Yes.

But isn't everywhere? In the UK (and most of the first world) it is institutionalized - 40% income tax, 11% national insurance tax, another 11% if you have a company, 17.5% sales tax, 200% tax on petrol, and on and on... But when you want something done, best go private and pay again. Probably why we're expats!

Here it is more pay-as-you-go.

So why the question? did you expect a different answer?

This is a very good point, and one with which I agree. However, there are major differences in the cultural context of development and industrialization which sets SEA apart.

The answer is yes, yes, yes. been the same as far back as the 60's as I remember and do not see it changing soon.

Try going a little further back, to say, the Sak Dina period.

I can't remember that far back, I was not born yet

During the Sak Dina period, the norm was created for civil servants to be paid very little in formal wages because the understanding was that they would be paid through their role as patron in patron/client power relatioships. Also, the deference to power and the acceptance of fate was solidified as a good role model for the *peasant.

*I edited the word poor to peasant, because that is really what we are talking about here: the evolution of a traditional feudal patron/client society into a modern patron/client society.

There's a story that Anna from the King and I used to have people approach with petitions for the King and she'd ask the King if he'd see these people and sometimes he would.

After a few years she went to the King and asked for a raise in her salary. The King was flabbergasted and exclaimed she should be rich by now because of all the people he'd agreed to listen to.

Well, that's interesting, but Anna Leonowens' book is not acknowledged as an accurate historical account.

Well, that's interesting, but Anna Leonowens' book is not acknowledged as an accurate historical account.

Oh definitely she made lots of it up and changed many things to make herself look more important, but she probably got the concept from observation of similar things happening around her.

Was rampant greed and corruption not the reason the former PM and his Government was ousted in a military coup? Is that not the reason they are seeking to extradite him to face charges?

The real reason Taksin was given the boot was simply because he was becoming too powerful.

Rampant greed and corruption charges were only excuses given to appease the masses, you can't have a coup & give a reason for the coup as the current prime minister is too popular. Wouldn't wash with the general public & there would be outright dissent with re-percussions similar to the recent events in Myanmar.

Now, I am not saying that Thailand is not corrupt, of course it is & far more so than most Western governments, however, what I am saying is that corruption is only a vehicle to serve the purpose of attaining power, which is the final goal of most high level politicians.

Cheers,

Soundman.

Do You Think Thailand Is A Kleptocracy?,

errr..yes!

can't deny that and it will never change!

Anyone who doesn't think so is either blind or retarded. As to why the reasons and excuses are endless. It will never change. It is the role model most of the most of the population aspire to.

Do you think Thailand is a kleptocracy?

i think one has to differentiate between corruption and outright stealing (kleptein = greek for "to steal"). if kleptocracy depicts a corrupt environment the answer is most probably "yes".

slightly off topic here's my personal opinion: living in a corrupt environment makes life much easier if one is neither too stubborn nor too tightfisted.

slightly off topic here's my personal opinion: living in a corrupt environment makes life much easier if one is neither too stubborn nor too tightfisted.

agreed

just think of it as a form of direct taxation.

No.

In Thailand power & postion are the ultimate goals. Money & corruption are a by-product of what it takes to be & stay in power.

Some might argue that people seek power to attain wealth, however, after lengthy discussions with middle to high level politicians I am aquianted with, I do not believe it to be the case.

Soundman.

really? so if we ask Thaksin if he's corrupt and he says no, then that's it, he's not corrupt. right?

it never comes to your mind that they might be lying to you ???

anyway, if it's only about the position and not the money, how do you explain the illegal wood-cutting ? they only do it because they need to furnish their own office? not for the money?

slightly off topic here's my personal opinion: living in a corrupt environment makes life much easier if one is neither too stubborn nor too tightfisted.

agreed

just think of it as a form of direct taxation.

I'll third this and agree. You won't wiggle your way out of a traffic ticket back home with 5 bucks or 500 bucks. Good observation by the good doctor.

i find it quite strange that some fellow TV-members agree with me in this respect. what i expected was quite some verbal beating that i "support" corruption.

Yes.

I also wish to give credit where credit is due, as the Thais honed their skills on their own.

I think most of Asia fits into the kleptocracy bracket

Kleptocracy was coined for some African regimes, notably old Moby Joes Zaire. They were of a different order in magnitude from Thailand.

I did however run onto this quote in the computer d base - old but I think all you need t do is add in a few other players fighting for expropriation rights and there you go.

Government corruption is not just a problem in Thailand, it is a way of life. Like every bureaucracy, the Thai government has elaborate organizational charts marking out neatly delineated areas of authority. To the uninformed observer it seems to function much like any other meritocracy, with university graduates occupying government posts, careers advancing step by step, and proposals moving up and down the hierarchy in a more or less orderly fashion. But all of these these charts and procedures were (and are) a facade, behind which operate powerful military cliques whose driving ambition is to expropriate enough money, power, and patronage to become a government within the government. These cliques are not ideological factions, coteries of plotters united by greed and ambition.

power and wealth go hand in hand, whether in thailand or anywhere else - some already rich are at power to maintain the status quo, defend their wealth, some others are climbing there to ger rich, and it's not by the wages but by corruption or outright crime.

