According to Wiki, there are several definitions of the expression 'Failed State'. Some of those are:

1. [A country in which the] central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline

2. ... a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e., has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having no armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the "no news is good news" approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of high crime rates, extreme political corruption, an extensive informal market, impenetrable bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors.

3. A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, in the words of Max Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state.

By any and all of these definitions, there seems to be a case for saying that Thailand is already a failed state.

Opinions?

Edited September 20, 200916 yr by KevinBloodyWilson

Yes

Thailand is a Wild West Banana Republic and long may it remain so.

The underworld seems to control the police and politicians on Phuket preventing public transports in widest parts of the island.

BangTao, Laguna, Kata, Karon Taxi have created untouchable cartels to charge twice as much as operators in Patong or Phuket town who would get hammered if they were to pick up tourists at ClubMed etc. for some regular rates.

From Patong to the airport the taxi fare is 500 THB, why can BangTao and Laguna chaps charge 800 THB for a trip to Patong which is only half the distance ?

Authorities have no saying and may risk to get shot.

So who rules ?

Yes

While "influential figures" hold sway in so many areas of Thai society then the country's going nowhere basically.

One of my own personal concepts of a successful state is the rule of law and order being applicable to all irrespective of who they are. IMHO Thailand has light years to go in this aspect.

Edited September 20, 200916 yr by mca

Is Thailand Already A Failed State?

Was it ever a sucessful state ?

Is Thailand Already A Failed State?

Was it ever a sucessful state ?

Probably not!

NO, if you have money

I think that is too strong a term. Somalia is a failed state. Thailand is no Somalia, thankfully.

Maybe a term like "floundering state" or "stalled state" or "stymied state", something like that but not failed. Not yet anyway.

As a person involved in education, I can assure you that it is NOT a failed state.

It's the national policy that they must get 50%!

I think that is too strong a term. Somalia is a failed state. Thailand is no Somalia, thankfully.

Maybe a term like "floundering state" or "stalled state" or "stymied state", something like that but not failed. Not yet anyway.

I think that is about right. But it is heading for failure.

As much as some of you apparently want it to be, no it is not anywhere near so.

According to Wiki, there are several definitions of the expression 'Failed State'. Some of those are:

1. [A country in which the] central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline

Opinions?

After re-reading these definitions it has occured to me that under definition 1.....the UK is a failed state then, but then again we knew that didnt we ?....With Flash Gordon and the muppets in power...

I think that is too strong a term. Somalia is a failed state. Thailand is no Somalia, thankfully.

Maybe a term like "floundering state" or "stalled state" or "stymied state", something like that but not failed. Not yet anyway.

I think that is about right. But it is heading for failure.

Yes and it's a damned shame. That is what drives us expats nuts. Thailand has sooo much potential -- it's very very frustrating watching Thailand so often being it's own worst enemy.

Edited September 20, 200916 yr by Lopburi99

thailand, a land of democracy was once creme de la creme.....

today???

a floundering state,.... a stymied state........ as mentioned out there somewhere in here in this discussion.......

a failed state???????

not just yet.

the definitions of a failed state offered here are too scholarly or scholastic.....

thailand is the real thing.....like coca cola is !

so, is that a failed drink too???coca cola , i mean......

if not, thailand is "a" ok.

Edited September 20, 200916 yr by miatai

I can really relate to Thailand personally. I also once had a lot of potential ...

Potential and five bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Thing fall apart ...

The center cannot hold

Edited September 20, 200916 yr by Jingthing

thailand is the real thing.....like coca cola is !

so, is that a failed drink too???coca cola , i mean......

Clever!

Well, we'll always have Bangkok.

What you say? It's SINKING?

Never mind ...

According to Wiki, there are several definitions of the expression 'Failed State'. Some of those are:

1. [A country in which the] central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline

2. ... a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e., has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having no armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the "no news is good news" approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of high crime rates, extreme political corruption, an extensive informal market, impenetrable bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors.

3. A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, in the words of Max Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state.

