Backing for move to curb populism: Thai politics

[Thai at Heart]

As ever the red fan boys empty rhetoric, hyperbole and utter bitterness at being on the losing side are rearing their ugly heads. This is a positive step. Whether it is a populist policy or not is important, whilst you can argue the rice scam did not kill the country, it certainly has left immense scars. Can you put your bitterness aside and think about right and wrong for a moment and see that in theory this is a positive development. It needs to be developed into positive action. It is a start, a step in the right direction, let's see how it develops from here.

well, if you don't think that governments should help the people, you can make your case above.

almost every policy which helps a broad swath of the population is a populist policy.

The policies may be good or bad, but to generalize and "curb" populist policies is stupid policy.

Precisely.

I think the next policy they should enact is that everyone's tax return should be a matter of public record. I mean, with so many politicians objecting to populism, it should only be right that we see that they have paid their dues too.

[96tehtarp]

I could be wrong but I believe 96 is being somewhat satirical, at least, I hope so.

Perhaps I'm being more realistic than satirical. Populism can be both good and bad. Given the present unique circumstances in Thailand who will be deciding which is which? Take a wild guess.

Bad populism in some advanced democracies gives an individual's right of free speech to corporate money, (Buckley v. Valeo) (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), (Davis v. Federal Election Commission). This type of corporate populism may have led to unrestrained K-street lobbying and to the repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act which resulted in almost bringing the entire world's economy to a standstill.

It is uniquely Thai that there are certain topics even Thai people will not discuss privately among themselves. Foreigners living here need to follow their example and also follow the trail of names leading from the CPT to TRT and later PTP to gain some understanding of what "damage to the country" is perceived as in the circles where it matters the most.

[tingtongteesood]

There is a large difference between populist policies that make the political parties popular and buy votes and policies that help the 'populous' that are necessary. This is a definition that Thai people generally seem not to understand as well as the brainwashed red fan boys on here. The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. This is why there are financial limits and 'means testing' in properly run countries. If it is necessary to the general every day running of the country and helps the economy then it is a necessary 'populous' policy however if it helps just a few people and is quite unnecessary then it is populist. Forgetting the rampant corruption for a moment, the rice scam could have been 'populous' if it had really helped the poor farmers and not the wealthy middle men and thieving politicos etc... There should have been a financial limit to how much each family was allowed to get from the scheme and it should have been ensured it went to those who really needed it, and that it would only cover enough rice that it would not make markets collapse and lead to huge stockpiles. If there were too many people then some should have been denied but told the government would help them to change to another crop that was needed and would also help guarantee a certain level. It is a very delicate balancing act. Since the rice scam did not meet any of these criteria it was a 'poplulist' policy designed to buy votes and make certain people rich. So try to see through your lame rhetroric to the truth that underlies it some time...

[Sena Dave]

 

There is a large difference between populist policies that make the political parties popular and buy votes and policies that help the 'populous' that are necessary. This is a definition that Thai people generally seem not to understand as well as the brainwashed red fan boys on here. The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. This is why there are financial limits and 'means testing' in properly run countries. If it is necessary to the general every day running of the country and helps the economy then it is a necessary 'populous' policy however if it helps just a few people and is quite unnecessary then it is populist. Forgetting the rampant corruption for a moment, the rice scam could have been 'populous' if it had really helped the poor farmers and not the wealthy middle men and thieving politicos etc... There should have been a financial limit to how much each family was allowed to get from the scheme and it should have been ensured it went to those who really needed it, and that it would only cover enough rice that it would not make markets collapse and lead to huge stockpiles. If there were too many people then some should have been denied but told the government would help them to change to another crop that was needed and would also help guarantee a certain level. It is a very delicate balancing act. Since the rice scam did not meet any of these criteria it was a 'poplulist' policy designed to buy votes and make certain people rich. So try to see through your lame rhetroric to the truth that underlies it some time...

