Why should I care about Thai politics and why do so many TV members appear to?

[thailiketoo]

Unless you have a vote it doesn't really matter whether you care or not.

Yes it does matter.

If new laws are implemented resulting in me having to leave the kingdom, it matters a lot.

Even though I did NOT vote.

if new laws are implemented requiring you to leave your interest will make no difference at all

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Ya or remember when the Thais confiscated all the property owned by Germans?

Edited November 19, 2013 by thailiketoo

[corkythecat]

I'm not sure about ''young'' if the nic is any guide !

Sent from my WT-PAD013 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[hawker9000]

quote "Perhaps it's better to let go of the anger & enjoy a peaceful existence in Thailand."

Probably right for some, but some of us, by nature and nurture would like to leave the world a better place than when we entered it.

The option of opting out is not available.

A hard furrow to plough, but that's our lot, and I would not want to go through life as a spectator.

A noble position to take, ajs500, but let me ask you this: a better world for who? Christians? Muslims? Are you of a mind that Thai people would be happier if you -- a foreigner -- could dictate the type of government they have & what laws are on the books?

The best place to affect "change" of any kind is from within your own culture (unless, i.e., you believe in Crusader-like force).

You're obviously quite young, so charge ahead to make the world better for those who you believe are less wise than yourself, but do it in your own backyard. Thai people don't need our help, nor do they want it.

When you get later on in years, you'll wish you had spent more time as a "spectator," enjoying what life has to offer.

So a "spectator" enjoys what life has to offer, but a "participant" (even if we're only really talking about verbal give & take here...) does not? Passive good, active bad?! I would agree that engagement in open & active political discourse with local thais is probably a bad idea most of the time. But human beings have brains and language, and are social. I think it's just in our nature to take an active interest in different aspects of our environment, including the political, and to want to talk about it. I don't see apathy as something all that desireable.

[kevvy]

I dont worry about the politics what happens happens I cannot change it .They wont let me vote.

[SeabagsFull]

So a "spectator" enjoys what life has to offer, but a "participant" (even if we're only really talking about verbal give & take here...) does not? Passive good, active bad?! I would agree that engagement in open & active political discourse with local thais is probably a bad idea most of the time. But human beings have brains and language, and are social. I think it's just in our nature to take an active interest in different aspects of our environment, including the political, and to want to talk about it. I don't see apathy as something all that desireable.

I absolutely agree with you, hawker9000, that "verbal give & take" can be stimulating to the mind & thus is an enjoyable facet of life ... for some. E.g., I have a very active mind & am always engaged in something, doing mental gymnastics of some sorts. But I know many fine people who do not find pleasure in working their brains as such; they simply do not have an analytical constitution. Also, health issues can drain one's energetic passion to a point of no longer finding such things amusing. IMO, however, "participant" means something more than non-active private conversation between two people.

It is obviously your personal right to "care" about Thai politics, but I suspect that many TV members would go beyond caring & play active roles if they could. As ajs500 hinted at, it is the nature of farang to want to impose their way on others; they feel & behave as though they were responding to a higher calling. Their thinking has been heavily influenced in a specific direction, taking care to avoid the mines (i.e., labels) that Behaviorist puppet masters have indoctrinated them to believe are real.

Apathy is such a label. Not wanting to participate in Thai politics -- even to discuss an issue with you -- is not apathetic, but if it were, so what? I'm happy not discussing political issues with you. So how does your applying such a label to me (as an example) help you deal with the fact that I have the right of equal coexistence with you? By using a label, does that make me less human & therefore dismissible? Since I'm apathetic, then it's okay to force me to adapt to a different -- your -- way of life?

[Thai at Heart]

So a "spectator" enjoys what life has to offer, but a "participant" (even if we're only really talking about verbal give & take here...) does not? Passive good, active bad?! I would agree that engagement in open & active political discourse with local thais is probably a bad idea most of the time. But human beings have brains and language, and are social. I think it's just in our nature to take an active interest in different aspects of our environment, including the political, and to want to talk about it. I don't see apathy as something all that desireable.

I absolutely agree with you, hawker9000, that "verbal give & take" can be stimulating to the mind & thus is an enjoyable facet of life ... for some. E.g., I have a very active mind & am always engaged in something, doing mental gymnastics of some sorts. But I know many fine people who do not find pleasure in working their brains as such; they simply do not have an analytical constitution. Also, health issues can drain one's energetic passion to a point of no longer finding such things amusing. IMO, however, "participant" means something more than non-active private conversation between two people.

