Middle Class, Elite Must Take The Blame For Thailand's Ills

[Thai at Heart]

One of my friend is pro yellow and even told me that to have a correct country thailand should apply this principle: for each 1 millions baht in your account you can have 1 vote...less than one million...no vote...

This is democracy

Would that apply to farangs as well - hell , we could end up running the country !!!

If your friend would open his eyes, he would realize that this is the case already. The richest Thais run the country.

He is allowed the illusion of democracy, which is an accusation that could be levelled at many countries. It is just that in Thailand, it is accepted as normal that if the result doesn't go the way that those with the biggest bank balances like it, they just simply role out the army supposedly in the name of democracy. And if that isn't the greatest oxymoron of all time.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[whybother]

It's far more than red shirt supporters - a whole range of credible scholars, academics and commentators - both Thai and foreign.

In response to jdinasia there are elements of class conflict in Thailand's current politics whatever state of denial he is in, but it's also more complicated than that.

To be honest I find his position a bit simple minded.It appears for him that anyone rich and powerful is part of the ruling elite.Take Thailand out of it and consider the English civil war in the seventeenth century.It is now clear that the key movers came from very similar landed gentry backgrounds on both sides, and yet what each side wanted for their country was completely different.

The rich and powerful that are not part of the "elite" are the ones that are doing everything in their power to replace the "elite".

[housepainter]

Quote: ' We, and the PM himself, were frightened by the recent satellite glitch that caused a television blackout, sparking speculation another coup was in the making.'

Not very bright there then if the 'we' is a middle class journalist, along with the PM [Oxford educated] who believed a power cut, no TV and a rumour meant the Army had staged a coup.

I, along with the rural poor, having had a basic education realised there was a power cut that knocked out my TV signal, so I took the dog for a walk.

But then I didn't realise it takes 2 plus 2 to come up with 17, like the Thai elite and the equally nefarious middle class.

I actually agree with the old boy Governor who says the locals being yokels can't elect their own Governors. Much better to do it his way with a couple of blacked out pick ups, a few good armed men and a bit of judicial killing spread as widley as the 500 baht a time it takes to gain support.

Best to keep it like the good old days when their were lots of stones to hide under or places in Bangkok to retreat to while the innocvent bury their dead.

For god's sake these peasants will be wanting to earn a decent living next! Along with having their kids educated and employment presenting a realistic living wage and an alternative for young women not to enter into prostitution. Where will Thailand be then? Nothing to smile about I tell you and the loss of international revenue when all the sex tourism trade and pedophile pound is lost to Cambodia.

Think on.

[maewrocks]

It's about time someone realized that it's the elite that is destroying the country and NOT the rural folk. Just like every other country, the rich get richer.........

What pisses me off is to see the many farang that come on TV here and think that THEY are the elite and support these elite yellow shirts. These farang elite really do think that their rice does come from the supermarkets.

destroying the country?

wasn't that the reds?

burning everything?

attempting a revolution in support of the criminal Thaksin?

aren't the reds the representatives of the poor and uneducated that includes the rural folk?

in every society there are chiefs and Indians, its nothing new

nor is it unusual for the occasional upstart Indian to want to become a chief even though he is not qualified

if there were no chiefs there would be myriads of Indians wandering around looking for someone to tell them what to do, that's life.

personally i like the present administration where you have two of the countries most educated men steering the ship through difficult waters

either man could earn millions of $US a year working in the financial sector in neighboring Singapore

Korn and Abhisit deserve to be chiefs, they have earned it.

the Thais will prove their own stupidity if they bring back the corrupt, criminal Thaksin instead of keeping these two valuable assets on board .............

You are joking aren't you? Being born with a silver spoon in your mouth (son of a minister in a military coup installed government & a director of C.P.) & being educated in England doesn't change the fact that he hasn't achieved anything outside of the political arena. His inability to implement policy because of his extreme technocratic nature & of course the fact that he is the military's puppet will hopefully be the end of his illegitimate reign. Only good at talking!

[jayboy]

Simply put --- comparing Thailand to England in the 17th century is a fallacious argument, much as suggesting that what the redshirt leadership wanting as being different than the other group of "elite" wanting is. The redshirt leaders want a pretense of a "class struggle" because it (obviously) snows so many (western) people. The simple fact remains that it is one group of elite fighting with a different group of elite .... for the money ... and everything else is just window dressing.

