People's uprising about to reach 'critical mass': Thai opinion

[metisdead]

Posts containing overly derogatory generalizations toward Thai people have been removed as well as the replies. Inflammatory posts have been removed as well.

[Ajaan]

The long awaiting uprising and eviction of clan Shinawat by the masses looks to be well underway. It took longer than I expected for them to realize that the clan are not Robin Hoods, just robbin barstewards. It will prove to be a trying few months as the old red elite and establishment is forced to step aside and the cookie jar lid is slammed shut. They will not take it easily, and lives will be lost, but in a few years time we will all look back on this period and be grateful to those that gave up their time(and even lives) to benefit democracy and the future of Thailand.

I have booked to play 18 holes at Alpine today, might as well enjoy it while we can. The stolen 1,000 rai will almost certainly be handed back to the Buddhist temple from which the clan stole it.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/01/03/how-bad-is-thaksinomics/

[Old Man River]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

Since you are interested in this, you might want to understand further:

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

This is from Pasuk and Baker. It is long, really long, but it explains where Thaksin was coming from when he started his so called populist policies.

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

[citizen33]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

I think you have put a bit of a twist on what I am saying. Had the money reached the hands of the (supposed) intended recipients, i.e. the poor rice farmers, I would not be anywhere near so resentful. The people benefiting, for the most part, are the rice millers and land owners (not their tenant farmers). I do not think anyone with one ounce of compassion could begrudge healthcare coverage to the masses and such a policy did in fact reach the intended recipients (there is argument here as to which party started the ball rolling on the scheme and which should take the praise). The village loan scheme, on the other hand, was/is just another populist scam.

It is possible that my take on this is unfair to you, but it does reflect arguments I have heard from many middle class Thais, including some who oppose the healthcare reforms. I do not believe it is correct to say that the Democrat Party supported UC health reform before 2001 (they thought it was unaffordable). I interviewed many of the key actors on that point in 2002-03 and nothing I've heard since changes my view.

Edited January 3, 2014 by citizen33

[Old Man River]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

Since you are interested in this, you might want to understand further:

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

This is from Pasuk and Baker. It is long, really long, but it explains where Thaksin was coming from when he started his so called populist policies.

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

Sorry. It is twice as long if you read it twice, which I wouldn't advise.

[animatic]

Far too many in vain attempts to spin this as so much ado about Suthep,

and so little ado about the people actually getting out in huge numbers to protest, lead by Suthep and many others.

This is far more than about one man and his cronies, going after another to remove him from power.

But the only way to make it seem less 'the will of the people' fed up with a 'failing regime of criminal intent',

and more an 'elitists power play, is to focus on Suthep as nutcase, or crony, or vengeful, etc, etc.

Gee I wonder who would benefit from making Suthep look bad, and label all in the rally crony opportunists?

Oh yes, the other sides Thaksin-crony opportunists. Suthep could call to the people all he wanted to,

but they wouldn't come unless THEY wanted to...

yes but THEY are so few when compared to the 60m Thais - that's the Chang in the room

only an election will show how many 'THEY'S' there are... right???

putting a few hundred thousand THEY"S on the street and extrapolating that to equal ALL of Thailand citizens is a foolish nonsense and you know it

60 million Thais are not voters.

One voter typically represents 2-3 other people.

Just as active protestors in large numbers also

represent those at home who could not go to protest.

This group, just like the parliament, represents other Thais by less formal proxy.

In these terms their representative reach is a significant block,

And that dear friends is why the Shin government on the ropes,

is taking them seriously. Even if you aren't.

[retsdon]

In the long run, Providence tends to favour the majority. The people fighting to overthrow universal suffrage should be aware of that. They should be especially mindful that if they push the pendulum too far, when it swings back it might do so with such force as to sweep them and everything they stand for straight into the history books. Down the ages, that's how it has usually worked.

[spare5]

Far too many in vain attempts to spin this as so much ado about Suthep,

and so little ado about the people actually getting out in huge numbers to protest, lead by Suthep and many others.

This is far more than about one man and his cronies, going after another to remove him from power.

But the only way to make it seem less 'the will of the people' fed up with a 'failing regime of criminal intent',

and more an 'elitists power play, is to focus on Suthep as nutcase, or crony, or vengeful, etc, etc.

