Govt plans press briefing to mark 3 years in power

[simoh1490]

26 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Seem we are talking different things.

 

I am talking bricks and mortars FDI while you talk about funds inflow for bonds and stock.

 

I talk about the lowest GDP growth and not GDP which by virtue of Thailand economy depth, size and population is rank 2 after Indonesia which is ASEAN largest populated country.

 

Our views will never meet if we see matters differently.

You wrote:

 

"ASEAN keep attracting FDI but not junta Thailand. Even BOT admitted that FDI fell by 90% in value and the lowest in over a decade. He cited political instability as one of the reason. Good try on the US economy recovery and rate increase which has little to do with FDI which is still strong flowing into ASEAN.

 

You forgot to mention that all Thailand neighbours have higher GDP. Simply put, 2% spending on low GDP  is irresponsible and corrupt". 

 

Methinks Eric that having now been set straight, you are wriggling about trying to change the meaning of your original argument to define FDI at a macro level and now wish us to consider a comparison of GDP growth rather than GDP itself! I think you need to stop wasting my time and formulate your arguments more accurately in the future.

 

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

You wrote:

 

"ASEAN keep attracting FDI but not junta Thailand. Even BOT admitted that FDI fell by 90% in value and the lowest in over a decade. He cited political instability as one of the reason. Good try on the US economy recovery and rate increase which has little to do with FDI which is still strong flowing into ASEAN.

 

You forgot to mention that all Thailand neighbours have higher GDP. Simply put, 2% spending on low GDP  is irresponsible and corrupt". 

 

Methinks Eric that having now been set straight, you are wriggling about trying to change the meaning of your original argument to define FDI at a macro level and now wish us to consider a comparison of GDP growth rather than GDP itself! I think you need to stop wasting my time and formulate your arguments more accurately in the future.

 

Silly me and I thought you was the one twisting and turning the information for your own means and asking for links. However I do agree that you stop wasting our time. 

[Becker]

On 5/14/2017 at 4:38 AM, simoh1490 said:

......and millions of Thai's would agree that the coup and the direction things are headed are both very sound, in fact, I have yet to meet a single Thai who doesn't think so. But in all fairness, most of the Thai's that I know are over age forty hence I accept the teenagers and twenty somethings may have different views.

If (according to you) the majority support the efforts of the junta then surely they could hold an election and clear away any doubts about who the people support, right?

 

So you accept that "teenagers and twentysomethings" may have a different view. Do you accept that they be allowed to express their views in a vote?

[simoh1490]

Just now, Becker said:

If (according to you) the majority support the efforts of the junta then surely they could hold an election and clear away any doubts about who the people support, right?

 

So you accept that "teenagers and twentysomethings" may have a different view. Do you accept that they be allowed to express their views in a vote?

The junta is not a political party hence it would not be impossible to have an election where the junta (party) in effect was up against other political parties.

 

I accept the  people of Thailand are better educated today about politics and in a better position than they were say fifteen years ago to make informed decisions when it comes to elections. But I don't think the existence of a lot of informed twentysomethingyearolds is enough in itself to warrant believing the entire population is ready and capable of voting on an informed basis.

[WhizBang]

Why?

 

Oh, right.  They (the junta) have to tell us (peons) what a good job that are doing.

 

Next.

[cmsally]

How can the army be better at running the country when they are essentially a slice of the populace dressed up in uniforms. If the argument put forward = the populace is not educated enough to vote, then logically a slice of that populace dressed in a certain way is not educated enough to govern.

It is logically challenging to prove is it not?

[simoh1490]

Just now, cmsally said:

How can the army be better at running the country when they are essentially a slice of the populace dressed up in uniforms. If the argument put forward = the populace is not educated enough to vote, then logically a slice of that populace dressed in a certain way is not educated enough to govern.

It is logically challenging to prove is it not?

Hmmm, mischievous :) - I expressed a view that some countries and their populations were not best suited to democracy and that democracy in itself shouldn't be considered an automatic right, just because it is so in some Western countries. I did not say that a junta is better at running a country, I implied that a country is better off being run by a junta.

[simoh1490]

A reasonable piece here from the China Post which talks about the Thai economy picking up following a downturn resulting from the passing of the late king:

 

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/thailand/2017/05/15/497426/Thai-economy.htm

 

Note: I presume the CP is not regarded as a competitor, if incorrect, apologies and please delete.

