Support For Democracy Slim If Thai Politicians Are Corrupt

[whybother]

How do you get from:

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

To:

Basically you're against democracy.

I agree with JurgenG's conclusion.

whybother, what is your idea of 'democracy'?

The way I see it, government is (and has always been) little more than a Protection Racket. Just like the Law.

Are you and Jurgen suggesting that vote buying is democratic?

Most politicians make promises to enact their policies. People vote for them based on those promises.

In Thailand, politicians pay people to vote for them regardless of what their policies are. I don't see that as democratic.

[Thai at Heart]

I don't see the issue of promising to do something to get someones vote or paying for their vote and promising to do something for their benefit as being morally of any great difference. The issue is what does the accepting of the payment mean in terms of a politicians relationship with the people.

The problem comes that few Thai's care about or consider is that despite the reality that the politician who paid you your hundred baht to get your vote, actually delivering his promise to you, he has to do something else to get his 100 baht back. I think we have come quite a way in Thailand in terms of getting parties to put up some kind of proper manifesto and at least try to make some kind of a fist of delivering on what they promise. That is a massive change from only 15 years ago, where it was purely personality and money based. Parties have realised that they have to have some kind of manifesto up front and centre and with some kind of plan.

The real issue with the payment is that in order for the dodgy politician to get his 100 baht back, he has to do something directly in his own interest, be it a clip on government projects or however he does it. It means that the public interest actually transforms into that given politicians personal interest. This is why it is always so interesting to watch that for example, good oh, they give away free rubber seedlings, but instead of just giving away rubber seedlings, there is an enormous racket going on involving business, back handers, dodgy deals and all the rest. All the good intention in any action ends up being mired in s**t.

By taking the 100 baht, a person basically renounces the right to hold his politician accountable for anything he does. It is the politicians way of washing his hands of being held accountable for his actions in power.

That said to some degree, things have improved. At least now, the politicians pay and have to make a fist of delivering on their manifesto, 20 years ago, they just paid, cobbled together a coalition of a sort, and filled their pockets without giving the slightest thoughts to the people.

[h90]

And for promises (reimburse) it can't be proofed that it is vote buying as there will be always some arguments how it benefits the people. As well it will be for all people the same, no matter who they voted for.

Really? The US healthcare bill was held up on the floor of the House by Democratic Representatives who refused to budge unless they got their pork.

That pork was not going to benefit the people of the US, and not going to benefit the people of the states being represented. Pork always benefits the corrupt special interests who get Representatives elected to the House. How could you make the argument that pork barreling is in the public interests?

While I agree with your opinion, it can be argued that the healthcare bill is benefiting the people. And it benefits Republican and Democrat voter in the same way.

Vote buying would be if only these people who vote for the Democrats would get the benefit, but all would pay.

(Of course I know that they system is mostly keeping the insurances healthy, but it could be argued that the system is helping everyone. Off topic: Considering that you are American: I come from a socialist country with universal healthcare. In my home country the insurance is state owned and of course non-profit. I don't like it much but I see the advantages. But I do not understand the US system with private companies that make profit and the people are forced to buy their product. But that is off topic....)

[h90]

I don't see the issue of promising to do something to get someones vote or paying for their vote and promising to do something for their benefit as being morally of any great difference. The issue is what does the accepting of the payment mean in terms of a politicians relationship with the people.

The problem comes that few Thai's care about or consider is that despite the reality that the politician who paid you your hundred baht to get your vote, actually delivering his promise to you, he has to do something else to get his 100 baht back. I think we have come quite a way in Thailand in terms of getting parties to put up some kind of proper manifesto and at least try to make some kind of a fist of delivering on what they promise. That is a massive change from only 15 years ago, where it was purely personality and money based. Parties have realised that they have to have some kind of manifesto up front and centre and with some kind of plan.

The real issue with the payment is that in order for the dodgy politician to get his 100 baht back, he has to do something directly in his own interest, be it a clip on government projects or however he does it. It means that the public interest actually transforms into that given politicians personal interest. This is why it is always so interesting to watch that for example, good oh, they give away free rubber seedlings, but instead of just giving away rubber seedlings, there is an enormous racket going on involving business, back handers, dodgy deals and all the rest. All the good intention in any action ends up being mired in s**t.

By taking the 100 baht, a person basically renounces the right to hold his politician accountable for anything he does. It is the politicians way of washing his hands of being held accountable for his actions in power.

