Suthichai Yoon versus Suthichai Yoon

This week's column:

Two questions stand out that must be answered if we are to be able to get to the bottom of the "Black October" incident that killed two and injured more than 400 protestors last week. Who gave police the order to fire tear-gas canisters into the protestors in front of Parliament on the morning of October 7

Did the police know that the Chinese-made tear gas canisters were at least15 years old and contained RDX explosives that could mortally wound a victim if hit directly at close range?

Khunying Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, a member of the police-appointed fact-finding committee, provided some revealing clues when she spoke on the Nation Channel on Monday evening.

She said: "The meeting of senior officials including the Army chief [Gen Anupong Paochinda] and police director [Police Maj Patcharawat Vongsuwan] had concluded that police would not move in to disperse the crowd. But somehow, political influence held sway and orders were later given out to police in the frontline to clear the way in front of Parliament House…"

Short of naming names, she said: "Two deputy premiers were responsible for giving that order. One of them has quit. The other is still in the Cabinet."

If that isn't a clear enough indictment on the men behind the scenes, then we will never hear a more specific statement on who should be held responsible for the bloodshed.

Will Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat ever feel responsible enough to launch a transparent probe into the political manipulation behind the tragedy? Not very likely - since he won't be able to avoid being implicated.

Asked whether the premier would be considered a party to the conspiracy, Khunying Pornthip responded: "Quite so … after all, he was the one who insisted on delivering his policy speech in the Parliament House, no matter what."

The blame game, of course, has been in full play. A close aide to Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who quit as deputy premier in charge of security affairs soon after the chaos broke out, gave a different version of the story to protect his boss. He said he had urged the specially convened Cabinet meeting, chaired by the premier, to avoid any confrontation by proposing several alternative sites where the premier could deliver the policy speech.

The Cabinet was split. But, Chavalit's aides claimed, when a phone call was made to House Speaker Chai Chidchob, the latter was adamant that the parliamentary session would have to be held at the besieged Parliament House - and nowhere else. That command, according to this version of the story, overrode the Cabinet's deliberations. The excuse was that since it was a parliamentary event, the House Speaker, and not the prime minister, should have the final say



Last week's column:

But Deputy Premier Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, leading the soft-approach faction in the Cabinet urged the prime minister to avoid a confrontation with the protestors, which would make a bad situation much worse - and render the whole scenario totally unpredictable and even out of control.

Chavalit proposed holding the parliamentary meeting in another location in the capital while negotiating with the protestors to end their siege peacefully.

Incredibly enough, instead of following his own pronouncement that he would put harmony above all other considerations, Somchai put the issue up for a vote in the Cabinet. Not surprisingly, the hard-line Cabinet members won the day - and Chavalit lost.

A few hours later, a squad of apparently ill-trained policemen, under clear instruction to disperse the crowd at all costs and armed with tear-gas canisters, started firing into, instead of over, the heads of the protestors.

The ensuing melee that saw more than 400 protestors injured, several of them with mutilated legs, marked the beginning of the end of Somchai's tenure that began only two weeks earlier.

Gen Chavalit quit in disgust, citing the police's use of force as the main reason. The real reason, however, was that Chavalit felt betrayed by Somchai and, perhaps, London-based Thaksin Shinawatra.

Chavalit's role as the government's mediator with the People's Alliance for Democracy was clearly sabotaged by the police's move to take into custody two of PAD's core leaders - Chaiwat Sinsuwong last Friday and Maj Gen Chamlong Srimuang on Monday. Tuesday morning's tear-gassing of the protestors in front of Parliament House was the last straw.

But wasn't Chavalit supposed to be former premier Thaksin's point-man - and possibly the man to head Thaksin's new party in case the People Power Party is disbanded? That, indeed, was the original plan. One of Chavalit's close aides admitted that Chavalit had in fact been asked by Thaksin to join Somchai's Cabinet to shore up the premier, Thaksin's brother-in-law, who is considered a novice in politics.

Once on board, Chavalit wasted no time in reaching out to the PAD's leadership. Thaksin, of course, wanted Chavalit to build a link to his worst political enemies - but only as a gesture with a political objective, not to the extent that Chavalit tried to portray to the public.

Suthichai Yoon really has some big balls to expose his own incompetent reporting this way.

He is basically admitting that he got spun a bunch of lies by General Chavalit's aide.

Though General Chavalit already admitted that he was responsible for giving the order and quit before Yoon's column went to print.

The great Suthichai Yoon, publishing spin before confirming the propaganda from other sources.

Of course, Yoon doesn't apologize to anybody for getting the story totally wrong.

Another thing that really irritates me about The Nation's crap journalistic standards: they never ever ever ever do any type of independent investigating on their own. They just sit on their arses and wait for some government body to tell them what to print. If the government body coalesces with their belief system, they praise it. If it doesn't mesh with their beliefs, they denounce it as puppet body made up of Thaksinistas and pro-government stooges.

Seriously, how difficult is it to send a reporter down to where the crackdown took place, look for some empty shell canisters and determine their origin, get some sample clothing from the victims and pay for a forensic report, do interviews with the police, ask questions of eye witnesses and do everything a real reporter is supposed to do in a situation like this?

It wouldn't really be that difficult.

But, then, the material facts might get in the way of The Nation's lies and propaganda.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Dopey Questions from a Dopey Editor

Let the real big political debate begin


Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

Screaming vulgarities at reporters certainly can't be counted as a political party leader's participation in a healthy debate to offer eligible voters a clear insight into what his party really stands for.

The Nation's MO: Consistently attack Samak for his outbursts until the election.


And confronting the press in a verbal showdown can't provide an excuse to avoid an open debate on the country's real issues.


It can be a legitimate excuse in dealing with The Nation, which has no journalistic integrity.

Despite claims to the contrary by certain party leaders, a one-on-one interview can never satisfy voters' demand for a robust exchange of ideas among political leaders.

Suthichai never ceases to amaze me with his omnipotent powers.

A public debate puts to the test not only the party leader's IQ (intelligence quotient) but also the EQ (emotional quotient). The latter may prove to be more important because it determines the degree of respect a candidate gives to the intelligence of the general public.

Unfortunately, Suthichai doesn't believe the people have the ability to make up their own minds, which is why he wants the government to dictate to people how they should make choices.

To make sure that the electorate gets what it deserves, the National Election Commission should initiate its own Big Debate in which wide-ranging public participation is guaranteed and all party leaders running in the election are required to take part without exception.

Is there a government agency out there that The Nation doesn't want to compel people to do its bidding? Seriously, I have never in my whole life seen a newspaper editor that advocates involving the government in politics and elections as much as Suthichai Yoon. Why have elections at all? Suthichai knows best.

In order that the current crop of party leaders won't be able to keep brushing off the really crucial questions, here are some of my questions for the Big Debate:

How do you define "populism"? Would you say your party's platform is a populist one? How is that different from a "welfare state" platform?

Dopey question number one. Instead of worrying about the labels, why doesn't Suthichai worry about which policies will work and which policies won't work? But it doesn't surprise me that Suthichai is worried more abour superficial labels than substance.

This is a vital issue, since a commitment to either policy would inevitably be linked to tax and social security issues. But politicians have tried desperately to avoid being questioned on the flip side of their vote-getting slogans and have also failed to address the cold hard facts on the sensitive and more relevant question:

"Where will the money come from?"

Here is another example of Suthichai's incompetence and pure laziness. Why doesn't Suthichai have one of his sycophants look at what the politicians are promising, then go to an economist for an independent financial analysis, then ask the politicians who are promising the world, how are you going to finance these programs? Economist A says it will cost $100 billion baht. Economist B says $200 billion baht. However, discretionary spending is $50 billion baht.

How do you define "sufficiency economy"? And how is it different from the previous so-called grassroots "populist policy"?

Is this really an important question? No, it is a stupid question. Why do the labels matter?

Will your party seek a pardon for the 111 banned executive members of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party (including Thaksin Shinawatra, of course) so that they can resume their political activities?

Don't we already know the answer to this question?

Where each party stands on this question offers the electorate an insight into the sanctity of the rule of law - and how a political party views the consequence of using influence and money to circumvent the election law.

Look at Suthichai spins the propaganda. Suthichai has no respect for the rule of law or he wouldn't have championed the coup.

Funny how Suthichai doesn't think about asking anybody about the legality of the coup or prosecuting the coup makers for ripping up the old constitution.

Futher, Suthchai has no problems with the military or state agencies using taxpayer money to support his personal political agenda and the political agenda of his allies.

A crucial question for both People Power Party leader Samak Sundaravej and Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva in this debate:

How are you going to treat Thaksin if you were to be the country's next prime minister?