[wakeupplease]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

The junta is not a political party hence it would not be impossible to have an election where the junta (party) in effect was up against other political parties.

 

I accept the  people of Thailand are better educated today about politics and in a better position than they were say fifteen years ago to make informed decisions when it comes to elections. But I don't think the existence of a lot of informed twentysomethingyearolds is enough in itself to warrant believing the entire population is ready and capable of voting on an informed basis.

So what you are saying is half of the population are stupid people who do not know their a>> from their elbow.

 

I think you grossly underestimate the population as they are very good at adapting to situations and even more talented than many give them credit for. This is a country that could and should be at the level of any European country and would be if not for 19+ interventions from the boys in green who at best are criminals. name one green pm who has not filled his pockets at the expense of the  working population and there have been a lot of them compared to civils.

 

I will say this so you understand and may stop walking around with blinkers on

 

The majority of Thai people are not stupid, they work very hard and have an understanding of events here and across the world. If they had been given free and truthful education instead of properganda they would be on par with the rest of the first world. They have been stopped by stupid greedy people in green. Everyone is equal to you so please do not forget it.

 

PS

18 year olds have fought in wars, twentysomethingyearolds are capable of making decisions.

 

Treat yourself to a vacation and see how the world has change in those 30 years you have been in paradise and put your blinkers away, its the 21st century you know

[simoh1490]

7 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

So what you are saying is half of the population are stupid people who do not know their a>> from their elbow.

 

I think you grossly underestimate the population as they are very good at adapting to situations and even more talented than many give them credit for. This is a country that could and should be at the level of any European country and would be if not for 19+ interventions from the boys in green who at best are criminals. name one green pm who has not filled his pockets at the expense of the  working population and there have been a lot of them compared to civils.

 

I will say this so you understand and may stop walking around with blinkers on

 

The majority of Thai people are not stupid, they work very hard and have an understanding of events here and across the world. If they had been given free and truthful education instead of properganda they would be on par with the rest of the first world. They have been stopped by stupid greedy people in green. Everyone is equal to you so please do not forget it.

 

PS

18 year olds have fought in wars, twentysomethingyearolds are capable of making decisions.

 

Treat yourself to a vacation and see how the world has change in those 30 years you have been in paradise and put your blinkers away, its the 21st century you know

I'm really sorry but I'm adding you to my ignore list, you simply don't understand what's been said to you plus you're necessarily argumentative, goodbye.

[wakeupplease]

4 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm really sorry but I'm adding you to my ignore list, you simply don't understand what's been said to you plus you're necessarily argumentative, goodbye.

You have a nice day

[Becker]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

The junta is not a political party hence it would not be impossible to have an election where the junta (party) in effect was up against other political parties.

 

I accept the  people of Thailand are better educated today about politics and in a better position than they were say fifteen years ago to make informed decisions when it comes to elections. But I don't think the existence of a lot of informed twentysomethingyearolds is enough in itself to warrant believing the entire population is ready and capable of voting on an informed basis.

"The junta is not a political party hence it would not be impossible to have an election where the junta (party) in effect was up against other political parties".

 

I shall assume you mean "possible", and not impossible. You're wrong. The Democrats are fully capable of continuing to be the mouthpiece of the old elite.

 

So you're saying that the Thai population is not ready or capable of voting at the moment. Tell me, who decide when they are ready?

[halloween]

1 hour ago, cmsally said:

How can the army be better at running the country when they are essentially a slice of the populace dressed up in uniforms. If the argument put forward = the populace is not educated enough to vote, then logically a slice of that populace dressed in a certain way is not educated enough to govern.

It is logically challenging to prove is it not?

Oh dear, so many illogical claims in one post. The military is far from representative of the population (no children), or even the electorate (no elderly). The electorate are quite capable of voting, but seem largely incapable of selecting representatives to govern altruistically, competently and with respect to the laws of the land.  

That portion of the military that do govern are far from representative of those enlisted. They are usually far better educated than elected representatives, have spent many years in command and management positions, and with much more emphasis on respect for nation and King. While in office, they do not have to consider (to the same extent) popularity of their actions deemed necessary - cancelling the rice scam, reclaiming national parks and waterways, prosecuting popular criminals.