That said to some degree, things have improved. At least now, the politicians pay and have to make a fist of delivering on their manifesto, 20 years ago, they just paid, cobbled together a coalition of a sort, and filled their pockets without giving the slightest thoughts to the people.

I don't see much of an improvement.

But I see that a lot of people wake up. Thanks to both the red and the yellows. Even red supporter start to question their leaders. Much more people are interested in politics than 10 years ago which will make it more difficult for the parties. But a long way to go....

[Thai at Heart]

I don't see the issue of promising to do something to get someones vote or paying for their vote and promising to do something for their benefit as being morally of any great difference. The issue is what does the accepting of the payment mean in terms of a politicians relationship with the people.

The problem comes that few Thai's care about or consider is that despite the reality that the politician who paid you your hundred baht to get your vote, actually delivering his promise to you, he has to do something else to get his 100 baht back. I think we have come quite a way in Thailand in terms of getting parties to put up some kind of proper manifesto and at least try to make some kind of a fist of delivering on what they promise. That is a massive change from only 15 years ago, where it was purely personality and money based. Parties have realised that they have to have some kind of manifesto up front and centre and with some kind of plan.

The real issue with the payment is that in order for the dodgy politician to get his 100 baht back, he has to do something directly in his own interest, be it a clip on government projects or however he does it. It means that the public interest actually transforms into that given politicians personal interest. This is why it is always so interesting to watch that for example, good oh, they give away free rubber seedlings, but instead of just giving away rubber seedlings, there is an enormous racket going on involving business, back handers, dodgy deals and all the rest. All the good intention in any action ends up being mired in s**t.

By taking the 100 baht, a person basically renounces the right to hold his politician accountable for anything he does. It is the politicians way of washing his hands of being held accountable for his actions in power.

That said to some degree, things have improved. At least now, the politicians pay and have to make a fist of delivering on their manifesto, 20 years ago, they just paid, cobbled together a coalition of a sort, and filled their pockets without giving the slightest thoughts to the people.

I don't see much of an improvement.

But I see that a lot of people wake up. Thanks to both the red and the yellows. Even red supporter start to question their leaders. Much more people are interested in politics than 10 years ago which will make it more difficult for the parties. But a long way to go....

Well that in and of itself is an enormous benefit. I may be wrong, but the first real manifesto style campaign was TRT, (at least as I have read from various sources), and this at least has lead to the Dems having to come up with some hard and fast policies of their own, and as such, the level of interest about who is going to do what is a lot higher. The system has to realise that today, people expect their parties to deliver something for them, it isn't very sophisticated, but its better than what it was. We all know Banharn and his bunch are just going to partner with whoever makes them rich so we have 2 parties duking it out, with policies being offered to the people. It isn't that the Dems policies are in some ways that different to PTP, but did they ever make a mess of explaining them too people.

Beyond that I can't really say how much analysis goes on in the Thai newspapers since I can't read Thai well, but from what I can glean on the TV, the analysis of the politics is pretty poor, the news is terrible, and then of course you have red and yellow TV which is akin to watching China Channel 7 news or Fox. So I guess that is the next step, is getting some kind of real considered free analysis of the politics on TV, and maybe things improve.

I always find it very interesting through all of the protests that have been going on, that barely anyone dared to interview the rank and file people who were actually protesting. It was almost as though they were deemed below being interviewed and asked a question. As for independent polling, well, ABAC is an absolute quack organisation with a massive agenda. I like very much the headline in nothenation "Poll produces 100% support by asking only one question".

If Abhisit would genuinely have some cojones and tell his Dem colleagues and business supporters that in order for us to win we are going to asbolutely reform and carry out plans for

a. Land distribution and taxation issues

b. Agricultural markets and agribusiness taxation

c. Rural development funds and education

He would clean up, but his party is no less in the hands of various vested interests than the others. So as you see, the "national interest" isn't held by many at all, and it is as though big business development is by definition "the national interest", and Somchai the thai has to bow to their needs, whoever is in power.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

And when democracy is abused by politicians who get into power and ignore the promises they made then you get a publicly supported coup.

As Thailand knows only too well.

There are a great many people who believe (arguably correctly) that the "reset switch" of a publicly supported coup gives Thailand's 'democracy' an edge over US 'democracy'. I think it's all 6 on one side, half a dozen on the other. I have a minor in History and spent six months on the US Civil War and to this day, I'm yet to hear an explanation for why the South did not have the right to secede from "the Union" (which was formed under a false pretext).

