Is Thailand A Liberal Country?

[CaptHaddock]

Liberal? Thailand is a de facto military dictatorship at the moment.

[infernalman7]

I don't think you can call the whole country liberal or conservative anymore with an exception of some countries (like China or the US).

I think the social structure of Thailand is very conservative in the sense of low tax, low income re-distribution and lack of social welfare and of-course the class system (the Hi-sos and the poor, etc.). But you can call some of the Thai political parties conservative and liberal. Thaksin's party is more liberal. They are going after freedom of speech, income redistribution, public welfare, higher tax (despite the fact that Thaksin doesn't pay the tax himself), etc. The democrats are more conservative: protecting the highly respected institutions, inequality, etc.

[LaoPo]

...I smell something smelly....can't tell whether it's a left or right smell but a nasty one all right.

Never seen a topic with so many banned members though

Maybe that's the smell...with an OP with 1 post.

LaoPo

[TheJoker12]

This thread makes me laugh. A bunch of clueless people claiming that Thailand is a liberal country based on Walking Street and the fact that they haven't gotten arrested for public drunkenness like they did back home half a dozen times.

Besides prostitution and transgender rights, I would love for someone to tell me how Thailand is liberal.

[canuckamuck]

This thread makes me laugh. A bunch of clueless people claiming that Thailand is a liberal country based on Walking Street and the fact that they haven't gotten arrested for public drunkenness like they did back home half a dozen times.

Besides prostitution and transgender rights, I would love for someone to tell me how Thailand is liberal.

what else is there to being liberal then that.

[TheJoker12]

Not censoring cigarette smoke on the three government mandated television channels. Freedom of Speech.

Edited December 28, 2009 by TheJoker12

[MikeyIdea]

No benefits system, limited free education and low taxation .... id say that makes it a capitalist country but governed by a line of wanabee dictators.

Well avery high standard in Thai dance education, almost everybody has a cell phone beer is expensive. If you're poor you're poor.

And unlike a few large rich countries Thailand has a system of free medicine which seems to provide a reasonable standard.

free medicine ?? which thailand do you live in?

The Thailand that gives my daughters grandfather free medicine every time he is sick and also gave free hearing aid to his father

This Thailand

[canuckamuck]

Sorry joker, I was trying to be funny, actually I agree with you, outside of sexual ambiguity, there is very little to point to Thailand being liberal. Which is why in my original post I said they are selectively liberal.

[TheJoker12]

I knew you were joking. Just food for thought for others.

[MikeyIdea]

Kieth Bardwell

Thailand is compared to European countries of course a bad democracy, what you with European eyes would call a non – democratic country. If you necessarily want to see Thailand with European eyes, then I of course agree with you; Thai’s, of course, don’t care what you call it and neither do I. We’re not in Europe now and I hope Europe doesn’t come here

Thailand is compared to other Asian countries a pretty good democracy. It’s easy to see why we don’t understand each other. Go back and read post 11 by me in this thread again and maybe you will understand better, I write from an Asian perspective, you read from a European perspective. Now, that’s bound to cause mis-understandings

You seem to be the type who thinks that Asia should adopt western values in their politics only because you come here. Personally, I’m happy that Thai’s couldn’t care less about what westerners think they should do. I didn’t settle in Thailand nearly twenty years ago and expect them to adopt my values

[airplane]

By definition, democracies must be conservative. The human mind is oriented towards closure and it only a small minority who ever experience the joy of freedom. All constraints eminate from within.

[moetownblues]

It is nigh on impossible to apply Western ideological labels to Thailand's political system. There are however strong aspects of feudalism, corruptocracy (just invented that word), ultra-nationalism, military rule and nepotism.

I think you answered it...

[maccaroni man]

...I smell something smelly....can't tell whether it's a left or right smell but a nasty one all right.

Never seen a topic with so many banned members though Maybe that's the smell...with an OP with 1 post.

LaoPo

try the thread about completed house photos, full of banned members:)

[BBQueen]

it's a monarchy, so think about a mixture of feudalism and national capitalism

Constitutional monarchy.

You know, a public hospital would still treat a Thai or farang for free if it was an emergency.

You bet! Friends (one Thai, one farang) were in a serious bike accident at about midnight. Only had to wait til 8am when the docs arrived for their shifts to get treated.

Edited December 28, 2009 by BBQueen

[caf]

You know, a public hospital would still treat a Thai or farang for free if it was an emergency.

I think you'd get a bill at the end but perhaps you have evidence that it can be free. Personally I doubt it. I'll do some more checks or possibly other posters can confirm or deny.

Certainly a Thai with a terminal disease will have to pay for medical care. Not covered by the 30 baht scheme.

That is what I referred to as Thailand not having "free" medical care

Same as in the Uk: the medical care is "free" ( except that precriptions are around what gbp 7 per iterm) for emergencies and non emergencies.

[canuckamuck]

Kieth Bardwell

Thailand is compared to European countries of course a bad democracy, what you with European eyes would call a non – democratic country. If you necessarily want to see Thailand with European eyes, then I of course agree with you; Thai's, of course, don't care what you call it and neither do I. We're not in Europe now and I hope Europe doesn't come here

Thailand is compared to other Asian countries a pretty good democracy. It's easy to see why we don't understand each other. Go back and read post 11 by me in this thread again and maybe you will understand better, I write from an Asian perspective, you read from a European perspective. Now, that's bound to cause mis-understandings

You seem to be the type who thinks that Asia should adopt western values in their politics only because you come here. Personally, I'm happy that Thai's couldn't care less about what westerners think they should do. I didn't settle in Thailand nearly twenty years ago and expect them to adopt my values

It's a thread about how to describe Thailand from a western lexicon. A perfectly acceptable discussion. Not about adopting values or teaching Thais how things should be. Go back to your hut

Edited December 28, 2009 by canuckamuck

[harrry]

You know, a public hospital would still treat a Thai or farang for free if it was an emergency.

