Democrats oppose proposal for united front against ‘Thaksin regime’

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

That's absolutely not what I wrote.

 

You are deliberately changing what posters are writing to support your own bias.

 

So go right ahead and argue with your self.

 

Bye.

Yes he seems to do that all the time.. changing what posters write and taking things out of context and avoiding anything he has no answer to.  Others are ignoring him too because you can't debate with someone like that. 

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

I can read.. but the figures of the world bank don't make much sense at all.. not if I compare them with wiki and what they define as central. So there could be a mix-up for sure. Just try to do the math yourself you will see something does not add up. The other area's they define match up. Just not the central area. 

Bangkok and environs could aka as Greater Bangkok, simplified on a graphic as Bangkok. Better to ignore that possibility if it doesn't suit an agenda.

[robblok]

Just now, halloween said:

Bangkok and environs could aka as Greater Bangkok, simplified on a graphic as Bangkok. Better to ignore that possibility if it doesn't suit an agenda.

Yes its always called greater Bangkok.. and if i take the figures of Wiki it looks like they have added all the parts of greater BKK to the central one. That would be quite unfair putting all spending on BKK but taking away their part of the GDP in the graph. A lot of spending that is called BKK spending is done on greater BKK. There are government complexes and such in greater BKK that are not in BKK itself, there is a skytrain and other stuff. So i think there might be a mixup. 

 

Of course it does not suit his agenda. Still it shows more is spend in BKK as what is collected. Though if you look further than GDP and with tax free amounts GDP is not saying much because if the income in the other places stays below a certain level they are not paying income tax and with the progressive tarif they are paying it in BKK. Would be nicer to know actual tax collected per area and how much is spend. 

 

I do believe more is spend in BKK but it might not be that much more as shown here.

[patyh]

The thing is this, we can go through many more election cycles and the TRT and it's follow up parties would still win most of the time. 

 

It's not just about lining money in people's pocket. It's more of a Democrat been here longer, they offer no change to my life, I'm going to throw my support to this other guy. 

 

Coup will only cement the idea in the poorer region that the rich are trying to get richer while ensuring the poor don't climb up the social ladder. 

[halloween]

32 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Who's going to hire you?

What qualifications have you got after spending a lifetime in the rice paddies?

No one is going to lend you any money to start your own business.

 

In Thailand, moving from the informal economy into the formal one is very difficult.

All over Thailand there are factories and small businesses employing people with little formal education. But they aren't in the village, so as long as you get handouts there is no incentive to change. You are never going to make a significant income working a few rai of rice - if that's what you choose to do why should more productive workers subsidise your income.

And before you start the BS about what are they going to eat, I'm talking about reforming the rice industry to some level of efficiency. oz produced rice with about 1/1000th the man hours per tonne.

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

That's absolutely not what I wrote.

 

You are deliberately changing what posters are writing to support your own bias.

 

So go right ahead and argue with your self.

 

Bye.

You did write "perhaps those in power for long periods are even more guilty."

 

That would seem to point directly to the military that from 1933 to the present has held absolute power over the Thai people, whether it be direct as a junta or covertly through its elitist/royalist connections to pursue and protect its own political agendas. The military does not swear an oath to the Constitution and by extension to the sovereignty to the Thai People. The military is not under the control of the polity. No elected government can fully plan and exercise any political agenda without interference from the military and its political "cut-outs."

 

The reality of this military "Dark State" was just recently exposed by the National Reform Steering Assembly's suggestion that an unelected government be formed from Democrats, the PDRF and the junta in lieu of an elected government because of their perspective that the polity will likely vote in political opposition to the military/elitist/royalist agendas. No Thai elected government ever had such power for unilateral transformation of the entire government under one political ideology.

[scorecard]

6 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

You did write "perhaps those in power for long periods are even more guilty."

 

That would seem to point directly to the military that from 1933 to the present has held absolute power over the Thai people, whether it be direct as a junta or covertly through its elitist/royalist connections to pursue and protect its own political agendas. The military does not swear an oath to the Constitution and by extension to the sovereignty to the Thai People. The military is not under the control of the polity. No elected government can fully plan and exercise any political agenda without interference from the military and its political "cut-outs."

