Thailand To Seize Thaksin's Assets

[marshbags]

It doesn,t matter what sort of new financial incentives are started.

Unless you change the mind set of the now present Rural populations and there local administrators it will fail, full stop.

In my Moo Ban for example I cannot give you one example whereby the local community have benefited from investment of new enterprises.

What they do have via these easily obtainable funds are the usual stuff we can all see around us.

Cars, motorcycles, mobiles, numerous expensive electrical items and most important of all.

Their houses / land and any other assets they took years of hard graft to purchase now belonging to the banks and unscrupulous money lenders.

Many of the latter being the ones who have been the main influence behind the distribution of these funds meant for new enterprises and misused.

They consequently provide the selfish mindset of how easy it is to have today and never mind about tomorrow and our childrens futures. What does future mean to them

The funds allocated before where all used to give them a new kind of attitude whereby they could have all the luxury items they desired without having to bother about working / or have a desire to enhance their opportunities and improve their futures, this took away any incentives to do so.

The misappropriation of the million baht funds by vested interested distributors who made sure the majority of it went to the chosen few and left crumbs for the majority

need to be brought to account along with the backlogs and they are ALL relevant.

A new reliable overseer / group for each individual village with proven experience and honest ability to change while encouraging existing proven projects is the answer along with new funds to use as they are meant to be.

They also need to be honestly monitored and given guidance by higher authorities.

Unfortunatel, before this funding was purely a political vote catching exercise and an indirect way of rewarding / encouraging local administrators to become unethical and negligent of there duties to the the very communities they are elected to assist and advise.

Along with improving their lifestyles by honest endeavour, hard work and their families futures. ( surely this should have been the protracted objective and was not )

In other words it has failed in most cases.

The debate by the way is not only about local politics and the thread is about many different scenarios and why and where we are now.

Tony,s observation is part and parcel of the fuller picture and relevant to the ongoing discussion as among these statistics when they are fully investigated are many of the reasons why life for the majority of local Moo Bans ( In the Isaan area for one ) have got really bad and gone downhill.

Examples like these are the cause of negativity.

Thailand needs to re educate the rural communities if they are to return to being positive and have a future to look forward to.

This is collectively and not as selfish individuals with no hope of a future befitting the present attitude.

Priorities and values need to be re assesed.

Yes there are cases of good governance among certain localities but they are I,m sad to say few and far between from my own personal observations and well we all know this.

Without being condescending if you have the Thai equivalent of Martin, Chownah and Tony ect. overseeing future projects then I, feel confident they wlll be successful.

In my humble opinion of course.

marshbags

[Old Man River]

I want to just clear up some points made:

Repayments to Banks - Banks expect 100% of their loans outstanding to repaid, not something close to 80%. Understanding some bad loans will exist, the bank considers 99% acceptable. A bank that only collects 90% of its outstandings will need new capital or will go bankrupt. The interest rate charged has to cover the bank's cost of funds and operating costs. After this, only a little is left to cover bad loans and generate profits. Bad loans are devastating to a bank.

Government Loans - There is no international agency telling governments how much reserves it needs and capital adequacy ratios to maintain as there is with banks. Hence, governments can live with higher loss rates. Still, a government that only gets 30% of its loans repaid is operating a give away program, not a loan scheme.

Productivity - Increasing the number of cows increases production, but not productivity. Productivity is the amount of units (milk etc.) each cow can generate. Increasing productivity while keeping costs down is one of the keys for Sufficiency Economy, as it means you are using your existing resources efficiently. Adding resources to increase production, without a corresponding increase in productivity, is how a country overextends itself.

[chownah]

Productivity - Increasing the number of cows increases production, but not productivity. Productivity is the amount of units (milk etc.) each cow can generate. Increasing productivity while keeping costs down is one of the keys for Sufficiency Economy, as it means you are using your existing resources efficiently. Adding resources to increase production, without a corresponding increase in productivity, is how a country overextends itself.

When considering productivity, it is essential that you keep in mind what or whose productivity you are considering. It is obvious (at least to me) that in the above quote it is the productivity of a cow that is being considered. I think that it is more important to consider the productivity of the farmer. If a farmer takes an hour a day taking 2 cows to pasture and then home again...but then this same farmer gets a loan from someone and buys two more cows and it still takes the same hour every day to take 4 cows to pasture and then home again...then the FARMER's productivity in moving cows to and from pasture has doubled.

Chownah

Edited October 7, 2006 by chownah

[hammered]

It doesn,t matter what sort of new financial incentives are started.

Unless you change the mind set of the now present Rural populations and there local administrators it will fail, full stop.

In my Moo Ban for example I cannot give you one example whereby the local community have benefited from investment of new enterprises.

What they do have via these easily obtainable funds are the usual stuff we can all see around us.

Cars, motorcycles, mobiles, numerous expensive electrical items and most important of all.

Their houses / land and any other assets they took years of hard graft to purchase now belonging to the banks and unscrupulous money lenders.

Many of the latter being the ones who have been the main influence behind the distribution of these funds meant for new enterprises and misused.

They consequently provide the selfish mindset of how easy it is to have today and never mind about tomorrow and our childrens futures. What does future mean to them

The funds allocated before where all used to give them a new kind of attitude whereby they could have all the luxury items they desired without having to bother about working / or have a desire to enhance their opportunities and improve their futures, this took away any incentives to do so.

The misappropriation of the million baht funds by vested interested distributors who made sure the majority of it went to the chosen few and left crumbs for the majority

need to be brought to account along with the backlogs and they are ALL relevant.

A new reliable overseer / group for each individual village with proven experience and honest ability to change while encouraging existing proven projects is the answer along with new funds to use as they are meant to be.

They also need to be honestly monitored and given guidance by higher authorities.

Unfortunatel, before this funding was purely a political vote catching exercise and an indirect way of rewarding / encouraging local administrators to become unethical and negligent of there duties to the the very communities they are elected to assist and advise.

Along with improving their lifestyles by honest endeavour, hard work and their families futures. ( surely this should have been the protracted objective and was not )

In other words it has failed in most cases.

The debate by the way is not only about local politics and the thread is about many different scenarios and why and where we are now.

Tony,s observation is part and parcel of the fuller picture and relevant to the ongoing discussion as among these statistics when they are fully investigated are many of the reasons why life for the majority of local Moo Bans ( In the Isaan area for one ) have got really bad and gone downhill.

Examples like these are the cause of negativity.

