Anger at new junta law banning populist policy

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, baboon said:

If you want to know who will be judging what is what, just look for the men standing beside the tanks. Yes, the same folk who say one thing then do the polar opposite. "Hypocrite" doesn't even begin to cover it...

I don't wan't to know but I got a feeling its someone who does not supports the PTP. 

 

Will see how this works out, will force the parties to compete with real idea's not just schemes aimed at getting as much votes as possible no matter the costs. How i wish they had an organisation like back in the Netherlands who put all the election programs through a computer simulation to see if they are feasible and if not too much money is spend. This way the playing field is leveled and if you promise presents (popular policies) you have to find cover for them in your budget too.

[RichardColeman]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I agree with this!  let's have 'Un-Populist Policies'  no more 'Happiness' 

have that already - called the Junta

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't wan't to know but I got a feeling its someone who does not supports the PTP. 

 

Will see how this works out, will force the parties to compete with real idea's not just schemes aimed at getting as much votes as possible no matter the costs. How i wish they had an organisation like back in the Netherlands who put all the election programs through a computer simulation to see if they are feasible and if not too much money is spend. This way the playing field is leveled and if you promise presents (popular policies) you have to find cover for them in your budget too.

There is no point in ideas when the winners are simply there to implement NCPO policy and carry the can for their failures. They demonstrate their lack of integrity by standing at all in / for these rigged elections when what they should be doing is screaming blue murder from the rooftops.

[robblok]

Just now, baboon said:

There is no point in ideas when the winners are simply there to implement NCPO policy and carry the can for their failures. They demonstrate their lack of integrity by standing at all in / for these rigged elections when what they should be doing is screaming blue murder from the rooftops.

Yes but then if they win they don't get their cut.. your expecting Thai politicians to be there for the people instead of themselves. 

 

Nobody is going to boycot the elections.. if they do and the others don't then they lose out in the race for the gravy train.

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes but then if they win they don't get their cut.. your expecting Thai politicians to be there for the people instead of themselves. 

 

Nobody is going to boycot the elections.. if they do and the others don't then they lose out in the race for the gravy train.

We frequently disagree on politics but in this instance I think you will find we are actually saying the same thing here. Just approaching it from different angles.

[seajae]

the only ones bitching about it are the ones that need to be able to use it to win, all policies should be scrutinized by accountants to ensure they are not simply being promoted to bribe the voters, in Australia all parties are required to submit their policies to be checked before the election. Problem in Thailand is that bribes are expected, voters are so used to being paid for their votes they will be lost if they are not going to gain financially from it, will also upset the ones running the parties as they wont be able to do cash grabs for themselves. Thailand needs an honest party that is there for the countries benefit, not their own, the 2 major parties are both past their use by and are only interested in what they can pocket if they win, there really does have to be an over site committee to ensure that the winning party do not rip off the country but then they would probably be influenced by the envelopes being offered to look the other way 

Edited April 21, 2018 by seajae

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, baboon said:

We frequently disagree on politics but in this instance I think you will find we are actually saying the same thing here. Just approaching it from different angles.

Quite probably.

 

The thing is this, the parties (dont think a single one will be big enough) that will come to power will have a hard time and will probably lose votes as they have to carry out some NCPO policies, however this does not stop them from wanting to be in government because its about the money they can make when they are in government. 

 

We will have to see how things pan out.. I have no idea. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, seajae said:

the only ones bitching about it are the ones that need to be able to use it to win, all policies should be scrutinized by accountants to ensure they are not simply being promoted to bribe the voters, in Australia all parties are required to submit their policies to be checked before the election. Problem in Thailand is that bribes are expected, voters are so used to being paid for their votes they will be lost if they are not going to gain financially from it, will also upset the ones running the parties as they wont be able to do cash grabs for themselves. Thailand needs an honest party that is there for the countries benefit, not their own, the 2 major parties are both past their use by and are only interested in what they can pocket if they win, there really does have to be an over site committee to ensure that the winning party do not rip off the country but then they would probably be influenced by the envelopes being offered to look the other way 

Same as in the Netherlands, the policies are checked put in some computer model to see if they are feasible. I think that is the way things should be then parties can't get an advantage by promising things they can't do.