I would say every government is kleptocratic - their purpose is to defend the ruling class/rich from the rest of the population and at their expense

I love your final quote....that is true including (in my humble opinion) the current administration in power in the U.S.A.

I've been in Thailand (off and on) for many years. I know many honest hard-working Thais. I agree however that in Thailand (as in many other so-called democratic countries) the system is set up to support the wealthy, privaleged, and socially acceptable class. The purpose of that system is to reward those privaleged people, and the others are all there merely to support the privaleged. Thailand is no exception in that regard.

Kleptocracy was coined for some African regimes, notably old Moby Joes Zaire. They were of a different order in magnitude from Thailand.

I did however run onto this quote in the computer d base - old but I think all you need t do is add in a few other players fighting for expropriation rights and there you go.

Government corruption is not just a problem in Thailand, it is a way of life. Like every bureaucracy, the Thai government has elaborate organizational charts marking out neatly delineated areas of authority. To the uninformed observer it seems to function much like any other meritocracy, with university graduates occupying government posts, careers advancing step by step, and proposals moving up and down the hierarchy in a more or less orderly fashion. But all of these these charts and procedures were (and are) a facade, behind which operate powerful military cliques whose driving ambition is to expropriate enough money, power, and patronage to become a government within the government. These cliques are not ideological factions, coteries of plotters united by greed and ambition.

having worked in government, i wouldn't put it down to miltary cliques behind the facade. There may be some, but not everyone. Tradional civilian patronage definetly- you chose early on who your patrons were and your career lived or died by it, but nary a military man to be seen (and yes, I did have access). Old money, new money, smart money and sometimes, more than occassionally, a bunch of smart people. The latter group do exist in government, beleive it or not.

Is there really corruption in Thailand?

But I thought all Thai people are Buddhist right?

And Buddism is about depriving yourself from all luxury?

How can they do this?

Yes.

But isn't everywhere? In the UK (and most of the first world) it is institutionalized - 40% income tax, 11% national insurance tax, another 11% if you have a company, 17.5% sales tax, 200% tax on petrol, and on and on... But when you want something done, best go private and pay again. Probably why we're expats!

Here it is more pay-as-you-go.

So why the question? did you expect a different answer?

Your avatar is pretty appropriate

Is there really corruption in Thailand?

But I thought all Thai people are Buddhist right?

And Buddism is about depriving yourself from all luxury?

How can they do this?

Good ol face. Nobody dares ask an uncomfortable question. Ostrich syndrome. Lovely culture. Don't scratch the surface. It looks like paradise, who wants to know whats inside. All's well, nothing to see here. Where's the best place on Samui for a tattoo?

Kleptocracy.. what a wonderful word.

It's funny that Jingthing should stumble accross it in a pulp fiction novel, I'm sure the term was coined by Jared Diamond in his book 'Guns, germs and Steel'.

Chapter 14 is titled 'From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy' here's is a brief synopsis I found. BTW if you haven't already read it, the book is a great education.

Kleptocrats maintain power by disarming the populace and arming the

elite, making the masses happy by redistributing the tribute, keeping

order and curbing violence (compared to bands and tribes), promoting

religion and ideology that justifies kleptocracy (and that promotes

self-sacrifice on behalf of others), building public works, etc.

States are especially good at developing weapons of war, providing

troops, promoting religion (fanaticism) and patriotic fervor that

makes troops willing to fight suicidally. States arise not just from

the natural tendency of man (as Aristotle suggested), but by social

contract, in response to needs for irrigation ("hydraulic theory"),

and regional population size. The large populations require intensive

food production, which contributes (1) seasonal workers for other

purposes, (2) stored food surpluses which feed specialists and other

elite, (3) sedentary living. Increased opportunities in states for

conflicts forces the development of laws. The processes by which

states form virtually never include voluntary merger, but rather (1)

merger under threat of force (e.g., the Cherokee Indian federation),

or (2) merger by conquest (e.g., the Zulus)--when population density

is high, the defeated men are often killed and the women taken in

marriage."

Well, that's interesting, but Anna Leonowens' book is not acknowledged as an accurate historical account.

so i understand. but by whom. it cant be difficult to quantify anna leonowens history records. i for one take it as historically accurate . and for what its worth thai must too as its banned here, is it not.

i find it quite strange that some fellow TV-members agree with me in this respect. what i expected was quite some verbal beating that i "support" corruption.

not so much supporting it naam . just no alternative. gave up on politics twenty years ago. no choice no democracy plus it makes no difference to anyones life who runs the country. more of same same. as you excellently put it not " stubborn nor to tightfisted" the way to go.

Well, that's interesting, but Anna Leonowens' book is not acknowledged as an accurate historical account.

so i understand. but by whom. it cant be difficult to quantify anna leonowens history records. i for one take it as historically accurate . and for what its worth thai must too as its banned here, is it not.

No its not banned - the movies are

As for taking it as historically accurate - says a lot about you when in fact it has been discredited by many historians and not just biased Thai.

I believe this to be true of all governments, through power comes money and privilege.

Most politicans of the world profess they and their government are 'for the people' of that country. Its to bad they forget it should include 'people for the government'.