Pm Surayud's Speech To Joint Foreign Chambers Of Commerce

[Siripon]

So far, the response from officials here on foreign criticism on 'sufficiency economy' and the new business regulations was that maybe we foreigners did not really understand even though PM Gen. Surayudh is trying to explain this patiently.

Problem is, we understand perfectly, but many of us simply do not buy into it.

This is what I think annoys people the most about this regime. They are incredibly arrogant and shortsighted in their policy making and then insinuate that it's everyone else who doesn't understand. Of course they ignore their country's OWN experts as well such as the numerous economists at Chula, investment bankers, and financial analysts who said that the amended FBA and currency controls would be a very bad idea.

If they believe Thai people are so enlightened and can never do wrong then why is Thailand STILL a developing world country mired in poor education, poverty, and immense social problems? Of course it's the foreigners doing all of this.. hel_l with the tone that they use to talk to other countries and their own people you would think that Thailand is a global superpower. Utterly lame and pathetic. Thaksin may have been a corrupt windbag but at least he was a somewhat pragmatic businessman who knew not to piss off foreign investors or institute archaic anti-foreigner resolutions.

I don't think Thais ever said it's all the foreigners' doing', and that they are all enlightened and can do no wrong.

The verdict is still out regarding currency and FBA regulations, wait and see how the economy does, as for the pragmatic Thaksin, the new airport isn't looking so good.

Regarding ' immense' social problems, why do most Thais seem to still enjoy life?

[AlexLah]

Why there was no Q&A after the speech hmmmmm.....?

[ColPyat]

The Thai media never lost their teeth, what are you talking about?

They have analysed and criticised the government almost from day one.

To call them sycophantic is a gross slur, especially from someone who can't read Thai.

But i do speak and understand Thai, and watch Thai news on TV regularly. And yes, i know that public Thai TV is, apart from ITV, under military control, and Thai newspapers are somewhat more free, but TV is where most Thais do get their news. And yes, it is mostly sycophantic crap, more so than under Thaksin.

And what do you call the decision by UBC to censor the Thaksin interview and follow the "request" of the junta other than sycophantic? Also, the broadcast media was not anymore present at the last anti coup demonstration, and far less members of the Thai print media.

But maybe you should have a look to a country in the region that does have a courageous media, such as India, to see how it could be here in Thailand.

Regarding ' immense' social problems, why do most Thais seem to still enjoy life?

Maybe it does not tell you much that Thailand has one of the world's largest gaps between rich and poor, enormous problems with landright issues, and an increasing crime rate that is very worrying. As long as you see some peasants tending their buffaloes and having a laugh when drinking some cheap lao khao your world is appearantly perfectly in order.

I might be advisable to take your blindfolds off, get out of your defensive position and have a bit of a closer look at your own society.

Happy happy na krap...

Edit:

Just on channel 7 news is another nice news clip about some kids that had a shoot out. Two kids on a motorcycle shot a kid dead who was riding in a bus, in the middle of the day at Victory Monument.

Happy happy na krap..

Edited January 25, 2007 by ColPyat

[thedude]

Why there was no Q&A after the speech hmmmmm.....?

actually there was....but not a "barage of questions" as reported in the press. there was time for questions from only 2 individuals. the first was a gentleman from the european commission who asked specifically about complaince to WTO obligations to which Thailand is also bound, and secondly he asked about the definition of "nominee". the commerce minister was picked to do the answering because he had been involved in WTO negotiations for the past 4 years, according to pridiyathorn. he begged to take the stand rather than answer from his seat, and embarked on a long speech lasting maybe 15 minutes. very eloquant i must say, in a sort of oxbridge style oratory, complete with introductory anecdote, the occassional joke to rouse a warm chuckle from the audience, and then artfully turning to seriousness and ernest assurances that the government has the international community at heart and that FBA changes are not in conflict with the WTO but in fact enhances shared notions of social equity blah blah....he didn't quite define nominee either, only to say that a nominee was one whose intent is to circumvent the law on foreign ownership. i guess 'intent' being the operative word.

after that long speech, they only had time for 1 more question. they picked from the floor a thai gentleman who himself proceeded to talk for about 5 minutes, he praised the interim government for their honesty and righteousness, expressed understanding of the problems they are facing in the south, wished gen surayud good health, thanked him for taking over the government, by which time the moderator was interrupting him and asking if he did in fact have a question. the thai gentleman ignored the moderator and continued.....recalling HM's statement that men of advanced age have a lot of wisdom to run the government, he commented that perhaps the government would consider raising the retirement age to 65, saying that they had done the same in other countries like japan....obviously i am not quoting verbatim but the guy really went on for quite a while, the moderator intercepted again to no effect.

finally when the thai gentleman's comments were done, the moderator was at a loss as to whether he did actually ask any question, he offered to maybe move on to another question from the audience, as there were already several hands raised on the floor. but gen surayud stopped him, he took the mic and proceeded to thank the thai gentleman and then talked a bit about how the government might consider the idea of raising the retirement age and a few other points on domestic administration which i failed to take note of. after that the PM and all the ministers stood up and left. suffice to say the international community present felt a little short changed on their opportunity to quiz the panel of ministers.

