Thailand's Economy

[Martin]

I am not a gloomster and doomster, but it is only realistic that I recognise how much some major economies have been fuelled for the past century by oil that got cheaper and cheaper, and that that has now ended. So adjustments will occur in those major economies.

Since Thailand is a small country placed beween giant empires, its economy can be much affected by the winds that blow in from those much larger economies. How can it shelter itself when those winds are too strong for it to go sailing along on?

[Martin]

I am wondering which are the appropriate areas in which to place one's industry, at the individual level and at the national level, in these new circumstances.

This morning I read a persuasive article that the USA has a rising number of people who are on the verge of meeting the day when 'resetting' of their 'funny money' mortgages is due to occur. This means they will have to pay more each month to the mortgage-holder and, so, will have less available to spend frivolously. It advised selling shares in Starbucks and buying shares in some 'downmarket' food company that makes very basic, economically-priced stuff like Spam.

I don't think Thailand is a big exporter of coffee, is it? But it does produce pig-meat quite a lot, doesn't it?

So, provided the pig-meat-production in Thailand doesn't need a lot of energy-based fertilizer to produce the pig food (like it does in America), this prospect of the US economy turning down might be not such bad news.

(Incidentally, where I live, I often see a man riding a motorbike and towing a trailer with one big male pig in it. My wife says it is "Father pig going to make love". Does this mean that there is still the keeping of what we used to call a "house sow" going on?

Teachers, and other people who could get a bit of capital together, would have one sty at the bottom of their garden, and would feed the sow on all the household vegetable peelings and so on. They would sell off all but one of the piglets as soon as they could be weaned and send a message for a local man who kept a boar to bring it to visit again. The one piglet that they kept was 'brought on' to butchering-size and then the meat was was shared out with neighbours, some in settlement of little debts and some just expended in goodwill.

The Brit police would never have let the boar be trailered behind a motorbike, though!

One boar-man that I remember had an old Ford 'Popular' that pulled his little trailer.

And another had a Jowett 'Bradford' van to pull his.

They said that you couldn't tow with a Bradford, because the frame behind the rear wheels was only wood.

But one mechanic, who worked at the Jowett factory in the day, had a little 'cottage industry' in the evenings and weekend of changing that wood for steel and fitting a towing hitch. People were replacing their old high Victorian beds with modern divans and he was getting bed irons as his source of 'angle-iron' steel.

Is this sort of thing what is meant by partial-sufficiency in Thai discourse in elevated circles?)

[ColPyat]

Is this sort of thing what is meant by partial-sufficiency in Thai discourse in elevated circles?)

I'm not sure if we can keep discussing this here, but I'll give it a go. If the mods feel that this is post, or thread goes over the top, please be free to delete it.

Yes, somehow, together with a dose of Buddhism, that is supposed to keep people happy and content with having nothing and not minding that a small elite has a lot. Excuse my sarcasm, but in reality such utupian scemes will not work.

For certain sectors of society, the poorest, the Por Puang system of farming is indeed a good idea, but has to be watered down in order to make it work. Not because it is an ideal condition to be in, but because it is a step forward, in order to bring back stability into their life, so that the next generation has a chance to escape the circle of poverty, has the chance to finish school, and learn a pofession.

A few facts though: there is a slight problem in communication, and in putting this system into practise countrywide. In most areas the Por Puang system is a luxury that only people from the urban middle classes, who bought land for their retirement, actually do, who do not need to survive solely on their income from their farms.

The people for whom it was actually intended rarely can afford to do this. They have not the land, they have not the initial investment in order to switch, and they need more to live on than just what they can eat.

As nice as it sounds, only particular farmland is suitable for this system, and this sort of farmland is rare in Thailand. We have such farmland, plots for rice, other plots for fruit orchards, water for the necessary pond. Most of the land that you see on which rice is planted, that is flooded almost every year, simply is not suitable.

Upstairs talks about this self sufficiency system, but on the ground the base conditions are not met - there is no land reform and land redistribution happening. And i don't see it coming, as upstairs likes to talk, but is not willing to give up their vast land holdings.

That, and because the young do not want to keep being peasants, makes this an impractical utopian scheme.

And especially dangerous i find that this sort of system and philosophy is now somehow promoted to replace an existing economical system on a national base, without actually being explained how that should really work, other than "following the spirit of what is said", with a large dose of religious based mumbo jumbo that the average person long learned to compartmentalise, like in the west where religion became something that is done on sunday in the church.

And so you keep on seeing a huge migration into industrial centers, because upstairs simply is not willing to see that their strange philosophies of how they imagine a happy society have nothing to offer in practical terms to the needs of the people, and continue to refuse doing what is necessary.

It is a sign of desperation - the more things fall apart - the more fantastic solutions become.

[hammered]

Is this sort of thing what is meant by partial-sufficiency in Thai discourse in elevated circles?)

I'm not sure if we can keep discussing this here, but I'll give it a go. If the mods feel that this is post, or thread goes over the top, please be free to delete it.

Yes, somehow, together with a dose of Buddhism, that is supposed to keep people happy and content with having nothing and not minding that a small elite has a lot. Excuse my sarcasm, but in reality such utupian scemes will not work.

For certain sectors of society, the poorest, the Por Puang system of farming is indeed a good idea, but has to be watered down in order to make it work. Not because it is an ideal condition to be in, but because it is a step forward, in order to bring back stability into their life, so that the next generation has a chance to escape the circle of poverty, has the chance to finish school, and learn a pofession.

A few facts though: there is a slight problem in communication, and in putting this system into practise countrywide. In most areas the Por Puang system is a luxury that only people from the urban middle classes, who bought land for their retirement, actually do, who do not need to survive solely on their income from their farms.

The people for whom it was actually intended rarely can afford to do this. They have not the land, they have not the initial investment in order to switch, and they need more to live on than just what they can eat.