 

No means testing in my country for any health care , you can pay to jump the queue though. I think that free or very cheap health care is and essential "Populist" policy and any country attempting to be civilized should have . Even the US managed it this year to a chorus of kicking and screaming from the "Populist Policy" accusers. Usually if a policy like the Rice Scheme is such a disaster the political party who initiated it would be in the political wilderness for a decade or Two , but perhaps with the political clock going back to Year Zero yet again they will remorph into something electable again

[Benmart]

Summary: long article...nothing will change except maybe on the very surface (i.e., putting some lipstick on a pig)...below the surface, politics as normal.

I've yet to meet someone that can foretell the future. Guess perhaps. But then that's what I do on the stock market.

[Thai at Heart]

I could be wrong but I believe 96 is being somewhat satirical, at least, I hope so.

Perhaps I'm being more realistic than satirical. Populism can be both good and bad. Given the present unique circumstances in Thailand who will be deciding which is which? Take a wild guess.

Bad populism in some advanced democracies gives an individual's right of free speech to corporate money, (Buckley v. Valeo) (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), (Davis v. Federal Election Commission). This type of corporate populism may have led to unrestrained K-street lobbying and to the repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act which resulted in almost bringing the entire world's economy to a standstill.

It is uniquely Thai that there are certain topics even Thai people will not discuss privately among themselves. Foreigners living here need to follow their example and also follow the trail of names leading from the CPT to TRT and later PTP to gain some understanding of what "damage to the country" is perceived as in the circles where it matters the most.

Populism in the Thai context is the 30 baht health scheme (excellent change), the village fund(largely terrible), rice (complete mess) and the such.

But who the hell is going to balance the value of these policies and veto them up front? What is the point of a govt if it can be vetoed. There are thousands of good and bad populist ideas ranging from free public libraries all the way to nationalised health care, and the idea that somehow it can be vetoed is ridiculous. Debate it all you like, but ideology is always contradictory to the extent that in teh UK you have conservative polioticians who eulogise over the NHS whilst right wing americans loathe the idea. So who decides what is populistic and valuable, or populistic and damaging? Its arbitrary and impossible

They may as well ban left wing politicians. Now I can think of a few that might need a good ban, but with the Gini coefficienct as it is in Thailnad, with no cogent tax policy yet, a collapsing education system and the such, I think Thailand needs a good dose of social democrat politics in the next few decades.

[Thai at Heart]

There is a large difference between populist policies that make the political parties popular and buy votes and policies that help the 'populous' that are necessary. This is a definition that Thai people generally seem not to understand as well as the brainwashed red fan boys on here. The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. This is why there are financial limits and 'means testing' in properly run countries. If it is necessary to the general every day running of the country and helps the economy then it is a necessary 'populous' policy however if it helps just a few people and is quite unnecessary then it is populist. Forgetting the rampant corruption for a moment, the rice scam could have been 'populous' if it had really helped the poor farmers and not the wealthy middle men and thieving politicos etc... There should have been a financial limit to how much each family was allowed to get from the scheme and it should have been ensured it went to those who really needed it, and that it would only cover enough rice that it would not make markets collapse and lead to huge stockpiles. If there were too many people then some should have been denied but told the government would help them to change to another crop that was needed and would also help guarantee a certain level. It is a very delicate balancing act. Since the rice scam did not meet any of these criteria it was a 'poplulist' policy designed to buy votes and make certain people rich. So try to see through your lame rhetroric to the truth that underlies it some time...

Once again an impossible description. They just dropped corporate taxes in Thailand. Tax take went down and it benefitted whow? Owners.

So, the rice policy itself in your opinion was a good idea badly implemented. That is one of 1000 ranges of points of view. Some will say it was completely useless and others will say it was fabulous. Who decides?

They just gave the civil service an 8% pay rise. BLATENT VOTE BUYING that is.

