Thailand’s Democrat Party Is hilariously misnamed

[aaacorp]

Thaksin’s own populist policies helped bring millions of rural poor out of poverty.

I'd like to know where the evidence is for this bold statement.

Comparing how things were when Thaksin first took power, and how things are now, with regards poverty, i would say that if anything, people are, generally poorer, thanks to the rocketing inflation.

It is true that millions were lifted out of poverty during Thaksin's period of PM. But whether that's down to his specific policies is another question. Though the introduction of 30 baht healthcare was highly significant for many people. Truth is though, people will be lifted out of poverty in any developmental state which is growing. You could say millions of people were lifted out of poverty under Chuan's govt during 1992 - 1994. It's true, but again it's likely at least as much due to high growth as it is to targeted pro-poor policies.

Well he made the 30thb health care scheme for rural people he applied the populist program he was elected for, he of course took a lot for him, but the rural people get money and that s also why the democrat didn t win any election. Middle and high class of bangkok are just too proud of their condition and considered, and still think, that the poor are buffalos and deserve their condition. That s why they didn t care of them during any election campaign.

They have what they deserve and now they just see that democracy is not good for the wealthiest in this country so they want to wipe their aRse with the democracy

Edited November 29, 2013 by aaacorp

[citizen33]

You need to work a bit harder at your research old chap.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2694

Having said that I do not think you are alone here in not doing much reading.

Correct, the Time's article has that line, but fails to indicate when our dear Professor Emeritus said so, assuming he did.

Are you quoting from Benedict Anderson, Professor Emeritus of International Studies, Government & Asian Studies at Cornell University latest book "The Fate of Rural Hell: Asceticism and Desire in Buddhist Thailand (2012)" ?

BTW I'm interested in how you manage to conclude on 'bourgeoisie' and 'uneducated' by just seeing people ? Or is it a matter of mutual recognision while shopping at Paragorn?

Bangkok bourgeoisie, described as timid, selfish, uncultured, consumerist and without any decent vision of the future of the country by Cornell University Professor Benedict Anderson.
Uneducate people indeed.
See them down paragon everyday.

Well the quote is from the article at the top.
"Uneducate" was one of the yellow slogans in the past.
Can't any of these people get some ferang to check their slogans on tee shirts banners etc?
There are some really badly written ones out there now.

[rixalex]

Thaksin’s own populist policies helped bring millions of rural poor out of poverty.

I'd like to know where the evidence is for this bold statement.

Comparing how things were when Thaksin first took power, and how things are now, with regards poverty, i would say that if anything, people are, generally poorer, thanks to the rocketing inflation.

It is true that millions were lifted out of poverty during Thaksin's period of PM. But whether that's down to his specific policies is another question. Though the introduction of 30 baht healthcare was highly significant for many people. Truth is though, people will be lifted out of poverty in any developmental state which is growing. You could say millions of people were lifted out of poverty under Chuan's govt during 1992 - 1994. It's true, but again it's likely at least as much due to high growth as it is to targeted pro-poor policies.

It's easy to trot out soundbites like "millions were lifted out of poverty", but i just wonder if such a statement can be backed up with actual proof? Proof not only that it happened, but proof that what is being reasoned as having helped cause it, actually did.

I mean, i'm not saying it's not true, it's just that as someone who lived through that period here, i never got any sense around me of people suddenly going, in what is a relatively short period of time, from being classified as in poverty, to being classified as not. Perhaps you did?

[rixalex]

Well he made the 30thb health care scheme for rural people he applied the populist program he was elected for, he of course took a lot for him, but the rural people get money and that s also why the democrat didn t win any election. Middle and high class of bangkok are just too proud of their condition and considered, and still think, that the poor are buffalos and deserve their condition. That s why they didn t care of them during any election campaign.

They have what they deserve and now they just see that democracy is not good for the wealthiest in this country so they want to wipe their aRse with the democracy

From what you are saying, it sounds to me like Thaksin also considers the poor as buffalos, just that in his case, he sees them as useful buffalos.

From buffalo to useful buffalo who gets tossed a few crumbs, doesn't really sound like great progress to me... not long term anyway.

[Emptyset]

Thaksin’s own populist policies helped bring millions of rural poor out of poverty.

I'd like to know where the evidence is for this bold statement.

Comparing how things were when Thaksin first took power, and how things are now, with regards poverty, i would say that if anything, people are, generally poorer, thanks to the rocketing inflation.

