P A D -bkk Protesters Aim To ‘re-educate’ Rural Thais

[LaoPo]

Ok, Lao Po, I won't be saying anything new, but since you are stubbornly refuse to look up ealier posts on the subject, here it goes.

A. WHAT exactly does this mean: 50% of Parliament voted for by geographic area

It means 50% of MPs are voted in from geographical constituencies. Constituncies are formed by geographical boundaries but the number of representatives would also depend on the total population. On average one MP represents about 60-70 thousand voters, in some areas a bit more, in some areas a bit less. I mention this only to show that not everybody is equally represented in parliament as it is.

B. WHAT exactly is: 50% voted for by occupational representatives

It means that 50% of parlamentarians will represent various social groups and occupations. No one has ever drawn the proportions or even eligible groups.

PAD has mentioned the process of selecting them, but not the process of nominating them, which is far more important (I hope you are reading this, Meerkat). Technically after the nominees have been brought forward the selection could be done by a computer, it could be like government bidding auctions where they have all scoring systems in place. Personally I'd prefer this process applied to selecting Ministers, the way they do it, filling most important positions in the country, is absolutely non-transparent, unaccountable, and anti-democratic. No company could afford to have this kind of management.

C. WHO is going to decide and implement the PAD's proposal of 50:50 (taking into consideration the PAD is a non-political party) ?

Thai civil society. You can be sure Sondhi won't make it to the Consitution Drafting Committee. At the moment no one knows if the political reform will be started in the near future. If Democrats form the government and perform satisfactory the underlying need for a political clean up will disappear until the next big upheaval. More likely, though, that Dems would answer public request for Constitutional amendments but they will be very limited in scope and won't touch on occupational representation altogether.

Thank you Plus; finally at least one member who's able to give an answer, and: this is the first time I've seen the answers but that doesn't mean it wasn't described already as you did; I simply never noticed or read it in any other topic before.

Well, the 50:50 is never going to work either, next to the abandoned 70:30 proposition/idea by the PAD.

The 50% under A would be, for the largest part, come from the most dense populated areas.

To balance (read: control) that, the next 50% under B. was invented which of course would be higher educated parliamentarians and thus have a lot more BKK influence.

This system wouldn't work and end up in a mess...

I just came across a question on a board from The Nation where someone asked: Is the PAD democratic...? and what exactly are their so called NEW POLITICS ?

Nobody could give a clear answer what the New Politics are and where they stand for as they are shouted around a lot by the PAD but they do not appear on their website...

hmmmm....more and more I begin to believe I was right all along about the so called battle of the PAD: it's just a fight between Sondhi and Thaksin.

Nothing more nothing less. Mr. Sondhi doesn't care about Thailand or the Thai population; he just cares for his own sake, power and money and destroying everything connected to Thaksin.

In the end, Sondhi will only destroy himself because people filled with hate are dying full of hate. Bad karma.

It seems that Buddhism didn't succeed in teaching him (and Thaksin) that life is about love, not hate.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

I think you misjudge my intentions. It was not, and it will never be my intention to tell you or others how to behave about Thailand and the PAD. If you got that impression I do apologize for it. Sometimes written words are given a different meaning by the reader than it was the intention of the writer.

I never force other people to share my believes, because I don't like others do it with me. I'm a firm believer of free speech, debate and disagreeing about subjects is a part of that. So Laopo, Drink a Duvel or Hoegaerden beer and jay yen yen. All what we write will change nothing, we are not THAT important.[/color]

As soon as I'm into alcohol again (don't drink any now) I will have a Duvel, thanks

About Vlaanderen: well, you have been using quite ''stiff'' words about the outside part of Vlaanderen lately, but...maybe the soup isn't as hot as it's served...

LaoPo

[sbk]

Please do not reply to a large series of nested quotes --it fills the entire page. Also, do not post responses inside quote boxes, it makes it very unclear to posters who is saying what and is very bad netiquette.

