Poll finds Thais estranged from National Strategy

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Cadbury said:

I have an example. I have a long time Vietnamese friend. We met about 15 years ago when he was a tour guide at the age of 21. I was impressed with him and he spoke excellent English and I could see a lot of potential. His family came from a small village and were very poor and we became close friends. We gave him a leg-up by first buying him a mobile phone and later a motorbike. We have always been in contact and I still see him regularly. We are now more like father and son.

Fast forward 15 years and he now owns a booming travel company with the infrastructure (buses, boats, hotel accommodation) to support it. He has 300 people on the payroll.

When I visited him last week he told me proudly that he and his wife would make a profit next year of around one million US dollars. 

 

 

Very nice story. Great that you helped someone and then seen them really develop.

 

I don't know Vietnam like you, but their development seems impressive. Better than Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar or Thailand.

 

In 2002 when I lived in India many shoe companies were moving out of India to Vietnam - much less bureaucracy, a very welcoming attitude from government and really enthusiastic people keen to develop were the comments I used to hear. One other thing was less corruption. India is riddled with corruption everywhere. How has Vietnam seemingly managed to avoid the corruption levels that plague it's neighbors and competitors? 

[Baerboxer]

50 minutes ago, BEVUP said:

Agree with this as also alot of Farangs don't care either, they don,t put money in your pocket, it's the big business that do that after they pay the governments get through the thousands of hoops required to invest

One thing hasn't been mentioned - that is 1150 people interviewed wouldn't be considered enough to say half of the people

Maybe most of them don't have a clue as they just get on with their lives in their own domain. 

 

Look up the rules on statistical sampling. 

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[simoh1490]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

Why?

"Any" is simply arguing in the abstract. If you can provide specific examples then by all means let's take it from there.

If you need to have a named country in order to answer the question you clearly don't believe democracy is a universal right of all people and is, therefore, country-specific and dependent. That being the case, what are those attributes that make it so, is the stage of a country's development, it's maturity, average IQ level or what? Trying to personalise the argument for or against by naming a country runs the risk of distorting the argument either for or against that country, it's unnecessary in order to make the point and win the argument.

[brucec64]

If you need to have a named country in order to answer the question you clearly don't believe democracy is a universal right of all people and is, therefore, country-specific and dependent. That being the case, what are those attributes that make it so, is the stage of a country's development, it's maturity, average IQ level or what? Trying to personalise the argument for or against by naming a country runs the risk of distorting the argument either for or against that country, it's unnecessary in order to make the point and win the argument.

Stage of development, maturity and average IQ were all reasons used to deny women the vote prior to 1918. Which century are you living in exactly?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[kannot]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

They did not want migrant workers to steal their jobs, the respondents said

Hilarious, steal the jobs you dont want to do is ok though eh, but  that lazy useless security guard  job where you can sleep all night..the perfect Thai job id  say

[baboon]

49 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

If you need to have a named country in order to answer the question you clearly don't believe democracy is a universal right of all people and is, therefore, country-specific and dependent. That being the case, what are those attributes that make it so, is the stage of a country's development, it's maturity, average IQ level or what? Trying to personalise the argument for or against by naming a country runs the risk of distorting the argument either for or against that country, it's unnecessary in order to make the point and win the argument.

You used the term "so called evils of military rule" in reference to the Thai junta.

I stated that there is no "so called" about it.

You are now arguing that they really can't be all that bad because of what may or may not be going on someplace elsewhere. Not really the most convincing response in the world...

[candide]

5 hours ago, brucec64 said:

As has been mentioned on this forum many times, Super Poll is the military backed polling organization, so you can imagine what the real numbers would look like...

It seem to get rotten for the Junta when Superpoll, formerly known as association of researchers for community hapiness, is not providing any more polls with 90+% satisfaction rate and is even critical to the Junta's policy.

[SABloke]

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

54.9 per cent of the respondents said they had no idea what the national strategy was.

So 45.1% said they knew what the strategy was? Impossible, since the strategy has never been made public.?