The argument for the Southern states being prevented from doing what they wanted to do literally boiled down to "What God has joined together, let no man tear asunder." That's more Biblical than democratic, but then the illusion of 'sovereignty' and 'nation-states' was created by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1648. Yall know about how states were formed surely?

Sovereigns were legitimised by the Church, which (by virtue of exerting their 'moral' influence for over 1000 years across the [known] world) had turned Europe into a blood-soaked state of Total War. Pure anarchy. Sociopathic bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs were forming mini-armies of vassals on whom they'd play Confidence Tricks in order convince them to kill and die for their 'Protector' (who was nothing more than the most cunning of vassals, capable of manipulating other vassals into risking their lives and killing for him or her). The most successful (i.e. Powerful) of the sociopathic killers got an invite to Munster where the Church created sovereigns out of the winners of UN-natural selection.

The JEALOUS LORD sure does work in 'mysterious' ways.

The Holy Roman Emperor brilliantly took control of the entire (known) world by giving away land he did not own and vassals he had no right to give away. He divided up the world into portions, which were then given away to literally the worst animals on the face of the planet. Sane people don't have any vassals willing to kill or die for them. Only sociopaths can ever get Power. Sociopaths became Holy sovereigns ordained by God, and sent back to their plantations to continue to exploit their own. They had the right to wage war but they all swore fealty to the Holy See. The excerpts in the Treaty of Westphalia literally states all dominions belong to the Holy Roman Empire. I'm yet to understand how exactly the Treaty of Westphalia was annulled; and if it was not...?

Either way, nationalism has always been a ludicrous illusion and a lie. Sovereigns has always been (and will always be) about domestic exploitation, first and foremost. I vaguely understand the only way to retain legitimacy when your very existence serves no function, is to wage war and run endless domestic terrorism campaigns. Protection Rackets are always about manufacturing fear.

The idea of the "in the public interest" is alien to Thailand.

But in what country on the planet is it not?

Very erudite answer.

I think the difference in Thailand is that there is absolutely no chance that some thorny issues are ever going to be challenged, debated, or discussed because all the protagonists in the parliament are protecting their own interests one way or another.

Land taxation is the most obvious to me. Here is an asset that attracts virtually no tax once purchased, it acts as a store of in many cases untaxed income, and can sit forever untouched. It is the PRIME asset of the country, yet it is locked away in the hands of relatively few, many of whom sit in parliament. The public interest can obviously see that it can become an enormous source of wealth for the country if it is taxed even moderately at 10 baht a rai per year, taxing it will encourage people to do something with it instead of simply hoarding it for the future, and yet NO ONE has the political balls, capital, or care for the country to take this issue and even attempt to bring the debate into parliament.

They talk about it, then poo poo it, then talk about how foreigners are stealing it from them, when all most them want to do with it, is hoard it away in another pile of chanotes, produce nothing with it, and prevent someone doing someone useful with it.

[JurgenG]

How do you get from:

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

To:

Basically you're against democracy.

I agree with JurgenG's conclusion.

whybother, what is your idea of 'democracy'?

The way I see it, government is (and has always been) little more than a Protection Racket. Just like the Law.

Are you and Jurgen suggesting that vote buying is democratic?

Most politicians make promises to enact their policies. People vote for them based on those promises.

In Thailand, politicians pay people to vote for them regardless of what their policies are. I don't see that as democratic.

I asked are you for or against democracy ? You answered corruption is not democracy. We agree on that. But an army coup is not democracy either.

If you think democracy is not the best system for Thailand because of the high level of corruption, just say so but stop beating around the bush.

It's the heart of this article. A number of people pretend to be for democracy but for a number of reasons that can be discussed are in reality against.

Despite being highly corrupted societies, Taiwan, Japan and Korea are models of "functioning" democracies. Same for Italy, the level of corruption there is huge and creates enormous problems but nobody in Italy will ever support a military coup.

On the other hand China is a very successful country and can reasonably make a point that democracy is not the only successful political system in the world.

So be honest, for Thailand today, are you for or against democracy. IMO, you're against.

Edited July 11, 2012 by JurgenG

[tuky]

We have no common political pole to unite around. Unlike in the United States, South Korea or Japan, where coups are unthinkable and unacceptable to most, as long as there is no consensus on a democratic system, military coups or even "judicial coups" will continue to be part of the Thai |political landscape.

