January 30, 201412 yr Civil War = No Tourists and No Foreign Investment = No Money = Bankrupt Country... sounds like a plan Your not wrong but this has never deterred foolish folks look at Sudan,Vietnam ,Spain ,USA even.
January 30, 201412 yr Popular Post Logic would suggest a different approach that what we have now. Divide the country into 7 states similar to Australia/USA: North Northeast Central plains excl. BKK East excl. Pattaya/Rayong South Bangkok special zone Pattaya/Rayong special zone Each state has its own house of representatives who control the budget for that area, and the budget is a formula based on tax revenues preagreed. Each state has its own administration (for Bangkok it would be the BMA for instance, who would massively expand their responsibilities). Change the current taxation system - adjust so that each state gets a share of revenue using a formula of tax in (a portion of income tax and VAT and company tax) and a proportion based on total population judged via census. Central government gets a component, but not all of it. Complete disclosure of major performance measures by state, with the federal government's power massively reduced, while each state can have their own local people to look after their own local issues. You want roads or education - you decide when you vote. Each State has a State Governor who is elected, and state officials who are also elected. They have their own state judiciary, etc and the ultimate decision maker is the national court system People may move freely between the states, but must register in one, to receive the benefits of that state, and to vote in that state, with some restrictions placed on each. The benefit would be an end to the godfather system, or at least a clearer picture of how things run when those idiots are removed. Armed forces, police and national healthcare are somewhat split with allocations of budget by region ensuring that the benefits and costs of these are spread. It would also mean that each region could have policies TAILORED for them e.g. In Isaan the prevalence of basic health problems that don't exist in Bangkok.
January 30, 201412 yr Great idea, I think! Once they're landlocked I wonder how they will get products, etc. delivered. But they can try selling their rice 40% above market value. Any industry that produced would likely move to "South Thailand" (if there is North & South Thailand as the new states) where the minimum wage would probably be reversed to a level that reflects the actual qualification of workers. Wonder how they will finance this new country then! That's an easy one: SHIN-CASINOS INC. ! ! ! ! ! ! Not so far from the truth. It almost happened in late 2005 with talks in Chiang Mai with Macao tycoons getting to a late stage in negotiations with the subsequent 2006 coup putting the mockers on it as it would have been of no benefit to the south. Look for negotiations to be reopened when PTP if /when return to power. And major construction projects in and around the northern provinces with a new Chiang Mai airport likely to be the main one. I'm sure SHIN-CASINO INC. will be an eager tax-payer to finance the continuation of the rice-pledging scheme, tablet scheme, etc. etc. I would love to see how this dynamic pans out and how long it will take for the rural electorate to figure out they're being taken for a ride
January 30, 201412 yr Popular Post At the moment this seems an unrealistic dream. But when one thinks of the emerging Asian superhighway network, the improved transport corridors north and east, the rapid expansion of Korat, Khon Kaen and Chiang Mai, and most of all the strategic ambitions of the People's Republic of China, then perhaps a doubt enters the mind. Certainly there is a hardening of attitudes in Lanna and Isaan. The ridicule on this and other threads of all things Northern is just an illustration in why Bangkokians are not universally loved in all corners of the Kingdom.
January 30, 201412 yr Ridicule the North and Isaan as much as you like, but a separation would likel result in these regions prospering, whereas the South would likely decline. There are close ties with Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and China in the North. The South simply has tourism and a problem with Muslim insurgents. A lot of industry around Bangkok would likely relocate to the North. Tourism accounts for 7% of Thailand's revenues. Enough for Bangkok and the South.
January 30, 201412 yr " The Post quoted Supon, a former policeman as saying "The majority of redshirts really like the idea of a separate state. If they stage a coup, we can live without Bangkok." Yeah right. Then you will end up like other land locked metropolis' such as Loas, Afghanistan, South Sudan etc etc Switzerland, Austria...
