No populism in govt priorities: Narongchai

[Lite Beer]

No populism in govt priorities: Narongchai
Watcharapong Thongrung
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Focus on establishment of national security and tackling issues that damaged the state's revenues

The government is focusing on ensuring the country's security and ending populist policies that have brought damage to the economic system, while the overall energy-price system will be revised with an initial rise in the Bt30 per litre price of diesel, the energy minister said yesterday.

Speaking at a seminar on economic policy during the period of reconciliation and investment reform, Narongchai Akrasanee said the government, in which the military played a significant policy-making role, was focused on the establishment of national security over wealth creation in terms of its priorities, while the private sector was committed to the latter goal first.

He explained that at the beginning of the new government's term, it was mostly tackling issues that had damaged the state's revenues, prior to revising the energy-price structure.

Thailand has been faced with distortions of the energy-price structure for a long time, he added.

Given the current highly inefficient use of energy, the government will have to rush implementation of projects related to the transportation infrastructure, the minister said, adding that the country had not yet had full execution on the supply side, given years of price intervention under previous administrations.

Narongchai said the government would promote technology for energy-saving and efficient energy use, while the distribution and allocation of resources would have to be fair and worthwhile.

The government will not set populist policies that could bring further damage and increase public debt and the burden on the state, he stressed.

Without the populist policies for energy, rice and rubber, the government will, instead, provide assistance to those affected by such policy changes, he said.

Following the appointment of the Energy Policy Administration Committee, the first item on the agenda is the restructuring of energy prices, Narongchai said.

Contrary to the policy decisions taken by previous governments, there will be no populist measure sustaining the price of diesel at Bt30 per litre. Adjusting fuel prices requires appropriateness and equality in order to achieve the right balance, he explained.

The current energy-price structure is not a proper one, as the prices did not come from principles which required adjustments, Narongchai said. Details will be discussed by the new policy committee, possibly early next month.

Asian tourists demand weekend destinations where that they can find great food, go shopping and have a beauty make-over, as well as having medical treatment, according to the TAT.

The TAT has set a revenue target of Bt2.2 trillion from tourism this year, as it promotes Thailand as a weekend destination for Asean tourists, said Kobkarn.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/No-populism-in-govt-priorities-Narongchai-30244226.html

-- The Nation 2014-09-27

[chainarong]

What you are saying is that you won't introduce unpopular policies that see's the population revolt against you, regardless of who is in power, remember the last days of the last permanent Junta, no one is immune to people power , not even the Thai military.

[worgeordie]

They don't need to have populist policies,as they don't need votes,

but as soon as the politicians crawl out from where they have been,

they use populist policies to buy votes without using their own money.

regards Worgeordie

[Krataiboy]

What you are saying is that you won't introduce unpopular policies that see's the population revolt against you, regardless of who is in power, remember the last days of the last permanent Junta, no one is immune to people power , not even the Thai military.

How can pushing up the price of diesel not be unpopular? Never mind the effect on private motorists - just think of the inflation which is bound to follow when the increased transport costs are passed on to the consumer via higher prices on buses, trains etc and in the shops and supermarkets.

One can only feel for plight of the mass of poor people in Thailand already struggling to survive without a welfare safety net. It would be helpful to be told how the airy assurance of "assistance" for those hardest hit by the change of policy will be translated into reality.

If these prove to be empty words, the junta is unlikely to remain as popular as the mass media would have us believe.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Krataiboy

[ChrisY1]

They don't need to have populist policies,as they don't need votes,

but as soon as the politicians crawl out from where they have been,

they use populist policies to buy votes without using their own money.

regards Worgeordie

Correct.......most countries do the same......

[tbthailand]

imo we are now seeing the influence of the elite families in Thailand coming into focus. from watching the protests that led to the 'intervention' it is clear that the current junta / government was formed through a marriage of the generals and the richest families in Thailand.

also imo, these royalist families did not just hate Thaksin for his position in opposition to these other elite families, they also hated his populist policies - not necessarily because they are bad for the Thai people, but because these royalist elites look down on most of their fellow citizens.

after the last 'intervention' in 2006, the junta did not dare touch programs like the healthcare program. This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed.

Where the junta appears to want to take Thai politics 50 years back in time, it would appear that the royalist elites would like to do the same with the Thai social structures.

[heybruce]

"The TAT has set a revenue target of Bt2.2 trillion from tourism this year, as it promotes Thailand as a weekend destination for Asean tourists, said Kobkarn."

Yeah, who needs tourists from the Americas and Europe, the ones who have this unreasonable prejudice against military governments and martial law. We all know the big spenders come from ASEAN countries--Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.

[rubl]

imo we are now seeing the influence of the elite families in Thailand coming into focus. from watching the protests that led to the 'intervention' it is clear that the current junta / government was formed through a marriage of the generals and the richest families in Thailand.

also imo, these royalist families did not just hate Thaksin for his position in opposition to these other elite families, they also hated his populist policies - not necessarily because they are bad for the Thai people, but because these royalist elites look down on most of their fellow citizens.

after the last 'intervention' in 2006, the junta did not dare touch programs like the healthcare program. This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed.

Where the junta appears to want to take Thai politics 50 years back in time, it would appear that the royalist elites would like to do the same with the Thai social structures.

If 'your' cause needs lies and unfounded rumours you've lost already.

The NLA is more than likely to scrap the 30 Baht for the Health scheme. PM Surayut scrapped it in 2007 as it cost 70 - 80 Baht to administer. The Yingluck govenment re-instated the 30 Baht because in their pre election promise "30 Baht health scheme" sounded good with unhidden suggestions to Thaksin having given that gift to the Thai population even if he left it underfunded and all work was prepared by the previous Chuan government. By now the 30 Baht scheme might cost 100 Baht to administer.

[rubl]

"The TAT has set a revenue target of Bt2.2 trillion from tourism this year, as it promotes Thailand as a weekend destination for Asean tourists, said Kobkarn."

