No populism in govt priorities: Narongchai

[rubl]

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.

My dear Hey Bruce, whatever. You may continue writing I suggest if you feel like it. May be if you write it often enough even you will start to believe that.

As for the rest, it would seem it's you who doesn't like to see the truth.

From a wet and rainy season plagued Bangkok,

uncle rubl

[Prbkk]

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.

You are conveniently forgetting that the Democrats went to the poll with a free medical scheme proposal, ie zero baht, and still lost

[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.

You are conveniently forgetting that the Democrats went to the poll with a free medical scheme proposal, ie zero baht, and still lost

Between second half of 2007 and later 2011 the Heath care scheme was free. The Democrat party promise of "free universal quality healthcare" should be seen as countering "Universal medical care; patients pay 30 baht per visit"

For your information

"Factbox: Election promises of Thailand's two main parties"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-thailand-election-policies-idUSTRE7561C820110607

Anyway there is no drive to scrap the Heathcare Scheme as tbthailand wrote. The ideas floated to change the financing of the scheme are not really surprising as the scheme has always been underfunded apart from the fact that an aging population will require measures to keep Healthcare available to all. Not really a Thai only problem, same in the USA and Europe.

So, no populist policies apart from improving the quality of soaps of course

[heybruce]

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.

My dear Hey Bruce, whatever. You may continue writing I suggest if you feel like it. May be if you write it often enough even you will start to believe that.

As for the rest, it would seem it's you who doesn't like to see the truth.

From a wet and rainy season plagued Bangkok,

uncle rubl

So you're not going to address anything I wrote (7% of the economy is big, your attempt to link tourism to populism is nonsense, judging the health of Thailand's tourist industry by is spot check of hooker bars on Sukhumvit is also nonsense), you're just going to accuse me on not seeing the truth. Seems you can't refute what I wrote, but you feel the need to have the last word anyway.

The point that I made is that tourism is a big part of the Thai economy, military rule and martial law are bad for tourism, and the attempt to make Thailand a weekend destination for ASEAN tourism will not compensate for the problems caused by martial law. If you don't think that's true, you're the one "who doesn't like to see the truth."

Edited September 28, 2014 by heybruce

[rubl]

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.

My dear Hey Bruce, whatever. You may continue writing I suggest if you feel like it. May be if you write it often enough even you will start to believe that.

As for the rest, it would seem it's you who doesn't like to see the truth.

From a wet and rainy season plagued Bangkok,

uncle rubl

So you're not going to address anything I wrote (7% of the economy is big, your attempt to link tourism to populism is nonsense, judging the health of Thailand's tourist industry by is spot check of hooker bars on Sukhumvit is also nonsense), you're just going to accuse me on not seeing the truth. Seems you can't refute what I wrote, but you feel the need to have the last word anyway.

The point that I made is that tourism is a big part of the Thai economy, military rule and martial law are bad for tourism, and the attempt to make Thailand a weekend destination for ASEAN tourism will not compensate for the problems caused by martial law. If you don't think that's true, you're the one "who doesn't like to see the truth."

I like to address valid points, not baiting or loaded questions, 'largely' that is.

So, 'large' or as you now write 'big' is 7%.

Anyway, tourists seem to be happy that the pro/anti government protesters are gone, happy there are no nightly gunshots or dropping grenades. Happy Phuket is somewhat cleaned up. Unhappy that the dictatorial junta introduced the rainy season.

None of that has to do with populism though.

[heybruce]

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.

My dear Hey Bruce, whatever. You may continue writing I suggest if you feel like it. May be if you write it often enough even you will start to believe that.

As for the rest, it would seem it's you who doesn't like to see the truth.

From a wet and rainy season plagued Bangkok,

uncle rubl

So you're not going to address anything I wrote (7% of the economy is big, your attempt to link tourism to populism is nonsense, judging the health of Thailand's tourist industry by is spot check of hooker bars on Sukhumvit is also nonsense), you're just going to accuse me on not seeing the truth. Seems you can't refute what I wrote, but you feel the need to have the last word anyway.

The point that I made is that tourism is a big part of the Thai economy, military rule and martial law are bad for tourism, and the attempt to make Thailand a weekend destination for ASEAN tourism will not compensate for the problems caused by martial law. If you don't think that's true, you're the one "who doesn't like to see the truth."

I like to address valid points, not baiting or loaded questions, 'largely' that is.