It is true that millions were lifted out of poverty during Thaksin's period of PM. But whether that's down to his specific policies is another question. Though the introduction of 30 baht healthcare was highly significant for many people. Truth is though, people will be lifted out of poverty in any developmental state which is growing. You could say millions of people were lifted out of poverty under Chuan's govt during 1992 - 1994. It's true, but again it's likely at least as much due to high growth as it is to targeted pro-poor policies.

It's easy to trot out soundbites like "millions were lifted out of poverty", but i just wonder if such a statement can be backed up with actual proof? Proof not only that it happened, but proof that what is being reasoned as having helped cause it, actually did.

I mean, i'm not saying it's not true, it's just that as someone who lived through that period here, i never got any sense around me of people suddenly going, in what is a relatively short period of time, from being classified as in poverty, to being classified as not. Perhaps you did?

I'm using measurements of poverty as used by the NESDB, not personal experience. I first moved to Thailand in 2005 and have only ever lived in BKK, so I wouldn't be the best person to judge that anyway lol. That said, obviously when I've spoken to red shirts they claim Thaksin made a huge difference to their lives, and even some more Democrat/yellow leaning people have admitted to me they do think he made at least a measure of positive difference to people's lives. But then again, I recall, actually back in 2005, I was talking to a bartender from Issan about what he thought about Thaksin, and he told me something very similar to what a lot of people here would say, which is that he's made no real difference and people have been fooled and don't realize they're going to pay for it later. The ironic thing is, I think this guy actually became a bit of a red sympathiser a few years later.

Also saw first hand effects of 30 baht scheme when a friend of a friend - who's actually middle class but wasn't covered by any of the other insurance schemes - got cancer at a relatively young age. There's no way he would've been able to afford the full treatment. Before that scheme, he might've had to sell his business to pay for treatment or something, or at least that's what one of his friends told me later (a staunch Democrat supporter, incidentally!). Anyway, he got treated and fully recovered. Having that insurance that you're always guaranteed medical care whatever happens to you hasn't only benefited the very poor. According to the TDRI though, by 2006, the 30 baht healthcare scheme had reduced average household health expenditure by 4,140 Baht per year compared to what it was previous to the implementation of the scheme. That's not an insigificant amount for a poor family.

I agree with the jist of what you're saying, the poverty reduction isn't simply down to Thaksin's policies as I said in my initial response. You could look at the chart below and claim that Chuan did amazing work in poverty reduction (but nobody ever says that). You can see the difference the early 90s economic boom made, and of course Thaksin benefited from being in power when the growth started to kick back in after the IMF's 'medicine'.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

Idiot doesn't even have his facts rights. Majority of the protestors aren't aligned with the yellow shirts. Gotta love these idiot liberal western journalists who know nothing about the country but who give their opinions anyway. Millions voted for the Dems. And yet he makes sweeping statements about all of them. One sided and biased moron.

They're no longer aligned with the PAD, no. But surely you can see it's simply convenient shorthand to refer to the primary antagonism here as red vs yellow? I've often claimed that both sides are somewhat disparate groups and the protesters amongst them no doubt hold manifold views. Still, Gerry, you strike me as the type of poster who wouldn't be particularly interested to hear about how heterogeneous the reds are, so forgive me if I don't heed your call to not refer to the anti-government protesters as yellows. In any case, I would be very surprised if the main body of the protesters now weren't sympathetic to the yellows in 2008, if not actually part of the protests then. And why wouldn't we be?

The ideals are the same. Anti-Thaksin, royalist and suspicious of parliamentary democracy. The groups involved are exactly the same, the Bangkok middle classes mixed with Democrat supporters from the south and technical school students. The solutions are also remarkably similar. The only thing that's really changed is the leadership.

[daboyz1]

Another American writer that doesn't have a clue how things work in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Many hoped Thailand’s color-coded conflict would end after the terrible low point of April and May 2010, when almost 100 people died and 2,000 were injured during a government crackdown on a Red Shirt demonstration in central Bangkok. (The Red Shirts were protesting the removal of a democratically elected government, just as Suthep is now demanding.)

He should stick to writing about the latest buffoonery of the Kardashian sisters.