 

For instance it does not ban popular policies but these policies should be financed with the money available so they can't promise too much otherwise they must make cuts elsewhere. So if they promise 1000 tax rebate for everyone then to stay within budget restraints they would have to either increase taxes or cut somewhere else. So it all stays fair and parties can't over spend to get votes.

 

The problem here is that the ones who are checking the policies of the parties might be bias. 

[KhunFred]

How could  they do otherwise? You do not stay in power by granting freedom. The military is a permanent fixture, politicians are merely window dressing.

[baboon]

28 minutes ago, seajae said:

the only ones bitching about it are the ones that need to be able to use it to win

The junta aren't bitching about it at all; it is them introducing this law. Which like every other law they will not abide by themselves if it proves in any way inconvenient. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by baboon

[JOC]

30 minutes ago, baboon said:

There is no point in ideas when the winners are simply there to implement NCPO policy and carry the can for their failures. They demonstrate their lack of integrity by standing at all in / for these rigged elections when what they should be doing is screaming blue murder from the rooftops.

Spot on...!!

Even the terms for the discussion here is dictated by the junta, and we blindly oblige (no choice really)

Most are fed up with the military running the country....and in their naivety believes, that an elected government will solve all problems....

Of course that is not going to happen....PTP, Democrats and Future Forward are all part of the same inbred system....where you serve the interest of yourself and the people around you (not to be confused with the people)

To move Thailand away from this never ending cycle of corrupt politicians and equally corrupt coup makers, we (the Thai people) need to think think outside the box.

Thailand badly needs a Social Democrat-like party, where the leaders are recruited from grassroot level, and where they (the leaders) have a genuine interest in serving the people, who elected them. Add to that strong unions and the willingness to tax the rich, and maybe some kind of economic equality can be achieved down the road.

Yes it will make Thailand more expensive, but will create a more fair society.

 

[Samui Bodoh]

4 minutes ago, JOC said:

Spot on...!!

Even the terms for the discussion here is dictated by the junta, and we blindly oblige (no choice really)

Most are fed up with the military running the country....and in their naivety believes, that an elected government will solve all problems....

Of course that is not going to happen....PTP, Democrats and Future Forward are all part of the same inbred system....where you serve the interest of yourself and the people around you (not to be confused with the people)

To move Thailand away from this never ending cycle of corrupt politicians and equally corrupt coup makers, we (the Thai people) need to think think outside the box.

Thailand badly needs a Social Democrat-like party, where the leaders are recruited from grassroot level, and where they (the leaders) have a genuine interest in serving the people, who elected them. Add to that strong unions and the willingness to tax the rich, and maybe some kind of economic equality can be achieved down the road.

Yes it will make Thailand more expensive, but will create a more fair society.

 

Hi JOC

 

Let me disagree with your post, but respectfully!

 

There are some who argue that it is futile to run and form a government as it would be beholden to the Military. There is some truth to this, but on the other hand, if there is going to be a fight, then the opposition needs to have some power and a 'soap box'. Were I ever in the position that I wanted to propose a policy but had to run it by the Military first, I'd do so publicly and LOUDLY say that the Military is acting like a whore/harlot; having power but no responsibility. Then I would LOUDLY proclaim that if the Military didn't sign off on it, then the Military will be to blame (and I'd screw up the alternate policy in order to blame the Military). If they did sign off on it, then I would question why they had the 'sign-off' power if it didn't mean anything. The point in all this is that the opposition needs some power and a 'soapbox'. If there is no voice, there will never be power.

 

Conversely, it might be a good thing if parties boycott the election process, BUT that would only work if ALL the Democratic parties agreed. I do not see that kind of coordination in Thai politics at the moment, but if it were to crop up... Personally, I'd be starting quiet discussions for a 'Democratic Manifesto' for all parties, but that is me...

