China came in at 17th.

Thailand was the second best among Asean countries, with Singapore two ranks ahead, followed by Malaysia at 28th, the Philippines 32nd, Vietnam 33rd and Indonesia 42nd.

The magazine interviewed 16,000 people around the world on their opinions of adventurous destinations, citizens, cultural influence, business opportunity, cultural heritage, mobility, access to business opportunity, power and quality of life in these countries from 2014-20.

Germany topped the rank because even though it was defeated in two world wars, West and East Germany reunited in 1990 and the country has reinforced its strength in every aspect, especially its economy.

Germany cranks out GDP of US$3.7 trillion from a population of 80 million, giving it a GDP per capita of $45,888, according to the magazine.

Thailand’s GDP per capita is $14,354, as its 67.7 million people generate $387 billion in GDP.

PM ‘thankful to Thais’

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha wants to thank Thais for their help in making the country safe and peaceful, Government Spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said yesterday.

Since his administration took over, it has aimed to reduce conflicts, rifts and inequality in the country. It has worked on reforms to promote sustainable development for the country, he said.

“This has helped create stability and boosted the country’s image. The ranking reflects the truth,” he said.

Thailand’s highlights included fourth for mobility and being an adventurous destination, eighth in cultural heritage and 10th in access to business opportunity.

As the country with the most scenic views, Thailand scored 9 points out of 10. For offering great food 8.4, for friendliness 8.1 and for being an adventurous destination 7.6.

“These factors show that Thailand is one of the best tourist destinations in the world. For business investment, Thailand came sixth as the most attractive country for investment,” he said.

The magazine’s analysis and assessment has provided insight into the country’s strengths and weaknesses that the

government would use to plan the country’s development.

AFTER visiting the stronghold of their political rivals in the provinces of Nakhon Phanom and Udon Thani last week, the Democrats are confident that they will be able to grab at least 20 seats in the region in the next election.

Several Democrat heavyweights such as party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, secretary-general Juti Krairerk, Kalaya Sophonpanich, Siriwan Prassajaksatru, Kiat Sittheeamorn and Chamni Sakdiset stopped off at religious sites such as Phra That Phanom in Nakhon Phanom and found themselves flocked by supporters.

The Democrats knew they would not be taken to task for violating the junta’s ban on political activities, because ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra had got away doing the same thing – visiting temples, making merit and meeting people.

However, the Democrats have one tough question to find an answer: How will they win the hearts and minds of people in the Northeast? Despite being around for 70 years, the party only managed to garner four seats in the region in the last election.

When the Thaksin Shinawatra camp emerged in the political arena, they began claiming election victory in the region for 15 years straight.

The image of the Democrat Party is similar to that of the United States’ Republicans or the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party, both of which are seen as being traditional and adhering to institution. In comparison, Pheu Thai Party is seen more like the US Democrat Party or the UK’s Labour Party – modern, fast working, exciting but not attached to institution. Pheu Thai is good at projecting its strengths and hitting at its rival’s weaknesses.

Hence, apart from revamping the party’s image, analysts believe that in order to win the goal of winning up to 25 seats instead of four, they will have to write good policies and recruit candidates who are suitable for the election criteria over the next 18 months.

But first they have to answer the one question that is on people’s mind: Is it true that they are the reason why Thaksin had to flee the country?

They also have to remove the belief that the Democrat Party belongs to the South.

In order to remove these beliefs, the Democrats will have to visit their Isaan constituents consistently, not just when they want their votes.

Critics believe that the new charter will have many provisions that are favourable to the Democrats. Yet, if they still can’t win the next election, they will really need to reform.

During their visit to the Northeast last week, there were no red shirts or opponents working to oust them – a likely scenario in normal circumstances due to the deep political divide.

This is because local leaders of their rival party are not allowed to gather by law, the Democrat is not a ruling party and there is no political competition at the moment.

In the Isaan region, the Democrats also have Bhum Jai Thai Party as another major rival, though it is believed to have been weakened by unfavourable electorate rules and regulations.

The Democrats are recruiting “A-list candidates” for this region in order to cater to the demands and wishes of the locals.

Policies that the party must project to attract locals are none other than how to give them more water and boost their harvests. In order to win more seats, the party must have other attractive selling points such as giving people the right to solve their problems and providing new ideas for society. They also need to change their image from “slow” to becoming more effective and swift. So, if the Democrats are actually able to win the hearts of Isaan people, their hope of winning the general election will not necessarily be beyond their reach.

He said although the party had promised Bangkok voters to monitor the BMA’s work, in practice the party had failed to use any mechanism to check irregularities or corruption allegations in the BMA.

Abhisit admitted that he was under pressure for failure to check the alleged corruption and offered his apologies to Bangkokians for failure to keep the party’s election promise to monitor the work of the BMA.

He refused to comment on a proposal by BMA executives to call on the government to exercise Article 44 to dismiss Sukhumbhand as Bangkok governor.

Abhisit said he had not consulted the party’s district and municipal councillors over the issues.

“When I heard he had gone missing, I was very shocked,” said Li’s friend, Liu Xuehong, a Thailand-based activist. “I think he’s in danger now and has probably been arrested.”

Shi said Thai police refused to accept her report of her husband’s disappearance, asking her to contact the Chinese embassy.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, asked about Li’s disappearance, said he “did not understand” anything about him or about the “relevant situation”. He did not elaborate.

Reuters

NUTTAWUT SAIKUAR, secretary-general of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, stated yesterday that the red shirts would not endorse an undemocratic constitution in a referendum, even if it delayed an election.

Meanwhile, Constitution Draft-ing Commission (CDC) spokesman Udom Rathamarit said opponents had the right to express their sentiments.

