Curbing Thai party leaders' influence

[rubl]

According to democratic principles, an MP's duty is to represent his or her constituents, rather than take orders from the party leader or financiers - a trend that has caused severe damage to Thailand's democratic system in recent history.

Rather than take orders from Dubai, would be the appropriate wording.

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere" your "post" (one liner) might have been relevant and not seen as just another rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

"various families in Thailand and elsewhere" ?

[rubl]

Interesting, a propsal on curbing power being made to an authority with absolute power. Only for implementation after they have stood down of course.

Obviously, as most reforms will only be finalised at the end. Applying such curbs now would only mean a slowdown (or worst case halt) of the process. Mind you, if you think that's a good idea ... ...

[NongKhaiKid]

Interesting, a propsal on curbing power being made to an authority with absolute power. Only for implementation after they have stood down of course.

Obviously, as most reforms will only be finalised at the end. Applying such curbs now would only mean a slowdown (or worst case halt) of the process. Mind you, if you think that's a good idea ... ...

D

Does it really matter what' s introduced ? As soon as politicians are back in power the abuses will start and with other politicians ' judging ' nothing muvh will be done to curb them so we can set our count down timers for the next military intervention.

[rubl]

Interesting, a propsal on curbing power being made to an authority with absolute power. Only for implementation after they have stood down of course.

Obviously, as most reforms will only be finalised at the end. Applying such curbs now would only mean a slowdown (or worst case halt) of the process. Mind you, if you think that's a good idea ... ...

D

Does it really matter what' s introduced ? As soon as politicians are back in power the abuses will start and with other politicians ' judging ' nothing muvh will be done to curb them so we can set our count down timers for the next military intervention.

The road to democracy is long and rocky. With countries in the Western World having needed a few centuries why would Thailand be able to do it more quick. Especially with a system which seems based on patronage and has suggestions of Europe at the begin of the 20th century.

As it is coups seem like Thailand's alternative to wars and revolution.

[jayboy]

So, 700++ billion Baht guaranteed by the Yingluck Government and jayboy doesn't see much populism. He even writes it was the duty of the Yingluck Government.

Well, good governance means that money is spent wisely and has effect on the targetgroup specifically and indirectly on the country.

The mantra of 'unelected elite' seems aimed at distraction or pushing a political program close to forced distribution of wealth. Interesting though to see this written after the 'duty of the Yingluck govnmt. to help'

I think one of the problems with Thai political parties is that they have an 'owner' who also acts as financer. We have Thaksin's party, Banharn's party, Newin's party, Gen. Sonthi's party and to a (much) lesser extend Abhisit's party. What about "we, the people" ?

Try reading posts before attempting a response.I queried the wisdom of the rice price support scheme and set out the requirements that must accompany populist measures.Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of most civilised societies, even the non democratic ones and if it is partly achieved by tax measures then to that extent it is "forced".As it happens the Junta is pushing a number of populist measures as well as redistributive tax measures such as wealth/ inheritance levies.I doubt personally whether they will get very far as they are contrary to the agenda of those who planned the and funded the assault on democracy that led to the coup.Let's see how determined the generals are because one senses they are trying within their limited powers to do the right thing.

[fab4]

According to democratic principles, an MP's duty is to represent his or her constituents, rather than take orders from the party leader or financiers - a trend that has caused severe damage to Thailand's democratic system in recent history.

Rather than take orders from Dubai, would be the appropriate wording.

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere" your "post" (one liner) might have been relevant and not seen as just another rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

"various families in Thailand and elsewhere" ?

If I had meant that I would have written that. I didn't, therefore I don't.

[rubl]

So, 700++ billion Baht guaranteed by the Yingluck Government and jayboy doesn't see much populism. He even writes it was the duty of the Yingluck Government.

Well, good governance means that money is spent wisely and has effect on the targetgroup specifically and indirectly on the country.

The mantra of 'unelected elite' seems aimed at distraction or pushing a political program close to forced distribution of wealth. Interesting though to see this written after the 'duty of the Yingluck govnmt. to help'

I think one of the problems with Thai political parties is that they have an 'owner' who also acts as financer. We have Thaksin's party, Banharn's party, Newin's party, Gen. Sonthi's party and to a (much) lesser extend Abhisit's party. What about "we, the people" ?

