslide. This point should be beyond opinion. It is fact.

+1!!!!!!

Complete garbage from western media that have no depth of understanding for the problems in Thailand. It sounds more like biased tabloid fodder

Hahaha.

They aren't trying to write war and peace. So which major details did they omit to say? Or is everything just hunkey dorey in the land of smiles/street protests?

I wonder if Thailand might not have been seriously damaged for FDI by this . This story is being read and listened to by a lot of people in the west. Some people are quite gobsmacked that u can just remove a PM like this, for such an apparently trivial thing.

This Thailand welly speshun, falang no undursatan rubbish is wearing thin.

the bit hey missed out is the reason why the Shinawatras need to be removed from Thai politics......murder, corruption, theft and blackmail. THAT is the bit the western media always omits because of the Robert Amsterdams of this world , because of lack of knowledge, because of lack of understanding about just what an egotistical little criminal TS is!!!!!!!! THAT is why this is tabloid garbage!!

So now they have been removed, I look forward to them getting on with elections forthwith.

What? That isn't going to happen. Why? Surely now that they have gone that is enough. What you mean they want to change more than that

If you reckon this is about keeping only the shinawtra out of politics you are incredibly naive.

Your accusation applies to many on the opposition benches.

Most economist articles have been/are banned in Thailand

So ruination officially starts when?... Friday?

Economist has always been pro Business Thaksin, never mind the rest of his indiscretions, it doesn't matter, as long as money is being made.

This article also promulgates a Western fantasy. Yingluck did not receive a " landslide " victory in 2011. She received 48.41 % of the vote. That's not a landslide. Phue Thai received 265 seats out of a possible 500. That's not a landslide. Thaksin invited a number of party leaders to cobble together a buffer coalition for his sister, resulting in about 300 seats. That also is not a landslide. This point should be beyond opinion. It is fact.

You are talking nonsense.In every democracy election results tend to be split more or less evenly, certainly the experience of the Uk and the US.PTP won 265 seats as you say and the Dems (from memory) about 140.Small parties picked up the rest but none more than about 30 seats.That's an easy victory for the PTP and if the Democrats had achieved that level of margin you would not have made this foolish post.