As nice as it sounds, only particular farmland is suitable for this system, and this sort of farmland is rare in Thailand. We have such farmland, plots for rice, other plots for fruit orchards, water for the necessary pond. Most of the land that you see on which rice is planted, that is flooded almost every year, simply is not suitable.

Upstairs talks about this self sufficiency system, but on the ground the base conditions are not met - there is no land reform and land redistribution happening. And i don't see it coming, as upstairs likes to talk, but is not willing to give up their vast land holdings.

That, and because the young do not want to keep being peasants, makes this an impractical utopian scheme.

And especially dangerous i find that this sort of system and philosophy is now somehow promoted to replace an existing economical system on a national base, without actually being explained how that should really work, other than "following the spirit of what is said", with a large dose of religious based mumbo jumbo that the average person long learned to compartmentalise, like in the west where religion became something that is done on sunday in the church.

And so you keep on seeing a huge migration into industrial centers, because upstairs simply is not willing to see that their strange philosophies of how they imagine a happy society have nothing to offer in practical terms to the needs of the people, and continue to refuse doing what is necessary.

It is a sign of desperation - the more things fall apart - the more fantastic solutions become.

The newly forming urban working class that do not hail from the urban areas need to be considered in any economic system. Maybe at the moment they are happy that they no longer work the farms even if their current living conditions and jobs are not perfect. Maybe their parents are happy that they have "progressed". However, what of the future? This urban working class will if/as it develops need affordable housing in the urban areas. Living in single rooms or even slums will not be an option as they marry and have families, and want more. More and more will marry those from other parts of Thailand and as a couple will have more attachment to the urban center they moved to than the villages they came from. Then as they have families what will they want for their kids - a better life for sure.

In many ways how present and future governments cater for this group will be more important than what they do for the rural areas, which in many ways are self sufficient and where the farmers seem to be happy if they see their kids progressing. However, do any politicians actually even consider this mentuioned group. At the moment with the requirement to return to village to vote this group is almost ceratainly the largest group of non-voters and as such is easliy oignorable by politicians. The urban working class are still seemingly considered to be part of the village they came from even though less and less are returning, and their own political concerns are very different from the concerns of those living in the villages. Probably the biggest problem that Thailand could face in the medium term future is an alienated and disaffected urban working class.

[samran]

Read the Lexus and the Olive Tree. Great Book.

[ColPyat]

The newly forming urban working class that do not hail from the urban areas need to be considered in any economic system. Maybe at the moment they are happy that they no longer work the farms even if their current living conditions and jobs are not perfect. Maybe their parents are happy that they have "progressed". However, what of the future? This urban working class will if/as it develops need affordable housing in the urban areas. Living in single rooms or even slums will not be an option as they marry and have families, and want more. More and more will marry those from other parts of Thailand and as a couple will have more attachment to the urban center they moved to than the villages they came from. Then as they have families what will they want for their kids - a better life for sure.

In many ways how present and future governments cater for this group will be more important than what they do for the rural areas, which in many ways are self sufficient and where the farmers seem to be happy if they see their kids progressing. However, do any politicians actually even consider this mentuioned group. At the moment with the requirement to return to village to vote this group is almost ceratainly the largest group of non-voters and as such is easliy oignorable by politicians. The urban working class are still seemingly considered to be part of the village they came from even though less and less are returning, and their own political concerns are very different from the concerns of those living in the villages. Probably the biggest problem that Thailand could face in the medium term future is an alienated and disaffected urban working class.

What of the future? Yes, that is exactly the right question.

I do not see any of the political parties, or powerful institutions, having any more policy for this group than for the rural poor. Like it or not, Thaksin with his U-Athorn scemes had some sort of housing policy for them. Problem for the established powers of course was that he blatantly personalised this, like with every other sceme he came up with. Thaksin unfortunately was the only politician who not only saw these developments, and also acted upon them as well. It does not look good for Thailand's future when the only politician who did that was thoroughly corrupt and authoritarian with a complete disregard for human rights.

I don't really agree with your point about the rural areas. You mentioned that people there are somewhat selfsufficient and happy. This is not my experience in many villages. The young are bored, can't make a living there, have to migrate, adding already to the pool of increasingly dissatisfied migrants in the industrial belt around Bangkok.

And there things are in the process of getting out of hand already. In many areas the violence is spiralling out of control. But, out of sight...

I am sorry if that offends some here, but what is promoted from upstairs - self sufficiency and a relgious based moderation keeping establsihed hirarchies - hardly meets the required needs. Kneejerk policies is the only thing that they come up with. They are far removed from the problems and needs of their population, their minds are stuck in completely outdated social and economical models based on a romantic notion of their own country's imagined past, viewing this as some sort of golden age, that most definately never was.

What needs to be done is a decentralisation of the industries in order to stop migration, at the same time revitalising the village in order to prepare the population for the transition of an agricultural society to a modern, industrial society.

Thailands rail network is primitive, energy supply for industrial needs upcountry is not existing. When do the powers start investing into Thailand's future?

Edited October 4, 2006 by ColPyat

[Martin]

"What needs to be done is a decentralisation of the industries in order to stop migration, at the same time revitalising the village in order to prepare the population for the transition of an agricultural society to a modern, industrial society.

Thailands rail network is primitive, energy supply for industrial needs upcountry is not existing. When do the powers start investing into Thailand's future?"

I have my doubts as to whether the program spelt out above could now be done.

If the question had been posed twentyfive years ago (and the answer had been "Now!), I think there would have been a much sounder economy, and also the present 'disjointedness' in politics would have been ameliorated.

But the "modern industrial society" has no longer got any prospect of success, that I can see, for a country like Thailand. At the prices that would have to be charged to make a profit on anything it produced, there would be insufficient sales to keep it going.