Gee I wonder who would benefit from making Suthep look bad, and label all in the rally crony opportunists?

Oh yes, the other sides Thaksin-crony opportunists. Suthep could call to the people all he wanted to,

but they wouldn't come unless THEY wanted to...

yes but THEY are so few when compared to the 60m Thais - that's the Chang in the room

only an election will show how many 'THEY'S' there are... right???

putting a few hundred thousand THEY"S on the street and extrapolating that to equal ALL of Thailand citizens is a foolish nonsense and you know it

60 million Thais are not voters.

One voter typically represents 2-3 other people.

Just as active protestors in large numbers also

represent those at home who could not go to protest.

This group, just like the parliament, represents other Thais by less formal proxy.

In these terms their representative reach is a significant block,

And that dear friends is why the Shin government on the ropes,

is taking them seriously. Even if you aren't.

5.8 million onthe street in Bangkok. Multiple by 2-3.

I don't see why Suthep would not go to the poll if he can achieve that critical mass.

[GarryP]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

Since you are interested in this, you might want to understand further:

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

This is from Pasuk and Baker. It is long, really long, but it explains where Thaksin was coming from when he started his so called populist policies.

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

Interesting paper and worth reading by both sides of the divide and fence sitters.

[citizen33]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

Since you are interested in this, you might want to understand further:

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

This is from Pasuk and Baker. It is long, really long, but it explains where Thaksin was coming from when he started his so called populist policies.

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

Sorry. It is twice as long if you read it twice, which I wouldn't advise.

Yes, I'd seen this paper, which makes many valid points. I wouldn't deny that Thaksin's political strategy had a profoundly self-interested aspect, going well beyond equitable social policies. Much as I admire Baker's work, his grasp of health policy is not great, as illustrated by the incorrect 'Viroj and Anchana, 2006' citation, which mixes up given and family names and relates to the work of the NaRanongs.

However, I do think Baker is on the money with his recent thoughts on the position of the Bangkok middle classes, which is more relevant to my argument about unhappiness with re-distributive policies. In my opinion that is a crucial factor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1kidcOJ0M4#t=5

In fairness, though, I would concede that it is an empirical question as to whether opposition to tax-funded social programmes per se, or opposition only to wasteful and ineffective programmes is the main source of middle class concern.

Edited January 3, 2014 by citizen33

[Prbkk]

yes, this is a very good summation of the background to some of the current issues. It would (should) be of interest to those who keep posting about thaksin's China links...and the position of Thai Chinese. I can only find the first 2 parts of this discussion....is there more?

[Prbkk]

Dr Baker conference presentation , interesting observations about economic developments under Thaksin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S4OGL9b6zQ

[Melpomene]

The idea of 1 person 1 vote as an electoral panacea to Thailand ills is far to simplistic - both sides have been shown that with sufficient financial backing that this ideal is easily manipulated and corrupted.

And that is part of the problem, democracy or rather our western concept of democracy, for whatever multitude of reasons is a corrupted, broken system. It doesn't work here or at least not yet. Thai politicians simply have found a way to cheat the system and eventually the system fails and breaks as people get bored with the cheating and politicians who have become bigger and more important than the democratic system they claim to support, when in fact they actually run and control our democracy.

I'm not condoning Suthep but it seems there are two choices; maintain the current broken and corrupted democratic system. Or dismantle it and rebuild it and start again. And I'm sure all of us have our own views on what the possible consequences of each will be.

Maybe in 20 years Thailand will have matured enough and we will look back on the past 10 years as a period of 'growing pains for Thailand's democracy.

Edit - spelling

So what do you propose to replace democracy with ?

Replacing democracy is the wrong question.There needs to be some serous tweaking with the system. Starting with the MPs

I would start with abolishing immunity for MPs. Why do MPs need immunity? Immunity attracts dishonesty and criminality as it provides protection for their actions which often subvert the course of justice. MP - our leaders - should not need immunity as they should act to uphold the law in spirit and action.

Next do some serious legal amendment to the 'defamation' law. Often used as a weapon to silence critics whilst MP hid from behind their castle of parliamentary immunity. - I can hit you legally but you can't hit me back so to speak

Next - Freedom of speech in all aspects, so the media is free in all aspects from political interference and political censorship. So journalists can investigate our MPs and report back to the people/

Finally - Freedom of information - So MP and governments can hid information from the public under vague 'national security' banners.