This is where the biggest difference between the two main party leaders will be noted. No, this isn't a question of personal feelings towards the controversial ex-premier. It's about making a public stand on corruption, cronyism, populism, liberalism and, you guessed it, money politics.

More of Suthichai's lies and spin. First, Thaksin hasn't been convicted of any crimes, except for the kangaroo court case regarding the party disbandment. Second, one can make an assessment about corruption, cronyism, populism and liberalism in Thailand without Thaksin. Third, the Democrats may have a clean image, but some in that party have not always acted cleanly. Of course, The Nation refuses to investigate and report on the corruption, cronyism, money politics and populism that has occurred over the last year in the Surayud government while Thaksin was in exile. As for liberalism, I don't think that much of it ever really existed in Thailand, and what did exist of it, was murdered by the coup makers and their allies.

How would you, as prime minister, prevent another military coup?

Samak has sought votes by declaring that if his party is elected to power, that alone would reduce the chances of another coup. Exactly how his logic works is always puzzling to most people, especially this latest comment. For one thing, his "nominator" (as opposed to "nominee") was ousted by a coup in the first place. And his confrontational style is courting trouble from all quarters concerned.

This question of a premier convincing the military establishment that another attempt at a military takeover would be suicidal, however, remains one of the most important roadblocks on Thailand's path back to credible democracy.

This is a good question. Of course, Suthichai shamelessly spins it so that it is another attack on Samak. Maybe Suthichai should ask himself the question. An answer might be that the Thai media shouldn't support coups and propagate for juntas in Thailand. Maybe the Thai media should actually do some digging into the political affairs of military generals who should be defending the country from foreign invasion instead of playing in domestic politics.

If Suthichai had any balls, he should be asking about a military reform agenda, which takes political power away from the military and keeps them in the barracks forever. Of course, Suthichai would never advocate for that, because then who would act as his political patrons. Without the military protecting him and helping his career, Suthichai really is a nobody.

How would the government that you may lead bring the violence in the deep South to an end? What's the time frame? What exactly, in your opinion, are the root causes of the southern problems? How do you plan to resolve them?

This is the only question I agree with.

Don't beat about the bush. Be specific. The voters have already heard too many generalisations from politicians.

How do you propose to face the climate change issue, apart from making general statements about "closely following the world trend?"

Thailand definitely needs an environmental policy. However, the questions shouldn't be limited to trendy global warming. How about recycling, preservation of the forests, ocean protection, fishery protection, pollution, nuclear power, waste disposal, upkeep of the national parks, encroachment, traffic, food supply protection, genetically modified foods etc?

Last but certainly not least is the life-and-death question for every politician:

How can you convince me that I should go out and vote for you?

I have many problems with this idiotic column.

1. Suthichai doesn't believe he has to do any independent policy analysis on his own. All he thinks one has to do to get politicians to "debate' is for the EC to compel the party leaders to show up for a government sponsored forum, so he can look like a big shot and ask his dopey questions.

2. Suthichai doesn't believe anybody other than the party leaders should have to answer questions. Thailand doesn't have a presidential system. Why doesn't he send out reporters to ask questions of minor candidates from the provinces and ask them about the issues?

3. Suthichai doesn't think there are any localized problems in Thailand, other than in the South.

4. What about education policy, energy policy, agricultural policy, foreign relations, labor issues, migration, defense procurement, amending the constitution, and protection of the nation's cultural assets like Ayutthaya?

Unfortunately, Suthichai is all about Thaksin, populism and petty politics.

So far, The Nation's political coverage of the election has been utter crap. Not surprising.

I doubt it will be change from attacking Samak, attacking PPP, attacking Thaksin, giving the Democrats positive coverage, and reporting on inter and intra-party fighting.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Chief Supporter of He Said He Said Political Journalism

Surayud-Prasong spat: trivial and absurd

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation


For the sake of preserving the average Thai citizen's sanity, the two grand old men of Thai politics should simply stop taking pot shots at each other.

The ongoing verbal ambushes are verging on the absurd. The more PM Surayud Chulanont and his ex-ally-turned-arch-rival Prasong Soonsiri trade accusations, the more ridiculous the exchange becomes - and the more disillusioned the public will be towards national politics.

I love how Suthichai picks and chooses, as if we was the God of Thai politics, what causes disillusion in the Thai polity. Two things: First, Suthichai has never cared about the role he and his media group have played in the farce that is called Thai politics, such as printing rumors, spreading gossip and making insinuations that have no basis in reality. Second, if Suthichai hates these exchanges, why does he milk them for they are worth in his newspapers? How can you detest and promote something at the same time?

Prasong has mounted a campaign in the legislative body to grill Premier Surayud and his Cabinet over what he describes as "the government's failure to perform".

Left unsaid in public was Prasong's attempt to get at Surayud's Achilles' heel - the premier's acquisition of a piece of land in Khao Yai Thiang in the northeastern province of Nakhon Ratchasima, that might have been classified as a forest reserve.

There is nothing wrong with putting pressure on the country's chief executive to make full disclosure of questionable personal assets, of course.

This is something that I will never understand about the worthless Thai media. Instead of just regurgitating quotes made by political principles, why doesn't The Nation actually investigate what is behind the feud and actually determine if there is any validity to the accusations?

As for Surayud's assets, The Nation should have been investigating them, as well as the other ministers and generals, at the start of his term rather than wait for the NCCC and Prasong to do it for them.

And why the hell should the prime minister's political nemesis be charged with forcing the PM to fully disclose his assets. Shouldn't the media have been disclosing them in the first place?

But the controversy assumed serious political nuance when some of Prasong's close aides suggested in public that the no-confidence move was in fact aimed at removing Surayud from office - three months before the national election is to be held.

Where is the quote? Where did these idiots learn journalism?

If the premier was perturbed by that move, he did a marvellous job of concealing the fact.

Suthichai the shrink.

Then came the "legal interpretation" by House Speaker Mechai Ruchupan, who went on the record to say that if Surayud should be pressured to step down, things could get rather confusing indeed because he would have to sound out the House to pick a new candidate for the premiership from among the lawmakers.

So what? Actually, Mechai became PM before in a similar situation during the last coup.

With that, the premier's supporters fired back the first salvo at Prasong, saying that Prasong was in fact instigating the no-confidence move to put himself in line for the top political post.

Every Thai journalist loves conspiracies about the "Pipe Devil" because he is "Mr. Thai CIA."

That naturally shed a negative light on Prasong, who has been insisting all along that he was going after the premier only to fulfil his duty as a legislator charged with the responsibility of keeping the government honest.

No, he declared, he wasn't gunning to become prime minister himself.

Take a look at this crap journalism. Somebody makes an accusation, Suthichai reprints it, then he spins it anyway he wishes without any basis in factual reporting. Instead of just regurgitating quotes, and surmising what they mean, why doesn't he get off his ass and go find out what is actually going on? Suthichai has been in journalism for four decades. Doesn't he have inside contacts who he can call up and get the nitty gritty? Obviously, Suthichai ain't no Bob Woodward or John Anderson. He is more like bald-headed gossip columnist pretending to be a serious reporter. Suthichai is the Katie Couric of the Thai media, but worst.

Things could still have remained tolerably tense but not explosive had Surayud, as had been his previous practice, brushed aside any provocative or leading questions from the press. Deliberately or not, the premier got himself trapped by responding to a question from an interviewer in last Saturday's "Open House at Baan Phitsanulok":

Q: "Why do you think Khun Prasong is becoming so antagonistic toward you? Have you done anything that may have angered him?"

Surayud: "I don't know. Perhaps he was disappointed because once, when I was Army commander-in-chief, he had asked me to do something and I turned him down because it was against my principles."

First, the question is lame. It is open-ended, trivial and stupid. It is something you would ask a friend who has been slighted by another friend. It is not a question you would ask a prime minister.

Second, Surayud was stupid to answer a personal question with a political answer. He should have said that I have no animosity towards Prasong and have left it at that. On the other hand, these is nothing wrong with Surayud wondering if Prasong is holding onto a personal grudge from a long time ago. Prasong is notorious for acting on grudges. For example, he went after Thaksin over a grudge over a stupid TV show.

That was it. The simmering skirmish exploded into a full-blown war.

Prasong hit back by denying ever having made any self-serving request to Surayud - demanding that the premier clarify his statement. He then launched a frontal assault on Surayud, attacking him with thinly veiled contempt and scorn.

This is where the Thai media, especially The Nation, is at its lamest. Instead of actually seeing if any of the charges by either party have any merit, it just keeps reporting on the war of words.

If Surayud's initial blow at Prasong was considered a punch below the belt, then Prasong's counter punch wasn't aimed much higher either.

Sutthichai can never resist a column without stupid analogies or cliches.

Prasong claimed: "In fact, it was I who helped Khun Surayud out of the Army's wilderness and got him promoted to Army chief and subsequently as prime minister today."

