PM Abhisit Questions Thaksin's Role As Leader Of 'Class War'

[moresomekl]

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

You can't compare a two party system like Britain with Thailand that has many parties to vote for.

People elect politicians to be their representatives. If they people wanted PPP they should vote PPP.

If the people vote for an MP from a smaller party, then they have to accept which side their representatives decide to go with.

This isn't a case of voting for a PPP MP who changes sides. This is voting for a smaller party who decide that one party isn't doing what their electorate want, so they decide to support another party.

No they dont have to accept which side their representative go with . I disagree totally

its not democracy , its cooking show in the parliament .

Yes last time they voted , they voted PPP , without election they get something else .

No wonder the red shirt are in the street

[moresomekl]

Yes he got a remuneration , he was not employed full time by the TV company . I am not sure what the law says exactly

The main problem is accumulation

PM in exercise is removed in a coup

after a pause by a retired general that wrecks the economy by the way within a year PPP is elected meaning pro Thaksin

thais like his policies dont yu think ?

That PM of PPP is removed because cooking show

Then replaced by that other PM who is removed because vote buying , as if this happens in Thailand first time

PPP disbanded .

Then Abhisit get in power , no election , by some defection in parliament .

NO ELECTION . WHY ?

End result voters voted PPP last time they got consulted , and the end result from a totally different party is Abhisit .

You talk about abuse of power by Mr T , well i see some of the same here

I am sorry you cant convince me

The caretaker PM was removed by a coup. Not excusing the coup. But pointing out that at the time HE WAS NOT THE ELECTED PM.

That's a new one. Did he wreck the economy?

The law says that he can't get renumeration from anywhere except being PM.

So every one does it, so it's OK??

Not a defection. All legit.

Yes he was the caretaker PM named by HM , elections to be held in a month or two at the moment of the coup .

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Yes that retired general with his law on limiting the sales of shares in thai companies , end result : drop of foreign investement

in Thailand , anyway . thats smart LOL . THen PPP get elected

Since then no election even though PM change 3 times .

Congrats ... thats democracy but only in THailand

[way2muchcoffee]

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

Are you talking about the law and the constitution of Thailand or are you talking about hot dogs and hamburgers? All of your problems seem to revolve about not agreeing with the law of Thailand. Perhaps that is what you should be lobbying for to be changed. The current government is in power because of the law. If Abhisit has violated the law the PTP would have discovered it by now. They didn't and he hasn't. I really don't understand what you are banging on about.

Edited March 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[rixalex]

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Reasons for the coup are far from simple. Were you here at the time leading up to it?

[moresomekl]

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

Are you talking about the law and the constitution of Thailand or are you talking about hot dogs and hamburgers?

You got my meaning . It was an image . And i like cooking shows anyway

[rixalex]

THen PPP get elected

Since then no election even though PM change 3 times .

Twice to be precise.

[moresomekl]

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Reasons for the coup are far from simple. Were you here at the time leading up to it?

Yes i was and left the day of the coup . I know and i am not a Thaksin supporter but was very bad for the image

of THailand

And i think things should have been worked out differently in a legal way .

[moresomekl]

THen PPP get elected

Since then no election even though PM change 3 times .

Twice to be precise.

THe cooking one , Mr T brother in law , and now Abhisit . 3x PM

[moresomekl]

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Reasons for the coup are far from simple. Were you here at the time leading up to it?

Still the main reason for the coup was that if no coup Mr T would be elected

you know that .

If want to remove someone ,even someone not good , legal means must be used .

[rixalex]

THen PPP get elected

Since then no election even though PM change 3 times .

Twice to be precise.

THe cooking one , Mr T brother in law , and now Abhisit . 3x PM

3 PMs, 2 changes.

[yoshiwara]

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

You are incorrect. They are not required to have an election at this point at all. The ONLY requirement is that they are able to command a majority in parliament.

Just like Thailand, (notwithstanding issues of precedence and the process of the Queen's invitation, UK constitution very messy)

Edited March 21, 2010 by yoshiwara

[rixalex]

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Reasons for the coup are far from simple. Were you here at the time leading up to it?

Still the main reason for the coup was that if no coup Mr T would be elected

you know that .

If want to remove someone ,even someone not good , legal means must be used .

In a functioning democracy you are absolutely correct. This one wasn't. If you were here, you should know that.

[way2muchcoffee]

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Reasons for the coup are far from simple. Were you here at the time leading up to it?

