Suthep proposes 'blueprint' for Thailand’s reform, vows to fight on

[monkeycountry]

Perhaps we need to focus on the goal before we focus on the way to get there.

I think everyone agrees that the goal is to find an intelligent leader who genuinely wants what is best for the country as a whole, and who have no vested interests. I am sure such people exist, but I also think they are hard to find.

I think people on both sides would agree that HM the king is such a person, but for a number of reasons, he should not be the leader.

HM the king however have vast resources at his disposal, so using those resources he could probably find a few good leader candidates and properly screen them. Then when those candidates have been found, each could be asked to make an election campaign, and the population could then vote for one of these candidates, but noone else.

I am aware that this is not a perfect solution, but it would likely ensure that we get a leader who is better and less divisive than the usual bunch.

[brit1984]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

if the people want to eat chickens you need to explain to them that without chickens there will be no eggs

you can't just tell them they must go hungry because your so clever and you said so

otherwise they will just come back tomorrow with spears and hurt / kill you and eat the chickens

[monkeycountry]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

if the people want to eat chickens you need to explain to them that without chickens there will be no eggs

you can't just tell them they must go hungry because your so clever and you said so

otherwise they will just come back tomorrow with spears and hurt / kill you and eat the chickens

Completely agree. We call that "explaining process" education. Unfortunately most people in Thailand get no or very poor education, so they will likely either eat the chickens or come back with spears or both.

[Ulic]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

While I do agree with you, I do not think your analogy of the African chicken farm is not entirely correct. What you fail to understand

is another NGO/ UNICEF program in right around the corner. So they have there chicken and can eat them too. As long as 70% of

Thais think corruption is OK as long as it benefits them, things will not change. Both sides are equally corrupt and are just fighting

for there turn at the trough. I am sure Africa's problem could be solved in 15-20 years by not allowing UNICEF/ other NGO's into

the country. Unfortunately millions would die, but only when the governments of Africa can no longer skim 80% of the aid will Africa

change and look after itself a. Here in Thailand I am sure they are much closer to understanding that both sides are corrupt. Just a little

better coverage in the press and a few honest judges and I think they will be over the hump so to speak. While I think there is plenty

of corruption in western governments it is done by lobby groups and the like. The actual politicians are using the money to stay in power

not so much line there pockets. It is the lobby groups that are doing this with government contracts etc....

[brit1984]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

if the people want to eat chickens you need to explain to them that without chickens there will be no eggs

you can't just tell them they must go hungry because your so clever and you said so

otherwise they will just come back tomorrow with spears and hurt / kill you and eat the chickens

Completely agree. We call that "explaining process" education. Unfortunately most people in Thailand get no or very poor education, so they will likely either eat the chickens or come back with spears or both.

i can't think of many countries where most of the electorate are well educated or knowledgeable enough about politics, philosophy, economics, etc to make informed and balanced decisions on which party will provide the best and most equitable future for the country

the key, which most western politicians are fully aware of, is to find a way to keep all the people happy (or at least not make too many people angry) and do so in the most cost efficient way (i.e. minimize the inevitable economic inefficiency of popular policies) while at the same time pursuing what you really believe is a sensible economic policy that keeps the economy growing

in thailand, it seems both parties are set up in a way (and completely unwilling to change) such that whoever is in power they will make a lot of people angry, and the current government is making the huge mistake of pursuing massively inefficient economic policies that are also not popular

Edited December 4, 2013 by brit1984

[cocopops]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

I think this post makes some good points.

The problem, according to the less clownish opponents of the Shinawatra family, is that democracy as it is usually known has not worked here as the majority keep electing the wrong people. Presumably because they have been somehow cajoled or duped into doing so.

Well, fair enough. The problem, as the post I'm replying to notes, is finding an alternative method of selecting leaders. How, exactly, do we organize it so that the government is always both wise and benevolent?

If any y'all figure that out, please don't keep it to yourself. Because there are something like 200 other countries out there that could benefit from using the same trick.

[brit1984]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

I think this post makes some good points.

The problem, according to the less clownish opponents of the Shinawatra family, is that democracy as it is usually known has not worked here as the majority keep electing the wrong people. Presumably because they have been somehow cajoled or duped into doing so.