Try reading posts before attempting a response.I queried the wisdom of the rice price support scheme and set out the requirements that must accompany populist measures.Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of most civilised societies, even the non democratic ones and if it is partly achieved by tax measures then to that extent it is "forced".As it happens the Junta is pushing a number of populist measures as well as redistributive tax measures such as wealth/ inheritance levies.I doubt personally whether they will get very far as they are contrary to the agenda of those who planned the and funded the assault on democracy that led to the coup.Let's see how determined the generals are because one senses they are trying within their limited powers to do the right thing.

Oh I did read your post, my dear chap and as usual I had to re-read as well, cut the meaningless words from it and hope I've got something left.

You wrote not to see a problem with the government policy to help rural people. Following you see it as a right and even duty to help supporters. Of course it should be perfect, but you were talking about the 'principle only'. Well I applied the principle and found that the policy to help rural poor simply lost 700++ billion Baht without helping those poor. That seems like a populist policy gone awfully wrong.

Of course you continue to obfuscate with your "junta populist measures" without naming any (maybe paying farmers who had been left out in the cold by the previous government?). With your frequent use of political influenced (left-wing / labour like) terms I'm surprised you question the "property and inheritance tax" and even label it 'redistributive', almost as if you opposed?

[jayboy]

So, 700++ billion Baht guaranteed by the Yingluck Government and jayboy doesn't see much populism. He even writes it was the duty of the Yingluck Government.

Well, good governance means that money is spent wisely and has effect on the targetgroup specifically and indirectly on the country.

The mantra of 'unelected elite' seems aimed at distraction or pushing a political program close to forced distribution of wealth. Interesting though to see this written after the 'duty of the Yingluck govnmt. to help'

I think one of the problems with Thai political parties is that they have an 'owner' who also acts as financer. We have Thaksin's party, Banharn's party, Newin's party, Gen. Sonthi's party and to a (much) lesser extend Abhisit's party. What about "we, the people" ?

Try reading posts before attempting a response.I queried the wisdom of the rice price support scheme and set out the requirements that must accompany populist measures.Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of most civilised societies, even the non democratic ones and if it is partly achieved by tax measures then to that extent it is "forced".As it happens the Junta is pushing a number of populist measures as well as redistributive tax measures such as wealth/ inheritance levies.I doubt personally whether they will get very far as they are contrary to the agenda of those who planned the and funded the assault on democracy that led to the coup.Let's see how determined the generals are because one senses they are trying within their limited powers to do the right thing.

Oh I did read your post, my dear chap and as usual I had to re-read as well, cut the meaningless words from it and hope I've got something left.

You wrote not to see a problem with the government policy to help rural people. Following you see it as a right and even duty to help supporters. Of course it should be perfect, but you were talking about the 'principle only'. Well I applied the principle and found that the policy to help rural poor simply lost 700++ billion Baht without helping those poor. That seems like a populist policy gone awfully wrong.

Of course you continue to obfuscate with your "junta populist measures" without naming any (maybe paying farmers who had been left out in the cold by the previous government?). With your frequent use of political influenced (left-wing / labour like) terms I'm surprised you question the "property and inheritance tax" and even label it 'redistributive', almost as if you opposed?

There's a huge difference between a principle and mistakes made in attempting to pursue one.Surely you are able to grasp that.Here's an example for you if you feel bewildered.A coup takes place with a primary purpose to end corruption (that's the admirable principle).It is however nurtured through street protests by one of the most corrupt politicians and then implemented by one of the most corrupt institutions, many of whose appointed legislators refuse to declare their wealth.Thus an admirable principle is undermined by mistakes in implementation.Got it now?

As to the Junta's populist measures perhaps you nodded off like Rip Van Winkle since reports on them have plastered the newspapers since the coup.Anyway just watch this space.Personally I don't have a huge issue though the hypocrisy involved (and that of camp followers such as yourself) is somewhat boggling.

[rubl]

So, 700++ billion Baht guaranteed by the Yingluck Government and jayboy doesn't see much populism. He even writes it was the duty of the Yingluck Government.

Well, good governance means that money is spent wisely and has effect on the targetgroup specifically and indirectly on the country.

The mantra of 'unelected elite' seems aimed at distraction or pushing a political program close to forced distribution of wealth. Interesting though to see this written after the 'duty of the Yingluck govnmt. to help'

I think one of the problems with Thai political parties is that they have an 'owner' who also acts as financer. We have Thaksin's party, Banharn's party, Newin's party, Gen. Sonthi's party and to a (much) lesser extend Abhisit's party. What about "we, the people" ?