[Plus]

Well, the 50:50 is never going to work either, next to the abandoned 70:30 proposition/idea by the PAD.

The 50% under A would be, for the largest part, come from the most dense populated areas.

To balance (read: control) that, the next 50% under B. was invented which of course would be higher educated parliamentarians and thus have a lot more BKK influence.

Under A - no, there will be one MP per 120-130 thousand people, regardless of the density. It depends on how exactly they draw the electoral zones and how many MPs they assign to each one.

As for B - no, not at all. The original PAD proposal was to give representations to occupational/social groups, not Bangkokians or people with higher education. Again, the exact list of eligible groups and their quota would depend on the Const Drafting Committee, not on PAD. The idea was to bypass the politicians and put professionals in parliament instead.

I, personally, think it's a great idea. We need representatives of farmers, rice traders, truckers, electronic part makers, auto industry, tourism industry, teachers etc in parliament. The country doesn't operate as a collection of geographic entities but as a collection of economic/social entities instead. They don't pass the laws on taxation in lower Isan, but they pass laws on auto industry taxes. They pass laws on retail trade, but not laws on market prices in Ratchaburi. Or take teachers and gays - their percentage in population will never ever get the representation on geographical basis only. Or women - no one would ever get into parliament campaigning on women's issues, so no one one represents them, ever. Once the parliament starts working, they set lots of committees - committee on rubber, committee on rice trade, committee on retail trade and so on. They don't have committees on Chiang Rai or committees on Suphan Buri. So they walk around asking "Hey guys, who knows anything about rubber? Who knows anything about education? Who knows anything about interest rates?" This is a design flaw, a big mismatch between personnel and duties they are expected to perform.

Occupational representation is supposed to address that issue, though setting it up is a major headache.

[Johpa]

CMSally made a brief mention of it a few days ago, but I think it is worth posting a link to Philip Bowring's excellent and concise article "The Crowd and the Crown" as it is getting some note in the larger bollockosphere. Bowring is a veteran observer of Southeast Asia, one of the few "old hands" still publishing observations and peering over the clouded horizon. Discussion of some of the specifics of Bowring's article are not appropriate to this forum, although thoughts on the PAD are fair game. The article itself should be required reading if for no other reason than to read the thoughts of someone who had been observing the scene as long as anyone out there.

[SomNamNah]

CMSally made a brief mention of it a few days ago, but I think it is worth posting a link to Philip Bowring's excellent and concise article "The Crowd and the Crown"

Been wondering the same since i got here two years ago and heard some of the gossip circulating around up here in the north.

Utterly ridiculous gossip. So stupid and nonsensical that i can only think its being pushed around by forces wishing radical changes, when certain clogs are popped. Difficult to try and write about it without writing about it! - im sure the yanks are on top of it though.. wouldnt want to lose Thailand as a buffer from the east.

darn those pesky Maoists!

Edited December 7, 2008 by SomNamNah

[henryalleman]

Well, the 50:50 is never going to work either, next to the abandoned 70:30 proposition/idea by the PAD.

The 50% under A would be, for the largest part, come from the most dense populated areas.

To balance (read: control) that, the next 50% under B. was invented which of course would be higher educated parliamentarians and thus have a lot more BKK influence.

Under A - no, there will be one MP per 120-130 thousand people, regardless of the density. It depends on how exactly they draw the electoral zones and how many MPs they assign to each one.

As for B - no, not at all. The original PAD proposal was to give representations to occupational/social groups, not Bangkokians or people with higher education. Again, the exact list of eligible groups and their quota would depend on the Const Drafting Committee, not on PAD. The idea was to bypass the politicians and put professionals in parliament instead.

