Thai 'Red Shirts' Stage Mass Protest In Bangkok

[Yunla]

Bloomberg: Taksin, The Silvio Berlusconi of Asia

http://www.bloomberg...ni-of-asia.html

It's a very good report

The reds won't like it because it's true

Berlusconi wont like it either, if I were him I'd sue for slander.

[smutcakes]

"adopted by Thaksin, believes to keep the people poor and uneducated,"

precisely why his government at the time increased spending on education.

Thaksin "increased spending" on a lot of things, and according to experts working within parliament, he overspent by an estimate 30% (400 billion) compared to normal budgeting (wikipedia Thaksin). By a shocking coincidence, a huge number of those places where this 400bn overspending went to were businesses owned by Thaksin's family and friends. I would suspect that the "increased spending" on education you refer to falls within that 400bn nepotistic overspending.

Perhaps you can explain why after Thaksin's regime, despite his generous "increased spending" to his family and friends, schools in rural areas were falling apart and had no electric, or good quality books. Perhaps you can show how he increased the all-important teaching of independant analysis and opinion-forming, which is how other nations teach their kids from primary school onwards to become innovate and critical thinkers capable of leading and not only following.

By all acounts, Thailand's education system in rural areas is deeply institutionally neglected and was before, during and after Thaksin. Of course Abhisit put a large infrastructure investment project on the table but it was scrapped when the reds took over.

My point stands ; Thaksin did not improve the standards of teaching in Thailand, nor did he improve the overall educational infrastructure of quality teaching regimens, schools, books, electric etc. - and it was in his best interests not to have a smart, leadership-competent population because he wants people not to lead but to follow him blindly, wear his colours and attend mass protests waving big pictures of him around - these are not the actions of critically-minded, indepedent or innovative thinkers.

Please can you provide a few examples of this?

[Yunla]

Please can you provide a few examples of this?

http://en.wikipedia....y_corruption.27

>>"'Policy corruption'

Thaksin was accused of "policy corruption", such as infrastructure and liberalization policies that, while legal and a potential benefit to society, also aided companies that were owned by his family members.Supannee Chai-amporn and Sirinthip Arun-rue of the National Institute of Development Administration claimed that policy corruption caused the state to spend nearly 30 per cent more than it otherwise should have spent, costing the state an additional 400 billion baht." <<

Edited June 28, 2012 by Yunla

[animatic]

My dear lady, first of all my excuses for addressing you as such. This is not meant in a pejorative manner, it's just that I'm old-fashioned enough to find it difficult to address you in a different way. My mother at 84 still has a certain influence on my behaviour, luckily for me though my father at 84 no longer physically enforces it .

As you probably will well know indeed, there are still lots of males who have problems adapting to equality and democracy for all. Why, even on this forum there's a recent topic with "Men have to accept women in non-traditional roles". If Thai have a problem adjusting what chance would the average English TV poster have? One can but pity them

Hi rubl, thankyou for your most chivalrous posting. I fully agree that age plays a factor in this generational acceptance of norms. However I feel another factor, called sense of humour, especially the concepts of 'wit' and 'satire' which are understood and used naturally by so many, are not understood or accepted by others.

For example to take the thread topic "red shirts stage mass protest in Bangkok", by protesting in Bangkok, while wearing their red shirts and doing so en masse, they believe they are making a powerful political statement which shows their solidarity and their independence from the dreaded 'elites'. This type of political statement can also be made by satirical writing and art.

The fact they all wear the face of an ultra-rich iniquitous villain does not make them question his motives in funding and encouraging them to march, one might say they are marching on his behalf and yet they do not ask why, nor do they question why their almost exclusively agrarian and bluecollar membership should march with such a flamboyant self-obsessed playboy billionaire as their leader. To another person, an observer, they might look totally different, like cattle on a march demanding to be made into hamburgers.

The point is that some people protest by marching in the streets, rightly or wrongly, and some people protest by acts of writing satire. To give an example re; the quaint 'show respect to female leaders' suggestion, Mrs Thatcher who served as PM in England for 1979-1990, was the target of vitriolic satire and mockery from her first year onwards. The jokes did sometimes involve lewdness, but most of the satire was ultimately based on her percieved corruption and failure to help the poor. Yingluck is currently making Mrs Thatcher look like a saint, in those two matters.

Satirical biting wit used as a weapon against politicians in English parliamentary democracy, dates back to the 1600's and is considered one of the pressure valves of society, allowing people to vent their political anger in acts of creative good humour, without blocking up streets with hordes of angry supporters which can often lead to disaster, as happened in the earlier red shirt mass protest 2010.

This type of violent mob uprising is a vicious circle which leads nowhere and early satirists understood this. You will notice that the red shirt protest in 2010 which cost billions financially and over 90 deaths, actually achieved no change whatsoever, except to polarise further and increase mistrust. By contrast, a well-written book can change the lives and opinions of millions, enrich those peoples' lives and offer them solutions to their life problems.

This obviously requires a certain freedom of speech to be allowed to criticise politicians, a freedom which I consider not only my democratic right but my human right. You will notice that of the people opposing my right to make jokes about female politicians, many of them will later claim they support a free press and don't accept restrictions imposed on them by the mystery 'elites'. Infact censorship of satirical humour or any other forms of non-violent protest is the very essence of true fascism.

