Process of reform ‘essential’ in itself

[rooster59]

Process of reform ‘essential’ in itself

By PIYAPORN WONGRUANG 
THE SUNDAY NATION

 

Photographers take pictures inside the parliamentary chamber where members of the National Reform Steering Assembly convened their final meeting last Tuesday.

 

REDUNDANT, outdated, intangible, or even controversy provoking – are all criticisms recently raised against the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA), which was set up nearly two years ago to pursue the work of the defunct National Reform Council (NRC).

 

But the worldly educator and reformer Wiwat Salayakamthorn just wishes that people would look at the whole process of reform, not just the NRSA, when judging what has been achieved since the coup.

 

“What people have said, somehow, they have just never done it [achieved reform],” said Wiwat, a member of both the NRC and the NRSA who has closely followed how reform work has taken shape and been pursued in an historical context.

 

The country has been through such a process before – during the reign of King Rama V and during the civil-based political optimism of 1997. In 1997, many reformers saw the new constitution as addressing civil-based politics as well as creating a new political relationship among concerned parties for the first time since the politically turbulent era of the late 1970s.

 

This, they viewed, gave hope that the country would be reformed for the better with a higher proportion of power in the people’s hands. However, it failed, partly because new political relationship did not change as they wished, as the bureaucracy still remained too strong and new legal mechanisms were not put in place as hoped.

 

More critical was the fact that the new system was corrupt with new political capitalists – as noted by Suriyasai, a former co-leader of the now-defunct People’s Alliance for Democracy, and the former People’s Reform Democratic Committee (PDRC), which called for “reform before an election”. 

 

New political conflict emerged and continued until the military eventually staged a coup on May 22, 2014, when the fresh round of reform became highly charged because the military addressed the issue as part of its reasons for staging the coup. 

 

After the military took control of the country for two months, reform was officially addressed in the interim charter’s Article 19 as part of the junta’s three prime duties. The other two were administering the country and promoting reconciliation and unity among the people.

 

Reform was also addressed in Article 27, which established the NRC to hatch 11 reform agendas and eventually nurture them into the country’s reform blueprint.

 

 The NRC was dissolved following the voting-down of the first charter draft, and the council then submitted its reform blueprints to its successor, the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA), which was appointed in October 2015 to steer the NRC’s work into action. 

 

Wiwat said reform is about pushing the country’s “whole structure”, and that means it needs to be carried on delicately with calmness and maturity. It cannot be finished in a short period of time.

 

Against all odds, he said, the country is at a juncture where it cannot avoid change. What remains more essential than the means, is the goal. And, in Wiwat’s view, the reformers have at least set the right goals for the country: prosperity, self-sufficiency, and sustainability. 

 

“All these have been addressed, firm and clear, in the new charter, and we attempted to push them through until we succeeded,” said Wiwat, who requested the addition of the word “self-sufficiency” in the charter.

 

 NRSA vice chairman Alongkorn Poonlaboot, explained to The Nation that the NRSA’s job was to carry on the work from the NRC by pushing forward its blueprint into an action plan. 

 

So it came up with numerous implementation plans, including new regulations to implement its agendas. The 37 agendas have been expanded to 190 proposals, as of July 27, outnumbering the original blueprints.

 

Alongkorn said almost 70 per cent of the NRSA’s proposals mainly focus on “fixing” what is broken, with 20 per cent focused on building up existing strengths, and 10 per cent centred on creating something new. 

 

He defended the whole reform process, in that it had come up with clear structures and procedures plus supportive administrative mechanisms, including the tripartite whips of the government, and the National Legislative Assembly, to push forward the NRSA’s proposals.

 

So far, at least 176 proposals have been acknowledged by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha.

 

But what makes Alongkorn assured about the success of the reform process is the fact that it has been addressed in the supreme charter draft as one main chapter. This will help guarantee its continuity and sustainability, and it will be linked to other necessary elements such as the 20-year national strategic plan. 

 

“It’s the work that has never been done before. It has come up with a clear goal, supportive mechanisms, plus assertive procedures that will be continued and sustained,” said Alongkorn, acknowledging criticism that has arisen against the body.

 

Suriyasai, who chaired the recent panel to review the body’s work, agreed that to assess the success of the reform work, it cannot be separated, as all the bodies and procedures are related to one another.

 

However, Suriyasai gave weight to people’s participation as he has always insisted, and warned about increasing distrust among the state, politicians and citizens, which has prompted the ongoing reform work to lean towards bureaucratic strengthening.

