Thepchai and The Nation would be more credible about their outrage concerning “business as usual” politics if they actually did some investigative reporting to expose the corruption in Thai politics.
Notice The Nation never actually tells us how politicians are corrupt. It just says politicians are corrupt. No evidence, just opinions.
How many editorials and opinion pieces did we have to suffer through about Thaksin’s corruption after he was ousted? Again, no evidence, just opinions.
Easy to attack Thaksin once he was out of power and in a foreign country.
Interestingly, after the coup, The Nation could have actually reported how Thaksin suppressed the media when he was in power, and post on its website all those investigative reports it had to sit on because of pressure from the government. But it didn’t.
Currently, The Nation hasn’t done one investigative piece on the coup makers pre and post-coup assets.
General Sonthi is now part of the government. He is supposed to disclose his assets.
Has The Nation reported on it? Nope.
Has The Nation reported on all the wheeling and dealing going on in with the new political alignments and arrangements? Nope.
It prints, he said this, he said that. Any idiot can regurgitate what politicians say and put into print.
All we get from Thepchai and his cohorts are crocodile tears about dirty Thai politics.
Instead of wringing their hands, they should be investigating and reporting. In other words, they should be doing their jobs.
All the things I mentioned are based on documented facts. It’s standard journalist practice to write, “China, Russia” etc. in any article. Of course, that does not mean every person in these countries is trading with Burma.
Writing, “fires are ranging in Southern California” does not mean every square inch of California has burned down.
Srithanonchai not only don’t you anything about Thai businessmen but you don’t also don’t know shit about logic nor military ranks. No wonder you enjoy your exchange with the Grasshopper immensely. Didn’t I warn you both that I am always eager to “cast the first stone”?
Col. Jeru: I little bit of logic would not hurt you, believe me. This time around, a mere transfer to an inactive position is insufficient. Demotion is called for.
Thepchai is right, of course — to a certain extent. What outsiders hope for is a slight sign that overall some steps forward are made over time. Personally I don’t see that, in the constitution, in the renewed Prem-palace-army alliance, in the handling of the south, in the fight against corruption and for rule of law, and, most of all, in the management of the country by the bureaucrats and politicians. If Thaksin and the rest had been able to make a respect-worthy Suwannaphum airport arise out of Cobra Swamp, whatever the corruption, it might have demonstrated that things do get better. But it is a disaster. The south is a disaster. And, the (incompetent but maybe not so corrupt) Democrats aside, the political field is full of old emblems of corruption and mismanagement. The 1997 collapse showed what this mismanagement does, Thepchai — what happens when you are just happy with getting back to democracy and you don’t demand a little better each time. Thailand gets along, but so did Burma, for a time.
The only thing I see really improved is the state of Thai studies — there is a lot more realism about the thinness of the gold plating on Suwannaphum. Thepchai, perhaps too comfortable with the Nation having led the charge to oust Thaksin at any and all costs, apparently hasn’t noticed this.
I agree with Srithanonchai. It’s annoying AND embarrassing.
I mean you had the man in front of you, why didn’t you ask real questions ?
For instance, a very simple one, but highly symbolic of the “global fraud” that taints most of the thai institutions.
November 2006
All the ministers gave to the NCCC their “assets declaration” (for themselves, their spouses and minor children).
December 2006
The press, Nation, published part of thoses declarations. Just click here. http://tinyurl.com/yq4uxk
October 2007
10 month after… ! The NCCC starts to say that some ministers do have shareholdings in some companies, superior to the limit of 5 %.
Here are the real questions :
-do they really need 10 month of “investigation” to figure out ? If yes, NCCC is rather incompetent. Embarrassing for an institution supposed to be the “white knight” in the fight against corruption (and Thaksin).
-if not, why did they wait ? Wait until october 2007 ? They had some political motivations behind ? Again, it’s embarrassing regarding the “independance” of NCCC…
-or maybe thoses shareholdings were not listed in the declarations, in this case the ministers are culprits of assets concealment… Nothing less.
So basically, whatever the truth is… it’s embarrassing for the NCCC. And even a shame. How come a guy like Medhi can come after and play the “sweet cool polite” style ?
Col. Jeru: “Grasshopper and Srithanonchai are too far removed from real-life economics of earning a living” > What dou you know of my economic situation?
