What Forbes can ask Thaksin next time
It's a long interview so I kind of understand why Forbes did not take its final question a bit further. Thaksin Shinawatra was asked "Anything else you want us to understand?" and basically that was the same as saying, "Anything else you want to add b
“I am really unlucky that Thailand only has two English newspapers, and both are against me,” the man fired away. The barrage must have broken the hearts of Matichon and Thai Rath journalists, among others, many of whom may be taking a long, hard look at their career and asking what’s the point. “The international audience might read what’s been happening in Thailand through these newspapers (and get blatantly distorted views about me).”
“The phrases The Nation and the Bangkok Post use are prejudiced and biased from the beginning,” Thaksin went on. “Not just only in the details, the headlines already are prejudiced. So don’t believe them. If you want to know the true me, and you read these newspapers, you’d never know the true Thaksin,” he said. And the recorder was apparently switched off.
Earlier in the interview, Thaksin talked about his freedom to roam the world, to go anywhere except Thailand, so I have no doubt he and Forbes can meet again. This piece is written just in case that happens and the Forbes people want to follow up on the issue of Thailand’s English media’s “bias” against Thaksin. The following questions are proposed in response to his criticism of The Nation and the Bangkok Post and some other things he said in the last interview. It’s entirely up to Forbes whether to ask him these questions which, no need to be said, can be used by other international media free of charge:
1. Is it true that neither The Nation nor the Bangkok Post exposed your so-called share concealment scandal? We’ve learned that the journalist who did the exposure worked for a newspaper that is anything but anti-Thaksin. Is that right? Anyway, do you know why he left that newspaper?
2. Do you have proof that The Nation or the Bangkok Post tricked you and your spouse into buying the Ratchadapisek land while you were in office?
3. Do you have evidence that The Nation or Bangkok Post was in any way involved in writing the law that says such a purchase was illegal? Can you confirm that The Nation or Bangkok Post asked the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand to dismiss the idea to give you amnesty?
4. Please explain what the Pheu Thai Party, specifically Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, meant when saying, in regard to the Ratchadapisek land buy, that you did nothing wrong, but only did something that the law prohibits. Is that law bad?
5. (In case his answer is the law isn’t bad) Were The Nation and Bangkok Post wrong to criticise you for violating it?
6. (In case he invokes the everybody-did-it-why-pick-on-me argument) That everybody does it means you can do it, even if it’s wrong or illegal?
7. If what you imply is true – that international audiences are being influenced by The Nation and Bangkok Post – why can you still go anywhere you like?
8. Can you give us examples of biased news headlines? Of course, we leave op-ed headlines alone. Opinions are opinions, and they are essential to democracy, right?
9. If some war weapons were seized at a border where illegal arms trading is common, how would you expect “responsible” newspapers to report that?
10. Did The Nation or Bangkok Post lure you into believing that tax evasion schemes were great for the country, especially when they were carried out by people who were already extremely rich, like you?
11. The last time we checked, there were some vehemently anti-coup articles in The Nation. Are there vehement anti-Thaksin articles in the media “on the other side”?
12. You say you are unlucky because the only two English newspapers in Thailand are against you. Is Thailand unlucky because of this, too?
13. (In case he says yes) Why?
14. From your last interview, we take it that you would have been better off with a friendly English media. Will democracy be better off with all media telling the audience the exact same information and giving the exact same opinions?
15. In other words, do you really believe in the freedom of the press or freedom of expression?
16. (In case he says “Yes, but I don’t believe in the freedom of lies”) Have you and your publicists ever lied?
17. (In case he says no) Are you saying that, for the “true Thaksin” to be presented to the international audience, there should be an English-language press that basically translates what is printed “on the other side”?
18. (In case he says yes) How come nobody has stepped in to fill the void already?
19. Isn’t there a lot of pro-Thaksin English content already? Isn’t that sufficient to portray the “true” you?
20. Besides the pro-Thaksin English content, are you aware that some pro-Thaksin Thai content is being translated into English?
21. Have you ever been involved in any attempt to take over any of the English newspapers in Thailand?
22. Did the true Thaksin put a massive amount of shares, over Bt10 billion, in nominees’ accounts? If yes, why?
23. Did those shares, together with those in mysterious offshore accounts, play any role in the fact that you did not have to pay any tax when you sold Shin Corp to the Singaporeans? Does the true Thaksin think that the tax “exemption” was right?
24. (In case he says “Right or wrong is not as important as the fact that the law allows it”) What about when the law prohibits it, like when you let your wife buy that land?
25. Last but not least, we are a bit confused. Thailand’s English media are against you but you said you are free to go anywhere and everyone treats you well. On the other hand, you can’t return to your country, where the market for The Nation and Bangkok Post is relatively small. Which exactly is your “unlucky” situation – you being able to go wherever people read “biased” reports about you, or you being unable to return to Thailand where fewer than 1 per cent of the population reads the English press?
