Of Rankings, Mediocrity & Quality Of Life

Well, there’s always an exception that proves the rule. According to a recent poll Bangkok was voted the no. 1 most attractive city in Asia. Thai media hailed the headline. But the poll was conducted in Bangkok, among 500 foreign tourists. As if 500 interviewed tourists in Tokyo would have chosen Bangkok. That’s not what you call “representative.” Still, despite subliminal indoctrination attempts, dwindling freedoms and regressing investments in the kingdom it’s not all that bad.

Take any internationally credible poll or ranking and Thailand features not too shabby. Again, there’s the exception that proves the rule. In the Press Freedom Index 2009 Thailand remains near the post-Thaksin historic low of 135th. In 2002 Thailand ranked 65th. On the other hand, according to the IMD World Competitiveness‘ stress test, Thailand holds the 26th overall rank in 2009.

A rare success that was thoroughly enjoyed by our dear prime minister. But when the same stress test ranks Thailand’s Government Efficiency as 17th, sandwiched between Taiwan and Malaysia and clearly ahead of the U.S. and the U.K., you may wonder what standards apply. And according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index 2008 the Thai kingdom ranks 80th, after 61st in 2001. But how do you measure one of Thailand’s real strengths? The quality of life?

Whatever data and rankings you compare, Thailand yo-yos in the midfields. The country’s neither a taillight nor a headlight. Just average. Still, there are shining lights. According to Smart Travel Asia’s yearly survey Best Airports Worldwide Suvarnabhumi ranks 3rd for two consecutive years, “indicating it has sorted out much of its earlier teething issues.”

According to Yale’s Environmental Performance Index Thailand in 2008 was ranked 53rd – again midfield – whereas in the QS World University Rankings Thailand doesn’t have a single university in the top 100. Chula‘s at least 138th.

Nothing outstanding, nothing too desolate. You could go for road accident and child abuse and human trafficking and waning political rights statistics to paint a bleaker picture. Or for hospitality, food and tourism indices to make Thailand look like the land of milk and honey.

Meaning, despite all the current issues Thailand has, despite all the moaning and complaining, it’s a matter of perception, selection and positioning what Thailand is.

An unfazed op-ed Betting on Thailand? in the New York Times raises exactly these comparative points. Read the whole thing. Concludes the author:

If Thailand’s history of adaptation is any guide, do not bet against it. In 20 years Vietnam will have a bigger economy, will have made more money for today’s investors, and may carry more international weight. But for quality of life in an open society, my money would still be on Thailand.

Is Thailand doomed? You bet not. And be it a matter of brave hopes.

Just do not mind censorship, patronization, shystering and such.