[ColPyat]

suffice to say the international community present felt a little short changed on their opportunity to quiz the panel of ministers.

Seems that they have learned from earlier occasions where those farang were asking all these nosy questions they couldn't answer.

[wintermute]

I don't think Thais ever said it's all the foreigners' doing', and that they are all enlightened and can do no wrong.

Actions speak louder than words and so far we're seeing lots of kneejerk policies and overreactive attitudes towards foreigners in all sectors of business and social institutions.

The verdict is still out regarding currency and FBA regulations, wait and see how the economy does

I don't see how the verdict is out at all, they have instated and rescinded policies at least 3 times by my count. That doesn't show credibility in decision making, it shows incompetency and inconsistency. Thailand is receiving loads of negative media from financial analysts, banking firms, and MNCs abroad. Your appraisal of the situation is unrealistically optimistic while your regime runs roughshod over the country. Well, I guess TiT.

, as for the pragmatic Thaksin, the new airport isn't looking so good.

That's true but Thaksin overall had a net positive on the business community I think even his worst detractor would find it hard to fault high digit growth rate for Thailand since 2001.

Regarding ' immense' social problems, why do most Thais seem to still enjoy life?

I find that Thais tend to gloss over their real feelings about problems in favor of face and social acceptance. Your average Thai fairs far far worse in life expectancy, gdp per capita, education, overall health, human rights, and social mobility compared with the developed nations in Asia. You'd have to be blind if you haven't read all the NGO reports and Human rights watch issues coming out of Thailand.

Edited January 26, 2007 by wintermute

[hammered]

I don't think Thais ever said it's all the foreigners' doing', and that they are all enlightened and can do no wrong.

Actions speak louder than words and so far we're seeing lots of kneejerk policies and overreactive attitudes towards foreigners in all sectors of business and social institutions.

The verdict is still out regarding currency and FBA regulations, wait and see how the economy does

I don't see how the verdict is out at all, they have instated and rescinded policies at least 3 times by my count. That doesn't show credibility in decision making, it shows incompetency and inconsistency. Thailand is receiving loads of negative media from financial analysts, banking firms, and MNCs abroad. Your appraisal of the situation is unrealistically optimistic while your regime runs roughshod over the country. Well, I guess TiT.

, as for the pragmatic Thaksin, the new airport isn't looking so good.

That's true but Thaksin overall had a net positive on the business community I think even his worst detractor would find it hard to fault high digit growth rate for Thailand since 2001.

Regarding ' immense' social problems, why do most Thais seem to still enjoy life?

I find that Thais tend to gloss over their real feelings about problems in favor of face and social acceptance. Your average Thai fairs far far worse in life expectancy, gdp per capita, education, overall health, human rights, and social mobility compared with the developed nations in Asia. You'd have to be blind if you haven't read all the NGO reports and Human rights watch issues coming out of Thailand.

Surely it would make sense at this point in Thailands development to compare it to the undeveloped or developing nations that make up most of Asia rather than the few developed countries. It doesnt at all surprise me that Thailand is behind developed countriesin these areas although I could name one not too far away developed so called country that has worse human rights in terms of freedom of the opposition although I doubt that the said country has so many extra-judicial executions as Thailand has in the past few years.

[wintermute]

Surely it would make sense at this point in Thailands development to compare it to the undeveloped or developing nations that make up most of Asia rather than the few developed countries.

If Thailand wants to view itself in the same esteem as developed countries then it shouldn't set the bar so low. It'd be a joke to compare this country to Laos, Cambodia, or Myanmar. All 3 of those countries have suffered through regional wars. Thailand has also had a headstart on the rest of Asia because it was never actually colonized or suffered devastation from war.

[younghusband]

Surely it would make sense at this point in Thailands development to compare it to the undeveloped or developing nations that make up most of Asia rather than the few developed countries.

If Thailand wants to view itself in the same esteem as developed countries then it shouldn't set the bar so low. It'd be a joke to compare this country to Laos, Cambodia, or Myanmar. All 3 of those countries have suffered through regional wars. Thailand has also had a headstart on the rest of Asia because it was never actually colonized or suffered devastation from war.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that Thailand might have been disadvantaged by the fact it was never actually colonised.I'm glad it wasn't because it would not be fully recognisable as the Thailand most of us feel affection for.Nevertheless you could argue that it was the British colonization of Malaysia that gave that country its "head start".There are strong arguments both ways.I'm inclined to believe that Thailand might have benefited from a say British tutelage in terms of infrastructure, law, business ethics and education.On the other hand it's human nature to prefer to rule yourself badly if necessary rather than having someone else rule over you well.Furthermore the Thais are remarkably unhung up about race, which would not necessarily have ben the case if they had been colonised.