 

Again, I can't really argue that Thailand doesn't need a social democrat party, but I set my sights MUCH lower. I want to see the next Parliament have an elected government who completes their term and passes power to another elected government. That is all. As far as I am concerned, anything on top of that would be a bonus; respectfully to all TVF members, I think it is time to lower your expectations. If I might use the UK as an example (many TVF members are UK citizens), it was 800 years or so between the signing of the Magna Carta and the birth of the Labour party; political evolution/change takes time.

 

Finally, I harp on this over and over, but...

 

The parties need to start questioning the election process and stating that if the process is unfair, then they will not recognize the result. The only reason that the Junta is talking election is that they need legitimacy; that is the hammer that the parties need to hold over their head. And, BTW, mention repeatedly that Thaksin and Yingluck were able to get elected honestly and ask why the Junta is so afraid of a fair fight. Just to piss off Prayut!

 

Interesting times...

 

 

[Eric Loh]

#JOC & SB

No disagreement with both of your posts. IMHO What Thailand really need is an educated and informed electorates, independent courts, non partisan media and continuous election. Foremost, the constitution must reflect the spirit of participation by the people; maybe in the line of the 1997 charter.

 

Thailand has one of the highest voter turnout in the world and show that citizens desire to determine their choice of leaders. Better educated informed voters and elections will bolster their empowerment and help them in better decision making. Meanwhile, something must be done to rein in the military intrusion into politics and hold them accountable for illegal seizure of elected government.

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

#JOC & SB

No disagreement with both of your posts. IMHO What Thailand really need is an educated and informed electorates, independent courts, non partisan media and continuous election. Foremost, the constitution must reflect the spirit of participation by the people; maybe in the line of the 1997 charter.

 

Thailand has one of the highest voter turnout in the world and show that citizens desire to determine their choice of leaders. Better educated informed voters and elections will bolster their empowerment and help them in better decision making. Meanwhile, something must be done to rein in the military intrusion into politics and hold them accountable for illegal seizure of elected government.

I disagree with you on the vote turnout that it shows political involvement.  Just shows the power the canvassers and local leaders hold. They get punished if the turnout is low  (by those funding them).

 

If there was so much real political involvement then those few protests we have now would be far larger. 

[Eligius]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

 

If there was so much real political involvement then those few protests we have now would be far larger. 

Good point! One of my bitterest disappointments is that those brave students (and others) who dare to stand up to the junta are not joined by thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of supporters. If only!

Edited April 21, 2018 by Eligius

[Lupatria]

Do people in civilized countries understand the term 'junta law'?

[Eligius]

3 minutes ago, Lupatria said:

Do people in civilized countries understand the term 'junta law'?

Right! 'Junta law' is an oxymoron: an illegal body has no mandate or right whatsoever to institute any new laws at all. Anything that comes out of a military junta is automatically null and void - completely illegal and illegitimate. Or should be!

[Eric Loh]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

I disagree with you on the vote turnout that it shows political involvement.  Just shows the power the canvassers and local leaders hold. They get punished if the turnout is low  (by those funding them).

 

If there was so much real political involvement then those few protests we have now would be far larger. 

Really simple explanation and totally exonerate your assumption that the red shirts are violent protestors. Show them being a law abiding group and perhaps cowed by intimidating junta bias actions and chose brains versus brawn. They are smart enough to wait for the election to embarrass the junta parties and not give the junta any excuse to cancel the election. 

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Really simple explanation and totally exonerate your assumption that the red shirts are violent protestors. Show them being a law abiding group and perhaps cowed by intimidating junta bias actions and chose brains versus brawn. They are smart enough to wait for the election to embarrass the junta parties and not give the junta any excuse to cancel the election. 