 

The reality of this military "Dark State" was just recently exposed by the National Reform Steering Assembly's suggestion that an unelected government be formed from Democrats, the PDRF and the junta in lieu of an elected government because of their perspective that the polity will likely vote in political opposition to the military/elitist/royalist agendas. No Thai elected government ever had such power for unilateral transformation of the entire government under one political ideology.

 

Again you assume things that I did not write.

 

I didn't write anything like 'unilateral transformation of the entire government', again your trying to twist.

 

I ask you, how many 'political parties' did actually have a specific ideology of any sort let alone equal development and equal opportunity?

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by scorecard

[Eric Loh]

The Dem Party is the oldest party in Thailand but has never won any majority seats on the lower house. Each time they formed the government, they have to work with a coalition. They have not done enough for the country and the party leaders have only narrow self serving interest. There are growing discontent and disappointment within the party and their supporters of the leadership and the direction they are heading and I wouldn't be surprised that they will break up heading to the election. 

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

That's absolutely not what I wrote.

 

You are deliberately changing what posters are writing to support your own bias.

 

So go right ahead and argue with your self.

 

Bye.

Who were you talking about here?

 

" In reality one pm who owns a party was in power for a long period was the education minister for a period and did nothing whatever to make any, let alone massive changes and improvement in education outputs".

 

Baerboxer and now you - interesting tactic you Junta boys have come up with when confronted with your own words.

 

 

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The Dem Party is the oldest party in Thailand but has never won any majority seats on the lower house. Each time they formed the government, they have to work with a coalition. They have not done enough for the country and the party leaders have only narrow self serving interest. There are growing discontent and disappointment within the party and their supporters of the leadership and the direction they are heading and I wouldn't be surprised that they will break up heading to the election. 

Perhaps they could get a rich benefactor to buy some minor parties to bolster their numbers. Of course he might want illegal access to cabinet deliberations.

 

Or they could start paying MPs to be members of their party, that seems to work. Ensures party solidarity too; any dissent and you risk losing your regular bribe. when the amnesty bill was tabled, despite UDD's voiced opposition, only one of the UDD MPs was brave enough to abstain. He probably had had a good day at the casino or race-track.

[Smarter Than You]

52 minutes ago, halloween said:

All over Thailand there are factories and small businesses employing people with little formal education. But they aren't in the village, so as long as you get handouts there is no incentive to change. You are never going to make a significant income working a few rai of rice - if that's what you choose to do why should more productive workers subsidise your income.

And before you start the BS about what are they going to eat, I'm talking about reforming the rice industry to some level of efficiency. oz produced rice with about 1/1000th the man hours per tonne.

It is not realistic for millions of rural Thais to flood into urban areas looking for jobs.

The rural areas have to be developed to create jobs outside of the urban areas.

Development takes money.

The Yellow/Elite/Military factions want to keep the money where it is - in their pockets in Bangkok.

 

How is it you are so quick to blame the ones with the least power - the poor living just above substance levels, yet remain so silent toward those who created and, through coup after coup are maintaining a system of such extreme inequality.

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

It is not realistic for millions of rural Thais to flood into urban areas looking for jobs.

The rural areas have to be developed to create jobs outside of the urban areas.

Development takes money.

The Yellow/Elite/Military factions want to keep the money where it is - in their pockets in Bangkok.

 

How is it you are so quick to blame the ones with the least power - the poor living just above substance levels, yet remain so silent toward those who created and, through coup after coup are maintaining a system of such extreme inequality.

Oh, it's not realistic. But it happened in every developed country, didn't it? you keep harping, like some broken record, about the elite and Bangkok. I have travelled to most of the cities in Thailand, they all have wealthy people, they all have industry and factories, they all have imported workers because they can't get enough Thais to fill the jobs.

