Former finance minister urges politicians to ditch populist policies

[jayboy]

 

Wish they had something similar in the UK - especially Scotland at the moment.

I'm not sure it's needed in the UK as there's plenty of information available and much of it is of high quality.Particularly there can be no excuse for any aware Scot not to understand the implications of a separation from the UK for Scotland's economy.That said the same principle applies as in Thailand.The Scottish people must be allowed to decide which government they think fit will take power.

Talking of populist policies Korn's proposed agency would certainly find Britain's NHS poorly conceived and financially unviable, and populist in spades - and they would be right.It makes the Thai rice price support scheme look like a plan of genius.Yet the NHS is sancrosanct among all shades of political opinion.

[debate101]

The 30-baht healthcare scheme was a resounding success. The UN development council has hailed it as an exemplary model for similarly-placed developing countries to follow.

 

The rice subsidies were also a success in that they were delivered as promised, until the military put a stop to them. The "losses" to the state were more than offset by the extra sales and corporate taxes collected because of the way they spurred economic spending. Yingluck's government was running a budget surplus. The junta presides over a large deficit.

 

The red/yellow conflict is also a class war, but it was being waged peacefully until the military brought out the tanks in 2006. Redistribution at the grass-roots level has the votes, but economic conservatism has the guns. 

 

Populist economic measures actually benefit everyone indirectly, but the elite officialdom and conservative Bangkokians have decided that they'd rather preserve their relative positions in the hierarchy than allow for a prosperous society and an upwardly-mobile working class.

[worgeordie]

This will never happen,populist policies,are a legal way  

to buy votes and curry favour from the voters,and the

Politicians dont even have to use their own money. 

 

Thaksin started all this when he realised if you win all

the votes in Issan,largest number of seats,you will win

all elections,so you spend Government money,and reap

personal rewards while in power.not a good way to run

a country,and once it starts nearly impossible to stop.

regards worgeordie

[debate101]

Democracy, at its core, is essentially vote buying. It's the non-violent alternative to violent suppression and total political exclusion of segments of the population. Everyone is given the opportunity to exchange their votes freely for promises of this or that. If they get what they were promised, they'll probably be happy and willing to continue the relationship.

 

No one votes or acts, "in the national interest," regardless of what politicians may tell you. Basic political science should be an important part of school curriculum, but it isn't, apparently.

 

Of course democratic systems needs checks and balances, and a separation of powers, to protect minority rights and prevent the tyranny of the majority. Thailand's problem is that the people who claim to be fighting for these things are actually just opposed to the whole concept of majority rule, as seen by their reaction (or lack therof) to the current situation, so instead, we have a different, far more pernicious form of tyranny.

 

 

[halloween]

1 hour ago, debate101 said:

The 30-baht healthcare scheme was a resounding success. The UN development council has hailed it as an exemplary model for similarly-placed developing countries to follow.

 

The rice subsidies were also a success in that they were delivered as promised, until the military put a stop to them. The "losses" to the state were more than offset by the extra sales and corporate taxes collected because of the way they spurred economic spending. Yingluck's government was running a budget surplus. The junta presides over a large deficit.

 

The red/yellow conflict is also a class war, but it was being waged peacefully until the military brought out the tanks in 2006. Redistribution at the grass-roots level has the votes, but economic conservatism has the guns. 

 

Populist economic measures actually benefit everyone indirectly, but the elite officialdom and conservative Bangkokians have decided that they'd rather preserve their relative positions in the hierarchy than allow for a prosperous society and an upwardly-mobile working class.

"The rice subsidies were also a success in that they were delivered as promised, until the military put a stop to them. The "losses" to the state were more than offset by the extra sales and corporate taxes collected because of the way they spurred economic spending."

 

Another Shin fanboy arrives on the scene. Pray do tell the economic benefits of a mountain of rotting rice accumulating storage costs above its market value, and how the policy's stated goal of raising the income levels of the the poorest farmers was achieved?

Your post is a morass of casual lies from beginning to end.

