Thailand A Third World Country? Come On!

[mackayae]

It's quite simple.

Switzerland is a first world country.

Poland is a second world country.

Thailand is a third world country.

However, Thailand is ahead of North Korea.

[JoeThePoster]

However, Thailand is ahead of North Korea.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

After all North Korea has a government which is more stable than that of Thailand.

Edited December 19, 2008 by JoeThePoster

[dumball]

Hey canadamonkey , you fogot to mention you can get spoken to in 28 different laguages in Canada on the telephone .

[Ricardo]

but then again even London only has one or two 'skyscrapers' and doesn't have a Skytrain is London a third world on this basis?!?!

Yes they do ... it is called the Docklands Light Railway !

And much of the South-London commuter-railway system runs above the ground on arched viaducts too.

London-Heathrow & Stansted also get closed by protesters sometimes, just like Swampy !

[Sabum]

with military coup every few years (with an exeption of one - all very bloody ones)

Bit of an exaggeration to say the least.

The last bloody coup in Thailand i can recall is the failed Manhattan Coup of 1951.

1991 saw blood on the streets, but that was the aftermath of a coup - not the coup itself

1976 saw public hangings and the notwhat but had nothing to do with a coup, bunch of supposed royalists cracking down on supposed communists.

1973 saw deaths but that was after the arrest of some student activists - a coup followed but the crackdown had nothing to do with a coup.

1958 and Pol Gen Sarit saw the beginning of a huge bloody crackdown on supposed leftists - but had nothing to do with a coup

*************

From Wiki:

"Somalia is considered a Third World country due to rampant poverty and lawlessness"

If you consider the latter a a definition of 'third world', then you had better not go to The United States.

LondonThai wrote "I do not know details, but from the commemorative programs on thai tv, tales of my thai family of thousands of dead piled up on sanam luang (and then fed to crocodiles on military governed farms)"[/b]

A slight exaggeration there on 1976 i think Great tales indeed your Thai family tells (when they're not drinking that is). Are they (the family) academics or north-eastern rice farmers?

Interesting in that LondonThai dismisses others for their reading and research into Thai history etc... yet he post links to the totally anti-monarchist Economist articles.

By the way: isn't this a Travel Forum? I thought political agendas, pro-Thaksin conspiracies and other anti Thailand opinion editorial links were suited for other forums.

Slight exageration eh? If even half of its true DON'T YOU THINK THAT IS HORRIFYING ENOUGH? Who are you? Why would you be trying to downplay Thailands extremely bloody history. The coups weren't bloody? Are you entirely serious? The coups were DIRECTLY linked to the blood, set up enough strife and disorder and and you can move in and have a nice smooth coup, without the blood there would be no coup. They did the exact same thing recently only without all the death, thankgod for progress!

[cheynewalk]

I think the best general rule as to what constitutes a 3rd world country is -

"is the tapwater safe to drink?"

[ThaiEye]

with military coup every few years (with an exeption of one - all very bloody ones)

Bit of an exaggeration to say the least.

The last bloody coup in Thailand i can recall is the failed Manhattan Coup of 1951.

1991 saw blood on the streets, but that was the aftermath of a coup - not the coup itself

1976 saw public hangings and the notwhat but had nothing to do with a coup, bunch of supposed royalists cracking down on supposed communists.

1973 saw deaths but that was after the arrest of some student activists - a coup followed but the crackdown had nothing to do with a coup.

1958 and Pol Gen Sarit saw the beginning of a huge bloody crackdown on supposed leftists - but had nothing to do with a coup

*************

From Wiki:

"Somalia is considered a Third World country due to rampant poverty and lawlessness"

If you consider the latter a a definition of 'third world', then you had better not go to The United States.

LondonThai wrote "I do not know details, but from the commemorative programs on thai tv, tales of my thai family of thousands of dead piled up on sanam luang (and then fed to crocodiles on military governed farms)"[/b]

A slight exaggeration there on 1976 i think Great tales indeed your Thai family tells (when they're not drinking that is). Are they (the family) academics or north-eastern rice farmers?

Interesting in that LondonThai dismisses others for their reading and research into Thai history etc... yet he post links to the totally anti-monarchist Economist articles.

By the way: isn't this a Travel Forum? I thought political agendas, pro-Thaksin conspiracies and other anti Thailand opinion editorial links were suited for other forums.

Slight exageration eh? If even half of its true DON'T YOU THINK THAT IS HORRIFYING ENOUGH? Who are you? Why would you be trying to downplay Thailands extremely bloody history. The coups weren't bloody? Are you entirely serious? The coups were DIRECTLY linked to the blood, set up enough strife and disorder and and you can move in and have a nice smooth coup, without the blood there would be no coup. They did the exact same thing recently only without all the death, thankgod for progress!

Bloody etc...... The top person to believe is one of those Thais who was actually involved in an 'incident' and that is Thaksin's best buddy and former Prime Minister Samak. On behalf of Thaksin, he told CNN that 'only one unlucky guy died' (in 1976)

[beechguy]

I suppose it depends on what you want to use as a definition as Third World. Bahrain, Kuwait, and U.A.E. all have good infrastructure but i would much rather live in Thailand. My only experience with africa was Kenya, and that was truly third world in my opinion.

Anyway, if you think Thailand is third world and don't like it, it's easy enough to stay home or go some other place.

[Jimjim]

Third World country is an overused and outdated term. It was first used after WWII to refer to the countries within geographic regions of Asia and Africa that had little or no industry and low GDP. Some of these countries had societies that were not such in a bad state in many areas, just not wealthy.

Thailand should be referred to as a newly industrialized country. Countries like India, China and South Africa are also in this category. That is the modern terminology which is relevant in today's world. The lowest classification would be least developed countries which is much of Africa. No term is perfect, however, and there are a few different ways to classify all the countries of the world. Third World is the least descriptive, though.

People often seem to just like to use the term "third world country" to put down Thailand or roll their eyes at Thailand as if they are superior having not come from a third world country. I think it makes some Westerners in Thailand feel better about themselves to use this term and helps them easily sum up what they see as negative or backward about the country. It's just used in the wrong way, quite often, and I think should not really be used at all anymore. It's just not accurate. Welcome to the new century.

[beechguy]

Well written Jimjim, I don't use term very often but did in the context of the topic. Still Thailand does have problems, but I would not describe it as "Third World". And, even if it was, I don't understand people spending their money and making an effort to come here and then bitch about it. Would you spend money on a car, then complain about it? Anyway, just seems stupid to me. Like they say "Upto you".

Edited December 21, 2008 by beechguy

[Naam]

Third World country is an overused and outdated term. It was first used after WWII to refer to the countries within geographic regions of Asia and Africa that had little or no industry and low GDP. Some of these countries had societies that were not such in a bad state in many areas, just not wealthy.

Thailand should be referred to as a newly industrialized country. Countries like India, China and South Africa are also in this category. That is the modern terminology which is relevant in today's world.

whatever the modern terminology might be... it is ridiculous to call e.g. India or China "newly industrialised" countries as the overwhelming majority (~1.5 billion) Indians and Chinese live in rural areas on subsistence levels.

[soundman]

I have withdrawn from public viewing a dozen posts.

Next reference to HM or the Royal family or the articles from the Economist that have been banned in Thailand will earn the offender a posting rights suspension.