Should we be surprised that within 24 hours both Bloomberg and the Economist came out with negative news headlines and articles for the Thai military leaders? Now before I start I should state the obvious disclaimer “I love the military”, there we go, now I wont’ be invited for a cup of tea for attitude readjustment.
I’ve found it amusing to see the headline of fake news going around the world in the past few months, has the news ever really been 100% accurate and impartial for the past 5-10 years (or longer)? I would like to think that perhaps when journalism first started that there those in the industry had morals, ethics, or followed an unspoken code of journalism to report and provide opinions on the truth, but its rather saddening to see how journalism has morphed into headlines to create more readership, sell more ad’s etc etc in the end it is a business. Now when you’re sitting on my side of the table and seeing that some articles are just completely incorrect or create havoc and that there is effectively no blowback, repercussions etc in that writer’s face it becomes rather frustrating. If I buy/sell a stock, asset class etc, and lose money, well I’m wrong, performance suffers, clients leave, and then our business suffers. If a media outlet reports on an event and is wrong, incorrect, well they don’t seem to suffer, the risk/return here isn’t quite right to me.
Rant over… now onto these two articles, only a few comments as I don’t see Thaksin returning, I do still expect elections next year, I do think its time for the military to step but I’m not particularly excited to see Abhisit in charge, a lot what is written is accurate on the events that have led up to where we are today, here are some snippets and a link to both.
Bloomberg
5. Can Thaksin’s political movement regain power?
Although Thaksin hasn’t set foot in Thailand for almost a decade, the billionaire’s influence endures. He enjoys a loyal following among his red-shirt supporters, particularly in the farming heartlands, despite efforts by the military to repress free speech. The junta has taken action against Thaksin and his sister, former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who was hit with a $1 billion fine last year over allegations of criminal negligence related to her signature policy of purchasing rice from farmers at above-market rates.
More recently, the junta reopened a nearly decade-old tax case against Thaksin and accused his supporters of plotting to kill Prayuth. The bottom line: Even if an election is held and Thaksin’s allies win, the constitution gives appointed bureaucrats, soldiers and judges enough power to block any moves they don’t like by elected politicians.
Economist
Everyone agrees that Thailand could do with a long-term plan. Once one of South-East Asia’s economic stars, it has grown more slowly than all of its large neighbours for years. In a report released earlier this month the World Bank warned that Cambodia, Malaysia and Vietnam looked more competitive. Well-connected tycoons dominate business; many schools outside the biggest cities are woeful. For years governments have splurged the largest part of their budget on the lucky residents of Bangkok and its industrial exurbs, helping to keep citizens in the outer provinces poor.
Insiders say the junta is more aware of these problems than the antics of Prayuth Chan-ocha, its cartoonish leader (pictured, at centre, in khaki), suggest. So far it has propped up growth through tax cuts, transfers and temporary incentives to boost consumer spending. But it looks incapable of instigating the contentious reforms that a 20-year plan should entail. It has been successful at squelching opposition in Thailand’s rural heartland, but remains beholden to a narrow urban clique determined to preserve its privileges. It introduced an inheritance tax in 2015, but only after greatly diluting the original proposal; a plan to tax land is crawling along.
Related