China and India cannot be competed against in a declining market for consumer goods, can they? And the up-market service industries are being better supplied than Thailand could manage.

It seems to me that "Eat what you grow, and swop the surplus for your other necessities" is the best that any country can be expected to get in the future.

My reading of Thai history is that there was such a surplus to be had in days of yore that a parasitic class of leeches appeared, sucking on the lifeblood of that surplus as it passed through Bangkok on its way abroad. Then they got dry-season labour to build them higher and higher office buildings from which to operate some manufacturing. But they cocked that up by getting into a property-speculation frenzy.

And then along came Thaksin to show them how gallons could be sucked, not mere pints. He seemed to be prepared to accept that the price of getting to power would be that he had to make things better for the primary producers, though.

From where I look at things, I will start to have some faith in the next administration if I see it getting stuck into rebalancing the urban and rural, and preparing to face the future.

What I fear is that it will just chatter about amending the Constitution---and that will be, at best, just trying to tweak the software, when it is the orgware that needs the beefing-up. At worst, it will be a deliberate way of maintaining parasitic privilege at the expense of others' poverty.

In all matters, the first resource is true spirit. Top and bottom seem to have it, but have been hamstrung by a self-serving middle.

Unfortunately, one leader can only go as far forward as the next rank will follow. And, if the next rank are dominated by the selfish and exploitive, no good destination will be reached.

[Barney_the_Dinosaur]

I am wondering which are the appropriate areas in which to place one's industry, at the individual level and at the national level, in these new circumstances.

This morning I read a persuasive article that the USA has a rising number of people who are on the verge of meeting the day when 'resetting' of their 'funny money' mortgages is due to occur. This means they will have to pay more each month to the mortgage-holder and, so, will have less available to spend frivolously. It advised selling shares in Starbucks and buying shares in some 'downmarket' food company that makes very basic, economically-priced stuff like Spam.

I don't think Thailand is a big exporter of coffee, is it? But it does produce pig-meat quite a lot, doesn't it?

So, provided the pig-meat-production in Thailand doesn't need a lot of energy-based fertilizer to produce the pig food (like it does in America), this prospect of the US economy turning down might be not such bad news.

(Incidentally, where I live, I often see a man riding a motorbike and towing a trailer with one big male pig in it. My wife says it is "Father pig going to make love". Does this mean that there is still the keeping of what we used to call a "house sow" going on?

Teachers, and other people who could get a bit of capital together, would have one sty at the bottom of their garden, and would feed the sow on all the household vegetable peelings and so on. They would sell off all but one of the piglets as soon as they could be weaned and send a message for a local man who kept a boar to bring it to visit again. The one piglet that they kept was 'brought on' to butchering-size and then the meat was was shared out with neighbours, some in settlement of little debts and some just expended in goodwill.

The Brit police would never have let the boar be trailered behind a motorbike, though!

One boar-man that I remember had an old Ford 'Popular' that pulled his little trailer.

And another had a Jowett 'Bradford' van to pull his.

They said that you couldn't tow with a Bradford, because the frame behind the rear wheels was only wood.

But one mechanic, who worked at the Jowett factory in the day, had a little 'cottage industry' in the evenings and weekend of changing that wood for steel and fitting a towing hitch. People were replacing their old high Victorian beds with modern divans and he was getting bed irons as his source of 'angle-iron' steel.

Is this sort of thing what is meant by partial-sufficiency in Thai discourse in elevated circles?)

Methinks a case of 'TIT' (This is Thailand')

[ColPyat]

"What needs to be done is a decentralisation of the industries in order to stop migration, at the same time revitalising the village in order to prepare the population for the transition of an agricultural society to a modern, industrial society.

Thailands rail network is primitive, energy supply for industrial needs upcountry is not existing. When do the powers start investing into Thailand's future?"

I have my doubts as to whether the program spelt out above could now be done.

If the question had been posed twentyfive years ago (and the answer had been "Now!), I think there would have been a much sounder economy, and also the present 'disjointedness' in politics would have been ameliorated.

But the "modern industrial society" has no longer got any prospect of success, that I can see, for a country like Thailand. At the prices that would have to be charged to make a profit on anything it produced, there would be insufficient sales to keep it going.

China and India cannot be competed against in a declining market for consumer goods, can they? And the up-market service industries are being better supplied than Thailand could manage.

It seems to me that "Eat what you grow, and swop the surplus for your other necessities" is the best that any country can be expected to get in the future.

My reading of Thai history is that there was such a surplus to be had in days of yore that a parasitic class of leeches appeared, sucking on the lifeblood of that surplus as it passed through Bangkok on its way abroad. Then they got dry-season labour to build them higher and higher office buildings from which to operate some manufacturing. But they cocked that up by getting into a property-speculation frenzy.

And then along came Thaksin to show them how gallons could be sucked, not mere pints. He seemed to be prepared to accept that the price of getting to power would be that he had to make things better for the primary producers, though.

From where I look at things, I will start to have some faith in the next administration if I see it getting stuck into rebalancing the urban and rural, and preparing to face the future.

What I fear is that it will just chatter about amending the Constitution---and that will be, at best, just trying to tweak the software, when it is the orgware that needs the beefing-up. At worst, it will be a deliberate way of maintaining parasitic privilege at the expense of others' poverty.

In all matters, the first resource is true spirit. Top and bottom seem to have it, but have been hamstrung by a self-serving middle.

Unfortunately, one leader can only go as far forward as the next rank will follow. And, if the next rank are dominated by the selfish and exploitive, no good destination will be reached.

You have put a few assumptions in your post here.

I won't answer here on the spirit of the top, other than that there is a book that you should read, which has been reviewed rather positively by most peers, and the bottom has very little of that spirit left. I would advise you to have a look at the industrial belts around Bangkok to see a not so much talked about reality.