Just as the red shirts have the democratic right to peaceful nondisruptive protest against politicians, writers have the democratic right to make fun of the red shirts and the sleazy tinpot mafia dictator they worship. As with Thaksin and also Yingluck, the satirical venom against all politicians increases exponentially the more crimes they commit, and they can only blame themselves for their own corrupt actions and for the ensuing backlash. Put simply, if they were honest and decent leaders they wouldn't get insults thrown at them along with shoes and eggs etc.

It's a short leap, or long impossible journey between TWIT and WIT,

depending on who is making that mental voyage of discovery, or just dis'ing.

Some are not able to shift their aim upward from Low n' Slow to Disraeli Gears.

The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield knew how to give good burn

without getting lewd or crude, just exceedingly shrewd.

Edited June 28, 2012 by animatic

[tlansford]

"adopted by Thaksin, believes to keep the people poor and uneducated,"

precisely why his government at the time increased spending on education.

Thaksin "increased spending" on a lot of things, and according to experts working within parliament, he overspent by an estimate 30% (400 billion) compared to normal budgeting (wikipedia Thaksin). By a shocking coincidence, a huge number of those places where this 400bn overspending went to were businesses owned by Thaksin's family and friends. I would suspect that the "increased spending" on education you refer to falls within that 400bn nepotistic overspending.

Perhaps you can explain why after Thaksin's regime, despite his generous "increased spending" to his family and friends, schools in rural areas were falling apart and had no electric, or good quality books. Perhaps you can show how he increased the all-important teaching of independant analysis and opinion-forming, which is how other nations teach their kids from primary school onwards to become innovative and critical thinkers capable of leading and not only following.

By all acounts, Thailand's education system in rural areas is deeply institutionally neglected and was before, during and after Thaksin. Of course Abhisit put a large infrastructure investment project on the table but it was scrapped when the reds took over.

My point stands ; Thaksin did not improve the standards of teaching in Thailand, nor did he improve the overall educational infrastructure of quality teaching regimens, schools, books, electric etc. - and it was in his best interests not to have a smart, leadership-competent population because he wants people not to lead but to follow him blindly, wear his colours and attend mass protests waving big pictures of him around - these are not the actions of critically-minded, independent or innovative thinkers.

the numbers also showed increased enrollment in schools and kids staying in school longer.

whether or not Thaksin was a PM to your liking or whether or not he was an angel in office is not too interesting, but to say that he wanted to keep Thais uneducated because he had visions of becoming the Thai Chairman Mao is gibberish. Education funding was increased and the number of kids in the system getting and education went up.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Thaksin, and for some people even reasons to have liked him as a PM, but one should at least pick reasons which have something to do with reality.

[Yunla]

the numbers also showed increased enrollment in schools and kids staying in school longer.........and the number of kids in the system getting and education went up.

Both those factors might be consistent with something called "rising population". Even if you showed that the number of young people in education rose above the rate of population growth, it would still only be the exact same as the rest of the world where young people are forced to study harder and longer every year. Just look at countries where there is a surplus of University grads who can't get jobs except in Mcdonalds. Or Korea where they have so many students competing for places its crazy. This pressure on kids starts in primary schools in the 21st century, parents want their kids to excel from the start because of the intense competition. I think your "point" is absurd - suggesting that because Thailand has increased numbers of people studying, which is exactly the same as the increase in students in the rest of Asia and the West, but in Thailand's case you claim this is because of Thaksin.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Yunla

[phiphidon]

stop accusing me of trolling

this was the lie

"Its probably from that hotel room. Maybe he's doing something else like fastening her medals on from behind. It certainly does not look exactly like an act of 'coitus more ferarum' at all, not even slightly"

"I clearly said in the first post, I am sure that they did not do those sick things which you are implying."

you're lie is the implication that the first comment wasn't a sarcastic joke.

keep digging that hole mate.

I'm not the one digging holes. I clearly said the image on the mass protest redmob Tshirt looked like a classic Heimlich maneuver, or possibly fastening medals on from behind. Maybe she got something stuck in her throat in a hotel room, for example maybe a pistachio nut which can often be very troublesome. I clearly said it did not look like anything else.

You and rubl have got more in common than you realise, I call it the "rubl defence". It's where you say something that you mean but then cloak it with a denying clause. Here is an example (a reply to a post I made not that long ago and published in this forum).

"If it wasn't agaist (sic) forum rules I might even go so far as to call you a bl**dy fool and conniving lying b**tard. That's out of the question of course".

So, your attempts at victimhood ring hollow, I'm afraid.

Edited June 28, 2012 by phiphidon

[phiphidon]

It's a short leap, or long impossible journey between TWIT and WIT,

depending on who is making that mental voyage of discovery, or just dis'ing.

Some are not able to shift their aim upward from Low n' Slow to Disraeli Gears.

The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield knew how to give good burn

without getting lewd or crude, just exceedingly shrewd.

MEDIC !!