So, 'large' or as you now write 'big' is 7%.

Anyway, tourists seem to be happy that the pro/anti government protesters are gone, happy there are no nightly gunshots or dropping grenades. Happy Phuket is somewhat cleaned up. Unhappy that the dictatorial junta introduced the rainy season.

None of that has to do with populism though.

You've been running from the valid point. The OP ended with:

"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."

I pointed out that weekend visits from ASEAN members were unlikely to offset revenue losses from western tourists dissuaded by martial law. Instead of addressing this valid, reasonable and on-topic point you've been trying to obfuscate. Why not take a stand? Do you think martial law is good for tourism?

[tbthailand]

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.

why do you insist on lying? Or do you not actually read posts before you reply?

again -

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."

See what that actually says?

So while you think this did not happen, it actually did, rubl.

And dropping rice supports is not a good idea for the farmers - don't you think?

Regarding the 700B bhat figure that gets thrown around a lot - sure that is a chunk of change - but with 31 million tons of rice produced per year in Thailand that is truly pocket change in a market that is well over 300 trillion bhat - put that in $, that is about $23b subsidy in a $1 trillion ++ market. Maybe you think that is too much to spend, but IMO, it is not an unreasonable number. In addition, the government will receive money to pay off the loan through sales. The rice program may not be a great program, and I don't know anyone who says that it is - but on the other hand, it is not the disaster that the PDRC claimed, either.

As for rubber, rubber producers saw prices drop 30% this year (no need for price stability there, no sir). The general displayed his now famous foot in mouth let-the-ugly-ones-wear-bikinis persona with this reply to the valid concerns of rubber producers.

"We have a large rubber stockpile in this country and farmers keep on growing more rubber trees. How about selling the produce on Mars in the future? Demand on this planet is no longer enough."

which completely missed the point which the producers and the industry were addressing.

[Robespiere]

Energy policy is the wedge that will rip those factions that united to throw out the Shinawatras apart and hand it all back to Thaksin and co within a year or two.

[rubl]

why do you insist on lying? Or do you not actually read posts before you reply?

again -

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."

See what that actually says?

So while you think this did not happen, it actually did, rubl.

And dropping rice supports is not a good idea for the farmers - don't you think?

Regarding the 700B bhat figure that gets thrown around a lot - sure that is a chunk of change - but with 31 million tons of rice produced per year in Thailand that is truly pocket change in a market that is well over 300 trillion bhat - put that in $, that is about $23b subsidy in a $1 trillion ++ market. Maybe you think that is too much to spend, but IMO, it is not an unreasonable number. In addition, the government will receive money to pay off the loan through sales. The rice program may not be a great program, and I don't know anyone who says that it is - but on the other hand, it is not the disaster that the PDRC claimed, either.

As for rubber, rubber producers saw prices drop 30% this year (no need for price stability there, no sir). The general displayed his now famous foot in mouth let-the-ugly-ones-wear-bikinis persona with this reply to the valid concerns of rubber producers.

"We have a large rubber stockpile in this country and farmers keep on growing more rubber trees. How about selling the produce on Mars in the future? Demand on this planet is no longer enough."

which completely missed the point which the producers and the industry were addressing.

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."

That's when with the part on 'get axed' you put forward the suggestion that the Heathcare scheme would go. Strictly speaking it did go as the Yingluck Administration re-introduced the 30 Baht co-payment scheme. Healthcare is something which starts to become unaffordable what with the aging of the population and the years of financial stress it has cost Hospitals involved in the scheme.

"He said that even if the co-payment initiative were implemented, poor patients would not be refus-|ed treatment or be forced to pay what they could not afford - only those |who can afford to pay would be charged."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Co-payment-scheme-for-medical-visits-30239213.html

Anyway, none of this removed or scrapped seems popular or populistic.

As for the RPPS that has left a 700++ billiob Baht debt guaranteed by the Yingluck government and which the new government new starts to repay including a bit more than 100 billion Baht in the 2014/2015 National Budget. your interpretation of numbers there is truly imaginative.

The NCPO/NLA has to make difficult decisions. As such one should not accuse them of populism doing such.

Edited September 28, 2014 by rubl

[tbthailand]

why do you insist on lying? Or do you not actually read posts before you reply?

again -

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."

See what that actually says?

So while you think this did not happen, it actually did, rubl.