And you like to defend Thaksin, the poor man's saviour. He is a life-long criminal who USED the northern poor to get into office to enrich himself. The level of blatant corruption under his regimes is unprecedented. He incited political unrest in the hope of higher office. But let's ignore his corruption, look how well the north is doing after his help.

[yellowboat]

49 minutes ago, halloween said:

Perhaps they could get a rich benefactor to buy some minor parties to bolster their numbers. Of course he might want illegal access to cabinet deliberations.

 

Or they could start paying MPs to be members of their party, that seems to work. Ensures party solidarity too; any dissent and you risk losing your regular bribe. when the amnesty bill was tabled, despite UDD's voiced opposition, only one of the UDD MPs was brave enough to abstain. He probably had had a good day at the casino or race-track.

Perhaps "Democrats" could campaign in Isan and Northern Thailand.  Love or hate the Shinawartas, they are smart and work hard.  That statement bears repeating:  They work hard.   Like the Thai Army, the "Democrats" do not have any charismatic leadership .   They have cautiously disagreed with the junta, for which, they deserve some credit. 

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Oh, it's not realistic. But it happened in every developed country, didn't it? you keep harping, like some broken record, about the elite and Bangkok. I have travelled to most of the cities in Thailand, they all have wealthy people, they all have industry and factories, they all have imported workers because they can't get enough Thais to fill the jobs.

And you like to defend Thaksin, the poor man's saviour. He is a life-long criminal who USED the northern poor to get into office to enrich himself. The level of blatant corruption under his regimes is unprecedented. He incited political unrest in the hope of higher office. But let's ignore his corruption, look how well the north is doing after his help.

You are Australian.

Australia's largest city is Sydney.

Behind Sydney there is Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin.

 

Thailand has Bangkok.

Behind Bangkok there is what?

Phuket? Pattaya?

How is it that Australia's 7th or 8th city pisses all over Thailand's 2nd city?

 

I'm guessing you'll never be cured from the constant bleating of falsehoods and exaggerations regarding Thaksin and PTP - so lets change tact.

 

Even if Thaksin and PTP were/are as bad as you claim why do the masses keep voting for them?

There is only two choices here:

 

1. The masses are either to greedy or too stupid to be trusted with democracy and are easily fooled or bought over and over again by Thaksin and PTP.

Choosing this option also means that the Democrats are also too stupid to beat Thaksin and PTP at their own game.

 

or

 

2. Thaksin and PTP, despite their flaws, are still a better option for the masses to improve the living standards for themselves and their children.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Smarter Than You
.

[GarryP]

The Democrats need to get their collective head out of their collective arse and make themselves electable to the public at large. The cat is out of the bag, the upcountry folk know their vote is important, so the Dems should be focusing on winning that vote.   But nooooooo, they focus on blocking the Thaksin regime, which is bound to fail. 

[halloween]

Have you never left the tourist traps? have you never heard of Khorat, Hat Yai, Chiang Mai. I could also add Nonthaburi and Pak Kret, cities in their own right, which you are adamant are NOT part of BKK.

 

I'll go for 1/, though I'd propose uneducated and ill-informed. Not everybody is willing to waste the countries resources just to gain power - then again they don't intend to gain as much while in power.

[halloween]

39 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

You do know Democrat Party mentor and ex-PM Chuan Leekpai's brother allegedly embezzled billions from a Thai bank, ran away to Taiwan until the statue of limitations expired on the charges and now lives freely in Bangkok? 

 

Buying parties like Newin Chidchob's faction (one of the most corrupt in Thai politics allegedly) which the military and Democrats bought after the 2006 coup so they could overturn the will of the people through the judiciary and install their own unpopular and unelected Democrat government, giving Newin's faction the most lucrative ministries to plunder while in office. 

 

Because there is a group of posters here completely obsessed with Thaksin that they can't see the wood from the trees. 

 

They would rather see Thai people crushed under the jackboot of authoritarianism and shot in the street like dogs rather than see Thaksin return. 