The point I was making was that powerful and rich people throughout history have had different visions of how society should be ordered.They can't be typecast.In Thailand while there are regional power bases the fount of all power is Bangkok where the elite is primarily based.Now, whether unwittingly or not, your last sentence is quite interesting.In fact it reflects the view of a famous British historian, Sir Lewis Namier, when describing aristocratic factions (Whigs and Tories) in the eighteenth century.But can you develop this theme with arguments and examples? I don't think it fully works in Thailand (and I don't think it really worked in eighteenth century England) but it would be interesting to see someone argue this through rigorously.Certainly there are some scholars who argue that the established Thailand elite includes businessmen who rely on monopolies and protection while strongly resisting globalisation, whereas Thaksin and his allies stand for a more open economic system.To say that different elites are basically fighting for economic advantage is the starting point.But can you finish what you started?

[Thai at Heart]

It's about time someone realized that it's the elite that is destroying the country and NOT the rural folk. Just like every other country, the rich get richer.........

What pisses me off is to see the many farang that come on TV here and think that THEY are the elite and support these elite yellow shirts. These farang elite really do think that their rice does come from the supermarkets.

destroying the country?

wasn't that the reds?

burning everything?

attempting a revolution in support of the criminal Thaksin?

aren't the reds the representatives of the poor and uneducated that includes the rural folk?

in every society there are chiefs and Indians, its nothing new

nor is it unusual for the occasional upstart Indian to want to become a chief even though he is not qualified

if there were no chiefs there would be myriads of Indians wandering around looking for someone to tell them what to do, that's life.

personally i like the present administration where you have two of the countries most educated men steering the ship through difficult waters

either man could earn millions of $US a year working in the financial sector in neighboring Singapore

Korn and Abhisit deserve to be chiefs, they have earned it.

the Thais will prove their own stupidity if they bring back the corrupt, criminal Thaksin instead of keeping these two valuable assets on board .............

I don't mind that they have public school and Oxford educated people running the country. I do question the fact that they could earn a fortune in the financial sector as being a qualification to run a country. I think there are a few countries in the world bemoaning the fact that the separation between banking and politics wasn't maintained far enough.

If one considers that Broon and Fred the shred were all pally pally for 10 years on the way up to the crisis, I would suggest that placing politicians and bankers on other sides of the universe wouldn't be far enough apart.

[jayboy]

It's about time someone realized that it's the elite that is destroying the country and NOT the rural folk. Just like every other country, the rich get richer.........

What pisses me off is to see the many farang that come on TV here and think that THEY are the elite and support these elite yellow shirts. These farang elite really do think that their rice does come from the supermarkets.

destroying the country?

wasn't that the reds?

burning everything?

attempting a revolution in support of the criminal Thaksin?

aren't the reds the representatives of the poor and uneducated that includes the rural folk?

in every society there are chiefs and Indians, its nothing new

nor is it unusual for the occasional upstart Indian to want to become a chief even though he is not qualified

if there were no chiefs there would be myriads of Indians wandering around looking for someone to tell them what to do, that's life.

personally i like the present administration where you have two of the countries most educated men steering the ship through difficult waters

either man could earn millions of $US a year working in the financial sector in neighboring Singapore

Korn and Abhisit deserve to be chiefs, they have earned it.

the Thais will prove their own stupidity if they bring back the corrupt, criminal Thaksin instead of keeping these two valuable assets on board .............

I don't mind that they have public school and Oxford educated people running the country. I do question the fact that they could earn a fortune in the financial sector as being a qualification to run a country. I think there are a few countries in the world bemoaning the fact that the separation between banking and politics wasn't maintained far enough.

If one considers that Broon and Fred the shred were all pally pally for 10 years on the way up to the crisis, I would suggest that placing politicians and bankers on other sides of the universe wouldn't be far enough apart.

Actually the premise is wrong.Korn would certainly have major earning power (although in his business career he made most of his fortune by selling the investment bank he started,) Abhisit's different and has no financial career behind him, more of an academic economist.Although with his excellent brain he would presumably do well at whatever he put his hand to.

Incidentally I'm always amused by the implication that someone who attended one of the best schools and one of the best universities is perhaps unqualified for office.One often comes across this in the UK but less so in Thailand (except among expat Brits)

Edited May 4, 2011 by jayboy

[Thai at Heart]

It's about time someone realized that it's the elite that is destroying the country and NOT the rural folk. Just like every other country, the rich get richer.........