Thank you for giving me the laugh of the day calling the reds law abiding non violent. Though for now your right and lets hope you stay right I kinda like it that I don't have to see on the news that they gun down people. Maybe the junta should just stay on don't you think Eric, it made the reds law abiding. (just joking of course)

 

Unlike you i don't see the people of Thailand being real political involved (with the exception of students and of course the office  workers who helped bring down YL). In general the poor (on both sides) only get bused in after the students and genuine political involved people have started a fire. Then the larger parties abuse this by busing in their rent a mob. The really political motivated are a real small percentage.. the rest just follows orders from those with the money. 

 

The proof is that they are bused in.. don't come with own transportation are fed and often paid too. Those are not spontaneous protest.. but organised by the larger parties once a fire has started. (kinda how Suthep brought support in after genuine people started to protest against the amnesty)

Edited April 21, 2018 by robblok

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

Thank you for giving me the laugh of the day calling the reds law abiding non violent. Though for now your right and lets hope you stay right I kinda like it that I don't have to see on the news that they gun down people. Maybe the junta should just stay on don't you think Eric, it made the reds law abiding. (just joking of course)

 

Unlike you i don't see the people of Thailand being real political involved (with the exception of students and of course the office  workers who helped bring down YL). In general the poor (on both sides) only get bused in after the students and genuine political involved people have started a fire. Then the larger parties abuse this by busing in their rent a mob. The really political motivated are a real small percentage.. the rest just follows orders from those with the money. 

 

The proof is that they are bused in.. don't come with own transportation are fed and often paid too. Those are not spontaneous protest.. but organised by the larger parties once a fire has started. (kinda how Suthep brought support in after genuine people started to protest against the amnesty)

That you able to laugh surprise and pleases me. I am glad that the red shirts stay away and not allowed to be gunned by the trigger happy military. I am sure you recalled that atrocity when 80 civilians shot by the military in 2010. 

 

Really out of my control or anyone control if the junta stay on at their peril. Prayut is not that stupid or is he. 

 

At least we have consensus on the paid mob. The disagreement is that one group asked for election while the other pathing the way for the coup. Kind of righteous against immorality. 

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

That you able to laugh surprise and pleases me. I am glad that the red shirts stay away and not allowed to be gunned by the trigger happy military. I am sure you recalled that atrocity when 80 civilians shot by the military in 2010. 

 

Really out of my control or anyone control if the junta stay on at their peril. Prayut is not that stupid or is he. 

 

At least we have consensus on the paid mob. The disagreement is that one group asked for election while the other pathing the way for the coup. Kind of righteous against immorality. 

Your first paragraph made me laugh again.. good reply. (we are actually not sure how many are shot by the military and how many by the men in black but im not going to argue the majority would be because of the military)

 

Out of my control too, but on one had your saying the people are fearful and on the other hand you say junta stays at their peril. That does not really compute for me. (IMHO the people are just not interested in disposing the junta only to be replaced by someone who feeds them a few scraps... only if real progress was promised and believed would real protests start) Think about it are you going up against guns to bring elected criminals in power who give you just a few scraps more ? Most people would say no.. only if there is genuine improvement and like it or not there is not that much difference for the people now financially between being ruled by the junta or Shins. 

 

The mob is paid on both sides, as i posted before there are few people really interested  in politics and only when they light the fire does the mob get brought in (on both sides).  Just have to correct you that not all the protesters wanted no elections that was just what Suthep his minions wanted. 

 

Anyway if we agree on the mob being paid on both sides where does that leave your "political" Thai, I don't count them if they have to be paid fed and bussed in. I count the ones that start it all and are genuine political... and those are few and far between.

[yardrunner]

Do what we say, not what we do

[tomta]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

I am against popular policies for both junta and others. Putting this in the law levels the playing field at least political parties now can't promise crazy policies aimed at vote buying that are bad for the country.

I don't want to be pedantic but it is important to maintain the distinction between popular and populist. Or are you against policies that people like?

 

The wording of the article and of most mainstream political/economic talk treats the economy as an idol, as some abstract object that can be called "good" or "bad" objectively . It's not. Whether it's good or bad, depends what we want.If taxes are increased and welfare spending increased, poor people will say that it is good for the economy. Rich people will say it is bad for the economy. There is not one single economy; it is an object that is created by our different perceptions and perspectives.

