B by Tom

Up until recently, the only gun debate I knew of was the one in the US and the stance I'd come to take on that was: Not sure. (I have good reasons for it, but that's for another day.)

Now, out of the blue, the debate has turned up in Thailand. And although I have yet to think through my position (which doesn't have to be, in fact shouldn't be, the same across countries), this comment is already tipping the balance in favor of control:

In this morning's news, a monk shot a man and a taxi driver shot another driver who had cut in to the traffic.

Why do I find this so compelling after having been unmoved by much more forceful rhetoric in America? Well, this is different. It comes from someone who's AGAINST gun control! Yes, that's right, he cited that as a reason why firearms should continue to be sold and bought!

This, as well as many other things, has convinced me that my country is full of wackos. And wackos shouldn't play with guns, period.

P.S. The news story made it all the way to a Second Amendment advocacy website, which apparently will take any "support" for its cause. The same can be said of the Bunkum Post, which will print anything about any issue just to be on the opposite side of the Thaksin administration. I mean, how desperate must you be to have internet chatrooms as the main source of quotes in your front-page story?

P.P.S. In case you're wondering, there's no equivalent of the Second Amendment in Thailand. What do you expect when even the First Amendment is only wishy-washily echoed?
23:54

Recommended readings
About Edward Said, who's died recently. This paper seriously makes me miss college. [via Mike Silverman]

And if that's too dense (or looooong) for your taste, there's always Hitchens [via Michael Totten]
23:54

Reap what you don't sow

I've never visited foxnews.com before, not thinking I'd like it. But I was wrong; I do like this: [via samizdata.net]

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help," bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: "We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies."

In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: "I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there."

Granted, Fox is probably not the most "fair and balanced" source ever. But neither are the more "respectable" outfits such as the BBC, AFP and even the New York Times.

Read the whole piece and you may be surprised at how convincing and temperate it is.

Here, for example, the author is definitely being too generous:

Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.

Boy, I only wish my fellow countrymen were so articulate and reasonable. Here in Thailand, people just know that America created Bin Laden, period. No evidence is needed. It's just Karmic Law, you see -- you reap what you sow.

Funny how in the minds of these "devout Buddhists", Karmic Law only works against the US, never its atrocious enemies.

But wait, karma did catch up with Uday, Qusay, Hambali and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, among others.

Perhaps the pious practicers find that fact too painful, and so they ignore it.

Now go read the article already.

And remember, although we didn't sow the bastard, we'll be more than happy to reap him. With sharp objects, that is.
22:35

The book that debunks The Book
The author who gave us Liar's Poker and The New New Thing just came out with a new book on... baseball! An excerpt from the TNR review:

Lewis focuses on the extraordinary success of Beane, who has produced a terrific baseball team despite one of the lower payrolls in baseball. Since 1999, when Beane took over, the Athletics have compiled an amazing record. Consider a few numbers. In 1999, the Athletics ranked eleventh (out of fourteen teams) in the American League in payroll and fifth in wins. In 2000, the Athletics ranked twelfth in payroll and second in wins, a feat that they duplicated in 2001. In 2002, they ranked twelfth in payroll again--and first in wins.

How did Beane pull this off? He did it largely by ignoring or defying baseball's conventional wisdom, otherwise known in baseball lingo as The Book. (As in, "The Book says that you should bunt in this situation.") It turns out that many chapters of The Book are simply wrong. Sacrifice bunts are rarely a good strategy, and steals are vastly overrated. (Unless a base stealer succeeds at least three-quarters of the time, his running efforts reduce runs scored rather than increase them.) The portion of The Book that was most in need of revision, and the most important edge that Beane was able to exploit, was in player evaluation. Here he tried to figure out, scientifically, how much a player was likely to contribute to his team's chances. He relied on objective evidence, explicitly ignoring anything that could be dismissed as "subjective."

Hmmm, very interesting. But non-baseball fans (like me) will be even more intrigued by this toward the end:

What does this tell us about other markets? Lewis poses this question: "If professional baseball players could be over- or undervalued, who couldn't? Bad as they may have been, the statistics used to evaluate baseball players were probably more accurate than anything used to measure the value of people who didn't play baseball for a living." Right! On the basis of first principles, the market for baseball players should be one of the most efficient labor markets on earth. It is hard to think of any high-paid profession in which performance is measured so precisely--and is publicly available to every other potential employer. Compare the market for baseball players with the market for corporate executives. A company looking for a new director of human resource management would be hard-pressed to get any objective data on the past performance of job candidates. Instead, such a company would be forced to make choices based on interviews with the candidates--a process that is even less accurate than the one the old scouts use to size up a high school player. Interviews are notoriously bad predictors of future job performance. In most contexts their predictive value is essentially zero.