Thailand needs to re educate the rural communities if they are to return to being positive and have a future to look forward to.

This is collectively and not as selfish individuals with no hope of a future befitting the present attitude.

Priorities and values need to be re assesed.

Yes there are cases of good governance among certain localities but they are I,m sad to say few and far between from my own personal observations and well we all know this.

Without being condescending if you have the Thai equivalent of Martin, Chownah and Tony ect. overseeing future projects then I, feel confident they wlll be successful.

In my humble opinion of course.

marshbags

There is a lot of truth in what you say according to village Thai people I talk to. And the ones controlling the money, both village fund and personal money lenders were all so often the ones saying right we are all going to jump in these trucks and go down to the polling station to vote TRT. Then we could get in to the major drug dealers in the villages known to many who used their influence and ill gotten gain in favor of TRT and who never had to worry about being gunned down in the infamous affair of the disappearance of the drug dealers. Yes the power structures of local governence in many of the villages cetainly leave a lot to be desired.

[Plus]

Great!!!! The good old US of A is being used by some here as a model for Thai development....I can't wait!!!!! It will all happen when the farm boys get some smarts and start to sell their souls to the factory bosses around Bangkok.

It's not a model, it's what WILL happen. In a modern economy agriculture accounts for less than 5% of workforce. Even traditional powerhouses like Spain and France have less than 5% in agriculture. For Sweden the number is 1%. 70-80% work in services, the rest in industry.

For comparison withint region, Malaysia has 14% already.

[Erwin1011]

I want to just clear up some points made:

Repayments to Banks - Banks expect 100% of their loans outstanding to repaid, not something close to 80%. Understanding some bad loans will exist, the bank considers 99% acceptable. A bank that only collects 90% of its outstandings will need new capital or will go bankrupt. The interest rate charged has to cover the bank's cost of funds and operating costs. After this, only a little is left to cover bad loans and generate profits. Bad loans are devastating to a bank.

Government Loans - There is no international agency telling governments how much reserves it needs and capital adequacy ratios to maintain as there is with banks. Hence, governments can live with higher loss rates. Still, a government that only gets 30% of its loans repaid is operating a give away program, not a loan scheme.

Productivity - Increasing the number of cows increases production, but not productivity. Productivity is the amount of units (milk etc.) each cow can generate. Increasing productivity while keeping costs down is one of the keys for Sufficiency Economy, as it means you are using your existing resources efficiently. Adding resources to increase production, without a corresponding increase in productivity, is how a country overextends itself.

If you want the correct definition : Productivity = output divided by input. you can improve productivity basically only in two ways: keep the input level stable and increase the output (or improve the efficiency of the producing unit (less waste, higher yield, less downtime etc) or decrease the input factor for the same amount of output ( in an industrial labour environment that would be headcount reduction). Of course a combination of the two is always possible.

[chownah]

Perhaps Thailand will develop a post modern economy instead of a modern economy. Perhaps wholesale urbanization can be avoided. If it is to be avoided then there needs to be a way to develop the economy more evenly across the country. The million baht program might be viewed as a failure by some but it at least had the appearance of attempting to develop some economy in the rural sector without urbanization....the same can be said about OTOP..some may call it a failure but it was at least an attempt. I think that H.M. the King's sufficiency economy ideas are based at least partly on people staying on the farms and developing economies in rural areas. Most of the countries with well developed economies developed a long time ago when urbanization was perhaps necessary for the growth and certainly was never questioned until the pattern was set and the infrastructure was developed to channel all resources into large urban enterprise. This need not necessarily be the fate of all development in the future. Now there are people who see the downside of the urban rat hole and are working to develop economically without undo rat hole development. With enough people working in that direction coupled with the revolutionary advances in communications technologies of the last 50 years it just might be possible. If this is to be accomplished it will be done using methods that have never been used before...that haven't even been thought of yet perhaps...so...it is inevitable that there will be some (perhaps many) programs with limited or even no success. If people can learn from these and build on what is learned from these marginal programs then just maybe a success can be produced.....by just assuming that urbanization is inevitable is the best way to assure its inevitability.

Chownah

[Martin]

In post #307, 'chownah' said:

"Perhaps Thailand will develop a post modern economy instead of a modern economy. Perhaps wholesale urbanization can be avoided."

And 'chownah' is right. The 'modern economy' only worked because of the availability of cheap inorganic fertilizer. That allowed one person, with the help of big machinery, to produce enough food for twenty persons. So the other nineteen were available to do other things.

But remove the inorganic fertilizer and there is no way that the 'modern economies' are sustainable.

And it is removing itself, as its feedstock price and production costs ratchet up.

Britain had to face a similar hard fact some 65 years ago. Its 'modern economy' depended on cheap wheat from the North American prairies, but the German submarines cut the supply line. Britain survived because it did the sensible thing: the Government launched a 'partial sufficiency' drive (called "Dig for Victory"), and it put a lot more people to work on its farms (called "Land Girls", and later it used Prisoners of War, too).

Fortunately for Britain, it had just enough land, that when the change was made and the land was farmed intensively by the augmented workforce, it could just provide enough food.

Thailand is lucky that it has a lot of land that is being farmed unintensively at present, as there is no spare labour left in the villages at the necessary times of the year.

When the demand for non-food consumer goods dries up in the countries to which Thailand exports at present, urbanisation will actually go into reverse. There is an erroneous idea that urban people can't 'go rural', but it is surprising what people can do when the alternative is to go hungry.

If anybody bothers to go on calculating it, GDP will show consistent negative growth. But everybody will be just as well fed and sheltered. (And, in my optimism, I foresee Thai society improving, as the towns and villages increase their social capital, and the social problems caused by urban migration become ameliorated.)

What worries me is that pursuing Thaksin's assets, and writing yet another constitution, will pre-empt all the attention, and the necessary steps to get the economic message across won't get attended to.

[hammered]

Perhaps Thailand will develop a post modern economy instead of a modern economy. Perhaps wholesale urbanization can be avoided. If it is to be avoided then there needs to be a way to develop the economy more evenly across the country. The million baht program might be viewed as a failure by some but it at least had the appearance of attempting to develop some economy in the rural sector without urbanization....the same can be said about OTOP..some may call it a failure but it was at least an attempt. I think that H.M. the King's sufficiency economy ideas are based at least partly on people staying on the farms and developing economies in rural areas. Most of the countries with well developed economies developed a long time ago when urbanization was perhaps necessary for the growth and certainly was never questioned until the pattern was set and the infrastructure was developed to channel all resources into large urban enterprise. This need not necessarily be the fate of all development in the future. Now there are people who see the downside of the urban rat hole and are working to develop economically without undo rat hole development. With enough people working in that direction coupled with the revolutionary advances in communications technologies of the last 50 years it just might be possible. If this is to be accomplished it will be done using methods that have never been used before...that haven't even been thought of yet perhaps...so...it is inevitable that there will be some (perhaps many) programs with limited or even no success. If people can learn from these and build on what is learned from these marginal programs then just maybe a success can be produced.....by just assuming that urbanization is inevitable is the best way to assure its inevitability.