A government should be responsible for the development of the country. Huge industries are existing around Bangkok. It would be high time to set conditions that some of those industries can move to the provinces, where there is no labour shortage, but shortage in infrastructure.

This suffficiency model looks all nice. But so far nobody explained to me how that is going to work in practical terms. We talk here about the limitations human nature sets. You won't get a full stomach from speaches and religion.

Especially because the frame work necessary for such an agricultural paradise is never be set. Start talking about a necessary land reform and land redistribution, and straight away people will accuse you of communism. It just won't work only talking about it in a fuzzy way.

[hammered]

We should also take a step back and realise that rapid and massive urbanization is a problem in much of the "developing" world and nobody seems to have an answer. It is not unique to Thailand.

Colpyat - I guess our experiences of the rural areas are a bit different. not surprising considring the size of them. My experience is that there are literally no young (under 30) at all left in the villages I know except for those with criminal records who are unemployable in most urban jobs, and that those remaining seem happy to see their younger relatives move on to something better, and of course some of it is money does come back to some degree. I think if those who had gone urban came back with their dreams shattered it would not only be the returning group who were angry but also the elder family members who thought they had provided for their kids to have a different/better life. This could create social problems that would be very difficult to deal with.

I personally havent seen any real change in the level of violence in the villages. However, I am not saying there is little or no violence. In my experience there has always been a fair deal of violence, some of it deadly, albeit as you point out hidden.

To end just a few comments I have heard in my time here on this matter:

Many many years ago before it was fashionable to go urban, my own wife said: "they (politicians) think we are so happy working so hard for nothing on these farms that we dance in the paddyfields in our sarongs. Well we see what others have on the TV and in the town, and at least I want a bit of it. She left and got a town job.

About ten years ago a very high society woman said to me: They (the rural poor) were far happier when they worked the fields with their hands and had nothing. Now they are getting all these motorcycles, videos, TVs and even pick ups they just want more and more and are never happy. It is probably an exaggeration to think all the rural people were getting these things ten years ago, but it shows a mindset.

Last year an uncle from my wife's side who is a farmer when things can be grown and a day laborer at other times: I hope my daughters do not have to ever be farmers. You have to work so hard and yet you never have money. He has put/is putting his three kids through school to M6. After that it is technical college or even Ram.

Last month our nephew from my wife's side who has been working a small lot selling phones: I'm not going back to the village. One day a year is enough there.

Edited October 4, 2006 by hammered

[ColPyat]

Many many years ago before it was fashionable to go urban, my own wife said: "they (politicians) think we are so happy working so hard for nothing on these farms that we dance in the paddyfields in our sarongs. Well we see what others have on the TV and in the town, and at least I want a bit of it. She left and got a town job.

About ten years ago a very high society woman said to me: They (the rural poor) were far happier when they worked the fields with their hands and had nothing. Now they are getting all these motorcycles, videos, TVs and even pick ups they just want more and more and are never happy.

The reason i have bought land for the folks in the first place, and started a somewhat self sufficient farm was because my wifes brothers and all her (male) cousins are what you can consider unemployable. Mostly not because of criminal record, but because of a complete lack of suitable education.

The ones who are somewhat employable have left a long time ago, and mostly live in slums. Shitty alternative. One niece, now 13, is already addicted to glue. Others are still moving between city and village, but don't exactly go anywhere.

Remember pre-drugwar? Whole villages were addicted. In my wife's birthvillage every male below 40, and a large percentage of females were on amphetamines (that was a time when even the employable youth was in the village because the after effects of the '97 crises).

But i believe we agree in the point that happy peasants toiling the land is a fantasy of the sectors that never actually had to get their fingers dirty on the fields.

Unfortunately a lot of the present strategies are appearantly based on this assumption.

[cclub75]

Yes, somehow, together with a dose of Buddhism, that is supposed to keep people happy and content with having nothing and not minding that a small elite has a lot. Excuse my sarcasm, but in reality such utupian scemes will not work.

It is a sign of desperation - the more things fall apart - the more fantastic solutions become.

I agree 100 %.

The gap is widening between an idealized -albeit highly political- view of the thai society and the reality on the ground.

It will become more and more difficult to keep people "quiet" and happy with :

-what they have today

-and what they won't have tomorrow

That's the trick. Mass medium like TV, with advertising for consummer goods... Voila the most powerfull machinery of social changes.

Even with a poor education, a guy could ask himself : "why I don't have what they have on TV ?"

Add this to another idea : elites are losing at full speed their exemplary nature.

And you get the explosive cocktail recipe :

-why I can't have what they have ?

-why they have what I can't have, despite the fact that they are not good ?

The difficult task of transition has been done (successfully) in asian countries like Japan and South Korea. But after powerfull convulsions (wars).

But what about Thailand ? And China ?

You will note that Thailand and China have the same percentage of labor force in agriculture : 49 %.

Time bomb...

"Self efficiency" policy is, I think, a weak attempt to defuse it...

[samran]

I’d look at some of the programmes run by Senator Mechai and his Provincial Development Agency (yes next to Cabbages and Condoms based on Suk soi 12).

The do a lot of work in rural areas, and their projects have been very successful in terms of provision of basic infrastructure and alternate sources of income for farmers. What they have done though, when you look at it very closely, is that they have been successful due to their projects being based on fundamental economic principals.

These have included:

- micro credit – loans which are paid back

- education and training for farmers and villages to actually run a business. Looking at crops which are more profitable than rice. Diversifying revenue bases to reduce over reliance on single income streams. Basic accounting for communities etc.

- minimizing unnecessary costs – not needing a Rolls Royce solution when a Volkswagen one would do (ie efficiency)

The main thing that his projects do is inject incentives into the process for all involve to…..wait for it……make a return in the investment.

All of these things are the same principals that you would find in any well run business, big or small.

