Me, the Xbox360 and Thailand's BIGGEST LIAR

About two months ago, I decided to treat myself to a new Xbox360 games system. After checking a few stores, I decided to purchase my system from a shop inside The Mall Bang Khae that for now shall remain nameless.

I emphasise this was an indoor shop near the IT section and not some dodgy, outdoor market outfit. Still, I should have sensed something was wrong when after taking my credit card, swiping and presenting me with the receipt, the man handed me another bill for 600 bhat and said "This is the extra charge we add on to credit cards".

I explained I had only paid by card to avoid the two minute walk to the ATM, I insisted he reverse the transaction and allow me to pay by cash but alas, nobody in the shop knew how to reverse a basic transaction. My wife had to talk them through it.


But it was all forgotten when I got home and - like the overgrown kid I am - started to enjoy my new games. All was well for about a month, until my Xbox 360 started to freeze more and more often, until eventually it died completely. I was disappointed but I had read that it was a well known batch problem and had cost Microsoft one billion dollars in repairs already. There is no Microsoft office in Thailand so I had to rely on the seller for support.

I took my system back to the shop and was surprised to discover they expected me to pay for the repair myself. "It's only a one month guarantee so it has expired" the man told me "We'll call you when we know the repair cost".


Two days later I got a call telling me the cost would be 1,500 bhat. I couldn't be bothered to argue so I agreed to pay. "We'll send it to Chinatown for repair and call you when it's done" I was told.

So I waited......and waited.....and waited. I visited the shop three times, and each time I was told "Yang mai set". Finally, after six weeks of waiting, I got my wife to call and get to the bottom of it, and that's when the lies really started to flow.

We were told that the repair was serious. It was not covered under any guarantee and a new part had been ordered. They had tried to call me several times to let me know (no missed calls showed on my phone). The new part would definitely arrive but it might take some time so I could come and pick up my system in the meantime.

We would eventually find out that not a single one of the things we had been told were true.


Sensing something amiss, I went to the store to pick up my system. The man in the shop (it was the same man we spoke to every time) actually told my wife "Your husband tried to use the system on the internet and that's what caused the problem. The chip has melted". Anyone who knows anything about Xbox systems or computer systems will know how laughable that line was. We were also told that if we didn't want to wait for the new part to arrive, we could take the system to Sapham Lek and get it repaired ourselves. (So why didn't they take it themselves then?)


By now, I knew that we had been cheated and lied to. But as unsatisified as I was, I also knew that if I could get it repaired myself it would save a lot of hassle. So, on my next day off, I took a little trip to Chinatown to hunt down a repair man in the Hong Kong style Sapham Lek Market, and sure enough I found one.

It took about thirty seconds for the repairman to open the system, look at the mainboard, laugh and tell me that someone had already tried to repair it and had burnt the ram insert to a crisp. A repair now would be impossible, my system was ruined. You can probably guess how I felt.


My wife asked around and found out the name of the shopman at the sales store in Bang Kahe and, usefully, the name of the owner. That same night we marched to the shop (my wife is so cool when she gets ticked off!) and demanded to speak the manager. After getting his number my wife made the call.

I already had my list of promises ready. If I didn't get a refund or replacement, I was going to write to every newspaper I knew, make leflets and hand them out to people walking into the shop, and tell all my new friends in the Thai Police and the manager of The Mall shopping complex. I still had the receipts from both the sale and repair of the system and they knew it.

To my relief though, the manager was a lot more helpful. He told us systems had a guarantee of six months from the shop and repairs were done through a contact at an electronics company in Chit Lom. When told that the storeman had mentioned a repair at Sapham Lek, there was concern. "Mr. Manager" promised to investigate and call us back.

Thirty minutes later the call came. Mr. Manager sounded worried. He confirmed that indeed my Xbox had been sent to Chinatown when it should not have been. The damage had been confirmed as serious but a replacement had not been ordered. Mr. Manager also apologised for the storeman suggesting I pick up the system and take it to be repaired myself. This should not have happened.

Obviously, the storeman had let me wait six weeks while my system sat in his cupboard in the vain hope I would forget about my computer. When that failed, he told me a bare faced lie about a replacement part on its way and when that lie failed too, he simply tried to get me to go away and deal with it myself.

