May 13, 2025: Forget ethical, constitutional and security worries. The biggest reason why the US president should not accept a jet offered as a gift from Qatar is political and economic.
Donald Trump is making the world heave a very cautious sigh of relief with the “tariff truce” with China, but he is presenting America with a new hot issue to think and talk about.
Should he accept a Qatari gift that he intended to modify into an Air Force One?
The United States is currently on fire debating ethical, constitutional and security questions stemming from his eagerness to embrace the highly-unusual gift offer. But the arguments for and against pale beside the outstanding economic and political problems that could occur.
Let’s just say Trump accepts the gift and go on to modify it into the most luxurious, sophisticated, best-armed and best-protected aircraft on the planet. And let’s just say the Democrats win the next presidential election.
The world is no stranger to American hypocrisy, but the Democrats using the plane they are denouncing as an Air Force One for their president will be an extremely-awkward sight all the same.
Currently, the Democrats have come out all guns blazing. “This is just the latest reflection of an egregious, corrupt presidency that is using the office of the presidency for his personal gain,” Rep. Dan Goldman of New York told CNN. “We want to be sure that the president of the United States is always acting in the interest, sole interest of the United States, and not on behalf of a foreign country.”
The Trump camp has floated an idea of a temporary use, meaning the next Democratic president would be able to use an Air Force One he or she is comfortable with. But then again, a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money would be required for back-and-forth construction, re-construction, modification and removal.
So, to prevent the next Democratic president from becoming a laughing-stock hypocrite and to save taxpayers’ money, the ultimate concern of any US leader, Trump should say to Qatar: Thanks, but No.
He wins
May 12, 2025: That's about it.
Trump agreeing Thaksin meet would have caused global chaos
May 11, 2025: The US president is bold, but even he surely cannot be bold enough to meet Thaksin Shinawatra.
The Appeals Court, reportedly citing the fact that there is no official words from the White House whatsoever that Trump had agreed to meet with Thaksin in Qatar, has upheld a lower court’s ruling, rejecting the former prime minister’s request to leave Thailand to attend a banquet for world leaders to be hosted by Amir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in the Lusail palace.
Trump and Thaksin are big news for all the wrong reasons, and their “meeting” would have sent all the wrong messages to the world.
The Thai government, trying in vain to distance itself from the 14th floor controversy, can’t want Thaksin to show up at the official banquet, can it, especially after the Medical Council’s announcement?
The White House, seeking to change an image of a serial political intervener, can’t officially try to boost the status of a former convict and political lightning rod of another country, can it?
Such a meeting, if it happened, could have set a very dangerous precedent. “Persecuted” in your country? Fine. Try to get a selfie with the president of the United States and everything will be all right.
Judiciary vs executive powers
May 10, 2025: The “14th floor” episode has revived the very question at the core of the Thaksin debate lasting decades.
How much can elected rulers do against the judiciary?
Thailand’s governing system is based on a delicate yet extremely-crucial balance of three things _ parliamentary, executive and judicial powers. They are supposed to support one another, but bad politics has pitted one against another.
Parliament and the executive branch always want to wrest power from the judiciary, the main reason (or pretext if you will) being that the latter always wields its authority with prejudices. How true is that? Debate will never end.
Thaksin forced into exile and his political camp penalised time and again gave weight to the anti-judiciary argument in the past. The unfolding 14th floor development will allow the judiciary to hit back, now that it has been armed by the Medical Council’s opinion.
It’s now executive powers versus the judiciary all over again. His “treatment” at the Police Hospital was a result of complicated parliamentary politics trying to help the Pheu Thai Party win executive powers, which are obviously used in the efforts to keep him from actual prison bars.
A lot of people are thinking that if Thaksin is put behind real bars, the judiciary wins, but if he still manages to stay outside, the executive branch (with a little help from Parliament) prevails.
The old question is back. It only presents itself in a new form, and public (both local and international) opinions are changing a bit.