Listening to this sort of self-satisfied members of the bureaucratic elite (Medhi is an academic, but not a scholar) has become increasingly annoying. You can never dent their thick armour of defensiveness, except you have done your homework very well. Otherwise, what remains is procedure.
And here is the Bangkok Post’s editorial on the issue:
It is difficult to know why the Surayud Chulanont government has struggled so hard to pass a new internal security act when it has been rejected by legal experts, politicians, civil rights groups and the man in the street.
Yet after the military’s own hand-picked legislators gave still another thumbs-down to this ill-considered and unwanted law, there was Prime Minister Surayud spending some weekend time trying to convince the nation how badly it needs the law. The only reasonable explanation for this extraordinary stubbornness over the proposed law is that a tiny group of people close to the premier want this law for their own purposes. What a splendid argument this is for the opposition to continue to fight until this interim government either gives up or ends its term in office.
Gen Surayud’s insistence on having his way with the internal security bill is doubly puzzling. In the first place, the establishment of a powerful security apparatus is a serious matter that requires popular inspection and democratic debate. Since Gen Surayud is promising to hold elections and turn over the government to an elected regime by next January, there is no need for the bill for now. Three months hardly seems an unreasonable wait for a law that almost no one can justify anyhow.
Just as baffling is the premier’s doublespeak on his government’s priorities. As recently as his Saturday morning appearance on the weekly government information show, Gen Surayud said his remaining time in office he planned no new programmes. A new government, elected by popular vote, would be taking over by late January, he said, and there was neither time nor justification in trying to launch any new laws or projects. Hours later, after the government whips sent the internal security bill back to his desk for a second time, the prime minister spoke rather passionately about how necessary the law was. He indicated he will, indeed, try to push it back to the legislators once again.
The whips at the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) deserve credit for their reasoned stand. The legislature was the first body to take the initiative last July and reject an even more radical form of the internal security bill. NLA members noted, as had many members of the public, that the proposed law essentially made it legal for the army chief or head of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) to take over the governing of the country on little more than a whim. Anyone he designated would automatically become non-accountable for any actions, no matter how violent or anti-democratic.
After the first rejection, Gen Surayud wisely chose to receive advice from the Council of State, which suggested toning down the worst excesses. The next rewrite put the prime minister in nominal charge of declaring a national emergency and dictatorial rule _ but infamously allowed the premier to delegate power to the Isoc or army chief, just as before. As a result, the NLA whips have properly sent it back.
New Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratkalin argued that the bill is necessary immediately. After all, he said, a national security emergency could pop up any day now. That sounded just a little too much for some people like a warning that the Dec 23 election to return the country to democracy might go all wrong. Because of that and other reasons, 14 non-governmental organisations dealing with civil rights decided on Sunday to join forces to fight to kill this bill.
The cabinet is to meet today as usual, and may take up the internal security bill yet again. Prime Minister Surayud appears determined to try to ram through a law that everyone can see is as unpopular and unwanted as it is unnecessary. For that reason, citizens’ groups and NLA members should continue to oppose the bill and force it off the agenda at the legislature.
If an internal security act is deemed essential, the new and elected government can take up the issue as a matter of priority early next year. Thailand has survived as a united nation for hundreds of years without this bill, and a few more months will not cause its collapse.
National Legislative Assembly member and former National Security Council chief Prasong Soonsiri yesterday pledged to oppose the National Security Bill if it were again submitted to the NLA for consideration.
Sqn Ldr Prasong said the serious flaw of the bill was a provision seeking to exempt state officials assigned to work under the bill from civil, criminal and disciplinary punishment. It was inappropriate to enact legislation which took the judicial system for granted. “If it is submitted to the NLA for debate, I will oppose it. We must follow the justice system,” he said. The bill also sought to suspend basic civil rights and liberties such as the right to protest and express opinions. As a former charter writer, he said, he must see to it than any draft law which was unconstitutional was not passed into law.
“The overall impression I gained was that Medhi, like many others, was attempting to draw a clear distinction between the independent, disinterested and trustworthy appointed public officials on the one hand and the disruptive, self-serving and dishonest elected politicians on the other. In his view it is clearly the appointed public officials who are the “guarantor of political peace in the country.””