Yeah, who needs tourists from the Americas and Europe, the ones who have this unreasonable prejudice against military governments and martial law. We all know the big spenders come from ASEAN countries--Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.

Oh come on Brucy. Even under the previous administration the TAT would regularly come with ad-hoc focus on any part of the world. If there's something which surprised me it's the lack of focus on 'aliens'. I mean obviously if you're able to make a few lightyear journey you must be loaded

[tbthailand]

imo we are now seeing the influence of the elite families in Thailand coming into focus. from watching the protests that led to the 'intervention' it is clear that the current junta / government was formed through a marriage of the generals and the richest families in Thailand.

also imo, these royalist families did not just hate Thaksin for his position in opposition to these other elite families, they also hated his populist policies - not necessarily because they are bad for the Thai people, but because these royalist elites look down on most of their fellow citizens.

after the last 'intervention' in 2006, the junta did not dare touch programs like the healthcare program. This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed.

Where the junta appears to want to take Thai politics 50 years back in time, it would appear that the royalist elites would like to do the same with the Thai social structures.

If 'your' cause needs lies and unfounded rumours you've lost already.

The NLA is more than likely to scrap the 30 Baht for the Health scheme. PM Surayut scrapped it in 2007 as it cost 70 - 80 Baht to administer. The Yingluck govenment re-instated the 30 Baht because in their pre election promise "30 Baht health scheme" sounded good with unhidden suggestions to Thaksin having given that gift to the Thai population even if he left it underfunded and all work was prepared by the previous Chuan government. By now the 30 Baht scheme might cost 100 Baht to administer.

what ARE you talking about? lies and unfounded rumours? and then you go off on this little prancing dance with the 30 bhat program? I said the plan was left in place after the 2006 'intervention' and it was - for brevity and because it is irrelevant, I did not add the details of dropping and adding the 30 bhat co-pay. (and what every you and others think, administering a visit costs the same whether you collect 30 Bhat or not).

so give it up with your trolling posts and your claims that are not at all in my posts. Heck, it would be appreciated if you would actually try once in a while to ADD something to the topic besides trolling posts and "let's get back to the OP" comments.

[rubl]

imo we are now seeing the influence of the elite families in Thailand coming into focus. from watching the protests that led to the 'intervention' it is clear that the current junta / government was formed through a marriage of the generals and the richest families in Thailand.

also imo, these royalist families did not just hate Thaksin for his position in opposition to these other elite families, they also hated his populist policies - not necessarily because they are bad for the Thai people, but because these royalist elites look down on most of their fellow citizens.

after the last 'intervention' in 2006, the junta did not dare touch programs like the healthcare program. This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed.

Where the junta appears to want to take Thai politics 50 years back in time, it would appear that the royalist elites would like to do the same with the Thai social structures.

If 'your' cause needs lies and unfounded rumours you've lost already.

The NLA is more than likely to scrap the 30 Baht for the Health scheme. PM Surayut scrapped it in 2007 as it cost 70 - 80 Baht to administer. The Yingluck govenment re-instated the 30 Baht because in their pre election promise "30 Baht health scheme" sounded good with unhidden suggestions to Thaksin having given that gift to the Thai population even if he left it underfunded and all work was prepared by the previous Chuan government. By now the 30 Baht scheme might cost 100 Baht to administer.

what ARE you talking about? lies and unfounded rumours? and then you go off on this little prancing dance with the 30 bhat program? I said the plan was left in place after the 2006 'intervention' and it was - for brevity and because it is irrelevant, I did not add the details of dropping and adding the 30 bhat co-pay. (and what every you and others think, administering a visit costs the same whether you collect 30 Bhat or not).

so give it up with your trolling posts and your claims that are not at all in my posts. Heck, it would be appreciated if you would actually try once in a while to ADD something to the topic besides trolling posts and "let's get back to the OP" comments.

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped" and I said that's a rumour you just started.

If something in relation to the Heathcare Scheme looks to be scrapped it will be the '30 Baht' payment as it takes about three times as much to simply administer it. The PM Surayut government scrapped the '30 Baht', the Yingluck government re-instated it because it had a nice sound to it without bothering about economics. Under the Yingluck government it was even suggested that the '30 Baht' would help improve the 'service level' of the Heath scheme, imagine.

So, stop zigzagging, stop trolling and stop coming with new rumours.

Greetings,

Lord Rubl

Edited September 27, 2014 by rubl

[tbthailand]

imo we are now seeing the influence of the elite families in Thailand coming into focus. from watching the protests that led to the 'intervention' it is clear that the current junta / government was formed through a marriage of the generals and the richest families in Thailand.

also imo, these royalist families did not just hate Thaksin for his position in opposition to these other elite families, they also hated his populist policies - not necessarily because they are bad for the Thai people, but because these royalist elites look down on most of their fellow citizens.

after the last 'intervention' in 2006, the junta did not dare touch programs like the healthcare program. This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed.

Where the junta appears to want to take Thai politics 50 years back in time, it would appear that the royalist elites would like to do the same with the Thai social structures.

If 'your' cause needs lies and unfounded rumours you've lost already.

The NLA is more than likely to scrap the 30 Baht for the Health scheme. PM Surayut scrapped it in 2007 as it cost 70 - 80 Baht to administer. The Yingluck govenment re-instated the 30 Baht because in their pre election promise "30 Baht health scheme" sounded good with unhidden suggestions to Thaksin having given that gift to the Thai population even if he left it underfunded and all work was prepared by the previous Chuan government. By now the 30 Baht scheme might cost 100 Baht to administer.

what ARE you talking about? lies and unfounded rumours? and then you go off on this little prancing dance with the 30 bhat program? I said the plan was left in place after the 2006 'intervention' and it was - for brevity and because it is irrelevant, I did not add the details of dropping and adding the 30 bhat co-pay. (and what every you and others think, administering a visit costs the same whether you collect 30 Bhat or not).

so give it up with your trolling posts and your claims that are not at all in my posts. Heck, it would be appreciated if you would actually try once in a while to ADD something to the topic besides trolling posts and "let's get back to the OP" comments.