[jcsmith]

Thai politicians throw around the term "populist policy" like it's a bad thing. As if catering to the elite while ignoring the needs of the general population is the way to go. Now certainly people need to be wary of making promising for things that can not be effectively implemented, but the government's responsibility is to improve the life of their citizens. Not just to line the pockets of the already wealthy.

[lucky11]

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I repeat (seeing as you ignored this fundamental point): how to ensure that the proposed 'special organization' to vet political proposals is itself unbiased, especially under a fascist system?

 

Korn is right that more information should be made available. But the solution is not to have some 'special organization' making these decisions - that's just an extension of bad governance, and is a recipe for ensuring the ordinary people will get stiffed.

 

 Just what is this special organisation' that you seem obsessed with? I make no mention of this either way (so how can I be ignoring it) and fail to see the relevance of your point, anyway.

 

 The 'special organisation that you refer to will be the government of the future - it is they, who should be prevented from using unwise, unsustainable and unachievable promises to the people, in order to CHEAT, in effect, their way towards forming the next government.

 

 The rules of this vetting of the manifestos' should require proper scrutiny to assess that this is being adhered to and importantly, to have any policy that appears populist in nature be fully costed by an independant panel of qualified members. This will save problems in the future from the type of scam that Yingluck was the proxy PM for (I don't think that I need to give the details of this) and safeguard the nation from accumulating massive losses from the government coffers!!

[lucky11]

5 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Thai politicians throw around the term "populist policy" like it's a bad thing. As if catering to the elite while ignoring the needs of the general population is the way to go. Now certainly people need to be wary of making promising for things that can not be effectively implemented, but the government's responsibility is to improve the life of their citizens. Not just to line the pockets of the already wealthy.

 

 Populist policies in themselves are not a bad thing - all policy is a form of this in varying degrees in order to pursuade the people to vote for them.

 

 Inadvisable and unaffordable populist policies are a different matter - In the UK, the Liberal Democrat party could get away with including policies that people liked and wanted to hear to bolster their vote because they knew they weren't going to form the next government and wouldn't have to deliver on them!!

 

 The rice scam was an economic nightmare waiting to happen and happen it did. Let me ask you this - was this 'loony' idea of Thaksins' a good idea? Better still, ask Yingluck if she still thinks it was.

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

56 minutes ago, lucky11 said:

 

 Just what is this special organisation' that you seem obsessed with? I make no mention of this either way (so how can I be ignoring it) and fail to see the relevance of your point, anyway.

 

 The 'special organisation that you refer to will be the government of the future - it is they, who should be prevented from using unwise, unsustainable and unachievable promises to the people, in order to CHEAT, in effect, their way towards forming the next government.

 

 The rules of this vetting of the manifestos' should require proper scrutiny to assess that this is being adhered to and importantly, to have any policy that appears populist in nature be fully costed by an independant panel of qualified members. This will save problems in the future from the type of scam that Yingluck was the proxy PM for (I don't think that I need to give the details of this) and safeguard the nation from accumulating massive losses from the government coffers!!

 

From the OP: " He suggested that a special organization be established in order to analyze the true cost of each government’s projects".

 

No details are provided. It's some kind of quango, presumably, that is intended to advise the government. However, why assume this body will be objective and not simply controlled by, populated by, and biased towards the regime? We know how the junta operates. Read between the lines. The purpose of this announcement is to groom the people into accepting that there will be no further policies aimed at redistributing wealth and promoting equality in society.  They are aiming to establish an 'official' mechanism by which all left-wing policies can be 'outlawed'. It's just another way of tightening their permanent grip on power.

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

Just to add: the New York Times definition of the Deep State:

 

" a hard-to-perceive level of government or super-control that exists regardless of elections and that may thwart popular movements or radical change. "

 

There you have it.

[debate101]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

"The rice subsidies were also a success in that they were delivered as promised, until the military put a stop to them. The "losses" to the state were more than offset by the extra sales and corporate taxes collected because of the way they spurred economic spending."

 

Another Shin fanboy arrives on the scene. Pray do tell the economic benefits of a mountain of rotting rice accumulating storage costs above its market value, and how the policy's stated goal of raising the income levels of the the poorest farmers was achieved?