To me, that is self sufficiency: not relying on handouts.

But injecting basic financial realities into even simple undertakings which could lead to the generation of wealth and quality of life for the rural poor is somehow seen as an evil best left for those city slickers.

[ColPyat]

To me, that is self sufficiency: not relying on handouts.

But injecting basic financial realities into even simple undertakings which could lead to the generation of wealth and quality of life for the rural poor is somehow seen as an evil best left for those city slickers.

I am not familiar with Meechai's projects, but from what you say about it i believe that this goes into the right direction. The problem with such projects, when adopted as government policy, the strength of those projects gets lost by burocratising them. Sort of, catch 22.

Unfortunately, as you hinted at, many organisations are not as realistic, and are in fact fundamentalist utopianists of the worst sort, who see their engagement for re-vitalising and modernising small scale farming as some sort of working towards agricultural utopia, instead of pragmatic means to an end, a transition period to modernise Thai society.

I have previously liked Sanitsuda Ekachai's articles, for example, but when i have met her in person, she supported some projects very strongly that i could only describe as fundamentalist Pol Pot style communes.

Or, Chamlong's Santi Asoke has similar communes that do frighten me definately, if adapted on a larger scale.

I am somewhat suspect at present adaption of "self sufficiency". I have never really read or heard what that actually means and is defined by. And how i have seen it promoted it seems to me open to very wide interpretition, ranging from common sense economics that are nothing out of the ordinary, up to completely lunatic schemes.

I hope i am wrong, but it does appear to me that this term is used now as some sort of religion for which the rules are yet to be written, put in place in lack of any feasable policy that might encompass challenging the status quo, and adapting to a more egalitarian society.

[ColPyat]

But what about Thailand ? And China ?

You will note that Thailand and China have the same percentage of labor force in agriculture : 49 %.

Time bomb...

"Self efficiency" policy is, I think, a weak attempt to defuse it...

Absolutely correct.

[Martin]

Thank you, 'samran'. It is good to hear that there is some sanity around.

As you describe it, the Provincial Development Agency has got 'Peasantry 101' well underway.

There seem to be few people in non-agricultural circles, who realise that the yeoman is, and always was, a businessman, who had to make sure that his 'cost and come to' was sufficiently less than his selling prices that his family had a fair return for their labour and there was an additional return on capital.

As I see it, the tragedy for the Thai villages is that there is no attraction to hold in the villages those who have been born with the abilities to be successful yeomen . And the country towns are hardly any better. Therefore migrating, at nearest to the provincial city, or more likely to Bangkok, is bound to be the choice of all young able 'workers with the hand and brain'.

The urban brethren never seem to realise that working the land is pleasant work only for those who feel they have a fulfilled life from the other things that they do in the evenings and at weekends.

For ten years, whilst our kids were growing up, my late wife and I had a small mixed farm near a village and fifteen miles from a town.

(It wasn't economic, as the infrastructure of the small mixed farming communities had gone, so I kept the family's finances afloat by working as an engine driver. It was only a stationary engine, but it was nuclear and a million horsepower, so its drivers were paid quite well.)

It was a good way to bring up kids (which is why we chose to do it)---but only because their lives were supplemented with tv, village activities, trips to town and holidays at the seaside or visiting relatives in London.

That rural 'social capital' of village activites, and nearby-town activities, is what Thailand's villages lack, and they will never get built up whilst one hyper-urbanised primate city keeps drawing all able youngsters away.

'Colpyat' is right that Thailand needs to spread its industrial and clerical/administrative employment fairly between the provinces. But it is no good just paying lip-service in "We have Provincial Industrial Offices Development encouraging new industry to the rural areas." There is very little new industry coming forward. Re-distribution of present industry is what is needed. But that won't come about.

So nothing much can be hoped for, until we see how de-industrialisation is handled.

Probably under some posher title, but the same thing in essence, 'Peasantry 101' (for awareness, even if not for practice) will have to be in all the MBA programs then, and hopefully there will be a reasonably orderly transition to some new agricultural age.

However, the trend to violence, that 'Colpyat' speaks of, may become really ugly as the jobs disappear and before hope of a reasonable (albeit different) future gets established.

I fear that may well occur since there is so little urban-rural mutual understanding.

[Martin]

For Constitutions, like everything else, the devil is in the details; and 'hammered' in post #4 points to the really devilish detail, which is:

"However, do any politicians actually even consider this mentuioned group. At the moment with the requirement to return to village to vote this group is almost ceratainly the largest group of non-voters and as such is easliy oignorable by politicians. The urban working class are still seemingly considered to be part of the village they came from even though less and less are returning, and their own political concerns are very different from the concerns of those living in the villages. Probably the biggest problem that Thailand could face in the medium term future is an alienated and disaffected urban working class."

In slightly different form, Britain had this situation just over a hundred years ago. Only men who had more than a certain level of property ownership could register and get their vote.

Finally, all men were enfranchised.

But the strongest political party, which was dominated by an industrial-ownership elite, didn't come to terms with such 'egalitarianism' and gradually faded to extinction like a political dinosaur. The Labour Party took its place, which meant, unfortunately, that there was very much an "Us" (industrial working class) versus "Them" (rural landowning aristocrats plus professionals) pervasion of British society, that lasted for two whole generations.

If the next Constitution doesn't enfranchise every adult, we will know that even partial democracy is unattainable in Thailand without going through social breakdown.

But who will champion the cause of the urban working class in the next twelve months? They are not in a position to do it for themselves and, nowadays, I can't see the students doing it---the academic hierarchy seem to have them well cowed. I hope I am proved wrong.

[ColPyat]

But who will champion the cause of the urban working class in the next twelve months? They are not in a position to do it for themselves and, nowadays, I can't see the students doing it---the academic hierarchy seem to have them well cowed. I hope I am proved wrong.