 

Perhaps a more concrete example would be Mr T's 30 baht hospital scheme. The middle class complained that the hospitals were more crowded , that waiting times were longer and so on. They were right. The poor liked it because they got to keep grandma alive for a bit longer. They liked that. Which is best? Depends on values

Edited April 21, 2018 by tomta
Clarification

[tomta]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

It does not matter why the junta does it, this is a good thing IMHO. You can see it differently but just because something comes from the junta does not make it bad per se

Actually, I disagree and here we are probably irreconciliably different. Even if the junta were to make everyone deliriously happy, it is at the cost of reducing the populace to infantilism and reducing their control of their own lives and their potential for self-respect. These are superior values in my view.

 

A bad democracy is better than a good word starting with d that we are not permitted to use

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, tomta said:

I don't want to be pedantic but it is important to maintain the distinction between popular and populist. Or are you against policies that people like?

That’s where the danger lies. Really no clear legal definition of populist policies and the interpretation can be abused for political purposes just like the article 112 or the computer crime act. It’s a Venus fly trap; sound reasonable but full of danger if misuse. 

 

[baboon]

4 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Then I would LOUDLY proclaim that if the Military didn't sign off on it, then the Military will be to blame (and I'd screw up the alternate policy in order to blame the Military).

Your post speaks a lot of good sense as they always do, but the sentence above 'justifies' the coup against your government. 

You would be shafted either way: Carry out NCPO policy to the letter and it fails, your fault. Meddle with it in any way and if it fails, your fault for not leaving it be. It would just go to show (as they would say) how useless and corrupt politicians still are, and that further measures are needed.

 

Anyone running for office given the current rules of the game has to be mental, in my opinion. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by baboon

[robblok]

1 hour ago, tomta said:

I don't want to be pedantic but it is important to maintain the distinction between popular and populist. Or are you against policies that people like?

 

The wording of the article and of most mainstream political/economic talk treats the economy as an idol, as some abstract object that can be called "good" or "bad" objectively . It's not. Whether it's good or bad, depends what we want.If taxes are increased and welfare spending increased, poor people will say that it is good for the economy. Rich people will say it is bad for the economy. There is not one single economy; it is an object that is created by our different perceptions and perspectives.

 

Perhaps a more concrete example would be Mr T's 30 baht hospital scheme. The middle class complained that the hospitals were more crowded , that waiting times were longer and so on. They were right. The poor liked it because they got to keep grandma alive for a bit longer. They liked that. Which is best? Depends on values

Populist.. like doubling the amount of money a farmer gets for his rice.

 

The 30 bt hospital scheme is great.. good idea.. too bad that PTP and other governments did not fund it enough that people had to run to collect money for it. Thinking up a scheme is one thing.. keeping it funded is an other. I had much rather they had put all the money of the rice program into the health system (that would mean it would be for everyone not just farmers)

 

I am against stuff like a tablet for everyone.. and then no follow up.. crappy tablets no real education program for them.. I bet they are almost not used anymore (if they still work). Sure those things buy votes but have little use otherwise. 

 

I would be for a system like in Holland where political parties have to submit their election program. It then gets processed by computer programs to see if its feasible. So if they say 1000 euros for all families with kids.. they will have to cover that by cutting somewhere else or raising taxes. (as there are limits on the budget deficit). This way there is a level playing field. Here in Thailand politicians can promise everything think of everything and then let the state pay for it. So yea few checks are in order. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, tomta said:

Actually, I disagree and here we are probably irreconciliably different. Even if the junta were to make everyone deliriously happy, it is at the cost of reducing the populace to infantilism and reducing their control of their own lives and their potential for self-respect. These are superior values in my view.