Is this true? Sutthichai doesn't care.

The premier's responses to Prasong's hard-hitting counter attacks on the same day were ambiguous and feeble. When confronted with direct questions, he turned evasive.

Did Prasong ask him as Army commander-in-chief to stage a coup to oust Thaksin Shinawatra from the premiership?

Surayud, instead of a straight "No", said: "I have never said anyone had tried to persuade me to stage a coup."

Is there really a story in this answer? Instead of digging up facts, Sutthichai's MO is to search for the innuendo.

Was it true that his rise to the top was helped by Prasong?

"I would rather not say anything that might cause divisiveness …"

Does Sutthichai actually investigate if this is true? Nope, just another regurgitated quote.

Now, Prasong's own political record and credibility hasn't been all that solid. But Surayud's ambivalence and caginess have done little to help lend him any credence either.

Wow, Sutthichai, you are a genius. Pointing out that two Thai politicians have dodgy records when it comes to telling the truth. Sutthichai deserves a Pulitzer for this insight.

After all is said and done though, there is more heat than light. Both sides have avoided taking up the real issue. But is the Khao Yai Thiang land a real issue? If so, why does Surayud have to wait for the lawmakers to make a move against him in the House before he speaks up.

After a year, why hasn't The Nation done any investigations into the assets of any government ministers or the generals who forced the coup? How come the worthless Nation hasn't been doing its duty? Questions of government government should always be investigated by the media. There seems to be this idiotic notion in Thai media culture that it is the duty of opposition politicians to investigate and expose corruption. But, there is a conflict of interest. The media is supposed to be independent of politics, report both sides, and investigate corruption on their own as well.

When has the The Nation done a serious expose on government corruption? The answer is never. No, The Nation just reports what the government tells it to report--no questions asked.

If it's a serious breach of ethics, why hasn't Prasong spoken up on what is unethical or illegal? Why has he used the issue as if it is a political bargaining chip?

Politics could be kept out this if the Thai media actually did investigations outside of just re-printing the accusations of political enemies out to destroy each other.

The other personal brickbats (who helped whom to rise to his post? Who asked whom to do what?) are simply trash that shouldn't be dumped onto the public at all … no matter how many newspaper headlines the stories have made in the past week.

No, Sutthichai, those questions are actually very interesting, because it gets to the core of what makes Thai politics tick.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: More Idiocy from The Nation's Top Chief

Excerpt from Suthichai Yoon's:

Thai talk: PM's shocking confession: I used to be bad

The Nation

Reporters at Government House just let PM Surayud Chulanont off the hook too easily. They should have squeezed a full confession from the premier. This must be the first time that the "reluctant, gentleman prime minister" even remotely suggested that he wasn't such a good man after all.

How are we supposed to know if Surayud is good or not when The Nation has refused to do any investigative reports on him?

By the way, aren't Nation reporters covering GH? Suthichai is basically admitting that his own news operation sucks.

Was he admitting to some wrong deeds that had never come to light?

We will never know, will we, because Suthachai is a worthless editor who cares more about the spotlight than the actual profession of journalism.

Or was he simply reacting (with a touch of sarcasm) to the motion by a group of 26 legislators demanding to grill him on his overall performance and his personal ownership of Khao Yai Tiang - a piece of land in a hilly resort - whose acquisition might have been somewhat questionable?

Of course, The Nation never did an investigation into Surayud's assets. Just like it won't do any investigation into Sonthi's assets or the assets of any "unusually wealthy" general.

Or was he feeling somewhat vulnerable because at least eight of his Cabinet members have been found by the Assets Examination Committee to be holding more than 5 per cent of stocks in some private firms - raising the conflict of interest question (although this is technically not a violation under the new constitution).

Why is this idiot asking these questions when he should be providing the answers?

It's not clear who wants him out of office at this time - or who would take over the top executive post if he should decide to throw in the towel at the last minute just to confirm that he never wanted the position in the first place.

It is not clear because the worthless Thai media won't dare to ask these questions to the top political principles. Speculation, innuendo is all we get from the The Nation.

Of course, if you lend any credence to the conspiracy theory being bandied about, then you would cast a suspicious eye at Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the coup-leader, who quit on Monday as chairman of the Council of Security Council (CNS) before being named deputy premier the next day.

Why doesn't he name the conspiracy theorists so the audience can determine if their words have credibility?

It's too mind-boggling and far-fetched for me, but the conspiracy theorists have come up with the suggestion that Sonthi may want to ease out Surayud so he can oversee the December 23 election - his goal being to make sure that the old power clique led by ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra doesn't make a comeback through the electoral process.

Putting his flip flops on in the morning is probably too mind-boggling for Suthichai.

The story, of course, is fairly juicy. It's the kind of speculative stuff that keeps the rumour-mill busy. But you have to hear enough conspiracy stories to balance things out. Other gossip has it that the group of law-makers who are moving for a censure debate against PM Surayud (and presumably leaning towards Gen Sonthi) also wants to postpone the election date to allow the anti-Thaksin groups more time to fight the battle. You can't believe one story without pooh-poohing the other.

Is Suthichai a gossip columnist or an editor in chief of a major metropolitan media group?

Obviously, he has chosen to be a gossip columnist. But what else is new?

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Nominee of Idiotic, Mealy Mouthed, Cryptic Journalism

No kidding: they actually 'own' political parties here

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation


Why have the "few good men" - the handful of well-known personalities with reasonably acceptable "public images" - turned down offers from veteran electioneers?

Take a close look at this question and column. Suthichai is a buffoon. Ask yourself: If you never stepped foot in Thailand and read his column for the first time, would you know what he is talking about?


This is sloppy journalism at its worse.

The roundabout, polite answer is that they aren't quite ready for the fresh excitement. The real reason is because the next election won't be about substance; the name of the game will be for parties to get those votes, at all costs.

Who are "they"? This writing is so horrible that it would not pass a high school journalism class in any country in the world. And how will we know what the parties do and don't do? The Nation won't monitor the polling places during elections(Did it monitor the referendum?). The Nation won't document the vote buying or the murdering of political canvassers. The Nation won't do any investigative reports on campaign financing. All The Nation will do is print baseless accusations and speculate about what is happening.

It's the party's "owner" who counts. The party's leader will only be a figurehead - an "image booster" perhaps, but he won't have a say in anything that's of any significance.

Who is the "owner"? Who is the "image booster"? Suthichai is such a coward and worthless journalist that he doesn't even bother to name names. How is the public supposed to keep politicians accountable if "journalists" don't do any reporting of the facts? I understand this is a column and anything goes, but there has been nothing reported in The Nation to back any of Suthichai's accusations. And, unless he is a coward, he has no reason not to name names. Journalists don't get sued for speculating.

These "wise men" also know that if they were to accept the offers to lead political groupings, they would become part of either a weak coalition government, or a hopelessly impotent opposition party. You don't have to be a highly experienced political pundit to foresee a period of great volatility in the domestic political landscape after the next election.

Who are the "wise men?" Which coalition? Which opposition party? One has to be an experienced media pundit to decipher Suthichai's horrible writing, and even then, it is a chore.

According to Suthichai, we will experience great volatility because of political actors we don't even know the names of.

Obviously, no matter how good an image these academics possess, or how desperate they are to find a meaningful political role to play, the ones with alert minds would certainly decide here and now not to be caught in a position whereby politics is dictated by "party owners" who spend most of their time wheeling and dealing, making compromises, proposing trade-offs and initiating horse-trading deals.

Seriously, is Suthichai on drugs? This column sounds like an incoherent rant of somebody who has spent the night smoking one too many bowls of marijuana.

If they were really intent upon "doing no evil" (as the founders of Google pledged), these "enlightened minds" would not want to be trapped in a coalition government in which conflicts of interest and dividing up the political spoils - and certainly not serious political reforms or corruption busting - would be the order of the day.

Who are "they?" Who are the "enlightened minds?" Of course, the next coalition will do everything that Suthichai says because the worthless Thai media never investigates the government. These morons at The Nation think it is the government's duty to police itself and do the corruption busting, but it is actually the media's responsibility to investigate the government and inform the public about its activities, and it is the public's duty to make the government act or get thrown out in an election

Would anyone who prides himself on having a reasonably clean public record want to be seen as part of a political deal he couldn't even tell his wife about, or know what to say when his children question him on what they've read in the press?

Would anyone who prides himself in knowing the English language allow a horrible column like this in print?

Read what in the press? Suthichai and his worthless cohorts don't print anything worthy enough to be concerned about, because the politicians are never seriously investigated and never named.

Seriously, why should anybody be worried about what is written in this column? As far as we know, Suthichai is talking about phantom politicians and academics that only exist in the imagination of his pea brain.