I, personally, think it's a great idea. We need representatives of farmers, rice traders, truckers, electronic part makers, auto industry, tourism industry, teachers etc in parliament. The country doesn't operate as a collection of geographic entities but as a collection of economic/social entities instead. They don't pass the laws on taxation in lower Isan, but they pass laws on auto industry taxes. They pass laws on retail trade, but not laws on market prices in Ratchaburi. Or take teachers and gays - their percentage in population will never ever get the representation on geographical basis only. Or women - no one would ever get into parliament campaigning on women's issues, so no one one represents them, ever. Once the parliament starts working, they set lots of committees - committee on rubber, committee on rice trade, committee on retail trade and so on. They don't have committees on Chiang Rai or committees on Suphan Buri. So they walk around asking "Hey guys, who knows anything about rubber? Who knows anything about education? Who knows anything about interest rates?" This is a design flaw, a big mismatch between personnel and duties they are expected to perform.

Occupational representation is supposed to address that issue, though setting it up is a major headache.

I, personally, think it's a great idea. We need representatives of farmers, rice traders, truckers, electronic part makers, auto industry, tourism industry, teachers etc in parliament.

No, its not a good idea for the obvious reasons. But you can achieve this in a different way. In Europe, all of the above have their own social and business organisations or trade Unions. In Europe we call this the social midfield. And they play an important role in the political life and decision making. But organizing an election by league representation is unrealistic because not workable. But a political party can organize themselves as a league party. Again In Europe most Christian Democratic parties are organized like that. To explain how the social midfield can play their role , and how an league party is organized needs a lot of space, and is in fact not related to the topic.

[permanent_disorder]

I, personally, think it's a great idea. We need representatives of farmers, rice traders, truckers, electronic part makers, auto industry, tourism industry, teachers etc in parliament. The country doesn't operate as a collection of geographic entities but as a collection of economic/social entities instead. They don't pass the laws on taxation in lower Isan, but they pass laws on auto industry taxes. They pass laws on retail trade, but not laws on market prices in Ratchaburi. Or take teachers and gays - their percentage in population will never ever get the representation on geographical basis only. Or women - no one would ever get into parliament campaigning on women's issues, so no one one represents them, ever. Once the parliament starts working, they set lots of committees - committee on rubber, committee on rice trade, committee on retail trade and so on. They don't have committees on Chiang Rai or committees on Suphan Buri. So they walk around asking "Hey guys, who knows anything about rubber? Who knows anything about education? Who knows anything about interest rates?" This is a design flaw, a big mismatch between personnel and duties they are expected to perform.

it's an old hat. it's Soviet Democracy. late 70s, 80s breshnev version. the design of parliaments in the eastern european states.

after the revolutions have been won and everything was in a smooth flow, the breshnev era commies realised that in their now "developed society" are more classes and social ranks than only working class heros and peasants, a new middle class, teacher, journalist, artists, academics, white collar jobs. and they "reformed" they concept of socialism from a dictatorship of the proletariat to a more people power parliament with people from all walks of the (socialist) life. after the helsenki declaration the commies also had to paint a little bit more human rights touch into their policies.

so the teachers had their organsiation, the railroad worker had their organsiation, the cattle farmer had their organsiation, the cultural miniorities had their organsiation, the people work in the media had their organsiation, mass sports movement had their organisation, woman organisation, youth organisation and so on. politics of new type means not only political parties also those organisations taking part on politics. Lenin: "mass organisation are the transmission belt to bring politics of new type into the civil society" and all of them had their internal selection process to nominate a candidate, a delegatee for the peoples congress, the parliament with MP from all walks of the (good) life. with lot's of commie brainwash and control and obedience it was made for sure that only the names of "good" people came forward.

bring politics in the nonpolitical parts of the civil society, and not only to vote every 4 years, was the choosen method and preferred way of total control by the commies.

they still had election with 99,97-99,98% yes votes and that because the real democratic act was not just cast a vote on election day, but a long process of carefully selection of only "good" people as candidates be done in the local communities, grass-roots groups, local teams of whatever , everybody did active participate. that was the democratic process.

99,99% yes (you could not choose between different options, persons, parties only say yes) was the manifestaion of all people how happy they are with their delevelop society of a new type.

[siam4ever]

It's great to see the world press discussing what cannot be discussed here in Thailand. Without it, our little discussion is very incomplete.