[Eligius]

1 hour ago, brucec64 said:

Stage of development, maturity and average IQ were all reasons used to deny women the vote prior to 1918. Which century are you living in exactly?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Right, Bruce! This appalling argument that 'some countries are not ready for democracy' does not have a leg to stand on. If a country is not yet practised in the development of democracy, the last thing one should do is take democracy away! One should give that country MORE democracy, so that the process can unfold itself and people can learn from their mistakes. Democracy will only develop if there is democracy there in the first place to develop. If there is none (as now) - democracy cannot (by very definition) develop.

 

As for this idea that only people of a certain IQ level should be able to vote: this is fascistic nonsense of the worst kind. I could say, dictator-style: 'Only people with Ph.D.s should be allowed to vote. Democracy only for Ph.D.s, who are properly educated persons (I'm all right, Jack!) ...' 

 

No! Even idiots have the right (if they form the majority) to vote for their idiot leader. That is a fundamental right. It has NOTHING to do with IQ, education, EQ, or anything of the kind.

 

DEMOCRACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET.  It is NOT just for the selfish, fake 'elites'.

 

 

[simoh1490]

5 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Right, Bruce! This appalling argument that 'some countries are not ready for democracy' does not have a leg to stand on. If a country is not yet practised in the development of democracy, the last thing one should do is take democracy away! One should give that country MORE democracy, so that the process can unfold itself and people can learn from their mistakes. Democracy will only develop if there is democracy there in the first place to develop. If there is none (as now) - democracy cannot (by very definition) develop.

 

As for this idea that only people of a certain IQ level should be able to vote: this is fascistic nonsense of the worst kind. I could say, dictator-style: 'Only people with Ph.D.s should be allowed to vote. Democracy only for Ph.D.s, who are properly educated persons (I'm all right, Jack!) ...' 

 

No! Even idiots have the right (if they form the majority) to vote for their idiot leader. That is a fundamental right. It has NOTHING to do with IQ, education, EQ, or anything of the kind.

 

DEMOCRACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET.  It is NOT just for the selfish, fake 'elites'.

 

 

So the people of a country must always be allowed to lead, even if they are incapable of leading and unable to ever agree and in doing so it destroys their economy and causes continual war and strife, okaydokay!

 

I'm wondering how you feel about China, should the Chinese be governed by a democracy, are they ready for that?

 

And interestingly, at number seven on the list of non-democratic countries is, ahem, the UK!

https://listsurge.com/top-12-non-democratic-countries-world/

 

But I'm being frivolous here so more seriously:

 

I personally believe that there are many countries in the world who are not capable of supporting democracy, it's all well and good to soap box and say that democracy is a basic human right blah blah but people who do that typically haven't thought it through and looked at the practical applications, I like the following:

 

"he basis of most liberal democracies is the autonomy of the individual. But some thinkers, particularly in East Asia, assert the greater importance of the community and the family.

This is based on the notion that so-called universal values of equality, liberty, and fraternity are based on the Western cultural experience and not easily transferred to contexts in East and Southeast Asia. Instead, values of family, respect for hierarchical authority, diligence, consensus, education, community, order, and moral persuasion are the better building blocks for Asian democracy"

https://listverse.com/2016/02/10/10-alternatives-to-conventional-liberal-democracy/

https://listsurge.com/top-12-non-democratic-countries-world/

 

 

[simoh1490]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

You used the term "so called evils of military rule" in reference to the Thai junta.

I stated that there is no "so called" about it.

You are now arguing that they really can't be all that bad because of what may or may not be going on someplace elsewhere. Not really the most convincing response in the world...

You avoided the debate on democracy versus the alternatives because you wouldn't answer any questions, but we got there in the end without you needing to.

[Cadbury]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Very nice story. Great that you helped someone and then seen them really develop.

 

I don't know Vietnam like you, but their development seems impressive. Better than Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar or Thailand.

 

In 2002 when I lived in India many shoe companies were moving out of India to Vietnam - much less bureaucracy, a very welcoming attitude from government and really enthusiastic people keen to develop were the comments I used to hear. One other thing was less corruption. India is riddled with corruption everywhere. How has Vietnam seemingly managed to avoid the corruption levels that plague it's neighbors and competitors? 

Thank you for your comments. Yes Vietnam is going gangbusters. It will ultimately leave Thailand in it's dust. It still has corruption but more often than not it is petty. The big corruption attracts a death sentence and that has been exercised recently and is possibly a deterrent. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-security/vietnam-court-sentences-to-death-petrovietnam-ex-chairman-in-mass-trial-idUSKCN1C40KW

I have also spend time in India and lived for a period in Agra with a Sikh family.

