PAD Leaders To Announce New Politics

[Journalist]

^Certainly an export focused economy has structural drawbacks.

Wasn't the sufficiency theory also a socio-philosophical one though, with the inferrence "Be satisfied with your lot in life"

[Plus]

Or "live within your means".

There's absolutely nothing mind-altering about it, it might go against consumption/greed driven model of progress, but that is not unusual, is it?

It can be easily wrapped up in generic MBA drivel, complete with abbreviations and crap, if only someone paid enough for it to be written.

Words like "self sufficiency" and "happiness index" need to be replaced with something catchier, that's all.

[sriracha john]

^Certainly an export focused economy has structural drawbacks.

Wasn't the sufficiency theory also a socio-philosophical one though, with the inferrence "Be satisfied with your lot in life"

perhaps He can explain it better...

http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1998/1204.en.html

[Journalist]

^Thanks for link

[animatic]

Just yesterday I was reading an article about plans for the next year and overall direction of the economy.

Growth at all costs will simply not cut it, the country needs sufficient insulation, or isolation, if you are a fierce critic, from swings in exports and oil prices.

The current government is caught in a squabble between that pest Chaya who wants his buddies in a scandal ridden company get all the juicy contracts from the government rice pledging scheme, and Olarn, who can't believe these guys could be so blatantly corrupt.

Luckily for Thailand, the goverment itself only matters so much, all the strategic thinking and policies are done by bueraucrats, so PPP can't inflict too much damage.

Let's not forget Somchai who doesn't believe there is "any conflict" in his cabinet.

And plans a re-shuffle in which 'no big and no small' changes will be made.

All changes will not be made as soon as the funeral is over.

And no, my wife didn't speak to her brother at the dinner after he announced his divorce.

And she didn't talk to me when she came home. << (this is believable...)

If this was Monty Python it would rings as true!

[animatic]

^Certainly an export focused economy has structural drawbacks.

Wasn't the sufficiency theory also a socio-philosophical one though, with the inferrence "Be satisfied with your lot in life"

Some excerpts :

HRM :

"Those who lived in caves used a hundred percent sufficiency economy.

It was feasible in that situation."....

"If everyone has enough to live on, everything will be all right.

Furthermore, if the whole country can subsist, the better it would be,

and Thailand at that time was on the verge of insufficiency.

Some individuals had plenty, but some had practically nothing.

In the past, there was enough to live on, but today, impoverishment is creeping in.

We must, therefore, implement a policy of sufficiency economy so that everyone

will have enough to live on. This sufficiency means to have enough to live on. "....

"Sufficiency means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough."

"Some people literally translate it from English into Thai as standing on one’s own feet.

Some say that this expression is rather odd. Who would stand on our feet?

If anybody stands on our feet, we would definitely get angry.

Anyway, if we step on our own feet, we would surely stumble.

These are perhaps rather strange thoughts, but they derive from the expression :

to stand on our own feet which means to be independent.

This means that our two feet are firmly set on the ground,

so we can stand without stumbling.

We don’t have to borrow other people’s feet to support us."....

"Being moderate does not mean to be too strictly frugal; luxurious items are permissible,

but one should not take advantage of others in the fulfillment of one’s desires.

Moderation, in other words, living within one’s means, should dictate all actions.

Act in moderation, speak in moderation; that is, be moderate in all activities."....

"Moderation in thought consists of expressing one’s own ideas and opinions,

and allowing others to speak out too, and then carefully considering what they say

and what we say in order to find the way which is more moderate or reasonable.

If the idea does not make sense, it must be rectified, because talking without

coming to an understanding will lead to arguments.

From vocal arguments, it could result in physical arguments which would eventually

bring about damage to both antagonists. If the conflict is between groups,

the quarrel could become more serious which will cause trouble to more people."....

"Be cooperative for the peace and prosperity of the country and people."

[WillSpencer]

I'm a first time poster here, but I am not a troll. No, seriously. Really. Honest.

I've been in Thailand for only a couple of weeks, so I don't yet know anything about what the heck is going on here.

None of the news reports are documenting the differences between the PPP and PAD party platforms and that just seems weird.

I am leaning towards the PPP for two reasons:

1. The PAD proposal to select legislators based upon their current occupations seems to be a couple thousand years behind the times. In today's dynamic free market economies, people change careers (not just jobs) four to six times during their lives. This proposal makes the PAD appear to be quite "unsophisticated" politically.
   
2. Street violence is another less than endearing quality for a political party. Does anyone really want to give power to a bugs of street thugs?
   

On the flip side though, Thaksin really was convicted and his trial appears to have been at least reasonably fair. But, technically, he's not in power now.

As an outsider, it seems as if this conflict has no ideological basis. How do the PPP and PAD differ ideologically? How would they govern the country differently? Is there any real difference between the two?

Is this conflict just a personal squabble between Thaksin and Limthongkul? If not, what is this conflict about?