The bigger issues of health, education,distribution of wealth etc all need addressing in good time

Most problems occur as MP are untouchable once into office and can do what they want. By the time the law catches up with them most of the evidence has been lost, destroyed, forgotten or bribed away and so they can continue. Which they do by cheating democratic system at election time with ridiculous promises, which they are then free to get away with as they are immune, don't need to provide information for, can sue you for defamation if you so something slightly out of sync with their view and so the circus continues until it reaches breaking point as it does with regular frequency.

So keep democracy, just changes the rules of the game for the MP we vote in so they understand their performance can and will be checked and they will be held to public account and scrutiny with real and meaningful sanctions. No hiding behind immunity.

edit spelling

Pretty much exactly what this country needs. If Suthep bothered to put so much thought into this as you have, instead of uttering his jingoistic rants, he would have a lot more credibility in the eyes of the majority.

[tartempion]

All wishful thinking

[wordchild]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

this is spot on IMO. These are the issues that I hear about constantly (when i ask) from the Thais I work with. They believe that the country is being taken along a fundamentally wrong path with these redistributive policies. They see it as the Shinawatras buying rural votes with their and their childrens money. As one colleague said to me the Shinawatras dont care about the long term future of Thailand because much of their wealth is now outside the country, they wont have to pick up the tab its the Thai middle class who will have to do that. Over the last couple of months I have seen people (who i never thought had it in them) becoming highly politicised around these issues.

[GarryP]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

this is spot on IMO. These are the issues that I hear about constantly (when i ask) from the Thais I work with. They believe that the country is being taken along a fundamentally wrong path with these redistributive policies. They see it as the Shinawatras buying rural votes with their and their childrens money. As one colleague said to me the Shinawatras dont care about the long term future of Thailand because much of their wealth is now outside the country, they wont have to pick up the tab its the Thai middle class who will have to do that. Over the last couple of months I have seen people (who i never thought had it in them) becoming highly politicised around these issues.

I can't totally disagree with that. There is a feeling among the people in the office where I work that if the economy tanks because of the misuse of funds by the government, be it rice pledging, the flood prevention scheme, the 2 gazillion baht infrastructure revamp (for which there is no oversight), they will be picking up the bill for it. Where there is some divergence of opinion is that they are not against any of these schemes per se if they are run properly. Just taking rice pledging (it is the easiest of them all), the government has kept up a pretense that it is working well and informed that it will plough on with it despite advice from many people who know better, including recognized local and international organizations/think tanks. They have covered up losses from day one. It is this and the understanding that that the rice millers are the actual beneficiaries that has got people concerned, although they also do have misgivings that it is a method of buying votes at the expense of the taxpayer (as you quite correctly point out). Had this scheme been run transparently and adjusted appropriately following advice of those who know better, there would be much less concern.

[bunny11kk]

Democracy at its finest. Well done The Nation!

Why should they relinquish power just because some failed, corrupt politician who can't win an election decides they should.

February 2nd sunshine. One person one vote...get involved!

I have one vote too. But your so called one person on vote is not the truth here and everybody knows.

[theslime]

Yet another delusional, borderline hysterical piece from The Nation. Will they ever stop with the gross exaggerations, half-truths, deceit, obfuscation, manipulation? This is meant to be a newspaper with some reasonable sense of balance and proportion, even in an op-ed piece, rather than a full on rant giving a very lop-sided view of the situation. Not worth the paper its written on. God forbid that anyone would actually ever buy the rag.

I thought it was very well written, perhaps because of not finding too many truthful press stories over the decades. What by the way do find wrong with the article, it clearly notes the bullshit amnesty bill to allow convicted and pending corruption figures to be freed. also the fact that the then ruling party tried to manipulate the senate and then spat the dummy. Please again enlighten me if I,ve missed anything and I,m not talking about Tax evasion, Murder of innocents,land grabs

Well written it is bias naive and it is absurd for a news paper a disgrace of journalism no facts only personnel opinion that what this is.