In Vietnam almost anyone has a chance to succeed and create there own wealth with hard work and effort. In Thailand it appears it is the already filthy rich who get richer, with the help of the government and the multitude of thieving scoundrels who seem to live in every snake hole in the civil service. 

[baboon]

19 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

You avoided the debate on democracy versus the alternatives because you wouldn't answer any questions, but we got there in the end without you needing to.

I have ignored hypothetical questions designed to paint a picture of a vile military junta as a good or even necessary thing. No amount of whataboutery and pointing of fingers elsewhere makes them and their actions any more palatable.

[Eligius]

26 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

So the people of a country must always be allowed to lead ...?

 

 

YES!

 

This is basic, 101 - so obvious that it should scarcely need to be discussed. It does not matter what I think of 'a people' or what you think of a  'people' or what anyone else thinks of a given 'people': they have the internationally recognised right to determine their own future - for good or ill. It is their choice.

 

Just in case you did not know it: Thailand has been a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1966!  Thailand claims to uphold universal human rights. This is not some Westerner claiming this. This is Thailand.

 

So let them practise what they preach!

[candide]

35 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

So the people of a country must always be allowed to lead, even if they are incapable of leading and unable to ever agree and in doing so it destroys their economy and causes continual war and strife, okaydokay!

 

I'm wondering how you feel about China, should the Chinese be governed by a democracy, are they ready for that?

 

And interestingly, at number seven on the list of non-democratic countries is, ahem, the UK!

https://listsurge.com/top-12-non-democratic-countries-world/

 

But I'm being frivolous here so more seriously:

 

I personally believe that there are many countries in the world who are not capable of supporting democracy, it's all well and good to soap box and say that democracy is a basic human right blah blah but people who do that typically haven't thought it through and looked at the practical applications, I like the following:

 

"he basis of most liberal democracies is the autonomy of the individual. But some thinkers, particularly in East Asia, assert the greater importance of the community and the family.

This is based on the notion that so-called universal values of equality, liberty, and fraternity are based on the Western cultural experience and not easily transferred to contexts in East and Southeast Asia. Instead, values of family, respect for hierarchical authority, diligence, consensus, education, community, order, and moral persuasion are the better building blocks for Asian democracy"

https://listverse.com/2016/02/10/10-alternatives-to-conventional-liberal-democracy/

https://listsurge.com/top-12-non-democratic-countries-world/

 

 

Quote from your quite interesting article: "

One problem with this model is that it relies on a single system of ethics that must be accepted by all members of the community."

Edited June 17, 2018 by candide

[simoh1490]

14 minutes ago, Eligius said:

YES!

 

This is basic, 101 - so obvious that it should scarcely need to be discussed. It does not matter what I think of 'a people' or what you think of a  'people' or what anyone else thinks of a given 'people': they have the internationally recognised right to determine their own future - for good or ill. It is their choice.

 

Just in case you did not know it: Thailand has been a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1966!  Thailand claims to uphold universal human rights. This is not some Westerner claiming this. This is Thailand.

 

So let them practise what they preach!

We shall have to disagree on this point, most people haven't bothered to think it through or examine it closely because it challnges the status quo plus  whenever it's discussed the argument comes back that our fathers and our forefathers fought for the right......

 

The Chinese model appeals to me, with such a large uneducated population the country could easily  erupt in civil war if western style democracy were introduced, instead, progress and development are being managed and it works.Ditto I think the same is true of Thailand (at times, not always), history has shown that Thailand is unable to support stable government over time, as evidenced by the more than 30 coups, such things have a place in Thailands development IF managed properly.

 

So no, it's not basic 101 for all people and all countries. although I accept that longer term it is the only viable solution, but not just yet.

[Jonmarleesco]

Not exactly the meaning of estranged, though its actual meaning, alienated, might be close to the truth. 

[Eric Loh]

57 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

The Chinese model appeals to me, with such a large uneducated population the country could easily  erupt in civil war if western style democracy were introduced, instead, progress and development are being managed and it works.

 The China (not Chinese) model is a hierarchical system and are more susceptible to shocks and upheaval than a democratic system.  If Xi Jinping became seriously ill or passed away suddenly, what would happen to the political system? The system has been tailored to him. Or, if there are military skirmishes, how will the nationalistic forces in society react?