South Korea has had several Coups, sometimes resulting from presidential assasinations.

The last coup was in 1980 and led by the South Korean CIA.

Never heard about a "South Korean CIA". I always thougt this fine organization is 100% American.

It used to be called the Korean CIA (KCIA) but is now known as the NIS (National Intelligence Agency).

[TackyToo]

Thailand's problem is an important number of people don't have faith enough in democracy.

No, Thailand's single biggest problem is endemic corruption, especially at the top. The other big problem Thailand has is that there is no rule of law. The Thai police are Thailand's biggest criminal organization.

You cannot have democracy, or even faith in democracy, until you have proper rule of law and eliminate the endemic corruption.

Funny, even at a second look I read the headline: Support for democracy slim because politicians are corrupt!

[Thai at Heart]

I asked are you for or against democracy ? You answered corruption is not democracy. We agree on that. But an army coup is not democracy either.

If you think democracy is not the best system for Thailand because of the high level of corruption, just say so but stop beating around the bush.

It's the heart of this article. A number of people pretend to be for democracy but for a number of reasons that can be discussed are in reality against.

Despite being highly corrupted societies, Taiwan, Japan and Korea are models of "functioning" democracies.

On the other hand China is a very successful country and can reasonably make a point that democracy is not the only successful political system in the world.

So be honest, for Thailand today, are you for or against democracy. IMO, you're against.

I think the question is, would Thailand continue to function tomorrow if it didn't have any type of democracy, and the answer probably is yes. This understanding that some Asians countries are being very successful without full blown democracy is only just being considered as valid in political theories.

If they did away with democracy tomorrow, they would simply brush off the "How to run a country without a parliament version 17, with revisions from experience gained a few years ago".

Where it would end up in ten years is another issue though? Would the country develop in a better or worse way? I can't answer that one for sure, but I somehow don't think so.

[h90]

Well that in and of itself is an enormous benefit. I may be wrong, but the first real manifesto style campaign was TRT, (at least as I have read from various sources), and this at least has lead to the Dems having to come up with some hard and fast policies of their own, and as such, the level of interest about who is going to do what is a lot higher. The system has to realise that today, people expect their parties to deliver something for them, it isn't very sophisticated, but its better than what it was. We all know Banharn and his bunch are just going to partner with whoever makes them rich so we have 2 parties duking it out, with policies being offered to the people. It isn't that the Dems policies are in some ways that different to PTP, but did they ever make a mess of explaining them too people.

Beyond that I can't really say how much analysis goes on in the Thai newspapers since I can't read Thai well, but from what I can glean on the TV, the analysis of the politics is pretty poor, the news is terrible, and then of course you have red and yellow TV which is akin to watching China Channel 7 news or Fox. So I guess that is the next step, is getting some kind of real considered free analysis of the politics on TV, and maybe things improve.

I always find it very interesting through all of the protests that have been going on, that barely anyone dared to interview the rank and file people who were actually protesting. It was almost as though they were deemed below being interviewed and asked a question. As for independent polling, well, ABAC is an absolute quack organisation with a massive agenda. I like very much the headline in nothenation "Poll produces 100% support by asking only one question".

If Abhisit would genuinely have some cojones and tell his Dem colleagues and business supporters that in order for us to win we are going to asbolutely reform and carry out plans for

a. Land distribution and taxation issues

b. Agricultural markets and agribusiness taxation

c. Rural development funds and education

He would clean up, but his party is no less in the hands of various vested interests than the others. So as you see, the "national interest" isn't held by many at all, and it is as though big business development is by definition "the national interest", and Somchai the thai has to bow to their needs, whoever is in power.

Well, maybe I want too much, but I don't see any manifesto from anyone. I see a few contradicting policies from the Thaksin. I see some fragments of a ideology at the Democrats but less policies.

But no way we you could say someone is socialist, nationalist, libertarian etc etc.. And even less anyone ever measures a policy against their ideology?

I didn't mean the newspapers and TV...anyhow I think there are no independent ones. But I see my staff sometimes discuss/speak about politics.

That never happened pre 2005 or 2004. Even customer speak with the sales about politics.

I don't say that what they say always makes sense, but they speak about it. I would say both Yellows and Reds waked up the people.