 

A complete disdain for the Thai electorate and enfranchisement of the local people. They are not 'educated enough' or 'not ready' to choose their own leaders according to these posters.  

 

Some of them know they were completely duped and we are in a far, far worse situation now than ever but their obsession with Thaksin and their ego means we must suffer their deliberations on here ad nauseaum. 

Typically, you don't address the material in my post, you simply throw up strawman arguments, like claiming forming a coalition is "overturn the will of the people through the judiciary." Has it occurred to you that Thaksin routinely breaks election law so that he can claim to be the victim when he is called on it. The only reason PTP was not disbanded for blatant breaking of election law was that the EC was worried about the ensuing political violence.

It seems his sycophants are willing to ignore his criminal activity. tough TIT if you don't like being reminded of it.

[halloween]

11 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

They have tried but they are universally hated up there because of their 'Bitter Medicine' policies from the late 90's Chuan government, in which the rural poor paid for the economic mistakes of the ruling classes post '97 crash. Those were hard times, and the North remembers. 

 

The Democrats have never recognised the rural vote as important and have never given anything to the rural poor as way of an incentive to vote for them. That has changed thanks to Thaksin, despite the military again trying to turn the clock back 50 years, but it is too late.

 

Hopefully the next elected government can reform the military and neuter its political influence, unfortunately they have now entrenched themselves into the Thai constitution and personally I do not see anyway forward without there being trouble. There are factors we cannot discuss openly as well, which makes it even more difficult to make the changes that Thailand so desperately needs. 

 

A real shame for a country that looked like it was making so much progress in the early 2000's.

 

 

 

 

'The Democrats have never recognised the rural vote as important and have never given anything to the rural poor as way of an incentive to vote for them.'

 

I call that a blatant red lie. Their textbook and uniform subsidy was a great idea for all Thailand, especially the poor. Their rice support scheme was paid directly to farmers, and didn't cost untold billions, nor did it involve dodgy companies getting rich acting as agents in rice sales. Their removal of B30 fee made health care even more accessible to the poor.

You might ask what happened to the education subsidy, or why the B30 was re-instated, by the party that cares so much for th epoor.

[Smarter Than You]

36 minutes ago, halloween said:

Have you never left the tourist traps? have you never heard of Khorat, Hat Yai, Chiang Mai. I could also add Nonthaburi and Pak Kret, cities in their own right, which you are adamant are NOT part of BKK.

 

I'll go for 1/, though I'd propose uneducated and ill-informed. Not everybody is willing to waste the countries resources just to gain power - then again they don't intend to gain as much while in power.

Khorat, Hat Yai and Chiang Mai - each with their own Siam Paragon Mall I'm sure.

 

What do you mean waste the countries resources?

Surely the Democrats would be saving the country billions.

Make promises of handouts that trump those of PTP, win the election and don't follow through with the promises.

There would be no need for coups, no damage to the economy caused by prolonged street battles, no deaths ...

And the beauty is the rural masses are so stupid you can just hit repeat every 5 years.

What nonsense you're dribbling.

 

Of course you'll go for option 1.

It's the choice that fits the fairytale gullibly peddled by Junta lackeys - Thaksin is the greatest criminal in the history of the world and rural Thais are stupid, lazy and greedy so the best solution is to have an unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable military Junta rule the country indefinitely.

[Smarter Than You]

25 minutes ago, halloween said:

'The Democrats have never recognised the rural vote as important and have never given anything to the rural poor as way of an incentive to vote for them.'

 

I call that a blatant red lie. Their textbook and uniform subsidy was a great idea for all Thailand, especially the poor. Their rice support scheme was paid directly to farmers, and didn't cost untold billions, nor did it involve dodgy companies getting rich acting as agents in rice sales. Their removal of B30 fee made health care even more accessible to the poor.

You might ask what happened to the education subsidy, or why the B30 was re-instated, by the party that cares so much for th epoor.

Would there be Universal Healthcare if it weren't for Thaksin?

Why is there constant chatter now of the Junta dumping Universal Healthcare?