This system is built for expansion, especially economic expansion, and setbacks are very hard to justify. It’s easier in democratic systems because you can change the government. But in China you can’t so the potential for chaos and disruption is greater.   

 

Thailand is unable to support stable governments because the establishment and military don’t want their dominance to be threatened. Everyone knows that but you. 

[simoh1490]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 The China (not Chinese) model is a hierarchical system and are more susceptible to shocks and upheaval than a democratic system.  If Xi Jinping became seriously ill or passed away suddenly, what would happen to the political system? The system has been tailored to him. Or, if there are military skirmishes, how will the nationalistic forces in society react?

This system is built for expansion, especially economic expansion, and setbacks are very hard to justify. It’s easier in democratic systems because you can change the government. But in China you can’t so the potential for chaos and disruption is greater.   

 

Thailand is unable to support stable governments because the establishment and military don’t want their dominance to be threatened. Everyone knows that but you. 

"The Beijing Consensus (also known as the China Model or Chinese Economic Model) refers to the......"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Consensus

[simoh1490]

11 hours ago, candide said:

Quote from your quite interesting article: "

One problem with this model is that it relies on a single system of ethics that must be accepted by all members of the community."

Well spotted! But of course no system is perfect, even the Western system of democracy is seriously flawed often with only 50% of the population bothering to vote. The other 50% don't care so for that group of people, any type of system could be in place and presumably, they wouldn't mind. All of which of course begets the question, why would you want to instal a 50% system here!

[simoh1490]

12 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

 The China (not Chinese) model is a hierarchical system and are more susceptible to shocks and upheaval than a democratic system.  If Xi Jinping became seriously ill or passed away suddenly, what would happen to the political system? The system has been tailored to him. Or, if there are military skirmishes, how will the nationalistic forces in society react?

This system is built for expansion, especially economic expansion, and setbacks are very hard to justify. It’s easier in democratic systems because you can change the government. But in China you can’t so the potential for chaos and disruption is greater.   

 

Thailand is unable to support stable governments because the establishment and military don’t want their dominance to be threatened. Everyone knows that but you. 

This one's for you Eric:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-allison/singapore-challenges-democracy_b_7933188.html

[candide]

5 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Well spotted! But of course no system is perfect, even the Western system of democracy is seriously flawed often with only 50% of the population bothering to vote. The other 50% don't care so for that group of people, any type of system could be in place and presumably, they wouldn't mind. All of which of course begets the question, why would you want to instal a 50% system here!

The fact that 50% do not vote is a minorbpoint compared to the fact that 100% have the right to vote. Ok let's talk about Thailand. The system you gave as example relies on several points, such as the domination of a meritocracy and a system of ethics. There is no system of ethics accepted by all, actually there seem to be little ethics at all. There is also no meritocracy, as the so-called elite are not an elite based on merits, they are elite by connections, corruption, and not particularly competent. So why should this flawed elite impose itself to the others?

You often cite the case of Singapore. But Singapore is exceptional on several aspects, not just its political system. And its characteristics are significantly different from Thailand. For example, the army does not make coups and dominates part of the system, there is no outsider PM, the elite is competent, there are ethics, and most of all (as mentioned in the other reference you provide) the majority is rather happy with the system and goes on voting for the dominant party. Until they change their mind,nif they do.

[Eric Loh]

4 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

This one's for you Eric:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-allison/singapore-challenges-democracy_b_7933188.html

In Lee's view "Democratic procedures have no intrinsic value. What matters is good government and the government's primary duty is to create a stable and orderly society where people are well cared for, their food, housing, employment, health". I will go on and add safety, corruption, stability, education and the respect by the world of the achievements of the tiny city state. He also said that democracy is one way of getting the job done and if non-electoral procedures are conducive to attainment of the valued ends, then I'm against democracy. Nothing is morally at stake in the choice of procedures.  

[chama]

Ignorance of the public is both by design and by plan. Thais don't seem to feel they can impact what the government does and feel that nothing is going to change that would favor the general populace so they just ignore it. On the other hand the architects of these grand plans don't want any backlash, alterations, or protest so there is reluctance to educate the public any more than necessary to say that an attempt was made.