January 18, 2026: Maria Corina Machado the political warrior can beamingly thank the US. Maria Corina Machado the Peace Prize winner can’t.
The Nobel Peace Prize constrains, not liberates. It limits ones’ options, taking away violent means as a short cut for any change they desire. It does not give you the freedom to, say, selfie with a broad smile with a man who bombed your country and abducted its leader whom you may not like. It even obliges you to condemn the bomber.
Donald Trump, as a superpower who can do whatever he likes, can help Machado using guns, troops, war planes and explosives. It’s a lot more complicated for her. Even if she had not been awarded the Peace Prize in October last year, it would have still been a big question whether she should thank him so publicly.
Now that she’s the latest recipient of the peace award, "for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy", it’s a no-brainer whether she should do that.
There is no need to give her any more reason why she should have stayed away, but here’s one anyway: The man standing and grinning with her in that picture has vowed to annex Greenland against its people’s will, and is threatening to raise tariffs against countries opposing his plan, which has so much to do with military strategies.
The Nobel laureate gave her prize to Trump at the White House on Thursday “in recognition [of] his unique commitment [to] our freedom”. Several hours later, Trump thanked her on Truth Social, saying she “presented me with her Nobel peace prize for the work I have done. Such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect.”
Political leaders in and outside the United States have asked why Trump, who welcomed her presentation of the peace prize to him, seemed willing and happy to take credit for what other people did. She has to be asked a much bigger question, however.
Partly right and partly wrong
January 17, 2026: Rukchanok Srinork is correct in saying that Thailand has been plagued with a great ill fortune.
But, in a highly-controversial and much-publicised Facebook post, the star of the People's Party may be wrong in blaming it all on the “rulers”. She should have said that the entire political apparatus _ those who rule and doing whatever necessary to stay in power, those seeking to rule and trying everything necessary to grab power, those taking advantage, those abusing justice, those playing victims, those refusing to compromise, those amplifying the bad deeds of others, those turning blind eyes to wrongdoings of the same sides, those reciting public or national interest every time they want to push personal, secret agendas _ is all responsible.
It’s a deep-rooted misfortune. She is right about it. But there is more to it when it comes to why the national progress has been stalled, why justice has been distorted, why good ideas are demonised and bad ones ignored, why legislation focuses more on political opponents than man on the street, why capable people cannot work in the government together, why even the opposition bloc in Parliament is full of those harbouring clashing ideologies, why nepotism is a common strategy, and why every election is never the end of it, with what is wrongly called “voice from heaven” just resetting the stage for a new mischievous showdown.
When it rains, it pours (Part III)
January 16, 2026: It can get worse for the People's Party.
Detractors’ sarcastic online postings have been abundant, but that is something to be expected when desertion is substantial. However, in the wake of an arrest in connection with a “grey” business, a party member warning publicly that “there may be more” and “we should brace for impact” is rare and tells a thousand words. The man who posted that online did not seem to imply political mudslinging, instead asking the party to be prepared and its questionable characters to come clean publicly before allegations come from someone else.
The posted message has been curiously deleted, but not after it has been captured by the party’s political rivals.
Another hard-hitting online message has come from someone in political exile overseas. Pavin Chachavalpongpun, who normally posted rebellious statements, has turned against the People’s Party following the recent arrests of its electoral candidates for alleged involvement in illegal businesses. He has strongly attacked the party’s human resource recruitment, deeming it a weak point that might even cost it the election.
One academic in Tak, whose People’s Party election candidate was arrested two days ago, implied that complaints about the suspect’s background had been sent to the party all the time but apparently no evident action was taken.
A former pro-Orange activist, meanwhile, also warned online that some Bangkok politicians of the People’s Party not in the news at the moment could be within the striking distance of the crime-busting authorities.
The conservative media are having a heyday, showing photos of Ratchapong Soisuwan, who has been arrested for alleged involvement with online gambling, posing with People’s Party leaders in every news clip.
Well-known activist Chuwit Kamolvisit, who himself was involved in “grey” practices when he operated businesses decades ago, is criticising the People’s Party daily. Calling himself “Godfather of grey”, he claims he knows every grey activity when he sees one.