[Thai at Heart]

Well that in and of itself is an enormous benefit. I may be wrong, but the first real manifesto style campaign was TRT, (at least as I have read from various sources), and this at least has lead to the Dems having to come up with some hard and fast policies of their own, and as such, the level of interest about who is going to do what is a lot higher. The system has to realise that today, people expect their parties to deliver something for them, it isn't very sophisticated, but its better than what it was. We all know Banharn and his bunch are just going to partner with whoever makes them rich so we have 2 parties duking it out, with policies being offered to the people. It isn't that the Dems policies are in some ways that different to PTP, but did they ever make a mess of explaining them too people.

Beyond that I can't really say how much analysis goes on in the Thai newspapers since I can't read Thai well, but from what I can glean on the TV, the analysis of the politics is pretty poor, the news is terrible, and then of course you have red and yellow TV which is akin to watching China Channel 7 news or Fox. So I guess that is the next step, is getting some kind of real considered free analysis of the politics on TV, and maybe things improve.

I always find it very interesting through all of the protests that have been going on, that barely anyone dared to interview the rank and file people who were actually protesting. It was almost as though they were deemed below being interviewed and asked a question. As for independent polling, well, ABAC is an absolute quack organisation with a massive agenda. I like very much the headline in nothenation "Poll produces 100% support by asking only one question".

If Abhisit would genuinely have some cojones and tell his Dem colleagues and business supporters that in order for us to win we are going to asbolutely reform and carry out plans for

a. Land distribution and taxation issues

b. Agricultural markets and agribusiness taxation

c. Rural development funds and education

He would clean up, but his party is no less in the hands of various vested interests than the others. So as you see, the "national interest" isn't held by many at all, and it is as though big business development is by definition "the national interest", and Somchai the thai has to bow to their needs, whoever is in power.

Well, maybe I want too much, but I don't see any manifesto from anyone. I see a few contradicting policies from the Thaksin. I see some fragments of a ideology at the Democrats but less policies.

But no way we you could say someone is socialist, nationalist, libertarian etc etc.. And even less anyone ever measures a policy against their ideology?

I didn't mean the newspapers and TV...anyhow I think there are no independent ones. But I see my staff sometimes discuss/speak about politics.

That never happened pre 2005 or 2004. Even customer speak with the sales about politics.

I don't say that what they say always makes sense, but they speak about it. I would say both Yellows and Reds waked up the people.

I agree, people are far more aware and curious than they ever were. That's progress. Socialist, Free marketeer, isn't clearly defined yet, but that will come with time. Imagine, the dems have been around for 60 odd years, and still they haven't worked out an ideology. No wonder PTP keeps smashing them in elections.

As for your sales people, don't let them get too embroiled, we had a major red shirt sales man, he didn't go down to well in Bangkok.

[whybother]

I asked are you for or against democracy ? You answered corruption is not democracy. We agree on that. But an army coup is not democracy either.

If you think democracy is not the best system for Thailand because of the high level of corruption, just say so but stop beating around the bush.

It's the heart of this article. A number of people pretend to be for democracy but for a number of reasons that can be discussed are in reality against.

Despite being highly corrupted societies, Taiwan, Japan and Korea are models of "functioning" democracies. Same for Italy, the level of corruption there is huge and creates enormous problems but nobody in Italy will ever support a military coup.

On the other hand China is a very successful country and can reasonably make a point that democracy is not the only successful political system in the world.

So be honest, for Thailand today, are you for or against democracy. IMO, you're against.

You didn't ask anything. You just stated that I was against democracy because I asked a simple question.

You pretend to be for democracy, but think that the current party in power is democratic, and you think that the red shirts are democratic. Just because they don't support military coups doesn't make them democratic.

Democracy would be the best system for Thailand. Hopefully, they'll have it one day.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

whybother, what is your idea of 'democracy'?

The way I see it, government is (and has always been) little more than a Protection Racket. Just like the Law.

Are you and Jurgen suggesting that vote buying is democratic?

Most politicians make promises to enact their policies. People vote for them based on those promises.

In Thailand, politicians pay people to vote for them regardless of what their policies are. I don't see that as democratic.

So making promises to get people to vote for you regardless of what your policies will be is called DEMOCRACY.

And paying people to get people to vote for you regardless of what your policies will be is undemocratic.

My position is it's all a ludicrous joke and that we need to do away with government and Law (but not before people are capable of being sane and that's going to require some work to convince parents to give up their human slaves).

The issue is what does the accepting of the payment mean in terms of a politicians relationship with the people.

By taking the 100 baht, a person basically renounces the right to hold his politician accountable for anything he does. It is the politicians way of washing his hands of being held accountable for his actions in power.