[mca]

It's a short leap, or long impossible journey between TWIT and WIT,

depending on who is making that mental voyage of discovery, or just dis'ing.

Some are not able to shift their aim upward from Low n' Slow to Disraeli Gears.

The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield knew how to give good burn

without getting lewd or crude, just exceedingly shrewd.

MEDIC !!

Yeah with this one ani mate you seem to have wandered from your usual Jabberwocky-esque prose into the land of Brad Pitt in '12 Monkeys".

[nurofiend]

"adopted by Thaksin, believes to keep the people poor and uneducated,"

precisely why his government at the time increased spending on education.

Thaksin "increased spending" on a lot of things, and according to experts working within parliament, he overspent by an estimate 30% (400 billion) compared to normal budgeting (wikipedia Thaksin). By a shocking coincidence, a huge number of those places where this 400bn overspending went to were businesses owned by Thaksin's family and friends. I would suspect that the "increased spending" on education you refer to falls within that 400bn nepotistic overspending.

Perhaps you can explain why after Thaksin's regime, despite his generous "increased spending" to his family and friends, schools in rural areas were falling apart and had no electric, or good quality books. Perhaps you can show how he increased the all-important teaching of independant analysis and opinion-forming, which is how other nations teach their kids from primary school onwards to become innovative and critical thinkers capable of leading and not only following.

By all acounts, Thailand's education system in rural areas is deeply institutionally neglected and was before, during and after Thaksin. Of course Abhisit put a large infrastructure investment project on the table but it was scrapped when the reds took over.

My point stands ; Thaksin did not improve the standards of teaching in Thailand, nor did he improve the overall educational infrastructure of quality teaching regimens, schools, books, electric etc. - and it was in his best interests not to have a smart, leadership-competent population because he wants people not to lead but to follow him blindly, wear his colours and attend mass protests waving big pictures of him around - these are not the actions of critically-minded, independent or innovative thinkers.

let's go with your quote again about thaksin keeping the people poor, i've seen you write it in various posts.

how do you explain

"Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006"

and please don't embarrass your intelligence with a "this is in line with the normal growth of the global economy" or some such answer.

it has a hell of a lot to do with his policies, whether you agree with his policies or not is another thing, but it doesn't line up with 'keeping the poor, poor' as you so often say.

i think you've got the wrong crowd on who most likely wants to keep the poor, poor in thailand.

Edited June 28, 2012 by nurofiend

[Siripon]

]What policy of Thaksin increased the income of Issan people by 46% in 5 years?

Rubber planters, sugar cane growers have benefited from higher market prices the last few years though that's fallen with the former, but they're a minority of the population

Rice growers, or rather owners, have gained with the mortgage scheme but that only means a few thousand baht more per year.

The minimum wage is still low, the cost of living is higher, I certainly didn't see a massive improvement in the standard of living in the early 2000s.

[Buchholz]

"adopted by Thaksin, believes to keep the people poor and uneducated,"

precisely why his government at the time increased spending on education.

Thaksin "increased spending" on a lot of things, and according to experts working within parliament, he overspent by an estimate 30% (400 billion) compared to normal budgeting (wikipedia Thaksin). By a shocking coincidence, a huge number of those places where this 400bn overspending went to were businesses owned by Thaksin's family and friends. I would suspect that the "increased spending" on education you refer to falls within that 400bn nepotistic overspending.

Perhaps you can explain why after Thaksin's regime, despite his generous "increased spending" to his family and friends, schools in rural areas were falling apart and had no electric, or good quality books. Perhaps you can show how he increased the all-important teaching of independant analysis and opinion-forming, which is how other nations teach their kids from primary school onwards to become innovative and critical thinkers capable of leading and not only following.

By all acounts, Thailand's education system in rural areas is deeply institutionally neglected and was before, during and after Thaksin. Of course Abhisit put a large infrastructure investment project on the table but it was scrapped when the reds took over.

My point stands ; Thaksin did not improve the standards of teaching in Thailand, nor did he improve the overall educational infrastructure of quality teaching regimens, schools, books, electric etc. - and it was in his best interests not to have a smart, leadership-competent population because he wants people not to lead but to follow him blindly, wear his colours and attend mass protests waving big pictures of him around - these are not the actions of critically-minded, independent or innovative thinkers.

the numbers also showed increased enrollment in schools and kids staying in school longer.

whether or not Thaksin was a PM to your liking or whether or not he was an angel in office is not too interesting, but to say that he wanted to keep Thais uneducated because he had visions of becoming the Thai Chairman Mao is gibberish. Education funding was increased and the number of kids in the system getting and education went up.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Thaksin, and for some people even reasons to have liked him as a PM, but one should at least pick reasons which have something to do with reality.

The status of Thaksin and education...

Education: The weak spot in all Thaksin regimes

.

[ballpoint]

let's go with your quote again about thaksin keeping the people poor, i've seen you write it in various posts.

how do you explain

"Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006"

and please don't embarrass your intelligence with a "this is in line with the normal growth of the global economy" or some such answer.

it has a hell of a lot to do with his policies, whether you agree with his policies or not is another thing, but it doesn't line up with 'keeping the poor, poor' as you so often say.

i think you've got the wrong crowd on who most likely wants to keep the poor, poor in thailand.