[BestBitterPhuket]

I have to laugh of all the (yellow) arm chair experts critising this excellent article. This guy knows more about the big picture in Thailand than any of you, but you don't like the message, so you shoot the messenger. As a journalist for one of the most reputable publications in the world, he has access to VERY different sources than you. Ta ta

[Ticketmaster]

Idiot doesn't even have his facts rights. Majority of the protestors aren't aligned with the yellow shirts. Gotta love these idiot liberal western journalists who know nothing about the country but who give their opinions anyway. Millions voted for the Dems. And yet he makes sweeping statements about all of them. One sided and biased moron.

Of course these criminals are aligned with the Yellow Shirts. Are you blind? Call the Dems, call the Yellow shirts, call them whatever you want. The power behind them is the group that lost the last election and can't accept the results. They are the same people that were behind the coup against Thaksin, and then the takeover of the airport (after the failed to win at the polls).

The hell of it is, there really isn't much of a divide in the "Thai people" at all. The divide is between the very wealthy (and corrupt) royalists (who hate everything Thaksin) (we could loosely term them the Yellow Shirts), on the one side, and the coalition of powerful politicians and businessmen (also corrupt) who falsely claim to represent the little people (we could loosely term them the Red Shirts). Now there are definitely millions of Thais that call themselves Red Shirts, but they are just as deceived by their rich and powerful "leaders" as are the stupid rank and file members of the Tea Party in the US.

[thailiketoo]

One thing I think everyone in Thailand agrees, no one wants a free press unless they get good press and no one wants free elections unless they win.

It's the same thing on TV. Unless a person wins a debate the person he is debating with is stupid and uneducated and does not have the mental capacity to debate on the same level as the other fellow.

It's never going to get past the sound bites. 1. Red and Yellow shirts are too great a visual image. 2. Thaksin was thrown out by a coup. 3. The Yellow shirts want an appointed government because farmers are drunk and stupid. 4. The farmers won the last election and will win every future election because they are a majority.

The international press has only a few seconds to devote to Thailand on the nightly news.

Someone needs to tell whoever is in the street not to shoot or beat reporters from Germany and Japan. This is not good for public image.

I don't know how many more years it will take for Thailand to figure out you must take the good with the bad. If you want free elections sometimes you will lose those elections and if you want press freedom sometimes you will get bad press.

[JCauto]

To me, the funniest part about this whole sad mess is seeing that paragon of transparency and democracy, the one and only Suthep Thaugsuban as the leader of this protest. They've lost the argument right there as far as I'm concerned. What they're fighting for is what every Thai politician is fighting for - money and power for themselves, not the other guys who currently have their snouts in the trough. The people? Who gives a crap about the people?

[fstarbkk]

I have to laugh of all the (yellow) arm chair experts critising this excellent article. This guy knows more about the big picture in Thailand than any of you, but you don't like the message, so you shoot the messenger. As a journalist for one of the most reputable publications in the world, he has access to VERY different sources than you. Ta ta

As someone who worked for this magazine in its heyday and who has observed its steady decline over the years, I disagree with your notion abut their resources for information gathering and verification.

The truth is, nowadays they scrape by on a tiny fraction of the resources they once commanded and are often compelled to rely on CNN or, as it seems in this case, on press releases to form their opinion of world events. Sad, but true.

[binjalin]

I have to laugh of all the (yellow) arm chair experts critising this excellent article. This guy knows more about the big picture in Thailand than any of you, but you don't like the message, so you shoot the messenger. As a journalist for one of the most reputable publications in the world, he has access to VERY different sources than you. Ta ta

As someone who worked for this magazine in its heyday and who has observed its steady decline over the years, I disagree with your notion abut their resources for information gathering and verification.

The truth is, nowadays they scrape by on a tiny fraction of the resources they once commanded and are often compelled to rely on CNN or, as it seems in this case, on press releases to form their opinion of world events. Sad, but true.

maybe but the truth also is that anyone who does not support the 'amart' by publishing an article that dares to disagree with the yellows get's slammed on this forum

[thailiketoo]

I have to laugh of all the (yellow) arm chair experts critising this excellent article. This guy knows more about the big picture in Thailand than any of you, but you don't like the message, so you shoot the messenger. As a journalist for one of the most reputable publications in the world, he has access to VERY different sources than you. Ta ta

As someone who worked for this magazine in its heyday and who has observed its steady decline over the years, I disagree with your notion abut their resources for information gathering and verification.

The truth is, nowadays they scrape by on a tiny fraction of the resources they once commanded and are often compelled to rely on CNN or, as it seems in this case, on press releases to form their opinion of world events. Sad, but true.