There are presently a few hopeful developments starting to happen, especially in the political faculties of Chula, led by Giles Ungpakorn (who walks a very dangerous and courageous edge), and Thammasat, and the proponents of Midnight University.

The question though is if the discussions stay on an academic level, or if they get a chance to move out into the public

For ten years, whilst our kids were growing up, my late wife and I had a small mixed farm near a village and fifteen miles from a town.

(It wasn't economic, as the infrastructure of the small mixed farming communities had gone, so I kept the family's finances afloat by working as an engine driver. It was only a stationary engine, but it was nuclear and a million horsepower, so its drivers were paid quite well.)

.

Here in Thailand you have similar part time farmers who farm according to the self sufficiency system. But those are mostly government employees and soldiers who were given the chance to buy Sor Por Kor 401 land cheaply on installments.

The poor though who have to solely depend on whatever income they can generate do not have this luxury, and they are not given the support that these government employees are given. This is one of the big problems of the realities on the ground, always overlooked by the powers.

The installment plan offered in the last sort of landreform under Thaksin were for the poorest of the poor nearly impossible to fulfill, demanding installment payments that could not have paid from agricultural income alone.

[Martin]

"The installment plan offered in the last sort of landreform under Thaksin were for the poorest of the poor nearly impossible to fulfill, demanding installment payments that could not have paid from agricultural income alone."

Could that have been set up deliberately, with the thought that many of the 'the poorest of the poor' are in that position because they haven't got the money-management abilities necessary to handle borrowed capital?

(I used to have one very able man who used to ring up and see if had any jobs put aside for when he re-appeared. I once asked him, as tactfully as I could, how come he hadn't got his own place and he told me, totally cheerfully "Been there. Done that. Not for me. I'm feckless. Many of us have to live with a disability."!!)

In many extended families in Yorkshire, the matriarch would depute one of the family, such as a teacher, to 'look after the books' and would tell the others to do what the books-keeper said, finances-wise.

My elder sister told me, after my mother had died, that Mother once said "Martin will need to get a wife who will look after the money, or he'll always be in trouble."

Fortunately, boys tend to follow their fathers and marry women like their mothers, and so I was saved from the possible dire effects of my disability.

To me, it makes sense to encourage teachers to manage small businesses 'on the side' and make employment for some who couldn't manage their own business.

Anything that gives teachers experience beyond the classroom is a good thing, I reckon.

Otherwise they become no good at preparing students to be anything other than more teachers.

[ColPyat]

"The installment plan offered in the last sort of landreform under Thaksin were for the poorest of the poor nearly impossible to fulfill, demanding installment payments that could not have paid from agricultural income alone."

Could that have been set up deliberately, with the thought that many of the 'the poorest of the poor' are in that position because they haven't got the money-management abilities necessary to handle borrowed capital?

I doubt, as this was land to be bought from the government actually reserved for the usage by the poor. I believe it was another well intended program that lacked because of knee jerk populism and the old problem that the decision makers are far removed from the daily experience of the poor.

Which though was less of a problem under Thaksin than under other governments, as Thaksin (still has?) had an enormous grass roots network, and many people of the Oktober generation in his party.

[younghusband]

For Constitutions, like everything else, the devil is in the details; and 'hammered' in post #4 points to the really devilish detail, which is:

"However, do any politicians actually even consider this mentuioned group. At the moment with the requirement to return to village to vote this group is almost ceratainly the largest group of non-voters and as such is easliy oignorable by politicians. The urban working class are still seemingly considered to be part of the village they came from even though less and less are returning, and their own political concerns are very different from the concerns of those living in the villages. Probably the biggest problem that Thailand could face in the medium term future is an alienated and disaffected urban working class."

In slightly different form, Britain had this situation just over a hundred years ago. Only men who had more than a certain level of property ownership could register and get their vote.

Finally, all men were enfranchised.

But the strongest political party, which was dominated by an industrial-ownership elite, didn't come to terms with such 'egalitarianism' and gradually faded to extinction like a political dinosaur. The Labour Party took its place, which meant, unfortunately, that there was very much an "Us" (industrial working class) versus "Them" (rural landowning aristocrats plus professionals) pervasion of British society, that lasted for two whole generations.

If the next Constitution doesn't enfranchise every adult, we will know that even partial democracy is unattainable in Thailand without going through social breakdown.

But who will champion the cause of the urban working class in the next twelve months? They are not in a position to do it for themselves and, nowadays, I can't see the students doing it---the academic hierarchy seem to have them well cowed. I hope I am proved wrong.

The British nineteenth century precedent is illuminating for Thailand.One point to bear in mind is that it is irrelevant to criticise politicians for advocating and implementing policies on the grounds these are for electoral advantage.It's interesting that many of the arguments one hears for restricting the participation in the political process of rural Thais are exactly the same as those made for restricting the role of the British working class in the early 19th century.Political ideas and electoral advantage go hand in hand, and thus Disraeli promulgated the "One Nation" policy which, contrary to what Martin implies, ensured a huge "respectable working class" element in Conservative support.This meant that the Conservatives had to pay a great deal of attention to social welfare programmes for the poor, and were remarkably successful in winning elections.

The way I see it, the Democrats in Thailand have a golden opportunity to put in place a one nation policy, borrowing certainly on the positive elements of the TRT rural policy, managing the economy on modern and transparent lines, cracking down on corruption (including a root and branch reform of the police force) and working in the context of a constitutional monarchy.We shall have to see exactly what the new constitution says but it would be tragic for Thailand if it included a disenfranchisement effect, but that would also make clear exactly what forces had come together to prevent full national participation.

[Heng]

Could that have been set up deliberately, with the thought that many of the 'the poorest of the poor' are in that position because they haven't got the money-management abilities necessary to handle borrowed capital?