One important difference is that workings of the NCCC are transparent and will reported in the press. This was often not the case under the Thaksin administration.
This is particularly significant with respect to agricultural price supports under Thaksin. Since it didn’t really hit the media until years afterwards, perhaps due to its inherent complexity. I first learned of it in a dinner party in Maechan from a rice mill owner in 2004. Two years later after being cheated out of money (teaching 200 students in two large lecture classes and not paid a single baht for this) and leaving the university to work in a newspaper, I was very surprised to see the whole thing emerge in various guises, the most interesting being of course the great rice heist that got a lot of TV coverage.
“So I guess based on the empty halls that Peua Pandin Party will be among those political parties that won’t make it to the starting line.”
I think that was a major question raised in yesterday’s political commentary in the Bangkok Post. It seems to be dependent on who can win out with the highest bids in all the political horse trading in the run up to the election.
“Maybe the price of the Thai vote has gone up.”
MPs for sale is the current newsworthy topic, as of yesterday.
[…] though the NCCC was selected by the coup makers, Medhi argued that their mandate derives from the electorate’s endorsement of the new constitution. He signalled that the NCCC will be active in pursuing corruption and […]
[…] Monday I attended the Medhi Krongkaew’s seminar on Corruption and Current Political Developments in Thailand.1 Medhi, who has sporting the compulsory yellow tie, spoke about his fist year (with another eight […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thepchai Yong on normality in Thai politics
Thepchai and The Nation would be more credible about their outrage concerning “business as usual” politics if they actually did some investigative reporting to expose the corruption in Thai politics.
Notice The Nation never actually tells us how politicians are corrupt. It just says politicians are corrupt. No evidence, just opinions.
How many editorials and opinion pieces did we have to suffer through about Thaksin’s corruption after he was ousted? Again, no evidence, just opinions.
Easy to attack Thaksin once he was out of power and in a foreign country.
Interestingly, after the coup, The Nation could have actually reported how Thaksin suppressed the media when he was in power, and post on its website all those investigative reports it had to sit on because of pressure from the government. But it didn’t.
Currently, The Nation hasn’t done one investigative piece on the coup makers pre and post-coup assets.
General Sonthi is now part of the government. He is supposed to disclose his assets.
Has The Nation reported on it? Nope.
Has The Nation reported on all the wheeling and dealing going on in with the new political alignments and arrangements? Nope.
It prints, he said this, he said that. Any idiot can regurgitate what politicians say and put into print.
All we get from Thepchai and his cohorts are crocodile tears about dirty Thai politics.
Instead of wringing their hands, they should be investigating and reporting. In other words, they should be doing their jobs.
Corruption in Thailand
Jeru, rather than pick on us less enlightened why don’t you educate us on Thai business? I’m sure your words would be quite informative…
Finding out about Burma
“Grasshopper” is rather hopping.
All the things I mentioned are based on documented facts. It’s standard journalist practice to write, “China, Russia” etc. in any article. Of course, that does not mean every person in these countries is trading with Burma.
Writing, “fires are ranging in Southern California” does not mean every square inch of California has burned down.
Most of your sentences, I don’t understand.
Why don’t you use your real name?
kmk
Corruption in Thailand
Srithanonchai not only don’t you anything about Thai businessmen but you don’t also don’t know shit about logic nor military ranks. No wonder you enjoy your exchange with the Grasshopper immensely. Didn’t I warn you both that I am always eager to “cast the first stone”?
Interview with Paul Handley
carelus: Your comment meant as a parody, right?
Corruption in Thailand
Col. Jeru: I little bit of logic would not hurt you, believe me. This time around, a mere transfer to an inactive position is insufficient. Demotion is called for.
Thepchai Yong on normality in Thai politics
The Nation had worked hard to get this old situation back. Thus, Thepchai would be the last one who can complain about it.
