Thailand's Economy

[Plus]

No one sold a TV station though.

On Temasek side they will look into nominee situation. If they set up that Thai-Malaysian dude to avoid the law, good luck to them. If they were hoping to get that dude's dividend payments in their own banks, too bad they get screwed.

On the Thai side, they'll look into licences. As I read only ITV is under serious threat as AIS' contract with TOT does not specify foreign ownership.

I don't see any other exit but funding new buyers for Kularb Kaew stake. Temasek wil lose some of the profits, but they'll get back the money invested trough nominees.

[ColPyat]

In case you haven't noticed yet, Thailand is a Kingdom. There's a King who sets principles for the nation to follow. If King's power is challenged or the principles are undermined, Thailand undergoes a "correction", performed by the military.

Serving the King is their main mission. If democracy comes in a way, they don't really care.

Things are still happening here, even though presenty we don't really get much to read about. That will most definately change though soon.

Don't hold your breath. Let's see if they can get Midnight University site up again.

it persuades people that the candidate is rich/powerful enough to go up against Bangkok

Are they really sharpening their forks to march on Bangkok? The divide has always been there, but there was never any anymosity. Struggle of the classes predicted by Marx has never really taken ground here, if you discount brief communist insurgency back in the seventies. There have never been civil wars. Thais are unified by their monarchy, and as long as it's there, they'll live with each other peacefully.

I have noticed that by law Thailand is a kingdom that supposedly has a constitutional monarchy, with a democratic system of government. Democracy comes in the way? This is a highly feudal and outdated political stand, that is more suitable to medievil view on society. Given those statements of yours i sometimes really wonder if you actually think trough before you post what you post. It seems that for you Thai citicens are only there to serve a feudal lord and master, and have no other purpose in life.

Fortunately though the vast majority of Thais do not share this teary eyed romantic and utterly antiquated view, even not the royalists.

If you believe that the only effort of the anti-coup forces is about getting a closed website up again, than you might be in for a bit of a surprise soon. But i won't spoil the surprise....just hear it here and from me, off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush...

I don't know why you are so hung up on Marx. It has been already pointed out to you that many of Marx's theories of historical analyses are in use by people who have nothing to do with communism/socialism. They are one of the many useful tools of analysing social conditions.

There never has been an anymosity, and only a divide between rural folks and Bangkok? I would suggest you spend a bit more time upcountry.

As to the "brief period in the 70s of communist insurgency", well, as has been pointed out to you already, and not just by me, you should familiarize yourself a bit with Thai and regional history. Then you might understand that almost all what you post about regional history here is a pile of crock.

Sorry.

[ColPyat]

The problem with the Shin Deal investigation, is that it will go nowhere. Too many people on the other side of the political fence who have done exactly the same thing, using the law of the land as it stood at the time.

Very much so.

And not only this - they have directly benefitted from the rise (and sale) of ShinCorp. The sale has maybe been the cleanest action of the whole history of ShinCorp. The rise was rather different, but i doubt very much that anyone will go there...

[Martin]

"Are they really sharpening their forks to march on Bangkok?".

No.

But the last-century attitude of the rural areas to Bangkok of "It is far away, and best ignored" is changing.

That upstart from Chiang Mai who got up the noses of all those self-servers in the capital city did send some good things from Bangkok.

The message that it is not unreasonable to expect some return to the provinces for all that Bangkok has traditionally sucked out of them is gradually being realised.

As to the system of leadership by a Dhammarajah, it is continuation of the Dhamma part that underlies a lot of unpublicised concern. (Says he, hoping that he has expressed it opaquely enough).

Will they ever "really sharpen their forks to march on Bangkok"?

IMO, no.

There are those in the world, though, who believe that, all over the world, rural forks will have to be sharpened to repel the ex-urbanites who come from unviable cities seeking food and shelter. (See the NPG bunch in the USA---it stands for the policy that they advocate for the USA: "Negative Population Growth").

But, just as it is said: "Pay your money and take your choice", so we can "wipe our crystal balls and see what we see through optimistic or pessimistic eyes".

When I look at Thailand, I am optimistic.

When I look at the USA and UK, for instance, I am pessimistic.

(And I think there will be many in Iraq who would say "It will serve them right, for having elected Bush and Bliar".

Also, there will be many in Russia who would say: "It will serve them right, for having elected Reagan and Thatcher".

The root of the big problems of today lies in the Reagan-Thatcher decision to knacker the Russian economy by holding down the price of oil, which Russia had to export in order to get dollars to buy wheat. So we have burnt a lot of oil that we should have left in the ground for later.

And then there was Greenspan..............)

Edited October 9, 2006 by Martin

[younghusband]

It's sometimes useful to look ahead a few years, since whatever views we hold of recent events in Thailand they are to some extent conditioned by events of recent months.None of us knows how things will stand in 2030, any more than most of our forebears in 1906 could have predicted the collapses of the Russian,Turkish,Austrian and German empires in little over a decade.Some of us worry about a resurgent militant Islam and its attendant complications, some of us worry about global warning.In 20 years time, one of us will be proved right and the other will look like an idiot.

I have my own views on the way Thai economy and society is going but I could be wrong.Most of us have have ties here and hold the country and its people in affection.Changes will come but the timescale is unsure.As a leading historian once pointed out there are two major lessons to be learnt from history,Firstly, things change much more quickly than one might suppose.Secondly, things change much more slowly than one might suppose.

