Election in Oct 2015, NCPO says

[Mackie]

You guys don't get it! I have personally attended every election vote of my girlfriend in Hot city, Chomthong in Chiangmai for the past 9 years. Not a single baht passes into her hand. They vote the Shins in because they like, trust and believe in the hope Shins policies will continue to help improve the lot for country folk. Get you head around this. There is vote buying from both sides, but only in marginal areas or flip flop areas like Buriram n Surin.

And you get it? Since when is a word of your girlfriend or anyone else's girlfriend a reliable source of information in any discussion? Get a grip.

It appears that you need to get your head around this. It keeps happening time and time again. It has got to stop if Thailand is going to move forward.

Thailand red shirt get paid to protest?

All nicely lined up, lists, ID cards and plenty of 1,000 baht notes to flash around. It must be a figment of people's imagination, eh!

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-420390

Read what I wrote. I did not have to rely on my girlfriend. I have been to every election. I have been in the community and at the poll booths. I don't have to rely on hearsay, gossip or inuendo. It is fact I witnesses with my own eyes and ears repeatedly. My only statement is this "city people believe the only reason country people vote for PTP is a bought vote, wrong", I get that, do you get it!

It doesn't make any difference. Her words or your words, they don't count much in a real debate. To expect of people to hand over money during the election day and at the poll booths publicly is beyond ridiculous. The only reason country people vote for PTP or any other party before is that they are mislead into believing that they will get something for nothing. Time and time again. Populist policies and empty promises based on thin air. At the end someone will have to pay for it. Most likely the poor. Do you get it?

[ZigZagMan]

And if he doesn't deliver on the promises, he gets voted out.

Simple.

No need for mobs and military.

[brewsterbudgen]

And if he doesn't deliver on the promises, he gets voted out.

Simple.

No need for mobs and military.

Yes. I think there would have been a good chance of PTP losing a 2015 election if they'd been allowed to serve their full term. But Suthep and now the military stopped that. I wonder why?!

[heybruce]

"Prayuth said last night the interim charter would require reforms in all areas, such as politics, the economy, society, the environment, energy and the justice system."

All areas? Including the military?

[jayjayjayjay]

You guys don't get it! I have personally attended every election vote of my girlfriend in Hot city, Chomthong in Chiangmai for the past 9 years. Not a single baht passes into her hand. They vote the Shins in because they like, trust and believe in the hope Shins policies will continue to help improve the lot for country folk. Get you head around this. There is vote buying from both sides, but only in marginal areas or flip flop areas like Buriram n Surin.

And you get it? Since when is a word of your girlfriend or anyone else's girlfriend a reliable source of information in any discussion? Get a grip.

It appears that you need to get your head around this. It keeps happening time and time again. It has got to stop if Thailand is going to move forward.

Thailand red shirt get paid to protest?

All nicely lined up, lists, ID cards and plenty of 1,000 baht notes to flash around. It must be a figment of people's imagination, eh!

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-420390

Read what I wrote. I did not have to rely on my girlfriend. I have been to every election. I have been in the community and at the poll booths. I don't have to rely on hearsay, gossip or inuendo. It is fact I witnesses with my own eyes and ears repeatedly. My only statement is this "city people believe the only reason country people vote for PTP is a bought vote, wrong", I get that, do you get it!

It doesn't make any difference. Her words or your words, they don't count much in a real debate. To expect of people to hand over money during the election day and at the poll booths publicly is beyond ridiculous. The only reason country people vote for PTP or any other party before is that they are mislead into believing that they will get something for nothing. Time and time again. Populist policies and empty promises based on thin air. At the end someone will have to pay for it. Most likely the poor. Do you get it?

There is no classification for a populist policy unless of course you have a definition. Tell me how different the Rice scheme to America's own USD 47 billion subsidy scheme? !!!!!!!!!

Edited June 30, 2014 by jayjayjayjay

[sae57]

JJJ:

"There is no classification for a populist policy unless of course you have a definition. Tell me how different the Rice scheme to America's own USD 47 billion subsidy scheme? !!!!!!!!!"

Huge diff. (tho your point about defining populism is totally valid). Agriculture is a case study in how markets don't work as advertised and every state uses various interventions--e.g. subsidies, crop insurance, paying farmers not to plant crops expected to be in oversupply. The problem with the rice pledging program is that it could have been predicted--was predicted--to fail. TS implemented it as the main intervention (it had been used in a limited way before) and it failed. Abhisit was still saddled with warehouses full of pledged rice that couldn't be released without forcing prices down and he implemented crop insurance. There were problems with that too, but many red farmers were willing grudgingly to admit that his policies were better for them. So why did they overwhelmingly vote him out? One (only one) reason is that they thought PT would bring TS back and that he would forgive them their debts. YS implementation of rice pledging on steroids--well, we know how well that worked.