Chownah

Maybe wholescale urbanization is avoidable, but to avoid it another driving issue needs to be looked at which will need wholescale change. The freedom those going to the urban centers gets is often overlooked. In the villages they live in the family home and within the often restrictive set up of the extended family where the elders hold sway. Away from the village comes a freedom to experiment and make decisions alone as well as having more control of ones money.

If the future is to be built around the village or extended family, how will the freedoms the younger generation want and to some degree now enjoy by leaving home be built into the system? It seems there is another potential social clash between traditional and modern in the village that till now is addressed by urban drift.

[Martin]

"It seems there is another potential social clash between traditional and modern in the village that till now is addressed by urban drift."

In the conditions of 40 years ago, I would have felt quite concerned about this.

At that time, there was a saying amongst Welsh hill-farming families: "It is tragic if you don't have a son who wants to follow you on the farm; and it is also tragic if you have two who do."

What lay behind that was exactly what 'hammered' described in the attraction of the 'bright lights and freedom' of urban life compared to rural life. So many sons wanted to get away.

But some wanted to stay, and the second part was recognition that, to support a family, farms needed to be the size they were. Dividing them produced two farms that were both too small to be viable.

The difference now is a lot more tolerance of 'experimental behaviour' that was only possible then in the anonymity of urban life, out of the knowledge of the elders in the rural location. And satellite television and the Internet mean we are no longer 'buried' in the countryside.

Youngsters will be able to go to University and have three or four years of urban freedom and then come back to join the other clued-up villagers and not feel cut-off from the world.

In my time I have seen occupations that were only felt to need a bit if low-level training (most notably teaching and nursing) become "all-graduate professions". I foresee a "mostly-graduate peasantry".

In Britain, politicians had to factor in the influence and clout of the National Farmers'Union and the Farmers' Union of Wales.

These were not trade unions of workers (that was the Union of Agricultural Workers) but organisations of small businessmen, and more akin to the British Medical Association and the Law Society with a remit to protect and promote the interests of their sector of the 'professional class'.

Thailand's politicians will have to take note, and pander, likewise.

(If only I could write a novel, it would be about the election in 2037 of an Isaan farm-girl, who had lived in the West and then returned as a 'mia farang' to retire at 50 to her home village and become Thailand's first woman Prime Minister at 65. Other sciences have their outlandish science fiction; why not Social Science?).

For all industrialised countries, I think that social (economic/political/cultural) organisation will go through as many changes during the era of declining industrial might as it did in the era of growing industrial might.

It will be "Last in, first out" for countries like Thailand, I think. But for China and India, "Might is right" may well prevail.

We, and the following generations, will live in interesting times.

[bannork]

It's interesting how this debate has widened into a discussion about the industrial\rural future of Thailand.

Regarding the efficiency and corruption of local administrative bodies, our local council installed street lighting last year, now the lights are dark, not enough money to pay the electricity bill. a road leading out of the village is only paved 75%, the money 'ran out', as the locals say the salary for the councillors is minimal so how do you think they find the money to pay for the pick-up?

It was the same with the 1 million baht fund, my wife was given 10,000 baht and told to pay back 12,000 in 6 months, that's 40% interest p.a.. Thaksin never cared about developing the villages' economies, if he had he would have ensured there were measures in place to monitor and regulate the budget.

And he was no friend of local democracy either, he wanted to change the status of village headmen back to a lifelong post rather than election every 5 years.

Successive governments have tried to promote industrialisation in the provinces with tax breaks with limited success. For most firms, Rayong and the eastern seaboard with easy access for exports, imports makes it not worthwhile to move to Issan. So the young of Issan move there, coming home once or twice a year, leaving their kids with the grandparents and relations.

But the money is still poor so many turn to working in Korea, Taiwan( though that's going out of favour), The Middle East, various African countries.

And what are the receivers of the remits doing with the money apart from feeding the young?

Building houses,planting eucalytus, rubber plantations, small scale farming projects and businesses like garage repair shops, beauty salons.

I see, on the local level, Issan developing, and it's a much more pleasant place to be than polluted, noisy Bangkok. And those who see the inevitability of urban migration should remember in a tropical country people can actually provide a considerable part of their daily food themselves. I know villagers who don't spend more than 30 baht a day because they trap fish, breed chickens and grow vegetables.

But education, or rather the poor quality of what passes as education, is a big handicap. Everyone passes the year no matter what grade they got, multiple choice answers and the syllabus itself are major obstacles to self development. Martin sees the students going to the upgraded Ratchapat, ( now universities!) as signs of development but what do they learn in 4 years?

I've learnt more about farming from Thai visa.com than my daughter learnt in 3 years at Udon agricultural centre. I heard a former Thai minister say he learnt more from one Discovery programme about nature on UBC than he learnt in his entire 3 years of Mattayom high school.

Perhaps it is those who are enterprising and optimistic who return to their home provinces, whilst those who are content to work in a non demanding salary job, watch the soaps and visit Big C once a week remain in the industrial factories and centres.

[Martin]

'bannork', said in his excellent post #311,

"I see, on the local level, Issan developing, and it's a much more pleasant place to be than polluted, noisy Bangkok. And those who see the inevitability of urban migration should remember in a tropical country people can actually provide a considerable part of their daily food themselves. I know villagers who don't spend more than 30 baht a day because they trap fish......."

which reminded me of coming home last night.

We had taken one of our lads to the big teaching hospital and they had removed his appendix (which is the sort of good service for which it is a good thing to have the urban side of the social organization). As we approached our house, there was water about half an inch (1cm) deep running along the concrete of the soi, and small fish jumping along in it. My wife quickly rummaged in the glove compartment for a plastic bag and, in five minutes had half a kilo of small fish, which are being eaten as I type. That is 'partial sufficiency, mia farang style'!