Worse, they would have to be dragged into such unpleasant areas as "hybrid politics", which carries the highly embarrassing connotation of one being forced to sleep with strange, and at times despicable, partners whose notoriety they couldn't possibly, in their right minds, defend with any conviction.

WTF does "hybrid politics" mean? What are these evil coalitions that he is cryptically talking about? Who are these evil political partners? What exactly have they done?

If the prospect of "hybrid politics" would send chills down the spine of any respectable academic and politician, the term "political copulation", which the local newspapers have been using with almost no sense of shame among the parties' "owners", would certainly be the straw that broke the camel's back - at least for those who still expect society to treat them with any measure of respect.

The only thing sending chills down my spine is the realization that Suthichai Yoon is the editor of a major multimedia company.

If those potentially damaging prospects weren't enough to deter them from jumping onto the bandwagon, these "few good men" would surely wince at the possibility of being labelled "nominees" for politicians with outright corrupt and shady backgrounds. They realise that as "nominees" they run the high risk of their good names being dragged through the mud.

More incoherent babbling. Why should any good man(according to Suthichai's idiotic standards) be concerned about which coalitions he chooses when Suthichai refuses to investigate politicians or even report to the public what "evil" they have done.

The "chosen few" also know that they would be going against the public's confidence, if not the law itself, by fronting for politicians who have been found guilty by the Constitution Tribunal of having bribed other parties to act as "nominees" in the last election.

In some places, rejecting a junta appointed kangaroo court's rulings would make them international heroes.

"Going against the public's confidence"? Notice the spin. I have absolutely no confidence in any media organization that blindly accepts the rulings of an illegal junta appointed tribunal ruling against its enemies.

The term "nominee" in fact smells rather fishy itself - especially after a veteran politician publicly used that label to describe his role in acting on behalf of a former prime minister in self-imposed exile. To be acting as a corrupt politician's "proxy" in the next election, which promises to be tainted with vote-buying and ballot-box manipulation, would be to confirm the worst suspicions of a wary public that those "few good men" may in fact be nothing more than a group of spineless, gullible, opportunists.

Even if every politician in Thailand said that they were acting on behalf of Thaksin, what would that matter? Is it against the law? If Samak ran a campaign in Bangkok in the run up to the election that stated he was to be Thaksin's nominee, and his constituency elected him, so what?

And, even if there was a law that said that it was illegal to be a "nominee" for Thaksin, how do you prove it? Does the army tap all communications between Thailand and Thaksin in England?
Do you keep tabs on Samak's bank accounts?

This is what you have to get about the idiots at The Nation. They really don't believe in political freedom and democracy. They don't believe in freedom of speech. They don't believe that their political enemies should have any rights at all, because any friend of their enemy is their enemy and should be stripped of all their rights to participate in politics. And, if you read this column closely, that is Suthichai's sentiment.

Dirty politics is back. Long live electioneers and all their front-men, henchmen and sidekicks!

Dirty journalism is here to stay! Long live the Suthichai's of the world who speculate, smear, and never print any facts!

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: He Proves He Is The Junta's Poodle

Say 'No' to charter for democracy. Long live hypocrisy!


Don't expect any of the main players in the current political arena to admit that they are practising it. They may call it "survival politics" or even "public service".

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

But there is no doubt about it - the name of the game is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

The Nation has been playing the hypocrisy game for the last 6 years.

Those who probably think they have nothing to lose have gone whole hog for the fine art of hypocrisy. That's why you noticed no sense of embarrassment whatsoever when leading members of the Thai Rak Thai Party, who used to pride themselves as being on the "left" during the October uprisings, welcomed the arrival of the country's best-known "right-wing chieftain" into their ranks under the People Power Party. The former arch-rivals have joined together to come to the rescue of the country's most popular capitalist.

Suthichai Yoon condemns the '73 student leader - Samak (Halloween Coalition) while he continuously benefits from and defends the present military junta.

In case your memory has been blurred somewhat, remember that the same guy who became a powerful Cabinet member after the bloody, ultra-right military coup on October 6, 1976 is now poised to head a political party that comprises mainly Thai Rak Thai members who have vowed to go against the September 19, 2006 coup!

I agree that this is ridiculous. Samak has always been a right-wing asshole. But he is a popular one. He won the most votes in Bangkok's last Senate election, which just demonstrates that Bangkokians are not smarter than the rural masses.

The same question must be raised over the campaign by academics who have come out to call on us to reject the constitution in the August 19 referendum, saying that it's "the only way to express our disapproval of the junta and the aristocracy".

I think it is a valid argument. But what I think is ironic is that Suthichai Yoon and his brain dead minions over at The Nation think that overthrowing the legal government and ramming an extra-judicial junta-sponsored constitution through without any public participation is a valid process.

No doubt, coups are bad and they set the country back into the political Dark Ages, but what about corrupt politicians who tried to buy the generals and at the same time gave the military an excuse to intervene?

Suthichai doesn't think coups are bad, because he supported this last one, and has been a propaganda mouthpiece for the junta ever since.

If you go through the interim constitution with a fine-tooth comb, you would discover that if a simple majority throws out the charter draft, that would result in it being thrown back to the coup-leaders, who would then have the right to choose any of the previous constitutions and simply declare it into force immediately.

The right thing to do would be for the junta to announce a return to the previous constitution, have elections as quickly as humanly possible, then slink back to their barracks.

In fact, the "junta", in collusion with the military-appointed Cabinet, could make whatever additions or subtractions they like.

There is the other possibility I just mentioned. Anyway, General Sonthi recently said that he would pick the 97 Constitution.

In other words, if you vote against the new charter on the grounds that you can't possibly agree with the September 19 coup, then some people may say that you are simply handing the power back to the same group of people you are supposed to detest.

No, Suthichai is wrong, as usual. There is nothing wrong with rejecting the junta, the new constitution, and the entire illegal process because it has no legitimacy whatsoever. And there is nothing wrong with protesting this process, a right enshrined under the 1997 Constitution, which said that every Thai has the right to fight against a coup.

You may be accused of self-righteousness, but that's because such critics don't appreciate the hypocrites' argument that their double standards can somehow heal society's wounds, and enable people to put up a facade of taking a position on the country's crucial issues.

Only an idiot like Suthichai would call fighting for your constitutional right an act of self-righteousness. But it is not surprising that he would prefer bending over for the military(and calling it healing society's wounds) more than actually fighting against an illegal coup and all the crimes that have proceeded from it.

Isn't it because we pay respect to hypocrites that we took it seriously when some of Thaksin Shinawatra's followers set up an "independent" group by the name of the "Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship" and proceeded to storm police barricades and shout obscenities at Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda?

This paragraph doesn't make any sense, especially in conjunction with the rest of the column. But, then, it shouldn't be surprising that Suthichai can't resist spinning lies and propaganda for the military.

Hypocrisy was abundant when a leading member of the anti-Thaksin alliance turned into an anti-coup militant and described the ex-premier as "mud" when he was detained by police last week and declared that "mud" can't be cleaned up by "mud" but must be cleared out by "clean water".

In Suthichai's feeble mind, one can't be anti-Thaksin and anti-junta. He expects that if you didn't roll over the for the military junta like he did, then you must be an agent of Thaksin.

Hypocrisy was also in full swing when the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission ruled, in black and white, that there was nothing wrong with a member of his commission - which used to pride itself on being politically impartial - leading the "mob" last Sunday evening to shout angry slogans in front of General Prem's house.


"It's his right as an individual," the chairman said.

Suthichai's motto for The Nation should be: "Free speech for me and not for thee." Of course, Suthichai thinks free speech is about kow towing to the powers-at-be, especially when his career is at stake. Suthichai cowered to Thaksin, and now he is cowering to the junta.

Suthichai talks about hypocrisy, yet when the PAD and the yellow shirts were attacking Thaksin, he was their cheerleader and biggest fan. However, Buddha forbid any Thai attack the junta or General Prem, then he gets his feathers all ruffled.


Hypocrisy, it has been said, is the act of condemning another person when the critic is guilty of the same thing he is condemning.

By his own definition, Suthichai is a hypocrite

But, the same sage would also tell you that to preach against an act that you yourself have committed does not constitute hypocrisy, even if one makes an effort to conceal one's behaviour. It becomes hypocrisy, one might argue, only when it involves verbal attacks or when one demands that those guilty of committing the same act that one practices oneself be punished.

Hypocrisy can therefore, simply put, be likened to the pot calling the kettle black.

More convoluted prose that makes no sense, except in Suthichai's mind. Typically, he can't resist throwing in another one of his overused cliches to top off his horrible writing.

If anyone wants to read counter-arguments to Suthichai's idiotic column, I suggest they read the interview in Prachatai with some of the anti-coup activists.