Attacking the credibility of Time is rather pointless when many news sources have stories with the same content and idea. You can google it. Being pro yellow shirt is one thing but anti Time? A bit farfetched. Time has the world's largest circulation for a weekly news magazine, and has a readership of 25 million.

[cacruden]

No reporter, no publication is above reproach.... In fact in today's world the vast majority of reporters are lazy and biased and don't try to hide it.....

BUT, Be a little more mature and not just call it names - review it and tell us where he gets it wrong. Failure to do that and it can only be assumed that the truth hurts and you're lashing out at the messenger....

Edited November 30, 2013 by cacruden

[TVGerry]

Time has long been criticised as a left leaning biased magazine. So what if it has a 25m readership? Doesn't mean it isn't bias and it doesn't mean their articles are right and not idiotic.

I have to laugh of all the (yellow) arm chair experts critising this excellent article. This guy knows more about the big picture in Thailand than any of you, but you don't like the message, so you shoot the messenger. As a journalist for one of the most reputable publications in the world, he has access to VERY different sources than you. Ta ta

As someone who worked for this magazine in its heyday and who has observed its steady decline over the years, I disagree with your notion abut their resources for information gathering and verification.

The truth is, nowadays they scrape by on a tiny fraction of the resources they once commanded and are often compelled to rely on CNN or, as it seems in this case, on press releases to form their opinion of world events. Sad, but true.

Attacking the credibility of Time is rather pointless when many news sources have stories with the same content and idea. You can google it. Being pro yellow shirt is one thing but anti Time? A bit farfetched. Time has the world's largest circulation for a weekly news magazine, and has a readership of 25 million.

[thailiketoo]

Time has long been criticised as a left leaning biased magazine. So what if it has a 25m readership? Doesn't mean it isn't bias and it doesn't mean their articles are right and not idiotic.

The same story has appeared in many other sources. Google it. Time does not get 25 million in readership by being wrong very much. Time is not, not only wrong but idiotic? That, if true, would certainly make more news than the original story.

What is the headline? Time publishes false idiotic story? I'll wait for that.

[TVGerry]

They published an opinion which was obviously biased. Their media bias has been documented by many other sources. Google it. Trashy tabloids have a very healthy circulation too. Guess they're right most of the time also. In this case, Time is wrong in the crap they wrote and yes it was idiotic also but no, it's not really that big a news since it's Time magazine.

Time has long been criticised as a left leaning biased magazine. So what if it has a 25m readership? Doesn't mean it isn't bias and it doesn't mean their articles are right and not idiotic.

The same story has appeared in many other sources. Google it. Time does not get 25 million in readership by being wrong very much. Time is not, not only wrong but idiotic? That, if true, would certainly make more news than the original story.

What is the headline? Time publishes false idiotic story? I'll wait for that.

[cacruden]

They published an opinion which was obviously biased. Their media bias has been documented by many other sources. Google it. Trashy tabloids have a very healthy circulation too. Guess they're right most of the time also. In this case, Time is wrong in the crap they wrote and yes it was idiotic also but no, it's not really that big a news since it's Time magazine.

Again, critique the article!

Yes Time has a left bias, so bloody what. I have an extreme right wing bias. I have friends that have left bias. Every god dam person on this planet has some sort of bias..... Just because their is a bias is not a reason to dismiss something without actually critiquing it.... that is the reason why politicians cannot talk to each other, they dismiss each other without actually communicating. It is childish.

[rubl]

You need to work a bit harder at your research old chap.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2694

Having said that I do not think you are alone here in not doing much reading.

Correct, the Time's article has that line, but fails to indicate when our dear Professor Emeritus said so, assuming he did.

Thanks for the link (also to emptyset for same).

Interesting is

"I should say that in this way the Bangkok bourgeoisie isn’t far from that of Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and Jakarta"

Makes you wonder what he would have said about the rural masses who have an interesting voting habit and seem almost totally disinterested after the elections. He seems to concentrate on the 'others' only. Also his "Nattawut, the first brilliant orator in modern Siam" seems to make some of Professor Benedict's remarks a wee bit suppect.

[LomSak27]

"The Unelected Peoples Council Party"

That has a nice ring to it. Democratic Party has so many negative connotations, like democracy, elections, etc Time for a name change!

Go Team Yellow

Win Team Yellow