9/11 “conspiracy theorists” get what they want
May 9, 2025: For over two decades, doubters of the official 9/11 narrative have been, in a way, realistic and humble. By that, they wanted the mainstream media to just “talk” about their suspicions. They did not want them to believe. They wanted them to just talk about it.
Calling themselves “Truthers”, they may have finally got what they have wished for _ a mainstream media figure influential enough to make a lot others listen. News commentator Tucker Carlson, one of the most familiar household names in America, has started seriously talking about it and he promises that a series of investigative or comprehensive episodes will come.
He made the promise during an interview with a formerly-powerful politician, Curt Weldon, who is pushing for the setting up of a presidential commission to re-investigate the terror attacks on the United States that changed both the US and world histories.
Weldon was Carlson’s intended news, but the commentator has arguably become bigger news himself. And the popular newsman said everything that the “Truth movement” has always wanted to hear.
“This conversation (with Weldon) that you are about to hear raises far more questions than I ever anticipated,” Carlson said at the intro of the interview clip. “This is not a crazy person. These are not crazy questions. … After this conservation I thought it might be time to look a little more deeply into the 9/11 commission report (which blamed Arab terrorists).
“…Now is the time for a somber look, not a wild-eyed speculative look. An honest look and honest conversations …”
He stressed that outstanding questions are too “troubling” to ignore. After all, he said, 9/11 is still the most important historical event in any American life. Quoting Weldon, Carlson said there are more officials suspicious of the US government narrative than it is believed.
Crumbling of the 14th floor
May 8, 2025: When the whole Pheu Thai apparatus is concerned, the Medical Council has shaken its world.
Whether or not Thaksin Shinawatra’s latest effort to go overseas has anything to do with it, the council’s decision has confirmed public doubts about his medical “conditions” that barred him from actual prison bars upon his return from exile. And a very tricky ball is now in Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin’s court.
It is an earth-shattering development that will further destabilize the Pheu Thai-led Paetongtarn government. Somsak approving the council’s action and opinion will lead to all sort of big political questions. The minister vetoing it (which would reportedly force the council to reaffirm it with a two-thirds vote) will lead to a similar situation.
Pain and gain
May 7, 2025: A joke says that every extraordinary thing you can do, a thousand Chinese kids can do it.
That is not entirely true, because otherwise China would have won football’s World Cup already. And that is not entirely about the virtues of massive numbers either, because otherwise India would have been a sporting superpower by now.
Zhao Xintong’s historic Crucible trophy win Monday night (Thailand time) is a mixture of everything it takes to reach the summit of a sport. For years and years, China has kept pushing, drawing global laughter sometimes along the way. It has held snooker tournaments, giving hefty rewards to international players for just playing in what looked like insignificant events named so exaggeratedly. The government supported the domestic existence of hundreds of thousands of snooker halls. Young Chinese prodigies were sent abroad to participate in major events, and time and time again they failed, many times utterly.
Winning snooker’s world championship which until Monday had been dominated by European players is a big deal. The unprecedented triumph was not a fluky happening that featured a Chinese boy catching big-name players napping to nick undeserved victories. Zhao’s wins were all convincing from start to finish, and he showed talent and composure that put older, more familiar snooker players to shame.
At 28, he beat Ronnie O’Sullivan, his idol, decisively on the way to the final showdown with Mark Williams, who at 50 was the oldest finalist in Crucible history, and put him to the sword with virtually one eye closed.
Nobody is playing down Zhao’s victory. Snooker is more mental than physical, meaning technology plays a lesser role than in, say, tennis, swimming or boxing, and a macho can easily lose to a person far less physically strong. And while there are claims about Chinese athletes placed under tough or authoritarian training regimes, that can’t be said about snooker.
It was O’Sullivan who gave a prophetic warning a few years ago. He practically said United Kingdom was taking long-held snooker glory for granted, and its current crop of players were too old for his comfort, with so few new-blood players emerging.
That joke aside about a thousand Chinese kids able to do any extraordinary thing you can do, Zhao’s achievement brings to mind some well-known Chinese proverbs. They include: “Failure is the mother of success”, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step”, and “Be not afraid of growing slowly; be afraid of standing still.”