People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut has done the best he could, saying his camp did not process the data and investigative tools the authorities have that led to the action against Ratchapong. But the excuse is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it could help soften the blow. On the other hand, critics would legitimately ask how the party could investigate others now that it has admitted it is not sufficiently equipped to even investigate its own staff.
‘No grey’ campaign not such a good idea now
January 15, 2026: Bad news is an Orange man’s arrest for alleged involvement with gambling racketeering didn’t raise many eyebrows.
An earlier arrest of a People’s Party’s election applicant shocked the Thai public and sowed seeds of doubt in the apparently-growing determination to eliminate political connections with “grey businesses” that involved massive underground transactions, bribery and vice. The latest arrest, again involving an electoral member of the biggest party, may have shattered the fragile optimism.
For a while, the People’s Party’s “No grey” campaign looked a smart strategy, coming at a time when the Orange camp needed a new selling point after the “three uncles” from the military who had influenced Thai politics left the centre stage. Also, the Thai-Cambodian border tension helped the Orange’s rival, the Bhumjaithai Party, politically, which made “No grey” appear a shrewd counterattack.
The arrests of Boonyarit Raorungrot, who was seized just after registering as an election candidate for alleged drug-related money laundering, and Ratchapong Soisuwan, whom the party has fielded in Tak but the police captured hours ago, are changing everything. To add to that, another Orange man had been ruled guilty by the lower court of using a fake document to escape military conscription.
Ratchapong strongly denied charges that he ran a gambling web, insisting that he was a betting customer at best. Police insisted he was arrested after thorough investigation into his activities and his wealth.
The People’s Party did not have many options for its strategic retreat, resorting to the Boonyarit excuse that it could not possibly have known. This time, though, the party was more vocal in implying that the Ratchapong case might have been politically motivated.
Allusion to pre-election political tactics will have to clash with police “evidence”, however, and could invoke the devastating “What if he has not been arrested?” question. Moreover, this last case will amplify Boonyarit’s arrest, making it look like anything but a one-off. The conservatives, the People’s Party’s key rivals, are mocking the “No grey” campaign, pointing to the fact that Ratchapong had been in Parliament over the past few years.
Another problem is Ratchapong’s case is struggling to be the biggest news. That might help if the party wants it to go away quickly. But that also is a bad sign, as it seems to suggest lukewarm public expectations when it comes to grey or no grey. The People’s Party used to be immune to the notion that nothing can surprise the Thai populace when politicians are concerned, but not any more. When nobody is really shocked by Ratchapong’s arrest (big news, yes, but really shocking, no), the party has to be really worried.
Flipping out
January 14, 2026: A red card if a footballer does it. The Thai EC would ban a candidate. In the US, just a mockery.
The question is not if Donald Trump should have shown the middle-finger to a heckler in public while visiting a Michigan Ford plant. The question is why there should be any question at all.
Bigger, far more important things are all around Trump. The situation in Iran. The on-going Venezuela development. The court ruling on his obscene tariffs. The ICE shooting. The local economy. Ukraine. BRICS. Israel. China. Greenland. National debt. Irreconcilably divided American population. All-over-the-place Congress. Europe. NATO.
And the Epstein files. Which arguably had something to do with the shouts admonishing him as a “pedophile protector” while he toured the Ford complex. A celebrity news and gossip site shared a short video featuring the US president’s flustered response to someone heckling off-screen, during which he seemed the flash the middle finger.
Critics and media opponents are making fun of that, but Trump had done things a lot more controversial. In a matter of hours, everyone will move on.
There is no point debating, as one side will argue that an elected public figure should never do that to anyone let alone a potential voter who has every right, and the other will say everyone including the president of the United States has an “equal” and “human right” to express anger and frustration as long as it doesn’t harm anybody else. (If democracy is equality, this is it, the latter group is saying. Why can’t the most powerful man in America do what any other man can? And a government leader publicly telling someone to get lost is at least better than shooting dead anti-government protesters.)
While we all should let it lie, a little attention to a White House statement calling the heckler a “lunatic” won’t hurt. That’s a curious term, isn’t it?
Trump terrified
January 13, 2026: No, it’s not what Iran possibly has militarily. It takes an unarmed man with a gavel to scare the US president.
Donald Trump has warned of an economic and financial disaster for the United States if the Supreme Court this week says his sweeping global tariffs on what his country imports are illegal.