Perhaps you'd care to share a link to the 46% rise in income?

As for your wrong crowd statement, what crowd would you be talking about? Who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is happy with the way the residents of these regions vote? Ask yourself why would it be in the Democrats' interest to keep those residents poor, given they have never had many votes from those regions? And then ask why would it be in the PTP's interest to keep those residents poor?

Edited June 28, 2012 by ballpoint

[animatic]

It's a short leap, or long impossible journey between TWIT and WIT,

depending on who is making that mental voyage of discovery, or just dis'ing.

Some are not able to shift their aim upward from Low n' Slow to Disraeli Gears.

The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield knew how to give good burn

without getting lewd or crude, just exceedingly shrewd.

MEDIC !!

Yeah with this one ani mate you seem to have wandered from your usual Jabberwocky-esque prose into the land of Brad Pitt in '12 Monkeys".

Is it S.O.P. to ridicule what you don't follow?

The lady got it on all levels.

Edited June 28, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

]What policy of Thaksin increased the income of Issan people by 46% in 5 years?

Rubber planters, sugar cane growers have benefited from higher market prices the last few years though that's fallen with the former, but they're a minority of the population

Rice growers, or rather owners, have gained with the mortgage scheme but that only means a few thousand baht more per year.

The minimum wage is still low, the cost of living is higher, I certainly didn't see a massive improvement in the standard of living in the early 2000s.

His back country food distribution cronies and network of canvassers let out just enough cash to give hope and win allegiances, and not a significant jot more. But always that carrot held before the nose to lead them onward with an occasional nibble.

Edited June 28, 2012 by animatic

[phiphidon]

It's a short leap, or long impossible journey between TWIT and WIT,

depending on who is making that mental voyage of discovery, or just dis'ing.

Some are not able to shift their aim upward from Low n' Slow to Disraeli Gears.

The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield knew how to give good burn

without getting lewd or crude, just exceedingly shrewd.

MEDIC !!

Yeah with this one ani mate you seem to have wandered from your usual Jabberwocky-esque prose into the land of Brad Pitt in '12 Monkeys".

Is it S.O.P. to ridicule what you don't follow?

The lady got it on all levels.

Humour me, please explain what it means, in plain english. Or should I ask Yunla seeing as she "got it" on all levels, Yunla?

Edited June 28, 2012 by phiphidon

[mca]

It's a short leap, or long impossible journey between TWIT and WIT,

depending on who is making that mental voyage of discovery, or just dis'ing.

Some are not able to shift their aim upward from Low n' Slow to Disraeli Gears.

The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield knew how to give good burn

without getting lewd or crude, just exceedingly shrewd.

MEDIC !!

Yeah with this one ani mate you seem to have wandered from your usual Jabberwocky-esque prose into the land of Brad Pitt in '12 Monkeys".

Is it S.O.P. to ridicule what you don't follow?

The lady got it on all levels.

Of course that response wasn't completely unexpected.

If you're genuinely of the opinion that my mild pisstake of your posting style is down to not following what's being written about then surely my use of a reference to a Lewis Carroll poem would be far beyond my rather limited cerebral skills.

I'm mildly disappointed ani mate. I thought you had thicker skin than that. I assure you that you'd be well aware

were I genuinely ridiculing you.

Edited June 28, 2012 by mca

[nurofiend]

let's go with your quote again about thaksin keeping the people poor, i've seen you write it in various posts.

how do you explain

"Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006"

and please don't embarrass your intelligence with a "this is in line with the normal growth of the global economy" or some such answer.

it has a hell of a lot to do with his policies, whether you agree with his policies or not is another thing, but it doesn't line up with 'keeping the poor, poor' as you so often say.

i think you've got the wrong crowd on who most likely wants to keep the poor, poor in thailand.

Perhaps you'd care to share a link to the 46% rise in income?

As for your wrong crowd statement, what crowd would you be talking about? Who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is happy with the way the residents of these regions vote? Ask yourself why would it be in the Democrats' interest to keep those residents poor, given they have never had many votes from those regions? And then ask why would it be in the PTP's interest to keep those residents poor?

you can find it easily on thaksins wikipedia page

and the source is from http://www.nesdb.go.th

office of the national and social development board

keeping the poor, poor has other reasons than gaining their votes!

and it's been part of the thai way for many many years, almost like a caste style system.

[metisdead]

Some posts that were going to off topic discussion have been removed.

[ballpoint]

let's go with your quote again about thaksin keeping the people poor, i've seen you write it in various posts.

how do you explain

"Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006"

and please don't embarrass your intelligence with a "this is in line with the normal growth of the global economy" or some such answer.

it has a hell of a lot to do with his policies, whether you agree with his policies or not is another thing, but it doesn't line up with 'keeping the poor, poor' as you so often say.

i think you've got the wrong crowd on who most likely wants to keep the poor, poor in thailand.

Perhaps you'd care to share a link to the 46% rise in income?

