Google
 

Monday, February 5, 2007

The Bangkok Post Has Really Jumped the Shark

Foreign media loves Thaksin

The Bangkok Post has lost its marbles. There is not one shred of evidence that the "foreign press loves Thaksin." In fact, the foreign press went after Thaksin time and time again during his tenure, especially when he was espousing National Socialist Thaksinomics which, by the way, really isn't that distinguishable from National Socialist juntanomics. They also went after him about killings in the South, the extra-judicial killings during the drug war, his handling of Sars and the bird flu, and his delusions of regional grandeur.

Note: The Al Jazeera piece seemed pro-Thaksin to me. But the Bangkok Post and Nation are ignoring it.


Like it or not, exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra still manages to manipulate the media for his own vested interests, at home and abroad.

At home in Thailand, the press conference held almost weekly - usually on weekends when there are few newsworthy events - by his faithful mouthpiece, Noppadon Pattama, attracts a big crowd of newshounds. They tend to unhesitantly report whatever he says, mostly about his boss' good points, which are laughable to most seasoned observers.

Where was the Bangkok Post during Thaksin's tenure? It was cowering in fear of being sued from Thaksin and his crony agents. The same newspaper that was firing editors and reporters at the command of Thaksin and his agents. Now that Thaksin is gone, it seems The Nation and Bangkok Post have found some courage. So much courage, in fact, that they haven't printed any evidence uncovering Thaksin's nefarious empire. Who are the bureaucrats covering for Thaksin? If the Bangkok Post knows so much, why isn't it producing receipts? Why isn't it naming names? Why isn't it putting a fire under the asses of those bureaucrats who are covering for Thaksin? When will it stop being sarcastic and start producing facts? When will the Bangkok Post stop acting like a petulant 3rd World worthless tabloid and grow up act like a responsible member of the international media community?


Here are just two examples of the incredible statements coming from Noppadon's mouth: One, Thaksin wholeheartedly favours a free press in Thailand. This was in direct response to the threat to gag the media by the Council for National Security (CNS). And two, Thaksin fully supports the sufficiency economy advocated by His Majesty the King.


1. We all know that Thaksin is a notorious liar. 2. We all know that Thaksin is a notorious liar. But Thaksin is no bigger of a hypocrite than those in the Thai media who drool over themselves in praise of sufficiency theory--even though these media outlets are the biggest pushers of crass commercialism in Thailand.


While in exile, the globetrotting ex-premier has often been in the news. The foreign media's love affair with Thaksin puzzles many Thais, me included. Especially in recent days, when a number of articles appeared in foreign publications such as The Economist, Asian Wall Street Journal and Newsweek praising the ex-premier and Thaksinomics, while pouring scorn on the coup makers and the Surayud government. Not even the sufficiency economy was spared the foreign media's wrath. Their attacks cast doubt among many that their relationship with Thaksin is strictly professional.


Thaksin hired two extremely capable PR firms, paying them millions of dollars to get his message out. Doesn't The Bangkok Post know how the media works? Or does it live in its own oblivious little Thai world where they think everything is done in a half-assed Thai way, like this column? If the junta hired outside help, they could achieve the same effect, but they are either too arrogant or too stupid to hire outside experts and play hard ball in the international media. What does The Bangkok Post and The Nation editorial staff expect to achieve by snickering away how much the foreign media "loves" and "praises" Thaksin? Do those feelings of right-wing nationalism give them satisfaction? If they want to feel that type of satisfaction, they should put on their Village Scouts uniforms and do a marathon watching of King Naresuan, Bang Rajan and Suryiothai, and when done with that, put on their yellow shirts and watch a Thai-Singapore football match.

The Economist, in its Jan 13 edition, criticises the sufficiency economy. In an article, it blames the Surayud government's support of the sufficiency economy for making foreign firms think Thailand is rejecting globalisation. It cited the imposition of capital controls in early January. It also chides the UNDP for poor judgement in backing the sufficiency economy while a debate of the merits of the philosophy is nonexistent.

No, it is the Thai government's fault for pursuing anti-foreigner, anti-liberal policies and linking them to King Bumibol's sufficiency theory. It was the Thai government's ineptness that caused these problems.

By the way, where is the debate concerning the merits of sufficiency theory? Or is just another trend that the Thai media is going to goose step behind until it gets boring? One has to wonder where the staff at the Bangkok Post has hidden its stash of Khun Thongdaeng books. Perhaps the Bangkok Post should look into promoting the social and economic theory hidden in those tomes and then go on a right-wing tirade against the foreign media imaginary derision of those theories.