It’s a warning of an apprehensive man, who has bombed Iran and Venezuela, abducted the latter country’s leader, pondered armed intervention in the unrest-plagued former, threatened to annex Greenland, intimidated a few other countries and looked set to confront a European military alliance that America helped found and remains instrumental in.
“If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” he has just written on Truth Social. He could mean to frighten his US critics as well, saying America would be on the hook to pay back "many Hundreds of Billion of Dollars" in revenue so far collected from the new tariffs and "Trillions" more in private investments.
Add that to national debt and everyone in the United States could have a second thought. Trump actually has a point. America can end up in huge trouble, with $38 trillion and growing already a legitimate debt that nobody knows how it can realistically repay.
American courts have snubbed Trump before but he never even flinched. Not this time, though. His Truth Social post, however, is also a bluff. “Rule against me if you dare. If I’m going down, I’ll take everyone with me” appears to be what is between his lines.
Funny things about the election
January 12, 2026: What if, say, Pheu Thai wins more seats than the last election but fewer popular votes?
And what if the People’s Party wins more popular votes than the last election but fewer overall seats this time?
What if Bhumjaithai wins more seats but still lose? And what if the People’s Party lose many seats but still win?
Democracy as we know it is funny, isn’t it? Let’s take it to the global scale. When America invaded Iraq after 9/11, the invasion was decided and carried out by a US government supported by the majority of Americans but the military action was opposed by the United Nations which was represented by the majority of the world.
Now, let’s move up the timeline. It’s likely that the majority of those who voted for Donald Trump as their president did not agree with the attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its controversial leader. Is it democracy or abuse of a democratic mandate?
Back to Thailand, should a party celebrate if it wins more constituency seats this time but loses a few millions of popular votes? And vice versa.
Thai parties have either increased or lowered expectations. Bhumjaithai, for example, is hoping to win more seats in both categories. So are the Democrats. The People’s Party, on the other hand, may be expecting lower counts but it may still win, in which case a major question will emerge.
What standard should be used to judge what Thais want?
It’s the same if the People’s Party scrapes a win but other parties gang up against it, becoming a government and beating off policies it advocates. It’s allowed, yes. But is it fair?
Winner-takes-all politics, especially in a cutthroat environment, is always complicated, many times to the point of ignoring justifiable wishes of many people.
‘Undecided’ group gets smaller, and Abhisit gets sexier
January 11, 2026: The latest NIDA poll has so much to say.
First thing first, it confirms what everyone feels, that the People’s Party is a leader with tired legs, but it’s debatable whether the diminishing distance to the finish line is enough for the one attempting to catch him, the Bhumjaithai Party.
The Orange is still the general election favourite, leading in both prime ministerial nomination and party popularity categories. Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, with 24.76% support, is ahead of Anutin Charnvirakul, who has surged to 20.8%.
A total of 2,500 eligible voters have been surveyed by the pollsters last week.
Natthaphong in front is not unexpected, but neither is Anutin in the second place. The latter getting ever closer, though, is the thing to watch.
The party popularity category mirrors the individual popularity. The People’s Party remains the most popular at 30.48% followed by Bhumjaithai at 22.32%. The gap is a bit wider than the prime ministerial nomination category, and Natthaphong apparently should be more worried than Anutin.
(The party popularity category has two sub-sections. The first is constituency election section and the second is the party-list section. Since the numbers are close, let’s just talk about party-list numbers here to prevent confusion.)
The undecided groups are smaller than previous polls in both categories, 14.12% in the individual category and 7.80% in the party-list category. In other words, more people are unsure about Natthaphong and Anutin than about the People’s Party and Bhumjaithai.
Smaller but still influential. The undecided can dictate the election because the group remains big enough to either make the People’s Party get farther or Bhumjaithai get closer or even edge it.
Another remarkable finding is the resurgence of the Democrats, who as a party got 12.56% support. Their leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was backed by 12.12%, fourth after Natthaphong, Anutin and Undecided. Abhisit was even more popular than the main Pheu Thai PM candidate, Yodchanan Wongsawat (9.64%).
If the findings are correct, Abhisit will be the new beautiful boy in town after the election and all the girls will fight tooth and nail to be his date.