It is obviously your personal right to "care" about Thai politics, but I suspect that many TV members would go beyond caring & play active roles if they could. As ajs500 hinted at, it is the nature of farang to want to impose their way on others; they feel & behave as though they were responding to a higher calling. Their thinking has been heavily influenced in a specific direction, taking care to avoid the mines (i.e., labels) that Behaviorist puppet masters have indoctrinated them to believe are real.

Apathy is such a label. Not wanting to participate in Thai politics -- even to discuss an issue with you -- is not apathetic, but if it were, so what? I'm happy not discussing political issues with you. So how does your applying such a label to me (as an example) help you deal with the fact that I have the right of equal coexistence with you? By using a label, does that make me less human & therefore dismissible? Since I'm apathetic, then it's okay to force me to adapt to a different -- your -- way of life?

In the whole time of political protests here there have been how many arrests or pictures of foreigners participating in the protests?

Less than a dozen?

[SeabagsFull]

In the whole time of political protests here there have been how many arrests or pictures of foreigners participating in the protests?

Less than a dozen?

Thai at Heart, "protesting" is but one way to play an active role. I believe that most farang enjoy their freedom here enough so to stay clear of public demonstrations of any kind, though I suspect that there were more farang protesters than the dozen or so who were arrested.

When suggesting that many TV members would get involved if they could, I'm assuming a definition of the word "could" to include more than just physical reasons (e.g., I would avoid using a condom with a bar girl if I "could," but AIDS & all kinds of nasty critters make this a no-no). I don't believe any of us want to end up in Bangkok Hilton.

[hawker9000]

So a "spectator" enjoys what life has to offer, but a "participant" (even if we're only really talking about verbal give & take here...) does not? Passive good, active bad?! I would agree that engagement in open & active political discourse with local thais is probably a bad idea most of the time. But human beings have brains and language, and are social. I think it's just in our nature to take an active interest in different aspects of our environment, including the political, and to want to talk about it. I don't see apathy as something all that desireable.

I absolutely agree with you, hawker9000, that "verbal give & take" can be stimulating to the mind & thus is an enjoyable facet of life ... for some. E.g., I have a very active mind & am always engaged in something, doing mental gymnastics of some sorts. But I know many fine people who do not find pleasure in working their brains as such; they simply do not have an analytical constitution. Also, health issues can drain one's energetic passion to a point of no longer finding such things amusing. IMO, however, "participant" means something more than non-active private conversation between two people.

It is obviously your personal right to "care" about Thai politics, but I suspect that many TV members would go beyond caring & play active roles if they could. As ajs500 hinted at, it is the nature of farang to want to impose their way on others; they feel & behave as though they were responding to a higher calling. Their thinking has been heavily influenced in a specific direction, taking care to avoid the mines (i.e., labels) that Behaviorist puppet masters have indoctrinated them to believe are real.

Apathy is such a label. Not wanting to participate in Thai politics -- even to discuss an issue with you -- is not apathetic, but if it were, so what? I'm happy not discussing political issues with you. So how does your applying such a label to me (as an example) help you deal with the fact that I have the right of equal coexistence with you? By using a label, does that make me less human & therefore dismissible? Since I'm apathetic, then it's okay to force me to adapt to a different -- your -- way of life?

I said nothing in justification of foreigners forcing their views on thais: that was just your way of trying to wiggle out of the corner of apathy you backed yourself into. One can certainly "care" about what's going on in Thailand politically without participating in thai street protests or seeking out thai locals to argue with. Can't imagine where all this "forcing of views on others" you're getting on about comes from. Certainly not from me. But since you bring it up, I have a question for you. If foreigners collectively should decide that thai corruption, scamming, exploitive attitudes, political division & instability, whatever... drive them to want to start avoiding Thailand, thus giving thais the sense that they must do something to restore their sagging fortunes, haven't these foreigners, by virtue of their political awareness and inclination to avoid Thailand by way of "doing something about it", "forced" some action on Thailand? And if foreigners should participate in dialogues with their fellow foreigners that tend to reinforce such trends, are they behaving actively or passively?