Mr. Manager seemed apologetic and promised to meet my wife today. But the storeman was still not finished. Today my wife got at call saying "Sorry, the manager wanted to meet you today but he can't make it, can you cancel and come another day?". My wife agreed but - based on past experience - called Mr Manager to check. Surprise, surprise, Mr Manager knew nothing about the cancellation and was looking forward to meeting my wife as arranged!


And that's where we are now. But my question is this: just how stupid are some people?

Just how moronic is the storeman to think that telling us a whole string of shameless, bare faced lies was going to get him out of trouble? Did he really think that if he didn't call me I was eventually going to forget that he had my computer? Did he honestly conceive that we are going to believe that I melted my Xbox's chip by "using it on the internet"? Did he really think that we wouldn't check about the "extra part order"? Did he think atall?

I have become accustomed to Thai businesses having "laid back" ways of doing things and I am familiar with the concept of a "kind lie" in Thailand, but this is the only the second time I have been told an entire string of shamless lies to my face. It has never worked on me and it never will. All it does is make me lose any shred of respect and grows my contempt for the person telling them. What makes things harder is that as I'm in a foreign country it is a lot more difficult for me to use the usual methods of recourse I would use back home (contacting media, watchdog groups, etc.).

I'd be interested to hear from Thais and farangs alike about any similar experiences in Thailand and how they were dealt with (if at all!)

My new blog.

A good blog usually focuses on one topic and lately I have not been doing that. To avoid this happening again, I have now launched a new blog dedicated to exposing the hypocrisy of the far left in the UK and the US.

Please drop by here. Reallifethailand will continue as usual.

"Coup, Capital, Crown" . A report from the FCCT

My actual notes from last night's FCCT meeting. Everything is paraphrased and shorthanded for conciseness.


MC (Jonathon Head): "As a journalist, it's very frustrating not being able to discuss the monarchy, but we must respect the law and be restrained in what we say."

"His Majesty The King is now eighty , he will not be around forever. In private at least, Thai people are talking about the monarchy."

"Democracy, the military and the monarchy are deeply linked and we have four people who have contributed to two major works on this topic"



The panel are introduced:

- Professor Kevin Hewison, University of North Carolina;

- Professor Pasuk Phongpaichit of Chulalongkorn University;

- Dr Porphant Ouyyanont of Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University;

- Ukrist Pathmanand of Chulalongkorn University.

Each person speaks about one of the two books featured tonight. They are: "Thai Capital after the 1997 Crises" by Pasuk and Baker, and "Journal of Contemporary Asia Special: The Thailand Coup" edited by Kevin Hewison.

Kevin: The conservative agenda in Thailand is challenged and the heaviest challenge comes from the rural poor, hence Thaksin's immensely successful populist policies.

Porphan: CPB valuation in 2005 was twenty billion dollars in assets alone. This figure is likely to be higher now the dollar is weak. During the reign of Rama V, the CPB owned almost one third of land in Bangkok. Three quarters of the CPB wealth was lost in the crises but recovered for a variety of reasons (which he explains). The CPB was fully recovered by 2002 and stronger than ever.


Ukrit: Further confrontation between the "groups" involved on either side of the coup could be ahead due to the popularity of the PPP.


(My note: Porphant and Ukrist are like their boss Pasuk, down to earth, almost deprecatingly so. Nothing like most of the Thai high-so when they speak at the FCCT. I like these guys.)


Audience questions:

[My note: I have paraphrased all questions, some people love to ramble]


1) What is the difference between the King's personal wealth and the CPB?

Porphan: There is a separate office assigned to manage His Majesty's personal wealth. The CPB funds are funds for the whole institution of the monarchy.


2) a) Why have the AEC charges against Thaksin seemed to have little impact, why are there no new revelations of corruption? b) Some people say the NLA has been progressive, do the panel agree? (My note: I have not heard anyone say this)

a) Kevin: Probably because it was all so predictable, everybody got what they expected from the AEC.

b) Pasuk: The NLA is conservative with a few liberals thrown in as a bargaining tool to the people. Most powerful laws passed by the NLA have not been progressive or liberal



3) Is the CPB a Public limited company?