As opposed to how democracy works in the Land of The Free? Where Presidents can unilaterally send military assets to wars without explanation; or if pressed for one, fabricate an insulting pretext to kill American soldiers.

Where politicians break so many promises it's ludicrous. And never get held accountable because the only thing that hold Power accountable is Power.

My point being, Americans are dumber by 100 baht per person for the same result.

I may be wrong, but the first real manifesto style campaign was TRT, (at least as I have read from various sources), and this at least has lead to the Dems having to come up with some hard and fast policies of their own, and as such, the level of interest about who is going to do what is a lot higher. The system has to realise that today, people expect their parties to deliver something for them, it isn't very sophisticated, but its better than what it was.

The level of interest is there, but it is corrupted. Abhisit offers them a Welfare State. The other guy offers to build walls around Bangkok to keep out the flood/s, give every child a laptop, and make everyone wealthy! *crowd cheers*

Populist policies in the work ahead of next election in 2011

THE NATION

Published on June 29, 2010

The Abhisit Vejjajiva government is preparing to introduce a mass of populist and social-welfare measures to win advance votes before the next election, scheduled for next year.

The latest case in point is a plan to increase civil servants' salaries 5 per cent in the second half of fiscal 2011.

In addition, the government is considering extending cost-of-living measures for low-income earners, including relief from energy costs, while preparing to forgive a massive amount of farmers' debt.

The list of populist and social-welfare measures since Prime Minister

Abhisit Vejjajiva took office more than 18 months ago has been extensive.

Free electricity, bus and train rides for low-income earners, which may be further extended, would cost the public Bt4.5 billion every three months.

Originally, in 2008, when the price of oil spiked to more than US$140 per barrel for the first time, the Samak government initiated a total of six cost-of-living measures to help the poor. Over six months, it spent about Bt40 billion.

Then, the Abhisit government adopted five such measures - free electricity, buses, trains and water and a freeze on the price of cooking gas.

On farmers' debts, the Cabinet approved a programme last week under which four state banks will grant a 50-per-cent reduction of debts owed by farmers, provided they join a related career-development plan. Farmers accepting the offer will be allowed to clear their remaining debts over 15 years with special interest terms equalling the banks' minimum retail rate minus 3 percentage points. Currently, there are about 80,000 farmers with non-performing loans.

Earlier, the Abhisit government approved a huge subsidy covering 15 years of free schooling. It applies to free textbooks, uniforms and other learning materials. About Bt6 billion is to be spent on free textbooks; Bt4.5 billion on school uniforms; Bt2 billion on learning materials and Bt4 billion on special activities. Private schools will get Bt1.5-billion worth of state subsidies.

The 2010 budget for free schooling is Bt73 billion.

The government is also planning to introduce a savings-matching programme for senior citizens, covering more than 3,000 communities around the country in which it will set aside funds to match the savings of old people. Currently, the government is providing Bt500 per month to elderly people.

The cost of the farmer-income insurance scheme is estimated to be Bt30 billion annually, covering 3.19 million rice farmers (Bt28.35 billion); 379,785 cassava farmers (Bt2.43 billion); and 379,304 corn farmers (Bt5.63 billion).

Earlier, the government also initiated a programme to relieve the debt burden on poor people caused by high-interest loans. About 1.19 million debtors registered with the government, representing a combined debt of Bt122 billion.

From January 2009 to April 2010, the government provided tax incentives for property buyers and businesses totalling Bt34.73 billion. It has now restored the special-business tax of 3.3 per cent after reducing it to 0.1 per cent; restored the property transfer fee to 2 per cent from 0.01 per cent; and restored the mortgage registration fee to 1 per cent from 0.01 per cent.

In assistance to the tourism sector, the Cabinet has approved a multi-billion-baht loan package to help operators hit by the April and May riots in Bangkok, while suspending visa fees and reducing aircraft-landing fees to lure more foreign visitors.

On funeral services for the poor, the Social Development and Human Security Ministry has allocated Bt44.13 million to pay for the funeral rites of 22,063 people who have died of natural causes. Over the full fiscal year, it expects to spend Bt475 million on funeral services for 237,663 poor people.

In addition, the government is reportedly planning a savings programme for newborn babies, who will be entitled to a monthly Bt500 state-sponsored saving programme until they are 18. This will cost the government Bt6,000 per newborn per year.