What pisses me off is to see the many farang that come on TV here and think that THEY are the elite and support these elite yellow shirts. These farang elite really do think that their rice does come from the supermarkets.

destroying the country?

wasn't that the reds?

burning everything?

attempting a revolution in support of the criminal Thaksin?

aren't the reds the representatives of the poor and uneducated that includes the rural folk?

in every society there are chiefs and Indians, its nothing new

nor is it unusual for the occasional upstart Indian to want to become a chief even though he is not qualified

if there were no chiefs there would be myriads of Indians wandering around looking for someone to tell them what to do, that's life.

personally i like the present administration where you have two of the countries most educated men steering the ship through difficult waters

either man could earn millions of $US a year working in the financial sector in neighboring Singapore

Korn and Abhisit deserve to be chiefs, they have earned it.

the Thais will prove their own stupidity if they bring back the corrupt, criminal Thaksin instead of keeping these two valuable assets on board .............

I don't mind that they have public school and Oxford educated people running the country. I do question the fact that they could earn a fortune in the financial sector as being a qualification to run a country. I think there are a few countries in the world bemoaning the fact that the separation between banking and politics wasn't maintained far enough.

If one considers that Broon and Fred the shred were all pally pally for 10 years on the way up to the crisis, I would suggest that placing politicians and bankers on other sides of the universe wouldn't be far enough apart.

Actually the premise is wrong.Korn would certainly have major earning power (although in his business career he made most of his fortune by selling the investment bank he started,) Abhisit's different and has no financial career behind him, more of an academic economist.Although with his excellent brain he would presumably do well at whatever he put his hand to

I know plenty about their careers, Don't worry, I have a couple of mates who went to school with both of them. They held their own but weren't actually top of the class at Winchester or Eton. That said, they both passed with flying colours.

I just challenge the premise that being a successful banker makes you a successful finance minister or PM.

[MengTian]

How I could describe some middle class Thais I met: naive, easy to manipulate, political uninterested and thus immature

[jdinasia]

Certainly there are some scholars who argue that the established Thailand elite includes businessmen who rely on monopolies and protection while strongly resisting globalisation, whereas Thaksin and his allies stand for a more open economic system.To say that different elites are basically fighting for economic advantage is the starting point.But can you finish what you started?

You seem to be asking me to make YOUR argument for you.

I don't think that Thaksin and his allies stand for what you claim at all. Thaksin was as protectionist as anyone else imho (The only exceptions possibly being in his unilateral decision to change some laws that benefitted only his businesses.) His minister for culture etc certainly didn't show any of what you are asserting. His attempts to break up some government monopolies/businesses weren't (again imho) intended to do anything more than let him get his beak into PTT and EGAT etc ... although I did personally benefit from PTT.

What I started ends with the simple statement I made above. 2 groups of "elite" battling for their place at the trough and any thin milk offered to the rural poor simply being what was left over after the regional power families skimmed off the cream via construction, brokerage etc.

[jayboy]

Certainly there are some scholars who argue that the established Thailand elite includes businessmen who rely on monopolies and protection while strongly resisting globalisation, whereas Thaksin and his allies stand for a more open economic system.To say that different elites are basically fighting for economic advantage is the starting point.But can you finish what you started?

You seem to be asking me to make YOUR argument for you.

I don't think that Thaksin and his allies stand for what you claim at all. Thaksin was as protectionist as anyone else imho (The only exceptions possibly being in his unilateral decision to change some laws that benefitted only his businesses.) His minister for culture etc certainly didn't show any of what you are asserting. His attempts to break up some government monopolies/businesses weren't (again imho) intended to do anything more than let him get his beak into PTT and EGAT etc ... although I did personally benefit from PTT.

What I started ends with the simple statement I made above. 2 groups of "elite" battling for their place at the trough and any thin milk offered to the rural poor simply being what was left over after the regional power families skimmed off the cream via construction, brokerage etc.

Ah well.He can't justify his own position other than by unsupported assertions.His reference to the Minister of Culture is baffling.He now talks of "two" elites but apparently can't distinguish between them other than one represents "regional power families".Nor does he explain (nor I suspect understand) what the competition might be about.I suspect he has picked up some half digested ideas about patronage but can't quite figure out how it really works.