As for your wrong crowd statement, what crowd would you be talking about? Who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is happy with the way the residents of these regions vote? Ask yourself why would it be in the Democrats' interest to keep those residents poor, given they have never had many votes from those regions? And then ask why would it be in the PTP's interest to keep those residents poor?

you can find it easily on thaksins wikipedia page

and the source is from http://www.nesdb.go.th

office of the national and social development board

keeping the poor, poor has other reasons than gaining their votes!

and it's been part of the thai way for many many years, almost like a caste style system.

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

http://www.nesdb.go....P 1995-2006.zip

But I won't argue with it, after all, the global economy was booming and, according to the World Bank's 2005 report on Thailand, from 1970 to 2005 "the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average percapita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income countries" and, "The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth, the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in 2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988". Which would suggest the trend began long before Thaksin.

They also have this to say about the Northeast: "Faced with low agricultural yields and absence of off-farm jobs, about one in two Northeast families rely on migration and remittances to boost incomes. Among receiving households, these remittances amounted to around one third of household income, and they help lower poverty from 17 percent to 12 percent". Suggesting it was an influx of money from other, wealthier, regions, rather than any direct policy towards the Northeast, that was responsible for at least some of the growth in income.

This conclusion is backed up by "In 2004, the Northeast worker generated only one-sixth of the value added of the average worker in Bangkok, Central, East and Vicinity, and just over two-thirds of the output of a worker in the North". and, more tellingly, "The expenditure gap between the Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years. The Northeast obtained in FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2003". They threw enough money at the Northeast to prop up its inefficient farming methods and keep the people happy without making any real changes to education, or getting to the root of the poverty trap.

This report may be found at http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

Okay, maybe it's not just about gaining votes, but once again, who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is responsible for the populist handouts and subsidies of an inefficient farming system? After all, from the same source: "The Northeast generates just over one fifth of Thailand’s agricultural GDP, even though the region accounts for one half of the farms and two fifths of the agricultural land". Why wasn't anything done to combat the root of the poverty during the five years of total control Thaksin had? I would suggest that was because of his reliance on the powerful Northeast political clans. He was not the solution, but merely a continuation of the problem. That is very much evident in the people he chose to associate with.

Edited June 28, 2012 by ballpoint

[hellodolly]

"Let's prepare for an unfinished fight," Red Shirt leader Kokaew Pikulthong told the crowd near the capital's Democracy Monument.

Too bad AFP missed the opportunity to assist the reader by putting things in perspective by failing to note that "Red Shirt Leader Kokaew" is a Pheu Thai Party Member of Parliament, the political party in power.

That he is under multiple criminal indictments and is currently free on bail would also be helpful to know, particularly in light of his words that he's not through with fighting.

.

Well I am for sure am not urging any thing but I see no peace or chance for reconciliation as long as a certain resident of Dubai is still breathing.

[hellodolly]

let's go with your quote again about thaksin keeping the people poor, i've seen you write it in various posts.

how do you explain

"Income in the Northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46% from 2001 to 2006"

and please don't embarrass your intelligence with a "this is in line with the normal growth of the global economy" or some such answer.

it has a hell of a lot to do with his policies, whether you agree with his policies or not is another thing, but it doesn't line up with 'keeping the poor, poor' as you so often say.

i think you've got the wrong crowd on who most likely wants to keep the poor, poor in thailand.

Perhaps you'd care to share a link to the 46% rise in income?

As for your wrong crowd statement, what crowd would you be talking about? Who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is happy with the way the residents of these regions vote? Ask yourself why would it be in the Democrats' interest to keep those residents poor, given they have never had many votes from those regions? And then ask why would it be in the PTP's interest to keep those residents poor?

you can find it easily on thaksins wikipedia page

and the source is from http://www.nesdb.go.th

office of the national and social development board

keeping the poor, poor has other reasons than gaining their votes!

and it's been part of the thai way for many many years, almost like a caste style system.

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

http://www.nesdb.go....P 1995-2006.zip

But I won't argue with it, after all, the global economy was booming and, according to the World Bank's 2005 report on Thailand, from 1970 to 2005 "the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average percapita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income countries" and, "The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth, the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in 2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988". Which would suggest the trend began long before Thaksin.

They also have this to say about the Northeast: "Faced with low agricultural yields and absence of off-farm jobs, about one in two Northeast families rely on migration and remittances to boost incomes. Among receiving households, these remittances amounted to around one third of household income, and they help lower poverty from 17 percent to 12 percent". Suggesting it was an influx of money from other, wealthier, regions, rather than any direct policy towards the Northeast, that was responsible for at least some of the growth in income.

This conclusion is backed up by "In 2004, the Northeast worker generated only one-sixth of the value added of the average worker in Bangkok, Central, East and Vicinity, and just over two-thirds of the output of a worker in the North". and, more tellingly, "The expenditure gap between the Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years. The Northeast obtained in FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2003". They threw enough money at the Northeast to prop up its inefficient farming methods and keep the people happy without making any real changes to education, or getting to the root of the poverty trap.

This report may be found at http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

Okay, maybe it's not just about gaining votes, but once again, who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is responsible for the populist handouts and subsidies of an inefficient farming system? After all, from the same source: "The Northeast generates just over one fifth of Thailand’s agricultural GDP, even though the region accounts for one half of the farms and two fifths of the agricultural land". Why wasn't anything done to combat the root of the poverty during the five years of total control Thaksin had? I would suggest that was because of his reliance on the powerful Northeast political clans. He was not the solution, but merely a continuation of the problem. That is very much evident in the people he chose to associate with.