Here is an excerpt of the article:

''Perhaps it makes sense for the new government to obscure its predecessor's achievements while stealing its best clothes. The question is why the UNDP thinks it should provide cover for this whitewash by puffing the sufficiency economy as a miracle-cure for the developing world's woes. The answer is that the UNDP is a sucker for this sort of new-age waffle, especially if it has royal patronage. It has also lauded the not entirely dissimilar 'Gross National Happiness' theory of Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck.

''In publishing such an unbalanced report on a theory that is untried... the UNDP has abandoned all sense of objectivity. It is also lending legitimacy to a regime that took power by force.''

I beg to differ with the writer's claim about Thaksin's achievements. Perhaps, if the writer had done a little homework he would have realised that the so-called achievements are just an illusion. Did he ever realise how much public debt had been incurred by Thaksin to fulfil his populist schemes that we, the taxpayers, will have to repay? About 150 billion baht in total.

I love how the Bangkok Post plays Monday morning quarterback. How come the Bangkok Post was writing piece after piece about the glories of Thaksinomics when the Thai economy was booming? Remember when the SET went up a hundred percent in one year? I guess the editors have a short memory. And concerning Thailand's debt, there is no way to know the future. Currently, Thailand is in good financial shape. There is absolutely no way to tell if Thaksin was going to bankrupt the country in the future unless you are omnipotent. Further, Thailand's GDP to debt ratio is lower now than before he took power. And the hypocrites at the Bangkok Post have said nothing about the Surayud's massive increases in the budget. By the way, The Economist is a neo-liberal magazine. It doesn't believe in untested feudal socialist theories that make everybody feel warm and fuzzy inside. It believes in empirical evidence and measurable results. Further, the foreign media isn't brainwashed and doesn't have to kow tow to every supposed theory that comes out of the king's mouth. The foreign media, unlike the Thai media, doesn't have any slavish obligations to irrationally and undemocratically supplicate itself to any monarchy.


The country would have gone belly up in debt if Thaksin was allowed to stay on a few more years. The ex-premier and his cronies could then be sunbathing on some faraway beach with all the wealth they accumulated during their years in power.

There is absolutely no evidence to support Thailand going belly up. Thaksin and his cronies can live high on the hog with all their corruption money now if they want. They didn't need to wait for an economic collapse.

''Stealing its best clothes?'' That is a preposterous statement. On the contrary, there may be no clothes left for any of us.

Another lie. Again, no evidence.

Thaksin's achievements? A walk through the Suvarnabhumi airport, his ''mother of all achievements'', is certainly an eye-opener.

Where was the Bangkok Post when the contracts for airport were being handed out? What was the media's responsibility in protecting the interests of the public? Again, the Bangkok Post was cowering in fear like pussies instead of doing its job. Does it have courage now that Thaksin is a million miles away? Unfortunately, it still cowers in fear of Thaksin and his cronies, because it still refuses to investigate like a real newspaper all his dirty shenanigans. Instead, it blames the foreign media for not doing the analysis of Thaksin now that the Thai media repeatedly refused to do while he was in power.


Sufficiency economy is not an economic theory but a philosophy on how to live. Like Buddhism, it preaches moderation and sustainability. It definitely does not reject capitalism or globalisation. For an individual, it means living within his or her means. If someone earns 10,000 baht a month, they should not spend all their earnings or borrow against them by using credit cards.

I love how the Thai media, the biggest pushers of commercialism in the country, have all now found the light in sufficiency theory. The day the Bangkok Post stops printing ads for worthless crap is the day I believe in its sincerity concerning sufficiency theory.

The foreign media can write whatever it wants as there is press freedom here. But a little effort to do better homework is what makes the difference between a good article and a shoddy one.

Veera Prateepchaikul

No, it is the Thai media that has abdicated its responsibilities and has demonstrated nothing but hypocrisy, weakness and irresponsibility. Before blaming the foreign media, the Thai media should do some soul searching and ask what it did wrong with Thaksin and how now it is nothing more than a mouth piece for a military dictatorship. Let's face it. The Thai media has sold out and really has no right to criticize anybody.

2 comments:

anon said...

"Thailand's GDP to debt ratio is lower now than before he took power."

Actually, it's the public debt:GDP ratio that's lower, not the other way around.

Fonzi said...

What I meant was that Thailand's public debt is a smaller portion of GDP now then it was before. Thanks