[Moonrakers]

I'm a first time poster here, but I am not a troll. No, seriously. Really. Honest.

I've been in Thailand for only a couple of weeks, so I don't yet know anything about what the heck is going on here.

None of the news reports are documenting the differences between the PPP and PAD party platforms and that just seems weird.

I am leaning towards the PPP for two reasons:

1. The PAD proposal to select legislators based upon their current occupations seems to be a couple thousand years behind the times. In today's dynamic free market economies, people change careers (not just jobs) four to six times during their lives. This proposal makes the PAD appear to be quite "unsophisticated" politically.
   
2. Street violence is another less than endearing quality for a political party. Does anyone really want to give power to a bugs of street thugs?
   

On the flip side though, Thaksin really was convicted and his trial appears to have been at least reasonably fair. But, technically, he's not in power now.

As an outsider, it seems as if this conflict has no ideological basis. How do the PPP and PAD differ ideologically? How would they govern the country differently? Is there any real difference between the two?

Is this conflict just a personal squabble between Thaksin and Limthongkul? If not, what is this conflict about?

OK, I'll be the one to say it.

THE PAD IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY!.

Please digest.

[grandpops]

I'm a first time poster here, but I am not a troll. No, seriously. Really. Honest.

I've been in Thailand for only a couple of weeks, so I don't yet know anything about what the heck is going on here.

None of the news reports are documenting the differences between the PPP and PAD party platforms and that just seems weird.

I am leaning towards the PPP for two reasons:

1. The PAD proposal to select legislators based upon their current occupations seems to be a couple thousand years behind the times. In today's dynamic free market economies, people change careers (not just jobs) four to six times during their lives. This proposal makes the PAD appear to be quite "unsophisticated" politically.
   
2. Street violence is another less than endearing quality for a political party. Does anyone really want to give power to a bugs of street thugs?
   

On the flip side though, Thaksin really was convicted and his trial appears to have been at least reasonably fair. But, technically, he's not in power now.

As an outsider, it seems as if this conflict has no ideological basis. How do the PPP and PAD differ ideologically? How would they govern the country differently? Is there any real difference between the two?

Is this conflict just a personal squabble between Thaksin and Limthongkul? If not, what is this conflict about?

OK, I'll be the one to say it.

THE PAD IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY!.

Please digest.

WOW at last somebody tells it like it is.

So what the hel_l are they doing in politics if they are not interested in Politics.

Spoiling, sniping and annoying thats what they are.

[Ricardo]

Spoiling, sniping and annoying thats what they are.

I'm sure that it must be very annoying, for the corrupt, when somebody keeps jumping up and shouting about it !

Unfortunately the police are somewhat less successful, at rooting-out corruption, until now. But I'm sure that the PAD don't wish to claim a monopoly ... if they wished to start ? But that would mean that the police were investigating, and arresting, the police criminals, which would never do.

[jitagon]

I'm a first time poster here, but I am not a troll. No, seriously. Really. Honest.

I've been in Thailand for only a couple of weeks, so I don't yet know anything about what the heck is going on here.

None of the news reports are documenting the differences between the PPP and PAD party platforms and that just seems weird.

I am leaning towards the PPP for two reasons:

1. The PAD proposal to select legislators based upon their current occupations seems to be a couple thousand years behind the times. In today's dynamic free market economies, people change careers (not just jobs) four to six times during their lives. This proposal makes the PAD appear to be quite "unsophisticated" politically.
   
2. Street violence is another less than endearing quality for a political party. Does anyone really want to give power to a bugs of street thugs?
   

On the flip side though, Thaksin really was convicted and his trial appears to have been at least reasonably fair. But, technically, he's not in power now.

As an outsider, it seems as if this conflict has no ideological basis. How do the PPP and PAD differ ideologically? How would they govern the country differently? Is there any real difference between the two?

Is this conflict just a personal squabble between Thaksin and Limthongkul? If not, what is this conflict about?

OK, I'll be the one to say it.

THE PAD IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY!.

Please digest.

WOW at last somebody tells it like it is.

So what the hel_l are they doing in politics if they are not interested in Politics.

Spoiling, sniping and annoying thats what they are.

You don't seem to be very conversant with the term 'political' as against, shall we say, being a political Party do you? One need not necessarily be a member per se of a Political Party to be political. Let me explain. The word 'political', in it's broadest sense, means 'of the people', therefore, one can be interested in politics, ergo 'political' without necessarily forming a 'party' (a group of persons interested in formulating a particular agenda to present to their particular town, city, country), to ask for a mandate to govern along that particular formulae.

Ipso facto: One need not 'be in politics' insofar as I understand from your post, intending to form aforesaid 'party' to be, um 'political'. Do you understand? Your ultimate sentence suggests that perhaps you er, might not?

[WillSpencer]

So what are PPP and PAD fighting about?