Thepchai Yong on normality in Thai politics
Thepchai is right, of course — to a certain extent. What outsiders hope for is a slight sign that overall some steps forward are made over time. Personally I don’t see that, in the constitution, in the renewed Prem-palace-army alliance, in the handling of the south, in the fight against corruption and for rule of law, and, most of all, in the management of the country by the bureaucrats and politicians. If Thaksin and the rest had been able to make a respect-worthy Suwannaphum airport arise out of Cobra Swamp, whatever the corruption, it might have demonstrated that things do get better. But it is a disaster. The south is a disaster. And, the (incompetent but maybe not so corrupt) Democrats aside, the political field is full of old emblems of corruption and mismanagement. The 1997 collapse showed what this mismanagement does, Thepchai — what happens when you are just happy with getting back to democracy and you don’t demand a little better each time. Thailand gets along, but so did Burma, for a time.
The only thing I see really improved is the state of Thai studies — there is a lot more realism about the thinness of the gold plating on Suwannaphum. Thepchai, perhaps too comfortable with the Nation having led the charge to oust Thaksin at any and all costs, apparently hasn’t noticed this.
Interview with Paul Handley
Criticise the author to revoke his points = Logical fallacy = ad hominem = stupid.
Corruption in Thailand
Srithanonchai what do you know about running a business enterprise?
Nine good men and true
I agree with Srithanonchai. It’s annoying AND embarrassing.
I mean you had the man in front of you, why didn’t you ask real questions ?
For instance, a very simple one, but highly symbolic of the “global fraud” that taints most of the thai institutions.
November 2006
All the ministers gave to the NCCC their “assets declaration” (for themselves, their spouses and minor children).
December 2006
The press, Nation, published part of thoses declarations. Just click here.
http://tinyurl.com/yq4uxk
October 2007
10 month after… ! The NCCC starts to say that some ministers do have shareholdings in some companies, superior to the limit of 5 %.
Here are the real questions :
-do they really need 10 month of “investigation” to figure out ? If yes, NCCC is rather incompetent. Embarrassing for an institution supposed to be the “white knight” in the fight against corruption (and Thaksin).
-if not, why did they wait ? Wait until october 2007 ? They had some political motivations behind ? Again, it’s embarrassing regarding the “independance” of NCCC…
-or maybe thoses shareholdings were not listed in the declarations, in this case the ministers are culprits of assets concealment… Nothing less.
So basically, whatever the truth is… it’s embarrassing for the NCCC. And even a shame. How come a guy like Medhi can come after and play the “sweet cool polite” style ?
Some of my articles about this scandal :
http://tinyurl.com/2ouggp
http://tinyurl.com/2uzgsj
Corruption in Thailand
Col. Jeru: “Grasshopper and Srithanonchai are too far removed from real-life economics of earning a living” > What dou you know of my economic situation?
Nine good men and true
Listening to this sort of self-satisfied members of the bureaucratic elite (Medhi is an academic, but not a scholar) has become increasingly annoying. You can never dent their thick armour of defensiveness, except you have done your homework very well. Otherwise, what remains is procedure.
Thailand’s revised Internal Security Act
And here is the Bangkok Post’s editorial on the issue:
It is difficult to know why the Surayud Chulanont government has struggled so hard to pass a new internal security act when it has been rejected by legal experts, politicians, civil rights groups and the man in the street.
Yet after the military’s own hand-picked legislators gave still another thumbs-down to this ill-considered and unwanted law, there was Prime Minister Surayud spending some weekend time trying to convince the nation how badly it needs the law. The only reasonable explanation for this extraordinary stubbornness over the proposed law is that a tiny group of people close to the premier want this law for their own purposes. What a splendid argument this is for the opposition to continue to fight until this interim government either gives up or ends its term in office.
Gen Surayud’s insistence on having his way with the internal security bill is doubly puzzling. In the first place, the establishment of a powerful security apparatus is a serious matter that requires popular inspection and democratic debate. Since Gen Surayud is promising to hold elections and turn over the government to an elected regime by next January, there is no need for the bill for now. Three months hardly seems an unreasonable wait for a law that almost no one can justify anyhow.
Just as baffling is the premier’s doublespeak on his government’s priorities. As recently as his Saturday morning appearance on the weekly government information show, Gen Surayud said his remaining time in office he planned no new programmes. A new government, elected by popular vote, would be taking over by late January, he said, and there was neither time nor justification in trying to launch any new laws or projects. Hours later, after the government whips sent the internal security bill back to his desk for a second time, the prime minister spoke rather passionately about how necessary the law was. He indicated he will, indeed, try to push it back to the legislators once again.