[wintermute]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that Thailand might have been disadvantaged by the fact it was never actually colonised.

Yes it has and I disagree that colonization benefits countries, it's actually the period after post-colonization where most former colonies began to develop in earnest. Most of the times those societies were so ruined by war and resource exploitation that it's disengenuous to suggest that any beneficial institutions left by colonizers had a net positive impact. Most colonies were just parochial societies that were heavily tithed by their colonial overlords.

Nevertheless you could argue that it was the British colonization of Malaysia that gave that country its "head start".

I think more British experiments in colonization have failed than succeeded. India underwent centuries of generally oppressive and highly divisive civil rule before ghandis movement. The only thing that the Brits did right in Malaysia was leave the British infrastructure intact and run out the communist insurgency. Of course for every Malaysia there's an Afghanistan, Burma, Pakistan, Palestine, or Iraq which the Brits also had a heavy hand in.

Furthermore the Thais are remarkably unhung up about race, which would not necessarily have ben the case if they had been colonised.

I don't think you've talked to many Thais about race..they have several hangups about race including their own inferiority complex.

Edited January 26, 2007 by wintermute

[ColPyat]

I think more British experiments in colonization have failed than succeeded. India underwent centuries of generally oppressive and highly divisive civil rule before ghandis movement. The only thing that the Brits did right in Malaysia was leave the British infrastructure intact and run out the communist insurgency. Of course for every Malaysia there's an Afghanistan, Burma, Pakistan, Palestine, or Iraq which the Brits also had a heavy hand in.

Actually, India was a bit more complex than "generally opressive and highly divisive". Don't forget that before Brits "ruled" India, the place was more divided than ever before or after, and oppression did not exactly start or stop with the Raj in India - the cast system was not exactly a British invention.

I recently came across a very interesting criticism about the Ghandi movie, which does show the whole period in a bit of a different light. If anyone is interested in some off topical non-PC reading...

The Gandhi Nobody Knows

http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Edited January 26, 2007 by ColPyat

[Siripon]

I don't think Thais ever said it's all the foreigners' doing', and that they are all enlightened and can do no wrong.

Actions speak louder than words and so far we're seeing lots of kneejerk policies and overreactive attitudes towards foreigners in all sectors of business and social institutions.

The verdict is still out regarding currency and FBA regulations, wait and see how the economy does

I don't see how the verdict is out at all, they have instated and rescinded policies at least 3 times by my count. That doesn't show credibility in decision making, it shows incompetency and inconsistency. Thailand is receiving loads of negative media from financial analysts, banking firms, and MNCs abroad. Your appraisal of the situation is unrealistically optimistic while your regime runs roughshod over the country. Well, I guess TiT.

, as for the pragmatic Thaksin, the new airport isn't looking so good.

That's true but Thaksin overall had a net positive on the business community I think even his worst detractor would find it hard to fault high digit growth rate for Thailand since 2001.

Regarding ' immense' social problems, why do most Thais seem to still enjoy life?

I find that Thais tend to gloss over their real feelings about problems in favor of face and social acceptance. Your average Thai fairs far far worse in life expectancy, gdp per capita, education, overall health, human rights, and social mobility compared with the developed nations in Asia. You'd have to be blind if you haven't read all the NGO reports and Human rights watch issues coming out of Thailand.

But most Thais are happy regardless of social statistics, compare Thailand with Korea or Singapore, there is far more laughter in Thailand. I believe the Scandinavian countries feature in the top ten regarding standard of living, human rights,etc, but their literature is full of gloom. As for Japan, arranging suicides between strangers on the internet!

So many farangs say to me one of the main things they love about Thailand is the good humour and fun apparent in everyday life. Are these things measured on a sociological chart?

Overreactive attitudes to foreigners in social institutions. Apart from business, do you mean visa rules written by Thaksin's government?

The high digit growth you quote, was it ever over 5%? How much was inherited from The Democrats stabilising the economy after Chavalit's rule?

And how much government debt was hidden from the official balance sheet, stored in government banks and institutions, and how much did the average household debt increase, especially in comparison to increase of earnings?

Thaksin is a wizard only in monopolies, either financial or political. Once he has to face competition,as in a Parliamentary debate, he cuts and runs. A coward.

[younghusband]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that Thailand might have been disadvantaged by the fact it was never actually colonised.