January 30, 201412 yr To the Northeast, the spoils' Economic Review Thai manufacturers such as CP All Plc, Thai Beverage Plc and Siam Cement,plus foreign firms with Thai plants such as Panasonic Corp, Kraft Foods Group Inc and Fraser and Neave Ltd are gravitating towards the Northeast." If you look at all corporations- every single large-cap out there-they don't talk about Bangkok anymore. They talk about provincials," said Patrick Chang, head of Asean equity for BNP Paribas Investment Partners." The sexy stuff is the provincial urbanisation and the way it impacts consumption" Well from the above it indicates that the Bangkok Elite are scared really scared of losing their grip in Thailand. The floods have shown how vulnerable Bangkok is as a Capital City, talk was floated around forgive the pun of Korat or Khon Kaen being the next Capital. So the Reds have a point but for a different reason not just the stronghold connection Independence is a fairly difficult road to plan out but a civilised referendum is out of the box for the moment due to the moody guards. Tough times ahead with the really big question on every one's mind where is the true allegiance going to lie in the coming years Some very sound points there,Gerry, maybe if a few of the more idiotic and vile would-be-hi-so Bangkok posters were to open their eyes and look beyond the shallow tinsel of Bkk they would be less inclined to sneer at the citizens of the new North Thailand. I believe it would be hard to find a more corrupt civil administration of any city in Thailand than the BMA. Do look at that map of the 2011 election result. N.Thailand would encompass the entire North and East of Thailand, right down to the industrial seaboard. Nothing landlocked at all about that, quite the opposite in fact, Bangkok will be isolated in its little enclave of slowly subsiding squalor, and do you think you'll ever going to be able to get away with flooding N, Thailand for months just to save your shopping malls and the laughable CBD. No, the future would be pretty grim for the poor sods in S. Thailand. Ruled by the glorious amart, denied the basics of democracy by petty warlord famillies such as Sutheps clan, with an endless civil war rumbling away in the Deep South! Sadly, some day soon the inevitable will happen, and I believe it will dim the fervour with which the rest of the population now bow down to Bangkok. The elite know this too, and they know they have a very short time left to destroy PTP if they are to ever to regain their iron grip on this fair country. Edited January 30, 201412 yr by catmac
January 30, 201412 yr "We are not afraid. All the red groups will unite. We are willing to sacrifice our lives," said Kawang, president of the alumni association of Yupparaj school in Chiang Mai where Yingluck was once a student. Easy tiger. You realise your mentor gives not one iota of a **** about you, right. You are a tool, a pawn, for the acquiring of moneys and power, nothing more. Anyway, please leave CM out of it, but by all means consider setting up an Isaanland and pee off over there to join the rest of your bosom buddies. CM and Muang Thai would be all the better for such a purge.
January 30, 201412 yr One is led to wonder whether the daily street scenes might well look like this?
January 30, 201412 yr There's little point in anyone getting behind this idiot, because he is likely to be behind bars within a very short period of time for this act of sedition against the state and the monarchy.
January 30, 201412 yr When I got round to doing my Thai cultural indoctrination course for my then job I'd already lived in Thailand some 4 years, including a year in Chiang Mai. I let the instructor tell us his version of Thai history, at the end of which I asked, "But what about Lanna?" "That's not Thailand!" was the reply. Might as well not be then.
January 30, 201412 yr Would be a HUGE benefit to the north provided they could negotiate some waterfront property.
January 30, 201412 yr Whilst TV likes to follow closely the bastion of un biased press that is the Nation, I thought Id bring up an article from another Newspaper to give the same viewpoint. http://www.economist...way-ill-go-mine They have been saying this for some time - http://www.economist...olitical-crisis It would make an interesting situation to see how the respective countries would perform. Would Issan for example continue to massively outstrip Bangkok in its growth figures after the plug of Bangkok help is pulled? Would foreign aid and support continue to pour into what was an effective dictatorship in the new Southern Thailand state? Would ASEAN plans be placed on hold? Would the baht collapse and what currency would they both have? Too many questions. I`m personally not convinced the scenario will ever happen and we`ll get to find out. First of all its important to note that culturally Thailand has always been divided and a mismatch of ethnic groups. However, this split wouldnt be along those lines and Lao speaking Issan would be joined with the Thai speaking North. It isnt a natural collaboration and most in Issan would see Korat or the likes of Udon as their natural successor capital city rather than the distant Chiang Mai most have never set foot in. Secondly the article fails to mention the powerful unifying nature of the monarchy in Thailand. I am limited in what i can say here but suffice to say that all over the Nation Thais would hate to break away from their King. Thirdly another omission is the growing discontent in Northern areas with the government over failed rice payments and the amnesty bill. The Thaskin bond isnt as unbreakable as they lead you to believe. I still think (and hope) and unifying middle ground will emerge and clean up and rid the country of its Abshits, Sutheps, Thaskin and Yinglucks. Lastly the article fails to mention that the Muslim South of Thailand would see any such break away as their big chance for freedom. The new Southern Thai state would be plunged into yet more violence and likely be split further. Whatever will pan out I think now is crunch time and in 2 weeks time all will be clear. Sit back and enjoy the ride. (or bombs more likely) This is an interesting discussion - one I have had before (its not a new idea by any means). Thailand is a new country really - as eloquently put in an earlier post about the Ayuttaya conquering of Lanna, Laos, Cambodia, etc - and seeing off the Burmese after the sacking of Ayuttaya. The north is very proud of its history - Chiang Mai especially, just look at the moat wall, 3 kings monument, 700 year stadium/road etc. It is a concept not everyone will dislike I think. There does not have to be the loss of the monarch however, HM the Queen of England is not only also the Queen of Scotland, Wales, Northern Island, but of the commonwealth - a figure head, nothing more - as is always with a constitutional monarchy. There is no reason HM could not still be the King of an autonomous North and South. Issan is the danger point though - although the poorest area, it is also the larder of the country. The North could feed itself easily, not so sure about the South. A 3 way split would be disastrous I think. It is more likely though I suppose that it would sway heavily towards the North than the South given a choice. There are all the usual issues - military, national industry, stock exchange, currency, reserves, national debt, citizenship and immigration, overseas agreements and alliances, membership of Asean and other such int. groups, and so on - an independent mediator would be needed and we all know how Thai politicians are accepting foreign help. If they can not agree on basic things like an election - there is little chance of this huge negotiations going anywhere! The other side of course is that it is unlikely the Thaksins would want to "rule" in a land locked country far away from the trough that is Bangkok - why would they. These people are not after hero worship - other than at election time - they are after profit and power broking - this does not play to their desires at all. If the North was to separate, it would have to be under its own steam and with its own (new) leaders. Of course, that would then be sedition. The only way that this would happen would be if there was a civil war - and the divide was negotiated as part of a peace deal brokered via the UN (etc).