Your post is a morass of casual lies from beginning to end.

 

I don't need to defend personalities, and people who argue from your position always try to make it about you-know-who, but I am very happy to talk about and try to defend redistributive economic policy. Spending on the health and welfare of society's work force is the surest and fastest way to developed-country status, reducing inequality and root causes of social conflict, and peaceful growth.

 

Many, many governments worldwide participate in agricultural subsidization. It isn't usually referred to as a "scheme" anywhere else, and most people accept it as sound policy rather than railing against it.

 

A favorite tactic of economic conservatives is to focus on corruption present in social programs and use it as a pretext to argue that the policy should be scrapped altogether rather than simply being dealt with on a case-by-case basis. They don't normally get very far because of how many people benefit from such spending, but then again, they don't usually have the threat of military force to back them up.

 

There is more of a case to be made for economic conservatism in countries that have developed already. Thailand would be growing at 4-5 percent GDP annually with basically any government with sound financial policy aside from a xenophobic, isolationist, ultra-regressive, bumbling military junta, but here we are. I fully support you in claiming that the personal flaws of TS are a big reason why, but ad-homineim attacks don't suddenly invalidate his policy choices, which I believe were correct and good for the county, overall.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, debate101 said:

 

I don't need to defend personalities, and people who argue from your position always try to make it about you-know-who, but I am very happy to talk about and try to defend redistributive economic policy. Spending on the health and welfare of society's work force is the surest and fastest way to developed-country status, reducing inequality and root causes of social conflict, and peaceful growth.

 

Many, many governments worldwide participate in agricultural subsidization. It isn't usually referred to as a "scheme" anywhere else, and most people accept it as sound policy rather than railing against it.

 

A favorite tactic of economic conservatives is to focus on corruption present in social programs and use it as a pretext to argue that the policy should be scrapped altogether rather than simply being dealt with on a case-by-case basis. They don't normally get very far because of how many people benefit from such spending, but then again, they don't usually have the threat of military force to back them up.

 

There is more of a case to be made for economic conservatism in countries that have developed already. Thailand would be growing at 4-5 percent GDP annually with basically any government with sound financial policy aside from a xenophobic, isolationist, ultra-regressive, bumbling military junta, but here we are. I fully support you in claiming that the personal flaws of TS are a big reason why, but ad-homineim attacks don't suddenly invalidate his policy choices, which I believe were correct and good for the county, overall.

 

Oh come off it. The PTP rice scam was NOT a '"redistributive economic policy" it was a means to get elected. Those who were supposed to benefit largely missed out, while those who had no need for subsidy reaped the benefits.

Tell me again how Yingluk's government was running a surplus, while accruing hundreds of billions in off-budget debt, and planning to borrow more than 2 trillion to cover their losses. I enjoy a good laugh.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

From the OP: " He suggested that a special organization be established in order to analyze the true cost of each government’s projects".

 

No details are provided. It's some kind of quango, presumably, that is intended to advise the government. However, why assume this body will be objective and not simply controlled by, populated by, and biased towards the regime? We know how the junta operates. Read between the lines. The purpose of this announcement is to groom the people into accepting that there will be no further policies aimed at redistributing wealth and promoting equality in society.  They are aiming to establish an 'official' mechanism by which all left-wing policies can be 'outlawed'. It's just another way of tightening their permanent grip on power.

 

 

 

In Australia, policies are costed by the public service (Treasury and Finance) and/or by reputable accounting firms. There is no attempt to control policy, or to measure benefit, that is left to the party and the people, simply to measure the cost. PTP's rice scam would have been considered ridiculous.

[debate101]

43 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Oh come off it. The PTP rice scam was NOT a '"redistributive economic policy" it was a means to get elected. Those who were supposed to benefit largely missed out, while those who had no need for subsidy reaped the benefits.

Tell me again how Yingluk's government was running a surplus, while accruing hundreds of billions in off-budget debt, and planning to borrow more than 2 trillion to cover their losses. I enjoy a good laugh.