[hammered]

"Are they really sharpening their forks to march on Bangkok?".

No.

But the last-century attitude of the rural areas to Bangkok of "It is far away, and best ignored" is changing.

That upstart from Chiang Mai who got up the noses of all those self-servers in the capital city did send some good things from Bangkok.

The message that it is not unreasonable to expect some return to the provinces for all that Bangkok has traditionally sucked out of them is gradually being realised.

As to the system of leadership by a Dhammarajah, it is continuation of the Dhamma part that underlies a lot of unpublicised concern. (Says he, hoping that he has expressed it opaquely enough).

Will they ever "really sharpen their forks to march on Bangkok"?

IMO, no.

There are those in the world, though, who believe that, all over the world, rural forks will have to be sharpened to repel the ex-urbanites who come from unviable cities seeking food and shelter. (See the NPG bunch in the USA---it stands for the policy that they advocate for the USA: "Negative Population Growth").

But, just as it is said: "Pay your money and take your choice", so we can "wipe our crystal balls and see what we see through optimistic or pessimistic eyes".

When I look at Thailand, I am optimistic.

When I look at the USA and UK, for instance, I am pessimistic.

(And I think there will be many in Iraq who would say "It will serve them right, for having elected Bush and Bliar".

Also, there will be many in Russia who would say: "It will serve them right, for having elected Reagan and Thatcher".

The root of the big problems of today lies in the Reagan-Thatcher decision to knacker the Russian economy by holding down the price of oil, which Russia had to export in order to get dollars to buy wheat. So we have burnt a lot of oil that we should have left in the ground for later.

And then there was Greenspan..............)

We should also not forget that the 1997 constitution and related laws mandated a far larger slice of government money to be sent from center to local government elected by the local people in form of TAO or PAO. If I remember correctly the amount should have expanded to about one third of government money, although the government of Mr. Thaksin preferred to filter this money through CEO provincial chiefs or other appointed local officials rather than the TAOs for maybe political reasons. Things were certainly going on in parallel to and to some degree before the Thaksin policies. It is all quite complicated but certainly has led to a realization that all should be involved in politics. Maybe Thaksin and the 1997 charter writers were just a product of their time and didnt really realize what could spring from their endeavors.

[hammered]

I would agree the coup is conservative. However, the demonstrations were made up of groups too divers to characterise as "conservative". Certainly they included conservative groups, but then they also included the most radical groups that wanted very democratic change as you point out. The support for the demonstrations certainly and not surprisingly also included large numbers of urban working class (whose parents supported Thasin) and farmers and fishermen (from the south), and we should not forget the no vote even with the highly disputed EC numbers was far higher than the composition of the middle class. It has always been the media that has mistakenly tried to label the anti-Thaksin movement as urban based and the pro-Thaksin as rural based. That is a generalization at best. We should also remember that the pro-Thaksin alliance included ultra conservatives like Samak, and rural communities tend to also be conservative in the traditions and practices they hold dear. The pro-Thakisn alliance also included elements of the October people on the opposite end of the political scale. Maybe it is beter to characterize the pro and anti-Thakisn alliances as alliances of convenience that were maybe uneasy at times, but more characterized by groups linked by where the group saw its best interests served.

We certainly havent seen the end of change and all political players over time are part of that. How this all pans out remains to be seen but the rapidly expanding urban working class, wherever they initially came from, will certainly become a political force with different wants and needs from both their rural grandparents and from the more settled urban middle classes.

It also just ocurred to me that we probably need to define what we mean by urban working class in this debate as I bring up urban middle classes. Things are quite complicated.

Complicated as hel_l.

The urban working classes that worry me are the new lower middle classes and the low classes. Above that they have made the successful transition mostly.

It definately is somewhat a generalisation that Thaksin's support was mainly rural based, and anti Thaksin mainly urban. But, it is somewhat true. When i mean rural i don't mean the South. Other than the three changwats, the desperate poverty so often seen in the North and Isaarn is generally not found in the South.

In Isaarn and the North though the clear majority of the rural voters are/have been pro Thaksin. Most outspoken opponents there have been by groups taken care of by NGOs, and AIDS activists (there are many!) who feared that the FTA with the US would endanger their lifes (quiet rightly so).

The "No" votes i would definately not just classify as support for the PAD. Some may have been, but my my guess is, based on purely empirical research under friends and family, that traditional voters of the other parties such as the Democrats had no other choice than using that option, but often did not even agree with the boycott of the opposition parties.

And of course Thaksin still had many supporters in the urban lower and middle classes as well.

Some of the extremely progressive groups that joined the PAD demonstration might have done that with a very own agenda that had very little to do with neither the aims of either Sondhi/Chamlong & Co, nor with Thaksin. There always is a lot more happening than is obvious...

Nevertheless, I have a huge problem with the argument that those rural, or lower class supporters only voted for Thaksin because he paid/bribed them. This is again a simplification that neglects the context of vote buying here. The 500 baht does not buy a vote. Upcountry it persuades people that the candidate is rich/powerful enough to go up against Bangkok, and can do something for them. Point is, that the candidate still has to do something for them. If not, no 500 baht will get you votes. Regardless the detrimental effects on the economy of Thaksin's policies, he was the first PM who in the eyes of those rural supporters has delivered what he promised them.