Far from perfect, they demonstrably are doing a better job than the criminal conspiracy that bribed its way into office without regard to the cost or effectiveness of its policies.

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, Becker said:

"The junta is not a political party hence it would not be impossible to have an election where the junta (party) in effect was up against other political parties".

 

I shall assume you mean "possible", and not impossible. You're wrong. The Democrats are fully capable of continuing to be the mouthpiece of the old elite.

 

So you're saying that the Thai population is not ready or capable of voting at the moment. Tell me, who decide when they are ready?

Your argument collapses under the fallacy that the military and the Democrats are somehow equivalent. While certainly more conservative, many of the Democrats policies were far from "elite" - their rice scheme paid directly to farmers, and the universal subsidy on school books and clothing for example. that is why they had supporters in all areas of the country, not just Bangkok.

But it suits the red rabble to label them such. Reminds me of the Khmer Rouge claiming anybody with reading glasses must be an intellectual, and exterminated.

[candide]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Your argument collapses under the fallacy that the military and the Democrats are somehow equivalent. While certainly more conservative, many of the Democrats policies were far from "elite" - their rice scheme paid directly to farmers, and the universal subsidy on school books and clothing for example. that is why they had supporters in all areas of the country, not just Bangkok.

But it suits the red rabble to label them such. Reminds me of the Khmer Rouge claiming anybody with reading glasses must be an intellectual, and exterminated.

They may not be equivalent but didn't the dems side with the PDRC and the army? Didn't the Junta implement populist policies? How many dems subject to attitude adjustment sessions? Etc.... They are not equivalent but they are clearly on the same side of the political arena.

[Becker]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Your argument collapses under the fallacy that the military and the Democrats are somehow equivalent. While certainly more conservative, many of the Democrats policies were far from "elite" - their rice scheme paid directly to farmers, and the universal subsidy on school books and clothing for example. that is why they had supporters in all areas of the country, not just Bangkok.

But it suits the red rabble to label them such. Reminds me of the Khmer Rouge claiming anybody with reading glasses must be an intellectual, and exterminated.

Claiming that there are close ties between the Dems and the old elite/Junta (obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about politics in Thailand) reminds you of the Khmer Rouge??

 

Yes, the Dems had supporters in all parts of the country, but very, very few in most of them. Do you know how I know this? Because several elections were held where the Dems got hammered - elections where people were actually allowed to openly discuss the issues and campaign for their points of view. Rad, right?

 

The junta has been clinging to power for 3 years already, constantly serving up their BS on how they are going to fundamentally change things for the better. What have they got to show for themselves? A big, fat NOTHING. Anyone surprised? 

Let me phrase the question differently:

After 3 years with the present bumbling idiots and the previous 20 coups/attempted coups that brought 0 progress (please correct me if I'm wrong) to Thailand who in their right minds still believe the junta wants/is able to fix anything but the faces at the trough??

Hands up, please.

 

 

[simoh1490]

9 hours ago, Becker said:

"The junta is not a political party hence it would not be impossible to have an election where the junta (party) in effect was up against other political parties".

 

I shall assume you mean "possible", and not impossible. You're wrong. The Democrats are fully capable of continuing to be the mouthpiece of the old elite.

 

So you're saying that the Thai population is not ready or capable of voting at the moment. Tell me, who decide when they are ready?

Yes my apologies, I intended to write "possible".

 

"When they are ready": the problem exists in two parts. The first is the huge numbers of rural poor. Like many others I have seen first hand the agents in the rural villages touting for votes and offering 300/500 per vote and a free ride to the voting station - I've also heard the responses from people in these villages when asked who they will vote for and why, "X because he's handsome", "Y because I'll get 500 baht", "Z because my friend says they'll give us money", the numbers of such people are massive, this is the voting base that Mr T'. tapped into and used to get himself into office so that he could enrich himself as proven by the courts, is it any wonder the army stepped in to stop that madness. Until the problem of vote buying is resolved, until the rural poor are either sufficiently educated or significantly small in number, the country will not be ready for truly democratic elections.

