Crushing blow for journalism | 1.11.05

And Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s Thai Rak Thai Party has something to do with it, though not necessarily in the way you think.

The lead story from today’s Bangkok Post:

Opposition has the numbers

Great, now they can do a Sesame Street skit.

Voters put corrupt ministers on notice

Which corrupt ministers would that be? No names mentioned. Which voters would that be? None interviewed. That line seems to come entirely from the mouth of Mahachon Party leader Sanan Kachornprasart, and but scare quotes are unwarranted because the Bangkok Post only uses them when absolutely necessary, as in “Russia, EU ink ‘breakthrough’ pact”.

Thai Rak Thai’s humiliating loss in Sunday’s by-elections has confirmed the ruling power’s worst fear — the sun could be setting on its power and populist mantra with the dawning of an opposition with the numbers to expel corrupt cabinet ministers.

It was pay-back time for the opposition as the ruling party suffered a crushing blow to its political strength.

Hmmm, is it just me or the Bangkok Post isn’t very sympathetic to the government? Must be me. Newspapers are always neutral, especially Thai ones.

Let’s just stick to the facts then. First, “sunset” and “dawn” don’t take place simultaneously. Nighttime astronomically, logically, and literarily follows sunset. And I foresee dark days indeed for Thailand if any current opposition party in its current state of affairs is to govern Thailand instead of the TRT.

Fortunately, that isn’t happening. As a result of this “crushing blow”, with which the opposition gained a grand total of two parliament seats, the TRT’s block now stands at 375 MPs out of the total 500. I suspect it is this sort of “worst fear” that keeps politicos all over the world, not least the Thai Democrats, up at night — with envy (much the way they would envy Sudarat Keyuraphan’s “unpopularity”) With a combined 125 votes, the opposition can launch a censure debate against a cabinet minister, but it’ll of course take at least 251 no-confidence votes to “expel” him or her from office.

So if opposition’s recapture of censure-launching prerogative is a "crushing blow" against the government, what of the TRT’s landslide victory in the general election that denied it in the first place? Easy, “senators urge public, media to monitor single-party rule”. Note how they made the Thaksin’s single-party government (as opposed to a coalition government) something evocative of the Chinese Communist Party in China. (Indeed, some went so far as to employ the terms “one-party state” and “one-party rule”) So whether the TRT wins or loses, it loses. No surprise here.

Conveniently for all involved, with 125 votes, the opposition is still a staggering 75 shy of the number needed to initiate a no-confidence motion against the prime minister (as opposed to just a minister). So Prime Minister Thaksin is still very snug in his seat, the opposition will have another shot, though admittedly a long one, at yet another “crushing blow”, and the local and international media will still have their “one-party rule”, “parliamentary dictatorship”, and whatnot to kick around.

The only people who might be inconvenienced are Pradit Ruangdit and Nauvarat Suksamran, the authors of this Bangkok Post lead story who couldn’t resist inserting this snippet:

The power to impeach was a centrepiece of the opposition’s campaign in February’s general election.

As far as I know, there’s no “opposition’s campaign”, as the parties that are now in the opposition didn’t campaign together. But even assuming that opposition means the Democrats (and that’s certainly not how one comes up with the 125 number), impeach whom is the key question. Isn’t it a little too pathetic, even by the Democrats’ standards, for a general election campaign make a centerpiece out of winning 125 seats out of 500 in order to be able to start an censure debate against a cabinet minister but not the prime minister? Of course it is. The Democrats in fact loudly campaigned for 201 seats, enough to initiate a censure against the prime minister with one MP to spare. This central message was advertised all over the newspapers and across cities.

The Democrat Party’s “201” advertising blitz.

The result? They came up with less than 100. Now that’s crushing.

Extra Also from the article:

Nakharin Mekrat, dean of the political science faculty, Thammasat University, said populist policies were on the decline as people began to feel the pinch from unequal distribution of wealth. The government’s promises to give or to lend were not delivered. Voters were losing their enthusiasm for the government, he said.

As always in ideologically illiterate Thailand, those who use populism as a bogeyman in fact want more of it, not less.

21:13 ▪ media, politics

« Why it’s taking so long | Main | Populism and nationalism in Thailand (cont.) »

1

poststaffer 3.11.05

I think we’ve all waited long enough.
I know I have.

Writing this I am thinking back to the days when I might have four news assignments (not to mention feature commitments) to do in one day, including at least one for the front page. Maybe even a front lead.

For at least one (!) of those assignments I would need to leave the office. Add to that a quick lunch break, and delays while I wait for return calls. Still time to talk to colleagues, drop in to the office library, call home, put a new dent in an office car, see people down the sharp end. All the stuff that makes a day in a newsroom challenging and exciting.

That’s all in one day, Tom. Not a week. Not a month. I did not fashion myself as democracy’s white knight, just a member of a news gathering team, and I would hear all about it if I failed to deliver on a story, especially one earmarked for front.

Once we get an assignment, Tom, we don’t go back to the chief reporter to plead for time. Deadlines are real, not something we set ourselves then forget.

As professional journalists we are expected to know how to get a news story from the hot air stage and onto the page in a few hours. That involves not just managing time wisely but managing people…the best part of the job, but also the trickiest.

Someone calls you and wants to take back the account he gave you just hours before? You will have to boost his confidence, convince him that’s what he’s saying is important and win back his trust.

Then there are the questions from the sub-editors, the company lawyer if you are unlucky, the editor might want his say. The chief reporter will ask for an update, before disappearing into the evening news meeting, only to emerge with - yet another bright idea from the editor.

Meanwhile, the chief sub wants one of your inside stories early, so he can fill a hole on a page. If he’s really helpful, he might give the length…twice what you anticipated writing.

The illustrations department has lost the name of someone in a photograph they took for you. You didn’t go out on that job, so you have no idea who the guy is second from left. Er…what’s the last digit in that contact number?

Meantime, the clock is ticking…

Those of us who have the luxury of pontificating from behind a computer have no such challenges. We don’t have to get to the office on time, be civil to the boss, talk to irritating people. We don’t even have to iron a shirt for work.

We might find it hard to meet deadlines, because no one has set a clock on us. Even more so if we are not good at managing time anyway, if we battle apathy, are easily distracted, and far too smart for our own good.

Might all sound hum-drum and terribly common to you, Tom, but that’s real life. Actually, it’s not even that…most people’s jobs are far duller than that of the average journalist. I am one of the lucky ones.

I wasn’t always such a good boy. The editor asked to meet me one day after an inactive spell. ”You are pampered, bored and spoilt,” he said.

God forbid that a Thai editor should talk to an employee in such a blunt manner. That’s so crude, unpleasant and - western.

Time to rattle your dags, Tom. Your readers are in danger of becoming as apathetic and complacent as you are.

You are an occasional correspondent to your own blog. And I thought blogs were supposed to be a vehicle for delivering timely information. Seems newspapers win out after all.

Enough prodding yet?