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped" and I said that a rumour you just started.

If something in relation to the Heathcare Scheme looks to be scrapped it will be the '30 Baht' payment as it takes about three times as much to simply administer it. The PM Surayut government scrapped the '30 Baht', the Yingluck government re-instated it because it had a nice sound to it without bothering about economics. Under the Yingluck government it was even suggested that the '30 Baht' would help improve the 'service level' of the Heath scheme, imagine.

So, stop zigzagging, stop trolling and stop coming with new rumours.

Greetings,

Lord Rubl

allow me to make this brief: you are wrong.

there have been reports of proposals to make the healthcare system a co-pay of 30-40 percent of the costs

That is not a rumor I started, not is it the 'scrapping' of the 30 bhat co-pay.

[heybruce]

"The TAT has set a revenue target of Bt2.2 trillion from tourism this year, as it promotes Thailand as a weekend destination for Asean tourists, said Kobkarn."

Yeah, who needs tourists from the Americas and Europe, the ones who have this unreasonable prejudice against military governments and martial law. We all know the big spenders come from ASEAN countries--Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.

Oh come on Brucy. Even under the previous administration the TAT would regularly come with ad-hoc focus on any part of the world. If there's something which surprised me it's the lack of focus on 'aliens'. I mean obviously if you're able to make a few lightyear journey you must be loaded

Is this an "ad-hoc focus" or a desperate clutching at straws?

People who travel from the Americas and Europe tend to stay longer than a weekend and spend more than the typical ASEAN tourist, but these are the ones most likely to be put off by military rule and martial law. The current low season has been lower than usual, and I don't recall any hopeful news stories about the coming high season. If you know anyone in the hotel business you can ask them how many reservations have been made for the next few months, odds are they're down significantly from past years.

Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy, and tourism will continue to suffer. That means a lot of Thai people will suffer. I suppose they can take solace in the thought that the government won't engage in populist spending.

[rubl]

"The TAT has set a revenue target of Bt2.2 trillion from tourism this year, as it promotes Thailand as a weekend destination for Asean tourists, said Kobkarn."

Yeah, who needs tourists from the Americas and Europe, the ones who have this unreasonable prejudice against military governments and martial law. We all know the big spenders come from ASEAN countries--Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.

Oh come on Brucy. Even under the previous administration the TAT would regularly come with ad-hoc focus on any part of the world. If there's something which surprised me it's the lack of focus on 'aliens'. I mean obviously if you're able to make a few lightyear journey you must be loaded

Is this an "ad-hoc focus" or a desperate clutching at straws?

People who travel from the Americas and Europe tend to stay longer than a weekend and spend more than the typical ASEAN tourist, but these are the ones most likely to be put off by military rule and martial law. The current low season has been lower than usual, and I don't recall any hopeful news stories about the coming high season. If you know anyone in the hotel business you can ask them how many reservations have been made for the next few months, odds are they're down significantly from past years.

Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy, and tourism will continue to suffer. That means a lot of Thai people will suffer. I suppose they can take solace in the thought that the government won't engage in populist spending.

Even Ms. Yingluck advised the TAT to focus on 'quality tourists' rather than numbers. I don't think she had Western backpackers in mind though.

BTW tourism is always quoted as something like less than 10% of the Thai economy. That would mean it's an interesting chunk, but certainly not "a large part".

[rubl]

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped" and I said that a rumour you just started.

If something in relation to the Heathcare Scheme looks to be scrapped it will be the '30 Baht' payment as it takes about three times as much to simply administer it. The PM Surayut government scrapped the '30 Baht', the Yingluck government re-instated it because it had a nice sound to it without bothering about economics. Under the Yingluck government it was even suggested that the '30 Baht' would help improve the 'service level' of the Heath scheme, imagine.

So, stop zigzagging, stop trolling and stop coming with new rumours.

Greetings,

Lord Rubl

allow me to make this brief: you are wrong.

there have been reports of proposals to make the healthcare system a co-pay of 30-40 percent of the costs

That is not a rumor I started, not is it the 'scrapping' of the 30 bhat co-pay.

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed."

I replied that's incorrect, saying I would not be surprised if the 30 Baht may get scrapped.

Now if you had written less suggestive, but more objective you would have written "plan reformed and/or added to". Like in

http://en.nationalhealth.or.th/node/370

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737368-new-health-fund-will-be-proposed-to-ncpo-to-support-emergency-patients/

http://suchons.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/regime-gives-nod-to-health-reform-plan/

[tbthailand]

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped" and I said that a rumour you just started.

If something in relation to the Heathcare Scheme looks to be scrapped it will be the '30 Baht' payment as it takes about three times as much to simply administer it. The PM Surayut government scrapped the '30 Baht', the Yingluck government re-instated it because it had a nice sound to it without bothering about economics. Under the Yingluck government it was even suggested that the '30 Baht' would help improve the 'service level' of the Heath scheme, imagine.

So, stop zigzagging, stop trolling and stop coming with new rumours.

Greetings,

Lord Rubl

allow me to make this brief: you are wrong.

there have been reports of proposals to make the healthcare system a co-pay of 30-40 percent of the costs

That is not a rumor I started, not is it the 'scrapping' of the 30 bhat co-pay.

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed."

I replied that's incorrect, saying I would not be surprised if the 30 Baht may get scrapped.

Now if you had written less suggestive, but more objective you would have written "plan reformed and/or added to". Like in

http://en.nationalhealth.or.th/node/370

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737368-new-health-fund-will-be-proposed-to-ncpo-to-support-emergency-patients/

http://suchons.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/regime-gives-nod-to-health-reform-plan/

you may notice that your links do not actually address healthcare costs to the patient but just the changes in structure at a national and local level.

i mentioned costs and yes, I am correct that this has been discussed - just this summer - and let me quote from the Nation for you

"THERE HAS been talk for a while now that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) is planning to scrap the universal healthcare system - which offers free medical services to most Thais - in favour of a co-payment scheme.