 

The second part is the political parties. Historically, being a politician in Thailand was a license to print money, it seems as though not many became politicians to better the country and its people, many entered the profession with enrichment in mind and if a person of some importance couldn't get into an existing party, they simply formed a new one. Today the landscape is littered with political parties, some with only a couple of seats with many having being banned, the uneducated voter can therefore be forgiven for becoming confused whilst trying to asses which political party meets their needs. In Western countries there tends to be stability of parties, in the UK we know the Conservatives cater to the Right whilst Labour caters to the Left, not much changes year on year except the degree to which they overlap each other or push the envelope in the direction of extreme - there is no third choice really and it's largely been that way for decades - the same is true of the US with the Democrats and Republicans. Whilst the Democrats in Thailand has tenure their base is Bangkok and the South and their history is mired in controversy with some claiming they are the party of the rich and the elite but not of the rural poor. (I think that really is a division that is based on education, awareness and perception more than anything else). Regardless of whether it is or isn't, Thailand needs a stable, credible and enduring second political party that isn't mainly focussed on the rural poor, one that is free from underhand and illegality so that the voting choices become more clear (and simpler) with both main parties offering support for the entire country and not just parts of it - honest politicians however, needed to operate such a party, seem to be few and far between! When those things exist, I think they will be ready.

 

 

[simoh1490]

5 hours ago, Becker said:

Claiming that there are close ties between the Dems and the old elite/Junta (obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about politics in Thailand) reminds you of the Khmer Rouge??

 

Yes, the Dems had supporters in all parts of the country, but very, very few in most of them. Do you know how I know this? Because several elections were held where the Dems got hammered - elections where people were actually allowed to openly discuss the issues and campaign for their points of view. Rad, right?

 

The junta has been clinging to power for 3 years already, constantly serving up their BS on how they are going to fundamentally change things for the better. What have they got to show for themselves? A big, fat NOTHING. Anyone surprised? 

Let me phrase the question differently:

After 3 years with the present bumbling idiots and the previous 20 coups/attempted coups that brought 0 progress (please correct me if I'm wrong) to Thailand who in their right minds still believe the junta wants/is able to fix anything but the faces at the trough??

Hands up, please.

 

 

Too bad that you just went extreme and irrational in this argument, I thought for a moment there you were going to form part of a balanced discussion, it seems not, poster HW is indeed correct regarding Democrat policies in the past. And if you can't see the crack down that the junta has made on land encroachment and corruption and you think all they are doing is lining their own pockets, you really don't have a clue what this is all about and haven't spent very much time with Thai people.

[Becker]

9 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Too bad that you just went extreme and irrational in this argument, I thought for a moment there you were going to form part of a balanced discussion, it seems not, poster HW is indeed correct regarding Democrat policies in the past. And if you can't see the crack down that the junta has made on land encroachment and corruption and you think all they are doing is lining their own pockets, you really don't have a clue what this is all about and haven't spent very much time with Thai people.

You claim to have met no one over the age of forty that does not support the junta and at the same time you claim to have witnessed first hand massive vote buying in the country side - IE, having spent considerable time there.

Forgive me for calling ** on that.

[Becker]

9 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Yes my apologies, I intended to write "possible".

 

"When they are ready": the problem exists in two parts. The first is the huge numbers of rural poor. Like many others I have seen first hand the agents in the rural villages touting for votes and offering 300/500 per vote and a free ride to the voting station - I've also heard the responses from people in these villages when asked who they will vote for and why, "X because he's handsome", "Y because I'll get 500 baht", "Z because my friend says they'll give us money", the numbers of such people are massive, this is the voting base that Mr T'. tapped into and used to get himself into office so that he could enrich himself as proven by the courts, is it any wonder the army stepped in to stop that madness. Until the problem of vote buying is resolved, until the rural poor are either sufficiently educated or significantly small in number, the country will not be ready for truly democratic elections.