[Koo82]

PAD is .... non-political movement.

What? One of the PAD leaders are Somkiart Pongpaiboon. This "nai" is a Sor Sor member of Democrat Party.

[Plus]

PD, eastern block countries has a single party totalitarian system and on paper they had with only one class representation, ok, maybe two - workers and farmers.

Under new politics 70% of parliament would have no party affiliations whatsoever and would represent HUNDREDS of groups and classes.

If you want to talk about one totalitarian party claiming to represent farmers - look no firther than TRT/PPP/PTP. They only didn't use the word "communist" in their name, all their ideologists came from communist ranks anyway.

[citizen33]

PD, eastern block countries has a single party totalitarian system and on paper they had with only one class representation, ok, maybe two - workers and farmers.

Under new politics 70% of parliament would have no party affiliations whatsoever and would represent HUNDREDS of groups and classes.

If you want to talk about one totalitarian party claiming to represent farmers - look no firther than TRT/PPP/PTP. They only didn't use the word "communist" in their name, all their ideologists came from communist ranks anyway.

Present tense re 'eastern block'? Usual incoherent rambling from this poster.

[grandpops]

PD, eastern block countries has a single party totalitarian system and on paper they had with only one class representation, ok, maybe two - workers and farmers.

Under new politics 70% of parliament would have no party affiliations whatsoever and would represent HUNDREDS of groups and classes.

If you want to talk about one totalitarian party claiming to represent farmers - look no firther than TRT/PPP/PTP. They only didn't use the word "communist" in their name, all their ideologists came from communist ranks anyway.

Present tense re 'eastern block'? Usual incoherent rambling from this poster.

I agree, the PAD tag team get more bizarre the more it becomes apparrant that they have been supporting a Fascist Coup this past 6 months.

It show that many falangs think that Thaksin invented corruption and that they have no memory of Thailand before the late 90's.

A falang education program could also be in order over here!

[Plus]

PD, eastern block countries has a single party totalitarian system and on paper they had with only one class representation, ok, maybe two - workers and farmers.

Present tense re 'eastern block'? Usual incoherent rambling from this poster.

You sure realise that buttons "s" and "d" are next to each other on the keyboard, and "has/had" mistyping is very easy to understand in the contest of eastern block countries.

I guess you just needed and excuse to say "incoherent rambling". Well done!

Do you have anything to add on the subject or are you thinking up another clever flaming phrase?

[permanent_disorder]

PD, eastern block countries has a single party totalitarian system and on paper they had with only one class representation, ok, maybe two - workers and farmers.

Present tense re 'eastern block'? Usual incoherent rambling from this poster.

You sure realise that buttons "s" and "d" are next to each other on the keyboard, and "has/had" mistyping is very easy to understand in the contest of eastern block countries.

I guess you just needed and excuse to say "incoherent rambling". Well done!

Do you have anything to add on the subject or are you thinking up another clever flaming phrase?

plus, take it easy. you know it and i know it, that is a grammar nazi, , the worst kind of nazi. nobody loves them

Encyclopedia Dramatica says: "Everyone hates Grammar Nazis because they are the ultimate lulz killers."

[permanent_disorder]

PD, eastern block countries has a single party totalitarian system and on paper they had with only one class representation, ok, maybe two - workers and farmers.

Under new politics 70% of parliament would have no party affiliations whatsoever and would represent HUNDREDS of groups and classes.

If you want to talk about one totalitarian party claiming to represent farmers - look no firther than TRT/PPP/PTP. They only didn't use the word "communist" in their name, all their ideologists came from communist ranks anyway.

yes, hundreds of groups and classes. in fact, the commies states where ruled by a dictactorian moralists elite, the bunch of fun suckers in the Politburo. but in theory, on the paper it sounds exactly like your dream.

please don't blame me for using wikipedia, but it's shown there in a short and compact manner, more reliable sources wouldn't be in english or big books and long reads.