Should this really happen, some 49 million Thais would be affected.

According to Nimit Tien-udom, a member of the National Health Security Commis-sion, it was recently proposed that people should start shouldering some 30 to 50 per cent of their medical costs."

along the same lines, the health secretary talked about this in mid-July

"Under the leadership of permanent secretary Narong Sahametapat, the Public Health Ministry floated the idea of having people "co-pay" 30-50% of the cost of healthcare services, saying the programme is unsustainable. "

There have also been reports about ending the rice subsidy, the General has told rubber producers to just grow a different crop, and now they are going to raise the cost of fuels.

So, lord rubl, I am not wrong about any of the statements.

[Thai at Heart]

They don't need to have populist policies,as they don't need votes,

but as soon as the politicians crawl out from where they have been,

they use populist policies to buy votes without using their own money.

regards Worgeordie

Define populist?

It is just a very loose definition to cover anything that the rich don't like.

I reckon 50% on income tax, 20% VAT, a 10k per month pension for the aged, and cheap loans to all farmers for equipment and fertilisers? A per rai fee to STOP growing rice.

Any takers, Didn't think so. That sounds too much like the European Cap system.

Too populist for most obviously.

[rubl]

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped" and I said that a rumour you just started.

If something in relation to the Heathcare Scheme looks to be scrapped it will be the '30 Baht' payment as it takes about three times as much to simply administer it. The PM Surayut government scrapped the '30 Baht', the Yingluck government re-instated it because it had a nice sound to it without bothering about economics. Under the Yingluck government it was even suggested that the '30 Baht' would help improve the 'service level' of the Heath scheme, imagine.

So, stop zigzagging, stop trolling and stop coming with new rumours.

Greetings,

Lord Rubl

allow me to make this brief: you are wrong.

there have been reports of proposals to make the healthcare system a co-pay of 30-40 percent of the costs

That is not a rumor I started, not is it the 'scrapping' of the 30 bhat co-pay.

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed."

I replied that's incorrect, saying I would not be surprised if the 30 Baht may get scrapped.

Now if you had written less suggestive, but more objective you would have written "plan reformed and/or added to". Like in

http://en.nationalhealth.or.th/node/370

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737368-new-health-fund-will-be-proposed-to-ncpo-to-support-emergency-patients/

http://suchons.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/regime-gives-nod-to-health-reform-plan/

you may notice that your links do not actually address healthcare costs to the patient but just the changes in structure at a national and local level.

i mentioned costs and yes, I am correct that this has been discussed - just this summer - and let me quote from the Nation for you

"THERE HAS been talk for a while now that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) is planning to scrap the universal healthcare system - which offers free medical services to most Thais - in favour of a co-payment scheme.

Should this really happen, some 49 million Thais would be affected.

According to Nimit Tien-udom, a member of the National Health Security Commis-sion, it was recently proposed that people should start shouldering some 30 to 50 per cent of their medical costs."

along the same lines, the health secretary talked about this in mid-July

"Under the leadership of permanent secretary Narong Sahametapat, the Public Health Ministry floated the idea of having people "co-pay" 30-50% of the cost of healthcare services, saying the programme is unsustainable. "

There have also been reports about ending the rice subsidy, the General has told rubber producers to just grow a different crop, and now they are going to raise the cost of fuels.

So, lord rubl, I am not wrong about any of the statements.

My dear fellow, there is a difference between your "that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed." which somehow suggest only with extra 'strengthening' this suggestion by following up with "... getting axed".

Since then PM Thaksin introduced the Heathcare Scheme it has been underfunded. This means that either hospitals lose or offer less service or both. That means common people lose. Especially since a lot of hospitals start catering to 'paying guests only' common people and especially those without a choice really lose.

The Yingluck government ignored problems, or just put bigger plasters on open wounds and talked a lot of course. The re-introduction of the 30 Baht would help improve service they said, imagine.

Now there are ideas floating, but now of them seem to indicate a scrapping of Heathcare.

The dropping of the RPPS (700++ billion Baht still be be paid back to BAAC over seven years) seems a good step. The rubber subsidy (based on price guaranty, payable to farmers directly) seems a better scheme. Lots of rubber farmers disagree because the price guaranteed is too low according to them.

So, none of this seems really populist as also mentioned in the OP.

Greetings,

Colonel the Lord Rubl, Dupe

Edited September 27, 2014 by rubl

[Emptyset]

imo we are now seeing the influence of the elite families in Thailand coming into focus. from watching the protests that led to the 'intervention' it is clear that the current junta / government was formed through a marriage of the generals and the richest families in Thailand.

also imo, these royalist families did not just hate Thaksin for his position in opposition to these other elite families, they also hated his populist policies - not necessarily because they are bad for the Thai people, but because these royalist elites look down on most of their fellow citizens.

after the last 'intervention' in 2006, the junta did not dare touch programs like the healthcare program. This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed.

Where the junta appears to want to take Thai politics 50 years back in time, it would appear that the royalist elites would like to do the same with the Thai social structures.

If 'your' cause needs lies and unfounded rumours you've lost already.

The NLA is more than likely to scrap the 30 Baht for the Health scheme. PM Surayut scrapped it in 2007 as it cost 70 - 80 Baht to administer. The Yingluck govenment re-instated the 30 Baht because in their pre election promise "30 Baht health scheme" sounded good with unhidden suggestions to Thaksin having given that gift to the Thai population even if he left it underfunded and all work was prepared by the previous Chuan government. By now the 30 Baht scheme might cost 100 Baht to administer.

The 30 baht scheme was re-introduced by the Yingluck govt as voluntary I believe, making it up to individual hospitals to decide whether it was a cost-effective measure or not. I believe some collect the money, many don't. Also the scheme had little if anything to do with the Chuan government. Why do people on Thaivisa insist on repeating this myth when it's already been debunked on here several times?