Nothing more assured than “Half-Half”
January 10, 2026: It’s safe to say that whatever happens after the election, the co-payment scheme will still be safe.
Bhumjaithai, if it leads the next government, will definitely continue it for obvious reasons. Pheu Thai would not only continue it, but the party would also “upgrade” the economic stimulus by raising the government contribution from 50% to 70%.
The People’s Party, a big contender to be the core of the post-election government, will pick up where Bhumjaithai left off if the Orange was in the next administration.
These camps are expected to remain the three biggest parties after the election. And as for the others, they wouldn’t have enough power to resist even if they wanted to do so. In reality, nobody would attack the co-payment programme as that is tantamount to a pre-election political suicide.
Everyone is announcing, through rally speeches and election posters, that the programme will be definitely supported. The scheme, initiated under the much-maligned Prayut government during the Covid-19 crisis, is a rare tangible and constructive return of taxpayers’ money to the Thai public. This is why its future is looking much more secured than those of, for example, charter amendment and promised crackdown on corruption.
Great political show many will find boring
January 9, 2026: Anyone knows what happens on air between February 2 and 6?
Political parties certainly do because it concerns them directly. The general public, however, may be a lot less eager and unaware, as politicians talking about policies are bland, unlike when they drag one another through the mud.
But the pre-election rule obliging parties to outline their spending plans straightforwardly on air is a great idea. What is presented will be written in stone as public commitments. Beautiful or outrageous promises will be recorded and the givers will be punished politically and possibly legally if they fall through. Parties will in fact have to demonstrate how smart, prepared, and visionary they are.
Presentation outlines will have to be sent to the Election Commission in advance, with the deadline being January 19 (meaning fabulous ideas are hard, if not impossible, to copy).
The Election Commission has announced that ideas not requiring money won’t be allowed to be presented. This takes away ideological matters like charter amendment. It also will enable the public to evaluate parties’ plans realistically, as all tangible policies will need money more or less in order to get implemented.
It is expected that the EC will soon announce channels through which the ideas would be aired.
One month before election, watch ‘Big Joke’ case
January 8, 2026: Who are “greyer” than the Thai police, at a time when “grey” is being politicised like never before?
When an irony has become very big, it’s no longer seen as an irony. There was a time when disgraced Pol Gen Surachate Hakparn was just days away from being nominated the police chief of Thailand, but look at the charges against him now. Whether he is innocent or not does not matter. If he is, the omnipresent system that is destroying him is rotten. If he is guilty as alleged, we can’t even say Thailand dodged a bullet, because there are surely many more like him hiding behind “to serve and protect” and crawling inside the Police Department
He and his opponents are accusing each other of trying to bribe their way out of criminal charges. The bribes we are talking about are not a few banknotes traffic offenders pay to escape tickets. They are, allegedly, huge enough to keep top police officials and those in the justice system investigating them turning their blind eyes to other bribery activities.
Bribes are feeding bribes in Thailand, and Surachate’s political allegiance could come into play in the days ahead, as his issue involves important information, against others or himself, regarding the “grey” businesses which are a big theme on the streets and in the social media at the moment.
Thais are never in doubt how far up corruption goes in the justice system, and how it plagues bribery busters themselves. Recent developments just confirmed everything. They are only special because a general election is around the corner.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has recently decided to remove commissioner Ekkawit Watchawalku, whose name has emerged in a bribery case linked to Surachate, accused by the Central Investigation Bureau of attempting to bribe him (Ekkawit) with gold bars worth about 10 million baht, allegedly in a bid to escape charges of malfeasance in office for allegedly accepting bribes from online gambling networks.
As we can see, one alleged bribery allegedly led to another.
Disclosures or bombshell allegations can significantly affect the outcome of the February election.
Maduro and his wife have to be guilty
January 7, 2026: What if China bombed Taiwan, kidnapped its leader, put him on trial in Beijing, only for Chinese judges to acquit him?
This is a hypothetical situation. The last scenario is scary enough to deter everyone. Well, almost everyone in fact. Donald Trump snatching Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, out of their country and putting them through a trial in America is already outrageous to the point of unbearable, but even that will pale beside an acquittal.