January 30, 201412 yr The Confederate Provinces of Thailand...capital Chiang Mai. The Confederate States of America with their capital in Richmond Virginia tried a similar approach about 150 years ago during the American Civil War--the new capital thing didn't work out. Well, a proper analogy to the American Civil War would be if the Confederacy had taken the capital (Washington) after the 1st battle of Manassas, which they nearly did. This scenario is more accurate compared to a coup in Thailand today. If the Confederacy had taken Washington early in the war, then the Union capital would have moved to New York or Philadelphia; A.K.A. Union strongholds. Similarly, the Reds would move the capital to Chiang Mai, their stronghold, in the event of a coup. So, the Dems and Suthep are more easily associated with the South, or the Confederacy. They are tired of being controlled by a far away power base. Things did not turn out well for the South, as we know, and there are some more parallels here, as well. In the American Civil War: The Northern States wanted to keep their country with it's legally elected government. The South would split the Union at all costs. The Southern States were frustrated because they knew the balance of power had shifted North, making it virtually impossible for them shape their own destiny. The South was unable to form alliances or make treaties with foreign powers (France, England, Russia). This would probably happen in today's Thailand, as well. The US and Europe would have a hard time "NOT" supporting the legally elected government, albeit relocated to Chiang Mai.
January 30, 201412 yr Plenty of dumb assess on both sides of this farce. And they are always the ones who have to open their mouths and stick a big foot in it! Were you referring to the Thai populace or certain TV posters?
January 30, 201412 yr Perhaps 3 autonomous regions might be a solution, the North and North-East, Central, and the South. Everything nominally under a central Bangkok government with limited powers except for defense, foreign affairs, and whatever. That should also solve the interminable Muslim separatist movement in the South as well as the present North/South divide. It would require compromise, which is lacking in the current situation.
January 30, 201412 yr Well, the UK has more than one parliament. Who says Thailand can't. Shame if it came to that though.
January 30, 201412 yr Popular Post I personally believe that Yingluck will chose Dubai over Chiang Mai, due to the better shopping possibilities. Let see if she get to keep the money, she made on the rice scam scheme.
January 30, 201412 yr Logic would suggest a different approach that what we have now. Divide the country into 7 states similar to Australia/USA: North Northeast Central plains excl. BKK East excl. Pattaya/Rayong South Bangkok special zone Pattaya/Rayong special zone Each state has its own house of representatives who control the budget for that area, and the budget is a formula based on tax revenues preagreed. Each state has its own administration (for Bangkok it would be the BMA for instance, who would massively expand their responsibilities). Change the current taxation system - adjust so that each state gets a share of revenue using a formula of tax in (a portion of income tax and VAT and company tax) and a proportion based on total population judged via census. Central government gets a component, but not all of it. Complete disclosure of major performance measures by state, with the federal government's power massively reduced, while each state can have their own local people to look after their own local issues. You want roads or education - you decide when you vote. Each State has a State Governor who is elected, and state officials who are also elected. They have their own state judiciary, etc and the ultimate decision maker is the national court system People may move freely between the states, but must register in one, to receive the benefits of that state, and to vote in that state, with some restrictions placed on each. The benefit would be an end to the godfather system, or at least a clearer picture of how things run when those idiots are removed. Armed forces, police and national healthcare are somewhat split with allocations of budget by region ensuring that the benefits and costs of these are spread. It would also mean that each region could have policies TAILORED for them e.g. In Isaan the prevalence of basic health problems that don't exist in Bangkok. Sounds like a bureaucrat's dream.