Nuttawut claimed that the current draft was far worse than the previous unsuccessful one, saying it would not be very hard to make a decision about it.

“This is not a difficult decision to make because it’s about a democratic principle and the dictator’s continuous time in power,” said Nuttawut. “I can choose right away, although UDD doesn’t have an official resolution on this, it is clear that we would not accept it [the draft].”

The red-shirt leader expressed no concerns about the postponement of an election should the charter be rejected in a referendum. Rather, he wanted to make sure democracy was restored properly.

“General Prayut Chan-o-cha, the prime minister and chief of the National Council for Peace and Order, has said he has another solution [if the draft failed a referendum]. So we’ll just wait and see on that. The delay in an election is not as problematic as the absence of democracy. So I’m not worried about having the draft rejected and the election put on hold,” Nuttawut remarked. He went on to express confidence that the Pheu Thai Party would win an election if one took place. But he pointed out that winning an election under undemocratic rules would only defeat the people who are the true holders of power, like it has been over the past 10 years.

“Democracy is what matters, not just the election,” said Nuttawut.

He urged all opponents of the charter draft to show their stance. If they waited any longer, they would not be able to explain it to the public, he said. Also, he called on the authorities to provide stages for both supporters and opponents to speak their minds and campaign for or against the charter draft.

Meanwhile, CDC spokesman Udom said everyone had the right to voice their opinion, reacting to the opposition to the charter from some politicians.

However, the drafters would proceed with creating understanding among the public about the new charter, he said. After the initial draft was finished, the drafters would hold a non-formal meeting on February 3 with the National Legislative Assembly and the National Reform steering Assembly to explain to them about the draft.

A similar meeting would not be held with the NCPO and the Cabinet, two other power streams, because they did not have as many members as the two assemblies, Udom said.

However, he believed his chief Meechai Ruchupan, as an NCPO member, would have a chance to discuss it with other junta members.

In another development, the CDC yesterday resolved to extend the vote-casting time for two more hours under the new charter to make sure that all eligible voters could exercise their right, Udom said yesterday.

The polls will be open from 8am-5pm instead of from 8am-3pm as previously. Aside from that, drafters have also agreed to abolish the “advance voting” because it has a loophole that made electoral fraud possible. Voters, instead, would be encouraged to register for ‘absentee voting’ in which they could exercise their rights at a polling station near their actual residence.

The development came as the CDC was reviewing its complete draft, article by article.

As for the date of the election day, the CDC decided to give the power to the Election Commission to schedule and reschedule by-election dates, said Udom.

The election date and its setting should be determined by the EC to avoid unnecessary difficulties, he said. In the past, election dates were enforced through a Royal Decree, which made rescheduling difficult. The new stipulation would make it easier for the EC to arrange elections, Udom said.

Academic Warat Karuchit wrote on Tuesday: “Any journalist that crosses the barricades inside [the body removal procession], please realise that in the name of news you have crossed the line, both in terms of media ethics and compassion. That you’re doing it at your editor’s orders or because the competition is fierce is not an excuse. You should know whether you crossed the line – whether you did it on purpose or were just going with the flow, you crossed the line.”

On Twitter, @youdunnowho wrote: “Journalists, you use Twitter, other people also have cameras. Those who misbehaved while taking photographs, and can be seen in photos and video clips, should beware of being lynched.”

@Woody754 wrote: “The media should be trained to be eagles, not vultures.”

Tossaporn Wongwaikolayoot wrote: “It won’t be a surprise if the government decides one day to pass media-control law and nobody opposes it.”

Journalist Lukesua Chai Number Nine wrote: “The media reflects the people. Like in ‘Spotlight’ [the film], unless people speak up, the media would not have been able to cover and present stories about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. This vicious cycle would have remained. In Thai society, people like to consume stories like this so the media covers stories like this.”

Tanatpong Kongsai wrote: “Believe me, most journalists disagree with ‘the bad ones’.”

Wannasiri Sirivarna wrote: “Mainly it should be the responsibility of media companies for as long as journalists are paid by them. If they get just basic pictures, with no drama, then editors complain: ‘Why did that channel get the exclusive interview? Why did our competitor get the picture of the kid crying?’ … Media companies should have clear policies on news coverage. Professional organisations should also educate entertainment media and make an agreement with the companies. Right now it’s like the good ones are the black sheep.”

Sumeth Somkanae, chief of the National Union of Journalists, Thailand, launched a Facebookcampaign called “Freedom with Responsibility” and won support from many journalists. He wrote: “Please don’t watch, like or share reports from bad or unethical media. Save your time to support responsible media who lack the views [rating]. Will that be better?”

Anothai Sakulthong wrote: “There are a lot of good media. Please don’t over-generalise. Some people comment because they want to be media themselves. Some media want only likes and shares. It’s difficult to control. So please support ethical media.”

Academic Sakulsri Srisaracam wrote: “Checking out people’s sentiments on the hashtag #RIPPortid and on Facebook timelines, so many people have been criticising the media instead of mourning for Por. They have instead been mourning for media that have done badly. So bad media should listen. Meanwhile, some media did do a good job when reporting. The mood of people online proves that they do not want content that is in bad taste.” She also shared pictures from NationPhoto, saying: “Good examples are available. They are reporting and using photos in a way that respects the people involved.”

Prakaidao Baengsunita wrote: “Good photographers don’t have to be closest to the object, their pictures should be able to speak.”

Veteran TV journalist Pipope Panitchpakdi wrote: “If I owned a news agency, I would have interviewed all photographers and cameramen who were up close and those who chose to shoot without violating the victim’s family. That is more interesting than listening to academics criticising the media, which will only polarise the two further.”