Try reading posts before attempting a response.I queried the wisdom of the rice price support scheme and set out the requirements that must accompany populist measures.Redistribution of wealth is the hallmark of most civilised societies, even the non democratic ones and if it is partly achieved by tax measures then to that extent it is "forced".As it happens the Junta is pushing a number of populist measures as well as redistributive tax measures such as wealth/ inheritance levies.I doubt personally whether they will get very far as they are contrary to the agenda of those who planned the and funded the assault on democracy that led to the coup.Let's see how determined the generals are because one senses they are trying within their limited powers to do the right thing.

Oh I did read your post, my dear chap and as usual I had to re-read as well, cut the meaningless words from it and hope I've got something left.

You wrote not to see a problem with the government policy to help rural people. Following you see it as a right and even duty to help supporters. Of course it should be perfect, but you were talking about the 'principle only'. Well I applied the principle and found that the policy to help rural poor simply lost 700++ billion Baht without helping those poor. That seems like a populist policy gone awfully wrong.

Of course you continue to obfuscate with your "junta populist measures" without naming any (maybe paying farmers who had been left out in the cold by the previous government?). With your frequent use of political influenced (left-wing / labour like) terms I'm surprised you question the "property and inheritance tax" and even label it 'redistributive', almost as if you opposed?

There's a huge difference between a principle and mistakes made in attempting to pursue one.Surely you are able to grasp that.Here's an example for you if you feel bewildered.A coup takes place with a primary purpose to end corruption (that's the admirable principle).It is however nurtured through street protests by one of the most corrupt politicians and then implemented by one of the most corrupt institutions, many of whose appointed legislators refuse to declare their wealth.Thus an admirable principle is undermined by mistakes in implementation.Got it now?

As to the Junta's populist measures perhaps you nodded off like Rip Van Winkle since reports on them have plastered the newspapers since the coup.Anyway just watch this space.Personally I don't have a huge issue though the hypocrisy involved (and that of camp followers such as yourself) is somewhat boggling.

I not only grasp, but wrote that you seemed to talk about the theoretical policy and I about the practical implementation. I also wrote that you used 'policy' to accept 'mistakes made'. That's somewhat inconsistent.

The example you give you constructed to suite you, but has only a superficial relation with actuality.

As for junta populist measures, in another topic all comments seemed to indicate the opposite.

Lastly, keep your insults to yourself.

[jayboy]

I not only grasp, but wrote that you seemed to talk about the theoretical policy and I about the practical implementation. I also wrote that you used 'policy' to accept 'mistakes made'. That's somewhat inconsistent.

The example you give you constructed to suite you, but has only a superficial relation with actuality.

As for junta populist measures, in another topic all comments seemed to indicate the opposite.

Lastly, keep your insults to yourself.

I was making a point about the way populism is misinterpreted in Thailand especially by the better off urban classes.I pointed out that all democracies are essentially populist.At the same time I agreed the rice support scheme was flawed but this did not mean that all policies geared to the wishes of the electorate were ill advised.Indeed politicians promulgating such policies are an important part of democracy.The electorate can always reject them if it disagrees.

The example I gave illustrated the distinction between a good principle and its poor practical implementation very clearly.If the subject matter was to your distaste that is irrelevant to the point being made.

As to the Junta's populist measures I cannot really believe you are disputing this.With all due respect you should consider additional sources of information than this excellent forum.To get you going try googling - Thailand,Junta,Populism, Bloomberg,WSJ.

I don't understand your last sentence.If you feel insulted it was not intended and I regret it.

[halloween]

There's a huge difference between a principle and mistakes made in attempting to pursue one.Surely you are able to grasp that.Here's an example for you if you feel bewildered.A coup takes place with a primary purpose to end corruption (that's the admirable principle).It is however nurtured through street protests by one of the most corrupt politicians and then implemented by one of the most corrupt institutions, many of whose appointed legislators refuse to declare their wealth.Thus an admirable principle is undermined by mistakes in implementation.Got it now?

As to the Junta's populist measures perhaps you nodded off like Rip Van Winkle since reports on them have plastered the newspapers since the coup.Anyway just watch this space.Personally I don't have a huge issue though the hypocrisy involved (and that of camp followers such as yourself) is somewhat boggling.

Oh right, the principle of helping poor farmers was right, it's just that those putting it into practice were totally bloody inept and ended up funnelling huge amounts of taxpayers' to their supporters. If the choice is corrupt or inept, and given the G2G deals I vote for corrupt, how is it surprising that they were forced from office?

[rubl]

I not only grasp, but wrote that you seemed to talk about the theoretical policy and I about the practical implementation. I also wrote that you used 'policy' to accept 'mistakes made'. That's somewhat inconsistent.

