Fair Analysis.... I Think So

[soongmak]

Well, I'm still waiting for your quick summary of the facts as you see them in Gadfly's style. Somehow I guess they won't come anytime soon. :content:

 

For those interested in an unbiased analysis, they could do worse than reading this article in the Telegraph. It is more than a year old, but it gives a good analysis of the current crisis without taking sides: Link. It even adresses issues that cannot be discussed in the Thai press.

[Gadfly]

I am no Thaksin fan (far from it), but we need to be honest.

 

You claim my points 1 through 4 are inaccurate; not a grain of truth and not worth addressing since they are complete nonsense. That is the position you take.

 

Well, to make this simple, let's take the first point: TRT was ousted in military coup in 2006. According to you, this point is inaccurate; simply wrong.

 

Come on, who is making stuff up here? You are claiming Thailand didn't have a coup in 2006. Your claim is demonstrably false. We can disagree on whether governments should be changed by military coup, but how can anyone seriously deny - as you do clearly do - that there was a coup?

 

When posters make such preposterous claims - no coup in 2006; nope, never happened - how can you take anything else they say seriously?

 

Thaksin and his government were horrible. But let's not start making stuff up to justify what has happened since. That's just childish.

 

As for my other points - you can find similar comments in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, BBC, etc. For example, my comments about the dubious court decisions are echoed in this week's The Economist. Forget about Gadfly. Who are you gonna believe: The Economist or some poster who claims that Thailand didn't have a coup in 2006?

[Gadfly]

The article in the Telegraph is excellent.

 

Some ex-pats here some how loose all perspective, meaning, more specifically, they loose, among other things, all appreciation of nuance. Maybe it's the heat that addles their minds. They post a stake on one side without really understanding there are no sides, and then, anything that doesn't portray the protagonists on the other side of the divide as some sort of cartoonish caricature of evil is automatically labeled "biased" - even worse, guilty of "western bias", a term that is so ambiguous that it has no meaning whatsoever or, rather, has an ever changing meanings that can be vacuously employed to mean whatever is convenient at any point in time to disparage another's post's comments without any reference to fact or reason. It's a new height in hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

[ThaiHome]

An amazing tirade. :appreciation of nuance:, “â€Âcartoonish caricature of evil is automatically labeled "biased" - even worse, guilty of "western biasâ€Â, etc, etc.

 

 

You seem to really like the Telegraph article from April, perhaps you could explain a few nuances they failed to appreciate.

 

“Nevertheless, with Thaksin in exile, voters returned his supporters to power in elections at the end of 2007.â€Â

 

This is just not true. Thaksin’s party did not get a majority of seats and formed a coalition with several smaller parties that are not supporters of Thaksin. Don’t you think that might be important?

 

“Mr Thaksin's one great virtue as a democrat is that he and his supporters have won each of three elections so far this decadeâ€Â

 

Actually he “won†only one election in 2005. In 2001 he did not get a majority and formed a coalition. In 2006 the TRT failed to win enough seats to control the house as they could not get the 20% of the registered votes where they were running unopposed.

 

 

“At the end of last year a court dissolved the elected government and the army brass summoned political bosses to hoist a new prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, to powerâ€Â

 

The court did not dissolve the elected government. It disbanded a political party as required by the constitution as one of the party executives was convicted of electoral fraud. The evidence of this was both video and witness and is not disputed even by the PPP itself.

The military did not “hoist†a new prime minister. At worst the military acted as a broker between coalition partners and disenchanted ex-members of the PPP in order to setup a new coalition with the Democrats leading. In fact, the PPP could have done a number of things in order to make sure the successor party PTP maintained control.

 

 

Do you see how fully explaining a few details makes a big difference in how the storey comes across? There is no “hypocrisy and intellectual dishonestyâ€Â, just the desire to see the entire storey told.

 

TH

 

[Gadfly]

Let's go back basics and items that really can't be disputed (since they you can just go back through the thread to check).

 

I am critical of aspects of Sowtum's articles, but overall I think it is interesting and that he makes a some good points. But I do think some parts are seriously flawed, which is why I don't think it provides the "fair analysis" that captions this thread.

 

In particular, the claim that the Democrats here came into power just like the Tories in Britain came into power by forming a coalition with the Lib-Dems. I am not sure where to start because this is so blatantly prosperous, but maybe the best way is with a simple question: does anyone besides TH and his alter ego, Lizard King, buy this nonsense?

 

Consider two points/questions before answering. First, the Thai militairy made an "offer that could not be refused" to form the current Thai government. Is that a common feature of governments in the UK? Do the armed forces in the UK lend a "helping" (actually arm twisting) hand to the formation of governments in the UK? Is that really what happens? Because just about every credible source recognizes that this is how the current government came to pass.

 

Second, and really only because it just so much a hoot, to make his point, TH was compelled to claim there was no coup in 2006. The record is pretty clear that he did and had to do this. Does anyone here really believe Thailand didn't have a coup in 2006?

 

Thaksin is crap, but let's not delude ourselves about the problems Thailand faces. They go way beyond square face. For an insightful analysis, I suggest the following: Insightful analysis, published in the local press, no less.

 

 

[LizardKing]

It is not even worth pointing out the errors of your analysis for the umpteenth time. At least the posters who haven't lived/worked here for over a decade have an excuse.

 

But you've always been a bit narrow-minded and subsequently entertaining because of that. So carry on. You make me laugh. That makes me happy.

 

And yes, I must be an alter ego of poster(s) who disagree with you because surely only one could do that LOL! It couldn't possibly be that those of us who have lived and worked in corporate Bangkok a long time all independently seem to think the same, i.e., not like you (even tho you qualify for the above) or like the guys who live in the sticks.