America has to be absolutely sure it will win a clear-cut guilty verdict, as anything shorter than that will immeasurably amplify what Venezuela has had to go through a few days ago. The explosions, the deaths, the injuries, the damage, the trauma of Venezuelan citizens, their anxiety, their shame, their humility, the fright of that country’s political community and the worries of the whole world all cry out for just one outcome of the couple’s trial.
If they are found innocent, consequences will be unimaginable.
In other words, America has no other choice. Its justice system will have to find the couple guilty, a verdict that the entire world will mock, because of the process that leads to it and because the other remaining scenario of letting them walk home free will put an already shattered image in a grinder.
Some ideas for pre-election debate in Thailand
January 6, 2026: The only ones yet to comment on the US-Venezuela saga are Thai politicians.
Ask them what they think and cast the vote for the people who give the most sensible answers in your opinions.
It’s not an IQ test. It’s not a hypothesis as it has actually happened. It’s extremely important to the future governance of Thailand. It will prove, or display, or expose one’s genuine ideological stand beyond doubt.
It involves the issue of national sovereignty. It concerns what ones think about the international law. It has to do with who should have the powers to arrest, prosecute and judge others. For Thai politics, where charges of political persecution are abundant, this is an issue most relevant.
Last but not least, it’s a sensitive topic plagued with conflicts of interest, and political figures or even some in the media have avoided giving opinions about it, but the controversy is too big to ignore, as the answers will go a long way in truthfully showing what kind of a person he or she is, especially those in politics who usually depend on rhetoric or blatant lies in order to thrive.
There are terms like “political sensitivity” that are often resorted to when ones don’t want to cross those more powerful, who can make lives miserable for people who disagree with them. But there is also the moment of truth, which separates the brave from the cowards.
Now that we are at it, ask the Thai politicians about Gaza, too.
Is it abduction or capture?
January 5, 2026: This is the question of the hour, although many people already have the answer.
It’s not just the most important legal question. It’s also a massive political issue for the entire world. Reactions, from politicians in powers to social media enthusiasts, range from great concern to downright fear. The majority of the world seems to think that America has set a bad, dangerous precedent, telling all nations that nobody is safe anywhere on earth if the White House brands them threats to whatever, that no sovereignty will be honoured if it is used to shield anyone the United States wants to get, and that Washington’s hypocrisy will be the new normal.
What if the US legal system rejects President Donald Trump’s action? Can American police arrest him then? On the contrary, what if the judges say it was all right? Can, for example, Thailand then send troops to kidnap political leaders in a neighboring country accused of supporting scamming networks causing widespread misery among Thais and bring them to court in Bangkok?
Trump has not made America great again. He has made the world afraid of it. This is not greatness. Moreover, what the White House has done mocks the all-too-familiar American preaching against ruling through fears. It can be oppression on the grandest scale.
The United Nations, long accused of being a paper tiger, is facing the biggest challenge less than a week into the New Year. Trump’s action nullifies the very thing the UN was built for and the very stand the US always proclaims it has _ the concept that nations respect one another, and dialogues, not violence, are the right way to go.
Nobel Foundation’s worst mistake(s)
January 4, 2026: When dealing with a potentially uncontrollable man, sometimes you have to forget your principles.
Imagine Donald Trump gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He would have behaved just a little more. Make no mistake, the strike on Venezuela and the capture of its leader would still happen, but Trump would at least have hesitated, which would have bought the world some time.
People say it was good that Trump missed the peace prize, because what he has done to Venezuela would have made it so ironic. This thinking fails to take into account the facts that the award would have calmed him down a little bit, and that a global uproar in case of a Trump win would have been worth it. (An organisation whose name is strongly associated with “peace” like the Nobel Foundation certainly would sacrifice its image if it could prevent a war, wouldn’t it?)
Failing to give him what he wanted is Mistake Number One. Another possible mistake is giving the peace prize to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who has declared: “the hour of freedom has arrived”. Well, as controversial and infamous as her main political opponent has been, the explosions in her country’s capital and the manner of his downfall is anything but peaceful. Give her any praise except hailing her as a peace lover.
World public reactions are 99.99% against Trump’s government, and Venezuela’s oil is in every conversation. (This is primarily social media reactions, not official or mainstream media portrayals of the incident.) FIFA, which has just given Trump a “peace prize” that nobody knew the football governing body has, has been hilariously mocked.