I agree with 'bannork' that there is a great need for better curriculum in the schools. It seems to be as bad a situation here as in England (where I did periods as a Supply Teacher (substitute teacher) in 2000 to 2005).

Niels Mulder in "Thai Images: the culture of the public world" analyses the social-studies part of the thai curriculum and shows it to be woefully misleading and lacking, and I know the science-studies part has its similar shortcomings.

Britain's schools have a different shortcoming: their curriculum is designed to get kids ready to be factory fodder in the factories that are no more.

However, the kids have to be kept off the streets at an acceptable cost, and schooling/colleging/universiting edutainment at least gets them together where they learn to socialise, in additional ways to one-to-one on a mobile phone.

The encouraging change that I see is that, because of satellite tv and the Internet, the 'enterprising and optimistic' can now live and thrive now in rural areas without paying the former price of being 'buried away, out of touch with the world'.

Ramkamhaeng University has just started a little outreach campus near us, sixty km from any city.

(Actually they got the land and started building pre-1997, and then it was stalled for 7 years, but it got completed in the Thaksin times.)

It seems to have got its first students as 'weekenders', and there is a rumour that a high proportion are there to get a degree so they can run for parliament.

The Chula lot may get a real run for their money when the Village College lot start to compete.

(Shades of Ruskin beating Magdalen at croquet, for those who know England's cut-throat academia.)

Whatever comes back from Thaksin could be well spent in extending this "Village College" program.

There is a lot of undeveloped 'intellectual horsepower', waiting to be tapped, in adults whose parents could not afford to send them to school, college and university.

[Old Man River]

Productivity - Increasing the number of cows increases production, but not productivity. Productivity is the amount of units (milk etc.) each cow can generate. Increasing productivity while keeping costs down is one of the keys for Sufficiency Economy, as it means you are using your existing resources efficiently. Adding resources to increase production, without a corresponding increase in productivity, is how a country overextends itself.

When considering productivity, it is essential that you keep in mind what or whose productivity you are considering. It is obvious (at least to me) that in the above quote it is the productivity of a cow that is being considered. I think that it is more important to consider the productivity of the farmer. If a farmer takes an hour a day taking 2 cows to pasture and then home again...but then this same farmer gets a loan from someone and buys two more cows and it still takes the same hour every day to take 4 cows to pasture and then home again...then the FARMER's productivity in moving cows to and from pasture has doubled.

Chownah

Agreed, but the person that lends the money for the cows will still want to repaid (I think that was the issue that started the discussion on the cows, but not sure anymore).

[Martin]

Was it always a monetary loan?

I thought I heard that there was a scheme that lent one cow to each, and they had to pay back one cow in due course, but kept its progeny.

This is much better as it protects the borrower from the problem of a fall in the price of cows, in return for the lender getting the chance to gain from a rise in the price.

(The Americans are going to find that this is the drawback to taking a monetary loan to buy a house. A 100% mortgage loan can't be paid back by surrendering 100% of the house. Even after that, the borrower is left in debt by the amount by which the house price has fallen.)

One of the great strengths of rural Thailand is that it is better placed to survive a national fiat money disaster. Barter is still alive and well---village housewives can pay the egg vendor in rice, as an alternative to cash.

The price of gold wentdown last week because the central banks sold a lot. But who bought? I'll bet Thaksin did. If so, and there is a loss of credibility in fiat money, as looks more and more likely, Thaksin will be able to pay back any 'fine' very easily from a bit of his gold holding.

[Hermano Lobo]

I found this letter in today's The Nation particularly interesting:-

The civil service is glad to be rid of Thaksin

I think a lot of foreigners have no idea of what's been going on in Thailand. I'm no supporter of Sonthi Limthongkul, but I disliked Thaksin even more. As I'm in the government, I can tell you that for many of us, these past few years felt like a "reign of terror" - that's the description from a top civil servant. You couldn't say anything against Thai Rak Thai's policies. You had to serve their populist, propagandistic, nepotistic policies and could not ask whether these policies were good for Thailand or not. They never listened.

Politicians were gaining control deeper and deeper into our ranks. Corruption was hidden by dividing transactions into smaller amounts so as not to attract public attention. I'm not proud of the conduct of complicit officials. There's simply no excuse for why we never really stood up to the so-called democratically elected Thaksin administration. But the majority of us in many ministries tried our best to serve the country and His Majesty the King even though we're not in the highest echelons. I'm not sorry the military came. I'm glad the previous administration has gone. I'm a real Thai person. You can keep the ever-so-idealistic democracy to yourself for now. This is our house and it's our task to clean it up.

A Thai reader

Bangkok

[ColPyat]

I'm not sorry the military came. I'm glad the previous administration has gone. I'm a real Thai person. You can keep the ever-so-idealistic democracy to yourself for now. This is our house and it's our task to clean it up.

A Thai reader

Bangkok

[/i]

...cleaned up by the Military and Civil service, renown for it's traditional staunch incorruptibility...

[marshbags]

It's interesting how this debate has widened into a discussion about the industrial\rural future of Thailand.

Regarding the efficiency and corruption of local administrative bodies, our local council installed street lighting last year, now the lights are dark, not enough money to pay the electricity bill. a road leading out of the village is only paved 75%, the money 'ran out', as the locals say the salary for the councillors is minimal so how do you think they find the money to pay for the pick-up?

It was the same with the 1 million baht fund, my wife was given 10,000 baht and told to pay back 12,000 in 6 months, that's 40% interest p.a.. Thaksin never cared about developing the villages' economies, if he had he would have ensured there were measures in place to monitor and regulate the budget.

And he was no friend of local democracy either, he wanted to change the status of village headmen back to a lifelong post rather than election every 5 years.

Successive governments have tried to promote industrialisation in the provinces with tax breaks with limited success. For most firms, Rayong and the eastern seaboard with easy access for exports, imports makes it not worthwhile to move to Issan. So the young of Issan move there, coming home once or twice a year, leaving their kids with the grandparents and relations.

But the money is still poor so many turn to working in Korea, Taiwan( though that's going out of favour), The Middle East, various African countries.

And what are the receivers of the remits doing with the money apart from feeding the young?

Building houses,planting eucalytus, rubber plantations, small scale farming projects and businesses like garage repair shops, beauty salons.

I see, on the local level, Issan developing, and it's a much more pleasant place to be than polluted, noisy Bangkok. And those who see the inevitability of urban migration should remember in a tropical country people can actually provide a considerable part of their daily food themselves. I know villagers who don't spend more than 30 baht a day because they trap fish, breed chickens and grow vegetables.

But education, or rather the poor quality of what passes as education, is a big handicap. Everyone passes the year no matter what grade they got, multiple choice answers and the syllabus itself are major obstacles to self development. Martin sees the students going to the upgraded Ratchapat, ( now universities!) as signs of development but what do they learn in 4 years?

I've learnt more about farming from Thai visa.com than my daughter learnt in 3 years at Udon agricultural centre. I heard a former Thai minister say he learnt more from one Discovery programme about nature on UBC than he learnt in his entire 3 years of Mattayom high school.

Perhaps it is those who are enterprising and optimistic who return to their home provinces, whilst those who are content to work in a non demanding salary job, watch the soaps and visit Big C once a week remain in the industrial factories and centres.

Nice one.

This thread, unlike many of the others has been allowed to develop and expand due to sensible, interesting and relevant observations and no serious flamers intent on stiffling / closing it down.

I am enjoying being a part of it and find lots of the posts good quality along with being educational on local scenarious and some of the more professional imput that i wouldn,t have learned / experienced enough to think of.

Isn,t it nice to agree to disagree while reading comments perhaps not complimentary to our own personal views, but all sensible and constructive.

The best way to develop the future of Thailand for it,s citizens is by meeting in the middle ground and sharing / putting ideas that can be beneficial to the relevant communities, wherever they may be and being prepared to differ for a positive outcome.

I see lots of compromise which is great for a change and lots of old / new imput.

This is a very good debate in my humble opinion.

marshbags

Edited October 9, 2006 by marshbags

[Plus]

Thailand is still in the agrarian stage of development. It's slowly becoming an industrilised country, and as time goes by and the rest of the world has passed that stage (70-80% of workforce are in services, not in industry), Thailand is looking at jumping over industrialisation.

While there might be the case for going straight into "post-modern" economy, the farmers are still trapped in agrarian society.

Maybe communication technology will allow people to live and work away from cities but there's little evidence for that here. Thailand is moving very fast, but in the wrong direction - getting farther and farther behind aspiring knowledge based economies. Its "have nots" are having less and less with each wasted year.

Self sufficiency will mitigate effects of mass migration of farmers into urban slums but I don't think it will stop the process altogether let alone reverse it.

[chownah]

Thailand is still in the agrarian stage of development. It's slowly becoming an industrilised country, and as time goes by and the rest of the world has passed that stage (70-80% of workforce are in services, not in industry), Thailand is looking at jumping over industrialisation.

While there might be the case for going straight into "post-modern" economy, the farmers are still trapped in agrarian society.

Maybe communication technology will allow people to live and work away from cities but there's little evidence for that here. Thailand is moving very fast, but in the wrong direction - getting farther and farther behind aspiring knowledge based economies. Its "have nots" are having less and less with each wasted year.

Self sufficiency will mitigate effects of mass migration of farmers into urban slums but I don't think it will stop the process altogether let alone reverse it.

You may see farmers and think that they are trapped....you might be right for some of them but many farmers already are only part timers and have other jobs they do in the off season. Some people are probably stuck farming since they have no other skills, but some people choose the life in the village because it gives them alot more freedom than living in the rat race in the big cities. My carpenter (also a farmer) doesn't make alot of money but he takes days off whenever he wants and if he doesn't like doing a particular type of work he simply doesn't take the job. He's always got his house to live in and food to eat. He likes his independence and knows full well that he would lose it if he moved to the city to get rich....he's not interested, thank you.

You comment that the "have nots" are getting farther behind....I really haven't seen this at all in Thailnad. It seems to me that over the last 10 years the farmers' lives are getting better. There is no large scale starvation anymore for example and education is far more accessable even to the poorest than it was 20 or even 10 years ago....also the 30 baht health care plan has extended health care to a much larger segment of the population....people who never had phones before now have cell phones....families now have motorcycles that didn't have them before and now they are getting 4 stroke motorcycles which get better gas mileage, are more comfortable, and don't pollute as much. Farming is becoming more mechanised even in the five years that I have been here so this improves the lifestyle of the farmer too. Villages are gradually getting their streets paved...........Frankly I don't see that the bulk of the poor are having a harder time....Frankly it seems to me that the rural poor are seeing improvements in their lives. Of course there are still some very poor people in Thailand....just like in every country in the world.

Chownah

P.S. I also disagree with your view of the inevitablility of the type of development that will happen here. Things happen because people make them happen.....if everyone thought like you (sadly, most do) then yours would be a self fulfilling prophecy....the expectation that urban rat holes with unfulfilling jobs is probably the major factor that creates them.

Chownah

Edited October 10, 2006 by chownah

[kmart]

All Thailand needs to do is upgrade its education system. Period. Try teaching naturally clever, energetic children how to think; instead of what to think. This has been stalled forever. Wonder why?

With an effective "clean slate," to start over again politically, this should be a good time to start planning for the future of the whole country and not just for the benefit of the ruling cliques.

I really hope that the new govt has the political will to bite the bullet and make some tough changes.

[loveandlaughter]

An interesting thread.

The only reason to advocate always urbanisation is on a "growth at all costs" model.

The better way is quality of life.

The motorbike and mobile phone do make life easier and make villagers less cut off.....especially from medical services and the like.

However progress need not always be rampant consumerism.....that seems to only breed divisiveness as communities divide between haves and have-nots.

Education need not simply be a means to an end, it could lead to a livelier interest and interaction with people and the enviroment.

It's the self serving corruption that needs to be dealt with and the idea of public service being just that......

[marshbags]

An interesting thread.

The only reason to advocate always urbanisation is on a "growth at all costs" model.

The better way is quality of life.

The motorbike and mobile phone do make life easier and make villagers less cut off.....especially from medical services and the like.

However progress need not always be rampant consumerism.....that seems to only breed divisiveness as communities divide between haves and have-nots.

Education need not simply be a means to an end, it could lead to a livelier interest and interaction with people and the enviroment.

It's the self serving corruption that needs to be dealt with and the idea of public service being just that......

Rural areas in general have improved along with the quality of life for many regarding consumer ownership.

In my Moo Ban for example most families now have at least one motorbike, a mobile per each family member in most cases, T.V and the latest entertainment that modern tech. has provided.

Many are in debt up to their eyes in the quest to have them and out do their neighbour and by doing so demand / gain false respect as the owner of this display of wealth and their status in the community.