I don't incidentally see how I'm asking you to make my own argument since I don't believe what you are suggesting as I would have thought was obvious from my earlier post.

[jayboy]

I know plenty about their careers, Don't worry, I have a couple of mates who went to school with both of them. They held their own but weren't actually top of the class at Winchester or Eton. That said, they both passed with flying colours.

I just challenge the premise that being a successful banker makes you a successful finance minister or PM.

I do not for a moment suppose that you are personally familiar with the great English public schools , but the concept of being "top of the class" is non existent in them, nor does any British public school boy "pass with flying colours" since there is no equivalent of the American high school graduation.

I suspect your "couple of mates" have been nowhere near Eton or Winchester.

[Thai at Heart]

I know plenty about their careers, Don't worry, I have a couple of mates who went to school with both of them. They held their own but weren't actually top of the class at Winchester or Eton. That said, they both passed with flying colours.

I just challenge the premise that being a successful banker makes you a successful finance minister or PM.

I do not for a moment suppose that you are personally familiar with the great English public schools , but the concept of being "top of the class" is non existent in them, nor does any British public school boy "pass with flying colours" since there is no equivalent of the American high school graduation.

I suspect your "couple of mates" have been nowhere near Eton or Winchester.

On the basis that you accuse me of lying, I will leave you to judge whether Rugby is considered one of the great English public schools. As one of the original nine, I think it gets in there. If you want the names of my mates who went to Eton and Winchester, please PM me, I will be only too happy to name them to you. I don't know where you get the idea that being top of the class is of lesser meaning in a British public school.

On average particularly at a place like Winchester which is academically extremely high, the kids among themselves know who is the absolute cream of the crop in their line of subject. We all knew who were the strongest mathematicians, economists, linguists, musicians in the year. My understanding of Winchester was that kids finished all there GCSE's a year early and many kids took at least 4 A levels. I understand that Korn only went there for 6th form.

Not all of these kids get to go to Oxford and yet the vast majority get very good results. Not all A's are created equal. As for passing with flying colours, this is simply a phrase to state that they passed with very good results in comparison with the national average. But then with an common entrance entry level set as high as Eton or Winchester, if you don't get 3 A's I would consider that the school has failed the child.

[jayboy]

I know plenty about their careers, Don't worry, I have a couple of mates who went to school with both of them. They held their own but weren't actually top of the class at Winchester or Eton. That said, they both passed with flying colours.

I just challenge the premise that being a successful banker makes you a successful finance minister or PM.

I do not for a moment suppose that you are personally familiar with the great English public schools , but the concept of being "top of the class" is non existent in them, nor does any British public school boy "pass with flying colours" since there is no equivalent of the American high school graduation.

I suspect your "couple of mates" have been nowhere near Eton or Winchester.

On the basis that you accuse me of lying, I will leave you to judge whether Rugby is considered one of the great English public schools. As one of the original nine, I think it gets in there. If you want the names of my mates who went to Eton and Winchester, please PM me, I will be only too happy to name them to you. I don't know where you get the idea that being top of the class is of lesser meaning in a British public school.

On average particularly at a place like Winchester which is academically extremely high, the kids among themselves know who is the absolute cream of the crop in their line of subject. We all knew who were the strongest mathematicians, economists, linguists, musicians in the year. My understanding of Winchester was that kids finished all there GCSE's a year early and many kids took at least 4 A levels. I understand that Korn only went there for 6th form.

Not all of these kids get to go to Oxford and yet the vast majority get very good results. Not all A's are created equal. As for passing with flying colours, this is simply a phrase to state that they passed with very good results in comparison with the national average. But then with an common entrance entry level set as high as Eton or Winchester, if you don't get 3 A's I would consider that the school has failed the child.

I didn't accuse you of dishonesty at all, just queried your "mates" understanding.

Certainly Rugby is one of the great Public Schools, a place where traditionally the offspring of nouveaux riche manafacturers went to have their ugly provincial accents removed, by surgery if necessary.Just kidding:it's a wonderful school.

There is no top of the class concept at these schools.If you are saying the kids recognise who is the brightest, that's certainly true.

Winchester doesn't use common entrance:it has its own exam for the little geeks who are bright enough to take it.

You've mixed up Abhisit and Korn.The latter went to prep school and the Winchester.I believe Abhisit had a shorter than normal period at Eton.

[Thai at Heart]

I didn't accuse you of dishonesty at all, just queried your "mates" understanding.