If you want to narrowly define words like "active" or "participation" to include things like street protesting, attendance at colored shirt rallies, and shouting matches with local thais, well then we have no argument, you & I. I'm not an advocate of such agitation by foreigners either. I find it objectionable in my home country, and wouldn't be involved in it myself as a visitor. I just don't define the terms so narrowly.

[SeabagsFull]

I said nothing in justification of foreigners forcing their views on thais: that was just your way of trying to wiggle out of the corner of apathy you backed yourself into. One can certainly "care" about what's going on in Thailand politically without participating in thai street protests or seeking out thai locals to argue with. Can't imagine where all this "forcing of views on others" you're getting on about comes from. Certainly not from me. But since you bring it up, I have a question for you. If foreigners collectively should decide that thai corruption, scamming, exploitive attitudes, political division & instability, whatever... drive them to want to start avoiding Thailand, thus giving thais the sense that they must do something to restore their sagging fortunes, haven't these foreigners, by virtue of their political awareness and inclination to avoid Thailand by way of "doing something about it", "forced" some action on Thailand? And if foreigners should participate in dialogues with their fellow foreigners that tend to reinforce such trends, are they behaving actively or passively?

If you want to narrowly define words like "active" or "participation" to include things like street protesting, attendance at colored shirt rallies, and shouting matches with local thais, well then we have no argument, you & I. I'm not an advocate of such agitation by foreigners either. I find it objectionable in my home country, and wouldn't be involved in it myself as a visitor. I just don't define the terms so narrowly.

Hawker9000, you ask some valid questions that do relate to the topic; not sure I'm qualified to answer them all. Would make for a better discussion, however, if you could get away from personalizing the issue (e.g., "... your way of trying to wiggle out of the corner of apathy you backed yourself into."). While I fear we're heading off in the direction of an old-men pissing contest, I'll give this one more go.

If you'll allow me, I'd like to put this in perspective. ThaiVisa has helped me with my questions since I first visited the forum in 2004. When I see a topic that I might be able to contribute to, only then will I add a post. E.g., it took me three years of observing before joining to log my first post; I wanted to correct clarify an IT misnomer blogged by another user.

I added my thoughts in post #82 of this thread. In post #85, ajs500 took a high-road elitist perspective of my post, one that I felt I should respond to in post #86.

You seemed to take exception to part of my response to ajs500; hence your post #93 to me. Now I do get that you weren't necessarily jumping on board with everything ajs500 wrote, which is why I tried to focus my reply to you on the "spectator" question. But by getting into apathy & whatnot, your reply made it difficult to completely stay clear of ajs500's comments. If you've ever taken a university debate course, you'll know that labels are normally used by someone only when they have no meritable points to make; they're meant to invoke emotion & hopefully cause your opponent to back down (i.e., very primal). I clearly attributed -- but not by quote -- "...foreigners forcing their views on Thais" to ajs500, not you.

I did not back myself into a corner. Your labels don't affect me, & the fact that you still want to talk about "apathy" causes me to pause. I have a right to be "apathetic," you simply have no right to belittle my existence as a man or human being. I don't expect you to fully understand this right now; it takes time.

Regarding your valid questions relating to the topic, this is what I believe. Corruption as it occurs in Thailand is played out on a level we really don't understand in the West. Without trying to defend this statement with deep off-topic points, I'll instead point to something else we don't understand: in every poll taken in Thailand, the majority of Thai people (e.g., >80% in the most recent one) are okay with corruption. I believe that the heart of Thais view on this are related to their interdependency with each other.

As to scamming, rip-off artists, etc., I don't believe most farang come here for the purpose of being ripped off in order to then leave, thus making an economical statement (i.e., tourists fleeing Thailand due to scammers). If you're here as a tourist & get scammed big time, you should report it & perhaps never return. If this happened to all tourists, then you're probably correct that Thailand's tourism industry would suffer. As in other countries, however, it doesn't happen to most people, at least not on a large enough scale (e.g., being overcharged by a cabbie won't stop me from planning my next holiday in Thailand) to prevent people from returning.

Regarding farang having dialogue with Thais, this is fine of course. However, we come from completely different backgrounds & realities; the cultural differences are so massive that it's often impossible for us to understand Thais' point of views. This can lead to our being forceful & aggressive, frustrated over our inability to grasp why Thais don't want to follow our logic. An example of this took place in August 2004, when former U.S. President George Bush arm-twisted former Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin to officially outlaw live sex acts; before the strong-arm tactics, no other westerner had been able to convince Thai authorities to seriously consider doing this. Of course, this in itself serves as a way to view how Thailand has survived the threat of colonization (another thread): according to a Thai friend of mine, they bend as a tree's limbs do with the wind. Yet they still maintain their culture nearly status-quo (i.e., the live sex-shows still occur, only now the local police get paid more). And why not? Their way of life is their own & is none of our business.