Casinos unlikely to promote tourism
May 5, 2025: Sport stadiums and exhibition halls could generate good revenue streams, but casinos?
The Paetongtarn government’s insistence on including exclusive gambling in its planned Entertainment Complex is not logical for obvious reasons.
First, casinos will NOT draw a huge number of tourists. Government leaders say it themselves that only mega-rich people with proven wealth (not “make-believe” money in their bank accounts) would be allowed to enter. The question is, how many people are there in the world who are that wealthy?
How many Elon Musks are there in the world who would think “Let’s go to Thailand so I can gamble.”? Compare that to the guaranteed visits by backpackers and ordinary tourists flooding Thailand every year attracted by Songkran, food, beaches and varying exotic cultures.
When not enough Elon Musks of the world are coming, leniency will be tolerated and then grow. Online gambling will take advantage of loopholes and before we know it many Thai kids will get the access.
The Paetongtarn administration’s tourism argument is virtually an assumption that every Elon Musk loves to gamble, and that they will come to Thailand to do so. The government has forgotten one thing, the possibility that maybe just half of superrich people in the world like to play in the casino and maybe only half of them would choose Thailand over Las Vegas.
And talking about Las Vegas, who go there to play slot machine and blackjack? A great majority of them are risk takers hoping to get rich, not the people who are already rich.
Great sporting facilities could help Thailand become the host of key events. If managed properly, promoted suitably and supported solidly by the government, they admittedly can have a promising future.
Exhibition halls are also great, but don’t we have them already? The same goes for concert venues. Yes, they can bring in a good number of visitors if managed well. But do they need casinos to exist alongside them? No.
Did Taylor Swift reject Thailand because we didn’t have a casino? No. Do Wimbledon or UCL audiences make their decisions to travel based on whether they can gamble or not? No.
From statements of government leaders as well as Thaksin Shinawatra, legitimate gambling would account for 10% of the Entertainment Complex. Anyone investing that much money definitely would want to recoup it. And they certainly can’t rely on the Elon Musks in order to achieve that.
Classic flirting by Palang Pracharath
May 4, 2025: If rumours swirl about your opposition party ready to join the government, the first rule is keep them alive.
In other words, a total denial is a no-no. The second rule is throw in a suggestion that if you do join in the future, it would be for the country’s best interest.
You flirt by playing hard to get. But not so hard, remember. It’s a trick that all opposition parties do best.
Unless it’s utterly and absolutely hopeless, don’t slam the door shut. The photo of Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai leaders walking hand in hand is nothing. Just keep in mind the picture of Pheu Thai and Move Forward big bosses beaming together and forming mini hearts together after the last general election.
Criticise the Palang Pracharath Party if you will, but it is observing these rules to the last letter. Instead of unequivocally saying “No, we will never support Pheu Thai after spending all our lives fighting it”, Palang Pracharath is leaving the door ajar.
And they are doing it with a near-perfect mixture of criticism and possibility of a U-turn. Paetongtarn Shinawatra is not a good prime minister and we can’t support her, Palang Pracharath says. But yes, we have been contacted. If we join, we will in effect support the one who we think is bad. But it would be fine if acceptable changes happen.
Exact words (by a Palang Pracharath deputy leader): Don’t let me tell you who contacted Gen Prawit (Wongsuwan). I was contacted, too. There was a real contact. We were told that if we wanted to do it, everyone (who is a Palang Pracharath member) must go. Gen Prawit (the Palang Pracharath leader) said we would not join, as joining would mean we support the one who (we believe) is incapable of running the country. But it’s okay if there are adjustments (in the future) that benefit the nation.”
Why 14th Floor "didn't make sense"
May 3, 2025: Alleged discrepancies may feature in the court inquiry into the “medical treatment” of Thaksin Shinawatra.
According to hardline conservative Warong Dechgitvigrom, there are questions revolving around the claims that Thaksin was critically ill, so much so that he had to be sent to the Police Hospital and stay on the 14th floor.