Certainly Rugby is one of the great Public Schools, a place where traditionally the offspring of nouveaux riche manafacturers went to have their ugly provincial accents removed, by surgery if necessary.Just kidding:it's a wonderful school.

There is no top of the class concept at these schools.If you are saying the kids recognise who is the brightest, that's certainly true.

Winchester doesn't use common entrance:it has its own exam for the little geeks who are bright enough to take it.

You've mixed up Abhisit and Korn.The latter went to prep school and the Winchester.I believe Abhisit had a shorter than normal period at Eton.

korn attended Somtavil and Satit Pathumwan Schools in Bangkok until the 6th grade, when he attended Winchester College boarding school in England. He read politics, philosophy and economics (PPE) at St. John's College, Oxford University and graduated with honours.[4] While at St. John's College, he was a classmate of Abhisit Vejjajiva.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korn_Chatikavanij

Admittedly, 6th grade could be Bor 6.

I understood that Abhisit was a Kings Scholar at Eton, so attended the full period.

[jayboy]

I didn't accuse you of dishonesty at all, just queried your "mates" understanding.

Certainly Rugby is one of the great Public Schools, a place where traditionally the offspring of nouveaux riche manafacturers went to have their ugly provincial accents removed, by surgery if necessary.Just kidding:it's a wonderful school.

There is no top of the class concept at these schools.If you are saying the kids recognise who is the brightest, that's certainly true.

Winchester doesn't use common entrance:it has its own exam for the little geeks who are bright enough to take it.

You've mixed up Abhisit and Korn.The latter went to prep school and the Winchester.I believe Abhisit had a shorter than normal period at Eton.

korn attended Somtavil and Satit Pathumwan Schools in Bangkok until the 6th grade, when he attended Winchester College boarding school in England. He read politics, philosophy and economics (PPE) at St. John's College, Oxford University and graduated with honours.[4] While at St. John's College, he was a classmate of Abhisit Vejjajiva.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korn_Chatikavanij

Admittedly, 6th grade could be Bor 6.

I understood that Abhisit was a Kings Scholar at Eton, so attended the full period.

I thought Korn attended a prep school in the West Country, The Old Mill or something like that.

If Abhisit was a colleger (KS) you are right he went to Eton at 13.

[rreddin]

I think Yenoormit does hit on one truth that has sometimes puzzled me, namely why some foreigners (let's call them the military cheerleaders as a convenient label) identify so strongly with feudal/yellow shirt/reactionary interests in Thailand when they would not dream of doing so in respect of such extremists in their home countries.Going further it's clear from internal evidence (over time it's amazing how much information many unwittingly reveal on education, social class etc) that many are of lower or lower middle class origin but identify strongly with the ruling class in Thailand, whereas they could not identify with posh boys like David Cameron (a mirror image of Abhisit).All very puzzling.

Of course (reality check) it doesn't matter really what Thai Visa members think though it's interesting to exchange views.On political matters the numbers involved on a regular basis are tiny, so I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions in the way whybother does.Let's be honest there's a a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

"(let's call them the military cheerleaders as a convenient label)" - Convenient for who?

Once again, I don't think they identify strongly with "feudal/yellow shirt/reactionary interests" or with the "ruling class". They just don't identify with the red shirt - "it's all about the poor" crowd. They see through the BS that that is.

agreed, i would be one of those, i don't give a dam_n about "feudal/yellow shirt/reactionary interests" or with the "ruling class".

i don't like bullies, consequently, i don't like reds or their supporters......................

If there are so many people in this country that you do not like, include very many ordinary folk who do support the red shirts, why are you still here?

Edited May 5, 2011 by rreddin

[jdinasia]

Certainly there are some scholars who argue that the established Thailand elite includes businessmen who rely on monopolies and protection while strongly resisting globalisation, whereas Thaksin and his allies stand for a more open economic system.To say that different elites are basically fighting for economic advantage is the starting point.But can you finish what you started?

You seem to be asking me to make YOUR argument for you.

I don't think that Thaksin and his allies stand for what you claim at all. Thaksin was as protectionist as anyone else imho (The only exceptions possibly being in his unilateral decision to change some laws that benefitted only his businesses.) His minister for culture etc certainly didn't show any of what you are asserting. His attempts to break up some government monopolies/businesses weren't (again imho) intended to do anything more than let him get his beak into PTT and EGAT etc ... although I did personally benefit from PTT.

