Why Is Thailand So Backward?

[ovenman]

Ovenman, why don't you just tell us what's in the book. You don't really expect to run off to Asiabooks, read it, then come back to reply to your post.

The Malay Dilemma is hard to summarize in a short post but the upshot is what can be done about making the backwards Malays successful within their own country. I wasn't really expecting anybody to respond to my post after going out and reading the book per se, it was simply recommended reading if one is really interested in what is being discussed here as there are some parallels between the two countries. June's selection in the Ovenman's book-of-the-month club.

Malaysia's incomes and standards of living are roughly double that of Thailand, inequality is not as striking as in Thailand, and also people are as laid back as here. It's also a society build on religious rather then secular principles. They have their problems, but they also claim being an example Muslim country - religious but modern.

Yes, and back in 1970 when Mahathir wrote this book, Malaysia and Thailand were probably on a par economically. Malaysia may have even been a bit more "backwards" than its northern neighbor in 1970.

[Plus]

what can be done about making the backwards Malays successful within their own country

Please, share it with us.

Bhumiputra vs. Chinese/Indians is not so relevant to Thailand, but turning backward Malays into modern Malays is certainly interesting.

[Cassandra]

Which Asian society is the best model for Thailand to follow? I think Thais can learn a lot from Malaysians.

For an insightful look at backwards-ness as it pertains to Malaysia, I highly recommend reading The Malay Dilemma by Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad. Published in 1970, a year after Malaysia's race riots, the book was banned for years in Malaysia for its frank discussion of many of the topics touched upon in this thread. Dr. M was the chief architect of the Wawasan 2020 plan for making Malaysia a fully-developed country by the year 2020 that was touched upon in this thread's original post.

The Malay Dilemma was an attempt by Mahatir to address the problems presented by a perceived unproductive ethnic group, the Malays, who were barely a majority in their own land.The Malaysian economy was and to a leser extent remains dominated by ethnic Chinese, Indian and European interests.Nevertheless through positive discrimination the Malays -or at least the elite- have made great strides, and on a per capita basis is certainly wealthier than Thailand.But the truth is the kampong Malays are only marginally involved in the productive economy.

Nevertheless to compare Thailand with Malaysia is problematic.Thailand is a much larger country and has effectively-with the obvious exception of the deep South-resolved its ethnic differences.To be blunt about it Malaysia is sitting on a racial time bomb and Thailand is not.Many of my Chinese Malaysian friends see their long term future elsewhere and would emigrate if Islamic/Malay pressures predominated over money making opportunities.

[Sheryl]

I'm new to this thread and have read only the most recent pages and the 1st...but, for what my 2 cents may be worth:

Each country is unique in its circumstances and strengths/weaknesses. The situations of Cambodia, Burma, Laos, Malaysia and Thailand (to stick with immediate neighbors) are each different from the other in terms of modern history, ethnic issues, current politics and economy etc. So I don't think there is any point to broad comparisons. There will be areas in which one is ahead of the others but no one is ahead of the others on all counts (one could, however, probably make an argument for Burma being behind on pretty much everything...)

So maybe the better question is, what are the specific areas in which Thailand is in, or heading towards, trouble and why?

To me, the answer is the enormously inequitable distribution of wealth which was true decades ago but has, unfortunately, remained true during the past few decades of economic growth. Added to a weakening of the social norms/structures that used to soften the effect of the inequities.

When I first came to Thailand (1980) there was great inequity, and not much social mobility, but the impact of this on the "phu noi"was softened somewhat by a strong sense of obligation on the part of the "phu yai" to look after them. Kind of feudal, but it worked, at least well enough for the "have nots" to feel they had something to lose if they challenged the status quo, and to feel some respect and gratitude towards the "haves". The "pee""nong" relationship applied between haves and have nots and pretty well functioned, most of the time.

I notice that over the past 25 years though this arrangement has weakened, and the "haves"(with exceptions. of course) seem to feel less and less obligated to look after/protect the "have nots"(phu noi) in their immediate circles (neighbors, employees etc).