It doesn,t matter that they are buying them with other peoples money

( banks and unsrcupilous money lenders ect. with vested interests to gain.)

on the have now, pay back never basis.

Do not think i am saying don,t have a means of transport like a motor bike ( 1 )

A mobile phone for communication for the family ( 1 )

Ect. Ect. Ect.

Most also do not do any work what so ever or contribute in real terms to the the Moo Ban and have no desire to do so.

The 30 baht H.Scheme provides limited cover for all who register and is a definite asset for the sick who can now go to the local hospital for possible treatment and medicines that would otherwise not be available to them without finances.

( This scheme by the way was the idea and desire of certain academics and was hijacked by a political party that i do not need to name, for electoral benefits ect. )

The local Soi,s are now concreted and we have reasonable water drainage, if used properly and maintained it prevents minor flooding that was an annual occurance before, even with limited rain fall.

Most have enough food and can get basic / additional supplies from the local Wat if they are poor.

( That,s if there is any left after the greedy selfish PuYai have been given their daily supplies. )

Yes things have improved but, unless people with honesty are given positions in the community to control the blatant self serving corruption and mis use of local power and authority then you can forget their lifestyles improving any further.

Think how much was creamed off before these improvemnts took place and consequently several jobs are unfinished because of this.

Unfortunately this also encourages those that do not have these materialistic things to take them from those that do which is also a big problem locally.

If these much needed officials with integrity cannot be found and elected who have a genuine desire / love of the locals, care about their futures and their communities, then all the efforts to bring them into the 21st century along with diversifying from established out dated methods are never going to happen.

I feel sorry for the ones who day after day go out of their way to do all and everything that will benefit everyone, no matter who or what the are, be they poor or of lower ability.

These are the ones that should be elected to compliment the professionals with the know how and ability to change to the modern era.

Surprisingly these unassuming locals are usually the only ones that hold down a respectable job by the way and are supporting all the family members that have no desire to work because of this, due to misguided loyalty and family cultures of a past era.

Re education, community spirit and a desire to move forward are basics that are desperately needed along with the right priorities and equality for all regarding basic needs.

To change the present mind set and kick start new enthusiasm and give self respect and self esteem is a good starting point with the inclusion of the above.

RE education RE education RE education, Insentive Insentive Insentive, S. Esteem S.Esteem S.Esteem.

Last of all Funding channelled into the correct areas they are intended to be allocated for, 100 % to bring about this much needed modernisation.

In my humble opinion.

marshbags

Edited October 10, 2006 by marshbags

[Hermano Lobo]

Yesterday's The Nation had a couple more interesting letters. I believe they put things into perspective. I have spoken to Bangkok Indian businessmen who believe that Thaksin was good for business yet surprisingly did not know about Thaksin's own Little Coup? I hope they read these letters?

1)

"LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Thailand's military is much more respectful of democracy than some regional govts

Published on Oct 9, 2006

Thailand's military coup-makers are far more civilised and forgivable than their Burmese counterparts in many ways.

* They didn't cause any bloodshed. The Burmese military wantonly gunned down thousands of unarmed protesters throughout the country when they staged the coup in 1988.

*The Thai military has a timetable to draw up a constitution within one year and they promised they would not be involved in politics. The Burmese junta has been drawing up a constitution for 14 years. When will they finish is anybody's guess.

*The Thai military faded to the background within two weeks after finding the interim prime minister. The Burmese junta chief Than Shwe is taking off his uniform to become the president of democratic Burma.

*The Thai military has professional soldiers. The Burmese generals never think about the country. They only think about their power and would do anything to keep it so that they and their cohorts will be able to rule the country with guns for generations. They want to copy the Suharto system.

Meanwhile, Singapore is not semi-democratic. It is autocratic. The ruling party has everything in hand: legislative, administrative and judicial power all at its disposal. We can't say it is even a 1 per cent democracy. The courts bankrupt and/or jail anyone who criticises the government.

Even the foreign media are being harassed. The current prime minister got his post because of his father. He is shameless to say that Thailand's coup was a step back from democracy. He lectures other countries about their systems without looking at himself and Singapore.

I think ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra tried to copy Singapore's system by his shrewd marketing strategy and his immense wealth. He wanted to own a party to control Parliament and follow Singapore's way. Perhaps Thaksin chose Singapore as his buyer out of inspiration."

A Burmese expat

Bangkok

2)

"S'pore sees itself reflected in the events leading to the coup

It's hardly surprising that Lee Hsien Loong thinks Thailand's coup was a setback for democracy. It goes deeper than the financial difficulties Temasek suffered from the Shin Corp deal.

The real problem is that the change in Thailand exposes the same charade of a democracy that prevails now in present-day Singapore. It has laid bare the authoritarian rule behind the sanitised mask of democratic trappings.

The sinking of Thai Rak Thai, a well-known clone of the PAP, must have seemed less of a setback than a jolt to Singapore's ideas about governance. "

Nicha Natesakul

Bangkok

3)- From perhaps an American ?

"Time to guarantee the rights of the country's minorities

With so much misguided talk about democracy lately, it's important to point out that votes are hardly the whole of the matter.

Human rights, justice, checks and balances, law and a degree of order are essential components sometimes missing from what is occasionally, but inappropriately, referred to as democracy.

The United States is now democratic only through euphemism - checks and balances, law, human rights and even the vote have been undermined. Yet the US, would dare to preach democracy. As Thaksin Shinawatra did.

Now is the time to show who really has cultural values. And human rights is the place to start.

Assets have not been seized, nor have big-wigs been jailed since the coup (to my knowledge). This may be the Thai way - reverence for the well-born. But now is certainly the time to extend to Yawi-speakers in the South and tribes in the North the rights that Thailand is legally bound to offer.

At the high-school here in the North where I once taught, Thaksin promised citizenship, soon, for people here. Maybe he did that for the wrong reasons, but still, it remains the right thing to do.

It's not just the powers of the "free" world who are watching. So are the peasants. It would be quite a shame if our old CEO (of Thaksin Loves Thaksin Corp) remained a hero of the people (not unlike Stalin and Mao, unfortunately).

To me, and many others, the coup was a great relief. There remains legitimate concern, though, that it might prove primarily of benefit to the Bangkok elite as usual."

Joel J Barlow

Chiang Rai

[j_cheung]

Yesterday's The Nation had a couple more interesting letters. I believe they put things into perspective. I have spoken to Bangkok Indian businessmen who believe that Thaksin was good for business yet surprisingly did not know about Thaksin's own Little Coup? I hope they read these letters?

