B by Tom

Truce
I'm getting busy, so blogging will be minimal, if at all, for a couple of weeks. This may be a good time for you to explore my (very small) archives, if you haven't already done so. If you have, however, then you may want to pay a visit to the recommended blogs listed in the green box. You'll see what this blog aspires to be when it grows up.
20:19

Why not thank the IMF
Asks Kanjana Spindler of the Bangkok Post. A valid point, if only she would stick to it:

Just in case anybody has forgotten, the extent of the damage to the Thaitanic remains almost incalculable. In 1998 one of Thailand's leading economists wrote in this newspaper that the crash of 1997 would take at least a decade to repair. At the time, nobody wanted to listen. But six years later, it is easy to see that, if anything, this economist underestimated the devastating impact of our gross financial mismanagement. [italics mine]

What leading economist? Why not say his name? A word of advice, Khun Kanjana: To name names is not only good journalism, but it also helps deflect the blame when you make such an absurd statement as this. What "damage" from 1997 can possibly take still more than four years (ten minus six) to repair? Perhaps the reason it's "incalculable" is because it doesn't exist. The economy contracted 12% between 1996 and 1998 (indeed devastating, though calculable) but has since expanded and is now back above the pre-crisis level. Growth has accelerated to 6.7% in the latest quarter (compare 5.9% in 1996). The stock market reflects that. So does the property market. Whichever economist you're citing, Khun Kanjana, he's gone the same way as the one who predicted the Dow 36,000. And the weirdest thing is that, now in Thailand 2003, you are trumpeting the negative equivalent of "Dow 36,000 is too low!"

That's not to say we're all set. I can name many things in Thailand that need repair and that will take more than a few years to fix -- the banking system, the state-owned enterprises, the bureaucracy, the private sector... everything, actually. But these needed repair before 1997. Indeed, the malfunctioning of these very institutions caused the crisis. So to deal with them now, however long it takes, is not to undo the damage -- that's already finished for all practical purposes -- but to take a step forward in fixing the long overdue problems. If successful, it will have a lasting positive impact on the whole country. If not, we'll not be any worse off than we were in 1996.

But she puts things in perspective:

Remember when it took only 25 baht to buy one US dollar, when our per capita GDP was approaching $4,000 per year? Today it takes 42 baht worth of exports to earn one dollar and per capita income is hovering around $2,000 a year.

Yes, I do remember the 25-baht dollar. These were the days, weren't they? Thai kids overseas were burning money like royalties. Planes were whisking people off to Hong Kong for a dim sum fix. Group tourists were traversing half the world to load up on Levi's (still fashionable back then). Ah, the blissfully cheap dollar. It would've lasted, too, had it not been for that nagging little law of Demand and Supply, which says low price attracts demand and demand bids up price. Sure we tried our best to cling to that fictitious 25:1 ratio (some still do, apparently) but soon the perversity became apparent to the currency speculators (if not to all the others) and they pounced. And there goes our irrational extravagance.

It's ironic -- and telling -- that someone who shuns the "distasteful, misleading and self-serving" celebrations of the IMF debt repayment will herself dwell on even cruder measures of economic well-being. While the early debt payoff at least means Thailand has now earned enough to afford it, Khun Kanjana's obsession with the dollar-based valuations is at best pointless and at worse deceptive.

Whether the 50 baht buys a dollar or two dollars, it still fills you up at the food court. So the important question is: Can you afford to spend that much on a meal? And here's the heartening fact. More percentage of Thais will answer "yes" to that question now than they would in 1996. Why? Because their income rose -- not dollar income, not even baht income, but real income. And if you insist, that real income can be translated into dollars, as here. This measure is called the per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity, which is most meaningful for comparing income across countries. [The 1996 figure isn't there for comparison but I'm sure that, based on the same dollar, it won't be higher than the 2002 one]

25, 42, 2000, 4000. From these figures, she concludes authoritatively:

After climbing up the development ladder for 30 years faster than almost any other country in the world, Thailand slid back down a long, long way.

So it all went down the drain, didn't it? All our good progress on life expectancy, literacy rate, school enrollment, telephone access, clean water, paved roads, internet usage... ALL GONE in that one day that our dollar-denominated value was halved. Of all concepts of "development", it doesn't get any shallower than this.

It's sad. The IMF bashers are misguided, to be sure. But these... what do you call them... Spindlers... Spinners? They offer nothing but false wisdoms. Yes, we shouldn't blame the IMF. Yes, we have only ourselves to blame for... what, electing the Chavalit government!? That's not exactly repentant, is it? Speaking of "shifting blames".

Six years on, we're still not done pointing fingers at each other ("the real culprits!") and yearning for the cheap dollar. Worse, our collective achievement is being manipulated to suit personal agendas. If Thaksin hypes it up, Kanjana flushes it down the toilet. He says the sky's the limit, she says it's fallen. We haven't learned a thing.