As for "populism" - this government still requires a measure of support from the populace even if they're mostly reliant on the middle classes in Bangkok who aren't so dependent on "populist" schemes. But having already removed the rice subsidy, fuel subsidies could become an even bigger issue. Wouldn't be surprised if it's economics that sparks unrest rather than the junta's authoritarian cultural measures (people can generally live with things like that for a while - banning George Orwell & the Hunger Games salute, for instance, tends not to affect the lives of most people - but if they're already struggling to make ends meet and subsidies start being removed, they have nothing to lose... )

[tbthailand]

allow me to make this brief: you are wrong.

there have been reports of proposals to make the healthcare system a co-pay of 30-40 percent of the costs

That is not a rumor I started, not is it the 'scrapping' of the 30 bhat co-pay.

You wrote "This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed."

I replied that's incorrect, saying I would not be surprised if the 30 Baht may get scrapped.

Now if you had written less suggestive, but more objective you would have written "plan reformed and/or added to". Like in

http://en.nationalhealth.or.th/node/370

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737368-new-health-fund-will-be-proposed-to-ncpo-to-support-emergency-patients/

http://suchons.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/regime-gives-nod-to-health-reform-plan/

you may notice that your links do not actually address healthcare costs to the patient but just the changes in structure at a national and local level.

i mentioned costs and yes, I am correct that this has been discussed - just this summer - and let me quote from the Nation for you

"THERE HAS been talk for a while now that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) is planning to scrap the universal healthcare system - which offers free medical services to most Thais - in favour of a co-payment scheme.

Should this really happen, some 49 million Thais would be affected.

According to Nimit Tien-udom, a member of the National Health Security Commis-sion, it was recently proposed that people should start shouldering some 30 to 50 per cent of their medical costs."

along the same lines, the health secretary talked about this in mid-July

"Under the leadership of permanent secretary Narong Sahametapat, the Public Health Ministry floated the idea of having people "co-pay" 30-50% of the cost of healthcare services, saying the programme is unsustainable. "

There have also been reports about ending the rice subsidy, the General has told rubber producers to just grow a different crop, and now they are going to raise the cost of fuels.

So, lord rubl, I am not wrong about any of the statements.

My dear fellow, there is a difference between your "that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed." which somehow suggest only with extra 'strengthening' this suggestion by following up with "... getting axed".

Since then PM Thaksin introduced the Heathcare Scheme it has been underfunded. This means that either hospitals lose or offer less service or both. That means common people lose. Especially since a lot of hospitals start catering to 'paying guests only' common people and especially those without a choice really lose.

The Yingluck government ignored problems, or just put bigger plasters on open wounds and talked a lot of course. The re-introduction of the 30 Baht would help improve service they said, imagine.

Now there are ideas floating, but now of them seem to indicate a scrapping of Heathcare.

The dropping of the RPPS (700++ billion Baht still be be paid back to BAAC over seven years) seems a good step. The rubber subsidy (based on price guaranty, payable to farmers directly) seems a better scheme. Lots of rubber farmers disagree because the price guaranteed is too low according to them.

So, none of this seems really populist as also mentioned in the OP.

Greetings,

Colonel the Lord Rubl, Dupe

a lot of words strung together with some punctuation thrown in for good measure, rubl, but it looks like you did your best to avoid saying, 'OK, what you said was right after all, my mistake'

no problem.

dropping rice price supports may seem like a good idea to you, but the rice farmers probably feel differently. Same for the rubber producers. you have read the general's advice to rubber producers, haven't you? as for funding or not funding the healthcare system - that's a red herring but nice try. The people going to the hospital will understand the difference if/when the Elites push through their anti-populous agenda.

[mikemac]

@ Uncle Rubl - I cannot help but think all of these trolls you are messing with are the same person. Would not be surprised if they all had the same I.P. address !

[heybruce]

"The TAT has set a revenue target of Bt2.2 trillion from tourism this year, as it promotes Thailand as a weekend destination for Asean tourists, said Kobkarn."

Yeah, who needs tourists from the Americas and Europe, the ones who have this unreasonable prejudice against military governments and martial law. We all know the big spenders come from ASEAN countries--Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.

Oh come on Brucy. Even under the previous administration the TAT would regularly come with ad-hoc focus on any part of the world. If there's something which surprised me it's the lack of focus on 'aliens'. I mean obviously if you're able to make a few lightyear journey you must be loaded

Is this an "ad-hoc focus" or a desperate clutching at straws?

People who travel from the Americas and Europe tend to stay longer than a weekend and spend more than the typical ASEAN tourist, but these are the ones most likely to be put off by military rule and martial law. The current low season has been lower than usual, and I don't recall any hopeful news stories about the coming high season. If you know anyone in the hotel business you can ask them how many reservations have been made for the next few months, odds are they're down significantly from past years.

Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy, and tourism will continue to suffer. That means a lot of Thai people will suffer. I suppose they can take solace in the thought that the government won't engage in populist spending.

Even Ms. Yingluck advised the TAT to focus on 'quality tourists' rather than numbers. I don't think she had Western backpackers in mind though.

BTW tourism is always quoted as something like less than 10% of the Thai economy. That would mean it's an interesting chunk, but certainly not "a large part".

Why did you bring up backpackers? I was thinking of 'quality tourists', the kind every place wants to attract, and the kind that avoid military governments and martial law. Specifically, I was thinking of the November to February tourists that stay at hotels instead of guesthouses, eat without worrying about the bill and buy lots of souvenirs. They're the ones who don't want to holiday under martial law.

I've found estimates of tourism's share of GDP from 7% http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579301812514556496 to 20% http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/thailand-s-tourism-industry-a-victim-of-military-coup-1.1809510. I assume the 20% estimate includes the multiplier effect. Regardless, tourism is a labor intensive industry, meaning a disproportionate number of jobs depend on it. Perhaps you don't think it's important, but a great many small business owners and workers think it is.

[tbthailand]

Is this an "ad-hoc focus" or a desperate clutching at straws?