By any and all of these definitions, there seems to be a case for saying that Thailand is already a failed state.

Opinions?

definition #3 here is scary.....to say the least.

hitler's germany would have qualified as one that succeeded extremely well if no one "discovered" that the six million jews were slaughted along the way......

scarrrrrrrrrrry definition.......

definition #1, contradicts itself vis-a-vis thailand.......the transport systems still works ......inter alia other aspects of her bureaucracy and infrastructures.....et. al.

definition #2 is definitely way off in thailand's context and must fail miserably in describing thailand's brand of of democracy.......

The direction of the country is not good. As others progress, Thailand isn't.

It only looks better because it's next Burma.

Have a look at this site as a guide.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009...ap_and_rankings

If Thailand does not get its internal political problems sorted out soon there will be only one alternative, and that is military rule.

A stable government is essential. Thais must make their own decision on what type of goverment they want.

What if Thailand heads toward a republic in the future?

What happens if civil war breaks out in the future?

What countries will intervene? China? or the US (and its "allies").

Or would a proxy war develop between China and the US in Thailand?

Question- Are these "redshirts" as they are called pro republic? Are they backed by China?

And remember China is a communist country. Thailand is not, and while it is not it will get the

support of the US, so as to maintain the "balance of power" in the region.

Failed State in relationship to what? How do we actually measure that in the modern world? I would put these things as yard sticks:

1) quality of life for the majority (covers a lot of things that are hard to measure)

2) sustainable economy (meaning provides for presents needs without impairing needs of future generations)

3) rule of law established

4) democracy (true democracy)

Short answer: Yes.

If Thailand does not get its internal political problems sorted out soon there will be only one alternative, and that is military rule.

A stable government is essential. Thais must make their own decision on what type of goverment they want.

What if Thailand heads toward a republic in the future?

What happens if civil war breaks out in the future?

What countries will intervene? China? or the US (and its "allies").

Or would a proxy war develop between China and the US in Thailand?

Question- Are these "redshirts" as they are called pro republic? Are they backed by China?

And remember China is a communist country. Thailand is not, and while it is not it will get the

support of the US, so as to maintain the "balance of power" in the region.

Dude...go take some prozac...

you are turning the actions of some silly little power hungry schoolboys into a US vs China conflict...

China's a communist country....WOW didnt know that.

Every event in the world does not revolve around the US you know, they have made a pigs-as* of both Iraq and Afganistan, so dont think they could handle a proxy war against China anyway

One only has to look at the events in SE Asia and E Asia since 1949 and the influence of China PRC, the then USSR, the USA and their Allies had on the region.

Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, the support of Pol-Pot by China.

History tends to repeat inself.

The US will never win in the Afganistan when you have a people whose army, police and government are corrupt.

Just look at the history of the area.

The only way to control these countries is to occupy them, govern them and re-educate them.

If you cannot do that and can not win -get out.

The problem is that the US would suffer humiliation.

You can bet John Chinaman has a smile on his face as he watches Uncle Sam with his military and financial

problems.

the fact that many Farangs who have failed in their own countries live in Thailand indicates that the situation can't be too bad

the fact that many Farangs who have failed in their own countries live in Thailand indicates that the situation can't be too bad

Thailand was showing signs of being a failed state during the Samakh-Somchai period in 2008. However, there has been a properly constituted government since December, supported by a majority of members in the parliament. A failed state is something like Somalia: no comparison. I think the definitions are a bit suss, too.

No, Thailand is not a failed state, yet.

Edited September 21, 200916 yr by Xangsamhua

Thailand has failed??

You know any state that has not failed to reach the goals we could???? Is there not something strange going on everywhere and in every state on this globe? Nobody shall tell me that this is it, as we live on this planet right now with all this shit going on around us!! You name it, the list will be long!

Nevertheless everything is just as it must, the way we proceed. Everything is just a mirror. And as it looks at the moment (particular in Thailand), that the history written right now, seems to be very bad for the future too. A lot of ignorance going on everywhere.

Same same but different, best what comes to my mind