I am proud of these young people. They are obviously not Thaksin's stooges.

Here is what they said about the Thai media:

I think he quality of the Thai media are now the worst. There are some columns that are still alright but on an overall assessment they are having problems, as well as their culture of accepting censorship or self- censorship. The media are for-profit enterprises. They have political attitudes/standpoints but that is not a problem, the only thing is they must simply report all the facts, not reporting when there is a demonstration that villagers came in their hundreds when in fact they came in their thousands.

Right now when I hear the media talking about the press freedom, I want to be sick and throw up.

Sometimes the root cause is that Thai society does not believe in equal rights. No matter how different our political views are, we all need equal rights and everybody's rights need to be protected. If the activists or academics can't explain why people love Thaksin and just simply claim that they were paid, I think these people should quit their jobs.

I hope that Suthichai and all the other assholes at The Nation are paying attention.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Prefers Rhetorical Questions to Actual Asking of Questions of the Principles

More Pultizer Prize winning journalism from The Nation's finest.

Suthichai wonders if Surayud has a plan for a post referendum Thailand.

Is he going to convince himself and the CNS leadership to make a firm commitment in advance - as part of the process to "ensure wide public participation in the new political process - to the effect that they would not exercise their option to impose a charter of their own choosing, if a negative vote should come to pass? What then, is his vision of a draft that he and the coup-leaders would support? Is he going to initiate an informed and wide-ranging debate prior to the referendum to "educate" the general public about the complexities of the upcoming vote? None of these questions have been addressed in his pledge to accelerate the political process.

Why? Unfortunately, no answers are forthcoming because the country has been trapped in an intellectually atrophied mode - the scholars, politicians and media have all been obsessed with their own games of survival, putting their authority-questioning role on the backburner.

You can only guess at the reasons why Premier Surayud has hit the "fast-forward" button without installing a "mine-sweeper" up front. Perhaps he is fed up with the job and wants to turn it over to a new prime minister. Perhaps he is trying to snub his critics who he thinks have been underestimating his ability to call the shots when he wants to. Perhaps he thinks by moving things forward, the "old power clique" won't have time to regroup to regain power.

Or perhaps, when all is said and done, Surayud's real message to his detractors could well be: "Be careful with what you wish for…you may just get it."

Why doesn't Suthichai pick up the phone and personally ask Surayud these questions? Why not schedule an interview? Why not ask what happens if there is a "no" vote or general abstention?

A journalist is not supposed to be in the "perhaps" and rhetorical question business.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: He Says Enough to Political Violence--Except for Military Juntas

So they think we are all suckers? Perhaps they're right

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

Confusing times such as these tend to produce an unusually high number of pessimists. That's understandable.

Along the way, we will also find an increasing number of cynics. That, too, isn't such a great surprise. But how do we explain the sudden emergence of a society full of wimps and suckers?

Maybe because they listen to a Thai media that is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

It took only a few rumour-mongers and one or two sensational newspaper headlines to shake the very foundation of Thai society by spreading speculation that chaos would rein and violence would rock the country if the Constitution Tribunal handed down a verdict to dissolve one or both of the country's major political parties.

The Nation was at the forefront of spreading hysteria and rumors. It sees conspiracy and undercurrents under every rock. It has predicted counter-coup, violent backlash, massive protests, huge movements from upcountry descending upon the city time and time again. It has printed the words of the fear mongers in the military as if their words were as sacred as the Lord Buddha.

It seemed that everybody began to assume politicians or their henchmen had the right to break the law if they didn't like the decision handed down by the country's highest constitutional legal body.

Who made this assumption?

It didn't seem to occur to them that the rule of law should prevail in a civilised society that is in the process of returning to a general election.

Suthichai doesn't believe that the "rule of law" should prevail, which is why he supported an illegal coup. He had no problems bringing down the last government with tanks and guns, because his personal enemy was Thaksin Shinawatra.

It seems we are all too ready to succumb to the politicians' selfish proclamations. We not only got scared, we let them know that they can continue to pour scorn on our dignity and intelligence. Since when have we surrendered our citizens' rights to a handful of people screaming for their own interests?

Suthichai figuratively handed the keys to the country over to the military.

How, for example, can a decent society put up with a threat delivered by a group of political operatives that if a certain party is dissolved by a court order, they would storm various provincial city halls to show how serious they can get if things don't go their way.

But when the generals make similar threats, Suthichai is silent. Suthichai says nothing when General Saprang or General Panlop threaten violence.


By the way, which political operative threatened chaos and disorder? If they made the threat, why not quote them?

If these irresponsible politicians' threatening pitch was worrisome, the submissive reaction from the public at large to the intimidation was even scarier.

How can we react when Suthichai refuses to name them and make them accountable?

The "Silent Majority" decided to remain silent and the few who managed to utter a few words confirmed my worst fears. It's this growing defeatist attitude that is most depressing. Their reaction has gone something like this: these people who promise violence if their wishes are not met may be thugs, and they may be ruining the country's very foundation of good governance and reputation, but they have money and hence influence. So, what can we do?

How did Suthichai ever become a journalist? The first thing that they teach writers at journalism school is who, when, why, what and where. Suthichai doesn't believe in revealing facts. Who said what when where and why?

The suckers among us - who refuse to be forced to become starry-eyed apologists or virulent critics of the current scheme of things - probably don't realise that if the "old power clique" can frighten us with such threats of violence in order to pressure the panel of judges to tone down their verdict, the "powers-that-be" could also exploit our fears to their advantage. The military and military-backed elements (and they don't necessarily have to be in the government) could well counter any threat of public unrest with their own threat to stage a second coup or take any other action that will plunge the country into another vicious circle.

Suthichai, what are the details? He always speaks in cyptic, conspiratorial terms that has no basis in empirical evidence. If he knows something, he should tell us, because that is his job.

Now, what do suckers like us do? Perhaps, we believe that both sides are capable of doing evil things to the country - and we therefore live in constant fear of both sides, choosing to lend credence to the side that seems to scream louder or that seems to have the potential to win over the other side, regardless of whether they are morally or ethically acceptable to us or not.

Suthichai is a joke. He is neither a sucker nor part of the silent majority. He is a player in this country. And he is a player who sold his soul to the military.

Wimps, after all, don't choose. They go where the wind blows. That's the kind of mentality that subverts the very foundation of any democratic society.

I have chosen. I chose the 1997 constitution. And Suthichai chose also. He chose the junta. And his mentality and his media empire subverted the foundation of Thailand's fledgling democratic society.

Or we can decide to embark on a more enlightened path. We could stop behaving like nervous, weak and ineffectual members of society - and declare our independence by stating our case which is as simple as: we won't tolerate any more threats by any side to use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their political goals.

Suthichai's enlightened path was to chose tanks and guns on September 19, 2006.

If we are convinced that only the rule of law can carry us through the current crisis - if we insist that only law and order can prevent this country from being plunged into the abyss of a "failed state" - then the suckers and wimps among us will have to emerge from the shell of fear and anxiety caused by all the ongoing political manoeuvres that, in effect, boil down to nothing more than empty threats and irresponsible machinations.

Coup after coup is what has brought Thailand to the brink of disaster and has undermined our democratic development. Any fool knows this. And Suthichai sided with the military. He sided with an institution that continues to look after itself at the expense of everybody else.


Ironically, none of Suthichai's undercurrent theories have come to fruition and there has been no violence caused by political parties or political groups--except those in the South. It is only the military that has used the threat of violence to keep the riff raff in line.

All suckers, unite! We have nothing to lose but our naivety and unfounded anxiety.

The only suckers, Suthichai, are the idiots who think you are a good journalist and listen to your drivel. All you give us is unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracies. You are at the source of the anxiety.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Confessions of a confused fake modern-day news editor

In the last edition of The Nation, editor Suthichai Yoon had a fake interview with a fake friend and reprinted this idiotic conversation with himself in his newspaper.

Now, I know what many of you are thinking, "What kind of idiotic editor of a major metropolitan newspaper would have a fake conversation with himself and then actually have the audacity to print it as a column without feeling a bit of shame or embarrassment?"

Well, the answer is easy. Suthichai is that type of idiot. Anyway, here is the link to Suthichai's infamous man on the street interview with himself.

In the spirit of fake interviewing, I will now have a fake interview with Suthichai and reprint it here for all of you to enjoy:

Fonzi: Khun Suthichai, thanks for having the courage to be interviewed by me, especially since I am not a big fan of you or your newspaper.

Fake Suthichai: I'm fake, so I have no problems being interviewed by you, but if I was the real Suthichai, I would never let you interview me.

Fonzi: Why not? Do I look scary to you?

Fake Suthichai: Well, actually, you are kind of scary.