After World War II, most Central and Eastern European countries became de facto one-party states, but in theory they were ruled by coalitions between several different political parties who voluntarily chose to work together. For example, East Germany was ruled by a "National Front" of all anti-fascist parties and movements within parliament (Socialist Unity Party of Germany, Liberal Party, Farmers' Party, Youth Movement, Trade Union Federation, etc). *

in the theory not only one party as ruler but a coalition of different parties and also civil organizations of all kind, with people from all works of life. it was called National Front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(East_Germany)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(Czechoslovakia)

the wiki entry to the NF east germany have the composition of the parliament, called peoples chamber Volkskammer of 1981-86

only 25% of seats for the socialist party (itself a union of communist party and social democratic party), 10% for christian democratic party, 10% for national democratic party, 10% liberal party, 10% for a farmer party, 12 % trade union federation, 7% for the youth organsation,6% for a woman organsiation and 4% for a cultural assosiation.

doesn't look like a single party system, or?

or look at the entry to czechoslovakia there is a much more longer list of civil organizations or groups and classes taking actice part in politics for the people. amoungst others you have the Red Cross, a "Physical Culture Association", even Union of Philatelists. but the wiki entry lists only a small selction, switch to the Czech version and you will see a much more longer list of associations, organisation, clubs, entities, groups, representatives of the civil society.

now look at this impressive list and no kidding all of them did take part on the "democratic process", seleceted their representatives. in the local parliaments or even on the state level the MP came from all walks of life. in normal life hospital nurse, crane operators, graduate engineers, scientists, teachers, steelworkers, sailors, youth and senior citizens, the best and popular artists and writers.

Katharina Witt for example was an elected deputy of the east-german parliament. and all of them have been the "good people" and because the socialist ideology was the "good ideology" all of them have been yes men.

it was not anymore the hard core talk of working class rule, but they saw themself and describe themself as democratic states for all peoples.

mid 70s the russians did a new constitution, the other states followed. kind of a reform but not like the prague spring or what later happen under Gorbachev. just to go smooth in the global world, be in the united nations, the signed the Helsinki Accords. and to do business with the western world, they had to give them self a much more human touch.

on the paper and in theory the commies wanted the best for the people and the humanity.

to see the similarities with you maybe have to lived in one of these states, or study the propaganda of that time. the late 70s and 80s. and study the sources, not through the filter what historian say or political scientists. read the original commie newspaper, watch recorded commie TV shows, news reels from the archive. read what was written in a czech youth magazine, a katharina witt interview in a east german paper after she got elected to the parliament or the conference report of the annual meeting of czech Union of Philatelists, what they said about the "good" society. study how the system had described itself. the same work of study would be also essential to understand why PAD also get compared with the nazis or called fascist. a standard general education and watched a couple of docutainments on history channel is not enough. read goebbels, read the election campaign speeches. you know, fascism is much more than start world wars, gas the jews and have a funny moustache.

have a glimpse on the 1977 Soviet Constitution

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russia...st/1977toc.html

[Plus]

I see your point.

There's one big difference though - ideological control that is non-existent in "new politics" yet was all too obvious in TRT led government.

[Journalist]

^In practice (for example Hong Kong), appointed representatives and elected delegates of professional/industry groups tend to gravitate towards and into polarised ideological blocs.

I.e because a vote calls for either a 'yea' or a 'nay'. ....there aren't hundreds of different voting options available.

[permanent_disorder]

I see your point.

There's one big difference though - ideological control that is non-existent in "new politics" yet was all too obvious in TRT led government.

ohh, good that you see the point.

but no ideological control? who comes that we have this 'Rural people don't know the truth like we do in Bangkok. It is our duty to re-educate them.' topic.

okay, just listen what the PAD says in the Announcement 29/2008: Conditions For New Government:

"13. Show the stance of supporting the public in building new politics with greater public participation in politics to ensure true democracy for politics, the economy, and the society accordingly to the way of the PAD and to prevent a future political crisis.