 

A bad democracy is better than a good word starting with d that we are not permitted to use

Lets agree there to disagree.. i care for results not idealism.  (junta here has failed though but in your example a good junta doing good for the country vs a bad democracy driving the country down id choose junta always as I care for results)

Edited April 21, 2018 by robblok

[kaorop]

4 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Really simple explanation and totally exonerate your assumption that the red shirts are violent protestors. Show them being a law abiding group and perhaps cowed by intimidating junta bias actions and chose brains versus brawn. They are smart enough to wait for the election to embarrass the junta parties and not give the junta any excuse to cancel the election. 

blok him, hes to easy to own as you have just done here and many others as well. Let him bathe in his fantasies of hate, you dont learn anything from him as, to much time in the gym means to few books read. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by kaorop

[Samui Bodoh]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

Your post speaks a lot of good sense as they always do, but the sentence above 'justifies' the coup against your government. 

You would be shafted either way: Carry out NCPO policy to the letter and it fails, your fault. Meddle with it in any way and if it fails, your fault for not leaving it be. It would just go to show (as they would say) how useless and corrupt politicians still are, and that further measures are needed.

 

Anyone running for office given the current rules of the game has to be mental, in my opinion. 

 

My friend Mr Baboon, with nothing but good wishes in my heart, can I suggest that you take Mrs Baboon out for a romantic dinner (hopefully) followed by some snuggling? I think something is necessary for you and that might be it...

 

As I read your posts, I sense a despair that I don't really believe is justified. If, as you seem to be suggesting, absolutely nothing can be done about the Anchors (spelling), then either make plans to go back to your homeland with Mrs Baboon and any little Baboonanistas, or hunker down in your village (or move to one) and spend the next several years waiting it out.

 

I think a better plan is to maintain some hope.

 

Yes, the Anchors are well-entrenched at the moment, but even a cursory reading of Thai history suggests all is not as it appears. When a pack of Anchors settle in, their greatest threat is from the military itself; you might think that the military is 100% behind the current head Anchor, but I do not. Some will be jealous of his power, some will be extremely worried that the military is being so closely associated with his regime that there is GREAT danger to the institution when (not if) he stumbles, some will be thinking that what he is doing isn't right, and some will simply believe that their changing places with him is a good idea.

 

If the military doesn't get the Anchors, then the economy likely will. Currently, things seem to be going well, but again I believe that this is more illusory than it seems. It is hard to know for sure, but it seems to me that the Anchors are going through cash at an alarming rate and that in turn is boosting the economy. Great idea until the level of funds dip, then it tends to go south rapidly; guess how much support the Anchors will have if/when the economy starts to slide. Further, if I were one of the Establishment Economic Tsars (for want of a better title) I'd be a bit worried about the accumulation of power and turn my attention to slowing/stopping it. And it wouldn't be that difficult; Thailand has one of the highest Gini co-effecients in the world and thus economic power is concentrated; that can be of benefit when trying to oust a government made up of farmer-supported types (2013), but it can also be quite a weapon if pointed at a pack of uppity Anchors who don't know their place. 

 

Finally, I see that you have been getting down on the general population. Yes, they do seem a bit... er... quiet at the moment, but to assume that will continue indefinitely would be a mistake (in my view); modern Thai history shows that they do come out at certain times, and I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't again. Trust in the Thais; they know when to do it better than we and we should leave them to it. Yes, I share your desire that they get a move on, but patience! In order to have any meaning against the Anchors, the general population needs to come out at the time of THEIR choosing, assuming that they do. In the years since 1973, how many times have they appeared? Difficult to put an exact number on it, but... many? A lot?

 

The Anchors seem to be in the driver's seat, sitting pretty, but you and I and everyone who has spent time in Asia knows that appearances can be deceiving. I see the Anchors as 'riding the tiger' and, to coin a phrase, one does not ride the tiger too long and there is great peril when you do fall off.

 

I understand that you feel a bit of frustration regarding the present situation with the Anchors, but this is a matter for Thais and we have to leave it to them, hard as that is at times.

 

Say 'Hi' to Mrs Baboon for me!

 

Cheers

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee