Democrats oppose proposal for united front against ‘Thaksin regime’

[Bastos60]

23 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Past experiences in the 1960s, early 1970s and 1991–1992 have shown that such governments eventually end in tears.

How about the past experience from 1980-1988 that must have been a brutal regime.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, 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.

 

Great example of a diatribe. 

 

Populist policies or not,  previous democratically elected governments, whilst throwing some bones to the poor, have made sure the meat stayed on their tables too. 

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

59 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

No they mean that a Thaksin puppet will head the government. While a politician is banned from actively participating in politics he has been the puppetmaster of a long
row of his confidants. His sister was only marginally allowed to run her own program. Why else would they each time install a brother-in-law etc....in a position as prime minister.

 

a Thaksin regime = democratically elected "puppet" government.

In 2011 Yingluck campaigned as the PM candidate for PTP, so whether you think she was a puppet or not, the people knew what they were voting for and they voted for PTP in their millions.

This is how legitimate governments are formed.

 

The Junta on the other hand ...

[Smarter Than You]

30 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

How about the past experience from 1980-1988 that must have been a brutal regime.

1980 - 1988 led directly to the events of Black May in1992

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

In 2011 Yingluck campaigned as the PM candidate for PTP, so whether you think she was a puppet or not, the people knew what they were voting for and they voted for PTP in their millions.

This is how legitimate governments are formed.

 

The Junta on the other hand ...

Freebies for everyone is a great way to get elected, if you don't mind the expense to the nation. Perhaps an educated and informed populace would have rejected her populism after a free and critical press tore her policies to ribbons. But we'll never know because Thailand has neither; both are considered essential to real democracy.

Edited June 6, 2017 by halloween

[Bastos60]

28 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

In 2011 Yingluck campaigned as the PM candidate for PTP, so whether you think she was a puppet or not, the people knew what they were voting for and they voted for PTP in their millions.

This is how legitimate governments are formed.

 

The Junta on the other hand ...

Yingluck wasn't very eager to campaign for a political post. She needed  a lot of convincing from family and party member to run, it was her relationship to Thaksin, being his sister, that was needed to secure a victory.

If she wasn't this closely related to Thaksin, she would have never amounted to anything in politics.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I appreciate that English isn't your first language Eric. Speculate - isn't that what discussions are? Most if not all of your points are speculative, unless of course you have evidence you are going to share to prove them?

 

Anytime, when you're ready to post them.

 

Hyperbole, well if you have no clue then you don't really no if something is hyperbolic or not do you? So which is it?

 

PTP - you think they were transparent? Wonder why no accounts from the self financing flagship rice scheme have so far never been revealed? Media has more freedom - where you here when Thaksin had is little red card for journalists, regularly sued critics and media companies for comments he didn't like and when his little sister's government tried to get the cyber police to threaten prosecutions for even liking a post they didn't like (they backed off but they had the idea first)? Transparency - PTP cut the budget of the NACC by 50% although Yingluck did attend an anti corruption photo shoot and did declare there was no corruption in her government. She also said they wanted the 2.2 trillion loan off the books, away from parliamentary scrutiny and the AG. How transparent is that? And yes, there opponents and witnesses against them have also vanished mysteriously.

 

Transparency, accountability, freedom of speech and freedom of information; a robust fair and impartial justice system, and robust open checks & balances are all essential for a democracy to flourish. And the last democratically elected government did nothing about promoting or reforming any of that. Indeed, sadly, quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

You know who kill the guy? The driver? You don't know; speculative is right.

Did the 2T infrastructure project get off the ground for you to say there are no accountability? No it wasn't so you are exaggerating. 

Is the junta government more transparent than Yingluck's government. No by a million mile. 

Don't thank me for correcting your diatribe and please don't report me to the administrator which you fond off when you lose an argument, 

 

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

Yingluck wasn't very eager to campaign for a political post. She needed  a lot of convincing from family and party member to run, it was her relationship to Thaksin, being his sister, that was needed to secure a victory.

If she wasn't this closely related to Thaksin, she would have never amounted to anything in politics.

Yes she was a newbie and a novice and a sister to Thaksin. Everybody knows that. She won the election; didn't she and she kicked Ahbisit's ass pretty bad. That's all to it. 

[Smarter Than You]

38 minutes ago, halloween said:

Freebies for everyone is a great way to get elected, if you don't mind the expense to the nation. Perhaps an educated and informed populace would have rejected her populism after a free and critical press tore her policies to ribbons. But we'll never know because Thailand has neither; both are considered essential to real democracy.

Debt moratoriums for farmers, requiring government owned banks to increase loans to farmers, subsidised transport vehicle fuel prices, 30 baht health care, OTOP program, investment in infrastructure ...

Freebies or economic policies aimed at lifting the por up out of poverty?

I guess it depends on ones perspective.

Middle class Bangkokians call them freebies because they want to keep all government money for themselves, they are motivated by greed.

What's your excuse?

 

An educated and informed observer of Thai politics would be able to discern truth from propaganda.

 

[Smarter Than You]

29 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

Now I know you know shit.

Use google before you spew BS.

 

Prem presides over the country for a nearly decade as an "outsider" PM.

He stands down in 88 and the whole show collapses in military infighting over the spoils in less than 4 years.

 

So 1980 - 1992 saw two failed coups, 1 successful coup and Black May.

What a wonderful foundation to build a nation on.

 

 

 

 

[Smarter Than You]

39 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

Yingluck wasn't very eager to campaign for a political post. She needed  a lot of convincing from family and party member to run, it was her relationship to Thaksin, being his sister, that was needed to secure a victory.

If she wasn't this closely related to Thaksin, she would have never amounted to anything in politics.

Speaking in absolute certainties about hypotheticals - good luck with that.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Smarter Than You said:

Debt moratoriums for farmers, requiring government owned banks to increase loans to farmers, subsidised transport vehicle fuel prices, 30 baht health care, OTOP program, investment in infrastructure ...

Freebies or economic policies aimed at lifting the por up out of poverty?

I guess it depends on ones perspective.

Middle class Bangkokians call them freebies because they want to keep all government money for themselves, they are motivated by greed.

What's your excuse?

 

An educated and informed observer of Thai politics would be able to discern truth from propaganda.

 

55555! should we ignore the major policies of PTP and only look at those you fancy? 50% over market price for rice, big rises in minimum wage and graduate salaries, a tablet for every child, cheap houses, cheap cars - do they sound like sustainable policies or vote buys for the gullible.

 

Thailand has an electoral problem, a large number of people working in a labour intensive low productivity industry. Pandering to their desire for higher income without increase in productivity is a sure way to get elected, but government handouts are not the way to end poverty.

 

Hmmm middle class Bangkokians are motivated by greed, but not those unwilling to change their lifestyle to increase productivity and demanding government benefits.

[JAG]

2 hours ago, chainarong said:

Let the people decide .............................................

The "good ones" of course....

[Smarter Than You]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

55555! should we ignore the major policies of PTP and only look at those you fancy? 50% over market price for rice, big rises in minimum wage and graduate salaries, a tablet for every child, cheap houses, cheap cars - do they sound like sustainable policies or vote buys for the gullible.

 

Thailand has an electoral problem, a large number of people working in a labour intensive low productivity industry. Pandering to their desire for higher income without increase in productivity is a sure way to get elected, but government handouts are not the way to end poverty.

 

Hmmm middle class Bangkokians are motivated by greed, but not those unwilling to change their lifestyle to increase productivity and demanding government benefits.

A large number of people voting for policies that raise living standards for themselves and their families is not a problem, it is democracy.

 

So you think the poor are just a bunch of lazy bastards who want something for nothing.

 

"Economic and political inequalities in Thailand are mutually reinforcing conditions that have resulted from the ways in which the gains of rapid economic growth have been captured by elites. Preserving these privileges produces a political structure that is exclusionary and dominated by an authoritarian elite".

 

Inequality and Politics in Thailand – Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia

 

 

That's right, Thailand is the third most unequal country in the world.

What you call pandering with populism is in fact sound public policy redressing decades of what basically amounts to theft.

 

 

 

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

A large number of people voting for policies that raise living standards for themselves and their families is not a problem, it is democracy.

 

So you think the poor are just a bunch of lazy bastards who want something for nothing.

 

"Economic and political inequalities in Thailand are mutually reinforcing conditions that have resulted from the ways in which the gains of rapid economic growth have been captured by elites. Preserving these privileges produces a political structure that is exclusionary and dominated by an authoritarian elite".

 

Inequality and Politics in Thailand – Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia

 

 

That's right, Thailand is the third most unequal country in the world.

What you call pandering with populism is in fact sound public policy redressing decades of what basically amounts to theft.

 

 

 

Nobody said they were lazy. I said they are " working in a labour intensive low productivity industry." And while the country imports millions of workers from neighbouring countries, the low productivity Thais refuse to abandon their life-style, instead demanding government income support. Perhaps you have heard of the Agrarian revolution? Until it hits Thailand, nothing will change as they use their large numbers to force governments to offer income support.

Meanwhile, you label those who would see their taxes better used as greedy, while those who demand handouts as "democracy".

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

, the low productivity Thais refuse to abandon their life-style, i

The poor have a life style !

[Smarter Than You]

6 minutes ago, halloween said:

Nobody said they were lazy. I said they are " working in a labour intensive low productivity industry." And while the country imports millions of workers from neighbouring countries, the low productivity Thais refuse to abandon their life-style, instead demanding government income support. Perhaps you have heard of the Agrarian revolution? Until it hits Thailand, nothing will change as they use their large numbers to force governments to offer income support.

Meanwhile, you label those who would see their taxes better used as greedy, while those who demand handouts as "democracy".

Foreign workers coming into the country and suppressing wages - who does that benefit?

Certainly not the local workers.

Do you think such situations exist on the scale it does in Thailand in democratic nations?

 

Abandon their lifestyle for what?

What are they going to do when unelected government after unelected government does nothing to create jobs.

 

"Likewise, the state’s investment in education has been concentrated in urban areas. When the economy grew rapidly, state expenditure on education remained low for a long period. In the 1960s, when farmers and workers constituted 85% of the population, only 15.5% of university students were from these groups. By the mid-1980s, this rate had declined to just 8.8%. Thus the lower classes were excluded from an important avenue out of low-paid and low-skilled work".

 

https://kyotoreview.org/issue-17/inequality-and-politics-in-thailand-2/

 

Is spending taxes on educating a nations children a "handout" or is overthrowing elected governments to ensure government expenditure remains skewed towards the well off greed?

 

BANGKOK = 26% of population and 72% of government expenditure

NORTH + NORTH EAST = 52% of the population and 13% of government expenditure

 

 

Only an absolute asshat could even consider defending number like those shown here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Foreign workers coming into the country and suppressing wages - who does that benefit?

Certainly not the local workers.

Do you think such situations exist on the scale it does in Thailand in democratic nations?

 

Abandon their lifestyle for what?

What are they going to do when unelected government after unelected government does nothing to create jobs.

 

"Likewise, the state’s investment in education has been concentrated in urban areas. When the economy grew rapidly, state expenditure on education remained low for a long period. In the 1960s, when farmers and workers constituted 85% of the population, only 15.5% of university students were from these groups. By the mid-1980s, this rate had declined to just 8.8%. Thus the lower classes were excluded from an important avenue out of low-paid and low-skilled work".

 

https://kyotoreview.org/issue-17/inequality-and-politics-in-thailand-2/

 

Is spending taxes on educating a nations children a "handout" or is overthrowing elected governments to ensure government expenditure remains skewed towards the well off greed?

 

BANGKOK = 26% of population and 72% of government expenditure

NORTH + NORTH EAST = 52% of the population and 13% of government expenditure

 

 

Only an absolute asshat could even consider defending number like those shown here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea I prefer newer number that show BKK and its subsidiaries at 44% of the GDP. Quite a bit more then the 26% in your picture. I wonder what else is new maybe the spending too. I can understand using old data.. but why use it if new data show a total difference. almost 20% more GDP in BKK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thai_provinces_by_GPP

 

[Smarter Than You]

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yea I prefer newer number that show BKK and its subsidiaries at 44% of the GDP. Quite a bit more then the 26% in your picture. I wonder what else is new maybe the spending too. I can understand using old data.. but why use it if new data show a total difference. almost 20% more GDP in BKK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thai_provinces_by_GPP

 

Your link shows Bangkok at 30% - only 4% different from the 26% shown in the graphic.

Bangkok PLUS  ENVIRONS is not Bangkok.

 

Almost 20%  

 

Jeez, you have to struggle so much turning facts into nonsense just to prop up your Junta delusions, is it really worth the effort?

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Your link shows Bangkok at 30% - only 4% different from the 26% shown in the graphic.

Bangkok PLUS  ENVIRONS is not Bangkok.

 

Almost 20%  

 

Jeez, you have to struggle so much turning facts into nonsense just to prop up your Junta delusions, is it really worth the effort?

 

 

 

They always call where i live part of BKK too even if its officially Nothaburi and a lot of government centers are here too. So I would dare to say that the world bank could have made some errors. Especially that the data is old. There is a lot spend here and in all the other envisions too.. skytrains and the likes.. so the person making your graph might have mixed some things up.

 

Especially if you see that the provinces I am talking about are not mentioned in any of the other parts of your graph. So it is 44.3% for them in total.

 

See how in your picture it ads up to 100% and look in the wiki link i gave.. those provinces that i ad to BKK are not counted in any of the groups in your pic. 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by robblok

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts have been removed. 

[halloween]

9 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Foreign workers coming into the country and suppressing wages - who does that benefit?

Certainly not the local workers.

Do you think such situations exist on the scale it does in Thailand in democratic nations?

 

Abandon their lifestyle for what?

What are they going to do when unelected government after unelected government does nothing to create jobs.

 

"Likewise, the state’s investment in education has been concentrated in urban areas. When the economy grew rapidly, state expenditure on education remained low for a long period. In the 1960s, when farmers and workers constituted 85% of the population, only 15.5% of university students were from these groups. By the mid-1980s, this rate had declined to just 8.8%. Thus the lower classes were excluded from an important avenue out of low-paid and low-skilled work".

 

https://kyotoreview.org/issue-17/inequality-and-politics-in-thailand-2/

 

Is spending taxes on educating a nations children a "handout" or is overthrowing elected governments to ensure government expenditure remains skewed towards the well off greed?

 

BANGKOK = 26% of population and 72% of government expenditure

NORTH + NORTH EAST = 52% of the population and 13% of government expenditure

 

 

Only an absolute asshat could even consider defending number like those shown here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" when unelected government after unelected government does nothing to create jobs. "

 

You have given us data from 2010. Show us where an elected government has done any different. OTOH I suppose the rice scam opened a new industry, rice smuggling.

 

[Smarter Than You]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

 

 

They always call where i live part of BKK too even if its officially Nothaburi and a lot of government centers are here too. So I would dare to say that the world bank could have made some errors. Especially that the data is old. There is a lot spend here and in all the other envisions too.. skytrains and the likes.. so the person making your graph might have mixed some things up.

 

Especially if you see that the provinces I am talking about are not mentioned in any of the other parts of your graph. So it is 44.3% for them in total.

 

See how in your picture it ads up to 100% and look in the wiki link i gave.. those provinces that i ad to BKK are not counted in any of the groups in your pic. 

 

 

Oh, you're not wrong - the World bank is.

 

Can you not read?