Poprphan: Its classification translates into English as "state unit" , however nobody on the panel- three scholars and an investigative journalist - knows what this means.

Pasuk: It has been established in court that CPB funds cannot be transferred by a court judgement.


4) Are some "old money" powerful families part of the think tank behind the coup?

Pasuk: One theory says that the military wanted to make a comeback and engaged the support if some business groups frozen out by Thaksin.

Ukrit: Certain figures like General Saprang were crucial to the legitimacy of the coup.

Kevin: Look at the financial data for Thailand. Pre - coup the biggest profit makes were in the telecom sector, such as the Thaksin owned Shin Corp. Post - coup, the biggest profiteers were those in the land and hosing sector. It is interesting to look at people such as Privy Council head General Prem and see where they have listed directorships.


5) What are your hopes and fears for the next eighteen months?

Pasuk: I hope PPP get a lot of seats simply to send a message to the military. However, I fear the coalition government will be weak and will collapse or be dissolved within one year. The possibility of violence cannot be ruled out.


6) Was Thaksin a threat to the monarchy?


Kevin: Yes. His economics - such as the use of SCB in the Shincorp sale - could be an issue. Also, Thaksin appealed to the same demographics in Thailand with a very different message: work your way into business and city life.(capitalism, compared to sufficiency economy)

7) Did the AEC fail?

Pasuk: Depends on what theory you believe. Theory one is that they want solid evidence to make a real case, so this takes time and they are working on it. Theory two, it was all just a show, a bargaining tool by the junta. To be fair, they have charged Thaksin's wife and children but has all gone remarkably quiet, which seems strange.


8) [I didn't understand the question. It concerned judges in Thailand]

Kevin: (Jokes about getting himself in trouble). It is strange that judges suddenly seem to have become eyed as saviours of the nation.


9) Is popular sovereignty on the rise?

Kevin: No. People in the north east are becoming purposely disenfranchised. Election campaigns are huge in Bangkok and nearby - where Abhisit is popular - and non existent in former TRT strongholds. The election will not progress democracy.

Pasuk: We do not want a regime that killed 2,500 people ("war on drugs" reference) but sadly more violence may be ahead.

MC: Based on personal interviews, rural people don't care about Samak but they think a PPP vote will bring Thaksin back.

Kevin: People should also consider the human rights record of Samak (it's poor).

MC: The VCD's of Thaksin are "very slick". Thaksin seems to be purposely copying the speaking style of the King and it is a powerful message that the rural folk are being exposed to in a campaign where the military have already attempted to disenfranchise rural voters.

Questions end, night is over but for the beers. Abhisit Vejajiva is here on Tuesday.

Thai coups, past, present and......?

"We have a neo-feudal society in the 21st century, which is anachronistic and incompatible with the new trends, new expectations and new demands,"

Thitinan Pongsudhirak

Will we ever learn?

Articulate blogger Ginola recently described the previous Thai coups as "easy to manage for the junta". I disagree, I think each coup in Thailand has been a tip in a power struggle. To demonstrate my reasons for thinking this we first need to ask: what really causes coups in Thailand, and why?


It was only fifteen years ago that, not for the first time, the Thai military opened fire on its own people. Their crime was protesting against the manipulation of constitutional law by the junta for the single purpose of making one of their own the next PM.

So serious was the fall out from the 1992 disaster that a social bargain had to be made. The state drew up a new constitution, a document so crucial that it became known as the "people's constitution" for it really seemed to be handing over some power to the masses. It featured new regulations, independent checking bodies and a new independent news channel to compensate for the antiquated style of media that had reported so meekly on the tragic events of the uprising.

It all seemed that change was in the air. The world was becoming globalised, Thailand's economy was getting on track and now the people had some real way of checking on the ruling elite, even if they remained so much richer than the masses.

For a while it stuck. The economic crash of '97 rocked the economy but from the ashes stepped forth Thaksin Shiniwat, a man who promised to lead Thailand back to the promised land. Democratically elected, he even became the first PM to serve out a full term. But as titanic as his rise to power was, his fall from grace was even more spectacular.