____________

Newspapers ridiculed Abhisit for not connecting with (read: insulting, patronising, lying to, deceiving) the people. One newspaper reporter sought to help Abhisit with advice. He explained how Abhisit had failed and why Thaksin connected with his vassals. The example used was Thaksin's lottery for taxi drivers. Winner gets to own his own taxi...

The problem is not really politicians.

The problem is that "someone or some thing" has made all the vassals emotionally insane so they are incapable of acting in their own best interests.

[Thai at Heart]

I don't disagree, but the level of "interest" in politics has definitely gone up in the last few years.

As for Abhisit, the best thing he could ever do is go off and make his own party taking like minded Democrats with him. They have lost their integrity in the eyes of so many, and so so little political nous that in their current form they are unlikely to ever win with their internal power brokers pulling his strings. They have done virtually nothing for 60 years, and then when faced with TRT/PTP all of a sudden try to become some kind of social democratic party. It doesn't wash.

That isn't to say that PTP is doing it out of some kind of deep rooted ideology, but at least they are consistent in where their priorities lie.

I for one believe that land reform and taxation is the crunch issue. Whilst we are sitting around saying that the policies of governments are going to bankrupt the country, we are literally standing on a printing press of revenue that would generate tax revenue in a simple, fair, economically beneficial way. My tessaban fees for my up country house in an older moobhan, are 28 baht a year, and there are multimillionaires living on houses of one rai or more in this moobhan. I jokingly asked if I paid 2800 would they fix the road?

I have friends with 100's of rai of rubber generating them a very nice earning, and they pay precisely ZERO land tax, and zero income tax on all of it. Please don't tell me that they can't afford 25 baht a rai per year?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I don't disagree, but the level of "interest" in politics has definitely gone up in the last few years.

As for Abhisit, the best thing he could ever do is go off and make his own party taking like minded Democrats with him. They have lost their integrity in the eyes of so many, and so so little political nous that in their current form they are unlikely to ever win with their internal power brokers pulling his strings. They have done virtually nothing for 60 years, and then when faced with TRT/PTP all of a sudden try to become some kind of social democratic party. It doesn't wash.

I need to read this forum more. Of course you make an excellent point. I never really saw it from this angle.

I for one believe that land reform and taxation is the crunch issue. Whilst we are sitting around saying that the policies of governments are going to bankrupt the country, we are literally standing on a printing press of revenue that would generate tax revenue in a simple, fair, economically beneficial way. My tessaban fees for my up country house in an older moobhan, are 28 baht a year, and there are multimillionaires living on houses of one rai or more in this moobhan.

The insanity of Economic Apartheid is just...insane.

The rich are miserable because they've excluded 95-99% of their human options. Options that so many in this world fail to recognise the true value of, and I'm not being a sentimental hippie wanting the world to "just get along". I mean they subject the poor to misery in order to make their worthless hoarded wealth valuable. The thing about humans is that they can make you happy _or_ they can make you miserable. It's not merely an issue of exclusion of potential for happiness, it's also an issue of invoicing the poor and demanding they bring you pain.

From a logical standpoint, the Hi-So seem idiotic. Something has made them seemingly insane, because they'll live in (quite rational) fear of their wealth being taken away by those whom they've made to suffer in order to...exclude? Lord their wealth over? Exploit? It all seems so ridiculous to me, from a game theory standpoint. I think revolutions can happen this way.

Wherever there is Apartheid, I can't help but feel it's immature childlike taunting from the ostensibly 'fortunate' side of the divide. It seems to me that the Hi-So aren't happy with their money and so they imagine that they can manufacture happiness by creating misery. They flash their bling, flaunt their wealth and abuse their power not just because they can but because they feel an existential need. This seems like self-evident logic; if they were happy, they wouldn't feel the need to flaunt their wealth. I'm not nearly as bright as I used to believe I was, but not even in my stupid phases was I retarded enough to believe flaunting or taunting your wealth purely to induce envy from those who can't afford to satisfy even basic Maslow needs could ever be advisable or logical. They're just going to take it from you sooner or later. And historically, the heads roll from guillotines or there is mad violence and insane revenge and it's all a horrifying bloody mess.

A mess which seems so inevitable I just cannot make sense of Economic Apartheid. Maybe someone can explain it to me or maybe I'm missing something but I know when I made a lot of money, I realised I had no use for it. The only thing I could seem to buy were 'screams' (begging) from the Needy who didn't really need what they imagined.