I had many conversations with Thaksin supporters, including members of the Caravan of the Poor. None of them denied that there were corruption issues. Their argument was: "Yes, he is corrupt. Everybody is. But this time at least we also get things done for us. Nobody before has managed that."

It is highly patronising to accuse those people of being only greedy and uneducated. They do know very well about certain issues, especially that before Thaksin no government has done anything for them. Is that not in every democracy that people generally vote for the party that does the most for them?

Why then should they vote for parties that never did anything for them, that maybe talk about great economical issues, but forget about the dire needs of their sectors of society? The first time in Thai history those sectors of the rural poor have actually spoken out, instead of staying complacent as they did before. Don't they have a right to do that? Is that not what democracy is about?

If Thaksin would not have been able to deliver anymore - he would have been out. Well, unless you believe in the idiotic conspiracy theories such as the Finland Declaration. There you would grant Thaksin far more political conviction than would be due.

What we begin to see very soon is interesting indeed. Many pro Thaksin groups have already accepted that Thaksin is gone. Their issues though are not gone, and presently alliances and networks are established across the lines pro/anti Thaksin, that could have a chance to force down real changes one day, and not just the traditional change of which elitist group is holding power, though relatively inconsequential to the average citicen.

Things are still happening here, even though presenty we don't really get much to read about. That will most definately change though soon.

Talking of the progressive groups in the PAD we can see today that some are talking of writing their own parallel charter. Indeed things are complicated.

By the way the vote buying thing is not the way I would characterize how Thaksin got his votes up country. Some of the things he did were liked a lot. We should also however, not forget that he absorbed the NAP, Chart Pattana, Solidarity, Seritham, and iirc SAP into his party. He also took a lot of the northern democrats too. A very large amount of sitting MPs from these parties became 2 term TRT MPs over time. They carried their local influence and networks with them, and in provincial life where villagers listen to the Kamnan or village headman for advice on who is best to vote for this carries a lot of weight. Of course all politicans of any party try to use this outside BKK, but TRT took it to a new level where in certain regions all information was pretty much as TRT wanted. This certainly had an effect on voting patterns although I am not trying to totally undervalue the effect of populist policies.

[ColPyat]

A very large amount of sitting MPs from these parties became 2 term TRT MPs over time. They carried their local influence and networks with them, and in provincial life where villagers listen to the Kamnan or village headman for advice on who is best to vote for this carries a lot of weight. Of course all politicans of any party try to use this outside BKK, but TRT took it to a new level where in certain regions all information was pretty much as TRT wanted. This certainly had an effect on voting patterns although I am not trying to totally undervalue the effect of populist policies.

True.

I hate to be put in the position of defending Thaksin, because i really don't lke him, and his authoritarian style. But, things are a lot more complicated than just the evil man taking over the country, cheating the whole population. Often in the Thaksin debate hyperbole takes over facts, on both sides, and that hinders open discussion and neutral political analysis.

Maybe Thaksin and the 1997 charter writers were just a product of their time and didnt really realize what could spring from their endeavors.

Thaksin was/is a product of his time indeed. Many critics tend to blame all evil in Thailand on Thaksin, coming from a rather romantic view on Thailand and Thai society, forget though that it is a system of inequality and stiff hirarchies, strong feudal remnants, that has enabled people such as Thaksin only to rise.

I don't see yet a will to actually change the system by the powers.

How can they? They are neglecting any sort of due process as much as Thaksin does, if not even more.

[Martin]

It is nice to see optimism (in post #65):

"....one of us will be proved right ....".

My optimism doesn't stretch quite that far.

I think it more likely that the speed, or lack of it, with which different things change, will cause no-one to be right.

But trying to look ahead may cause some of the worst potholes on the Highway of Life to be avoided.

[hammered]

A very large amount of sitting MPs from these parties became 2 term TRT MPs over time. They carried their local influence and networks with them, and in provincial life where villagers listen to the Kamnan or village headman for advice on who is best to vote for this carries a lot of weight. Of course all politicans of any party try to use this outside BKK, but TRT took it to a new level where in certain regions all information was pretty much as TRT wanted. This certainly had an effect on voting patterns although I am not trying to totally undervalue the effect of populist policies.

True.

I hate to be put in the position of defending Thaksin, because i really don't lke him, and his authoritarian style. But, things are a lot more complicated than just the evil man taking over the country, cheating the whole population. Often in the Thaksin debate hyperbole takes over facts, on both sides, and that hinders open discussion and neutral political analysis.

Maybe Thaksin and the 1997 charter writers were just a product of their time and didnt really realize what could spring from their endeavors.

Thaksin was/is a product of his time indeed. Many critics tend to blame all evil in Thailand on Thaksin, coming from a rather romantic view on Thailand and Thai society, forget though that it is a system of inequality and stiff hirarchies, strong feudal remnants, that has enabled people such as Thaksin only to rise.

I don't see yet a will to actually change the system by the powers.

How can they? They are neglecting any sort of due process as much as Thaksin does, if not even more.

To be honest I think we are now trying to analyse recent histroy and its players and have a go at predicting future possibilities. I dont really see you or anyone else as defending Thaksin.

This is actually turning into an interesting thread with different perpectives and with few if any of the emotive battles we saw during the times of the demonstrations on so many threads.

One thing is for sure though with Thaksin, whether for good or bad or somewhere in between he has set the agenda for current politics.