If this trend continues sooner or later it will explode. Besides Thaialnd, the other country I know intimately is Cambodia, where it did explode. My fear is that Thailand could be heading towards a Thai version of something similiar. In any social order. the low-status/low power members need to have some incentive to support and contribute to the status quo if the social fabric is to maintain intact (doesn't rule out gradual change, of course...but avoiding sudden massive disruption). Such incentives are typically hope of future social upward mobility (if not for themselves, then for their children) and/or confidence that the more fortunate member sof the society will look after their basic needs and help in times of trouble. If this is lacking and if the numbers of the low power group are large, it is a sure receipe for major social upheaval. I see Thailand verging on that point.

I've discussed this with many Thai friends and I know many of the more socially conscious upper-class Thais share this concern. I have also discussed it with many neioghbors who fall on the lower end of the spectrum and I know that there is a lort of anger building up.

What I don't know is anyway that we as foreigners can be of help at this point.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Sheryl

[anuaaron]

As for what Thailand has to offer, it is obviously more than sex. The point is if you can only get sex by flying to Thailand you are a social misfit. If you dont but come just for sex then you are just taking advantage of poverty...not morally upstanding either. I do not care if someone comes to here and sits in bars for two weeks and goes home, but dont say that all Thailand has.

Few words for ya,

Ratchada

Geisha

Mia Noi

More Thai men visit massage palors than farang.

Nobody has said that the sex trade is all Thailand has but I have said that farang do come here to embrace that area of Thai culture and that Thailand would suffer huge if they actually enforced their laws.

Have you ever watched a bus load of Chinese going into Pattay? Do they look like they are off to visit the temples?

The difference is that farang are less discreet, more open about it, more honest,,,,less ashamed?

Have you ever been to Japan? Have you ever had a mid-level business meeting in Japan?

So there you have it, as you said Thai men are immoral and take advantage of poverty within their own country.

At least the farang that go to soapy pay more, if anything its the Thai men who are "really" taking advantage of poverty. If they were so concerned they would pay what farang pay.

I know this should not be in this thread but just a quick reply. I have long held the view that Thai men are more responsible than foreigners for the prostitution in their country. Wrote a good paper on that actually But the answer was based on the comment that "sex is all Thailand has to offer". This was being discussed from the view of a tourist. I am not sure how a poor Thai man is taking advantage of poverty? That means that if I visit a prositute in a western country who earns more than me I am taking advantage of her?? In the majority of Thai-Thai prostitution cases it is poor men visiting poor women...therefore no advantage is being taken. Of course the morality, disempowerment, social stigma, related to the female...are all other issues . Oh you are right about Japan, I think they are worse then the Thais by a long stretch when it comes to how they treat women. Had two meetings that were just excuses to take advantage of getting drunk and laid. It was to expensive for me though

[anuaaron]

Thailand is was ranked 36th in the world for Global Competitiveness Rankings

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competit...ankings_pdf.pdf

Considering this thread is about competing in the global market I'll refer you to

title of the thread Her Neighbours continue to leave her behind

These were just figures for thought (yes I do understand them). I think the closeness of the figures and totals (in may cases neglible between 20-100) show that Thailand is not being left behind and is not backward. At least i put some figures up to discuss and to make a reasonably informed judgement and not just base it on a newspaper article. I agree that perhaps the figures for Thailand may be wrong, but then so would any other Southeast Asian nation you believe you are comparing it to.

[anuaaron]

You are "taking advantage" of poverty.

"advantage" isnt necassarily a negative word.

What you want may be different than what many Thais want, you're comment that you dont want to see the Thailand do "so well" is what you want.

Your post is all about YOU.

You're by your own admission not wealthy, so for you Thais becoming competitive and ambitious is a bad thing.

You've found a little oasis to drop out in and that suits you, the fact that you hope for the people to remain impoverished is a little selfish.

Good comments ROFL. I think the key is that developing Thailand does not mean it should follow the industrial and consumer goaled path of western countries. This path is failing socially even in the so called developed world. Sadly it seems that Thailand is well on its way down that path. Being ambitious for the betterment of yourself and the community is laudible, to be competitive to buy a plasma screen TV while your neighbours, who dont get the breaks or family advantages, fail to eat seems unfair. The "trickle-down effect" is just not realistic. The gap between rich and poor is growing in the west as it is anywhere in the world. What will happen when the poor have had enough??

Edited June 7, 2006 by anuaaron

[anuaaron]

That's a REALLY feeble example. They would be taken anywhere in the world. Why are you here?

No its not G, its you who's decided they are happy with their lot in life.

How do you know this?