Well, fair enough. The problem, as the post I'm replying to notes, is finding an alternative method of selecting leaders. How, exactly, do we organize it so that the government is always both wise and benevolent?

If any y'all figure that out, please don't keep it to yourself. Because there are something like 200 other countries out there that could benefit from using the same trick.

excellent post - democracy is obviously imperfect but just try taking it away and see what happens

[CPH]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

Who says that a dictator would be less corrupt. Haven't the world seen enough dictators who empty his country for money. Just look at Marcos in the Philippines. Its an illusion that everything gets better just because one man is in charge. The dictator system opens for all sorts of corruption, setting aside the laws and protection of the people etc.

[monkeycountry]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

Who says that a dictator would be less corrupt. Haven't the world seen enough dictators who empty his country for money. Just look at Marcos in the Philippines. Its an illusion that everything gets better just because one man is in charge. The dictator system opens for all sorts of corruption, setting aside the laws and protection of the people etc.

I am not sure if you intentionally replied to my post? Your question does not seem to have much to do with my post. Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think anyone says a dictator is less corrupt - except perhaps the dictator himself. A dictator is obviously not a good solution. Edited December 5, 2013 by monkeycountry

[CPH]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

Who says that a dictator would be less corrupt. Haven't the world seen enough dictators who empty his country for money. Just look at Marcos in the Philippines. Its an illusion that everything gets better just because one man is in charge. The dictator system opens for all sorts of corruption, setting aside the laws and protection of the people etc.

I am not sure if you intentionally replied to my post? Your question does not seem to have much to do with my post. Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think anyone says a dictator is less corrupt - except perhaps the dictator himself. A dictator is obviously not a good solution.

I now the word dictator sounds a little rough, but a leader which is not elected after an election among the people is a dictator. Sorry to say it.

It is an illusion that someone or a group of very good and special people should be able to choose this god like figure who would run the country like an angel and do all the good things for the country and its people. Every dictator starts like that and ends up plundering the country and putting all his friends into powerfull positions so nobody can ever remove him again.

The only problem the demonstrators have is that they are not in power, it has nothing to do with the politics or to do anything good for the country. They can see that the Democrats will not get back to power in maybe 10 to 15 years by a normal elction, therefore they want an unelected person (from their group) to run the country and change the constitution and electoral rules so they can get back to power.

[Asiantravel]

The peoples total victory has yet to materialise since the Yingluck government still unlawfully holds on to power.

He just gets dafter every time he opens his mouth. I don't see much support from the Dems or have they simply distanced themselves from him?

And how do they unlawfully hold onto power, I thought they where elected by a majority?

A government that doesn't accept the constitution and the constitutional court and its ruling is per definition not lawful.

No matter how it was elected, a government can't brake the constitution.

But neither can a group of thugs attempt to carry out insurrection and then expect to be taken seriously or to get away with it?

[monkeycountry]

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

Who says that a dictator would be less corrupt. Haven't the world seen enough dictators who empty his country for money. Just look at Marcos in the Philippines. Its an illusion that everything gets better just because one man is in charge. The dictator system opens for all sorts of corruption, setting aside the laws and protection of the people etc.

I am not sure if you intentionally replied to my post? Your question does not seem to have much to do with my post. Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think anyone says a dictator is less corrupt - except perhaps the dictator himself. A dictator is obviously not a good solution.

I now the word dictator sounds a little rough, but a leader which is not elected after an election among the people is a dictator. Sorry to say it.

It is an illusion that someone or a group of very good and special people should be able to choose this god like figure who would run the country like an angel and do all the good things for the country and its people. Every dictator starts like that and ends up plundering the country and putting all his friends into powerfull positions so nobody can ever remove him again.

The only problem the demonstrators have is that they are not in power, it has nothing to do with the politics or to do anything good for the country. They can see that the Democrats will not get back to power in maybe 10 to 15 years by a normal elction, therefore they want an unelected person (from their group) to run the country and change the constitution and electoral rules so they can get back to power.

I don't agree with that definition, and can think of plenty of ways to find a leader that are somewhere in between a standard general election and one man simply taking power through force. Whether the alternatives are any good I do not know.

I don't care what the red shirts or the current demonstrators want. I don't think the majority of them know what is good for them or the country anyway. With the general level of education and knowledge in Thailand I actually think it would be better for Thailand if it's leader was chosen through a lottery!