Corruption Is Ruining The Country

[OlRedEyes]

Haven't seen the obligatory 'It's the Law. If you don't like it, leave' remark here yet.

Corruption is legal in Thailand, isn't it?

About the obligatory corruption is also in the west post. Sure. But you're comparing a butchery with a few flies that havn't yet been caught by the flypaper to an open market with flies swarming all over the meat. There's is a large difference in degree and aquiscience.

[Butterfly]

Thailand probably will as well, because they can't really get ahead unless they do and inspite of what people think, the country isn't as poor as it was 10 years ago.  There are more motorcycles, cars, pickups, AC's etc. in the villages as well.  Not to mention TV's, stereo's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of it obtained on C R E D I T!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The level of personal debt is rising very fast indeed, if/when 1997 repeats itself it will be a whole lot worse for the people. I've read that back then the crash didn't affect the ordinary folk too much, next time it will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If 1997 happens again, don't expect IMF to step in. The current government will be so arrogant, they will not concede to anything. See what happened to Argentina for a good example.

[Scott]

To Zzap and others--I am not trying to get into an argument about the economy--I am talking about developmental and historical facts from most other countries. Thailand is not nearly as poor as it was. Whether or not it is because of cash or credit makes little difference to the standard of living right now. To get credit you need equity and equity means not so poor.

The poorer the country the greater the corruption--that's my point. It should start decreasing in Thailand in the next few years. If it doesn't, then the country will have real problems. Overall growth for the majority isn't likely with a lot of corruption.

Again, I am talking about history, not about the current administration. Oh, and I don't read the BKK Post.

[Heng]

The level of personal debt is rising very fast indeed, if/when 1997 repeats itself it will be a whole lot worse for the people.  I've read that back then the crash didn't affect the ordinary folk too much, next time it will.

What do you feel would be different about this *impending* crash?

I for one haven't noticed an increase in those looking for loans. And when they do, the collateral provided is almost invariably undeveloped property, meaning that even though they want a loan (and typically, these are bridge loans, not long term), they aren't using their home as collateral. To me that suggests they are still far from the end of their ropes. Also, IMO it seems what is available in credit is of the personal loan, credit card, etc. type nature, which is a relatively lighter burden to bear (in terms of amounts involved, not percentages) than those of the housing nature. The banks aren't as freewheeling with their funds as they were pre-97, and there simply isn't a myriad of finance company credit options available to common folks anymore either.

[Johpa]

I am sorry to hear so many people think that corruption can't be tackled.  I think it can and will, but it takes a rather large middle class that works hard and doesn't like seeing their hard-earned money being misused.  Most developed countries have a long history of some type of corruption, once there was either upward mobility (or people very unhappy with downard mobility--and hunger), they change it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Corruption in Thailand will not be easily eradicated. First you have to remember that doggy doo doo only flows downhill. Calls from the community's moral leaders to clean up the mess from the bottom up with appeals to villagers are at best misguided.

The people at the top will fight to protect their interests and will, and have in the past, co-opted the military to protect their interests. And the top of the military is just as corrupt with their little illegal fiefdoms (along with the POlice) as the Bangkok business community.

It will take a greatly expanded middle class to confront the endemic corruption and fight against the current elite. The elite is just as likely to be confronted by the poor who have the numbers (metaphorically speaking power= population x organization). Either way, history favors a fight against endemic corruption. But the doggy doo doo won't hit the fan until after the glue that holds the fragile Thai social fabric together srong kheuun sawaan.

[sierra01]

The level of personal debt is rising very fast indeed, if/when 1997 repeats itself it will be a whole lot worse for the people.  I've read that back then the crash didn't affect the ordinary folk too much, next time it will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you feel would be different about this *impending* crash?

I for one haven't noticed an increase in those looking for loans. And when they do, the collateral provided is almost invariably undeveloped property, meaning that even though they want a loan (and typically, these are bridge loans, not long term), they aren't using their home as collateral. To me that suggests they are still far from the end of their ropes. Also, IMO it seems what is available in credit is of the personal loan, credit card, etc. type nature, which is a relatively lighter burden to bear (in terms of amounts involved, not percentages) than those of the housing nature. The banks aren't as freewheeling with their funds as they were pre-97, and there simply isn't a myriad of finance company credit options available to common folks anymore either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Take away whatever Joe Public has on credit, see what's left. There wouldn't be very many new cars/pickups/motorcycles on the roads, you wouldn't have the cross connection problems with the mobile phones, only a few decent quality DVD/stereo systems, lots of little cheap TV's, it could be long list. The people live on credit, if a new crash happens jobs will go, credit payments won't be met and the various lenders will be screaming like stuck pigs. They will be left with mountains of consumer products that very few will be able to pick up cheaply. You say that the people are far from the ends of their ropes, in theory yes, in a crash that rope will suddenly get very short.