Why not thank the IMF? Because with people like you, Khun Kanjana, we may not be through with them just yet.
23:45

B is for... BECKHAM (And yes, he did bend it.)
23:52

The bombs that ended all bombs
This excellent article should once and for all silence those historically illiterate loudmouths who're always nagging the US about the atomic bombs. Should, but that won't be the case. Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide too tempting a target for the simple-minded naggers. They'll always blurt out a potshot or two, before moving on to other outrageous diatribes like, say, "Holocaust in Iraq" (which incidentally also comes from Mandela).

Long before such potshots became popular, America's conscience had been grappling with the issue -- witness this self-reflection very early on in 1946. Fifty years afterwards, it didn't stop. And this latest piece shows us it still hasn't stopped -- 58 years on. The tones and "facts" are different, but the conclusions are more or less the same. Make of that what you will -- proof of righteousness, evidence of manipulation, or something else. But one sure thing is you will never confuse these delicately-nuanced thoughts with the empty, unthinking rants of the other side.

P.S. What a pair of pleasant surprises. Kristof wrote the article (his best in a while) and the Bangkok Post runs it. (Did you have a hand in the latter, Khun Michael? If yes, great choice.)
23:29

Getting closer
Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Aden, New York, Washington, Bali, Kikambala, Riyadh and now Jakarta. With us or with the terrorists, you may not have so much time to decide.

P.S. "Let's use the shari'a to deal with these scums," says Dad. [His view does not necessarily reflect that of B.]
16:46

Très classe
If any further proof is needed of the French's impeccable taste, Frédéric Beigbeder provides it. The intellectuel makes a porn out of 9/11 in his new book. [via Merde]

Meanwhile, actress Marie Trintignant has died from injuries inflicted by her activist, peace-loving, little-people-defending, American-bully-bashing prince charmant -- Bertrand Cantat -- lead singer of the Noir Désir. (The Dissident Frogman posted this when she was still in coma.)
14:08

Noble communist
Or socialist. Anyway, that's not an oxymoron. From the hard left, Norman Geras supports the war, and laments his astray former comrades. [via Instapundit] (There's also his blog, if you want more.)
14:07

BAPO responds
Many thanks to Khun Michael of the Bangkok Post, who wrote two emails.

In the first, he rebutted this post of mine:

You're right...no balance. But the story was a follow-up to a front-lead splash the day before in which Thaksin had the stage to himself. [links added]

First, let's not quibble about the definition of "lead", which to my knowledge is always above-the-fold (much like that "follow-up" story, actually). (You need hardcopies to understand what I'm talking about.)

I find Khun Michael's "no balance" admission very encouraging. Still, he seems to believe that an all-Thaksin piece on Friday justifies the viciously anti-Thaksin one on Saturday. That I disagree. While Thaksin did have the stage to himself on Friday, the article was matter-of-fact and never fawning (which is good). Remarkably, the PM didn't even expressly claim credit for the debt repayment in the article. Nor did he attack the Democrats or anyone, come to that, besides the IMF, which he said prescribed the wrong "medication" for Thailand.

Contrast that with the Dems' ferocious forum the next day and what you get is far from "balance". At any rate, most readers would agree with me that a pair of evenhanded news stories is much preferable to two extreme ones that may or may not balance each other out.

If you follow the Post closely (and by the looks of your blog, you do), then you know that on most days Thaksin makes frequent appearances. So many, in fact, that some editorial staff (OK, me and a few other subs) have taken to referring to it as the ''Thaksin Post''.

Uh, I hate to break this to you, Khun Michael, but Thaksin is the Prime Minister of Thailand! For that very reason, he appears frequently in all Thai newspapers including, say, the Thai Post. Would you call that "Thaksin Post", too? (For the uninitiated, the Thai Post is a Thai-language daily that takes to calling the Premier "Hitler sans mustache". So much for the "media crackdown".)

He does not suffer for lack of publicity. Most of the stuff which appears is favourable, because reporters like powerful figures.

He suffers from bad publicity. That second sentence just went right over my head. Is Khun Michael saying that, in spite of "favorable" coverage from the Post, those readers who rant and sneer in the Postbag somehow got negative perception from elsewhere?

Moreoever, the Democrats have a good point: how can the government take the credit for the IMF debt milestone when its leaders were in power at the time of the baht devaluation?

If indeed, according to the Dems' argument, the "old faces" in this government tripped up in 1997 and only now manage to amend their mistake, then they deserve praises for the self-redemption. That's not what I believe, though. The 1997 crash didn't happen because of the Chavalit government, or any one government, for that matter. The whole system was to blame for its reckless and corrupt financial practice. Now, non-policy factors are at work on the way up as well as on the way down. So I'm reserved about giving this government credit precisely because I do not blame the one in 1997, not the opposite. Either way the Democrats' reasoning is wrong.