Who were the faces behind the coup of 2006 and what were their motives?

The official line of course is that the military - led by General Sonthi - made the decision independently to power forth and remove Thaksin for the sake of national unity. When that same military has control over every TV outlet and a large portion of other media, such convictions could become gospel truth for many.

But therein lied one of the very first problems for the military. The man they had removed was widely admired by the same masses they now professed to have liberated: the rural working class. The junta were painfully aware of their own poor welcome in the north east and imposed a martial law on the provinces lasting almost a year. The voices of anger were stifled but not completely silenced.

It could be argued that imposing martial law was a mistake, for it created hundreds, maybe thousands, of angry workers who found a new group of heroes to let them vent their anger: the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD). Led by Jakrapob Penkair, the DAAD led protests outside the residence of the octogenarian General Prem, the president of the privy council. The numbers of protesters may have been relatively small, but their family and friends were watching.

It was a tense situation. "Pa Prem" was so well respected in the palace that he had - subconsciously, perhaps - become more than the military man he really was in the eyes of many. But Penkair and his team broke taboo of speaking publicly against Prem (something Thaksin never managed). "He allowed the coup to happen. He was a good leader for Thailand but now he must go. Nobody can expect a man his age to behave rationally" said Penkair to 'The Nation'. Penakir went one step further when speaking at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand and suggested that a judge in the trial of the former EC commissioners had had an affair with Prem.

It all seemed bizarre. The dissenters had found a direction for their rage but did they really believe that a man of Prem's age had orchestrated a military coup by himself?

Chulalongkorn University lecturer and committed Marxist Ji Unpagkorn believes that a key factor in the coup was Thailand's middle class. Ji argues that Sondhi Litmonkul's feud with former friend Thaksin Shiniwatra could have signalled the end for Thai Rak Thai. As Sondhi rallied his business contacts and appointed himself the leader of the middle class protesters - who never cared much for Thaksin anyway - he also formed alliances with some members of the working class and royalist members of the elite. Ji speculates that without the rebellion from Bangkok's new middle class, the military would never have felt confident enough to lead the coup.

But like Ji, nobody seems to believe the middle class of the 'Big Mango' wielded enough power to actually orchestrate the coup, since they lacked the mass base below them or the financial clout above them. Rather, the Bangkokians lent legitimacy to the ouster.

So if not General Sondhi and his unit, if not Prem, if not the middle class from the capital, then who?

The answer is revealed in the men we saw paraded in the government line up after the coup, not only for who they are but for how they behaved. What we saw was a group of men painfully, woefully anachronistic in their outlook. Men who seemed to belong to a past age, an age when family ties mattered more than work rate, when military rank was respected more than poverty plans for the masses, and a time when people simply shut up and accepted what was happening because those doing it were of a higher social order.

The truth is there was no "one force" behind the coup. It was an alliance of the "old money", social groups who saw that - for all his faults - Thaksin was leading Thailand towards the age of technology and populism, a time when the poor understood the power of their vote and most crucially a time of globalisation. The latter was something that could spell ruin for some members of the 'old money'.

The coup of 2006 was the brainchild of aged, elitist cliques that saw their power - and thus their wealth - falling under threat. Faced with danger, they responded in the only way they knew how, by seizing it back and clinging on.


But make no mistake, Thailand has suffered heavily from this. Our Land of Smiles is conflicted. It is heading towards the age of globalisation and free media , worldwide fashions and international stock exchanges yet those looking to steer them through the cyber age look more akin to generals from World War Two. Moreover, the international community views coups and military rule with scepticism.

To see why, we only have to look back at the track record of the junta. As Sittichai Yoon said: "I give the junta an 'F' grade across the board". The antiquated junta ruled 2007 Thailand like it was 1907 Siam, and it was a sham.

But how can we be sure this will not happen again? Thailand may have survived this time, but if the old ginger decides to snatch power once more ten years down the line, what might be different?

How another coup would affect the Kingdom is not a question anyone but the Thais can answer. All I can note is that the working class - the class Maxheadroom describes as "meek" - were the only class that were not considered by anyone to have played a role in the removal of a democratically elected government. When hurt, some surprisingly chose to vent their anger at a surprise target.