People who travel from the Americas and Europe tend to stay longer than a weekend and spend more than the typical ASEAN tourist, but these are the ones most likely to be put off by military rule and martial law. The current low season has been lower than usual, and I don't recall any hopeful news stories about the coming high season. If you know anyone in the hotel business you can ask them how many reservations have been made for the next few months, odds are they're down significantly from past years.

Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy, and tourism will continue to suffer. That means a lot of Thai people will suffer. I suppose they can take solace in the thought that the government won't engage in populist spending.

Even Ms. Yingluck advised the TAT to focus on 'quality tourists' rather than numbers. I don't think she had Western backpackers in mind though.

BTW tourism is always quoted as something like less than 10% of the Thai economy. That would mean it's an interesting chunk, but certainly not "a large part".

Why did you bring up backpackers? I was thinking of 'quality tourists', the kind every place wants to attract, and the kind that avoid military governments and martial law. Specifically, I was thinking of the November to February tourists that stay at hotels instead of guesthouses, eat without worrying about the bill and buy lots of souvenirs. They're the ones who don't want to holiday under martial law.

I've found estimates of tourism's share of GDP from 7% http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579301812514556496 to 20% http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/thailand-s-tourism-industry-a-victim-of-military-coup-1.1809510. I assume the 20% estimate includes the multiplier effect. Regardless, tourism is a labor intensive industry, meaning a disproportionate number of jobs depend on it. Perhaps you don't think it's important, but a great many small business owners and workers think it is.

your last point is exactly right. For many, many thai businesses, tourism is 100% of their business.

Take the lower number of 7% of the total economy and place that in a single economic activity like tourism and that is certainly a large part of the economy. I found the automotive industry was larger at 11%. Tourism, along with automotive, other manufacturing (which was at 8%) are all major contributors to Thailand's GDP.

'getting back to the OP' (ouch - sorry, could not resist!!), I found this quote from the worldbank page on Thailand - I think this is illuminating.

Poverty in Thailand is primarily a rural phenomenon, with 88% of the country's 5.4 million poor living in rural areas. Some regions—particularly the North and Northeast—and some ethnic groups lag greatly behind others, and the benefits of economic success have not been shared equally, especially between Bangkok, Thailand’s largest urban area, and the rest of the country. Income inequality and lack of equal opportunities have persisted. Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, has fallen in recent years, but stays consistently high above 0.45.

This is a very concise statement that illuminates the importance of "populous" policies, explains why they are so well received 'upcountry' (a term that I hate, but used here on TV a lot), and why, I think, that the new royalist/junta policies of anti-populism are going to be their un-doing.

If the royalist elites continue to disparage and economically mistreat their poorer countrymen, they do so at their own peril.

Just my opinion (that last one is for Sir Lord Uncle Ruble III Esq).

[rubl]

imo we are now seeing the influence of the elite families in Thailand coming into focus. from watching the protests that led to the 'intervention' it is clear that the current junta / government was formed through a marriage of the generals and the richest families in Thailand.

also imo, these royalist families did not just hate Thaksin for his position in opposition to these other elite families, they also hated his populist policies - not necessarily because they are bad for the Thai people, but because these royalist elites look down on most of their fellow citizens.

after the last 'intervention' in 2006, the junta did not dare touch programs like the healthcare program. This time, that program looks to get scrapped, anything that is a price support - normal in areas like agriculture in most countries - and transportation (mentioned here), are getting axed.

Where the junta appears to want to take Thai politics 50 years back in time, it would appear that the royalist elites would like to do the same with the Thai social structures.

If 'your' cause needs lies and unfounded rumours you've lost already.

The NLA is more than likely to scrap the 30 Baht for the Health scheme. PM Surayut scrapped it in 2007 as it cost 70 - 80 Baht to administer. The Yingluck govenment re-instated the 30 Baht because in their pre election promise "30 Baht health scheme" sounded good with unhidden suggestions to Thaksin having given that gift to the Thai population even if he left it underfunded and all work was prepared by the previous Chuan government. By now the 30 Baht scheme might cost 100 Baht to administer.

The 30 baht scheme was re-introduced by the Yingluck govt as voluntary I believe, making it up to individual hospitals to decide whether it was a cost-effective measure or not. I believe some collect the money, many don't. Also the scheme had little if anything to do with the Chuan government. Why do people on Thaivisa insist on repeating this myth when it's already been debunked on here several times?

As for "populism" - this government still requires a measure of support from the populace even if they're mostly reliant on the middle classes in Bangkok who aren't so dependent on "populist" schemes. But having already removed the rice subsidy, fuel subsidies could become an even bigger issue. Wouldn't be surprised if it's economics that sparks unrest rather than the junta's authoritarian cultural measures (people can generally live with things like that for a while - banning George Orwell & the Hunger Games salute, for instance, tends not to affect the lives of most people - but if they're already struggling to make ends meet and subsidies start being removed, they have nothing to lose... )

The 'debunking of a myth' I seem to have missed. Pray tell me more or provide a link.

Now the Pheu Thai party started with the election promise to "re-introduce the 30 Baht Healthcare scheme". When in government they became a bit more concerned about the financial side of it and made the 30 Baht optional in some cases. Still insisting though that the 'need to pay' would reduce frivolous access to medical services. Furthermore there was the suggestion that the 30 Baht would help improve the level of service, somehow. Missing though is the news that they started to provide additional budget to fund the scheme.

As for populism, well, it would seem you confirm the NLA isn't really into it. You only obfuscate a bit on what that might mean without going into aspects like the 700++ billion Baht the government still needs to repay the BAAC thanks to the 'generousity' of the Yingluck Administration.

[rubl]

a lot of words strung together with some punctuation thrown in for good measure, rubl, but it looks like you did your best to avoid saying, 'OK, what you said was right after all, my mistake'

no problem.

dropping rice price supports may seem like a good idea to you, but the rice farmers probably feel differently. Same for the rubber producers. you have read the general's advice to rubber producers, haven't you? as for funding or not funding the healthcare system - that's a red herring but nice try. The people going to the hospital will understand the difference if/when the Elites push through their anti-populous agenda.