It should have been a FIFA red card instead of that, one YouTube comment said.
Contempt or cynicism aside, everyone is extremely worried. Trump is changing the global idea of how the world should function. All people see this developing story as a watershed moment in the history of world order and global perceptions of Trump’s country, which seem to have changed for the worse forever.
Cutthroat politics
January 3, 2026: Can overzealous believers in God and committed atheists live in the same house?
The answer to that simple question answers a more complicated one, of whether Thailand and many other countries, America included, are heading in the right direction.
Irreconcilable differences, they say, must be decided by a show of hands because there is no better way. That is not usually wrong, but it is not always right, either.
Many times, the irreconcilable become more irreconcilable. In other words belligerently divisive. Many times, the show of hands only sweeps the problem under the rug, creating a false impression that everything is now fine. More often than not, hate rhetoric will only increase, because the winner will want to keep the status quo and the loser will be determined to change it. And both will do anything necessary. Every unhealthy act will feed on itself.
In cutthroat politics, elections do not decide who we are and what we want. They only make the elephant in the room bigger. There are words like “revolution” or “anarchy” or “civil wars” to describe what can possibly happen next.
Writer’s note: More arguments against “Us or Them” here.
Age is (not) an issue
January 2, 2026: It’s now the US Democrats’ turn to talk about falling asleep at state functions.
Here’s a big tip for Donald Trump (and/or his publicists): Never ever call world leaders by the wrong names.
Trump’s walking is, as of now, nothing to worry about, but better be prepared than sorry. Trump is the oldest president inaugurated in US history, and his opponents are looking very closely for signs of age that they claim have been showing.
“He has at times appeared to fall asleep in meetings and not be able to hear questions,” said a BBC report, part of a growing coverage scrutinising his age. It’s safe to say that pro-Democrat media were largely apologetic when Joe Biden was accused by the Republicans of appearing like a dementia grandpa in public as the former president kept stumbling before cameras, saying wrong names, remembering incorrect years, dozing off on the table and eating ice cream with a bit too much eagerness.
The pro-Biden media could not help him during an infamous 2024 presidential debate with Trump, though. The incumbent Democrat, about 81 then, looked frozen a few times while giving answers, and even rivals were holding their breaths for him. That resulted in an unprecedented change of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. The rest is history.
Now, it’s Trump, 79, who is facing the mocking, the intensity of which will only grow because he’s not getting any younger.
On today’s BBC homepage, his interview with The Wall Street Journal was reported. And guess what, what was highlighted had nothing to do with Ukraine, or the American economy, or the immigration, or the Medicare. Here’s the BBC headline: Trump says his health is ‘perfect’ amid aging concerns.
So, if you believe Trump, age is not an issue. If you are on the other side, it definitely is.
But both camps have to agree that nobody is too old to declare a war.
Human rights
January 1, 2026: There are those who suffer in silence and there are those who play the victim.
The second type always gets all the constant headlines, everlasting sympathy from “human rights advocates” and messages of support from holier-than-thou governments. The first are too busy trying to save their own lives, crying over the dead bodies of their loved ones, or mourning their destroyed properties to bring their plights out to the public.
It is actually not hard to tell who is what type, but this world has been conditioned to encourage playing the victim and pay less attention to, say, the children and women of Gaza.
“Human rights” is one of the most recited words in political rhetoric, locally and globally, and it also can be the most abused word used to cover-up or overshadow real violations of human rights somewhere. This explains multiple standards of advocacy individuals or groups or even some in the media who would immediately jump out to decry “verbal devaluation” while conveniently ignoring or giving lukewarm attention to Muslim children whose arms are torn out or legs are ripped off in a war they have nothing to do with, or the inaccessibility of medicines that the world can make but the poor cannot get.
Even some of the curious “victims” themselves would not say a word about the killings and maiming in other parts of the world that actually pale their predicaments. Why? Because of the one thing that ideally has no business in the protection of human rights, but, in reality, it is the biggest influencer of what should be played up and what should be played down. Conflict of interest.
By all current indications, 2026 has started with a big challenge on its hand.
Daily updates of, and opinions on, local and international issues by Tulsathit Taptim.