 

Yeh, you caught me. I was talking out if my ass on that one. Just looked it up. TS governments were the ones with the surplus. However, the years under Yingluck were not out if line with regards to deficit spending as a percent of GDP compared to either the Democrats or the junta. The deficit was getting worse with the global price if rice falling, and they were going to have to modify the amount of subsidy heavily if not scrap it altogether in order to stay solvent. Point taken.

 

I wasn't lying, just being lazy and relying on my poor memory. Years of impotent rage at the country's spiralling political disfunction have made everything a little bit hazy. I'll try harder to fact-chek in the future. At least you've corrected my understanting here, so thanks for that.

[jayboy]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

 

Oh come off it. The PTP rice scam was NOT a '"redistributive economic policy" it was a means to get elected. Those who were supposed to benefit largely missed out, while those who had no need for subsidy reaped the benefits.

Tell me again how Yingluk's government was running a surplus, while accruing hundreds of billions in off-budget debt, and planning to borrow more than 2 trillion to cover their losses. I enjoy a good laugh.

How was it a means to get elected when (a) the PTP was already in power and (b) those who would benefit from the scheme very largely vote PTP anyway? You could argue it was designed to benefit government supporters but all parties do that including the Democrats.

 

Of course it was meant to be a redistributive economic policy, flawed certainly and in my view misguided.But to argue that wasn't its prime purpose doesn't make a lot of sense.Perhaps you are confusing objectives with process.

[halloween]

8 hours ago, jayboy said:

How was it a means to get elected when (a) the PTP was already in power and (b) those who would benefit from the scheme very largely vote PTP anyway? You could argue it was designed to benefit government supporters but all parties do that including the Democrats.

 

Of course it was meant to be a redistributive economic policy, flawed certainly and in my view misguided.But to argue that wasn't its prime purpose doesn't make a lot of sense.Perhaps you are confusing objectives with process.

 

a/ PTP in power when Yingluk proposed it as an election policy?

b/ How do you know voter intentions?

 

A redistributive economic policy was what it claimed to be, raising the income of the poorest farmers. That was a lie, to buy votes so as to secure the election. The pledging scheme had be enacted under Thaksin, and it was a failure with very little ending up in farmer's pockets and a high level of corruption. Yingluk re-introduced it without modification, without a rent/price freeze, and the inevitable market forces sapped any benefit that did reach them.

 

The topic is policy costing. This policy was a poor joke on the people of Thailand, and any independent costing would have shown that. Would that have stopped the economically illiterate from grasping at the offered illusion - perhaps not. But exposing its flawed logic and impracticality could have led to modification and cost reduction.

[Ricardo]

9 hours ago, jayboy said:

How was it a means to get elected when (a) the PTP was already in power and (b) those who would benefit from the scheme very largely vote PTP anyway? You could argue it was designed to benefit government supporters but all parties do that including the Democrats.

 

Of course it was meant to be a redistributive economic policy, flawed certainly and in my view misguided.But to argue that wasn't its prime purpose doesn't make a lot of sense.Perhaps you are confusing objectives with process.

 

Just to point out that PTP weren't in-power in the Spring/Summer of 2011, when Thaksin proposed the scheme, and Yingluck/PTP was running for office, that was still former-PM Abhisit & the Dems.

[jayboy]

 

a/ PTP in power when Yingluk proposed it as an election policy?

b/ How do you know voter intentions?

 

A redistributive economic policy was what it claimed to be, raising the income of the poorest farmers. That was a lie, to buy votes so as to secure the election. The pledging scheme had be enacted under Thaksin, and it was a failure with very little ending up in farmer's pockets and a high level of corruption. Yingluk re-introduced it without modification, without a rent/price freeze, and the inevitable market forces sapped any benefit that did reach them.

 

The topic is policy costing. This policy was a poor joke on the people of Thailand, and any independent costing would have shown that. Would that have stopped the economically illiterate from grasping at the offered illusion - perhaps not. But exposing its flawed logic and impracticality could have led to modification and cost reduction.

You simply repeat your error and ignore the evidence.The rice farmers almost all supported the PTP anyway so there was no need to buy their votes.The rice price support policy was redistributive in intent though of course flawed in implementation.