Face it lads, you've chosen Thailand because you can afford it. ie. YOU are the ones taking advantage of Thailands poverty and the possibility of it becoming more prosperous is in direct conflict with YOUR chosen lifestyle.

(Nope. I would earn a lot more at home, and did.)

The Shiny happy people you describe for the most part had no choice.

Dont worry, theres plenty of countrys a lot further "behind" Thailand, so if the shit hits the fan you'll have a place to go eek out an existence.

I enjoy helping and teaching people who dont have the same attitudes as western youth. I live comfortably here, do not eek out an existence, but I lived comfortable at home.

Be honest with yourself, had you plenty of money would you be living in a village? Would your sweet young thang say "no honey lets not go to the grocery store, Id rather barter for weeds".

Your choice was primarily based on your financial situation, not your desire to live like Robinson Curusoe.

(I added my comments in bold in the quote) ROFL. You write many good posts so it is dissapointing when you go on a rant and generalise. Dont put everyone in the same boat. Makes the rest of what you say appear like sour grapes and diatribe.

Edited June 7, 2006 by anuaaron

[Martin]

'Sheryl' said:

"In any social order. the low-status/low power members need to have some incentive to support and contribute to the status quo. That could be hope of social upward mobility (if not for themselves, then for their children) and/or confidence that the more fortunate memebsr of the society will look after their basic needs and help in times of trouble."

The interesting thing for Thailand is that if (and some say, when) the big trouble comes in the form of loss of its overseas customers because of a severe depression in the Western-nations' economies, the urban 'more fortunate' will be just as deep in the clag as the urban 'less fortunate'.

Luckily, for Thailand, it is 60% rural, 30% urban and 10% 'tourist servicing' (though those proportions are not reflected in contributions to discussions on thaivisa.com!!).

And the 'more fortunate' will turn out to be the 60%, who will be able to give the other 40% enough gainful employment to keep them fed and housed (though not with all the 'luxuries' to which they may have been accustomed).

[anuaaron]

The point is if you can only get sex by flying to Thailand you are a social misfit. If you dont but come just for sex then you are just taking advantage of poverty...not morally upstanding either.

This is a load of politically correct cr*p.

If a rich guy in America or Europe courts a girl in a poor family, no one accuses him of "taking advantage of poverty". He's just a man, doing what comes naturally, and it is up to her to respond or reject him and, quite often, she will go for it.

The only difference is that, In Thailand, WE are the rich guys for a change!

Agreed Ulysses. The statement is about paying for sex. Not courting Big difference I think .... well hope. I think my whole post should have shown that was what was meant.

Edited June 7, 2006 by anuaaron

[anuaaron]

To answer the original question, the academic in me wants to say that it is a question of epistemology (the study of knowledge or "how do we know what we know") and ontology (the study of being). More simply, I think the "backwardness" of Thailand refers to your point of view.

Do you believe that history is linnear, from point A to B, from traditional to modern. Or do you believe in a plurality of histories? And if so, to whom are histories relevant (ie: individuals? cities? countries? civilizations?)

If you believe in the former version of history (modernist point of view), and adopt economics as an indicator of development along the road to modernization, than I suppose Thailand may be seen as backwards. Of course, Thailand can also be construed as culturally "backward" if you subscribe to modernism, because the end result ( point B ) is a destination characterized by homogenization. Right now, this homogonization is mostly considered to be Western culture.

If you adopt the latter viewpoint, that history can be plural and relative, then a comparison with the West becomes more difficult. In this case, the concepts of backwardness and progress are more ambiguous.

This seems kind of familiar to me, and I might have posted it earlier on a different thread. Sorry if I did.

As for myself, I don't think Thailand is "backwards" and that it lags behind Western countries. But on the other hand, by no means do I think things are hunky-dory across the board within the country, regardless of ones point of view. I think the issue is certainly complex and there are many things to take into consideration when considering whether or not it is indeed backwards.

Well said. I was getting to that. Just what is backward. There would be millions of poor in the USA who are feeling pretty backward. The average rates of infant mortality in some of the ghetto areas in the US are equal to those in Africa!!!

Edited June 7, 2006 by anuaaron

[Ulysses G.]

The point is if you can only get sex by flying to Thailand you are a social misfit. If you dont but come just for sex then you are just taking advantage of poverty...not morally upstanding either.

This is a load of politically correct cr*p.