[jope]

 

There is a large difference between populist policies that make the political parties popular and buy votes and policies that help the 'populous' that are necessary. This is a definition that Thai people generally seem not to understand as well as the brainwashed red fan boys on here. The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. This is why there are financial limits and 'means testing' in properly run countries. If it is necessary to the general every day running of the country and helps the economy then it is a necessary 'populous' policy however if it helps just a few people and is quite unnecessary then it is populist. Forgetting the rampant corruption for a moment, the rice scam could have been 'populous' if it had really helped the poor farmers and not the wealthy middle men and thieving politicos etc... There should have been a financial limit to how much each family was allowed to get from the scheme and it should have been ensured it went to those who really needed it, and that it would only cover enough rice that it would not make markets collapse and lead to huge stockpiles. If there were too many people then some should have been denied but told the government would help them to change to another crop that was needed and would also help guarantee a certain level. It is a very delicate balancing act. Since the rice scam did not meet any of these criteria it was a 'poplulist' policy designed to buy votes and make certain people rich. So try to see through your lame rhetroric to the truth that underlies it some time...

 

No means testing in my country for any health care , you can pay to jump the queue though. I think that free or very cheap health care is and essential "Populist" policy and any country attempting to be civilized should have . Even the US managed it this year to a chorus of kicking and screaming from the "Populist Policy" accusers. Usually if a policy like the Rice Scheme is such a disaster the political party who initiated it would be in the political wilderness for a decade or Two , but perhaps with the political clock going back to Year Zero yet again they will remorph into something electable again

Could not agree more: affordable health care is essential and I am so glad that other people may assess that need as "somewhere in the middle". Thank you so much!

But at least this example shows that there is no absolute definition of "populist-vote-buying" or "populist-necessary" or "populist-but-we-let-this-one-slide", it will always depend on personal views and preferences. In Thailand that means it will depend on the views of a few very rich people and a party that has never won and will never win an election. This whole "populist policies"-discussion is just the first step to establish the perfect instrument to abolish anything that is not to the liking of those who have not been elected. That is bad enough but what really irritates is that even people on TVF still dare to call it democracy.

[tingtongteesood]

 

There is a large difference between populist policies that make the political parties popular and buy votes and policies that help the 'populous' that are necessary. This is a definition that Thai people generally seem not to understand as well as the brainwashed red fan boys on here. The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. This is why there are financial limits and 'means testing' in properly run countries. If it is necessary to the general every day running of the country and helps the economy then it is a necessary 'populous' policy however if it helps just a few people and is quite unnecessary then it is populist. Forgetting the rampant corruption for a moment, the rice scam could have been 'populous' if it had really helped the poor farmers and not the wealthy middle men and thieving politicos etc... There should have been a financial limit to how much each family was allowed to get from the scheme and it should have been ensured it went to those who really needed it, and that it would only cover enough rice that it would not make markets collapse and lead to huge stockpiles. If there were too many people then some should have been denied but told the government would help them to change to another crop that was needed and would also help guarantee a certain level. It is a very delicate balancing act. Since the rice scam did not meet any of these criteria it was a 'poplulist' policy designed to buy votes and make certain people rich. So try to see through your lame rhetroric to the truth that underlies it some time...

 

No means testing in my country for any health care , you can pay to jump the queue though. I think that free or very cheap health care is and essential "Populist" policy and any country attempting to be civilized should have . Even the US managed it this year to a chorus of kicking and screaming from the "Populist Policy" accusers. Usually if a policy like the Rice Scheme is such a disaster the political party who initiated it would be in the political wilderness for a decade or Two , but perhaps with the political clock going back to Year Zero yet again they will remorph into something electable again

Could not agree more: affordable health care is essential and I am so glad that other people may assess that need as "somewhere in the middle". Thank you so much!

But at least this example shows that there is no absolute definition of "populist-vote-buying" or "populist-necessary" or "populist-but-we-let-this-one-slide", it will always depend on personal views and preferences. In Thailand that means it will depend on the views of a few very rich people and a party that has never won and will never win an election. This whole "populist policies"-discussion is just the first step to establish the perfect instrument to abolish anything that is not to the liking of those who have not been elected. That is bad enough but what really irritates is that even people on TVF still dare to call it democracy.

If you think 'Obamacare' is 'affordable', I think you need to see a psychiatrist immediately !

Alright mr. persnickety, let's set a benchmark, if it will help over 50% of the people then it is populous, if it will help a group smaller than 50% then it is populist. Happy now ? But again you need to measure it, does a millionaire need the 30 baht health scheme ? Nope. Your assets should be examined and if you can afford the bills you get no help. That is what most countries do. Fair enough.