[Cool Water Palace]

I happened to read this report today from a Zambian newspaper on an African news site, which referred to, I assume, the same report of Transparency International that is being discussed here. The main thesis is that political parties are regarded as more corrupt than other institutions.

http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200512120750.html

I quote part of the article:

According to the barometer, the result reflects a worsening global opinion of political parties, as last year 36 out of the total 62 countries rated their parties as the most corrupt institution.

The barometer further stated that parliaments received a similarly negative score indicating widespread concern about the effects of corruption on political systems.

"While citizens in Asia, western Europe, and Latin America pinpoint their political parties and parliaments as the most corrupt, the public in Africa is most concerned about the integrity of their police forces, and citizens in Central and Eastern Europe regard the police and their party system as equally corrupt," the report stated.

The report stated that overall; corruption remained a big concern for citizens around the world, who pinpoint their political and judicial systems first and foremost.

According to the report, while political corruption was cited as a problem in many countries, it was also clear that bribery and petty corruption weighed heavily on the public in many poor nations.

In Africa, the report covered Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa whose people stated that police and the judiciary were very corrupt.

Prof Chanda said the Global Corruption Barometer 2005 illustrated, those who could least afford to pay bribes, the poor, were forced to pay for basic services which they were legally entitled.

[Heng]

Take away whatever Joe Public has on credit, see what's left.  There wouldn't be very many new cars/pickups/motorcycles on the roads, you wouldn't have the cross connection problems with the mobile phones, only a few decent quality DVD/stereo systems, lots of little cheap TV's, it could be long list.  The people live on credit, if a new crash happens jobs will go, credit payments won't be met and the various lenders will be screaming like stuck pigs.  They will be left with mountains of consumer products that very few will be able to pick up cheaply.  You say that the people are far from the ends of their ropes, in theory yes, in a crash that rope will suddenly get very short.

I don't think you understand the nature of this type of debt. From the lender standpoint, it's relatively cheap capital. Most of these loans as mentioned are of the low principle, super high interest variety. More often than not, we get a collective "dok tuam ton" (interest exceeding the principle) with these kinds of loans. Also, I think you're underestimating the local ability to tread water. More often than not, they thread water more than long enough for the lender to get well in excess of their funds back. Concerned about manufacturers and retailers of said goods? Paid in full already as soon as that credit is authorized. Concerned about banks and finance companies? They continue to enjoy profit well into the black. Pay interest at 1%.... loan out at 5-6%, and then at 11% to 18% to the folks who are "living on credit." In the end, the cost is still rougly 1%. It's the same the world over, as long as consumers are stupid enough to tread water, the banks and retailers will be laughing.

A little more on the manufacturer/retailer point of view during a crash. Most of our businesses aren't so labor intensive, but one that is, our plastics injection factory... last crash, not a single employee was laid off. Three shifts condensed to two shifts. Things were tight, but hardly dire. No loans to service, pretty much a cash and carry operation. IMO it's difficult to truly wreck an economy where the locals are so good at tigtening their belts when required. Also difficult when you have an establishment that does not live on credit, even if the a good number of the commoners do.

[kat]

Haven't seen the obligatory 'It's the Law. If you don't like it, leave' remark here yet.

Corruption is legal in Thailand, isn't it? 

About the obligatory corruption is also in the west post. Sure. But you're comparing a butchery with a few flies that havn't yet been caught by the flypaper to an open market with flies swarming all over the meat. There's is a large difference in degree and aquiscience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another excellent post, Red Eyes.

To Zzap and others--I am not trying to get into an argument about the economy--I am talking about developmental and historical facts from most other countries.  Thailand is not nearly as poor as it was.  Whether or not it is because of cash or credit makes little difference to the standard of living right now.  To get credit you need equity and equity means not so poor. 

The poorer the country the greater the corruption--that's my point.  It should start decreasing in Thailand in the next few years.  If it doesn't, then the country will have real problems.  Overall growth for the majority isn't likely with a lot of corruption.

Again, I am talking about history, not about the current administration.  Oh, and I don't read the BKK Post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, but corruption in Thailand is increasing, not decreasing. Also, the first legal reforms to modernise Thailand were initiated over 100 years ago. Have things changed yet?