If a rich guy in America or Europe courts a girl in a poor family, no one accuses him of "taking advantage of poverty". He's just a man, doing what comes naturally, and it is up to her to respond or reject him and, quite often, she will go for it.

The only difference is that, In Thailand, WE are the rich guys for a change!

Agreed Ulysses. The statement is about paying for sex. Not courting Big difference I think .... well hope. I think my whole post should have shown that was what was meant.

I was trying be polite by using the word "courting", but I really meant, "getting laid".

You always pay for it somehow and cash on the barrelhead can save a lot of time and hurt feelings.

[cclub75]

Eventually, this comparaison game is futile : China is and will be the winner.

If you put aside all the other factors (education, history, economy, political environnement etc.), the main leverage is demography.

And on that point, no one can compete with China...

Then, you have the ethnic issue. Yes chinese people are more industrious than other.

That's why Vietnam, because of its several chinese influences (from a history point of view) can compete. Right now, they still have a political "brake" (the old guard with hard ideologists in the north)... But once Vietnam will get rid of them, and will have a new generation in the cockpit, like China, then the country will go very, very fast.

And they have the demographic advantage over Thailand too.

As for the other, Burma (private state mafia), Cambodia (completly beheaded by the Khmers rouges), Laos (a nice garden with... no one inside), the question appears quite irrelevant.

Malaysia and Singapore, well, there can be a debate.

But i still think that the destiny of all south east Asia is to become a dominion (or a colony) of China.

[Phano]

it got me thinking to why Thailand continues to fall behind its neighbours eg Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam ..

Come on Thailand get your act together....even Laos speaks better english..!

so wonder what your thoughts are why Thailand continues to slip behind its neighbours economically ?

Refer to the lates UNDP Human Development index. It shows that while Thailand may not be in the Big League, it is ahead of all its neighbours.

[anuaaron]

The point is if you can only get sex by flying to Thailand you are a social misfit. If you dont but come just for sex then you are just taking advantage of poverty...not morally upstanding either.

This is a load of politically correct cr*p.

If a rich guy in America or Europe courts a girl in a poor family, no one accuses him of "taking advantage of poverty". He's just a man, doing what comes naturally, and it is up to her to respond or reject him and, quite often, she will go for it.

The only difference is that, In Thailand, WE are the rich guys for a change!

Agreed Ulysses. The statement is about paying for sex. Not courting Big difference I think .... well hope. I think my whole post should have shown that was what was meant.

I was trying be polite by using the word "courting", but I really meant, "getting laid".

You always pay for it somehow and cash on the barrelhead can save a lot of time and hurt feelings.

Agree with. Damm GF's have cost me a fortune I end up more "backward" after each relationship

[anuaaron]

But i still think that the destiny of all south east Asia is to become a dominion (or a colony) of China.

Unless, as has been discussed in many IR journals, China continues to fail its provinces and social unrest causes a breakaway of these provinces from the centralised government. USSR again? Sure the government would not respond well but as the world becomes more involved they would be sure to keep an eye on the way China dealt with this. Mass murders are not as east to commit anymore.

Edited June 7, 2006 by anuaaron

[Cassandra]

what can be done about making the backwards Malays successful within their own country

Please, share it with us.

Bhumiputra vs. Chinese/Indians is not so relevant to Thailand, but turning backward Malays into modern Malays is certainly interesting.

The equivalent of the backward Malays in Thailand is of course the rural majority.But there's a crucial difference.The "backward Malays" in Malaysia as the majority have rightly had the political power.In Thailand the backward rural majority, which might equally expect the predominant say in political power, is told " Oh sorry, you are just too ignorant and uneducated.Even though we have recently had an election which returned a leader to your liking, we as the Bangkok elite need to have the ultimate say."

In some countries an arrogant urban elite would get their comeuppance.But apparently not in Thailand.Yet.

[Plus]

I doubt that elite Malays who thought up and implemented Bhumiputra policy have actually let the "backward" farmers into the government.

How did they manage to convert so many of them in a strong middle class? How did they manage to keep mosques full every morning of those middle class muslims? How could they manage to preserve their traditional values while growing in one of the most advanced Asian countries, from a western point of view?

Urban middle class Thais never go to temples anymore. There's construction all over Bangkok, but I've never seen a new temple being built.