And dropping rice supports is not a good idea for the farmers - don't you think?

Regarding the 700B bhat figure that gets thrown around a lot - sure that is a chunk of change - but with 31 million tons of rice produced per year in Thailand that is truly pocket change in a market that is well over 300 trillion bhat - put that in $, that is about $23b subsidy in a $1 trillion ++ market. Maybe you think that is too much to spend, but IMO, it is not an unreasonable number. In addition, the government will receive money to pay off the loan through sales. The rice program may not be a great program, and I don't know anyone who says that it is - but on the other hand, it is not the disaster that the PDRC claimed, either.

As for rubber, rubber producers saw prices drop 30% this year (no need for price stability there, no sir). The general displayed his now famous foot in mouth let-the-ugly-ones-wear-bikinis persona with this reply to the valid concerns of rubber producers.

"We have a large rubber stockpile in this country and farmers keep on growing more rubber trees. How about selling the produce on Mars in the future? Demand on this planet is no longer enough."

which completely missed the point which the producers and the industry were addressing.

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."

That's when with the part on 'get axed' you put forward the suggestion that the Heathcare scheme would go. Strictly speaking it did go as the Yingluck Administration re-introduced the 30 Baht co-payment scheme. Healthcare is something which starts to become unaffordable what with the aging of the population and the years of financial stress it has cost Hospitals involved in the scheme.

"He said that even if the co-payment initiative were implemented, poor patients would not be refus-|ed treatment or be forced to pay what they could not afford - only those |who can afford to pay would be charged."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Co-payment-scheme-for-medical-visits-30239213.html

Anyway, none of this removed or scrapped seems popular or populistic.

As for the RPPS that has left a 700++ billiob Baht debt guaranteed by the Yingluck government and which the new government new starts to repay including a bit more than 100 billion Baht in the 2014/2015 National Budget. your interpretation of numbers there is truly imaginative.

The NCPO/NLA has to make difficult decisions. As such one should not accuse them of populism doing such.

well, I see your problem.

And that is that you have difficulties comprehending written English.

[rubl]

why do you insist on lying? Or do you not actually read posts before you reply?

again -

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."

See what that actually says?

So while you think this did not happen, it actually did, rubl.

And dropping rice supports is not a good idea for the farmers - don't you think?

Regarding the 700B bhat figure that gets thrown around a lot - sure that is a chunk of change - but with 31 million tons of rice produced per year in Thailand that is truly pocket change in a market that is well over 300 trillion bhat - put that in $, that is about $23b subsidy in a $1 trillion ++ market. Maybe you think that is too much to spend, but IMO, it is not an unreasonable number. In addition, the government will receive money to pay off the loan through sales. The rice program may not be a great program, and I don't know anyone who says that it is - but on the other hand, it is not the disaster that the PDRC claimed, either.

As for rubber, rubber producers saw prices drop 30% this year (no need for price stability there, no sir). The general displayed his now famous foot in mouth let-the-ugly-ones-wear-bikinis persona with this reply to the valid concerns of rubber producers.

"We have a large rubber stockpile in this country and farmers keep on growing more rubber trees. How about selling the produce on Mars in the future? Demand on this planet is no longer enough."

which completely missed the point which the producers and the industry were addressing.

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."

That's when with the part on 'get axed' you put forward the suggestion that the Heathcare scheme would go. Strictly speaking it did go as the Yingluck Administration re-introduced the 30 Baht co-payment scheme. Healthcare is something which starts to become unaffordable what with the aging of the population and the years of financial stress it has cost Hospitals involved in the scheme.

"He said that even if the co-payment initiative were implemented, poor patients would not be refus-|ed treatment or be forced to pay what they could not afford - only those |who can afford to pay would be charged."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Co-payment-scheme-for-medical-visits-30239213.html

Anyway, none of this removed or scrapped seems popular or populistic.

As for the RPPS that has left a 700++ billiob Baht debt guaranteed by the Yingluck government and which the new government new starts to repay including a bit more than 100 billion Baht in the 2014/2015 National Budget. your interpretation of numbers there is truly imaginative.

The NCPO/NLA has to make difficult decisions. As such one should not accuse them of populism doing such.

well, I see your problem.

And that is that you have difficulties comprehending written English.

Well, thank you very much, I really appreciate this.

Now be a good boy and hop along. Go annoy other posters.