And by the way, I have never called anything in Thailand 'democratic' and have stated quite openly and bluntly many times 'Thailand has never had a bloody democracy !' It has had theocracy, plutocracy etc. and people say 'democracy' to cover it over, it has never existed here....

[Sena Dave]

"does a millionaire need the 30 baht health scheme ? Nope. Your assets should be examined and if you can afford the bills you get no help. That is what most countries do. Fair enough."

No I don't agree with that at all . Everyone gets the same standard of care to start with or at least the opportunity for free heath care at the point of delivery. If they are them diagnosed with something they feel can be treated privately , faster or more efficiently or comfortably or pay to get onto new expensive therapy then so be it.

The sticking point is the quality of the "National" health care to start with, which the UKs armed forces will tell you ,costs quite a lot , hence their demise in the last 70 years

[jope]

 

There is a large difference between populist policies that make the political parties popular and buy votes and policies that help the 'populous' that are necessary. This is a definition that Thai people generally seem not to understand as well as the brainwashed red fan boys on here. The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. This is why there are financial limits and 'means testing' in properly run countries. If it is necessary to the general every day running of the country and helps the economy then it is a necessary 'populous' policy however if it helps just a few people and is quite unnecessary then it is populist. Forgetting the rampant corruption for a moment, the rice scam could have been 'populous' if it had really helped the poor farmers and not the wealthy middle men and thieving politicos etc... There should have been a financial limit to how much each family was allowed to get from the scheme and it should have been ensured it went to those who really needed it, and that it would only cover enough rice that it would not make markets collapse and lead to huge stockpiles. If there were too many people then some should have been denied but told the government would help them to change to another crop that was needed and would also help guarantee a certain level. It is a very delicate balancing act. Since the rice scam did not meet any of these criteria it was a 'poplulist' policy designed to buy votes and make certain people rich. So try to see through your lame rhetroric to the truth that underlies it some time...

 

No means testing in my country for any health care , you can pay to jump the queue though. I think that free or very cheap health care is and essential "Populist" policy and any country attempting to be civilized should have . Even the US managed it this year to a chorus of kicking and screaming from the "Populist Policy" accusers. Usually if a policy like the Rice Scheme is such a disaster the political party who initiated it would be in the political wilderness for a decade or Two , but perhaps with the political clock going back to Year Zero yet again they will remorph into something electable again

Could not agree more: affordable health care is essential and I am so glad that other people may assess that need as "somewhere in the middle". Thank you so much!

But at least this example shows that there is no absolute definition of "populist-vote-buying" or "populist-necessary" or "populist-but-we-let-this-one-slide", it will always depend on personal views and preferences. In Thailand that means it will depend on the views of a few very rich people and a party that has never won and will never win an election. This whole "populist policies"-discussion is just the first step to establish the perfect instrument to abolish anything that is not to the liking of those who have not been elected. That is bad enough but what really irritates is that even people on TVF still dare to call it democracy.

If you think 'Obamacare' is 'affordable', I think you need to see a psychiatrist immediately !

Alright mr. persnickety, let's set a benchmark, if it will help over 50% of the people then it is populous, if it will help a group smaller than 50% then it is populist. Happy now ? But again you need to measure it, does a millionaire need the 30 baht health scheme ? Nope. Your assets should be examined and if you can afford the bills you get no help. That is what most countries do. Fair enough.

And by the way, I have never called anything in Thailand 'democratic' and have stated quite openly and bluntly many times 'Thailand has never had a bloody democracy !' It has had theocracy, plutocracy etc. and people say 'democracy' to cover it over, it has never existed here....

My last sentence was a more general remark and not referring to you personally (sorry for the misunderstanding, mea culpa!).

Otherwise, I stick to my point that there is no absolute definition of "populist" and that any instrument to determine a policy as such will only be used to overrule the unwanted elected majority in parliament (if there will ever be an elected parliament again).

[Maggusoil]

How about educating the voters, who may one day vote in another election, to recognise rhetoric and populism!

No.

Maybe not.

Too hard.

[GarryP]

Is universal healthcare populist? Is it bad? The waters are so murky.