What I started ends with the simple statement I made above. 2 groups of "elite" battling for their place at the trough and any thin milk offered to the rural poor simply being what was left over after the regional power families skimmed off the cream via construction, brokerage etc.

Ah well.He can't justify his own position other than by unsupported assertions.His reference to the Minister of Culture is baffling.He now talks of "two" elites but apparently can't distinguish between them other than one represents "regional power families".Nor does he explain (nor I suspect understand) what the competition might be about.I suspect he has picked up some half digested ideas about patronage but can't quite figure out how it really works.

I don't incidentally see how I'm asking you to make my own argument since I don't believe what you are suggesting as I would have thought was obvious from my earlier post.

Nice of you to skip over the statement that Thaksin only liberalized anything where he would personally benefit. You claim he is pro-globalization, I say he isn't and never was. Your pro-globalization claim is an .... "unsupported assertion". I have discussed the client/patron pattern in regards to the feudal lords supporting Thaksin many times (not that there aren't a few in other parties as well). The beauty in your post is quoting me and then using third person. If you don't understand the reference to Thaksin's "Minister of Culture" I suggest you read up on the topic. To many people it shows exactly where Thaksin's true conservative political leanings were (and I suggest still are.) In your entire post you didn't actually address any issue, just took 3rd person shots

Under Thaksin's regime's you will of course be aware that the family names of the TRT/PPP and now PTP MP's didn't change much around the area he bought/controlled and that the winners in each region were supported by the same people that controlled the regions before Thaksin. That fact alone should suggest that change in the upcountry power structure was never what he was about.

[jdinasia]

If there are so many people in this country that you do not like, include very many ordinary folk who do support the red shirts, why are you still here?

Perhaps he likes the majority of Thais that fall into neither group

[jayboy]

If you don't understand the reference to Thaksin's "Minister of Culture" I suggest you read up on the topic. To many people it shows exactly where Thaksin's true conservative political leanings were (and I suggest still are.) In your entire post you didn't actually address any issue, just took 3rd person shots

Oh I get it, the main objection to Thaksin was Purachai's curb on the night life (in practice welcomed by many worried Bangkok parents.)It may have escaped your notice but actually most Thais are socially conservative.Some foreigners mainly here for the night life (whatever other excuse they peddle for being here) don't get around enough to understand this.I have no idea whether this applies to you or not but in any event the introduction of the Ministry of Culture reference was completely irrelevant.

[jdinasia]

If you don't understand the reference to Thaksin's "Minister of Culture" I suggest you read up on the topic. To many people it shows exactly where Thaksin's true conservative political leanings were (and I suggest still are.) In your entire post you didn't actually address any issue, just took 3rd person shots

Oh I get it, the main objection to Thaksin was Purachai's curb on the night life (in practice welcomed by many worried Bangkok parents.)It may have escaped your notice but actually most Thais are socially conservative.Some foreigners mainly here for the night life (whatever other excuse they peddle for being here) don't get around enough to understand this.I have no idea whether this applies to you or not but in any event the introduction of the Ministry of Culture reference was completely irrelevant.

Nice of you to cut out the majority of my post. Then again you'd have to answer the other sections if you left it intact, and you lost on those other points already.

Purachai's stand on alcohol, his lead in to the "war on drugs", his anti-gay stance, his anti dance stance, his anti-spaghetti-strap/uncovered shoulders for women stance, his raids on bars and handing out cups to piss into etc etc etc .... certainly doesn't tell a story of Thaksin's TRT being pro-business or pro-globalization now does it? That after Purachai you couldn't buy a beer in the afternoon legally, but could still buy multiple cases of it tends to show some of the irony that is still present/leftover here. That his puritanical push for what are not truly traditional values in Thailand affected the Thai party scene more than the foreign one is not particularly debatable. Some foreigners don't get around enough to realize that the efforts of Puritan Purachai affected Thais more than foreigners. Some foreigners don't see Purachai's influence on what later became the "war on drugs," including the rebranding of Yaa Maa to Yaa Baa reminiscent of the anti-pot campaign in the 1950's in some Western countries. (Granted I am all for the decreased availability of meth-amphetamines, just not the demonization of addicts that started while Purachai was Interior minister, under his "social oder campaign".