[thaihome]

[...By the way the vote buying thing is not the way I would characterize how Thaksin got his votes up country. Some of the things he did were liked a lot. We should also however, not forget that he absorbed the NAP, Chart Pattana, Solidarity, Seritham, and iirc SAP into his party. He also took a lot of the northern democrats too. A very large amount of sitting MPs from these parties became 2 term TRT MPs over time. They carried their local influence and networks with them, and in provincial life where villagers listen to the Kamnan or village headman for advice on who is best to vote for this carries a lot of weight. Of course all politicans of any party try to use this outside BKK, but TRT took it to a new level where in certain regions all information was pretty much as TRT wanted. This certainly had an effect on voting patterns although I am not trying to totally undervalue the effect of populist policies.

Based on my understanding of a single village and 2 TAO elections I have witnessed you are understating the effect of the local factions that had allegiance to the TRT based solely on the gov money that was promised to them. I use as an example Sanoh's Wang Nam Yen faction. In the village I am familiar with, his people run the show and people pretty much vote what they say and are rewarded for that in various ways. I think the populist policies had little to do with it, but maybe I am being too cynical.

TH

[Plus]

I have noticed that by law Thailand is a kingdom that supposedly has a constitutional monarchy, with a democratic system of government. Democracy comes in the way? This is a highly feudal and outdated political stand, that is more suitable to medievil view on society.

Haven't you noticed the role that monarchy plays in Thailand? It's not the role it plays in Europe. Call it medieval, if you like. The difference is that in medieval Europe monarchy was disfunctional and quite a few royal heads were chopped off. It is as far away from Thailand's situation as possible.

Given those statements of yours i sometimes really wonder if you actually think trough before you post what you post. It seems that for you Thai citicens are only there to serve a feudal lord and master, and have no other purpose in life.

Do they? Vast majority of Thais do not have any other aspirations (apart from mundane things like taking care of their families and business etc). Monarchy is sacred for them, and they are pretty happy to live with their local masters, too. I don't know why they take that shit from their local lords, but they do.

Fortunately though the vast majority of Thais do not share this teary eyed romantic and utterly antiquated view, even not the royalists.

Any evidence? What is it that the vast majority of Thais would put higher than the monarchy? What are you talking about? Could you specify?

If you believe that the only effort of the anti-coup forces is about getting a closed website up again, than you might be in for a bit of a surprise soon. But i won't spoil the surprise....just hear it here and from me, off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush...

Last time you were talking about army moving on PAD, empty barracks, ready to strike, ...whatever...

I don't know why you are so hung up on Marx. It has been already pointed out to you that many of Marx's theories of historical analyses are in use by people who have nothing to do with communism/socialism. They are one of the many useful tools of analysing social conditions.

And I pointed out, repeatedly, that those tools DO NOT WORK in Thailand. People try to apply those foreign theories of class struggles here. There aren't any. Thaksin tried to play up that card - farmers vs elite, and got quickly clipped. As Hammered reminded - Thaksin took away what elites set for them - a third of government budget and local independency, and then blamed the elites for not caring enough. That dirty little trick is the only basis for the current appearance of a conflict, as Martin puts it - "Our boy Thaksin got something out of Bangkok and gave it to farmers". That was an ugly lie, told to people who had full trust in him.

There never has been an anymosity, and only a divide between rural folks and Bangkok? I would suggest you spend a bit more time upcountry.

As to the "brief period in the 70s of communist insurgency", well, as has been pointed out to you already, and not just by me, you should familiarize yourself a bit with Thai and regional history. Then you might understand that almost all what you post about regional history here is a pile of crock.

Oh, did I miss a revolution somewhere? Rebellions? Armed struggle? Regional political movements? Nothing in the past 60 years. Anyone seen or heard of pitchfork mobs anywhere?

Edited formats

Edited October 9, 2006 by Plus

[ColPyat]

Haven't you noticed the role that monarchy plays in Thailand? It's not the role it plays in Europe. Call it medieval, if you like. The difference is that in medieval Europe monarchy was disfunctional and quite a few royal heads were chopped off. It is as far away from Thailand's situation as possible.

Do they? Vast majority of Thais do not have any other aspirations (apart from mundane things like taking care of their families and business etc). Monarchy is sacred for them, and they are pretty happy to live with their local masters, too. I don't know why they take that shit from their local lords, but they do.

Any evidence? What is it that the vast majority of Thais would put higher than the monarchy? What are you talking about? Could you specify?

I will not go any deeper into the role of monarchy here. Please do not attempt to bait me here in this discussion by bringing in arguments that are forbidden to debate in public, however asinine they are.

You should know that by now that this is both illegal and against the board rules.

As to "foreign" concepts, you should familiarise yourself with Chit Phumisak, or Giles Ungpakorn, and many other Thai scholars, and their very Thai views and concepts on how their society could start to develop.

[Plus]

I will not go any deeper into the role of monarchy here. Please do not attempt to bait me here in this discussion by bringing in arguments that are forbidden to debate in public, however asinine they are.

You should know that by now that this is both illegal and against the board rules.

It is intellectual masturbation to ignore the influence ot themonarchy while analysing Thailand society. We can't talk about it, true, but to go on dreaming up social divisions as if you are still in 19 century Europe is a waste of time. There are no opressors and oppressed here, not sense of social injustice, no desire to overthrow the system and so on. These are false premises, as I stated in my first post in this thread.