Fonzi: Why is that?

Fake Suthichai: You are the only person in Thailand who expects high standards and journalistic integrity from us. Also, you mock us in your blog everyday. You should know better. Thais don't liked to be mocked.

Fonzi: I know that. I mock you on purpose. If I mock you, that means I have the most faith in you to change. After all, you say that you are "Bangkok's Independent Newspaper." I am just holding you to your word. But, I want you to think about this, if you had high standards and journalistic integrity, I would be your defender and sing your praises daily. What puzzles me about you, Suthichai, is that you have been working in the newspaper and media business for decades. Don't you think after all this time you would actually have learned something about journalism, at least adapt your style to the times, and rededicate yourself to being the best news editor that you can be? In other words, don't you think you should take a stand for your own personal excellence as a journalist and a news editor, and in that position, take a stand for professionalism and integrity in the Thai media?

Fake Suthichai: I think I do my best...

Fonzi: Seriously?

Fake Suthichai: Yes.

Fonzi: OK. Then can we go over your career as a journalist and as a major news editor in Thailand?

Fake Suthichai: Sure.

Fonzi: OK. I will be easy on you, at least for now. I will begin with a stylistic question.

Fake Suthichai: Shoot.

Fonzi: Why would you, as a news editor of a major metropolitan newspaper in Asia, have a fake interview with yourself and then print that fake interview as a column? Right now, we live under a military dictatorship, with a junta that is so corrupt and so incompetent that it makes the last junta look like it was a...

Fake Suthichai: Tulsathit does that...

Fonzi: Tulsie, with all due respect, is an idiot.

Fake Suthichai: Anyway, what I was saying is that Tulsathit sometimes has fake dialogues with himself that I always thought were charming, so I thought...

Fonzi: So you thought you would copy Tulsie's style. OK, got it, but don't you think having fake conversations with yourself and actually printing them in the newspaper is unprofessional, and, quite frankly, kind of stupid? I mean, right now, I am trying to think off the top of my head if any other top Pulitzer Prize winning columnists have that style...

Fake Suthichai: It is Thai style.

Fonzi: OK. Thai style. So even with all the problems in the country-- coups, terrorism, economic recession--you think having fake dialogues with yourself is an appropriate stylistic technique to get urgent ideas and concepts across to your very mature and sophisticated adult audience?

Fake Suthichai: Look, you get on my case about putting quotation marks around code words that only I understand and you never let up about my overuse of cliches...

Fonzi: Speaking of this, why do you overuse quotation marks and dumb cliches?

Fake Suthichai: Thai style.

Fonzi: I don't think it is a Thai style. I think it is your style.

Fake Suthichai: My style, Thai style, same, same but different.

Fonzi: Did you know that if you went to journalism school, and you inserted dialogues with yourself, used quotation marks around code words that only you understand, and put dumb cliches into your columns, that you would never pass you classes? And you certainly wouldn't get a editorial job working at a real newspaper.

Fake Suthichai: Why are you so worried about style? As a newspaper editor, I have to focus on substance.

Fonzi: You are Thai, right?

Fake Suthichai: Of course, I am Thai. You know I am Thai.

Fonzi: Well, you said that you focus on substance over style, so I just want to make sure that you are really Thai. Speaking of substance, why doesn't your newspaper ever print any facts?

Fake Suthichai: We print facts, lots of them.

Fonzi: Well, actually you don't print any facts at all. What I have noticed is that you print other people's opinions and present them as facts. Also, when you quote somebody and print it in the newspaper, you actually never verify if what that person said was actually true.

Fake Suthichai: Can you give me an example?

Fonzi: Have you read your own paper recently? Well, in yesterday's paper, you had a headline that said that "Bill Clinton backs Thailand." Is that true?

Fake Suthichai: Yes.

Fonzi: Well, did you actually call Bill Clinton and ask him for his opinion?

Fake Suthichai: Nope, Health Minister Mongkol said that Bill Clinton sides with Thailand.

Fonzi: So you consider hearsay fact?

Fake Suthichai: If a Thai says it is fact, it is fact--except if that Thai is Thaksin, then everything he says is a lie.

Fonzi: So, let me get this straight, you believe that if a person, notably a Thai and not Thaksin, says something, then you take his or her word for it without any secondary verification?

Fake Suthichai: Yes, and you think you know something about the newspaper business. Geez.

Fonzi: Take it easy. So, if General Sonthi says that his junta is more democratic than Thaksin's government, you believe him?

Fake Suthichai: Don't you listen? Here is the equation once again. If a Thai says something and he is quoted in the newspaper, then that is a fact, but if the Thai who is being quoted is Thaksin, then whatever he says is a lie. Ergo, General Sonthi is a national hero who deserves to honored and worshiped by all without question, and Thaksin Shinawatra is a slimy little slug who should be squashed with the back of my shoe.

Fonzi: Actually, Khun Suthichai, you are just verifying what I have thought all along.

Fake Suthichai: So we agree?

Fonzi: I didn't say I agree. But I do understand how you run your newspaper.

Fake Suthichai: OK

Fonzi: Why did you back the coup?

Fake Suthichai: Thaksin was corrupt and immoral. He had me investigated. I hate that motherf###er.

Fonzi: OK. I have a few questions about this. If Thaksin was corrupt, how come you never did any investigative reporting about his nefarious empire?

Fake Suthichai: We did.

Fonzi: Nope, you didn't. Since Thaksin Shinawatra came to power until to this very day, The Nation newspaper has not published one fact based report connecting the dots and outlining Thaksin Shinawatra's business, political and criminal empire.

Fake Suthichai: We did.

Fonzi: Nope, you didn't. I'll give you an example. You said Thaksin was responsible for getting thousands of people killed during the war on drugs. Is that true?

Fake Suthichai: Yes, we made those allegations. There was a war on drugs. Thaksin was prime minister. Ergo, he was responsible.

Fonzi: How many government ministers did you interview about this?

Fake Suthichai: None

Fonzi: How many documents do you have signed by Thaksin, ordering that drug dealers be killed no questions asked?

Fake Suthichai: None

Fonzi: How many police colonels have you heard testify that they were ordered by Thaksin Shinawatra to kill drug dealers?

Fake Suthichai: None.

Fonzi: So what kind of investigative report did you do on the war on drugs?

Fake Suthichai: We did many Thaksin was prime minister, so it was his fault stories.

Fonzi: But no smoking guns?

Fake Suthichai: Nope

Fonzi: You accused Thaksin of intimidating the media, true or false?

Fake Suthichai: Yes, absolutely true.

Fonzi: Did Thaksin ever order you personally not to publish a story?

Fake Suthichai: Nope, but he had me and my assets investigated?

Fonzi: How do you know Thaksin ordered it?

Fake Suthichai: Do you think I am stupid? I know it was him.

Fonzi: But you have no evidence?

Fake Suthichai: All I know was that my privacy was invaded and I felt intimidated by the power of the government.

Fonzi: OK, fair enough, so because of this, did you feel that you withheld information from the public concerning corruption in the Thaksin administration?

Fake Suthichai: Absolutely.

Fonzi: So your personal safety and privacy was more important than the truth about Thaksin Shinawatra?

Fake Suthichai: Of course, I am more important than the truth.

Fonzi: Interesting. So you wouldn't sacrifice yourself and your career, even if you knew that by doing so you would have brought Thaksin Shinawatra down in the eyes of the public and could have prevented the coup and saved Thai democracy?

Fake Suthichai: Don't you ever read The Nation? Don't you ever watch television? Haven't you gotten by now that without me there is no Thai democracy? I am the only voice of truth and justice in the Thai media.

Fonzi: If that is true, which it certainly is not, had you exposed Thaksin for all his crimes, even if that meant sacrificing yourself, wouldn't that have made you a hero?

Fake Suthichai: I think I served the public better by keeping my mouth shut, keeping all my privileges, and having no courage.

Fonzi: OK, got it. So, now I have to ask you this, now that Thaksin is gone and you are no longer intimidated and afraid of him, why don't you publish all the juicy corruption stories that you had been sitting on during his tenure and prove once and for all what a lying scheming crook he was and still is?

After that question, fake Suthichai got up and needed to take a water break.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Lessons in Horrible Journalism

THAITALK

Sonthi and Surayud: same bed, different dreams

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation


If you believe some of the juicy political tales being bandied about by so-called "insiders", it's very likely there is no love lost between Premier Surayud Chulanont and chairman of the Council for National Security, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin.


Lesson #1: Unless you are a Thai journalist, it is inappropriate to use rumor and innuendo. Also, notice the liberal and unnecessary use of quotation marks around words that Suthichai substitutes for a code that he expects his readers to understand. As a reader of his illustrious newspaper, I would like to know who these "insiders" are instead of having quotation marks as a substitute. If we don't know who these "insiders" are, then how can we take their word that there is "no love lost" between our two favorite generals. In other words, Suthichai has based his whole column on a rumor that can't be proven.