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Smarter Than You

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

" when unelected government after unelected government does nothing to create jobs. "

 

You have given us data from 2010. Show us where an elected government has done any different. OTOH I suppose the rice scam opened a new industry, rice smuggling.

 

Here's some simple questions for you:

 

Do think think the extremely distorted expenditure of government revenue is fair and sustainable?

If you lived in the north / north east of Thailand, would you want change?

[scorecard]

3 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Here's some simple questions for you:

 

Do think think the extremely distorted expenditure of government revenue is fair and sustainable?

If you lived in the north / north east of Thailand, would you want change?

 

The answer must be yes.

 

Would you also agree that much more balanced development by regions should have been in place 20 or even 40 years ago?

 

All parties are guilty for the actual disparity, and perhaps those in power for long periods are even more guilty.

 

Underpinning development has several foundations, one being giant improvements in education, especially in terms of education methodology, and developing the ability to analyse, anticipate and discuss in at least two languages.

 

Again all parties are guilty - of not addressing this major flaw in education outputs and perhaps those in power for long periods are even more guilty. 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. 

[halloween]

18 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

Here's some simple questions for you:

 

Do think think the extremely distorted expenditure of government revenue is fair and sustainable?

If you lived in the north / north east of Thailand, would you want change?

Yes I would. I would give up farming rice and change to an occupation that paid more. Like hundreds of thousands have already done.

[Smarter Than You]

8 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

The answer must be yes.

 

Would you also agree that much more balanced development by regions should have been in place 20 or even 40 years ago?

 

All parties are guilty for the actual disparity, and perhaps those in power for long periods are even more guilty.

 

Underpinning development has several foundations, one being giant improvements in education, especially in terms of education methodology, and developing the ability to analyse, anticipate and discuss in at least two languages.

 

Again all parties are guilty - of not addressing this major flaw in education outputs and perhaps those in power for long periods are even more guilty. 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. 

The extreme  inequality that took root in the 1950's is Thaksin's fault?

 

"The only governments elected under the 1997 constitution were Thaksin’s in 2001 and 2005. Formed in 1998, Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party became electorally popular due to policies promising change for the poor. A farmer debt moratorium, community-level soft loans and, most politically-defining, universal health care. For the first time, a political party promised – and delivered – programmatic and universal programs addressing poverty and welfare. The economic downturn that began in 1997 weakened the elite, and its fear of social conflict was sufficient for it to accept Thaksin’s political deal with the masses".

 

A more accurate account would be the elites ripped the poor off for decades, Thaksin began rectifying the inequality through fairer government and the elites responded with a several coups and over a decade of political turmoil in order to maintain the status quo.

 

Of the last 17 years, how many have the elected governments been able to govern unmolested?

(hint - not in any of the following years: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017)

 

Yeah, lets blame Thaksin.

 

[Smarter Than You]

19 minutes ago, halloween said:

Yes I would. I would give up farming rice and change to an occupation that paid more. Like hundreds of thousands have already done.

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.

[scorecard]

10 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

The extreme  inequality that took root in the 1950's is Thaksin's fault?

 

"The only governments elected under the 1997 constitution were Thaksin’s in 2001 and 2005. Formed in 1998, Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party became electorally popular due to policies promising change for the poor. A farmer debt moratorium, community-level soft loans and, most politically-defining, universal health care. For the first time, a political party promised – and delivered – programmatic and universal programs addressing poverty and welfare. The economic downturn that began in 1997 weakened the elite, and its fear of social conflict was sufficient for it to accept Thaksin’s political deal with the masses".

 

A more accurate account would be the elites ripped the poor off for decades, Thaksin began rectifying the inequality through fairer government and the elites responded with a several coups and over a decade of political turmoil in order to maintain the status quo.

 

Of the last 17 years, how many have the elected governments been able to govern unmolested?

(hint - not in any of the following years: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017)

 

Yeah, lets blame Thaksin.

 

 

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.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Smarter Than You said:

Oh, you're not wrong - the World bank is.

 

Can you not read?

 

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.