The PAD calls on politicians who are forming the new government to consider the ideologies of the people and heroes who have sacrificed for the country more than negotiations to compete for benefits by different political groups. The new government should announce its stance and follow the above conditions so as not to disappoint the people and prevent them from losing faith in the current political system.

If the conditions and ideologies of the PAD are denied or ignored, it is ready to stage activities according to the situation.

With deepest respect,

People’s Alliance for Democracy

December 12, 2008"

that is what i mean, they claim to have the TRUTH, thats makes it to a totalitarian ideology. and it is not an Open Society

[Martin]

No, it is not an Open Society.

That was brought home when I (and a huge number of thinking people in Britain) this morning read the downright racism at the end of this piece from a report in the London 'Observer':

"....almost all observers agree that, if Abhisit is to gain any traction and win the popular mandate he so badly needs, he must take action to connect with ordinary Thais.

Judging by his appointments since becoming prime minister, the chances of that are slim, particularly in the north. Last week, emerging from parliament minutes after Abhisit won his vote, Democrat MP Charoen Kanthawongs, a lawyer with the prominent firm Tilleke and Gibbins International, told a Malaysian newspaper, the New Straits Times, that he was not concerned by the opinions of the north-easterners who make up much of Veera's support.

"People in the north-east are employees of people in Bangkok," said Charoen Kanthawongs. "My servants are from the northeast. Gas station attendants in Bangkok are from the north-east."...."

If the present crash of his urban, middle-class capitalist financial system means that Charoen Karthawongs finds that the services of Tilleke and Gibbons are no longer required and he gets hungry in Bangkok and would like to eat from my granary, then he will work long and hard in the fields as an unskilled servant of an Isaan farmer in order to earn the rice for his bowl.

[Siripon]

Martin, it is a tragic but undeniable fact that the land in Issan cannot support all its sons and daughters. My father and mother moved from Kalasin to Ban Pai district many years ago and were lucky enough to acquire about 70 rai of farmland. In those days people just settled down and started farming, claiming the land as their own. That land was then divided amongst us, the children, 6 siblings.

So now it's 11.5 rai to be divided amongst my 3 children, and we're talking about one rice crop a year, with profits per rai ranging from 2000 to 3,000 baht.

Industry doesn't want to move to Issan, too many costs in spite of the tax breaks.

So the people move for work and leave the farms for the elderly to take care of, one day returning themselves in many cases.

Thaksin was a false messiah for upcountry folk, using them simply to maintain his power base and I believe Aphisit has the best chance he's ever had to make an impression on Issan people. What is needed long term is well thought out agricultural training, education and engineering for Issan; but world agriculural prices cannot be denied, although subsidies certainly help ease the pain! when rice mills and traders actually follow them.

The word 're-educate' has terrible connotations in westerners' thinking but i think it's a mistranslation here, 'inform', would be a better choice. And everyone agrees education in Thailand needs reforming, indeed Apisit researched this in detail many years ago, always ignored by Thaksin of course.

[hammered]

Martin, it is a tragic but undeniable fact that the land in Issan cannot support all its sons and daughters. My father and mother moved from Kalasin to Ban Pai district many years ago and were lucky enough to acquire about 70 rai of farmland. In those days people just settled down and started farming, claiming the land as their own. That land was then divided amongst us, the children, 6 siblings.

So now it's 11.5 rai to be divided amongst my 3 children, and we're talking about one rice crop a year, with profits per rai ranging from 2000 to 3,000 baht.

Industry doesn't want to move to Issan, too many costs in spite of the tax breaks.

So the people move for work and leave the farms for the elderly to take care of, one day returning themselves in many cases.

Thaksin was a false messiah for upcountry folk, using them simply to maintain his power base and I believe Aphisit has the best chance he's ever had to make an impression on Issan people. What is needed long term is well thought out agricultural training, education and engineering for Issan; but world agriculural prices cannot be denied, although subsidies certainly help ease the pain! when rice mills and traders actually follow them.