It looks to me like the rural folk fully understand the power of the vote. They might be apathetic, but only because they sense that all politicians are corrupt liars. But when pushed hard enough, the masses might just get ticked off enough to send the old ginger a message, and that might signal some major changes for Thailand.

It has happened before. In the nineteenth century Thailand's working class rebellion forced the abolition of unpaid Labour. In the seventies, a long series of strikes saw the elite reluctantly agree to pay manual labourers a living wage. The working class doubtlessly faced the same intimidation then as they do now, but they survived.

Education is slowly but surely becoming widespread in Thailand. A famous politician once said "An educated electorate is much harder to govern". Such an axiom is something that elite classes around the world are all too aware of.



Ultimately, the coup of 2006 was a battle of wills. On one side is the will of those who cannot and will not accept the reality of modernisation, of a world without a wealthy ruling class calling the shots, a world where the army are not heroes for marching in and seizing power at will, a world where everyone is educated to some degree and a world where money is earned through business acumen and not only family heritage.

On the other is a new middle class and a developing lower class, fighting for the opposite.

Right now, the power lies with the old guard. One of the biggest weapons in their arsenal is a patter line of pseudo patriotic ideals. That somehow a coup is part of a great Thai tradition, that Thailand has some "special" style of democracy which any true patriot should take pride in. It's a propaganda tool the junta have utilised many times.


Thailand has many great traditions, but the above is not one of them. To end the power struggle between the old and the new, in my humble opinion, Thais will have to ask themselves some questions. Some of them may be agonisingly difficult to answer. But answer them we must, because reality will not wait for us.


Today, blogger Ian put up a blog asking simply "What's wrong with England?". He put his thoughts, and I put mine. Ian and I both know that criticism of our country is not considered unpatriotic in our culture. On the contrary, it is almost considered a duty to be constructively critical. We are not bound by restrictions on speech other than common law, there are no people protected from criticism and English media is not subject to censorship. All these things help us to ask difficult questions and find answers they will believe can help everyone in our country. It is not a uniquely western concept and it does not make Ian or I better people, it is simply a privilege that has been fought for and won by generations before us.



I wonder, if a Thai put up a similar message, what would happen? I fear that some might accuse them of being unpatriotic, others would not say what they really feel and others still might be unwilling to criticise, perhaps because they feel guilty for doing so.

Thailand like all nations is in exciting and fast changing times. In such times we may feel that our history, culture and identity helps us to feel secure in such unchartered waters. But let's not allow that fear to stop us from learning. And learning is how any mistakes in our past are prevented from repeating over and over again.

The sort of people involved in Thai politics Pt.3

When you are paid a salary that puts you in the richest ten percent of country and you are doing a role that you have been bound by constitutional law to do and you knew exactly what the role involved when you applied for the job, it's still OK to throw your toys out of the pram if somebody says something to make you cry.


I'm talking about Sodsri Sattayatham, a member of the EC (Election Commission). Sosdri began her role by publicly accusing the voluntary People's Network for Elections (PNET) of misspending 80 million bhat of tax money. PNET responded fiercely, by threatening to sue Sodsri if she did not make a public apology. Sodsri refused, did not attend a meeting with PNET and PNET made good on their promise of removing all their volunteers from election monitoring.


Things got better. Sodsri drew up some new election rules for the forthcoming election that were widely criticised for being too harsh. She was due to attend a public forum with her colleagues on the issue but tragically fell ill (no diagnosis was made public) and could not attend.

And then today with news that Sodsri and the EC may press charges against the PPP (People Power Party) for allegedly distributing VCDs of Thaksin Shiniwatra making promises that (to paraphrase) "A vote for [PPP leader] Samak is a vote for Thaksin" and also closing down a pro Thaksin web site, Sodsri took some criticism for her EC being "biased" in the eyes of PPP leader Samak.

So, how did Sodsri respond? With valour? With a passionate commitment to do her well salaried job as she is required to do so? At least a calm explanation that in fact, she is simply fulfilling her job description by investigating electoral misconduct?