 

[Baerboxer]

On 6/6/2017 at 2:12 PM, Chris Lawrence said:

Thailand's health care reform occurred in 2001. Called the "30 Baht Program," it was one of the largest and most ambitious health reforms ever undertaken in a developing country. The program both increased by fourfold the amount hospitals were paid to care for the poor - from 250 baht (about US$6) per enrollee per year to 1,200 baht (about US$35) - and reduced the copay for non-welfare residents to 30 baht (~$0.75). In effect, the reforms made access to health care in public facilities independent of a person's financial situation and equalized health care access for rich and poor. Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: https://www.asianscientist.com/2013/06/health/thailands-30-baht-healthcare-program-reduced-infant-mortality-2013

 

Also reduced infant mortality rate by 30%. 

 

Bareboxer, have you talked to the people in the country and got their views? 

 

If you have parallel thoughts to others its not worth trolling them to get reactions.

 

If you research some of the things said u might find that somethings said on here are factual.

 

Is universal health coverage ‘populist’? Calling a person or a policy ‘populist’ suggests that they are more self-serving than communal, more instinctive than rational, and more wasteful than sustainable. Is providing essential healthcare to all like this? No. Branding universal health coverage with the derogatory label ‘populist’ allows a group to benefit from anti-populism discourse. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/04/15/thai-public-health-care-suffering-by-association/

 

Just two pages I found while writing this. Might help you be better informed when trying to beat people up.

 

Wow, incredible use of Google whilst writing a diatribe too. Fantastic multi-tasking. Impressive.

 

All I said was wasn't it free before. And, as there was a means test, the very poorest, most vulnerable members of society benefited. Now the 30 baht scheme may well have made sure low cost medical care was available to a much wider base, but those very poor very vulnerable very poor people suddenly had to pay whereas before they didn't. Why did a supposedly caring socially minded Shin government not make sure that people in that category still received free care?

 

Interestingly, with the much vaunted self financing rice scheme, the poorest farmers were excluded. So again, for whatever reasons, a Shin government chose not to help the category of people who need help the most.

 

How can that be?

[scorecard]

6 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Would there be Universal Healthcare if it weren't for Thaksin?

Why is there constant chatter now of the Junta dumping Universal Healthcare?

 

Your deliberately not mentioning that the blueprint for the free / 30 Baht healthcare program was designed by the Democrats who were getting close to implementation but they lost power, and the paymaster quickly picked it up (no doubt he saw a vote winner), and your deliberately not mentioning that the original implementation, (the paymasters gang) was massively under funded. 

 

And it's so convenient for you to ignore that yesterday and today the government has made solid statements that it has no intention of 'dumping' the universal healthcare plan.  

Edited June 7, 2017 by scorecard

[Baerboxer]

On 6/6/2017 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lawrence said:

The military government is not very different from Yingluck’s era, their anti-populist stance serves as a political machine to suppress democratic politics.

 

Since the 2014 coup started, the military junta has been the major beneficiary of the anti-populism frame.

 

While this ‘populist’ jargon sounds dangerous, unsustainable, or wasteful, it indeed has proved a fundamental value. All citizens have the right to access public healthcare and the state is obliged to ensure these rights.

 

Love or hate 'em the Shins won the country folk by 'populist' policy's. The majority of voters are country folk. 

 

There is a very powerful idea among royalists that Thailand needs to be ruled by 'good men' and liberal democracy is incompetent. Ignorant electorates can be easily duped by ill-intended politicians. This has paved a way to the establishment of an anti-electoral democracy.

 

So it is easy to turn an argument here on TV. Many here the word 'populist' policy's and draw back with Shin lover, red stooge? The current regime is knee-deep in it, by way of developing the armed forces. 

 

The real problem is how is the elephant in the room dealt with. It can come out in many forms. I have used some quotes from EastAsiaForum.

 

"So it is easy to turn an argument here on TV." Would that be like certain posters do when trying to turn this into a discussion using Western political constructs, ideologies and pretend the Shins are some sort of left-wing socialist party?