[timekeeper]

If you don't understand the reference to Thaksin's "Minister of Culture" I suggest you read up on the topic. To many people it shows exactly where Thaksin's true conservative political leanings were (and I suggest still are.) In your entire post you didn't actually address any issue, just took 3rd person shots

Oh I get it, the main objection to Thaksin was Purachai's curb on the night life (in practice welcomed by many worried Bangkok parents.)It may have escaped your notice but actually most Thais are socially conservative.Some foreigners mainly here for the night life (whatever other excuse they peddle for being here) don't get around enough to understand this.I have no idea whether this applies to you or not but in any event the introduction of the Ministry of Culture reference was completely irrelevant.

all style and no substance, just more holier than thou ''jayboyisms''

[jdinasia]

timekeeper --- no need to go for the cheap shots. When Jayboy cherrypicks posts like he does, he shows that he couldn't support his other claims. That should be enough ...

[timekeeper]

timekeeper --- no need to go for the cheap shots. When Jayboy cherrypicks posts like he does, he shows that he couldn't support his other claims. That should be enough ...

you are right of course, i am lowering myself to his level

i am just going to put him on blocked

there are much more important issues to debate with more skilled debaters

[timekeeper]

I think Yenoormit does hit on one truth that has sometimes puzzled me, namely why some foreigners (let's call them the military cheerleaders as a convenient label) identify so strongly with feudal/yellow shirt/reactionary interests in Thailand when they would not dream of doing so in respect of such extremists in their home countries.Going further it's clear from internal evidence (over time it's amazing how much information many unwittingly reveal on education, social class etc) that many are of lower or lower middle class origin but identify strongly with the ruling class in Thailand, whereas they could not identify with posh boys like David Cameron (a mirror image of Abhisit).All very puzzling.

Of course (reality check) it doesn't matter really what Thai Visa members think though it's interesting to exchange views.On political matters the numbers involved on a regular basis are tiny, so I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions in the way whybother does.Let's be honest there's a a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

"(let's call them the military cheerleaders as a convenient label)" - Convenient for who?

Once again, I don't think they identify strongly with "feudal/yellow shirt/reactionary interests" or with the "ruling class". They just don't identify with the red shirt - "it's all about the poor" crowd. They see through the BS that that is.

agreed, i would be one of those, i don't give a dam_n about "feudal/yellow shirt/reactionary interests" or with the "ruling class".

i don't like bullies, consequently, i don't like reds or their supporters......................

If there are so many people in this country that you do not like, include very many ordinary folk who do support the red shirts, why are you still here?

what has being here got to do with anything?

i dislike lots of things and lots of people

that wouldn't change wherever i was based

i do not change my morals, beliefs or ethics dependent on where i am located

if i lived in UK, USA or Africa, i would still dislike bullies whatever color they choose to wear

red are bullies, hence my dislike.......

need any other simple statements explaining rREDdin?

[homeslice]

It's about time someone realized that it's the elite that is destroying the country and NOT the rural folk. Just like every other country, the rich get richer.........

What pisses me off is to see the many farang that come on TV here and think that THEY are the elite and support these elite yellow shirts. These farang elite really do think that their rice does come from the supermarkets.

You are a bit right and a bit left of center here. It's true in many countries the rich are getting richer and the poor are intentionally being uneducated and left behind, trust me I have researched this and am certain on the position I take.

As a farang, and the word is a racist word I add, I do not think I am elite or that my rice comes from a supermarket. Hell, if I had more room I would love a garden, but that is not the conversation at hand.

My position is not for the red or the yellow, it is against the people who control society here and elsewhere. As more education people, who control society, have the responsibility to nurture and give back in ways that the less fortunate are unable too. That does not happen often.

The middle class and elite, instead of taking positions against others, especially the west, should admit they do not know everything. (I am not being elitist here) Instead of being xenophobic and racist they should consider that the collective intelligence is greater than singular intelligence. Through social engineering over decades Thailand, if it were to become a country where the populace could freely debate without regard to a persons status or purse, or loss of face, would remove the backwater stigma it is labeled to be. That is the responsibility of the middle class and the elite.

I remember a recent statement by a Thai government official, (I forget who) where he said he had no respect for the west. That's a blanket statement that trickles through society. I think a better governor would say; "I am open to any conversation or debate that would aid my fellow citizen in becoming the best they can be regardless of your origin, race, education level or wealth."

We will now return to our regularly schedualed programing.