[trogers]

Resources of a nation is limited and have to be put to effective use.

State assistance needs to be limited to the deserving poor.

Education and medical services should only be subsidised, and not free. The children of the poor who excel in their studies can earn scholarships to max their potential. They are the deserving poor.

The genuine poor who are struggling to earn a living, or are handicapped or aged and alone, can be issued social welfare ID cards to qualify for further state assistance.

[Balance]

What happened to peace and harmony and the return to Democracy? This retreat to the 1800's appears to be a circuitous path.

[FangFerang]

"The Democrat Party, however, supported restraining populist policies." Under this definition of populist, any policy that creates a better well-being for the majority population of Thailand is under the gun.

Big surprise. They can't win elections because they do nothing for the majority, and which does not live in Bangkok.

I'm underwhelmed. I'm unshocked, unamazed and unsurprised. And I am utterly unconvinced this is anything less than a gerrymandering of power, the second in two weeks. The last one, the protest ;law, made it so only people in Bangkok can protest in Bangkok -- kind of a 9-5 thing, which means no one from the provinces can do more than stop in, complain, and go home (before the international media notices them)..

How Stalinist altogether.

[FangFerang]

There is a large difference between populist policies that make the political parties popular and buy votes and policies that help the 'populous' that are necessary. This is a definition that Thai people generally seem not to understand as well as the brainwashed red fan boys on here. The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. This is why there are financial limits and 'means testing' in properly run countries. If it is necessary to the general every day running of the country and helps the economy then it is a necessary 'populous' policy however if it helps just a few people and is quite unnecessary then it is populist. Forgetting the rampant corruption for a moment, the rice scam could have been 'populous' if it had really helped the poor farmers and not the wealthy middle men and thieving politicos etc... There should have been a financial limit to how much each family was allowed to get from the scheme and it should have been ensured it went to those who really needed it, and that it would only cover enough rice that it would not make markets collapse and lead to huge stockpiles. If there were too many people then some should have been denied but told the government would help them to change to another crop that was needed and would also help guarantee a certain level. It is a very delicate balancing act. Since the rice scam did not meet any of these criteria it was a 'poplulist' policy designed to buy votes and make certain people rich. So try to see through your lame rhetroric to the truth that underlies it some time...

"The 30 baht scheme lays somewhere in the middle as it helps some people but isn't really necessary to a lot of people. " What rubbish. Before the 30 baht scheme, doctors could (and did) extort money from families nationwide. A woman had breast cancer, they profiled their assets, and then engineered how much the family could pay for Mummy to survive before setting a price for treatment. Do you even know any Thais that are older than ten?

It would have been honest to say "The 30 baht scheme was critical for many people, but not important for the well-heeled"

I cannot be kind about this. You showed a total ignorance of recent Thai history, rejected all the past woes of many thousands of families, and then capped it by claiming that only red-sympathizers favored such policies.

To me, this is the crux of yellow belly sympathizers -- the red side says the yellows have a different opinion, the yellows say the red side is "brainwashed", "uninformed" and obviously infantile in their analysis. Cowards -- you never site a single exception, you drift around the topic, make accusations, and move on. Cowards!

Everyone can see what weapons each side wields...the yellow bellies get a -99, and a laugh for being obvious every time. In a debate club, not one yellow belly could hold his own for more than three minutes -- and you know it..

Most people do not align with either side, and we reserve the right to criticize both sides for their stupidities. If you don't like that, obviously, you do not,,maybe try Russian or Chinese -- stay away from English. -- It discourages such group-thinking,, narrow minded appraisals altogether and is a great gift to humankind from Merry Old England..

[jcisco]

The Junta, the NACC and EC need to focus on reforming the process only and the enforcement of the laws. Their is no way in hell that a parties policies should be vetoed by a higher group. Have to agree fully with the scholars and Pheu Thai politicians on that one.

So, no version of the Supreme court, your saying the highest court in the Kingdom, if a question is asked, cannot answer if it is a veto to the sitting governments.

Thats a radical approach having an organization so important to a country, be beyond the law.

Where are you drawing this line on policies, pre-election ????