I subbed that story and can tell you the original did include comments from the government. They were taken out for length, but were so snide and off-topic they added nothing anyway.

Say, you're making a screwdriver but your glass is very small, what do you do? Put only vodka and no orange juice? And those comments, are they more snide than "consumerism trap" and more off-topic than "victimized"?

Whew! I'm exhausted. Khun Michael's second email will have to wait for another time. I must say, though, that I'm very flattered by both of them. Please keep sending.
21:33

Monday. One week since July 27, the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean war. One whole week I waited in vain for the Thai media to so much as mention our veterans who fifty years ago fought successfully to protect freedom.

Here's courtesy of the US Department of Defense.

THAILAND
Personnel: 6,500
Army: 1 infantry battalion (Thailand 21st Regiment)
Navy: 4 naval vessels
Air Force: 1 transport unit
Casualties
Killed: 129
Wounded: 1,139
Missing: 5

Thank you for remembering -- and honoring -- our contribution, which we ourselves have completely forgotten.

update Khun Alan Dawson, himself a media man, writes:

The service of the Thai military in the Korean war, and thus the Thai nation, is a great achievement, in my opinion, one of the great and honorable and clear stands against tyranny by Thai people. In its way it is purer than the World War II Seri Thai because it was service for others (South Koreans) and not directly for Thais. It is unsullied by political and sneering charges that sometimes demean the Thai service in Vietnam (twice as large as Korea, in manpower).

Yet it went totally unmarked by the Thai media and public so far as I could see, even though wire service stories from Seoul and Panmunjom specifically mentioned Thailand and pointed even the dimmest editors at a "home town" story. Very strange to me.
13:25

Future of Iraq
The Washington Post reports from Baghdad University:

The two friends, stopping to chat with a journalist, unhesitatingly blurted out their strongly felt views. Samar, 18, said former president Saddam Hussein's leadership had given Iraq "dignity and respect" and that she prayed U.S. forces would not arrest or harm him.

Hendrahd, also 18, said her father had been executed a decade ago by the Hussein government and was probably buried in a mass grave. "I hope the American troops find Saddam soon and kill him," she said firmly. Then, giggling at their own boldness, the pair hurried to catch their bus.

Um, yes, tolerance is a very good thing. But honestly I would think twice about walking "arm in arm" with someone who prayed for the monster that killed my father.

Anyway, it's good to see the girls are happy. Now this is even better:

"We have real freedom now: freedom to compete with each other fairly, freedom to argue with our teachers and deans, freedom to talk without worrying if someone is listening," said Haider Lefte, 20, an engineering student.

"Some of the informers may still be among us," he said as his classmates laughed and pointed at each other. "But who will they inform to now?"

Read the whole thing. (And look at the photo, too.)
21:05

Good news and bad news
An important message from the Premier:

However, [Thaksin] rejected calls to repeal the [IMF-recommended] laws, which opponents claimed threatened the country's sovereignty.

Mr Thaksin insisted he would not bow to pressure from businessmen who had sponsored demonstrations against the legislation.

There you have it. Thaksin's sticking to his gun. Economic liberalization will not be bogged down by corrupt entrepreneurs, SOE hanger-ons, and militant NGOs. Knock on wood. (You cave in, Mr. PM, and I'll... I'll... blog about it.)

Regrettably, though not surprisingly, the Bangkok Post chose to bury that in page three and instead front this story headlined:

In it, the (Thai) Dems lined up one after another to lash at the government while no one whosoever from the accused party was sought for comments. No attempt was made to give a slightest semblance of impartiality. And this, mind you, is the paper most foreigners in Thailand read and believe. (The rest read The Nation, which is the same, if not worse.)

The story ended with this gem from the Dem leader:

Cash handed out easily was just as easily spent. People were drawn into a consumerism trap and thus "victimised" by the government.

That's a new one. For all those years I spent studying economics, the only "trap" I've ever heard of is "liquidity trap", which is when people DO NOT spend. What are you going to carp at next, Mr. Banyat? High-growth recession? Affluent poverty?
17:30

Don't break your brain

A typical Bangkok Post reporting:

Asylum-seekers want to go to S. Korea, motives unclear

Now that's a hard one. What are the "motives" behind asylum-seekers' seeking asylum? I don't know, perhaps to escape the insane, oppressed, starving mess that's North Korea? Or maybe they just want to give you guys at the Post a brainteaser.

For the rest of us who've had our mandatory schooling, however, here's the real mystery: Why is it that the Amnesty International puts so much trust in this paper as to cite it all the time?

P.S. Notice the byline, it took two Post reporters to write that 10-sentence story.
15:46

B is for... BANGKOK 8 (Stuff made for the movie. Let's hope they don't ban this one.)
12:49