In the last twelve years Thaksin has held the power for 8 of them. Yet the standard of education is still ridiculously low. 2,000 schools with out electricity. Thaksin came into power on a rising market and just rode it out never contributing to it.

[nurofiend]

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

http://www.nesdb.go....P 1995-2006.zip

But I won't argue with it, after all, the global economy was booming and, according to the World Bank's 2005 report on Thailand, from 1970 to 2005 "the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average percapita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income countries" and, "The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth, the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in 2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988". Which would suggest the trend began long before Thaksin.

They also have this to say about the Northeast: "Faced with low agricultural yields and absence of off-farm jobs, about one in two Northeast families rely on migration and remittances to boost incomes. Among receiving households, these remittances amounted to around one third of household income, and they help lower poverty from 17 percent to 12 percent". Suggesting it was an influx of money from other, wealthier, regions, rather than any direct policy towards the Northeast, that was responsible for at least some of the growth in income.

This conclusion is backed up by "In 2004, the Northeast worker generated only one-sixth of the value added of the average worker in Bangkok, Central, East and Vicinity, and just over two-thirds of the output of a worker in the North". and, more tellingly, "The expenditure gap between the Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years. The Northeast obtained in FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2003". They threw enough money at the Northeast to prop up its inefficient farming methods and keep the people happy without making any real changes to education, or getting to the root of the poverty trap.

This report may be found at http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

Okay, maybe it's not just about gaining votes, but once again, who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is responsible for the populist handouts and subsidies of an inefficient farming system? After all, from the same source: "The Northeast generates just over one fifth of Thailand’s agricultural GDP, even though the region accounts for one half of the farms and two fifths of the agricultural land". Why wasn't anything done to combat the root of the poverty during the five years of total control Thaksin had? I would suggest that was because of his reliance on the powerful Northeast political clans. He was not the solution, but merely a continuation of the problem. That is very much evident in the people he chose to associate with.

the point i'm making is that the argument of thaksins aim being to keep the poor, poor is a load of bollo....baloney.

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

what's the point to this 'looking down your nose' style comment about the source?

the excel spreadsheets do support the fact, i've checked it.

and just because anyone can add something to wikipedia makes no difference.

try make up a lie on thaksins wikipedia page and see how long it lasts....

[Thaddeus]

try make up a lie on thaksins wikipedia page and see how long it lasts....

About the same amount of time as an unwelcome correction I would expect.

[tlansford]

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

http://www.nesdb.go....P 1995-2006.zip

But I won't argue with it, after all, the global economy was booming and, according to the World Bank's 2005 report on Thailand, from 1970 to 2005 "the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average percapita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income countries" and, "The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth, the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in 2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988". Which would suggest the trend began long before Thaksin.

They also have this to say about the Northeast: "Faced with low agricultural yields and absence of off-farm jobs, about one in two Northeast families rely on migration and remittances to boost incomes. Among receiving households, these remittances amounted to around one third of household income, and they help lower poverty from 17 percent to 12 percent". Suggesting it was an influx of money from other, wealthier, regions, rather than any direct policy towards the Northeast, that was responsible for at least some of the growth in income.

This conclusion is backed up by "In 2004, the Northeast worker generated only one-sixth of the value added of the average worker in Bangkok, Central, East and Vicinity, and just over two-thirds of the output of a worker in the North". and, more tellingly, "The expenditure gap between the Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years. The Northeast obtained in FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2003". They threw enough money at the Northeast to prop up its inefficient farming methods and keep the people happy without making any real changes to education, or getting to the root of the poverty trap.

This report may be found at http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

Okay, maybe it's not just about gaining votes, but once again, who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is responsible for the populist handouts and subsidies of an inefficient farming system? After all, from the same source: "The Northeast generates just over one fifth of Thailand’s agricultural GDP, even though the region accounts for one half of the farms and two fifths of the agricultural land". Why wasn't anything done to combat the root of the poverty during the five years of total control Thaksin had? I would suggest that was because of his reliance on the powerful Northeast political clans. He was not the solution, but merely a continuation of the problem. That is very much evident in the people he chose to associate with.

the point i'm making is that the argument of thaksins aim being to keep the poor, poor is a load of bollo....baloney.

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

what's the point to this 'looking down your nose' style comment about the source?

the excel spreadsheets do support the fact, i've checked it.

and just because anyone can add something to wikipedia makes no difference.

try make up a lie on thaksins wikipedia page and see how long it lasts....

Most encyclopedia's are written by persons unknown.

Microsoft's encarta was written in local languages by teams of low-paid, out-sourced free-lancers, and it was not uncommon for different language versions to have a different take on the same event as seen through the cultural lens of the low-paid, out-sourced free-lancer.

It's always worth checking Wiki info - as you did - but no one can deny that it is a valuable internet resource and was & is a great idea.