It was just brilliant marketing that made them feel that way.

I have friends with 100's of rai of rubber generating them a very nice earning, and they pay precisely ZERO land tax, and zero income tax on all of it. Please don't tell me that they can't afford 25 baht a rai per year?

They certainly can but I think money just makes everyone lose their minds. It might not be the 'fault' of money but maybe we're all emotional basketcases, and money just exacerbates our insanity. This was my personal experience. I was emotionally fragile and I discovered in horror that almost all friends and family members and acquaintances I had were narcissistic terrors. Once you bring money into the equation, everything seems to becomes a demented and awkward mess (especially if you're 'generous', which I never was; that was just assumed but I'm actually pretty Selfish, I just wanted to have fun and having fun alone is pretty hard).

But every child is told this:

"Money Cannot Buy You Happiness."

I felt that was a little creepy because it's only half of the Truth. I don't know how many children are told the truth but I certainly never realised the obvious until I felt pretty stupid to have sacrificed everything chasing demented dreams. I think the truth is something like:

"Money Cannot Buy You Happiness, but Money Will Guarantee You Misery."

I just wasn't prepared for the insanity. The Needy (or those who imagine they need the latest and greatest expensive things) will just scream at you because they know you have the capacity to buy them what they feel is causing their suffering. It was horrifying when I discovered many of my supposed friends were actually pure narcissists; all they can think about is their own imagined emotional pain. They couldn't care less how they make you feel; only their feelings are valid. I used to think this was Selfish but how can it be? It's not intelligent Selfishness; if you don't care about anyone but yourself no one is going to want to know you.

I didn't want to know them. I got very emotional and couldn't handle it. So I moved overseas, withdrew further and further into solitary confinement and eventually became something of a hermit. I think this is what exclusivity and VIP is all about; getting away from the screams of the needy and the 'needy'. I can vouch for it being pretty boring. I was bored out of my mind, possibly literally. I suspect most Hi-So tragics are miserable and / or bored out of their mind. I would wager anything the reason is their illogical belief that it makes sense to exclude 95-99% of fun.

I started thinking about this obsession people had with buying products to flaunt their 'success'. If they were successful, why do they need to flaunt it? I think it's all a huge scam of some kind, but what do I know. I just know me. To sell a product to me that I don't need, I think you have to inflict pain (induce desire, need, "must have" obsession, etc). I made this dumb graph to try and explain it to a friend but she didn't really get it. I dunno, this is just my (possibly dumb) theory.

Getting a little bit off-topic and also, I could be babbling nonsense for all I know. I just have theories I can't seem to communicate effectively. But with corrupt politicians and their wealth, it seems obvious to me that they're not happy. If we use Thaksin as an example, he's so driven it's impossible to logically argue that he's happy. He's a bonafide Winner. The Olympics are coming, and I know a little bit about winning. No one talks about it really but if you want to win at an elite level, you will need to endure a great deal of pain. You'll need to suffer more than almost anyone in the world can cope with. You'll have to push your body beyond sane limits. Pain is supposed to be a warning to your brain that you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. I ignored the screaming and endured so much pain, when I reached the finish line I felt so stupid it was kind of traumatic. I literally suffered to earn the right to endure the screaming of the Needy who suffer and share their suffering. They don't care. They're narcissist leeches. They don't want to earn the things they imagine they need, they just feel they're entitled. There seems to be a suspiciously high degree of emotional (i.e. imagined) pain in this world.

Sometimes it seems to me the entire globe is powered by pain. I know that 'winning' (whether it's the Olympics, professional sports, politics, commerce or even personal relationships) boils down to a competition to see who can inflict the most or endure the most pain. I don't really have a clue, I can't seem to communicate these things or no one wants to discuss this sort of thing or shoot holes in my logic. I guess everyone is cool with how things are, but I was not cool with their screaming. If Economic Apartheid made sense, the deceitful flags of Liberty, Equality & Fraternity would never fly. There's no such thing as those noble fantasies. It's always just an excuse to snatch power from those who would be happier if they didn't create misery (I believe).

It's also not beyond the realm of possibly that the Needy screamed me insane If so, apologies. But I have no motive to inflict pain. And until someone can explain to me how all the seemingly illogical insanity in this world makes sense, I'm forced to believe they're all insane. One example is how so many people like it when others suffer to please them. The idea that someone would suffer to please me makes me a little nauseous whenever it happens. But I should cut it here or I'll ramble indefinitely.