Your use of the term " economically illiterate" is not only unpleasantly bigoted but also stupid.Do you really think the beneficiaries of massive state spending in Bangkok could give a rats arse abou the economic and social costs of such inequality?

[jaltsc]

"...a major problem in Thai politics is that political parties are not able to keep promises..."

 

From a western perspective, I think that not being able to keep "promises" is not limited to politics, but is a cultural issue. This being a culture where pleasing others and not losing face appears to be paramount, in many instances I don't think that the person looks at what he is saying as being a lie, but rather does not want to disappoint the listener. Therefore, he tells the person what he thinks that person wants to hear. I've discovered that not following through on what one "promises" is quite common. In many cases, even written contracts prove to be quite useless and invalid, with them being dismissed by the argument:  "I changed my mind" or "Something happened that I wasn't expecting". 

 

So, it should come as no surprise that political promises are even less reliable in Thailand than they are in the west...Which,  in itself is quite an accomplishment. 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by jaltsc
Correct Typos

[halloween]

2 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

You simply repeat your error and ignore the evidence.The rice farmers almost all supported the PTP anyway so there was no need to buy their votes.The rice price support policy was redistributive in intent though of course flawed in implementation.

Your use of the term " economically illiterate" is not only unpleasantly bigoted but also stupid.Do you really think the beneficiaries of massive state spending in Bangkok could give a rats arse abou the economic and social costs of such inequality?

 

 

 

Oh, I'm in error when I say PTP were not in power? Really? Instead of making unsupported claims of fictitious history, why don't you provide some evidence?

 

Rice farmers will vote for whoever offers them the biggest political bribe. You might like to think Thaksin's and his lackeys are merely stupid and incompetent, but the evidence clearly shows their self-serving criminal intent - to gain power at any cost, as long as they didn't have to foot the bill.

 

The truth is sometimes unpleasant, pointing it out might not be PC but it is not bigoted. You might like to think that Thailand has an educated and informed electorate, but that doesn't make it true.

[JAG]

23 hours ago, robblok said:

 

In the Netherlands an independent organisation calculates if all the election promises that are made are feasible. That would stop a lot of the popular policies here in Thailand if it was introduced. I can see certain parties being against this. 

I can see the benefits of such a body.

 

I am deeply cynical as to whether it could ever be independent here.

 

Unless it were totally independent it would be just another political tool.

Edited September 5, 2016 by JAG

[robblok]

27 minutes ago, JAG said:

I can see the benefits of such a body.

 

I am deeply cynical as to whether it could ever be independent here.

 

Unless it were totally independent it would be just another political tool.

 

What happens, is that parties have to submit their election program. Then an organisation calculates those programs based on the predicted economic growth (or not)

 

But your already saying it cant be.. even if it was not totally independent it would be better than now where they can promise what they want and just bid against each-other without restraints. That is just buying votes. The rice program with its massive losses was vote buying.

 

Now if its not totally independent there might be a small discrepancy but stuff like a rice program would come out at expensive instead of costing nothing like it was promoted. I see you prefer nothing because it could possibly be used against your party. It seems that is what the reds are all about anything that could restrain them is bad. 

[MZurf]

On 9/4/2016 at 11:00 AM, robblok said:

 

In the Netherlands an independent organisation calculates if all the election promises that are made are feasible. That would stop a lot of the popular policies here in Thailand if it was introduced. I can see certain parties being against this. 

Well, if the "independent" organization was appointed like the Senate then I can also see the parties being against it (with the exception of the party that supports the current rulers, of course).

 

In a country where everything you are depends on status and connections forming an "independent" organization is close to impose.

[JAG]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

 

What happens, is that parties have to submit their election program. Then an organisation calculates those programs based on the predicted economic growth (or not)

 

But your already saying it cant be.. even if it was not totally independent it would be better than now where they can promise what they want and just bid against each-other without restraints. That is just buying votes. The rice program with its massive losses was vote buying.

 

Now if its not totally independent there might be a small discrepancy but stuff like a rice program would come out at expensive instead of costing nothing like it was promoted. I see you prefer nothing because it could possibly be used against your party. It seems that is what the reds are all about anything that could restrain them is bad. 