By the way the amnesty bill would have benefitted both sides and may be could be a good start for reconciliation, only had to exclude TS from it. Wait after the democrats will get the power or any other government as puppets on the string will take over a new amnesty will be drafted and tabled to release Suthep from the hook.

I thought it was well written clearly given an unbiased account, say what you like I always thought the Nation was rightwing Rag. Then you write about it would be alright, good start to reconciliation, What, just go on as Normal is it ? After given Thaksin the flick . Then out with Your crystal ball and predict the future but, sounding quite like a personnel opinion to me. That a new amnesty bill will be on the Dems table so nah nah.

[GarryP]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

this is spot on IMO. These are the issues that I hear about constantly (when i ask) from the Thais I work with. They believe that the country is being taken along a fundamentally wrong path with these redistributive policies. They see it as the Shinawatras buying rural votes with their and their childrens money. As one colleague said to me the Shinawatras dont care about the long term future of Thailand because much of their wealth is now outside the country, they wont have to pick up the tab its the Thai middle class who will have to do that. Over the last couple of months I have seen people (who i never thought had it in them) becoming highly politicised around these issues.

I can't totally disagree with that. There is a feeling among the people in the office where I work that if the economy tanks because of the misuse of funds by the government, be it rice pledging, the flood prevention scheme, the 2 gazillion baht infrastructure revamp (for which there is no oversight), they will be picking up the bill for it. Where there is some divergence of opinion is that they are not against any of these schemes per se if they are run properly. Just taking rice pledging (it is the easiest of them all), the government has kept up a pretense that it is working well and informed that it will plough on with it despite advice from many people who know better, including recognized local and international organizations/think tanks. They have covered up losses from day one. It is this and the understanding that that the rice millers are the actual beneficiaries that has got people concerned, although they also do have misgivings that it is a method of buying votes at the expense of the taxpayer (as you quite correctly point out). Had this scheme been run transparently and adjusted appropriately following advice of those who know better, there would be much less concern.

Apologies for quoting myself, but I think the misgivings about who will be picking up the bill may be misplaced. It is my understanding (maybe incorrect) that personal income tax takes up a very minor role in filling the national coffers, when compared to VAT, excise tax, corporate income tax, etc. The whole populace would suffer through a knock on effect, but then everyone likes to over rate their own importance in the scheme of things.

[icare999]

Nobody knows the outcome, but the scene could turn ugly

Thaksin has access to large offshore wealth and (imo) also has money backers. If he starts handing out large payments to people in the North, to mobilise and march on the capital the scene will be far worse than in 2010, because this time PTP were elected then toppled, thus making their supporters far angrier. Obviously some of their support is based on bribes and broken promises, and many PTP supporters were starting to criticise PTP in recent months, but I feel they would still be offended that their cast votes have been discounted by one man in a jogging suit and a whistle. If the money incentive to march is there, we may see a mass exodus from the North and I fear that the events of 2010 will be a picnic by comparison.

Why would TS care if BKK is shut down? Or to send a red army to the city? Eventually Suthep's gang will tire of their pointless & useless marching & go back home to their jobs, if they ever had any. Why provoke the military to "coup" YL?

As the article said YL has the support of the USA. Also China.

who cares about support of USA its a failed empire sliding slowly into its own decedent filth China is another matter but in end they wont care who is in charge. Don't fool yourself this is not going to end until Taksin and his clan leave and its obvious army will step in if needed but are hoping it can be done without them.

Watch and learn watch and learn how it works here

[icare999]

Democracy at its finest. Well done The Nation!

Why should they relinquish power just because some failed, corrupt politician who can't win an election decides they should.

February 2nd sunshine. One person one vote...get involved!

We have now corrupt politicians who can't win an election so they bought it.......

It's ignorant in the extreme to think Thaksin's popularity is down to vote buying

their are many ways to but an election apart from direct paying for someones votes. And remember Hitler was popular so is Mugabwie as was Saddam and rest. Their popularity did not mean they were not most evil men around same as Taksin is. if Taksin by whatever means is defeated now I am 100% sure it will have avoided a one party Taksin state and I think risk of a different person or persons being able to do as much damage as he has done and could do is small in comparison.

[visionchaser45]

That article is one of the most flagrant bits of propaganda I've read in a long time.