The whips at the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) deserve credit for their reasoned stand. The legislature was the first body to take the initiative last July and reject an even more radical form of the internal security bill. NLA members noted, as had many members of the public, that the proposed law essentially made it legal for the army chief or head of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) to take over the governing of the country on little more than a whim. Anyone he designated would automatically become non-accountable for any actions, no matter how violent or anti-democratic.
After the first rejection, Gen Surayud wisely chose to receive advice from the Council of State, which suggested toning down the worst excesses. The next rewrite put the prime minister in nominal charge of declaring a national emergency and dictatorial rule _ but infamously allowed the premier to delegate power to the Isoc or army chief, just as before. As a result, the NLA whips have properly sent it back.
New Deputy Prime Minister Sonthi Boonyaratkalin argued that the bill is necessary immediately. After all, he said, a national security emergency could pop up any day now. That sounded just a little too much for some people like a warning that the Dec 23 election to return the country to democracy might go all wrong. Because of that and other reasons, 14 non-governmental organisations dealing with civil rights decided on Sunday to join forces to fight to kill this bill.
The cabinet is to meet today as usual, and may take up the internal security bill yet again. Prime Minister Surayud appears determined to try to ram through a law that everyone can see is as unpopular and unwanted as it is unnecessary. For that reason, citizens’ groups and NLA members should continue to oppose the bill and force it off the agenda at the legislature.
If an internal security act is deemed essential, the new and elected government can take up the issue as a matter of priority early next year. Thailand has survived as a united nation for hundreds of years without this bill, and a few more months will not cause its collapse.
Thailand’s revised Internal Security Act
From today’s Bangkok Post:
National Legislative Assembly member and former National Security Council chief Prasong Soonsiri yesterday pledged to oppose the National Security Bill if it were again submitted to the NLA for consideration.
Sqn Ldr Prasong said the serious flaw of the bill was a provision seeking to exempt state officials assigned to work under the bill from civil, criminal and disciplinary punishment. It was inappropriate to enact legislation which took the judicial system for granted. “If it is submitted to the NLA for debate, I will oppose it. We must follow the justice system,” he said. The bill also sought to suspend basic civil rights and liberties such as the right to protest and express opinions. As a former charter writer, he said, he must see to it than any draft law which was unconstitutional was not passed into law.
Nine good men and true
“The overall impression I gained was that Medhi, like many others, was attempting to draw a clear distinction between the independent, disinterested and trustworthy appointed public officials on the one hand and the disruptive, self-serving and dishonest elected politicians on the other. In his view it is clearly the appointed public officials who are the “guarantor of political peace in the country.””
One important difference is that workings of the NCCC are transparent and will reported in the press. This was often not the case under the Thaksin administration.
This is particularly significant with respect to agricultural price supports under Thaksin. Since it didn’t really hit the media until years afterwards, perhaps due to its inherent complexity. I first learned of it in a dinner party in Maechan from a rice mill owner in 2004. Two years later after being cheated out of money (teaching 200 students in two large lecture classes and not paid a single baht for this) and leaving the university to work in a newspaper, I was very surprised to see the whole thing emerge in various guises, the most interesting being of course the great rice heist that got a lot of TV coverage.
no one really knew what was happening until years
The power of vote-buying!
“So I guess based on the empty halls that Peua Pandin Party will be among those political parties that won’t make it to the starting line.”
I think that was a major question raised in yesterday’s political commentary in the Bangkok Post. It seems to be dependent on who can win out with the highest bids in all the political horse trading in the run up to the election.
“Maybe the price of the Thai vote has gone up.”
MPs for sale is the current newsworthy topic, as of yesterday.
Thailand’s revised Internal Security Act
I have provided Chris Baker’s latest translation of the revised Internal Security Act.
14.7 out of 45. An endorsement for the junta?
[…] though the NCCC was selected by the coup makers, Medhi argued that their mandate derives from the electorate’s endorsement of the new constitution. He signalled that the NCCC will be active in pursuing corruption and […]
Corruption in Thailand
[…] Monday I attended the Medhi Krongkaew’s seminar on Corruption and Current Political Developments in Thailand.1 Medhi, who has sporting the compulsory yellow tie, spoke about his fist year (with another eight […]