(BTW, for people who rely on The Nation for facts, this is a pretty funny comment )

[animatic]

quote name='animatic' timestamp='1340876968' post='5435985'

It's a short leap, or long impossible journey between TWIT and WIT,

depending on who is making that mental voyage of discovery, or just dis'ing.

Some are not able to shift their aim upward from Low n' Slow to Disraeli Gears.

The 1st Earl of Beaconsfield knew how to give good burn

without getting lewd or crude, just exceedingly shrewd.

MEDIC !!

Yeah with this one ani mate you seem to have wandered from your usual Jabberwocky-esque prose into the land of Brad Pitt in '12 Monkeys".

Is it S.O.P. to ridicule what you don't follow?

The lady got it on all levels.

Of course that response wasn't completely unexpected.

If you're genuinely of the opinion that my mild pisstake of your posting style is down to not following what's being written about then surely my use of a reference to a Lewis Carroll poem would be far beyond my rather limited cerebral skills.

I'm mildly disappointed ani mate. I thought you had thicker skin than that. I assure you that you'd be well aware

were I genuinely ridiculing you.

Twas briglig and the slithy toves

did gyre and gambol in the wabe of TVF.

Circumstances are beyond human control, but our conduct is in our own power.

Characters do not change. Opinions alter, but characters are only developed.

A man may speak very well in the House of Commons, and fail very completely in the House of Lords. There are two distinct styles requisite: I intend, in the course of my career, if I have time, to give a specimen of both.

A majority is always better than the best repartee.

A precedent embalms a principle.

As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

Benjamin Disraeli

Edited June 29, 2012 by animatic

[MAJIC]

My dear lady, first of all my excuses for addressing you as such. This is not meant in a pejorative manner, it's just that I'm old-fashioned enough to find it difficult to address you in a different way. My mother at 84 still has a certain influence on my behaviour, luckily for me though my father at 84 no longer physically enforces it .

As you probably will well know indeed, there are still lots of males who have problems adapting to equality and democracy for all. Why, even on this forum there's a recent topic with "Men have to accept women in non-traditional roles". If Thai have a problem adjusting what chance would the average English TV poster have? One can but pity them

Hi rubl, thankyou for your most chivalrous posting. I fully agree that age plays a factor in this generational acceptance of norms. However I feel another factor, called sense of humour, especially the concepts of 'wit' and 'satire' which are understood and used naturally by so many, are not understood or accepted by others.

For example to take the thread topic "red shirts stage mass protest in Bangkok", by protesting in Bangkok, while wearing their red shirts and doing so en masse, they believe they are making a powerful political statement which shows their solidarity and their independence from the dreaded 'elites'. This type of political statement can also be made by satirical writing and art.

The fact they all wear the face of an ultra-rich iniquitous villain does not make them question his motives in funding and encouraging them to march, one might say they are marching on his behalf and yet they do not ask why, nor do they question why their almost exclusively agrarian and bluecollar membership should march with such a flamboyant self-obsessed playboy billionaire as their leader. To another person, an observer, they might look totally different, like cattle on a march demanding to be made into hamburgers.

The point is that some people protest by marching in the streets, rightly or wrongly, and some people protest by acts of writing satire. To give an example re; the quaint 'show respect to female leaders' suggestion, Mrs Thatcher who served as PM in England for 1979-1990, was the target of vitriolic satire and mockery from her first year onwards. The jokes did sometimes involve lewdness, but most of the satire was ultimately based on her percieved corruption and failure to help the poor. Yingluck is currently making Mrs Thatcher look like a saint, in those two matters.

Satirical biting wit used as a weapon against politicians in English parliamentary democracy, dates back to the 1600's and is considered one of the pressure valves of society, allowing people to vent their political anger in acts of creative good humour, without blocking up streets with hordes of angry supporters which can often lead to disaster, as happened in the earlier red shirt mass protest 2010.

This type of violent mob uprising is a vicious circle which leads nowhere and early satirists understood this. You will notice that the red shirt protest in 2010 which cost billions financially and over 90 deaths, actually achieved no change whatsoever, except to polarise further and increase mistrust. By contrast, a well-written book can change the lives and opinions of millions, enrich those peoples' lives and offer them solutions to their life problems.

This obviously requires a certain freedom of speech to be allowed to criticise politicians, a freedom which I consider not only my democratic right but my human right. You will notice that of the people opposing my right to make jokes about female politicians, many of them will later claim they support a free press and don't accept restrictions imposed on them by the mystery 'elites'. Infact censorship of satirical humour or any other forms of non-violent protest is the very essence of true fascism.

Just as the red shirts have the democratic right to peaceful nondisruptive protest against politicians, writers have the democratic right to make fun of the red shirts and the sleazy tinpot mafia dictator they worship. As with Thaksin and also Yingluck, the satirical venom against all politicians increases exponentially the more crimes they commit, and they can only blame themselves for their own corrupt actions and for the ensuing backlash. Put simply, if they were honest and decent leaders they wouldn't get insults thrown at them along with shoes and eggs etc.

Yingluck and Mrs Thatcher have/had one thing in common,neither of them know what it's like to be poor,they despise the poor,and they don't give a flying toss about their plight either.