[visionchaser45]

In the long run, Providence tends to favour the majority. The people fighting to overthrow universal suffrage should be aware of that. They should be especially mindful that if they push the pendulum too far, when it swings back it might do so with such force as to sweep them and everything they stand for straight into the history books. Down the ages, that's how it has usually worked.

When do you suppose will be Thailand's Bastille Day?

[angsta]

I thought Suthep cancelled 2014 because his demands weren't met.

He's kicking out the PM/shutting down BKK/Threatening children and failing at all these things and pretending he's actually winning.

What a tool.

[dukebowling]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

Since you are interested in this, you might want to understand further:

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

This is from Pasuk and Baker. It is long, really long, but it explains where Thaksin was coming from when he started his so called populist policies.

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

This article is biased starting right from the abstract. Aren't there any objective references?

Edited January 3, 2014 by dukebowling

[sbk]

Inflammatory posts removed, post calls for murder again and you will be suspended

[DeepInTheForest]

Since you are interested in this, you might want to understand further:

http://robinlea.com/pub/JCA-Thailand-the_good_coup/03-Thaksins_populism.html

This is from Pasuk and Baker. It is long, really long, but it explains where Thaksin was coming from when he started his so called populist policies.

This article is biased starting right from the abstract. Aren't there any objective references?

No, and we would be foolish to search for any.

[Roadman]

I, personally, strongly resent that my taxes are wasted on populist policies that for the most part aren't even benefiting those they are supposedly aimed at.

This is a key issue, which perhaps is not highlighted sufficiently. Putting it slightly differently, a large section of the metropolitan middle and upper classes oppose redistributive social policies, including the early TRT policies such as the universal coverage healthcare scheme and the village loan funds, because they perceive that their tax monies are going to support a part of the population they perceive to be undeserving of such assistance. They would like to halt what they believe is a long term trend that will erode their position, but cannot muster the votes to elect their preferred government. However, to achieve this end they are willing to use extra-constitutional means, as they did in 2006.

this is spot on IMO. These are the issues that I hear about constantly (when i ask) from the Thais I work with. They believe that the country is being taken along a fundamentally wrong path with these redistributive policies. They see it as the Shinawatras buying rural votes with their and their childrens money. As one colleague said to me the Shinawatras dont care about the long term future of Thailand because much of their wealth is now outside the country, they wont have to pick up the tab its the Thai middle class who will have to do that. Over the last couple of months I have seen people (who i never thought had it in them) becoming highly politicised around these issues.

I can't totally disagree with that. There is a feeling among the people in the office where I work that if the economy tanks because of the misuse of funds by the government, be it rice pledging, the flood prevention scheme, the 2 gazillion baht infrastructure revamp (for which there is no oversight), they will be picking up the bill for it. Where there is some divergence of opinion is that they are not against any of these schemes per se if they are run properly. Just taking rice pledging (it is the easiest of them all), the government has kept up a pretense that it is working well and informed that it will plough on with it despite advice from many people who know better, including recognized local and international organizations/think tanks. They have covered up losses from day one. It is this and the understanding that that the rice millers are the actual beneficiaries that has got people concerned, although they also do have misgivings that it is a method of buying votes at the expense of the taxpayer (as you quite correctly point out). Had this scheme been run transparently and adjusted appropriately following advice of those who know better, there would be much less concern.

Agree and that is what I get too.

The Thai middle class are not against their taxes going to the development of Isaan for the better of Thailand, but are against a populist dictatorial government and their mismanagement, incompetence and lawlessness for their personal gain firstly and Thailand and all its people secondly.

[farang000999]

Why would TS care if BKK is shut down? Or to send a red army to the city? Eventually Suthep's gang will tire of their pointless & useless marching & go back home to their jobs, if they ever had any. Why provoke the military to "coup" YL?

As the article said YL has the support of the USA. Also China.

Yes the US backs Yingluck. The US also backed Thaksin. Thaksin used to work for Carlyle Group <Asia> which is a US company with involvements/alliances in many mysterious and colourful things which I certainly would not know anything about or mention here, thats for sure.

TCG employs 650,000 people so it must be a really big conspiracy.

[fish fingers]

the 13th won't resolve anything at all, Suthep says every time this is the final push… maybe his supporters will dwindle because of this. But both sides have so much to lose, so this will drag on and on.