[anuaaron]

Urban middle class Thais never go to temples anymore. There's construction all over Bangkok, but I've never seen a new temple being built.

Dont really think that reflects that urban middle class Thais dont go to temples. Due to time they are shown to go less often but still attend reasonably regularly. They are also large contributors to existing temples. Thais also stick with their own temples and tend not to visit others. So many will wait until they return to their hometown where, often. they visit their temple. So new temples are not really required.

[Cassandra]

I doubt that elite Malays who thought up and implemented Bhumiputra policy have actually let the "backward" farmers into the government.

How did they manage to convert so many of them in a strong middle class? How did they manage to keep mosques full every morning of those middle class muslims? How could they manage to preserve their traditional values while growing in one of the most advanced Asian countries, from a western point of view?

Urban middle class Thais never go to temples anymore. There's construction all over Bangkok, but I've never seen a new temple being built.

Dealing with your points in turn

1.No of course the actual numbers of villagers in government/parliament is small.It's the same anywhere.But the Malay political class definitely represents the interests of their Malay constituency.

2.Malaysia's strength over the last 20 years has been its sensible economic policy and Mahatir's superb handling of the Asian economic crisis in the late 1990's.Everyone has become much wealthier including the Malay bumis.I don't understand your comment about "keeping the mosques full".

But the hard truth remains.If the economic success should seriously falter in Malaysia, there would be a real danger of ethnic conflict.Remember the Malay are subsidised ina large variety of ways, including the generous national provident fund.I question how much the rural Malays have really been drawn into the economic mainstream, while agreeing there has been an increase in the Malay middle class.

3.Don't think your comment on urban Thais not going to temples is very relevant.

Conclusion remains that as a long term proposition Thailand is much more robust than Malaysia.

[ColPyat]

Conclusion remains that as a long term proposition Thailand is much more robust than Malaysia.

I am not too sure about this.

You are right that there is one thing that can threaten Malaysia's success - the powder keg of it's ethnic groups. But, i see an indicator that the ethnic problems might be a thing of the past by the way how the transition of power was handled when Mahatir retired. As long as Malaysia's relative wealth is getting distributed through the ethnicies and classes it is in nobody's interest to renew ethnic warware.

Malaysia does not have the disadvantaged countryside Thailand has.

I am looking there at future trends. No Thai government has so far managed to find a solution to the problems of the rural poor.

Thaksin's solution of getting those folks into the economy by letting them take part by loans and increased consumerism has only resulted in increased debts, as his government has completely neglected the fact that one of the main reasons for their poverty is a complete lack of money management skills.

The por pueang philosophy is a bit too idealistic, and might only lead to an improvement of the poorest of the poor (if they would be given the land and the funds to start this form of agriculture). But it is social engeneering and wishful thinking if people who do somewhat alright return to a more primitive selfsufficient farming. And anyhow - the people who would benefit from sittakit por pueang are not given the necessary land, funds and education.

Malaysia, different than Thailand is far more decentralised in their industrail development. In Thailand outside Bangkok, the eastern seaboard and Korat their is very little industrial development. In large provinces of the North and Isaarn there is very little employment opportunities. Which does lead to enormous migration that is a huge burden on village social structures, and has led to a development of a urban proletariat which in itself is a powderkeg, if you observe the industrial suburbs of Bangkok.

And Thailand now has its own little ethnic problem in the deep south. I do not see anyone implementing the proposed solution of entering into negotiations.

All in all, i believe that Thailand has more social problems, and nobody seems to have a practical solution, again, due to the social tensions and class divisions. The now proposed pseudo solutions are rather frightening - they all smell like social engeneering, or are outlandish policies that neglect the facts.

[ColPyat]

Luckily, for Thailand, it is 60% rural, 30% urban and 10% 'tourist servicing' (though those proportions are not reflected in contributions to discussions on thaivisa.com!!).

And the 'more fortunate' will turn out to be the 60%, who will be able to give the other 40% enough gainful employment to keep them fed and housed (though not with all the 'luxuries' to which they may have been accustomed).

I am not too sure about this.

Unfortunately the imparities in distribution of wealth resulted that the ownership of agricultural land is still in the hands of a wealthy elite. These 60% own very little of Thailand's land, and are made up of a large part that owns less land that can actually feed them. Even in the most ideal conditions one family needs at least ten Rai of land to feed itself in the Por Pueang systhem. Many families own less than that, or land not suitable for this form of agriculture.