I think you'd get a bill at the end but perhaps you have evidence that it can be free. Personally I doubt it. I'll do some more checks or possibly other posters can confirm or deny.

Certainly a Thai with a terminal disease will have to pay for medical care. Not covered by the 30 baht scheme.

That is what I referred to as Thailand not having "free" medical care

Same as in the Uk: the medical care is "free" ( except that precriptions are around what gbp 7 per iterm) for emergencies and non emergencies.

well here is even better than UK then. Prescriptions on the list (and UK has a list too) are freeto thais on the scheme. It is a fairly comprehensive list and termin or not has little to do with it.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Liberal and leftist are not the same thing. In any case, Thailand's current government could roughly be called right wing, in a Thai context.

In ANY context! (Well, any context West of Pinochet's Chile!

[londonthai]

it's a monarchy, so think about a mixture of feudalism and national capitalism

Constitutional monarchy.

yes, it's called that in textbooks.

but over the last 87 years capitalism went through many phases (fascism/corporationism, national capitalism, world capitalism), as well as the role of the monarchy was evoluating. In my opinion thai capitalism did not develop fully into world capitalism because of a strong nationalism, luck of a developed and balanced parliamentary democracy, media censhorship and, the most importantly, slow technological progress.

there is an article on wikipedia about thai political system (mainly about constitution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand

over the 87 years there were 17 constitutions and charters.

there is a nice chart showing, that thai constitution was stipulating democracy in 1946 and 1997-2006, the majority of the time it was stipulating appointed legislature and right now it stipulates absolute executives (thtat's why many posters described the current political system as righ wing)

[dumbnewbie]

Countries like Taiwan and Japan are obviously right and China left, but what about Thailand? Are they more liberal right or more social left?

An interesting question, complicated by the vagueness of these terms. Are you sure Taiwan and Japan are right and China left? What do we mean by these terms? The word "liberal" is particularly tricky, because traditionally it refers to laissez-faire capitalism and is similar to "libertarian", whereas in the U.S. today most people understand "liberal" to mean "leftist, socialist, anti-capitalist, pro-big government, high taxes, lots of welfare, etc." (i.e., the opposite of right).

By "liberal right", it sounds to me that you mean laissez-faire, market-oriented, free enterprise capitalist, with small government (i.e., low taxes, little wealth redistribution, etc.). According to this definition, Hong Kong is one of the most laissez-faire markets in the world, with a very small government, a very low, flat income tax (15%), etc. It is widely regarded as one of the best places in the world for business.

By "social left", I believe you mean socialist, as in highly egalitarian, meaning equal. Supposedly Communist countries were "social left". But were they really? They were certainly nothing like the "social democracies" of Western Europe. If you look at China before Deng Xiaoping, or North Korea today, you'll find something closer to feudalism - almost everyone was extremely poor, bordering on starvation, with little freedom to move to another place or another job. On the surface, it seemed like "equality" - everyone poor. But hidden away behind walled compounds was an elite class of Communist party members living the high life like aristocracy, with wealth and many more freedoms.

But China has changed a great deal in the 30 years since it embraced the export-driven, state-capitalist model created by Japan and followed so successfully by South Korea and Singapore: there is a large and growing middle class and poverty has been nearly eliminated (at least in terms of mass starvation that was prevalent under Mao). But social inequality is more obvious, with a business elite (mostly the children of the Communist party elite) growing ever richer, and flaunting their wealth for all to see and envy.

On the other hand, Japan has always been very capitalistic, but is also a largely middle-class society, with progressive income taxes (steeply rising tax rates for higher incomes), "lifetime employment" for a large segment of the workforce, etc. Public flaunting of wealth is much less prevalent than in other Asian countries, so it seems that the vast majority of Japanese are equally well-off, comfortably middle class.

So how does Thailand compare? Thailand is something else again, having more in common with other Southeast Asian (or Latin American) economies. I think of these countries as somewhere between feudal and capitalist, with most people living third world lives (but at least not starving to death) and large, entrenched aristocratic classes that pretty much monopolize all the business in their countries and live first world lives. Interestingly, these elites tend to be mostly a different ethnicity (Chinese in Southeast Asian countries, European or "white" in Latin American countries).

I think it's interesting and significant that both China and Japan are largely homogeneous societies (certainly compared to SE Asian or Latin American countries) and both have basically stable one-party states with strong governments heavily involved in directing the national economies (with one voice). The other countries in contrast tend to have chaotic "multi-party democracy" where various factions of business elites compete with each other for power, making for less a than optimal business climate. These economies have also traditionally been less export-oriented and more "import-substitution" oriented, meaning local elites are content to merely protect their local monopoly businesses from foreign competition rather than try to export to the international marketplace, which is much harder. My theory is that these elites, because they are largely different from the majority populations are content to maintain their superior social status vis-a-vis their countrymen, whereas the Chinese and Japanese elites identify more with their fellow countrymen, being the same ethnicity, and thus have a more nationalist outlook of waging economic warfare to advance their whole nations to the top of the international order.

I'm no expert on this subject, but I find it interesting, so I've offered up some thoughts. Would love to hear any comments.