 

The second part is the political parties. Historically, being a politician in Thailand was a license to print money, it seems as though not many became politicians to better the country and its people, many entered the profession with enrichment in mind and if a person of some importance couldn't get into an existing party, they simply formed a new one. Today the landscape is littered with political parties, some with only a couple of seats with many having being banned, the uneducated voter can therefore be forgiven for becoming confused whilst trying to asses which political party meets their needs. In Western countries there tends to be stability of parties, in the UK we know the Conservatives cater to the Right whilst Labour caters to the Left, not much changes year on year except the degree to which they overlap each other or push the envelope in the direction of extreme - there is no third choice really and it's largely been that way for decades - the same is true of the US with the Democrats and Republicans. Whilst the Democrats in Thailand has tenure their base is Bangkok and the South and their history is mired in controversy with some claiming they are the party of the rich and the elite but not of the rural poor. (I think that really is a division that is based on education, awareness and perception more than anything else). Regardless of whether it is or isn't, Thailand needs a stable, credible and enduring second political party that isn't mainly focussed on the rural poor, one that is free from underhand and illegality so that the voting choices become more clear (and simpler) with both main parties offering support for the entire country and not just parts of it - honest politicians however, needed to operate such a party, seem to be few and far between! When those things exist, I think they will be ready.

 

 

Again, who decides when the rural poor are "ready" to be graciously granted the permission to vote?

[simoh1490]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

You claim to have met no one over the age of forty that does not support the junta and at the same time you claim to have witnessed first hand massive vote buying in the country side - IE, having spent considerable time there.

Forgive me for calling ** on that.

I don't understand why, I've lived here a long time, my wifes family are rural poor who live in Sukhothai and we spend time there regularly..... are you just having a  bad day or what!

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

Again, who decides when the rural poor are "ready" to be graciously granted the permission to vote?

" When those things exist, I think they will be ready". last sentence.

[Becker]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

" When those things exist, I think they will be ready". last sentence.

Again, WHO will decide if "those things" exist? You do realize that this is a subjective decision I hope?

[simoh1490]

Just now, Becker said:

Again, WHO will decide if "those things" exist? You do realize that this is a subjective decision I hope?

And my answer yet again is, when those things are seen to have been achieved, when they have been I think the country as whole would realise that. I maintain my view that democracy is not right or appropriate for every country as an automatic right, it's something that is awarded or earned as part of the growth process and maturity. Look, if you don't like my opinion, don't agree with it, better still don't read the thread if it gives you problems!

[Srikcir]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

democracy is not right or appropriate for every country as an automatic right, it's something that is awarded or earned as part of the growth process and maturity.

Yet immediately after its revolution the 13 colonies (though 12 might be more accurate) in the New World the USA established a democratic government. No experience, no maturity, no growth process. None of the colonies ever independently governed themselves as sovereign states but as loyalists to the King of England. Their constitution and democratic government has survived over 240 years.

[Becker]

10 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

And my answer yet again is, when those things are seen to have been achieved, when they have been I think the country as whole would realise that. I maintain my view that democracy is not right or appropriate for every country as an automatic right, it's something that is awarded or earned as part of the growth process and maturity. Look, if you don't like my opinion, don't agree with it, better still don't read the thread if it gives you problems!

So, no answer on who decides if the unwashed masses are worthy of having a vote.

BTW, I do disagree with your opinion. I thought that was blatantly obvious.

And reading this thread does not give me problems - why should it???

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Yet immediately after its revolution the 13 colonies (though 12 might be more accurate) in the New World the USA established a democratic government. No experience, no maturity, no growth process. None of the colonies ever independently governed themselves as sovereign states but as loyalists to the King of England. Their constitution and democratic government has survived over 240 years.

I'm not sure that a useful comparison since the population was comprised of people who came from established democracies, had lived under their rule for many years and comprised a multiple of ethnic origins, mostly all from established democracies. BTW I did write, NOT ALL countries and populations....., I didn't write, every country and population.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

So, no answer on who decides if the unwashed masses are worthy of having a vote.

BTW, I do disagree with your opinion. I thought that was blatantly obvious.

And reading this thread does not give me problems - why should it???

It's not a question of worthiness, it's a question of being able to use a vote sensibly and usefully rather than just giving them the vote because that is thought by some to be the right thing to do. So good, we disagree, that's healthy, now move on unless you actually have a point to make!

[Becker]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

It's not a question of worthiness, it's a question of being able to use a vote sensibly and usefully rather than just giving them the vote because that is thought by some to be the right thing to do. So good, we disagree, that's healthy, now move on unless you actually have a point to make!

I was attempting to have you clarify your point of view but since you're unable to do that I shall indeed move on.