Fortunately, one doesn't need to actually go to school to learn the universal truth "don't spend more than you earn." Life teaches one this over and over again all along the way. It's easy to say that "the poor" don't have these skills, as the ones that do aren't poor for long.

[ColPyat]

The way I see it, the Democrats in Thailand have a golden opportunity to put in place a one nation policy, borrowing certainly on the positive elements of the TRT rural policy, managing the economy on modern and transparent lines, cracking down on corruption (including a root and branch reform of the police force) and working in the context of a constitutional monarchy.We shall have to see exactly what the new constitution says but it would be tragic for Thailand if it included a disenfranchisement effect, but that would also make clear exactly what forces had come together to prevent full national participation.

I believe these conditions are not yet set in Thailand.

The ones we can safely talk about here are the Democrat Party - and they are years away from being able to sell a national policy to the people (if they actually have formed one), they are as riddled with corruption as any other party here. The police force is incredibly corrupt. And it might very well turn out that Chart Thai will become the strongest party in the next election, as it seems that most defecting TRT members are finding a home there, and therefore are able to bring regions of the country along that Chart Thai could never access successfully. And i doubt that the Democrats will be able to even campaign in the North and Isaarn.

[hammered]

For Constitutions, like everything else, the devil is in the details; and 'hammered' in post #4 points to the really devilish detail, which is:

"However, do any politicians actually even consider this mentuioned group. At the moment with the requirement to return to village to vote this group is almost ceratainly the largest group of non-voters and as such is easliy oignorable by politicians. The urban working class are still seemingly considered to be part of the village they came from even though less and less are returning, and their own political concerns are very different from the concerns of those living in the villages. Probably the biggest problem that Thailand could face in the medium term future is an alienated and disaffected urban working class."

In slightly different form, Britain had this situation just over a hundred years ago. Only men who had more than a certain level of property ownership could register and get their vote.

Finally, all men were enfranchised.

But the strongest political party, which was dominated by an industrial-ownership elite, didn't come to terms with such 'egalitarianism' and gradually faded to extinction like a political dinosaur. The Labour Party took its place, which meant, unfortunately, that there was very much an "Us" (industrial working class) versus "Them" (rural landowning aristocrats plus professionals) pervasion of British society, that lasted for two whole generations.

If the next Constitution doesn't enfranchise every adult, we will know that even partial democracy is unattainable in Thailand without going through social breakdown.

But who will champion the cause of the urban working class in the next twelve months? They are not in a position to do it for themselves and, nowadays, I can't see the students doing it---the academic hierarchy seem to have them well cowed. I hope I am proved wrong.

The British nineteenth century precedent is illuminating for Thailand.One point to bear in mind is that it is irrelevant to criticise politicians for advocating and implementing policies on the grounds these are for electoral advantage.It's interesting that many of the arguments one hears for restricting the participation in the political process of rural Thais are exactly the same as those made for restricting the role of the British working class in the early 19th century.Political ideas and electoral advantage go hand in hand, and thus Disraeli promulgated the "One Nation" policy which, contrary to what Martin implies, ensured a huge "respectable working class" element in Conservative support.This meant that the Conservatives had to pay a great deal of attention to social welfare programmes for the poor, and were remarkably successful in winning elections.

The way I see it, the Democrats in Thailand have a golden opportunity to put in place a one nation policy, borrowing certainly on the positive elements of the TRT rural policy, managing the economy on modern and transparent lines, cracking down on corruption (including a root and branch reform of the police force) and working in the context of a constitutional monarchy.We shall have to see exactly what the new constitution says but it would be tragic for Thailand if it included a disenfranchisement effect, but that would also make clear exactly what forces had come together to prevent full national participation.

It wouldbe a start if people could vote where they lived and worked rather than having to return to the land they are tied to, which still harks back to the days of feudalism. Returning home takes time and costs money both spent and in lost wages. The urban labor need to be given a voice.

[cclub75]

It wouldbe a start if people could vote where they lived and worked rather than having to return to the land they are tied to, which still harks back to the days of feudalism. Returning home takes time and costs money both spent and in lost wages. The urban labor need to be given a voice.

You're right. This point will be seen as a test for the new constitution (regarding it's philosophy).

This reminds me the old "internal passeport" in... USSR. They do have the same system in Vietnam, and China of course. And it's not surprising...

Furthermore, it's an illustration of this old thai obsession : land.

Everyone is supposed to belong (and work) to a piece of land.

In another times, the word for that was feudalism.

So, once again this could appear like a rather small technical "detail". But it's not.

[ColPyat]

It wouldbe a start if people could vote where they lived and worked rather than having to return to the land they are tied to, which still harks back to the days of feudalism. Returning home takes time and costs money both spent and in lost wages. The urban labor need to be given a voice.

I think the main problem with this is the idiotic registration process here. You can just simply register yourself as living in the place of choice, you have to get yourself removed from your home 'tabien ban', or completely move your 'tabien ban' and open a new one. It's a burocratic nightmare, and under circumstances will mean that you have huge disadvantages in your home village. And this is almost impossible if families are split between village and city. Instead of moving the complete 'tabien ban' one could also ask somebody who is registered in the city to be moved to his/her 'tabien ban', which is easier, but that also means loosing all rights in the home village.

This whole 'tabien ban' business is a strange control mechanism that does not exactly fit into 'the land of the free', a definate feudal remnant.

I doubt that this will change easily, it would mean a complete reform of the burocracy. And, personally, just reading the interim constitution, which has not a single article regarding civil liberties, looking at where the present PM comes from, and the proposed ministers, looking at the only very vague statements of the junta on when exactly martial law is going to be lifted, i am not very hopeful that feudal remnants are going to be touched. I fear that exactly the opposite is going to happen.