 

My Chinese friends find it hilarious that we Westerners try to analyze Thai or other Asian countries politics in terms of our Western styles. They see this as simply various clan type factions vying for control of the trough and gravy trains. They aren't Conservative and Labor, Democrat and Republican, etc.

Here the old families interests are represented by the Democrat Party and they have the backing of the all powerful military when necessary. The Shin clan and associated cronies interests are represented by PTP and previous also Shin owned parties. They are supported by the police and have the UDD to call on too. Add to this various smaller parties dominated by various families in various regions who can join as supporters in coalitions - for a price.

 

Using familiar constructs, analogies, similes, metaphors as a means of helping to understand complexity is common. We all do that as part of our world views, experience and sense making.

 

However, changing the argument to be one about Western political ideas rather than what's actually happening here is also a good way to try and gloss over the lies. cheating, thieving and law breaking that some politicians think that be elected entitles them too. It also labels them with a politically correct tag which can be exploited to gain sympathy whilst masking the dubious.

 

Hope this diatribe in reply to your diatribe is simple enough for you to understand.

[Baerboxer]

14 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Your deliberately not mentioning that the blueprint for the free / 30 Baht healthcare program was designed by the Democrats who were getting close to implementation but they lost power, and the paymaster quickly picked it up (no doubt he saw a vote winner), and your deliberately not mentioning that the original implementation, (the paymasters gang) was massively under funded. 

 

And it's so convenient for you to ignore that yesterday and today the government has made solid statements that it has no intention of 'dumping' the universal healthcare plan.  

 

Amazing how these "smart" Google researchers could've missed that little point isn't it?

[Smarter Than You]

22 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Your deliberately not mentioning that the blueprint for the free / 30 Baht healthcare program was designed by the Democrats who were getting close to implementation but hey lost power, and the paymaster quickly picked it up (no doubt he saw a vote winner), and your deliberately not mentioning that the original implementation, the paymasters gang) was massively under funded. 

 

And you ignore that yesterday and today the government has made solid statements that it has no intention of 'dumping' the universal healthcare plan.  

The situation in 2000

 

In 2000, about one-quarter of people in Thailand were uninsured, and many other people had policies that granted incomplete protection. As a result, the country was in a healthcare crisis. More than 17,000 children younger than five died that year, about two-thirds of them from easily preventable infectious diseases. And about 20% of the poorest Thai homes fell into poverty from out-of-pocket healthcare spending.

 

And the situation as of 2011

 

The lessons in Thailand: a well researched system with a dedicated leadership can improve health, and in an affordable way. As of 2011, the country’s health scheme cost just $80 per person annually, primarily funded by general income tax; it effectively reduced infant mortality, decreased worker sick days and lightened families’ financial burden for healthcare.

 

(Yes that dedicated leadership mentioned is Thaksin and TRT)

 

Have you considered why the Junta feels it necessary to issue statements that they are not dumping Universal Healthcare?

Where there's smoke ...

 

Hey Baerboxer, how you going there mate - so nice of you to chip in with such value adding commentary, do keep it up old chum.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Smarter Than You
.

[Srikcir]

21 hours ago, scorecard said:

I didn't write anything like 'unilateral transformation of the entire government', again your trying to twist.

No you did not.

unilateral transformation of the entire government is my statement which you have placed in semi-quotes. Full quotes would have been more appropriate in citing my statement. Your statement to which I was responding to I had placed in full quotes.

 

Therefor, I have not twisted or incorrectly quoted you. Please read my full comment again. Personally, my phrase unilateral transformation of the entire government was succinctly written for which I take full credit.

[Ricardo]

13 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Have you considered why the Junta feels it necessary to issue statements that they are not dumping Universal Healthcare?

Where there's smoke ...

 

 

It's wandering off-topic, but it occurs to me that these recent stories about the 30-Baht scheme being changed might themselves be smoke,  a smoke-bomb rather than evidence of fire ?

 

Who knows, certainly not I, but as always one might wonder cui bono ?