PM Prayut: 'Citizen-State' policy is not 'Populist'

[Thai at Heart]

It would be a populist policy if he was describing any government other than his own.

I don't think people care that much about it being a populist policy from Thaksin or from the General. As long as the populist policy is carried out, well, that's the important thing. Populist policies are, after all, popular.

The little general may actually be right this time.

Populist policies are merely rhetoric designed to get someone into government (or, keep to them there once they get in) by empathising with the common man.

For Thailand today, the reality is, no matter what he says about universal happiness, it's now 16 months since the military coup and there is little to show for it except that the country is just as divided as ever, and most Thai's are arguable worse off.

Appealing to the masses (argumentum ad populum) is not going to work unless people can actually see that real reform is taking place, with tangible benefits for them.

So, as he said, his policies are not 'Populist'. In fact, I would suggest they're more like 'Un-Populist'!

Wrong.

Populist policies appeal to the majority of the population irrespective of political leaning.

This pejorative definition of Populist as though something that appeals to the majority is something bad is absolute bull****. At the end of the day parties offer policies to get themselves elected.

Why would they offer something utterly unpopular to the majority?

[tbthailand]

the government’s citizen-state policy was not a kind of populist policy but was a means of cooperation between the government and the people.

says the "democratic soldier"

Maybe if there were elected governments and they were allowed to govern, then the "cooperation" would take care of itself.

This clown should take a hike.

[waldroj]

It would be a populist policy if he was describing any government other than his own.

I don't think people care that much about it being a populist policy from Thaksin or from the General. As long as the populist policy is carried out, well, that's the important thing. Populist policies are, after all, popular.

The little general may actually be right this time.

Populist policies are merely rhetoric designed to get someone into government (or, keep to them there once they get in) by empathising with the common man.

For Thailand today, the reality is, no matter what he says about universal happiness, it's now 16 months since the military coup and there is little to show for it except that the country is just as divided as ever, and most Thai's are arguable worse off.

Appealing to the masses (argumentum ad populum) is not going to work unless people can actually see that real reform is taking place, with tangible benefits for them.

So, as he said, his policies are not 'Populist'. In fact, I would suggest they're more like 'Un-Populist'!

Wrong.

Populist policies appeal to the majority of the population irrespective of political leaning.

This pejorative definition of Populist as though something that appeals to the majority is something bad is absolute bull****. At the end of the day parties offer policies to get themselves elected.

Why would they offer something utterly unpopular to the majority?

Poll tax, England, 1990 is just one example.

[tonbridgebrit]

Yes but poll tax in England, 1990, was not a populist policy, right ?

[tonbridgebrit]

Yes but poll tax in England, 1990, was not a populist policy, right ?

Sorry, I think all of us agree that populist policies are good and popular.

[PattayaClub]

"Conflict-free democracy" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Conflict is an inherent part of all democratic systems and always has been. If everybody agreed, there would not even be a political process.

They have never seemed to understand this simple truth in this part of the world.

[jaywalker]

"He has an intention to set up a fund to purchase mortgaged land from indebted people in order to help relieve their debts".

In other words Son of Rice Buying Scheme............

I kept avoiding this thread & finally opened it.

What does "Populist" even mean????

Is it socialism, fascism, communism, corruption-ism??

I have no idea.

I got as far as you did KarenBravo & it hit me.... all of the above = Populist.

One thing it AIN'T & that's capitalist.

The only entrepreneurs allowed are noodle stalls & politicians.

[jaywalker]

It would be a populist policy if he was describing any government other than his own.

I don't think people care that much about it being a populist policy from Thaksin or from the General. As long as the populist policy is carried out, well, that's the important thing. Populist policies are, after all, popular.

The little general may actually be right this time.

Populist policies are merely rhetoric designed to get someone into government (or, keep to them there once they get in) by empathising with the common man.

For Thailand today, the reality is, no matter what he says about universal happiness, it's now 16 months since the military coup and there is little to show for it except that the country is just as divided as ever, and most Thai's are arguable worse off.

Appealing to the masses (argumentum ad populum) is not going to work unless people can actually see that real reform is taking place, with tangible benefits for them.

So, as he said, his policies are not 'Populist'. In fact, I would suggest they're more like 'Un-Populist'!

Wrong.

Populist policies appeal to the majority of the population irrespective of political leaning.

This pejorative definition of Populist as though something that appeals to the majority is something bad is absolute bull****. At the end of the day parties offer policies to get themselves elected.

Why would they offer something utterly unpopular to the majority?

Well said.

Be it Thailand, Greece, the UK or the USA, the general populace wants something for nothing & whichever Political Potentate (Pol Pot) that can convince the masses will win.

I hope Ben Carson wins the next US Pres election. Only front-runner w/ half a brain, though Rand Paul would be better.

Sorry........off topic!

[Eric Loh]

If popular policies are aimed at leveling the inequality of any country, it is good. If you consider 80% of public spending went to only the 20% of the population in around Bangkok, the inequality is obvious. Sufficiently weak political institutions has allowed the rich elites to have a disproportionate wealth and influence on politics relative to their numbers. Whether it's call popular policies, subsidies, welfare, tax breaks, handouts or incentives; it is aimed to give help to the marginalized and support better income equality. Income inequality has rapidly increased over the years while our per capital GNP increase (Gini index). We should not label popular policies in one broad stroke as bad.

[Crazy chef 1]

Thai people be aware...this time you will get fleeced...this guy is dangerous...

[LannaGuy]

It's a Thainess thing, simple translation:

"we do not want a popular government"