The example you give you constructed to suite you, but has only a superficial relation with actuality.

As for junta populist measures, in another topic all comments seemed to indicate the opposite.

Lastly, keep your insults to yourself.

I was making a point about the way populism is misinterpreted in Thailand especially by the better off urban classes.I pointed out that all democracies are essentially populist.At the same time I agreed the rice support scheme was flawed but this did not mean that all policies geared to the wishes of the electorate were ill advised.Indeed politicians promulgating such policies are an important part of democracy.The electorate can always reject them if it disagrees.

The example I gave illustrated the distinction between a good principle and its poor practical implementation very clearly.If the subject matter was to your distaste that is irrelevant to the point being made.

As to the Junta's populist measures I cannot really believe you are disputing this.With all due respect you should consider additional sources of information than this excellent forum.To get you going try googling - Thailand,Junta,Populism, Bloomberg,WSJ.

I don't understand your last sentence.If you feel insulted it was not intended and I regret it.

All democracies may be essential populist but not all democracies have populist policies aimed at the poor and not reaching them, but still managing to lose 700++ billion Baht in 2-1/2 year and have foreign distractors defending such 'democratic use of capital'

The example you constructed using your views mixed with the actual elements. As such I reject the example, nothing to do with distaste except maybe wondering why a 'good cause' needs such distractions.

Populism? Paying farmers what they were owed by the previous government? Starting an infra structure project with funding spread out over eight years and clearly marked in the National Budget? A high-speed train changed to double speed 160km/h links? Free Worldcup football when in the first month of trying to settle nerves on edge with all violence ? Rubber farmer low price guarantee to be paid to the farmers directly? Continuation of 2000++ Baht per rai of rubberwood as subsidy?

As for the last sentence, strange you don't understand. I did understand your "Personally I don't have a huge issue though the hypocrisy involved (and that of camp followers such as yourself) is somewhat boggling" though. Maybe English people don't consider as an insult being told they show hypocrisy without a clear and proper justification / explanation as to why?

Edited September 29, 2014 by rubl

[jayboy]

All democracies may be essential populist but not all democracies have populist policies aimed at the poor and not reaching them, but still managing to lose 700++ billion Baht in 2-1/2 year and have foreign distractors defending such 'democratic use of capital'

The example you constructed using your views mixed with the actual elements. As such I reject the example, nothing to do with distaste except maybe wondering why a 'good cause' needs such distractions.

Populism? Paying farmers what they were owed by the previous government? Starting an infra structure project with funding spread out over eight years and clearly marked in the National Budget? A high-speed train changed to double speed 160km/h links? Free Worldcup football when in the first month of trying to settle nerves on edge with all violence ? Rubber farmer low price guarantee to be paid to the farmers directly? Continuation of 2000++ Baht per rai of rubberwood as subsidy?

As for the last sentence, strange you don't understand. I did understand your "Personally I don't have a huge issue though the hypocrisy involved (and that of camp followers such as yourself) is somewhat boggling" though. Maybe English people don't consider as an insult being told they show hypocrisy without a clear and proper justification / explanation as to why?

The hypocrisy consists of condemning populist policies as a great political sin and then being slavishly uncritical when similar policies are adopted by a subsequent regime.

[rubl]

All democracies may be essential populist but not all democracies have populist policies aimed at the poor and not reaching them, but still managing to lose 700++ billion Baht in 2-1/2 year and have foreign distractors defending such 'democratic use of capital'

The example you constructed using your views mixed with the actual elements. As such I reject the example, nothing to do with distaste except maybe wondering why a 'good cause' needs such distractions.

Populism? Paying farmers what they were owed by the previous government? Starting an infra structure project with funding spread out over eight years and clearly marked in the National Budget? A high-speed train changed to double speed 160km/h links? Free Worldcup football when in the first month of trying to settle nerves on edge with all violence ? Rubber farmer low price guarantee to be paid to the farmers directly? Continuation of 2000++ Baht per rai of rubberwood as subsidy?

As for the last sentence, strange you don't understand. I did understand your "Personally I don't have a huge issue though the hypocrisy involved (and that of camp followers such as yourself) is somewhat boggling" though. Maybe English people don't consider as an insult being told they show hypocrisy without a clear and proper justification / explanation as to why?

The hypocrisy consists of condemning populist policies as a great political sin and then being slavishly uncritical when similar policies are adopted by a subsequent regime.

and now you are going to tell me how that applies to our discussion here and to whom, I assume