To change from a agriculture based on supplying the world market one needs:

1) education

2) additional funds for several years until the selfsufficient systhem starts working

3) enough suitable land with access to water

I think it is highly idealistic to believe that these 60% will be on top of things in case the economy slips. I believe that they will face the brunt of the downturn.

Most rural families cannot survive without funds being sent from family members employed in the industrial centres due to the unfair distribution of land, due to the lack of education and money management skills. And the traditional knowledge of selfsufficient agriculture has been nearly lost since the green revolution of the 80's.

[anuaaron]

And the traditional knowledge of selfsufficient agriculture has been nearly lost since the green revolution of the 80's.

Good points. The traditional knowledge is still there though. It was only 20 years ago. More of the problem has been the pressure on the land as a lot of the good land has been bought for development of industry. The best rice growing land that could grow two or three crops a year in some northeast areas was used for industry and the poorer one crop a year land was left to the farmers. It could be argued that the desire to industrialise is really weakening the country.

Thai peasantry is also unlikely to argue against development ideas. The Thai government makes sure it sells development as a gift to the people and they should be grateful for anything they receive and do what they are told. Development should be considered a right and the people involved consulted. (I have a good article about an eastern village, that discusses this). Africa is only just beginning to understand this and some gains are being made.

To move forward I would think Thailand should focus on fixing social issues and improving health and education. A happier working class allows for more structured development in the future, not just building factories.

[ColPyat]

Thai peasantry is also unlikely to argue against development ideas.

Very true.

The ideal of a happy peasantry toiling their land is mainly a urban based myth. Most peasants naturally want the same conveniences the upper half has. Who am i to withold these luxuries from them?

My wifes family survived for a very long time by hunting, gathering, and seasonal labour. And they were not happy doing that, they simply had no other option due to lack of land, lack of education, and lack of money management skills.

I have learned the practical difficulties of development when we started an organic self sufficient farm. They have for too long be used to a life of pure survival, they have almost lost all ability of planning beyond the immediate future. It was, and still partly is, tedious work to change their outlook on life regarding planning - two steps forward, one step back...

It is frightening how many millions of Thais are stuck in this position.

I believe it needs a multi-pronged approach in order to repair the enormous damage that was done over the last decades.

For the poorest sectors upcountry funds have to made available and incentitives given so they can get to the development stage of self sufficient farmers, so that the next generation has the chance to escape the trap of poverty. Stability has to brought back into these families, so that the next generation can finish school, get education and has a chance to escape the trap of poverty. This is a necessary investment for the future.

Incentitives have to be given to industrial developers to built factories and finance the necessary infrastructure outside the present industrial zones. If that is not happening the migration will not stop, and continue to weaken the social fabric in the villages.

And maybe, it might be necessary to change, or adapt the paranoid nationalist landownership laws in order to achieve that.

Time though is running out here.

[Postie]

Ditto Ratcatcher (love the name) on this one.

I am glad that Somtomland is generally not mercury rich streams running off a slag heap.

Stinking Taiwan, reeking China, as two examples.

Under Rama 5, they managed to (just) hang onto their independence.

Rama 5, like his dad, a shrewd bod...

...Died a broken man due to the "West" wanting to shaft his country."

Why are "westerners so obsessed by industrialisation?"

Don't like it there?

Don't go!

[Martin]

'ColPyat' in post # 321 said:

"In Thailand outside Bangkok, the eastern seaboard and Korat their is very little industrial development. In large provinces of the North and Isaarn there is very little employment opportunities. Which does lead to enormous migration that is a huge burden on village social structures, and has led to a development of a urban proletariat which in itself is a powderkeg, if you observe the industrial suburbs of Bangkok."

This makes for a great weakness in societal development, as well as causing social problems (such as the scale of the Aids epidemic, which would have been far less without so many young migrant workers uprooted and footloose).

Thailand will get a lot further forward when it becomes more of a united kingdom. But that does require political will for it to happen. And that requires public opinion, at voter level, to believe that it should happen.

In the present circumstances, where the rural areas are bled of all their brightest and best youngsters to live away (bothered and bewildered) in the one big metropolitan area, public opinion is not going to develop vigorously in either the rural or urban spheres.

Some posters have indicated that the land ownership situation prevents the strengthening of the rural areas.