The word 're-educate' has terrible connotations in westerners' thinking but i think it's a mistranslation here, 'inform', would be a better choice. And everyone agrees education in Thailand needs reforming, indeed Apisit researched this in detail many years ago, always ignored by Thaksin of course.

The only people in politcs who would even consider reforming/improving eductaion for the rural poor are the ones they dont vote for. Quite simple really if you already have then enthralled dont change anything that may affect that. If they dont listen or consider you then make changes you think will change that. Politcs 101 and why Thaksin prefferd KG1 to M3 free education over P1 to M6 or P1 to techno prefferd by Dems

[animatic]

It is telling that the well educated Abhisit took the Education portfolio for himself.

Seem he wants to be sure something gets done there.

He knows the value of a good education for lifting up a country.

[permanent_disorder]

It is telling that the well educated Abhisit took the Education portfolio for himself.

Seem he wants to be sure something gets done there.

He knows the value of a good education for lifting up a country.

Abhisit is well educated?

[Thai at Heart]

It is telling that the well educated Abhisit took the Education portfolio for himself.

Seem he wants to be sure something gets done there.

He knows the value of a good education for lifting up a country.

Abhisit is well educated?

On paper, it doesn't get much better academically than Eton and a 1st from Oxford. However, of what practical use it will be in the dirty world of Thai politics is entirely a different matter.

[Plus]

Or better yet - what practical use it will be in the dirty world of Thaivisa...

Journalist,

In practice (for example Hong Kong), appointed representatives and elected delegates of professional/industry groups tend to gravitate towards and into polarised ideological blocs.

So do you think that HK has been 30% fascist for nearly two decades the system was in place?

Ideology is not occupation based, is it?

In current politics there's no ideology involved anyway, and there won't be any unless you get diverse representation, like under new politics, for example. Then we might have strong left leaning farmers+fishermen blocks.

In HK, afaik, they limit representation only to top tier professionals like doctors and lawyers, they did not devise their system to represent ALL sectors in society, so they might tend to grow ideologically close.

[Martin]

Actually, Abhisit got his 'first' in a Disneyland collection of Mickey Mouse subjects called PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics).

A 'first' in PPE was also gained by Ruth Kelly, who got to the UK Cabinet and was not impressive. It was also gained by a certain other old-Etonian called Cameron, who is now leader of the UK Opposition, but seems very short on policy ideas.

Not all 'firsts' in PPE at Oxford have been disappointments, though. Possibly the best Prime Minister that the UK never had was Dennis Healey, who was one such----but it was after a boyhood in a tough North Yorkshire textile-machinery-manufacturing town called Keighley, and being a pupil at Bradford Grammar School. There is all the world of difference between Bradford and Windsor (the location of Eton).

PPE makes sense as a mid-career degree for a mature adult who has real-life experience with which to compare the theories of politics, philosophy and economics----but, when I mischievously suggest it, I find that university lecturers blanch at the suggestion that they should be exposed to the rigours of having such 'students' to contend with.

(Incidentally, Dennis Healey wasn't only a politician. His World War II service showed him to be a man who could manage a tough managerial job in the field of action (invasion beach master----than which I cannot think of any tougher managerial appointment---and I have held the highest one on Earth). One always wonders how much of Healey's success at Westminster was due to boyhood in Keighley and Bradford and service in the wartime army, rather than the 'first' in PPE at Oxford.)

So, if the new PM of Thailand does turn out well, I shall wonder whether it was because of, or in spite of, a very privileged start in life.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Martin

[animatic]

Typical academic specialists.

They blanch at the idea of inter-disciplinary courses

drawing from several fields to create a new one.

It doesn't get all their detail so it can't be good.

They are often so specialized that they see individual trees,

with startling clarity, and the subjective forest in clear broad strokes.

But have no clue how to make paper from tree cellulous, and the economics

of getting that paper to market, so their their narrowed studies can be printed

and disseminated.

There is something to be said for tieing several disciplines together, to provide a

broad based ability to reason in simultaneous parralelling fields of thought.