January 30, 201412 yr This is what I am afraid of will happen, but do not wish it to turn in that direction. It does not matter what we are arguing - as well as other social media, as to who is the most evil. What matter is the feelings of people on the ground. Just because one party cannot or have no confidence in getting legitimate power from the people, everyone have to suffer with them. The constant threat and use of court and the resulting cases by both side is beginning to cast doubt on the independence and efficacy of the court. The way in which the military is making statements created the anxiety and fear that there will be another coup. it is not spreading rumour but genuine fear of the people. The feeling of being bullied, suppressed and oppressed through the use of military and the court continue to mount. I am afraid that as pressure continue to build up, something like civil war, which I do not want to experience here in Thailand may just be the consequence and the curse because one party felt they cannot or have no confidence in winning an election. What is the solution? I have shared my opinions here at this forum. Both 'camps' must talk but forget about the party who are afraid of gaining legitimate power through winning an election. Let them solve their own problems. Focusing on using them and helping them are just feeding their victim mentality. Let other parties who have the willingness and confidence to face challenges to be an elected government continue to grow and fill their place. Reconciliation is a dirty word at the moment. Without love and forgiveness, they can be no reconciliation. Without an amnesty or unity bill, there is no answer to our divided society and military and judicial. Disruptive politics and destructive judicial are beginning to destroy our peace (Unity), progress and prosperity.
January 30, 201412 yr " The Post quoted Supon, a former policeman as saying "The majority of redshirts really like the idea of a separate state. If they stage a coup, we can live without Bangkok." Yeah right. Then you will end up like other land locked metropolis' such as Loas, Afghanistan, South Sudan etc etc Are you sure? According to the last election results, it seems to me that Bangkok would be the almost land locked metropolis in such a scenario. Even the entire North East of Bangkok is red: What is wrong with you man! Posting a photo from 3 years ago and making it seem like this is the present situation Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app
January 30, 201412 yr Logic would suggest a different approach that what we have now. Divide the country into 7 states similar to Australia/USA: North Northeast Central plains excl. BKK East excl. Pattaya/Rayong South Bangkok special zone Pattaya/Rayong special zone Each state has its own house of representatives who control the budget for that area, and the budget is a formula based on tax revenues preagreed. Each state has its own administration (for Bangkok it would be the BMA for instance, who would massively expand their responsibilities). Change the current taxation system - adjust so that each state gets a share of revenue using a formula of tax in (a portion of income tax and VAT and company tax) and a proportion based on total population judged via census. Central government gets a component, but not all of it. Complete disclosure of major performance measures by state, with the federal government's power massively reduced, while each state can have their own local people to look after their own local issues. You want roads or education - you decide when you vote. Each State has a State Governor who is elected, and state officials who are also elected. They have their own state judiciary, etc and the ultimate decision maker is the national court system People may move freely between the states, but must register in one, to receive the benefits of that state, and to vote in that state, with some restrictions placed on each. The benefit would be an end to the godfather system, or at least a clearer picture of how things run when those idiots are removed. Armed forces, police and national healthcare are somewhat split with allocations of budget by region ensuring that the benefits and costs of these are spread. It would also mean that each region could have policies TAILORED for them e.g. In Isaan the prevalence of basic health problems that don't exist in Bangkok. This is a logical and modern approach - but none of the main parties want to decentralise, that is where the profits are. Unless there is still central control (and much more extreme than US federal vs state) then it would not happen without an uprising of the masses to push it through via some external brokerage (UN for example).
January 30, 201412 yr It's amazing what one man's greed can do to a country. That's what they say in Zimbabwe too.
January 30, 201412 yr This democracy thing confuses me. As i understand it, if you want to be elected to represent the folks in you riding, you have your name put on the ballot, and if you win you're in. You now represent these good people, they trust you to do what is best for them. There doesn't appear to be any other way to become an Mp, and only MPs can make laws. These laws can be very strict, especially when someone who wasn't elected runs the democracy. In Thailand we find this phenomenon, the cabinet has said that it is very difficult to decide how much influence this exiled, convicted criminal should have on the government and they are in constant Skype dialogue with him. The party slogan, proudly stated states, that what ever this person says, they will do. As difficult as that is to grasp, the next part is very wierd, the exiled person, in charge, doesn't believe in demacracy, he even said so. So people take to the streets, they say, this isn't democracy, the criminals name wasn't on the ballot, and it is, in fact illegal, for our elected representatives to be talking to this man, never mind taking orders from him. Then i see on Thai Visa that some foreigners are in favour of this, that it is perfectly ok. But, they say, if a person or group protests, that wouldn't be allowed in their countries.....i sure wouldn't want to live in those countries. The only one who believes this repetitive load of bullocks is you.
Create an account or sign in to comment