I challenge The Economist....(updated Friday)

====== 24 Aug Update =====

Here's the article, as predicted, in the Leader's section of The Economist

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9687376

To The Economist's credit, their opinion article is actually more balanced than I expected. This actually shows a significant improvement from some of their recent articles. Although some factual errors exist (a wide section of the Thai population, elite and non-elite, supported the coup; issue of how Thaksin actually gained a mandate through policy abuse; how the 1997 Constitution and its independent agencies had been completely undermined by TRT already), it's not a bad assessment of Thailand's situation after all. For Thailand's sake, let's hope they're wrong about the army clinging on to power.

=======================

Below is my original blog entry:

I challenge The Economist to make a balanced commentary about Thailand’s referendum for this Friday’s edition. It’s almost a certainty that Thailand’s referendum will make it to the ‘Leaders’ page this week, but since their Bangkok correspondent has become so analytically challenged lately, I will make the following predictions:

The Economist’s Leader on Thailand will refer to:

-         The Thai people’s failure to accept democracy as a guiding principle. By voting to accept the referendum, almost 60% Thais are undemocratic fools who would rather be ruled by the military than the oh-so-heavenly all-great-scenting god-like Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra.

-         How the elections weren’t fair. The Economist will claim that the military government put pressure on everyone to vote ‘yes’ while stopping any dissenting voices from speaking up.

-         Thailand’s deep divide, particularly between the rich and the poor, where the genius at The Economist will note how the north-east (Thailand’s poorest) decided to overwhelmingly reject the referendum

-         The military’s various attempts to cling to power. This is done through the contents of the constitution (weaker coalitions make the army stronger). The brain at The Economist will suggest the possibility that powerful military elites will run in the next election, or postpone the elections indefinitely. Applause!

-         The influences of the ‘royal-elitist’. They’ll definitely put something as close to lese majeste in their article as they can manage.

Issues The Economist’s Leader on Thailand will miss:

-         How Thais are actually intelligent, autonomous people who know what we want. We haven’t rejected democracy, nor are we supporting military rule. The figures speak for themselves.

-         How Thai people may have been forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. The Economist will argue that Thaksin’s government was democratically elected, hence always right. Never mind the human rights abuses, policy-based corruption, and cronyism during Thaksin’s rule – upon which BOOKS have been published about.

-         How every Thai person had a very free choice to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The elections were transparent and everyone was given an opportunity to listen to debates as well as to read the constitution beforehand (however short a time). There was no lack of information and anyone who was sufficiently interested would have had time to study the charter in one way or another.

-         How the military government actually encouraged constructive debate, not stifle it. No, inflammatory statements on posters are not considered ‘constructive’!

-         How there were reports of massive vote-buying in the north-east, a common knowledge amongst Thais, but obviously beyond The Economist correspondent’s intellectual grasp

I don’t want to read a pro-military article in The Economist. Fat chance of that happening! I just want readers world-wide to get the correct balance and a well judged view of what’s going on in Thailand. The way The Economist articles have read lately, it sounds like all Thais are a bunch of undemocratic idiots who wouldn’t know our hands from our feet!