It's worth skimming the whole review (unless you're a baseball fan, in which case you'll be reading the actual book).
13:30

The land of denial

Should I be ashamed that it takes Michael of St. Louise to alert me to a foiling of a terrorist plot right here in Bangkok? (More details here but a quick registration is required.)

Nope, because -- haven't you heard the Prime Minister? -- terrorism does not exist here in Thailand. It has not since the last arrest of terrorists and will not until the next ~~attack~~ arrest.

Update Don't overreact. Just a piece of news. Need I tell you who said these words?
23:14

Disenfranchised? Join the kingdom

My good friend Jay asked me to comment on Gordon Sharpless's gripes about disenfranchisement of Thailand's expats, which begin thus:

Many expats living in Thailand have felt a bit under fire since Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai government took power with a nationalist/populist platform. There have been new and stricter regulations on foreign-owned businesses and investment, a substantial increase in visa and work permit fees, and stricter visa requirements with the latest change doubling the necessary monthly income and minimum level of cash kept in a Thai bank for foreigners seeking one-year visas because they are married to a Thai citizen. Most expats would agree that the rules governing business, investment, residency, etc have always been stacked against foreigners and these new regulations only raise that stack higher.

Awwww, nothing moves me more than underprivileged expats in distress. Why do we keep tormenting these poor souls? They're people, too, you know, just like us. Give them equal protection already, like the enviable kind we Thais enjoy under our "best" and "most democratic" constitution to date (No. 16):

Section 48. The property right of a person is protected. The extent and the restriction of such right shall be in accordance with the provisions of the law. . .

Section 49. The expropriation of immovable property shall not be made except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of public utilities, necessary national defence, exploitation of national resources, town and country planning, promotion and preservation of the quality of the environment, agricultural or industrial development, land reform, or other public interests. . .

Section 50. A person shall enjoy the liberties to engage in an enterprise or an occupation and to undertake a fair and free competition.

The restriction on such liberties under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for maintaining the security and safety of the State or economy of the country, protecting the public in regard to public utilities, maintaining public order and good morals, regulating the engagement in an occupation, consumer protection, town and country planning, preserving natural resources or the environment, public
welfare, preventing monopoly, or eliminating unfair competition. . .

Section 30. All persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights.

Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of the
difference in origin, race, language, sex, age, physical or health condition, personal status, economic or social standing, religious belief, education or constitutionally political view, shall not be permitted.

Measures determined by the State in order to eliminate obstacle to or to promote persons' ability to exercise their rights and liberties as other persons shall not be deemed as unjust discrimination under paragraph three.

Section 31. A person shall enjoy the right and liberty in his or her life and person.

A torture, brutal act, or punishment by a cruel or inhumane means shall not be permitted; provided, however, that punishment by death penalty as provided by law shall not be deemed the punishment by a cruel or inhumane means under this paragraph. . .

Section 36. A person shall enjoy the liberty of travelling and the liberty of making the choice of his or her residence within the Kingdom.

The restriction on such liberties under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for maintaining the security of the State, public order, public welfare, town and country planning or welfare of the youth.

Section 38. A person shall enjoy full liberty to profess a religion, a religious sect or creed, and observe religious precepts or exercise a form of worship in accordance with his or her belief; provided that it is not contrary to his or her civic duties, public order or good morals. . .

Well, you get the idea.

Some rights and liberties, aren't they? Too bad they belong mostly to the Thai state, not the Thai people.

And I'm not even touching Chapter II, yet. Heaven knows that if I step over the line there, I'll be subject to incarceration, not threat of expulsion suffered by the FEER journalists. Hmph, discrimination indeed.

Want something specific about business and investment? Dig this: no Thais are allowed to own any radio or TV stations (except one) all of which belong to various organs the state (two TV stations to the Mass Communication Organization of Thailand, two other to the Army and the other one to the Public Relations Department). While the state, thankfully, doles out most of these media channels to private hands on a concession basis, the private operators have no rights or guarantees beyond their short-term contracts.

And the media concessionaires are lucky vis-à-vis the telecom ones, who are required to enter into "revenue-sharing" contracts with either the CAT or the Telephone Organization of Thailand (now renamed "TOT Corp."). Mobile operators, ISPs, you name it, have to do business with these two state-owned enterprises, which means pay them for doing absolutely nothing. We're talking about Thai companies and entrepreneurs here, mind you, and they're treated like serfs.