Yes it has and I disagree that colonization benefits countries, it's actually the period after post-colonization where most former colonies began to develop in earnest. Most of the times those societies were so ruined by war and resource exploitation that it's disengenuous to suggest that any beneficial institutions left by colonizers had a net positive impact. Most colonies were just parochial societies that were heavily tithed by their colonial overlords.

Nevertheless you could argue that it was the British colonization of Malaysia that gave that country its "head start".

I think more British experiments in colonization have failed than succeeded. India underwent centuries of generally oppressive and highly divisive civil rule before ghandis movement. The only thing that the Brits did right in Malaysia was leave the British infrastructure intact and run out the communist insurgency. Of course for every Malaysia there's an Afghanistan, Burma, Pakistan, Palestine, or Iraq which the Brits also had a heavy hand in.

Furthermore the Thais are remarkably unhung up about race, which would not necessarily have ben the case if they had been colonised.

I don't think you've talked to many Thais about race..they have several hangups about race including their own inferiority complex.

I hope you would have noticed my original comment was deliberately undogmatic, and we can agree on much of your comments above (though you seem rather adrift on Indian history).I certainly don't think colonization benefits all countries, but it has to be seen in its historical context.It's in any case not so much the infrastructure of roads, bridges and railways that matters as the cultural, legal and business infrastructure where Thailand is in general sadly lacking.The debt of Malaysia to British influence is therefore far greater than you suggest.The same applies to Singapore and Hong Kong which owe their huge success at least partly to British rule.As I say its not the physical infrastructure that matters (not very much in Singapore for example) but a cultural inheritance.But I would certainly agree there are many negatives.

Of course many Thais have racial prejudices like every other country.That's not the point I was making.I was pointing out that Thailand is largely free of the poisoning effect of the colonization process, namely the embittered relationship between the governing and governed races which plagued many countries.Burma is a sad example of this.Finally I disagree your comment about the Thai inferiority complex and am tempted to say the problem is the opposite!

[Paul MBMG]

Notwithstanding all of the various comments on the post, I agree with many of the dude's comments (especially about the extremely annoying second questioner) and overall I thought that the PM's presentation was extremely impressive as was the MoC's rather pre-prepared response to whatever FBA question he was going to be asked. That these are smart competent people is without question.

I'd also point out that it seemed that many of the neighbouring tables (ours fortunately had a fairly open debate to the points raised) were populated by at least some people who had made up their minds in advance that whatever was said, they'd already taken against the FBA, 30% rules etc without understanding them, the need for them or the implications of them. No point going to a speech if you're not prepared to listen.....

One thing

Why there was no Q&A after the speech hmmmmm.....?

actually there was....but not a "barage of questions" as reported in the press. there was time for questions from only 2 individuals. the first was a gentleman from the european commission who asked specifically about complaince to WTO obligations to which Thailand is also bound, and secondly he asked about the definition of "nominee". the commerce minister was picked to do the answering because he had been involved in WTO negotiations for the past 4 years, according to pridiyathorn. he begged to take the stand rather than answer from his seat, and embarked on a long speech lasting maybe 15 minutes. very eloquant i must say, in a sort of oxbridge style oratory, complete with introductory anecdote, the occassional joke to rouse a warm chuckle from the audience, and then artfully turning to seriousness and ernest assurances that the government has the international community at heart and that FBA changes are not in conflict with the WTO but in fact enhances shared notions of social equity blah blah....he didn't quite define nominee either, only to say that a nominee was one whose intent is to circumvent the law on foreign ownership. i guess 'intent' being the operative word.

after that long speech, they only had time for 1 more question. they picked from the floor a thai gentleman who himself proceeded to talk for about 5 minutes, he praised the interim government for their honesty and righteousness, expressed understanding of the problems they are facing in the south, wished gen surayud good health, thanked him for taking over the government, by which time the moderator was interrupting him and asking if he did in fact have a question. the thai gentleman ignored the moderator and continued.....recalling HM's statement that men of advanced age have a lot of wisdom to run the government, he commented that perhaps the government would consider raising the retirement age to 65, saying that they had done the same in other countries like japan....obviously i am not quoting verbatim but the guy really went on for quite a while, the moderator intercepted again to no effect.

finally when the thai gentleman's comments were done, the moderator was at a loss as to whether he did actually ask any question, he offered to maybe move on to another question from the audience, as there were already several hands raised on the floor. but gen surayud stopped him, he took the mic and proceeded to thank the thai gentleman and then talked a bit about how the government might consider the idea of raising the retirement age and a few other points on domestic administration which i failed to take note of. after that the PM and all the ministers stood up and left. suffice to say the international community present felt a little short changed on their opportunity to quiz the panel of ministers.