Sweet heaven above - give me strength and save me from teutonic bigots! Do you ever listen to anything anyone you discuss things with says?

[robblok]

1 minute ago, JAG said:

Sweet heaven above - give me strength and save me from teutonic bigots! Do you ever listen to anything anyone you discuss things with says?

 

Give me strength too when every idea is shot down before its implemented and everything that could in the remotest way harm the PTP is dangerous. 

 

Are you ever positive about anything that could help here. Problem is they buy votes with election promises and nobody checks if their feasible.. just think rice program.. tablets for all kids and so on.  

 

Anglo bigot. 

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, MZurf said:

Well, if the "independent" organization was appointed like the Senate then I can also see the parties being against it (with the exception of the party that supports the current rulers, of course).

 

In a country where everything you are depends on status and connections forming an "independent" organization is close to impose.

 

Where ever its from the PTP will see it as a danger because it limits their vote buying schemes. Even if such an organisation was not 100% impartial it would still be a huge improvement over the situation now where everything can be promised without any checks. 

[billd766]

15 hours ago, debate101 said:

 

I don't need to defend personalities, and people who argue from your position always try to make it about you-know-who, but I am very happy to talk about and try to defend redistributive economic policy. Spending on the health and welfare of society's work force is the surest and fastest way to developed-country status, reducing inequality and root causes of social conflict, and peaceful growth.

 

Many, many governments worldwide participate in agricultural subsidization. It isn't usually referred to as a "scheme" anywhere else, and most people accept it as sound policy rather than railing against it.

 

A favorite tactic of economic conservatives is to focus on corruption present in social programs and use it as a pretext to argue that the policy should be scrapped altogether rather than simply being dealt with on a case-by-case basis. They don't normally get very far because of how many people benefit from such spending, but then again, they don't usually have the threat of military force to back them up.

 

There is more of a case to be made for economic conservatism in countries that have developed already. Thailand would be growing at 4-5 percent GDP annually with basically any government with sound financial policy aside from a xenophobic, isolationist, ultra-regressive, bumbling military junta, but here we are. I fully support you in claiming that the personal flaws of TS are a big reason why, but ad-homineim attacks don't suddenly invalidate his policy choices, which I believe were correct and good for the county, overall.

 

The 30 baht health scheme proposed by Thaksin was a good idea but had one major flaw in it. To cover the health of all the people in Thailand even at the basic level costs a large amount of money. Thaksin and the people under him failed to take this into account and did not grant a bigger budget to ALL the state hospitals which is why the state hospital system is slowly failing.

 

If they can cover the running costs they could also increase the price to 40 baht as the scheme was introduced back in 2001, some 15 years ago. It is also possible, if they wish, to drop the 30 baht charge for extremely poor people.

 

A minor problem is that it seems to cost more than 30 baht in administration costs.

[jayboy]

 

Oh, I'm in error when I say PTP were not in power? Really? Instead of making unsupported claims of fictitious history, why don't you provide some evidence?

 

Rice farmers will vote for whoever offers them the biggest political bribe. You might like to think Thaksin's and his lackeys are merely stupid and incompetent, but the evidence clearly shows their self-serving criminal intent - to gain power at any cost, as long as they didn't have to foot the bill.

 

The truth is sometimes unpleasant, pointing it out might not be PC but it is not bigoted. You might like to think that Thailand has an educated and informed electorate, but that doesn't make it true.

Please don't feel the need to repeat your poisonous and absurd rhetoric.If political discussion in your view simply means raging at Thaksin, there are better places for you to vent and bluster than this forum.

You say rice farmers will simply vote for those who give them the biggest political bribe.Try that revolting line on with Khun Korn.I assure you he would hold your ignorance and lack of humanity in the utmost contempt.But then he is a decent well educated gentleman .. While from your posts one must conclude that you....

[phycokiller]

so in other words hes saying that the population arent educated enough to know what they are voting for, and speaking of populism, why does the current administration keep on breaking its promise to have elections

[mike324]

Korn is actually Thailands best hope for PM that can leader the country