But this is not necessarily so.

As I drive around Isaan, I see big blocks of land that are being used by agri-businesses to grow single crops.

Divided into 25 rai family-holdings, the affordable rents would give these landlords a greater return than they are getting from their monoculture. So both they and the returnees-to-peasantry would be OK.

Thus Thailand (and China) could cope with disaster in the industrial economy, unlike many countries.

Whether they would cope is more problematic. But I would back the Thais to come through a bit less scathed than any other country that I can think of.

So I still disagree with the topic title's idea that Thailand is "backward".

It has a different set of strengths and weaknesses compared to the countries that are alongside it, geograhically and developmentally.

[anuaaron]

'ColPyat' in post # 321 said:

"In Thailand outside Bangkok, the eastern seaboard and Korat their is very little industrial development. In large provinces of the North and Isaarn there is very little employment opportunities. Which does lead to enormous migration that is a huge burden on village social structures, and has led to a development of a urban proletariat which in itself is a powderkeg, if you observe the industrial suburbs of Bangkok."

This makes for a great weakness in societal development, as well as causing social problems (such as the scale of the Aids epidemic, which would have been far less without so many young migrant workers uprooted and footloose).

I agree with your post but do you not feel that that internal migration is true of any country. Australia, USA, China, and just about any industrialised state moves people from the country to the cities. It is the weakness of the government not to bring about social programs to deal with this inevitable movement than to blame the migration itself. It is an economic fact that you cannot have national scale industry all over the country, and even if you could you would still get migration from villages to provincial capitals.

[Plus]

The ideal of a happy peasantry toiling their land is mainly a urban based myth.

It should be a reality, not a myth. It works in places where people learn how to be happy with what they have. In the South, for example, or Malaysia. It's not that they don't want modern amenities, but they don't bust their asses for mobile phones, sell their votes for 500 baht, or sell their daughters into prostitution as people in Isan sometimes (often) do.

I mentioned full mosques and empty temples because I think self-contentment is not possible without strong religion. Materialistic (hedonistic) values imported from the West will never let people till their land happily, grow some rice in the back of the house, vegetables in the front garden and fish in your own pond.

Thailand seems to be losing its idyllic image of the "past" and is not quite caught up with the modern "future".

[ColPyat]

The ideal of a happy peasantry toiling their land is mainly a urban based myth.

It should be a reality, not a myth. It works in places where people learn how to be happy with what they have.

Well, in Malaysia those farmers have a lot more, to start off with.

That has been reached through a rather intelligent green revolution, in which the government has subsidised farmers if the price of their products fell on the worldmarket below a certain fixed level.

In Thailand that did not happen, only middlemen and exporters were subsidised, and the farmers left to rot. Additionally, Thai politicians have invested far too little in education, have not intruced legislations to protect farmers from losing their land.

If you had a look at what my wife's family had before we started our farm, it was nothing. Each family member's posessions filled a small bag. Not much to be content with. They did not even own the little huts they lived in, or the land those huts were built on. Over long periods of the year they even did not have enough money to buy rice, and had to substitute rice with wild manioc dug out in the forest (or how you call the bush that was once a real forest).

There is no way that people in such abject poverty can develop money management skills so that if they get some cash into their hands it will not be wasted. Or have enough social stability that their children will finish school and escape the trap of poverty.

There are several million Thais in exactly this same condition. Telling them to be happy whith the nothing they have will not solve their problems.

Would you be happy with such a life?

[ColPyat]

I agree with your post but do you not feel that that internal migration is true of any country. Australia, USA, China, and just about any industrialised state moves people from the country to the cities. It is the weakness of the government not to bring about social programs to deal with this inevitable movement than to blame the migration itself. It is an economic fact that you cannot have national scale industry all over the country, and even if you could you would still get migration from villages to provincial capitals.

In China i believe the migration will have dire effects in the near future. I do not believe in the widely propagated success of China.

In the developed countries the migration is of a different nature, it is not anymore driven by poverty. And in the days of the industrialisation, when migration in the west, particularly in Europe, was of a similar nature, it has brought entire societies close to collapse, and has resulted in partly extremely violent social changes.

Maybe Thailand and other countries in a similar position have to go through similar developments, but the optimist in me does still look for ways that those changes can be with a softer impact on the society by learning from past mistakes in other countries.