Here are the questions: Was there an ambulance involved, normal in a case of medical emergency? Who made the decision to send Thaksin to the Police Hospital, a senior Corrections Department doctor or a junior doctor working on a shift?
Why did Thaksin go straight to the 14th floor which was basically for a VIP patient requiring rehabilitation, not a gravely-ill man needing proper and emergency ICU-type equipment and a troop of medical experts working at full throttle?
If an operation was performed, when exactly and how was Thaksin’s conditions at the time? Medical principles tend to avoid an operation on a critically-ill person unless it is extremely necessary or a life-or-death matter.
What kind of a medical episode warrants a 180-day stay at the Police Hospital, not the Corrections Department’s hospital which has a lot of modern equipment being able to do many things including the CT scan?
Such a long stay only meant that the patient was so ill he could not get out of bed. Did Thaksin’s arms and legs shrink like those of every patient who could not walk or exercise for 180 days?
If a surgery was performed, why did they allow him to keep on staying on the 14th floor? He should have been moved to a post-surgery rehabilitation room as part of a normal post-operation procedure.
How about the visits? If Thaksin’s life was hanging by a thread, there must be throngs of visitors, mustn’t there? Who visited him during those 180 days?
The above are justifiable questions. Here are some more: From the declaration of him being an emergency case to the day he was released from the Police Hospital, there must be plenty of official and medical records along the way. Where are they, what did they say, when were they made, who prepared them and who signed them?
14th Floor inquiry can set legal precedent
May 2, 2025: It could go down to credibility of evidence and, rarely, how judges “feel” about it.
PM’s Office Minister Chusak Sirinil said the Paetongtarn government is not worried about potential trouble concerning the legal treatment of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister’s father. According to Chusak, it was the Corrections Department’s full responsibility which was carried out through established procedures.
In other words, Chusak believes that even if it was decided that Thaksin was not actually jailed, political damage would not be widespread to the point of affecting the prime minister and her entire Cabinet.
“The court’s involvement is good, I think, because this matter can finally be put to rest,” he said. However, Chusak, responding to a reporter’s question, went on to admit that it would be a rare case of official documents versus public feelings.
There are those who think the stay at the 14th floor of the Police Hospital is a form of detention which took place while an inmate was ill, and there are others who believe that the stay was an illegal privilege given to Thaksin, Chusak admitted.
Reading between the lines, the inquiry could feature a showdown between documentary evidence, which is not hard to find to back the former argument, and prevalent feelings that while such evidence may look authentic, it was meant to help Thaksin evade real jail.
Judges often give importance to tangible evidence, and, normally, less attention is given to “feelings”. This case, however, involves overwhelming feelings that something was not quite right in the apparently-lawful creation of evidence.
What were those artefacts doing in US museum?
May 1, 2025: Make no mistake, the “return” was good. But how did they get there in the first place?
This is the news: “Four ancient statues of the Lord Buddha and his incarnation, which were smuggled out of Thailand more than 60 years ago and exhibited at the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, are to be returned.”
The story, basically the official line reported similarly around the world, went on to describe the process of decision makings leading to the return to the country that owned them more than half a century ago.
It would seem like a noble process if we ignored the fact that something “smuggled” was equivalent to something “stolen” and its return to its rightful owner should not have involved such complicated layer-upon-layer agreements.
Yet it appeared that, in seeking their return, Thailand had to seek help from the US Department of Homeland Security. It’s like a thief broke into your house and your stolen valuables turned up inside the neighbour’s showcase and you have to humbly ask the neighbour to give them back to you.
The neighbour, who must have spent quite a lot of money acquiring the items, then will have two choices. First, the valuables will be immediately returned. No question asked.
Or he or she will go through a lengthy process of answering the following questions: Did we buy stolen goods and put them on display? How come we weren’t aware of that? Should we return them, since they are important to the owner’s religion and culture and we are Christian anyway, and the owner has been crying for its return for years already?
What is the right thing to do, and how quickly should we do it?
Daily updates of, and opinions on, local and global events by Tulsathit Taptim