1)

"LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Thailand's military is much more respectful of democracy than some regional govts

Published on Oct 9, 2006

Thailand's military coup-makers are far more civilised and forgivable than their Burmese counterparts in many ways.

* They didn't cause any bloodshed. The Burmese military wantonly gunned down thousands of unarmed protesters throughout the country when they staged the coup in 1988.

*The Thai military has a timetable to draw up a constitution within one year and they promised they would not be involved in politics. The Burmese junta has been drawing up a constitution for 14 years. When will they finish is anybody's guess.

*The Thai military faded to the background within two weeks after finding the interim prime minister. The Burmese junta chief Than Shwe is taking off his uniform to become the president of democratic Burma.

*The Thai military has professional soldiers. The Burmese generals never think about the country. They only think about their power and would do anything to keep it so that they and their cohorts will be able to rule the country with guns for generations. They want to copy the Suharto system.

Meanwhile, Singapore is not semi-democratic. It is autocratic. The ruling party has everything in hand: legislative, administrative and judicial power all at its disposal. We can't say it is even a 1 per cent democracy. The courts bankrupt and/or jail anyone who criticises the government.

Even the foreign media are being harassed. The current prime minister got his post because of his father. He is shameless to say that Thailand's coup was a step back from democracy. He lectures other countries about their systems without looking at himself and Singapore.

I think ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra tried to copy Singapore's system by his shrewd marketing strategy and his immense wealth. He wanted to own a party to control Parliament and follow Singapore's way. Perhaps Thaksin chose Singapore as his buyer out of inspiration."

A Burmese expat

Bangkok

2)

"S'pore sees itself reflected in the events leading to the coup

It's hardly surprising that Lee Hsien Loong thinks Thailand's coup was a setback for democracy. It goes deeper than the financial difficulties Temasek suffered from the Shin Corp deal.

The real problem is that the change in Thailand exposes the same charade of a democracy that prevails now in present-day Singapore. It has laid bare the authoritarian rule behind the sanitised mask of democratic trappings.

The sinking of Thai Rak Thai, a well-known clone of the PAP, must have seemed less of a setback than a jolt to Singapore's ideas about governance. "

Nicha Natesakul

Bangkok

3)- From perhaps an American ?

"Time to guarantee the rights of the country's minorities

With so much misguided talk about democracy lately, it's important to point out that votes are hardly the whole of the matter.

Human rights, justice, checks and balances, law and a degree of order are essential components sometimes missing from what is occasionally, but inappropriately, referred to as democracy.

The United States is now democratic only through euphemism - checks and balances, law, human rights and even the vote have been undermined. Yet the US, would dare to preach democracy. As Thaksin Shinawatra did.

Now is the time to show who really has cultural values. And human rights is the place to start.

Assets have not been seized, nor have big-wigs been jailed since the coup (to my knowledge). This may be the Thai way - reverence for the well-born. But now is certainly the time to extend to Yawi-speakers in the South and tribes in the North the rights that Thailand is legally bound to offer.

At the high-school here in the North where I once taught, Thaksin promised citizenship, soon, for people here. Maybe he did that for the wrong reasons, but still, it remains the right thing to do.

It's not just the powers of the "free" world who are watching. So are the peasants. It would be quite a shame if our old CEO (of Thaksin Loves Thaksin Corp) remained a hero of the people (not unlike Stalin and Mao, unfortunately).

To me, and many others, the coup was a great relief. There remains legitimate concern, though, that it might prove primarily of benefit to the Bangkok elite as usual."

Joel J Barlow

Chiang Rai

I find the general thrust of the Letters to the Editors rather distrubing in light of HM the King's comments on foreigners & Thais. Now, we move from Thaxon-bashing to S'pore-smearing. What's going to come next?

[Martin]

Political systems is a matter of 'horses for courses', and every country has a slightly different course to ride over than any other.

In fact, Thailand and Singapore have totally different 'courses'.

I lived and worked in Singapore for six years in a job that happened to cause me to be confided in by a variety of senior people in government circles. I soon found that the political power situation there was much more nuanced than the over-simplified version that is generally promulgated by press observers.

I found Singpore governance totally fascinating, and I find Thailand governance totally fascinating, but they are two totally different fascinations.

[Martin]

'marshbags' said, in post #322:

"To change the present mind set and kick start new enthusiasm and give self respect and self esteem is a good starting point with the inclusion of the above."

I am optimistic that this is beginning to happen. The villages that are fairly close to the cities in Isaan, or on the main highways, seem to be holding more of their better youngsters as residents, even though they have got a job in the city.

When all able young workers were drawn away, the total 'social capital' of the village got very low (and that pushed away the next lot of able young people).

We may come to bless the motorbike and cell phone for helping the villages keep some of those with enthusiasm, self respect and self esteem---who in turn will draw in more.

I find that self respect and self esteem don't run very deep in most urban Thais.

But this is not surprising as so many are such recent 'immigrants' to urban life. It takes generations for societal models to develop and consolidate and give that basis for certainty of self respect and self esteem.

It can't be expected to be found deeply embedded in first and second generation migrants to the urban from the rural.

If, as I expect, very changed economic times cause a big 'reverse migration', I believe that self esteem and self respect will come quite fast to the 'new ruralists'.

So many people have dozens of generations of 'rural' ancestors and only one or two who were 'urban'.

So the atavistic 'biases' are there 'in the blood', just biding their time.

I saw it happen when, forty years ago, a nuclear power station was built 'Back Behind Nowhere'.

So many staff came, meaning to spend just a couple of years to get 'nuclear experience' on their CVs, but ended up remaining for the rest of their working lives and for their retirement.

Many became 'part-time peasants', and others were always happy to lend a hand to them on a day off.

(And the agricultural engineering jobs that were carried out in the Mechanical Workshops on weekend night shifts were manifold. The two travelling cranes were most useful to lift my cattle wagon six foot in the air for work to be carried out underneath!!)

[Plus]

You may see farmers and think that they are trapped....you might be right for some of them but many farmers already are only part timers and have other jobs they do in the off season.

That is truly encouraging, but hardly a big step to post-modern world

Some people are probably stuck farming since they have no other skills, but some people choose the life in the village because it gives them alot more freedom than living in the rat race in the big cities. My carpenter (also a farmer) doesn't make alot of money but he takes days off whenever he wants and if he doesn't like doing a particular type of work he simply doesn't take the job. He's always got his house to live in and food to eat. He likes his independence and knows full well that he would lose it if he moved to the city to get rich....he's not interested, thank you.