In my opinion, the best way for us to affect change anywhere is by serving as a powerful role model, one that respects other peoples & other cultures & strives to maintain low tensions throughout the world. Our example as a free & prosperous people, not-with-standing our current hostage-to-the-Tea-Party status, would shine a light of hope everywhere, & eventually affect positive change. If we were talking about a single person, this is who I would want to emulate.

Edited November 22, 2013 by SeabagsFull

[hawker9000]

I said nothing in justification of foreigners forcing their views on thais: that was just your way of trying to wiggle out of the corner of apathy you backed yourself into. One can certainly "care" about what's going on in Thailand politically without participating in thai street protests or seeking out thai locals to argue with. Can't imagine where all this "forcing of views on others" you're getting on about comes from. Certainly not from me. But since you bring it up, I have a question for you. If foreigners collectively should decide that thai corruption, scamming, exploitive attitudes, political division & instability, whatever... drive them to want to start avoiding Thailand, thus giving thais the sense that they must do something to restore their sagging fortunes, haven't these foreigners, by virtue of their political awareness and inclination to avoid Thailand by way of "doing something about it", "forced" some action on Thailand? And if foreigners should participate in dialogues with their fellow foreigners that tend to reinforce such trends, are they behaving actively or passively?

If you want to narrowly define words like "active" or "participation" to include things like street protesting, attendance at colored shirt rallies, and shouting matches with local thais, well then we have no argument, you & I. I'm not an advocate of such agitation by foreigners either. I find it objectionable in my home country, and wouldn't be involved in it myself as a visitor. I just don't define the terms so narrowly.

Hawker9000, you ask some valid questions that do relate to the topic; not sure I'm qualified to answer them all. Would make for a better discussion, however, if you could get away from personalizing the issue (e.g., "... your way of trying to wiggle out of the corner of apathy you backed yourself into."). While I fear we're heading off in the direction of an old-men pissing contest, I'll give this one more go.

If you'll allow me, I'd like to put this in perspective. ThaiVisa has helped me with my questions since I first visited the forum in 2004. When I see a topic that I might be able to contribute to, only then will I add a post. E.g., it took me three years of observing before joining to log my first post; I wanted to correct clarify an IT misnomer blogged by another user.

I added my thoughts in post #82 of this thread. In post #85, ajs500 took a high-road elitist perspective of my post, one that I felt I should respond to in post #86.

You seemed to take exception to part of my response to ajs500; hence your post #93 to me. Now I do get that you weren't necessarily jumping on board with everything ajs500 wrote, which is why I tried to focus my reply to you on the "spectator" question. But by getting into apathy & whatnot, your reply made it difficult to completely stay clear of ajs500's comments. If you've ever taken a university debate course, you'll know that labels are normally used by someone only when they have no meritable points to make; they're meant to invoke emotion & hopefully cause your opponent to back down (i.e., very primal). I clearly attributed -- but not by quote -- "...foreigners forcing their views on Thais" to ajs500, not you.

I did not back myself into a corner. Your labels don't affect me, & the fact that you still want to talk about "apathy" causes me to pause. I have a right to be "apathetic," you simply have no right to belittle my existence as a man or human being. I don't expect you to fully understand this right now; it takes time.

Regarding your valid questions relating to the topic, this is what I believe. Corruption as it occurs in Thailand is played out on a level we really don't understand in the West. Without trying to defend this statement with deep off-topic points, I'll instead point to something else we don't understand: in every poll taken in Thailand, the majority of Thai people (e.g., >80% in the most recent one) are okay with corruption. I believe that the heart of Thais view on this are related to their interdependency with each other.

As to scamming, rip-off artists, etc., I don't believe most farang come here for the purpose of being ripped off in order to then leave, thus making an economical statement (i.e., tourists fleeing Thailand due to scammers). If you're here as a tourist & get scammed big time, you should report it & perhaps never return. If this happened to all tourists, then you're probably correct that Thailand's tourism industry would suffer. As in other countries, however, it doesn't happen to most people, at least not on a large enough scale (e.g., being overcharged by a cabbie won't stop me from planning my next holiday in Thailand) to prevent people from returning.