Totally agree, you were wrong and were obfuscating in trying to make believe the NCPO/NLA would scrap the Heathcare scheme as it cost money, seem they scrapped other scams.

Dropping the RPPS seems like a good idea with 2-1/2 year of it seeing Thailand left with a 700++ billion Baht to BAAC guaranteed by the Yingluck Government and which the NLA now planned to repay in seven years, each installment nicely visible in the National Budget rather than in a non-revolving funds.

When the Thai population starts to understand that loads of money were wasted away by the previous government instead of making provisions for the future which is said to show an aging population, the Thai population may wonder about that criminal fugitive elite chap who has to get by with a few billion Baht only.

[rubl]

Your last point is exactly right. For many, many thai businesses, tourism is 100% of their business.

Take the lower number of 7% of the total economy and place that in a single economic activity like tourism and that is certainly a large part of the economy. I found the automotive industry was larger at 11%. Tourism, along with automotive, other manufacturing (which was at 8%) are all major contributors to Thailand's GDP.

'getting back to the OP' (ouch - sorry, could not resist!!), I found this quote from the worldbank page on Thailand - I think this is illuminating.

Poverty in Thailand is primarily a rural phenomenon, with 88% of the country's 5.4 million poor living in rural areas. Some regions—particularly the North and Northeast—and some ethnic groups lag greatly behind others, and the benefits of economic success have not been shared equally, especially between Bangkok, Thailand’s largest urban area, and the rest of the country. Income inequality and lack of equal opportunities have persisted. Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, has fallen in recent years, but stays consistently high above 0.45.

This is a very concise statement that illuminates the importance of "populous" policies, explains why they are so well received 'upcountry' (a term that I hate, but used here on TV a lot), and why, I think, that the new royalist/junta policies of anti-populism are going to be their un-doing.

If the royalist elites continue to disparage and economically mistreat their poorer countrymen, they do so at their own peril.

Just my opinion (that last one is for Sir Lord Uncle Ruble III Esq).

Indeed, for those in tourism, tourism is 100% of their business.

Mind you, Hey Bruce wrote "Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy". That somehow seems to suggest more than 7%, 10% or even 20%.

So, no populous policies, the Yingluck Administration threw away money like there would be no tomorrow. Of course, by now all those on the receiving end should be 'rich enough', wouldn't you think ?

[rubl]

Oh come on Brucy. Even under the previous administration the TAT would regularly come with ad-hoc focus on any part of the world. If there's something which surprised me it's the lack of focus on 'aliens'. I mean obviously if you're able to make a few lightyear journey you must be loaded

Is this an "ad-hoc focus" or a desperate clutching at straws?

People who travel from the Americas and Europe tend to stay longer than a weekend and spend more than the typical ASEAN tourist, but these are the ones most likely to be put off by military rule and martial law. The current low season has been lower than usual, and I don't recall any hopeful news stories about the coming high season. If you know anyone in the hotel business you can ask them how many reservations have been made for the next few months, odds are they're down significantly from past years.

Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy, and tourism will continue to suffer. That means a lot of Thai people will suffer. I suppose they can take solace in the thought that the government won't engage in populist spending.

Even Ms. Yingluck advised the TAT to focus on 'quality tourists' rather than numbers. I don't think she had Western backpackers in mind though.

BTW tourism is always quoted as something like less than 10% of the Thai economy. That would mean it's an interesting chunk, but certainly not "a large part".

Why did you bring up backpackers? I was thinking of 'quality tourists', the kind every place wants to attract, and the kind that avoid military governments and martial law. Specifically, I was thinking of the November to February tourists that stay at hotels instead of guesthouses, eat without worrying about the bill and buy lots of souvenirs. They're the ones who don't want to holiday under martial law.

I've found estimates of tourism's share of GDP from 7% http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579301812514556496 to 20% http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/thailand-s-tourism-industry-a-victim-of-military-coup-1.1809510. I assume the 20% estimate includes the multiplier effect. Regardless, tourism is a labor intensive industry, meaning a disproportionate number of jobs depend on it. Perhaps you don't think it's important, but a great many small business owners and workers think it is.

So, your "Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy" is explained ?

As for "Perhaps you don't think it's important, but a great many small business owners and workers think it is." you meant "a great many in that business segment". Does that justify populism?

As some people suggested I might not be in touch with the real world, tonight rather than spend it with my Thai family and sit along the road with other Thai who live here, I decided to do some investigation and see the 'real' world in Bangkok. I went to Sukhumvit Road and walked from soi 5 to soi Cowboy and back. Tourism in Bangkok seems alive and well. Furthermore thanks to Gen Prayut I saw no foreign ladies in bikini, although some may have been from neighbouring countries

TVF Lounge was near empty, but it was only 7PM when I got there. Sportsman Club in soi13 was packed, but there were some interesting football matches. Difficult to walk the pavement with all those tourists eager to look at the goods in the stalls and buy, buy, buy.

Anyway, I did my duty, I collected data, I interpreted and made the results available online. Till now I didn't see populism, not even many police and certainly no soldiers. Someone must be doing things right.

[rubl]

... ...

Just my opinion (that last one is for Sir Lord Uncle Ruble III Esq).

With you being American (if luckily only from a certain minority I think) I feel a need to explain some things.

As you addressed me as Lord rubl and I graciously allowed you to do such, to go back to 'sir rubl' is an insult. To add the 'esq' which we use to distinguish some of the greater common people is a double insult. the "III" may have stuck to your mind last someone wondered and asked you 'how many fingers'.

All in all you are showing your decency level which I fear is not too impressive.

By Gods Grace,

Lord rubl

Edited September 27, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

Is this an "ad-hoc focus" or a desperate clutching at straws?

People who travel from the Americas and Europe tend to stay longer than a weekend and spend more than the typical ASEAN tourist, but these are the ones most likely to be put off by military rule and martial law. The current low season has been lower than usual, and I don't recall any hopeful news stories about the coming high season. If you know anyone in the hotel business you can ask them how many reservations have been made for the next few months, odds are they're down significantly from past years.

Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy, and tourism will continue to suffer. That means a lot of Thai people will suffer. I suppose they can take solace in the thought that the government won't engage in populist spending.

Even Ms. Yingluck advised the TAT to focus on 'quality tourists' rather than numbers. I don't think she had Western backpackers in mind though.

BTW tourism is always quoted as something like less than 10% of the Thai economy. That would mean it's an interesting chunk, but certainly not "a large part".

Why did you bring up backpackers? I was thinking of 'quality tourists', the kind every place wants to attract, and the kind that avoid military governments and martial law. Specifically, I was thinking of the November to February tourists that stay at hotels instead of guesthouses, eat without worrying about the bill and buy lots of souvenirs. They're the ones who don't want to holiday under martial law.

I've found estimates of tourism's share of GDP from 7% http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579301812514556496 to 20% http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/thailand-s-tourism-industry-a-victim-of-military-coup-1.1809510. I assume the 20% estimate includes the multiplier effect. Regardless, tourism is a labor intensive industry, meaning a disproportionate number of jobs depend on it. Perhaps you don't think it's important, but a great many small business owners and workers think it is.

So, your "Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy" is explained ?

As for "Perhaps you don't think it's important, but a great many small business owners and workers think it is." you meant "a great many in that business segment". Does that justify populism?

As some people suggested I might not be in touch with the real world, tonight rather than spend it with my Thai family and sit along the road with other Thai who live here, I decided to do some investigation and see the 'real' world in Bangkok. I went to Sukhumvit Road and walked from soi 5 to soi Cowboy and back. Tourism in Bangkok seems alive and well. Furthermore thanks to Gen Prayut I saw no foreign ladies in bikini, although some may have been from neighbouring countries

TVF Lounge was near empty, but it was only 7PM when I got there. Sportsman Club in soi13 was packed, but there were some interesting football matches. Difficult to walk the pavement with all those tourists eager to look at the goods in the stalls and buy, buy, buy.

Anyway, I did my duty, I collected data, I interpreted and made the results available online. Till now I didn't see populism, not even many police and certainly no soldiers. Someone must be doing things right.

I take it you don't pay much attention to economics. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who doesn't think a business segment that makes up 7% of GDP isn't a large part of the economy.

First you suggested tourism means backpackers, now you're suggesting it somehow benefits from populist policies. Since I never suggested that I'll leave it up to you to explain the link between tourism and populism.

There's a lot more to tourism than the hooker bars on Sukhumvit. Didn't you know that? Did you stop by any of the hotels on Sukhumvit and ask how their reservations for the upcoming high season compare to advance reservations in past years? While you're at it you might call a few places in Samui, Krabi, Phuket, Chiang Mai, Pai, etc. and see how business has been and what they expect in the near future. If that's too much effort you can search the internet and look for optimistic predictions for Thailand's tourist industry under current circumstances (good luck with that). Or you could bury your head in the sand and assume everything is fine.

[Thai at Heart]

Is this an "ad-hoc focus" or a desperate clutching at straws?

People who travel from the Americas and Europe tend to stay longer than a weekend and spend more than the typical ASEAN tourist, but these are the ones most likely to be put off by military rule and martial law. The current low season has been lower than usual, and I don't recall any hopeful news stories about the coming high season. If you know anyone in the hotel business you can ask them how many reservations have been made for the next few months, odds are they're down significantly from past years.

Tourism makes up a large part of the Thai economy, and tourism will continue to suffer. That means a lot of Thai people will suffer. I suppose they can take solace in the thought that the government won't engage in populist spending.

Even Ms. Yingluck advised the TAT to focus on 'quality tourists' rather than numbers. I don't think she had Western backpackers in mind though.

BTW tourism is always quoted as something like less than 10% of the Thai economy. That would mean it's an interesting chunk, but certainly not "a large part".

Why did you bring up backpackers? I was thinking of 'quality tourists', the kind every place wants to attract, and the kind that avoid military governments and martial law. Specifically, I was thinking of the November to February tourists that stay at hotels instead of guesthouses, eat without worrying about the bill and buy lots of souvenirs. They're the ones who don't want to holiday under martial law.

I've found estimates of tourism's share of GDP from 7% http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579301812514556496 to 20% http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/thailand-s-tourism-industry-a-victim-of-military-coup-1.1809510. I assume the 20% estimate includes the multiplier effect. Regardless, tourism is a labor intensive industry, meaning a disproportionate number of jobs depend on it. Perhaps you don't think it's important, but a great many small business owners and workers think it is.

your last point is exactly right. For many, many thai businesses, tourism is 100% of their business.

Take the lower number of 7% of the total economy and place that in a single economic activity like tourism and that is certainly a large part of the economy. I found the automotive industry was larger at 11%. Tourism, along with automotive, other manufacturing (which was at 8%) are all major contributors to Thailand's GDP.

'getting back to the OP' (ouch - sorry, could not resist!!), I found this quote from the worldbank page on Thailand - I think this is illuminating.

Poverty in Thailand is primarily a rural phenomenon, with 88% of the country's 5.4 million poor living in rural areas. Some regionsparticularly the North and Northeastand some ethnic groups lag greatly behind others, and the benefits of economic success have not been shared equally, especially between Bangkok, Thailands largest urban area, and the rest of the country. Income inequality and lack of equal opportunities have persisted. Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, has fallen in recent years, but stays consistently high above 0.45.

This is a very concise statement that illuminates the importance of "populous" policies, explains why they are so well received 'upcountry' (a term that I hate, but used here on TV a lot), and why, I think, that the new royalist/junta policies of anti-populism are going to be their un-doing.

If the royalist elites continue to disparage and economically mistreat their poorer countrymen, they do so at their own peril.

Just my opinion (that last one is for Sir Lord Uncle Ruble III Esq).

Indeed anything that raises the lot of the rural poor really represents bang for your buck.

An extra 500 baht a month in the hand of someone earning 5000 is a big increase.