But if you ask the "experts" whether, when push comes to shove, the latter is ready to exercise his power as the coup leader and ease out the former and take over Government House himself, the answer is most likely a hesitant "perhaps not".

Lesson #2: More of the unnecessary quotation marks and not enough fact. He asks a stupid rhetorical question that has no basis in reality.

The real "inside stories" - and there are usually many layers to such claims to exclusive insight - have it that the country's two top generals aren't really at loggerheads, as some recent rumours tend to suggest.

Lesson #3: Now let me ask the reader this: Isn't it a newspaper's duty to get the "inside stories?" Isn't is a newspaper's duty to question those with "exclusive insight" to get the facts? Isn't it a newspaper's duty to deal in facts rather than "rumours?"

But to Suthichai, an editor of a major metropolitan newspaper, those things are irrelevant.

But some members of the CNS, including one or two outspoken generals close to the Army chief, have made no secret of their disappointment with what they see as a laggard prime minister who has not pinned down ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra or moved the government forward to blunt criticism from several quarters against the coup-makers.

Lesson #4: Who are these generals? If their disappointment is not so secret, why not quote them and name them as sources? Also, I think it is ridiculous that coup members are supposedly complaining about not pinning down Thaksin when it was they who had overwhelming evidence to depose him in the first place. And why should Surayud protect the coup makers ? They have the guns. They have the 12 million baht propaganda slush fund. They are the big boys. Can't they protect themselves?

Sonthi has come under growing pressure from some of his own right-hand men to hand the premier an ultimatum - shape up or ship out. But the coup leader himself realises that things could get worse if he were to take over the premiership himself.

Lesson #5: Who are these right-hand men? By the way, The Nation has been droning on and on with the "Surayud is running out of time" columns for many months. Guess what? Nothing has happened. Surayud apparently has had plenty of time

Unofficial talks to persuade former prime minister Anand Panyarachun to come back a third time to lead the country after a military takeover have hit a brick wall. Anand, determined to distance himself as much as possible from such potentially damaging speculation, is said to have told Surayud that he won't take up the offer - and that the last thing he wanted was to make a bad political and military situation even worse.

Lesson #6: Where is the evidence of the Anand talks? And what difference would Anand make anyway?

It would be naive to suggest that Sonthi himself has not been toying with the idea - proposed either by overzealous aides or even concerned advisers - of wrapping up the issue by concurrently assuming the premiership himself. But he is also realistic enough to know that the road to hell could well be paved by good intentions.

Lesson #7: Where is the evidence that Sonthi wants to be PM? Also, Suthichai loves a good cliche or two, or three, or four.

The whole idea behind him asking his former boss to become premier after the September 2006 putsch was to create a safety valve - a buffer that he could lean on as a political wall and, at the same time, use as tangible proof that he hadn't staged the coup to attain a hidden political ambition.

Lesson #8: Mixed metaphors are not good. I'm trying to picture a safety valve/buffer in my mind. What does "...staged the coup to attain a hidden political ambition" mean? That makes no sense.

Sonthi could nudge Surayud out and take over the premiership himself without too much fanfare. The soft-spoken - but not necessarily submissive - Surayud has gone on the record on several occasions as saying that he will step down unconditionally if asked. But Sonthi knows he would put himself in the firing line just as the political storm is brewing if he takes that short-cut to the top political post - even if it was his for the asking.

Lesson #9: More hypotheticals without a basis in fact or reality.

Sonthi has so far stuck to respectful gestures towards Surayud, occasionally injecting a slight tone of authority to gently remind the public that he retains the right to nominate and fire the prime minister. Surayud, on the other hand, has kept the chief coup-maker, his former right-hand man, at a proper, courteous distance. Sonthi's close aides may think otherwise but it is quite obvious to political observers that at this juncture Sonthi needs Surayud, more than Surayud needs him.

Lesson #10: If Sonthi needs Surayud and all this feuding is based on rumor, why write about it?

Despite the crescendo of dissenting voices from various quarters for the two generals to break the current deadlock, neither Sonthi nor Surayud can really afford to take things into their own hands and discard the other from the overall scheme of things. It would be calamitous for both of them not to realise that time isn't on their side and there aren't many viable options ahead. The brief remaining part of the tortuous political journey may be even more risky than the beginning of it, but the only practical direction is to make plans to curb any possible violent reaction to decisions to be made on two upcoming and crucial dates: May 30, when the Constitution Tribunal will decide whether to dissolve the two major political parties, and September 3, the tentative date when the referendum on the constitution is held.

Lesson #11: What deadlock? One minute Suthichai says that everything is based on rumors, then he says that there might not be truth to the loggerhead rumours, then he states that there is a deadlock. WTF? Which is it? What evidence is there to suggest that everything won't go on as planned? Why does Suthichai love to create drama when none exists?

The third moment of truth - the next election day - will relieve the two generals of the most challenging assignment of their lives.

In other words, even if Sonthi and Surayud are tempted to break ranks with each other at the instigation of their respective advisers, the cold reality of politics on the ground dictates that the two generals will have to stick it out together.

Lesson # 12: Duh. Then what was the point of writing this horrible column if it means nothing.

To turn an old Chinese saying on its head, the two may have different dreams but they have no choice but to continue to share the same bed - even if it means they sleep in the back-to-back position.

Lesson #13: End the column with a dumb proverb or stupid cliche.


So ends our lesson in abysmal column writing at the Suthichai School of Horrible Journalism

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Hypocritical Column on Debate over the New Charter

THAI TALK

The hidden snags in the constitution referendum

Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

These are such sensitive times. Feelings are easily hurt. Egos demand special treatment. You can offend friends without even realising you have done it - especially when you start asking them whether they will vote for or against the draft of the new constitution.

If you tell them they should go for it, your colleagues might think you are nothing but a lackey of the coup leaders. You aren't critical enough. You aren't fighting for democracy.

If, on the other hand, you tell them to reject the draft, they stare you in the eye before asking: "You got paid by that guy too?" They would, whether you like it or not, assume that you have always been a die-hard hopelessly pro-Thaksin supporter.

For some strange reason, we Thais have managed to excel in a painting of a special kind - painting ourselves into a corner, especially a political one. And we spend most of our productive time these days trying to wriggle out of this Catch-22 situation.

Is Suthichai for real? Does this idiot even bother to read his own paper? Suthichai is the last person to wring his hands about Manichean debates in Thai politics, because he and his paper have been mostly responsible for making Thai politics a story about anti-Thaksin and pro-Thaksin camps.

The editorial stance of his newspaper and all of his columnists for the last six months has been that anybody who is against the junta is bought and paid for by Thaksin. Anybody who doesn't take the exact same editorial stance of The Nation is bought and paid for by Thaksin. I have blogged about this endlessly. But Suthichai thinks his audience is stupid and hasn't been paying attention.

The current "constitution dilemma" once again confirms the validity of the axiom that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Old Suthichai can't resist using overused cliches in his columns also.

The coup leaders staged the September 19 military takeover last year with a sense of guilt perhaps. They then bent over backward to make sure the putsch was an exercise in using "an undemocratic means to a democratic end".

How was "the putsch" "an exercise in using '''an undemocratic means to a democratic end.'''

And when they went through the motions of drafting a "democratic" interim constitution, one of their legal wise men had the bright idea at the height of their desperate search for legitimacy to say, "Let's do something Thai democracy has never had the guts to do before - let's put the draft constitution to a referendum".

There was nothing "democratic" about the interim constitution.

If you thought the coup-makers were genuinely handing over real power to the masses, and that all they wanted was to get rid of Thaksin and nothing else, then you would have been badly mistaken. In that same interim charter they have also made sure that they retain the final say.

Funny. The Nation has been trumpeting the democratic intentions of this junta all along. How can we forget right after the coup how The Nation went after any foreign newspaper or media outlet that didn't agree with its party line, which was that the junta was good, brave and true and Thaksin was the spawn of the devil that had to be eliminated?


Interesting that those faux democrats at The Nation never complained before that the junta would have the last word when it came to the outcome of the referendum, the constitution writing process, and the new elections. Indeed, why should it complain when The Nation has been the junta's biggest backer and has been paid back by the extra airtime on Thai TV and eliminating its biggest competitor, iTV.

Herein lies the rub. If not defused in time, this time bomb threatens to explode into a political conflagration.

The idea of the referendum is to seek public legitimacy for the country's constitution. However, since members of the public can only cast a "yes" or "no" vote, they can easily be swayed by only one or two clauses with which they personally have problems.