Of course not, instead, we get this ........(full piece here)

Election commissioners are under a lot of pressure and may stop taking action against political parties in connection with the Dec 23 election and let the parties in conflict fight their battles in the courts, she said.

In other words "Stop saying nasty things or I'll stop doing my job at all".

An interesting night at the FCCT and an article on the CPB

Thanks to fonzi and pundit for the heads up.

This Thursday at the FFCT promises to be interesting. In attendance are four authors, including my favourite Thai professor Pasuk Pongpaichit.

However, I would guess that some of the most interesting questions will be put to

Professor Kevin Hewison, University of North Carolina and Dr Porphant Ouyyanont of Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University;

For Hewison has just published a compilation of articles on the 2006 coup, including an article discussing CPB finances by Porphant. Porphant's article is discussed in this week's Asia Sentinel and provides a very frank analysis of CPB wealth.

It should be a most interesting night at the FCCT. Perhaps the most interesting night since the appearance of Sitthichai Pokaiudom who promised he had introduced new legislation ".....ensuring that MICT cannot block web sites alone, they need a court order to do so."

MICT blocked hi-haksin.net this week.

Should prostitution in Thailand be legalised?

Happy Father's Day everybody! I wish good health to all caring fathers in Thailand.

My planned piece on class politics in Thailand has been delayed by this stomach bug that hit me today (why today, of all days??!! :-)).

So instead I have a short piece and a question to ask you all as per the title:

Should prostitution in Thailand be legalised?

In 1998 the total direct revenue generated by prostitution (i.e. for actual sex services but not drinks, bar fines, etc.) was one hundred billion baht. An estimate at the number of active prostitutes of Thai nationality in Thailand set the number at two hundred thousand. For obvious reasons, this figure is an informed estimate. (Phongpaichit et all , 1998)

Although there is a well known adage in Thailand that 95% of men have hired the services of a prostitute before age 21, this figure is likely to have decreased dramatically following the increase in AIDS cases during the nineties. The latest figure (1993 is the best I can find) puts the ratio at 10 percent. (D'Agnes, 2001) I suspect the real figure may be higher but nowhere near 95%, and this is only my own presumption.

Let me say right away that my outsider's opinion is that yes, prostitution in Thailand should be legalised. Here are my reasons:

1) It ensures greater safety of the workers. By allowing them to legally register and join unions, etc. the sex workers can move towards elimination and exposure of mistreatment such as blackmail, physical abuse, etc.

2) It generates extra revenue. Remember the revenue figure of 100 billion? If we tax that at just three percent we can generate three billion baht, enough to set up a new school in an underprivileged area. With the reduction in illegal fines and kickbacks, the workers themselves should not be deprived of any income due to that tax either.

3) It deprives corrupt authorities of kickbacks which are paid by all massage parlours and similar places (Phongpaichit et al again). Of course it won't become corruption free but by taking the service above ground, subversion will be reduced. It could even have a 'knock on' effect and force law enforcement authorities to reform.



Of course there are many arguments against legalisation and I would like to offer my response to them.

1) "It condones 'immoral' behaviour" . I think this attitude is in decline but still held by many. My feeling is that a) People have the right to do with their body as they wish provided it harms nobody else and b) Prostitution is already here, we all know that. Making it illegal has not made it go away, regardless of anyone's moral principles.

2) "It increases demand and HIV risks". I have never met anyone who bases their behaviour towards prostitution based on its legality. People either do it or don't , they either think it's moral or immoral. The reason legality does not come into it is because we all know that prostitution is widely available regardless of the law.

The HIV risk is a genuine one. Thailand has already seen massive awareness and pro condom campaigns that have significantly reduced the number of HIV infections in the kingdom but this campaign needs to continue. It is not only sex industry workers at risk though, it is everyone.


3) "It will increase the number of child or immigrant prostitutes." Some people seem to think that legalisation will send out the message "It's OK to have sex with anyone". I've never understood this. With registration of prostitutes, surely age and immigration checks would become easier? The problem of child prostitution could be segregated from the adult prostitution issue and targeted by police.

So these are my views. I hope it is clear I am not looking to make judgements of any form on the sex industry or anyone involved in it. I am simply looking at things from a practical and political preservative. I would be interested to hear what others think.