Pheu Thai files complaint over Democrat book launch

[Bob12345]

(...)

Yet they want this book banned because they don't want the public to know the truth.

(...)

And do you really believe this part yourself?

Just think about what you said and if it really makes sense.

Below some reasons why it does not make sense:

- don't want the public to know -

1. The public can already find evidence enough about mistakes made surrounding this scheme online. Heck; there is even a court case these days about this subject so every newspaper in the country will report about it. This book probably builds a more complete case then internet articles or newspaper articles, but I doubt there will be real eye-openers in there. So the information is already available.

2. You can say that maybe not everybody reads online pieces about this or even newspapers. But those people are also not very likely to buy a book about it. You are either interested or you are not; you will not all of a sudden become interested because it is now available in as a book.

3. People who have a tunnel vision that the rice scheme was all good will not spend money on a book to read why their beliefs are wrong. Even well-educated people here on TV only look for information that confirms their beliefs (which can be seen in the comments where many either blindly support the red-shirt movement or blindly support the junta: apparently there is no middle ground possible).

- to know the truth -

Do you really think that this book will give an impartial account of what happened? Hint: democrat party representatives who would gain most by a one-sided review of the policy endorse the book. Another hint: would an impartial book based on facts have a title like that ("Epic corruption")? And another hint: many books are written with a particular audience in mind, and given the strong division in Thailand, it seems likely that the author would maximize book sales by completely discrediting one party while leaving the other party intact (or even praising it).

Currently political activities are not allowed. Publishing a book which analyses the execution of policies by one political party sounds strongly politically flavored to me. If a book like this is not stopped from being launched it will open the door for everyone to write similar books bashing the democrat party, praising the democrat party, or praising the PTP. It is public relations initiated by people who are not (directly) working for a political party. I think everybody who is able to take a step back can see that.

P.s. In my view the book should not be banned at all as I strongly belief in freedom of speech. If there are no outright lies in the book they should be allowed to publish it and it should be scrutinized by independent journalists in newspapers. If it is pure propaganda it will come out, if it does give an impartial account of what happened it would be a valuable work for next generations. But currently there is no freedom of speech in Thailand, nor are there independent journalists who can write their opinions freely.

[Bob12345]

Here, your pre-judgement is that this book is THE truth

​And until I see a defamation lawsuit filed by the PTP I will continue to pre-judge the book as the truth.

​No defamation law suit. No lies.

You should be aware by now that you can fill complete books with nonsense without being able to successfully being sued for defamation,you just need to word it correctly ("one of my sources said ...", "it seems obvious that ....") or only quote people on one side of the story.

(take every religious book as an example, or sensational gossip magazines)

Instead of "no law suit, no lies" you should approach political items with "no independent sources that can be double checked, no truth".

[rubl]

Here, your pre-judgement is that this book is THE truth

​And until I see a defamation lawsuit filed by the PTP I will continue to pre-judge the book as the truth.

​No defamation law suit. No lies.

You should be aware by now that you can fill complete books with nonsense without being able to successfully being sued for defamation,you just need to word it correctly ("one of my sources said ...", "it seems obvious that ....") or only quote people on one side of the story.

(take every religious book as an example, or sensational gossip magazines)

Instead of "no law suit, no lies" you should approach political items with "no independent sources that can be double checked, no truth".

On the other hand, the OP has

"Singthong said the group defied the NCPO's announcement no 57/2557, which prohibited all political activities. "This book launch has a hidden political agenda because the book's content carries mudslinging messages against Pheu Thai and the Yingluck [shinawatra] government. It is misleading, inappropriate and can be deemed as rude," he said."

One could be excused to think that the gentleman should be capable of pointing out the parts being "mudslinging", "misleading", and/or 'inappropriate' or even "rude".

BTW the gentleman somehow didn't use words like 'utterly wrong', 'verifiable incorrect' and so.

[fab4]

On the other hand, the OP has

"Singthong said the group defied the NCPO's announcement no 57/2557, which prohibited all political activities. "This book launch has a hidden political agenda because the book's content carries mudslinging messages against Pheu Thai and the Yingluck [shinawatra] government. It is misleading, inappropriate and can be deemed as rude," he said."

One could be excused to think that the gentleman should be capable of pointing out the parts being "mudslinging", "misleading", and/or 'inappropriate' or even "rude".

BTW the gentleman somehow didn't use words like 'utterly wrong', 'verifiable incorrect' and so.

Misleading is a (polite) synonym of deceptive. Deceptive: intended to make someone believe something that is not true

[rubl]

On the other hand, the OP has

"Singthong said the group defied the NCPO's announcement no 57/2557, which prohibited all political activities. "This book launch has a hidden political agenda because the book's content carries mudslinging messages against Pheu Thai and the Yingluck [shinawatra] government. It is misleading, inappropriate and can be deemed as rude," he said."

One could be excused to think that the gentleman should be capable of pointing out the parts being "mudslinging", "misleading", and/or 'inappropriate' or even "rude".

BTW the gentleman somehow didn't use words like 'utterly wrong', 'verifiable incorrect' and so.

Misleading is a (polite) synonym of deceptive. Deceptive: intended to make someone believe something that is not true

Still same question, which part?

[fab4]

On the other hand, the OP has

"Singthong said the group defied the NCPO's announcement no 57/2557, which prohibited all political activities. "This book launch has a hidden political agenda because the book's content carries mudslinging messages against Pheu Thai and the Yingluck [shinawatra] government. It is misleading, inappropriate and can be deemed as rude," he said."

One could be excused to think that the gentleman should be capable of pointing out the parts being "mudslinging", "misleading", and/or 'inappropriate' or even "rude".

BTW the gentleman somehow didn't use words like 'utterly wrong', 'verifiable incorrect' and so.

Misleading is a (polite) synonym of deceptive. Deceptive: intended to make someone believe something that is not true

Still same question, which part?

Can you not understand the statement "It is misleading, inappropriate and can be deemed as rude"? "It" being the book as a whole.

[rubl]

On the other hand, the OP has

"Singthong said the group defied the NCPO's announcement no 57/2557, which prohibited all political activities. "This book launch has a hidden political agenda because the book's content carries mudslinging messages against Pheu Thai and the Yingluck [shinawatra] government. It is misleading, inappropriate and can be deemed as rude," he said."

One could be excused to think that the gentleman should be capable of pointing out the parts being "mudslinging", "misleading", and/or 'inappropriate' or even "rude".

BTW the gentleman somehow didn't use words like 'utterly wrong', 'verifiable incorrect' and so.

Misleading is a (polite) synonym of deceptive. Deceptive: intended to make someone believe something that is not true

Still same question, which part?

Can you not understand the statement "It is misleading, inappropriate and can be deemed as rude"? "It" being the book as a whole.

'the book as a whole'?

Somehow I doubt any judge would be impressed by that type of 'broad' accusation. I guess next you'll tell me even the front cover was yellow as deliberate insult?

[orchidlady]

Unless it was written in comic book format-lots of pictures, little text, not many Thais are going to read it anyway.

[rubl]

Unless it was written in comic book format-lots of pictures, little text, not many Thais are going to read it anyway.

... and the number of TVF complainers who would read the book even if there was a decent English translation I might be able to count using only one of my two hands