As to "foreign" concepts, you should familiarise yourself with Chit Phumisak, or Giles Ungpakorn, and many other Thai scholars, and their very Thai views and concepts on how their society could start to develop.

Giles Ungpakorn is a socialist nutcase with little to nothing following. I lost all respect for him when diring recent interview he completly denied that TRT paid for votes or used the power of patronage. He believes 16 mil votes were for policies and ideology only. He's living in his own strange world, and if something doesn't fit in his pet theory, it doesn't exist.

Here's far better analysis of Thai democracy than Giles will ever come up with

http://www.bangkokpost.com/081006_Perspect...006_pers006.php

Interesting factoid - Was it Giles or his brother who was the Senate member with the lowest number of votes? 2,000 vs. 200,000 for the senator with the most votes?

[ColPyat]

It is intellectual masturbation to ignore the influence ot themonarchy while analysing Thailand society. We can't talk about it, true,

And that's basically it.

And therefore i will also not be able to debate the sycophant blather by the anthropologist that you call a political analyses.

It might be that you simply have to life here a few more years, i am tired though having to converse with someone whose ideology makes it impossible to look beyond a few propagandistic phrases.

[Martin]

Getting back to the Economy.

A farang said yesterday, in Khon Kaen, that there is another property-speculation bubble building up in Khon Kaen that he feels echoes the mid-1990s that ended with the 1997 crash (and has left Khon Kaen with two awful half-built 'carcases' ruining its skyline).

The housing bubble in the USA has started leaking in this last couple of months and can't stand the rise in the interest rate that would be needed to curb inflation. (The new bloke is reaping the dreadful results of what Greenspan sowed.)

What about Bangkok? Is caution prevailing, or not?

[ColPyat]

What about Bangkok? Is caution prevailing, or not?

From my perspective the property market in Bangkok, and the whole of Thailand, is mostly a huge bubble that does not work according to economic principles but is a completely artificial market that benefits a few large property developers and speculants with insider information, or ones that are willing to take a huge gamble.

For example, i have bought 33 Rai of farm land abot 5 years ago (a very good deal), on paper the same land is now worth the double or more, and we even get regular offers as our land is prime land in a prime location. We are though not speculators, we bought the land for the purpose of building up a somewhat selfsufficient farm. It is completely idiotic that farm land can rise so much within such a short time. There just is no economical base other than the price of farmland in most areas of Thailand is far too high.

Here in Bangkok the average return ratio buying compared with renting of property is between 20 and 30 years. You still have a huge oversupply of housing, though the market behaves as if it would be the other way around, as if it would be one of the capitols of one of the world's economic powerhouses.

One day it will collapse here.

Not the whole of the west has an overheated property market though. With good research, neglecting propaganda and the bad projects banks try to sell you, you can still find under appreciated areas in very stable western economies (with far better legal protection). We have bought last year in a western European city rental property (cheaper than in Bangkok), with far better returns (10% plus), and had an appreciation within one year of more than 20%. We simply bought anti cyclic, just at the bottom of a previously collapsed overheated property bubble in a boom town in which constantly new manufacturing and service industry seddles, that is now in the process of regulating itself to a normal price.

[Plus]

... i will also not be able to debate the sycophant blather by the anthropologist that you call a political analyses.

It might be that you simply have to life here a few more years, i am tired though having to converse with someone whose ideology makes it impossible to look beyond a few propagandistic phrases.

Ever so corteous. And so full of yourself.

You can't converse with anyone with attitude like this. Take another break if you feel tired. This board has never been up to your standards anyway.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Plus

[ColPyat]

You can't converse with anyone with attitude like this.

Actually, the conversation worked rather well before you appeared with your ideas about gods leaving the land, and other similarly fantanstic and outlandish statements that simply cannot be debated here in this thread, and on this board.

Could we return to ecomomy, please, and related topics that are permitted to be discussed in public?

Free of flames, if possible?

[Plus]

gods leaving the land, and other similarly fantanstic and outlandish statements

It was Prem himself who referred to Phra Siam Thewathirat just after the coup. Fantastic and outlandish to you, it's the reality for Thais. Monachy and religion might not have a place in your world and your vision of Thai future (based on Marxist theories?), but they are very important to them. Any attempt and analysing Thai society MUST include, if not based on, these two aspects.

Don't be so patronising, they have thousands and thousands years old, well tested model. The gods-king-people hierarchy has existed practically forever. Indian Ramayana, the source of Ramaraj idea there, is self dated to millions of years ago. BTW, there's no academic agreement on Indian history - both opposing camps have discredited themselves for being too political. So much for relying on science.

Free of flames, if possible?

Watch your own mouth and it will be ok.

[ColPyat]

Don't be so patronising, they have thousands and thousands years old, well tested model. The gods-king-people hierarchy has existed practically forever. Indian Ramayana, the source of Ramaraj idea there, is self dated to millions of years ago. BTW, there's no academic agreement on Indian history - both opposing camps have discredited themselves for being too political. So much for relying on science.

Again, it is fruitless to draw me into a debate on the monarchy as this is a forbidden topic.

Get your historical facts straight for once - Thai culture as we know it is not "thousands and thousands years old", but the earliest period, the first Thai kingdom we know of, is the Sukhothai period, somewhere mid 13th century. That makes it not even 800 years - a relative newcomer in regional (and global) terms.