I'm all in favor of populism, or socialism for that matter, if that means policies benefiting the masses. But it has to be done intelligently, with constant tinkering and adjustments.

The pledging program:

The farmer mortgages the rice with the government, taking a loan on the rice,

The govt holds in storage, forcing prices up.

Prices go up

The farmer pays off the loan and sells the redeemed rice on the open market.

'course nobody, as far as I know, ever actually redeemed the rice, so it sits in warehouses waiting for the govt to auction off at the higher market price. As soon as they put it on the market, of course, the prices fall. Meanwhile, the next harvest has come in.

[sae57]

Caveat: I'm not defending US agri policy, which in the long run has led to agribusiness and the death of the family farm! But TS policies have led in the same direction, turning farmers into little capitalists with all the attendant risks.

Edited June 30, 2014 by sae57

[jayjayjayjay]

JJJ:

"There is no classification for a populist policy unless of course you have a definition. Tell me how different the Rice scheme to America's own USD 47 billion subsidy scheme? !!!!!!!!!"

Huge diff. (tho your point about defining populism is totally valid). Agriculture is a case study in how markets don't work as advertised and every state uses various interventions--e.g. subsidies, crop insurance, paying farmers not to plant crops expected to be in oversupply. The problem with the rice pledging program is that it could have been predicted--was predicted--to fail. TS implemented it as the main intervention (it had been used in a limited way before) and it failed. Abhisit was still saddled with warehouses full of pledged rice that couldn't be released without forcing prices down and he implemented crop insurance. There were problems with that too, but many red farmers were willing grudgingly to admit that his policies were better for them. So why did they overwhelmingly vote him out? One (only one) reason is that they thought PT would bring TS back and that he would forgive them their debts. YS implementation of rice pledging on steroids--well, we know how well that worked.

I'm all in favor of populism, or socialism for that matter, if that means policies benefiting the masses. But it has to be done intelligently, with constant tinkering and adjustments.

The pledging program:

The farmer mortgages the rice with the government, taking a loan on the rice,

The govt holds in storage, forcing prices up.

Prices go up

The farmer pays off the loan and sells the redeemed rice on the open market.

'course nobody, as far as I know, ever actually redeemed the rice, so it sits in warehouses waiting for the govt to auction off at the higher market price. As soon as they put it on the market, of course, the prices fall. Meanwhile, the next harvest has come in.

Good reply, and I appreciate your detail rational discussion. I do however challenge the major assumption you have made. That is the "failed" Rice Scheme. No a single person on the face of the earth is able to declare it a failure until every "i" is dotted and "t" crossed. I have noticed a clear move of Thai labour from Industrial Estates (and I run a company of 150ppl) back to there upcountry homes. Labour rate adjustment of 180 to 300 baht a day has been successfully implemented, and yet still we need to employ Myanmar and Cambodians to base labour tasks. Why the move of Thais back upcountry, two reasons. Upcountry employers have been forced to meet the 300 baht a day target and better wealth distribution, plus others have moved back to produce rice where previously farming the families land was nonviable. There is a two fold benefit. Sharing wealth(from the elite city dwellers who product nothing, no primary products), and yes the taxes we pay including my huge share contribute greatly to this, and second, the maintenance of the Thai family unit as a majority of those born upcountry want to live around there ancestor homes, take care of parents and old folk, develop there communities and avoid the HELL of Bangkok and Eastern Seaboard or the scummy suburban areas with boy motorbike gangs beating up ever unsuspecting westerners(and yes, my three week resident Swiss engineer had a machete pulled on him, and a close friend got beaten with pipes and chains all in the last two weeks) .

Now if the total loss in the Rice Scheme is 50 billion baht, well I say well spent. If the total loss is 300 billion then I say maybe a bad project. BUT, I still say it was a well intentioned project and should have been allowed to run without the vein of dirty politics being played out the damage it's credibility which is the essence of the projects requirement.

But first and foremost. I want to see a REAL independent audit. Get a damn Singapore company to do it, because at every level of politics and public service there are vested interests. Just like the CT Scanners at the airport or the airport runway cracks that were EVILLLLLLLLL at the time of hate Thaksin campaign,,, well, what did every happen to them. Are you worried about your plane landing at Sawanaphubi Airport.. I think not pray-tell!

Facts, wait for them from a truly independent organisation, then we really have something to discuss.