Life in the post modern cities will not be a rat race for those who chose to live a relaxing life.

You comment that the "have nots" are getting farther behind....I really haven't seen this at all in Thailnad.

I meant knowledge wise. They are not equipped for the life in the 21st century and their productivity is still way below 20th century levels. Education, access to information, personal organisational skills. 80% of Dutch or Scandinavians can speak English, for example. They need it to live in a global, interconnected world, not just for show. Can you compare education and skill levels of an average Scandinavian with an average Thai? Post modern world will most likely to start there, not here.

It seems to me that over the last 10 years the farmers' lives are getting better. There is no large scale starvation anymore for example and education is far more accessable even to the poorest than it was 20 or even 10 years ago....also the 30 baht health care plan has extended health care to a much larger segment of the population....people who never had phones before now have cell phones....families now have motorcycles that didn't have them before and now they are getting 4 stroke motorcycles which get better gas mileage, are more comfortable, and don't pollute as much. Farming is becoming more mechanised even in the five years that I have been here so this improves the lifestyle of the farmer too. Villages are gradually getting their streets paved...........Frankly I don't see that the bulk of the poor are having a harder time....Frankly it seems to me that the rural poor are seeing improvements in their lives.

It should have been done, finished, fifty years ago. When Thai farmers will achieve the level of life comparable to Swiss farmers, then they can talk about "progress". How far off are they from Swiss? Another hundred years? I'm not advocating a race with Swiss, Thailand should be content with what it has - and that means to abandon dreams about becoming first world country, let alone "post-modern". Surveys about Europe show that more and more people place more value on personal and family relationships and on things like self-fullfilment. Rat race and its fruits do not bring significantly more happiness once a certain point is reached, somewhere in the middle class range - level EASILY achievable for MOST people in modern world. I think this is where the progress is heading - work for pleasure, not for money.

P.S. I also disagree with your view of the inevitablility of the type of development that will happen here. Things happen because people make them happen.....if everyone thought like you (sadly, most do) then yours would be a self fulfilling prophecy....the expectation that urban rat holes with unfulfilling jobs is probably the major factor that creates them.

I'm not a huge fan of this development, but it's here. There's absolutely nothing, short of the end of civilisation as we know it, than will stop it. Self sufficiency concept will probably mitigate the negative effects but not overturn the process.

People apparently can be happy even in agrarian society, as you and many others always stress. Happiness often comes from managing values and expectations. Buddhism is a perfect religion for being happy. Thailand CAN be happy without being "post-modern".

[chownah]

"................

I'm not a huge fan of this development, but it's here. There's absolutely nothing, short of the end of civilisation as we know it, than will stop it. Self sufficiency concept will probably mitigate the negative effects but not overturn the process.

.........."

I guess this is where we have irreconcilable differences...I do not see the inevitablility of the extension of the rat hole urbanization to 80+% of the population. As I have said before, the main factor pushing in that direction is people's perception that it is inevitable and the only possible way that life style enhancing development can occur...in my opinion. If you truly are not a big fan of this development then it seem that you are your own worst enemy in that your perception of the possibilities is so limited it is channeling your efforts into causing the thing you don't support to happen. If you could actually see that there are real alternatives to the rat hole urbanization then you could start working to create them....but unless you (or anyone else for that matter) see that there are other options then naturally you will push for the only one that you do see as viable...even if you don't like it!!!!

Chownah

P.S. I completely agree with the statements posted back a few posts that education will be the way out of the rat hole dilemma.....but it will also take some experimentation and innovation....it will take some failures, probably lots of them. It will take investments...lots of them....

Chownah

[Plus]

Chownah, I post what I think will happen, regardless of my own efforts or desires. Thailand is a large country and it will develop on its own, who am I to try and change their course? I just don't see any evidence that urbanisation is going to be reversed here. Why would it happen? Just because you or me wish it so? It reminds me of Thaksin who ordered his statistics bureau to publish "targets" rather than actual prognosis.

Fifty years ago Thailand and Malaysia were both agrian countires with urban population at about 20% or less. Now only 14% of Malaysians work in agriculture, BUT, somehow, about 35% still live in the countryside. That's probably the way to go, and it's doable, and it's more realistic and more "self sufficient" than dreaming up impossible scenarios.

I found Malaysians, esp Malays, as laid back as Thais. No races, no rats, and people are generally content with their lives there.

[chownah]

Chownah, I post what I think will happen, regardless of my own efforts or desires. Thailand is a large country and it will develop on its own, who am I to try and change their course? I just don't see any evidence that urbanisation is going to be reversed here. Why would it happen? Just because you or me wish it so? It reminds me of Thaksin who ordered his statistics bureau to publish "targets" rather than actual prognosis.

Fifty years ago Thailand and Malaysia were both agrian countires with urban population at about 20% or less. Now only 14% of Malaysians work in agriculture, BUT, somehow, about 35% still live in the countryside. That's probably the way to go, and it's doable, and it's more realistic and more "self sufficient" than dreaming up impossible scenarios.

I found Malaysians, esp Malays, as laid back as Thais. No races, no rats, and people are generally content with their lives there.

You ask "Why would it happen?".....the answer is easy.....it would happen because people want it to happen and are willing to expend energy and resources to make it happen. I would happen because people try different approaches to developing rural areas economically and are willing to continue in these efforts even in the face of some failures and disappointments!!!

I haven't presented any scenerios here and already you are labeling them as impossible dreams. Why are you being so judgemental?...prejudiced even. Sounds to me like Malaysia has made alot of progress on this front since 35% still live rurally by your estimation.....

Perhaps we are on different pages and are really argueing different things.....in post #298 you wrote:

Services and industry are two sectors that will suck people away from agriculture without any serious impact, provided farmers get their act together. Only 4% of US population is in agriculture, and the US is the world's biggest producer and exporter of food. In Thailand its still just under 60%, urbanisation has just started.

I interpreted this to mean that you viewed that the only possible future for Thailand was continued urbanization....this is the issue that I have been pursuing. Now it seems that you are indicating that 35% of Malaysians are happily living rural lives......if Thailand can just improve on this by 5% of gross population....up to 40%....then NO further urbanization is even necessary.......this is all from your data.......this increase of 5% gross doesn't seem to me to be a dreamt up impossible scenerio.....or maybe I'm missing something....or maybe your data is incorrect.

Chownah