The Thai culture as we understand it now is an artificial construct of not more than a 100 years. There is a long ongoing debate between modern Thai nationalism and cultural identity, and T'ai ethnic culture, often diametrically opposed. But i guess you have never heard of that conflict.

The Indian Ramayana may be the most popular epic in India, but you have completely lost me on "Ramaraj"???

The base of Hindu social systhem and worldview are spelled out in the Vedas, the Puranas, and in the Mahabarata, especially in the Bhagavadgita. The earliest Veda - the Rig Veda - dates to 1500 BC, or to 3000 BC, depending which theory you prefer to believe.

Millions of years ago? That was the time dinosaurs walked the earth. Or do you dispute the evolution theory as well?

[Martin]

"...., but the earliest period, the first Thai kingdom we know of, is the Sukhothai period, somewhere mid 13th century. That makes it not even 800 years - a relative newcomer in regional (and global) terms."

Well, that is what kids are taught in school in the so-called social sciences part of the curriculum, but it doesn't hold water.

No way does such a set-up, as developed as the Sukothai monarchy was, 'just happen'.

Look at the ruins of its capital and reflect that they are the remnants of the few stone and brick, highest-prestige, buildings and extrapolate from them to how many wooden buildings have disappeared.

There must have been a long, long period of build-up prior to that.

But it doesn't suit the program of inculcating an administratively-convenient sense of National Identity to go into that. ("BS baffles brains" is the basis of the institutionalised brainwashing that we call 'schooling', world-wide.)

Again, I recommend a reading of Niels Mulder: "Thai Images: The Culture of the Public World".

[hammered]

"...., but the earliest period, the first Thai kingdom we know of, is the Sukhothai period, somewhere mid 13th century. That makes it not even 800 years - a relative newcomer in regional (and global) terms."

Well, that is what kids are taught in school in the so-called social sciences part of the curriculum, but it doesn't hold water.

No way does such a set-up, as developed as the Sukothai monarchy was, 'just happen'.

Look at the ruins of its capital and reflect that they are the remnants of the few stone and brick, highest-prestige, buildings and extrapolate from them to how many wooden buildings have disappeared.

There must have been a long, long period of build-up prior to that.

But it doesn't suit the program of inculcating an administratively-convenient sense of National Identity to go into that. ("BS baffles brains" is the basis of the institutionalised brainwashing that we call 'schooling', world-wide.)

Again, I recommend a reading of Niels Mulder: "Thai Images: The Culture of the Public World".

Sukhotai is an interesting case. Some of the buildings are undated but certainly go back a lot more than 800 years. What exactly this culture based around Sukhotai was over a thousand years ago is a moot point and one does get into current political and cultural mores when trying to discuss it. Ancient Chinese texts certainly talk about a trading town (Chaliang? or did that come later?) where Sukhotai now stands. However, it is important to remember that what we now know as Thailand, like many modern countries, is forged from a variety of ancient proincipalities, kingdoms, trading towns, and parts of other previous empires.

Several years ago, I heard a story of how a western researcher in Sukhotai didnt have his visa renewed to continue his research as he was looking into how Sukhotai stemmed from ancient Chinese migration. It is certainly all not only a difficult histroy to fathom, but also one that is at least touchy with our gracious hosts.

[younghusband]

gods leaving the land, and other similarly fantanstic and outlandish statements

It was Prem himself who referred to Phra Siam Thewathirat just after the coup. Fantastic and outlandish to you, it's the reality for Thais. Monachy and religion might not have a place in your world and your vision of Thai future (based on Marxist theories?), but they are very important to them. Any attempt and analysing Thai society MUST include, if not based on, these two aspects.

Don't be so patronising, they have thousands and thousands years old, well tested model. The gods-king-people hierarchy has existed practically forever. Indian Ramayana, the source of Ramaraj idea there, is self dated to millions of years ago. BTW, there's no academic agreement on Indian history - both opposing camps have discredited themselves for being too political. So much for relying on science.

Free of flames, if possible?

Watch your own mouth and it will be ok.

I had been wondering about Plus's posts.On the positive side the obvious (self taught?) education and intelligence,an articulate expression of arguments and a way with words,the clear long associatioin with Thailand.On the negative side the aggression,sycophancy,muddled historical vision and oddly "off" way with the English language (last not really a negative I agree).

Not a Thai (manners not good enough) and not a farang.The knowledge of the relatively obscure "ramaraj" (age of righteousness for the unenlightened) gives it away.I think it good that the forum is increasingly diverse and we have a wide range of opinions, in this case from an Indian perspective although obviously. not a burra sahib.

On the specific point of the origins and dates of the emergence of the Thai people and state, there has been been a growing consensus in recent years on the part of both Thai and foreign scholars.I'm not going to repeat the arguments (another thread perhaps) but in essence Colpyat is absolutely right and Plus is comically wrong (although I believe the fantasy can still be found in Thai school books).It's as though Camelot was regarded as a historical phenonomen in England, not a charming fantasy.

[ColPyat]

"...., but the earliest period, the first Thai kingdom we know of, is the Sukhothai period, somewhere mid 13th century. That makes it not even 800 years - a relative newcomer in regional (and global) terms."

Well, that is what kids are taught in school in the so-called social sciences part of the curriculum, but it doesn't hold water.