On the one hand everybody knows that things have to change here, but the powers are more than hesitant to give up, or change a certain status quo, and therefore i fear that this whole exercise will be just another halfarsed attempt that a few years down the line will lead to very similar problems.

Just look at it, so far, every single program that Thaksin has installed is going to be continued. The only difference apart from a change of personal is the promotion of a "sufficiency" economy opposed to Thaksin's consumer driven economy. But in the last two years or so, Thaksin's consumer driven economy has factually already started to change. The easy loans of the first two Thaksin years have been already slowly given way to a more controlled policy.

Other than the usual polemics, i have difficulties to see a real "patiroop".

Edited October 5, 2006 by ColPyat

[hammered]

It wouldbe a start if people could vote where they lived and worked rather than having to return to the land they are tied to, which still harks back to the days of feudalism. Returning home takes time and costs money both spent and in lost wages. The urban labor need to be given a voice.

I think the main problem with this is the idiotic registration process here. You can just simply register yourself as living in the place of choice, you have to get yourself removed from your home 'tabien ban', or completely move your 'tabien ban' and open a new one. It's a burocratic nightmare, and under circumstances will mean that you have huge disadvantages in your home village. And this is almost impossible if families are split between village and city. Instead of moving the complete 'tabien ban' one could also ask somebody who is registered in the city to be moved to his/her 'tabien ban', which is easier, but that also means loosing all rights in the home village.

This whole 'tabien ban' business is a strange control mechanism that does not exactly fit into 'the land of the free', a definate feudal remnant.

I doubt that this will change easily, it would mean a complete reform of the burocracy. And, personally, just reading the interim constitution, which has not a single article regarding civil liberties, looking at where the present PM comes from, and the proposed ministers, looking at the only very vague statements of the junta on when exactly martial law is going to be lifted, i am not very hopeful that feudal remnants are going to be touched. I fear that exactly the opposite is going to happen.

On the one hand everybody knows that things have to change here, but the powers are more than hesitant to give up, or change a certain status quo, and therefore i fear that this whole exercise will be just another halfarsed attempt that a few years down the line will lead to very similar problems.

Just look at it, so far, every single program that Thaksin has installed is going to be continued. The only difference apart from a change of personal is the promotion of a "sufficiency" economy opposed to Thaksin's consumer driven economy. But in the last two years or so, Thaksin's consumer driven economy has factually already started to change. The easy loans of the first two Thaksin years have been already slowly given way to a more controlled policy.

Other than the usual polemics, i have difficulties to see a real "patiroop".

I agree with you that this massive and neccessary reform of the tabien bahn system will not come easily if at all as it is so ingrained. Yes people who work away from the vilage can get themselves put on the tessabhn tabian bahn if they move to a town area, but as signed copies of tabien bahns are needed for so many things most would be reluctant to do this as getting anything signed off of the local government can be a nightmare. Similarly it is possible to be registered on a friends tabien bahn but again getting signed copies can be a strain on a relationship, so most will opt to remain tied to the land so far away. That is all just from the perspective of the urban worker. When we consider overhauling the bureaucracy, we are talking of radical change which will take more political courage than any decision by any government before. However, I hope that am wrong because I believe failing to deal with the aspirations and needs of this rapidly expanding urban group will have negative social repurcussions on a large scale, and having said that of course it is not too late to do something now.

[cclub75]

I doubt that this will change easily, it would mean a complete reform of the burocracy.

Well, we will need to see the new constitution (not the interim one).

But, I share your views.

I bet, 19/09 will be seen as a "conservative revolution"...

But.... wait a minute... my informer just gave me an important news : last saturday, RCA closed at 3 AM, and bars at Tonglor at 4h30 (true).

Police on a low profile ? Specific instructions from the junta to ease the tension ("Okay, let them have a drink and get pissed") temporarily ? Or the official end of the Thaksin Vertue Versus Vice Campaign ?

I told you : conservative.

[ColPyat]

I doubt that this will change easily, it would mean a complete reform of the burocracy.

Well, we will need to see the new constitution (not the interim one).

But, I share your views.

I bet, 19/09 will be seen as a "conservative revolution"...

But.... wait a minute... my informer just gave me an important news : last saturday, RCA closed at 3 AM, and bars at Tonglor at 4h30 (true).

Police on a low profile ? Specific instructions from the junta to ease the tension ("Okay, let them have a drink and get pissed") temporarily ? Or the official end of the Thaksin Vertue Versus Vice Campaign ?

I told you : conservative.

More like, the authorities have far more to worry about now than strictly enforcing closing hours.

But yes, i believe that the nightlife will return back to normal, for now. Let the people drink and party, as long as they don't start questioning the status quo. Panem et circenses worked already in Rome as a diversion tactic...

And as to the naughty nightlife, I believe there is still the believe under many of the powerful here, that as long as girls can make their money in the nightlife, and bring some of that back to the village, they don't need to spend too much time and effort in thinking about initiating certain economical changes there. It's anyhow not their daughters, but just some peasants. I actually have heard that theory more than once from some politicians directly...

The Thai system was always somewhat pyramidical, geared towards allowing the bottom as much personal freedom as they want, as long as the status quo of the power elites is not questioned. At the same time though the power elites could hold their feuds, infights and profeteering without outside disturbance.

Almost perfect...

[ColPyat]

When we consider overhauling the bureaucracy, we are talking of radical change which will take more political courage than any decision by any government before. However, I hope that am wrong because I believe failing to deal with the aspirations and needs of this rapidly expanding urban group will have negative social repurcussions on a large scale, and having said that of course it is not too late to do something now.

Far too many people benefit from the way things are. The way things are here, people are not exactly encouraged to rock the boat, and there is that self projected image of Thailand that is very much in the way. So i am rather pessimistic that these changes are introduced. It is never too late, but i would wish that the necessary changes are not only coing at a time when they are forced onto them by circumstances of overwhelming problems.