But I digressed. Where were we -- tell me again of your grievances, Mr. Sharpless. Not that I don't take the plight of expats seriously -- I do -- but being a selfish jerk that I am, I sometimes get carried away with my own petty concerns.

Hence I often overlook the less fortunate, like the "foreign labor" (from Laos, Burma and Cambodia) who are not even allowed to travel outside the provinces for which their work permits are issued and some hill-tribe people who face similar restrictions despite their forebears' having settled in what is now Thailand since time immemorial. Oh, and there's also the Western expats like Mr. Sharpless who can't buy land except through proxies.

How can I forget such extreme injustices (the last one especially)? Why am I so shallow and whine as though I'm Thailand's No.1 victim? Now, you'll never do that, right, Mr. Sharpless?

But seriously, we are in this together. All of us in Thailand, local and foreign, suffer from Thailand's ancient mindset that's been passed down from feudal and colonial times. Springing from this same root are nationalism, statism, xenophobia, mercantilism and protectionism and we would do well to get rid of them all. So why not try to forge a united front against that entrenched mindset instead of resorting to divisive, them-against-us self-pity? The Thais, after all, don't have a monopoly on this anachronistic thinking. (If Mr. Sharpless thinks Cambodia is more enlightened than Thailand in this regard, then he should, by all means, "go". Other readers, however, would be well-advised to consider his, shall we say, glib economic analysis before trusting his judgment on this and other issues.)

It doesn't help either that Mr. Sharpless puts that hackneyed and false "nationalist/populist" label on PM Thaksin, who is probably Thailand's best hope for changes (maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, yet a vast majority of Thai people seems willing to take that chance). Be careful here, because if that pigeonholing sticks, it'll not likely turn people against the popular Premier, but rather make them openly embrace nationalism and populism. ("I like Thaksin, Thaksin likes nationalism, so I like nationalism, too.")

I have pointed out in several occasions why Thaksin is not anymore nationalist or populist or whatever else they accuse him of than the average Thai politician (here, here, here and here). Yet, given the pervasiveness of that notion, I know I'll have to do more. So here's for today:

The SOE telecom fat cats I mentioned earlier must have their lucrative revenue-sharing contracts "converted" in order for them to be privatized and then compete on equal terms with other companies (as is required under a WTO agreement). When the Thaksin administration moves to accomplish just that, the (real) nationalists, the SOE workers, the Democrats (who have no guiding principles, nationalist or otherwise) and the perennial Thaksin bashers (like the Bunkum Post) are up in arms crying, "The state will lose out!" and that the PM's own telecom giant stands to benefit.

My response to that is: So friggin' what? I don't care if the state will lose its cash cows or if AIS will save a billion or two so long as the competitive telecom market will end up benefiting me and 60 million other consumers. And it will.

So there.

I'm totally wiped out. Jay'd better like this post.
21:22

Of war and wonk
What am I doing linking to Andrew Sullivan? He should be linking to me! But then again, I love this too much. Love.
15:33

Back from the break

Many thanks to Michael of St. Louis, who wrote:

... you are now on my "must read" list! Looking forward to checking out your site frequently."

My apologies to him, then, for having gone offline altogether for five consecutive days and reading his deeply encouraging email only today. Still, I profited well from my unwired respite by learning to play Mancini's Moon River and reading Erich Segal's Love Story (the best romantic novel I've ever read, my having read only a couple notwithstanding). Everyone should try that sometime, getting off the internet or at least the blogosphere. You'll find upon your return that the world didn't implode, or even change very much. If you choose to return, that is.

Anyway, I have returned and will mark this comeback with my unpublished esoteric nit-picking letter to The Economist.

Sir:
You define "net national saving" as "private saving net of capital depreciation plus government dissaving, in the shape of the budget deficit" ("Which way next?", August 30th). This suggests a delightful paradox for the US president and other leaders: national saving, by definition alone, increases with government dissaving.

Unfortunately, that is not only too good to be true, but also the opposite of what you mean to argue. Government dissaving is a minus, not plus, in the computation of national saving, which, contrary to your definition, is the sum of private saving and government saving. When a government dissaves (i.e. runs a deficit), the latter figure is negative and, provided size, may more than offset the former, hence Stephen Roach's dire prediction of America's negative net national saving that you report.

Apparently, even the 160-year-old Economist is not immune from the sign confusion problem that plagues many of its younger fellows. Now I don't know whether that's encouraging or disencouraging.

Tom Vamvanij