No way does such a set-up, as developed as the Sukothai monarchy was, 'just happen'.

Look at the ruins of its capital and reflect that they are the remnants of the few stone and brick, highest-prestige, buildings and extrapolate from them to how many wooden buildings have disappeared.

There must have been a long, long period of build-up prior to that.

But it doesn't suit the program of inculcating an administratively-convenient sense of National Identity to go into that. ("BS baffles brains" is the basis of the institutionalised brainwashing that we call 'schooling', world-wide.)

Again, I recommend a reading of Niels Mulder: "Thai Images: The Culture of the Public World".

Nothing comes from nothing. If we would have a bit more recorded history, surviving oral traditions, more knowledge in genetics, etc, i guess we could trace our history back to the beginning of homo sapiens. Problem though is that we have to go with what we know so far until that knowledge is disproved or expanded. And regarding Thailand, so far we simply don't know what was there before, other than that excravations have shown that the area of Thailand was inhibited already in neolithic times.

What sort of people, or forms of government, has been lost though. Maybe one day we will know, it is a fascinating subject, really, the dawn of human civilisation, and how humanity interacted, traded and travelled even in the days of the last ice age.

For example, some years back it has been proven that there even was another, earlier invasion to America, not just over the bering straits, but from France as well, during the last ice age, by a surviving gene common to some indian tribes and people of that area in France, and by excravations that show the use of the same tools.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml

But yes, Thai National identity as we know it now is a strange thing. The concept of the three pillars of Nation, Religion and Monarchy was formulated by Rama VI, so, a very recent develpopment, not ancient tradition. Also the Chakri dynasty is a rather recent dynasty, (1782, according to wikipedia, after an incident that i dare not mention here, as mentioning this has already once resulted in me getting a short holiday... ).

[ColPyat]

Which begs the question of will we see a move to larger scale farming in the future with large landowners of farmland using modern technology and employing unlanded laborers plus machinery?

I really think we should be moving a lot of these posts to the thread on the jobs and economy board. It is getting very confusing with all the duplication.

Trying to get back to topic, with one of hammered posts from the other thread.

Yes, i think that unfortunately it looks at the moment inevitable that we will see far more large scale, worldmarket oriented farming. Apart from the obvious problems with GM rice, the huge social problem our believers in free market economy underestimate is - what are we going to do with the huge amount of people being made redundant by this development? I do not see yet any development towards creation of employment, even the necessary education for a more future oriented manufacturing and servive industry is so far completely lacking here.

[Martin]

"....what are we going to do with the huge amount of people being made redundant by this development? I do not see yet any development towards creation of employment, even the necessary education for a more future oriented manufacturing and servive industry is so far completely lacking here."

I have always refused to accept that people become redundant.

The reason for the doing of a particular job may disappear as times change. So a particular position in a particular organisation may become redundant and disappear (though not always, by any means!). But the person who was doing that job should be classed as "available for re-deployment, not "redundant".

Of course, the art of self-management in an industrialised society is to foresee change and not be caught by the onset of a reason for one's job disappearing (except where there is a nice fat early-retirement package going to come your way!).

There is a lot of luck about foreseeing such change though, because, as somebody has recently pointed out, one's timing can be all thrown out of kilter by events coming along faster than expected, or slower.

Reduction in supplies of basic exosomatic energy and of materials is going to prevent the continued outpouring of products for consumers. That is reason for optimism that we may all have a lot less (employment and consumption products) but enjoy ourselves a lot more.

I recognise my personal luck that, having been born in 1935, the culture of thrift was all around me in my early formative years, and it was re-inforced by the anti-consumerism during World War II that was necessary from civilians in order that the military could be supplied. (Men didn't even use a match, if they could see another man nearby with a lit cigarette, from whose fag they could start theirs).

So, as a far as the consumerist society has been concerned, I have been pretty anti-social all my adult life.

I feel that I have had as much fun as anyone, though, and far more than most.

Thus, I see no need for anyone to shed any tears over the passing of the consumerist age, and millions of hours being worked annually to manufacture unnecessary artefacts, or in service industries providing unnecessary services.

I recognise the fear of people who have got used to being frenetic and fear 'withdrawal symptoms' if relaxed living comes their way.

But, since I got my little early-retirement package twentyone years ago ('twas only a bronze handshake, but adequate for a life of genteel poverty) my spells of unemployment, between the interesting gainful-employment opportunities that have come my way, have been quite easy to cope with.

They've got me to Everest three times, to Parliamentary Candidacy (as a bereavement-therapy exercise) and to discovery of Isaan; none of which would have occurred if I had been tied in to one of those manufacturing or service industry jobs.

So fear not---and for anybody who cares to PM me, I can tell you how to get a card that proves you are a fully-paid-up member of the Idle Working Mens' Club.

[hammered]

Which begs the question of will we see a move to larger scale farming in the future with large landowners of farmland using modern technology and employing unlanded laborers plus machinery?

I really think we should be moving a lot of these posts to the thread on the jobs and economy board. It is getting very confusing with all the duplication.

Trying to get back to topic, with one of hammered posts from the other thread.

Yes, i think that unfortunately it looks at the moment inevitable that we will see far more large scale, worldmarket oriented farming. Apart from the obvious problems with GM rice, the huge social problem our believers in free market economy underestimate is - what are we going to do with the huge amount of people being made redundant by this development? I do not see yet any development towards creation of employment, even the necessary education for a more future oriented manufacturing and servive industry is so far completely lacking here.