Still the main reason for the coup was that if no coup Mr T would be elected

you know that .

If want to remove someone ,even someone not good , legal means must be used .

I posed these same questions on another thread. Nobody responded and they seem appropriate here so again, consider the scenario:

A very corrupt man is PM. He has enormous support amongst large segments of the population. He breaks the law with impunity. He engages in vote buying and party buying on an unprecedented scale. He steals billions of tax payer money to line his and his friends pockets. He commits massive human rights violations. He engages in widespread policy corruption and kickbacks. He plants corrupt judges into the judiciary. He plants staunch loyalists into positions of power in the police and military. He denies freedom of speech by refusing to answer questions that would cast him in a critical light and by silencing critics in the media through frivolous lawsuits. In short he is building a dictatorship where he is immune from any of the traditional ways of removing a PM from power.

How should a country remove such a leader?

Which is worse for a democracy, a coup to remove a corrupt and criminal leader, or to allow the leader to continue to rape the country for personal profit while trampling on all democratic checks and balances?

Edited March 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

Are you talking about the law and the constitution of Thailand or are you talking about hot dogs and hamburgers? All of your problems seem to revolve about not agreeing with the law of Thailand. Perhaps that is what you should be lobbying for to be changed. The current government is in power because of the law. If Abhisit has violated the law the PTP would have discovered it by now. They didn't and he hasn't. I really don't understand what you are banging on about.

This a forum for debate . If all agree then there is no debate

Anyway ok thanks

[moresomekl]

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Reasons for the coup are far from simple. Were you here at the time leading up to it?

Still the main reason for the coup was that if no coup Mr T would be elected

you know that .

If want to remove someone ,even someone not good , legal means must be used .

In a functioning democracy you are absolutely correct. This one wasn't. If you were here, you should know that.

Yes system of check and balance somewhat defectuous in the first place . I know . But I can not talk

or else someone tell me this is the law and constitution of THailand

[rixalex]

I posed these same questions on another thread. Nobody responded and they seem appropriate here so again, consider the scenario:

A very corrupt man is PM. He has enormous support amongst large segments of the population. He breaks the law with impunity. He engages in vote buying and party buying on an unprecedented scale. He steals billions of tax payer money to line his and his friends pockets. He commits massive human rights violations. He engages in widespread policy corruption and kickbacks. He plants corrupt judges into the judiciary. He plants staunch loyalists into positions of power in the police and military. He denies freedom of speech by refusing to answer questions that would cast him in a critical light and by silencing critics in the media through frivolous lawsuits. In short he is building a dictatorship where he is immune from any of the traditional ways of removing a PM from power.

How should a country remove such a leader?

Which is worse for a democracy, a coup to remove a corrupt and criminal leader, or to allow the leader to continue to rape the country for personal profit while trampling on all democratic checks and balances?

The point i was making but explained in full and very well.

I'm sure though moresomekl must know all this, as he was here.

[way2muchcoffee]

This a forum for debate . If all agree then there is no debate

Anyway ok thanks

Didn't mean to discourage you moresomeki. Apologies. By all means, keep on posting. All views are welcome. Agreement is neither expected nor desired.

Edited March 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[rixalex]

Yes system of check and balance somewhat defectuous in the first place . I know . But I can not talk

or else someone tell me this is the law and constitution of THailand

It was the constitution.

[moresomekl]

I posed these same questions on another thread. Nobody responded and they seem appropriate here so again, consider the scenario:

A very corrupt man is PM. He has enormous support amongst large segments of the population. He breaks the law with impunity. He engages in vote buying and party buying on an unprecedented scale. He steals billions of tax payer money to line his and his friends pockets. He commits massive human rights violations. He engages in widespread policy corruption and kickbacks. He plants corrupt judges into the judiciary. He plants staunch loyalists into positions of power in the police and military. He denies freedom of speech by refusing to answer questions that would cast him in a critical light and by silencing critics in the media through frivolous lawsuits. In short he is building a dictatorship where he is immune from any of the traditional ways of removing a PM from power.

How should a country remove such a leader?

Which is worse for a democracy, a coup to remove a corrupt and criminal leader, or to allow the leader to continue to rape the country for personal profit while trampling on all democratic checks and balances?

I agree with what you say about that ex PM

How about in the constitution limit the PM to two mandates ? Just to avoid dictators

How about give the supreme court the power to remove the PM if he violates the law ?