[binjalin]

My dear lady, first of all my excuses for addressing you as such. This is not meant in a pejorative manner, it's just that I'm old-fashioned enough to find it difficult to address you in a different way. My mother at 84 still has a certain influence on my behaviour, luckily for me though my father at 84 no longer physically enforces it .

As you probably will well know indeed, there are still lots of males who have problems adapting to equality and democracy for all. Why, even on this forum there's a recent topic with "Men have to accept women in non-traditional roles". If Thai have a problem adjusting what chance would the average English TV poster have? One can but pity them

Hi rubl, thankyou for your most chivalrous posting. I fully agree that age plays a factor in this generational acceptance of norms. However I feel another factor, called sense of humour, especially the concepts of 'wit' and 'satire' which are understood and used naturally by so many, are not understood or accepted by others.

For example to take the thread topic "red shirts stage mass protest in Bangkok", by protesting in Bangkok, while wearing their red shirts and doing so en masse, they believe they are making a powerful political statement which shows their solidarity and their independence from the dreaded 'elites'. This type of political statement can also be made by satirical writing and art.

The fact they all wear the face of an ultra-rich iniquitous villain does not make them question his motives in funding and encouraging them to march, one might say they are marching on his behalf and yet they do not ask why, nor do they question why their almost exclusively agrarian and bluecollar membership should march with such a flamboyant self-obsessed playboy billionaire as their leader. To another person, an observer, they might look totally different, like cattle on a march demanding to be made into hamburgers.

The point is that some people protest by marching in the streets, rightly or wrongly, and some people protest by acts of writing satire. To give an example re; the quaint 'show respect to female leaders' suggestion, Mrs Thatcher who served as PM in England for 1979-1990, was the target of vitriolic satire and mockery from her first year onwards. The jokes did sometimes involve lewdness, but most of the satire was ultimately based on her percieved corruption and failure to help the poor. Yingluck is currently making Mrs Thatcher look like a saint, in those two matters.

Satirical biting wit used as a weapon against politicians in English parliamentary democracy, dates back to the 1600's and is considered one of the pressure valves of society, allowing people to vent their political anger in acts of creative good humour, without blocking up streets with hordes of angry supporters which can often lead to disaster, as happened in the earlier red shirt mass protest 2010.

This type of violent mob uprising is a vicious circle which leads nowhere and early satirists understood this. You will notice that the red shirt protest in 2010 which cost billions financially and over 90 deaths, actually achieved no change whatsoever, except to polarise further and increase mistrust. By contrast, a well-written book can change the lives and opinions of millions, enrich those peoples' lives and offer them solutions to their life problems.

This obviously requires a certain freedom of speech to be allowed to criticise politicians, a freedom which I consider not only my democratic right but my human right. You will notice that of the people opposing my right to make jokes about female politicians, many of them will later claim they support a free press and don't accept restrictions imposed on them by the mystery 'elites'. Infact censorship of satirical humour or any other forms of non-violent protest is the very essence of true fascism.

Just as the red shirts have the democratic right to peaceful nondisruptive protest against politicians, writers have the democratic right to make fun of the red shirts and the sleazy tinpot mafia dictator they worship. As with Thaksin and also Yingluck, the satirical venom against all politicians increases exponentially the more crimes they commit, and they can only blame themselves for their own corrupt actions and for the ensuing backlash. Put simply, if they were honest and decent leaders they wouldn't get insults thrown at them along with shoes and eggs etc.

Yingluck and Mrs Thatcher have/had one thing in common,neither of them know what it's like to be poor,they despise the poor,and they don't give a flying toss about their plight either.

more than one thing... they both one landslides

[Thaddeus]

Yingluck and Mrs Thatcher have/had one thing in common,neither of them know what it's like to be poor,they despise the poor,and they don't give a flying toss about their plight either.

more than one thing... they both one landslides

Please stop it with that landslide nonsense.

And sure, Maggie wasn't born in a gutter, but neither was she born with Burberry boots on either.

Plus, even if you disagreed with some or all of her policies, she was a real political heavyweight, with experience and commitment for what she believed in.

Do not try to compare Yingluck with Thatcher in any way, shape or form.

If Thatcher had been in power here when the armed protests started, how long do you think they would have lasted.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Thaddeus

[Yunla]

Please stop it with that landslide nonsense.

And sure, Maggie wasn't born in a gutter, but neither was she born with Burberry boots on either.

Plus, even if you disagreed with some or all of her policies, she was a real political heavyweight, with experience and commitment for what she believed in.

Do not try to compare Yingluck with Thatcher in any way, shape or form.

If Thatcher had been in power here when the armed protests started, how long do you think they would have lasted.

Its my fault, I was comparing satirical protest against Thatcher and Yingluck. I said at the time ; Yingluck makes Thatcher look like a saint.

And it is true, even though they both get satirised for corruption and for betraying the poor, only Yingluck pretended to represent the poor to begin with.

Thatcher always represented the aspirational middle-class and made no secret about it.

Yingluck actually represents corporate billionaires, and she just lies shamelessly about representing the "red shirts mass protesting in Bangkok" and the rest of the betrayed and utterly mute Thai working-class.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Yunla