The ability to see a bigger than standard picture, and have a good idea WHERE to look,

and what questions to ask when you find the right source for more detail, can't be over rated.

[Martin]

For 'Siripon', re post # 411:

Having to divide the land between siblings is a huge problem in all 'peasant' communities, I know.

Where I farmed in the hills of Mid-Wales there was a saying that it is awful for a hill farmer not to have a son to leave the farm to' but also awful for him to have two sons who both want to farm.

(That is one of the reasons for another saying there in Mid Wales: "Our biggest export is young teachers to English cities."!)

(Another reason behind that latter saying, though, is that a lot of farmers' daughters don't want to be a hill farmer' wife!)

I am not convinced that the problem in Isaan is lack of land, though. When I did my scenario of Thailand and its Isaan villages in the coming era of energy depletion for my MA thesis, I had to consider how urban-to-rural migration will be coped with; and, so, the 'population-carrying capacity' of Isaan. At first glance, there looks to be enough land if the big blocks in the ownership of private landowners and 'the powers that be' were put to intensive cultivation.

I toyed with the idea of switching to Agricultural Economics and Economic Anthropology for my PhD and doing an in-depth study of how much population the land of one representative Isaan village could carry, if the problems of the requisite socio-political transitions could be surmounted. I dropped the idea for two reasons: firstly, I don't speak, read or write Thai, and secondly, one is expected to make policy recommendations at the end of such a study and it seemed indelicate for a 'farang' to get involved in that!

I agree with you when you say that Thaksin was 'a false messiah', but my neighbours say much worse things than that about Chuan! However, there is no point in getting into the subject of the governance of Thailand on this website. If I reported a few happenings up here this week, the Mods would trash my contribution in seconds.

[LaoPo]

Martin, it is a tragic but undeniable fact that the land in Issan cannot support all its sons and daughters. My father and mother moved from Kalasin to Ban Pai district many years ago and were lucky enough to acquire about 70 rai of farmland. In those days people just settled down and started farming, claiming the land as their own. That land was then divided amongst us, the children, 6 siblings.

So now it's 11.5 rai to be divided amongst my 3 children, and we're talking about one rice crop a year, with profits per rai ranging from 2000 to 3,000 baht.

Industry doesn't want to move to Issan, too many costs in spite of the tax breaks.

So the people move for work and leave the farms for the elderly to take care of, one day returning themselves in many cases.

Thaksin was a false messiah for upcountry folk, using them simply to maintain his power base and I believe Aphisit has the best chance he's ever had to make an impression on Issan people. What is needed long term is well thought out agricultural training, education and engineering for Issan; but world agriculural prices cannot be denied, although subsidies certainly help ease the pain! when rice mills and traders actually follow them.

The word 're-educate' has terrible connotations in westerners' thinking but i think it's a mistranslation here, 'inform', would be a better choice. And everyone agrees education in Thailand needs reforming, indeed Apisit researched this in detail many years ago, always ignored by Thaksin of course.

Good post and very good observation from a Thai member; well done Sir !

One remark though about your Thaksin/Abhisit observation.

It seems that about everything that went wrong in Thailand the past few years is blamed on Thaksin; a lot of that is correct.

However, many (maybe including yourself) forget that the downfall is not -just- to be blamed to the latter.

It is/was a STRUCTURAL problem whereby the elite was not interested at all in the development and education of the rural poor; maybe Thaksin was the first to understand that he needed the support of the same rural people to grab for power.

Before his time it was the same old elite - a few hundred families - who ruled Thailand and rule it now -AGAIN-.

Let's hope Abhisit understands that he can't stay in power for long (supported by the elite/military/PAD) without the support of the rural Thai.

The upcoming unemployment numbers which will grow to well over a million, together with declining tourism will make his job even more difficult and let's hope the rural people stay calm...

After all the rural people are by far a large majority, 60-70% minimal or 40-45 million people out of 65 million !

LaoPo