Regarding farang having dialogue with Thais, this is fine of course. However, we come from completely different backgrounds & realities; the cultural differences are so massive that it's often impossible for us to understand Thais' point of views. This can lead to our being forceful & aggressive, frustrated over our inability to grasp why Thais don't want to follow our logic. An example of this took place in August 2004, when former U.S. President George Bush arm-twisted former Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin to officially outlaw live sex acts; before the strong-arm tactics, no other westerner had been able to convince Thai authorities to seriously consider doing this. Of course, this in itself serves as a way to view how Thailand has survived the threat of colonization (another thread): according to a Thai friend of mine, they bend as a tree's limbs do with the wind. Yet they still maintain their culture nearly status-quo (i.e., the live sex-shows still occur, only now the local police get paid more). And why not? Their way of life is their own & is none of our business.

In my opinion, the best way for us to affect change anywhere is by serving as a powerful role model, one that respects other peoples & other cultures & strives to maintain low tensions throughout the world. Our example as a free & prosperous people, not-with-standing our current hostage-to-the-Tea-Party status, would shine a light of hope everywhere, & eventually affect positive change. If we were talking about a single person, this is who I would want to emulate.

I think we've definitely headed off as you suggest, and doubt my educational transcripts would be of interest to anybody. 'Had my say & made my point. 'Don't mind at all you're having the last word. Out here.

[jdinasia]

LOL ... I just noticed the Original Poster moved the bar before running off... he changed it so "why should I care which party is in power" ....... Those of us that have been here long enough and paid attention tend to realize that the snouts in the trough rarely change even when the party running the government does It only takes a glance at the list of people that have been MP's and ministers over the last decades to notice so many of the same names or family names.

However, being oblivious to politics in any country that you are invested in (even if that investment is only emotional) strikes me as incredibly stupid.

Had I been in a position where work or family had required me to travel in late 2008, I was aware enough to know that flying may not have been an option and certainly would not have been stuck waiting on a plane for a minimum of 8 days. Knowing what is going on with the protests in BKK certainly prevents me from getting stuck in the insanity of the protests moving into the streets (I have a condo not too far from Hua Mark)

For those of you that do not have Thai friends that you can communicate well with (in whatever language) so that you det different perspectives .. well, I really do kind of pity you.

Then again if you live in the middle of Nakhon Nowhere, and get along with your neighbors, and are not going anywhere or doing anything ... then maybe just keeping up with the basics is enough. (By the way I am currently in Nakhon Nowhere --- and even my neighbor the policeman went you and bought a new Thai flag for his houe last week.)

so, IMHO ... should you care? Of course. Is it mandatory? What ever really is? We all know you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet in Thailand, but most of us that ride also know that doing so is just stupid!

[Travel2003]

Unless you have a vote it doesn't really matter whether you care or not.

Yes it does matter.

If new laws are implemented resulting in me having to leave the kingdom, it matters a lot.

Even though I did NOT vote.

if new laws are implemented requiring you to leave your interest will make no difference at all

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6.1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It will make a difference to me, would it not?

[SebD]

LOL ... I just noticed the Original Poster moved the bar before running off... he changed it so "why should I care which party is in power" .......!

Can I get a glass of what you are on?

[ajs500]

Quote"

A noble position to take, ajs500, but let me ask you this: a better world for who? Christians? Muslims? Are you of a mind that Thai people would be happier if you -- a foreigner -- could dictate the type of government they have & what laws are on the books?

The best place to affect "change" of any kind is from within your own culture (unless, i.e., you believe in Crusader-like force).

You're obviously quite young, so charge ahead to make the world better for those who you believe are less wise than yourself, but do it in your own backyard. Thai people don't need our help, nor do they want it.

When you get later on in years, you'll wish you had spent more time as a "spectator," enjoying what life has to offer." unnquote.

On a forum top heavy with wilful misunderstanding this definitely changes the CG.

That I have not proposed any changes is one thing but to infer "You're obviously quite young" is perhaps only what one might expect from the IQ of the poster.

My minimum age will be apparent to the more insightful by a glance at the screen, and a little googling.

Bletchley Park would have jumped on it.

Edited November 24, 2013 by ajs500