It is impossible to make everybody happy. Reasonable people will make reasonable decisions. Thai constitutions are treated with less respect and dignity than toilet paper by the powers at be so I don't see how anybody will take this new constitution seriously. I would say many of us are convinced that if there is another political crisis the new constitution, regardless of how liberal or conservative it is, will be ripped up by the military again. I'm sure if the next elections don't turn out as The Nation wants them to turn out, the columnists will cry and throw their typical temper tantrums until the military overthrows the elected government that it doesn't like. That is the nature of the Thai media, especially The Nation.

In any normal democratic practice, a "no" vote should register as the dissatisfaction of individuals seeking better conditions. Not this one. A negative ballot in the upcoming referendum (tentatively scheduled for September 3) could send the draft constitution back to the coup leaders who, according to the interim constitution, have the sweeping power, together with the Cabinet, to dust off any of the previous constitutions and declare it the national charter within 30 days.

The junta actually painted itself in a corner, because they wouldn't dare pick one of the reactionary constitutions as an alternative.

What it boils down to is that we have all been put somewhere between a rock and a hard place - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

More of Suthichai's idiotic cliches. Suthichai's overuse of cliches is just more proof that he is a horrible newspaper editor. In the real world, a professional editor would never tolerate this.

As a result, any attempt at an informed debate over the details of each controversial clause has been rendered irrelevant because you would have to win all of your arguments to feel you were correct in voting "yes". And if there is a particular point that you feel strongly about - and you lose out as a dissident, minority voice - any thought about rejecting the draft would haunt your conscience even more. By casting a "no" ballot in the referendum, you would in effect be handing over the whole exercise to the coup leaders.

No, not exactly. The possibility exists that this constitution can pass and be amended in the future. Or we can do it the Thai way and just have one coup after another for eternity.

They threw some colourful toys at us, promising that we could play to our hearts' content - only if we behaved ourselves. We know and they know that they can snatch them back anytime.

Som Nam Na. The Nation begged for this coup. Now it is complaining about the consequences. Unfortunately, the majority of us have to suffer because of the myopic, selfish crowd of Thaksin haters.

Remember what the good old pros used to warn us about, and how we thought they were being hopelessly cynical? Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

And so it ends with more horrible cliches.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: Urges Reform for Thai Media, But None for The Nation

THAI TALK

iTV debacle could be PM's media reform chance

Suthichai Yoon

Is Premier Surayud Chulanont really serious about the much trumpeted reform of the media?

If he had been dilly-dallying before, for whatever reason, the iTV debacle will no doubt compel him to cease humming and hawing and take a long-awaited plunge into a bold, comprehensive platform of media liberalisation.

The coup-makers have been seen to be nervously fumbling in their handling of the media, dabbling in news blackouts and press censorship. But Surayud can move in the opposite direction by freeing up state media, legalising community radio and provincial cable TV, and taking advantage of new media technology to promote satellite TV, Internet and broadband broadcasting.

In other words, the premier could turn the iTV fiasco into a golden opportunity to launch a visionary liberalisation of the media.

Thaksin's scandalous exploitation of iTV and the deplorable dumbing-down of Thai television programmes in general makes it clear that there is no better time for the country's leaders to embrace the concept of public service broadcasting, or PSB - which, if managed properly, would fulfil the mission of broadcasting that is made for the public, financed by the public and controlled by the public.

Continued

The joke of this column is that Suthichai Yoon has been editing and producing horrible crap for The Nation for years.

The Nation is concerned with what other media outlets are doing, yet the place that needs reform the most is The Nation Multimedia Group.

If the media reform and liberalization that Suthichai Yoon wants took place in Thailand, the first thing any decent publisher would do is fire the editors of The Nation.

The Nation, however, lives in such an insulated, protected uncompetitive environment that it doesn't even know how good it could be, and if its place was ever challenged, it would wage a right-wing campaign so fast that it would make your heads spin.

Deconstructing Suthichai Yoon: More Hypocrisy about Democracy from The Nation's Finest

THAI TALK

Suthichai Yoon

How can the new constitution protect the 'little people'?


If you have been reading the papers, you might get the impression that this constitution they are drawing up is mainly meant to satisfy the politicians who seem to have monopolised the discussion on how the country's highest set of rules should read.

That, of course, is a dangerous misconception. If, in the end, this charter doesn't effectively serve the "little" people - those who politicians are fond of calling "grassroots" in order to justify their massive spending sprees, then it would be nothing more than an academic exercise for scholars, not a noble document aimed at creating a genuine democracy.

Some serious questions must be brought to the attention of charter writers who are currently engaged in an intense debate.

In this age of unmediated democracy, what will happen to the carefully contrived constitutional system of checks and balances?

Who will protect minorities against the passions and tyranny and excesses of the popular majority? Who's going to speak on behalf of ethnic hilltribe people to guarantee their right to manage their own natural resources? It's obvious that the biases of the authorities as well as discriminatory government policies remain a serious obstacle for ethnic groups, but unless such a guarantee is clearly incorporated into the new constitution, the "highland-lowland" gap will continue to plague Thai society.

Who will protect the majority from being manipulated by public opinion experts, political spin-doctors and unscrupulous pollsters?

Who will protect the poor from the permanent majority of the rich and powerful?

Who can offset the persuasive power of big money, the frequent lies and misleading political statements, the corruption of politics through the so-called "legal bribery" by lobbyists and vested interest groups seeking favours from government and the pervasive influence of those who control the state media and private telecommunications empires?

How can those who own the means of communication and dominate the media through lopsided expenditures be prevented from overwhelming the debate, slanting the discussion and unfairly influencing the public at large?

In the current commercial television climate, good quality documentaries about important public issues have all but disappeared from the screen. The quality of information is getting worse, not better. And this has nothing to do with the uproar over the Cabinet's decision on Tuesday to put an end to the operations of iTV, previously owned by former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and later sold to Singapore's Temasek Holdings for its failure to pay a Bt100-billion fine for violating the station's founding principles.

There is also the important question about how the new constitution can provide the necessary mechanisms to handle the rise of public discontent, caused partly by how Thaksin's overwhelming House majority was exploited to benefit political elites and their inner circle.

No doubt a large number of educated and informed citizens have grown increasingly disenchanted with politics, politicians and political parties. No doubt, the mass media have also fed their cynicism.

The number of voters is growing who believe that their political leaders are out of touch with the people's real problems and who as citizens feel a sense of powerlessness - not to mention the worsening feeling that those who run the country don't really care what happens to them. The deepening sense of alienation and frustration that Thai people feel toward the government has grown despite Thaksin's populist platform - an attempt to go all out to curry favour with the so-called "grassroots" voters. Now, they know it was nothing but part of an expensive game funded by their own tax money.

The constitution writers will have to arm ordinary citizens with the power and "weapons" that will enable them to reach responsible and informed judgements. Access to information is the key to successful self-governance.

The public's ability to receive, absorb and analyse information can no longer be left to happenstance.

Ironically, new interactive telecommunications technologies are here but they aren't being put to work on behalf of democracy. The tools may be sophisticated but since they are being used without the information, political organisation, education, or preparation needed for them to be used wisely, such new gadgets and systems may be used by the powers-that-be to undermine - not enhance - the democratic process.

Ask the real "common people" who have been through five years of "Thaksinomics". They would tell you that politics is simply too dangerous to be left to politicians, especially those specialising in money politics and cronyism.

It never ceases to amaze me how those hypocrites at The Nation can write crap like this and get away with it.

A constitution can't make people behave in certain ways. It can't protect a minority. It can't do anything about huge media conglomerates that broadcast crap day after day. It can't make the plebes believe what the columnists at The Nation believe--and thank the Buddha, it doesn't. A constitution can't "guarantee" anything. It is just a piece of paper that enumerates the laws and rights of the people. And if the people treat the constitution like disposable toilet paper, then they will get shit.

The Nation has done absolutely nothing to sustain Thai democracy. In fact, The Nation is a force against Thai democracy, because it has no respect for the law. It supported an illegal coup, because it knew Thaksin would win the next election. End of story. The Nation had a choice between it own interests and the rule of law, and it chose its own selfish interests over the constitution. The Nation's blatant hypocrisy is exposed by its own words every week, yet it still insists that it is as pure as a lamb and a mouthpiece for democratic principles.

Ironically, this type of inconsistency is the thing that is killing constitutional rule in Thailand.

I can sum up the problems in Thailand with one word: Integrity. As long as people are inconsistent with their word and their social agreements, things will fall apart.

Just like many things in Thai society, Thais think if they dress up a document and make it look sweet and pretty, people will be seduced by its mystical powers. The fact is real life is not that way. The glue to life, the glue to a good government, and the glue to a functional economy is integrity.


Without integrity, the rest is just bullshit.