After all another man like that ex-PM may win power one day . You never know

[moresomekl]

This a forum for debate . If all agree then there is no debate

Anyway ok thanks

Didn't mean to discourage you moresomeki. Apologies. By all means, keep on posting. All views are welcome. Agreement is neither expected nor desirable.

Hey thanks . Bit tired LOL

[CLOD]

"Class war"

A saying Poor abisit must have picked up from "fagging" Boris Johnson to long.

[anotherpeter]

"Class war"

A saying Poor abisit must have picked up from "fagging" Boris Johnson to long.

Didn't he pick it up from the rich red leaders when they said they were going to start a "Class War"?

[anotherpeter]

Moresomekl, I think you trying to argue two points in the same conversation and it's all getting confused.

Abhisit is PM because that is the way democracy works in Thailand.

Abhisit does not stop being the legitimate PM because *you think the constitution and laws should be different*.

You can argue that he shouldn't be PM because the correct processes haven't been followed, and you can argue that the constitution or laws should be changed.

But, you can't put those two arguments together to make a point that he shouldn't be PM.

Well ... you can, but it's a stupid argument.

Edited March 22, 2010 by anotherpeter

[SanSaiExPat]

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A property tax will ruin this country. Thailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

[moresomekl]

Moresomekl, I think you trying to argue two points in the same conversation and it's all getting confused.

Abhisit is PM because that is the way democracy works in Thailand.

Abhisit does not stop being the legitimate PM because *you think the constitution and laws should be different*.

You can argue that he shouldn't be PM because the correct processes haven't been followed, and you can argue that the constitution or laws should be changed.

But, you can't put those two arguments together to make a point that he shouldn't be PM.

Well ... you can, but it's a stupid argument.

I dont really understand what you mean . Allow me to restate please

1) My point is simply to say that IN MY OPINION the red shirts have a strong argument to say that Abhisit is not legally the PM .

Because the correct process has IN MY OPINION not been followed

2) My point is also to say that IN MY OPINION the red shirts should not insist on the return of Thaksin in a position of power or

an amnesty for his deeds

3) Finally my point is to say that IN MY OPINION the redshirts have a good cause in terms of social justice but why have they

associated themselves with that morally bankrupt ex PM ? This is troubling

You have a different opinion on 1) , i respect that , and we are of the same opinion on 2) , i believe . 3) is just a question mark

I dont think this is a stupid argument .

Edited March 22, 2010 by moresomekl

[Samuian]

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A pr. operty tax will ruin this countryThailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

Could you elaborate on this one?

Why would a "property tax ruin Thailand"?

It should of course exempt small scale farmers and small scale landowners, certainly not real estate and developers....

Any Idea how much Land is owned by the very wealthy", progressive income tax next!

[anotherpeter]

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A property tax will ruin this country. Thailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

The problem is that it is the rich that own most of the property in Thailand, and once they own it they don't do anything with it. If the rich are forced to do something with a lot of the property, that potentially gives more opportunity to the poor.

[way2muchcoffee]

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A property tax will ruin this country. Thailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

I have no idea what the policy would be, but 200 hundred baht per rai is not going to break anyone and would put some 65 billion baht into government coffers annually.

Edited March 22, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A property tax will ruin this country. Thailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

Can a law be retroactive ? Its generally accepted as a principle of law that a law CAN NOT BE retroactive.

Maybe if the tax is modest it is fine .

I think Abhisit is correct , he has to find the money to finance free education for all thais till 15 years

create micro-credits (loans) so that people is Isaan can create small enterprises , handycraft or the like

(OTOP style) ans so that there is more tax payers in Thailand which at the end reduces the burden for each

one of them . Also create area of economic development in every small city in Thailand , to attract investors .

For all this he needs money , he can loan from the World Bank , i think THailand has a triple A credit rating

must check on that , but before he do that , is better to find domestic sources.

As for the corruption , he tries his best .

Edited March 22, 2010 by moresomekl

[Thai at Heart]

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A property tax will ruin this country. Thailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

You must be smoking something. 85% of the arable land is already in the hands of about 10% of the population and the pay NOTHING for using it or choosing to let it stay fallow. The little man has already lost his land, if they ever had any anyway. They are the ultimate rent takers and it is this that is the starting point of the ridiculous inequality in this country.

Taxing the land at a reasonable rate per rai wouldn't ruin anyone and would free up enormous amounts of capital. There is no tax on agricultural produce in this country, so next best thing is to tax the land.