Indeed it is hard to see where the changes will go, and from most perspectives the future looks uncertain to say the least. How many service related jobs will be created in Thailand to service both the changing agricultural sector and the industrial sector? Will Thaland go the way of many western countries and experience of millions of long term unemployed? This seems likely as capitalism as it stands seems to like this situation where a fairly large pool of rerserve labor exists which keeps the overhead of pay down. However, how will this affect social stability in the country?

At the end of the day we are having an interesting debate but so much of what will hapen remains unknown.

Edited October 12, 2006 by hammered

[ColPyat]

I have always refused to accept that people become redundant.

The reason for the doing of a particular job may disappear as times change. So a particular position in a particular organisation may become redundant and disappear (though not always, by any means!). But the person who was doing that job should be classed as "available for re-deployment, not "redundant".

Of course, the art of self-management in an industrialised society is to foresee change and not be caught by the onset of a reason for one's job disappearing (except where there is a nice fat early-retirement package going to come your way!).

There is a lot of luck about foreseeing such change though, because, as somebody has recently pointed out, one's timing can be all thrown out of kilter by events coming along faster than expected, or slower.

I recognise my personal luck that, having been born in 1935, the culture of thrift was all around me in my early formative years, and it was re-inforced by the anti-consumerism during World War II that was necessary from civilians in order that the military could be supplied. (Men didn't even use a match, if they could see another man nearby with a lit cigarette, from whose fag they could start theirs).

So, as a far as the consumerist society has been concerned, I have been pretty anti-social all my adult life.

I feel that I have had as much fun as anyone, though, and far more than most.

My dad has had the misfortune to be a few years older than you, and was drafted into service at the end of WW2 at the age of 15. His formative years have not been much fun, he still has a nervous facial tick from what should have been carefree years of fun but turned out to be pure horror. My Mum, same age as my dad, had almost her entire family wiped out in WW2 and previously in the Russian revolution.

Regarding "luck" of birth, it all is a matter of perspective...

Redeployment, not redundant?

The problem here in Thailand is that the ones who will rather soon lose their land and existence due to market forces will to the largest part not find employment as labourers in the more modernised, large scale and efficient farming sytems.

Where are they going to be redeployed, being under-educated in a country that has no welfare state like support of the poor, not even the most rudimentary forms of social security, adult education, and no appearant plan for the future other than fuzzy talk about sufficiency, for which though the basics are not even begun to be set, such as a landreform that would enable the average farmer to actually life from his land instead of being forced to migrate, or a decentralisation of industry?

I cannot share your optimism presently, not until certain parameters are set in motion to change/modernise a basically complacent and deeply social conservative, if not archaic, system with very little social mobility.

And so far, the "patiroop" here turns out to be everything than, most TRT policies continued to the letter, maybe for lack of vision other than a continuation of a deeply conservative outlook on Thai society and the place the individual has here according to the ideas of the elites.

[Martin]

"...employment as labourers in the more modernised, large scale and efficient farming sytems."

What is the reasoning behind this belief that farming systems will become "more...large scale"?.

From my training, and a lot of experience, in electrical generation, communications, and industrial electronics, I have a mind-set that tells me that "when causes reverse, effects reverse". (We are forever dealing with things such as sinusoids and one-shot pulses that rise and then fall.)

Over my lifetime, I have seen more and more abundant fossil fuels become available at cheaper and cheaper prices.

One of the effects of this has been cheaper and cheaper inorganic fertiliser. Another has been cheaper and cheaper tractors.

Knock-on effects, in the West, have been that small human-labour-scale fields have been amalgamated to make big tractor-efficient fields, and big farms have appeared by the amalgamation of a number of small farms.

These big farms have tended to monoculture of what they could grow best, and cheaper and cheaper transport and shipping hs been available to take their one product far distances.

Now that the base cause is reversing, I would expect all these effects to reverse.

There is, incidentally, 'a straw in the wind' this week.

On the American market, corn futures have risen 30% and wheat futures have risen 40% on the expectation that the American prairies are not going to meet demand this next year.

The analysis of the reasons why (and their proportionate contributions) remains to be ascertained.

One part-reason could well be that farmers are forecasting reduced output because their working capital won't let them purchase so much higher-priced inorganic fertiliser.

I don't know how much effect this is likely to have in the way of demand for rice, but I can't see it having a negative effect.

As the cost of producing inorganic fertiliser is roughly proportionate to the price of natural gas, these large-scale farms will be gradually losing their economic advantage over the years.

If inorganic fertiliser became prohibitively expensive, the most efficient farming system wouldn't be modern, large-scale, monoculture but old-fasioned, small-scale, mixed farming.

Land redistribution is crucial to a smooth transition, though. The British experience in World War II, when some farms were compelled to amalgamate, and others were compelled to turn permanent pasture to arable farming was fraught, even under Emergency Legislation.

Whether Thai governance can rise to the occasions that will present themselves is yet to be seen. It really does depend on the extent to which the next generation is prepared to think for itself, and whether it then has the courage of its convictions.

Big land, small population, propitious climate. The 'hardware' is available.

Semi-self-sufficiency skills and arrangements not lost. The 'software' is there.

Can the next generation get its 'orgware' together???

Edited October 12, 2006 by Martin