 

“It would be a pity of the people’s push for reform is left as a waste. Reform is, in fact, the other side of the coin – with reconciliation – that we need,” said Suriyasai, urging political parties ahead of the coming election to compete for reform space and share with the people.

 

Wiwat agreed, saying reform is for everyone, and people should have a chance to participate to help ensure accountability and sustainability.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30322211

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-30

[smutcakes]

What a load of twaddle.

[yellowboat]

People did participate and their leader was deposed not impeached.   Having men with guns take over a country has many devastating drawbacks.  These men with guns have made political gatherings illegal.  Not sure how one is able to reform a country and reconcile differences when its people are excluded and threatened.

[JAG]

People did participate and their leader was deposed not impeached.   Having men with guns take over a country has many devastating drawbacks.  These men with guns have made political gatherings illegal.  Not sure how one is able to reform a country and reconcile differences when its people are excluded and threatened.

That very much depends on your definition of reform, reconciliation and indeed participation.

[YetAnother]

34 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

People did participate and their leader was deposed not impeached.   Having men with guns take over a country has many devastating drawbacks.  These men with guns have made political gatherings illegal.  Not sure how one is able to reform a country and reconcile differences when its people are excluded and threatened.

the reform that the real leaders of this place desire is to marginalize politicians

[canuckamuck]

If people don't believe that taking advantage of your position is wrong and have a system that reinforces that lack of ethic; no change can ever occur. Always there will be the next guy who will fill his pockets until he is removed.

The best scenario would be a movement based on ethics with a strong leader who would cause a renaissance of conscience. Only possible when that leader does not succumb to  the temptations of power. But the second best and more possible solution would be realization that the law must apply to all, and a movement to ensure this  happens. 

The safest solution is to leave everything the way it is.

[Chris Lawrence]

Smut C gave a very elegant slant on the OP.

 

What is written is scripted, as the more one will say a situation is well that must be the situation. Unfortunately it gives many dimwitted TV posters the same impression, it must be true; there is calm, the real subterfuge of a situation cannot be getting through when being feed this diatribe.

 

The real people who believe they should be making money are now making money again. What Mr T did was strangle their right to a buck, hence the ill feeling. This has generated into extreme hatred by the cronies to gather steam and let them achieve 'the need for change'.

 

So when things aren't going your way its the constitution. But wait its the constitution the yellows have wrote 3 times over the past many years. Doesn't that allude anyone to a major problem?

 

Most Thais I know appear quite amicable to what is going on, will briefly talk about what is going on and then sit down and have som tum. They don't appear to share the frustrations as many do here on TV.

 

But they know when they are getting a good deal out of the Government. They don't need bus fare for Bangkok or train fare. They need money for electricity and other services.

 

They talk about rejection during this phase of a new constitution. But who rejected it. The General?

 

So when are the elections and what political parties have been formed? The quicker they dispose of this current situation the quicker Thailand can move into some form of reform.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

If people don't believe that taking advantage of your position is wrong and have a system that reinforces that lack of ethic; no change can ever occur. Always there will be the next guy who will fill his pockets until he is removed.

The best scenario would be a movement based on ethics with a strong leader who would cause a renaissance of conscience. Only possible when that leader does not succumb to  the temptations of power. But the second best and more possible solution would be realization that the law must apply to all, and a movement to ensure this  happens. 

The safest solution is to leave everything the way it is.

This is exactly the problem, they all want to exploit their position and there is no real punishment for doing so. 

[robblok]

56 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Smut C gave a very elegant slant on the OP.

 

What is written is scripted, as the more one will say a situation is well that must be the situation. Unfortunately it gives many dimwitted TV posters the same impression, it must be true; there is calm, the real subterfuge of a situation cannot be getting through when being feed this diatribe.

 

The real people who believe they should be making money are now making money again. What Mr T did was strangle their right to a buck, hence the ill feeling. This has generated into extreme hatred by the cronies to gather steam and let them achieve 'the need for change'.

 

So when things aren't going your way its the constitution. But wait its the constitution the yellows have wrote 3 times over the past many years. Doesn't that allude anyone to a major problem?

 

Most Thais I know appear quite amicable to what is going on, will briefly talk about what is going on and then sit down and have som tum. They don't appear to share the frustrations as many do here on TV.

 

But they know when they are getting a good deal out of the Government. They don't need bus fare for Bangkok or train fare. They need money for electricity and other services.

 

They talk about rejection during this phase of a new constitution. But who rejected it. The General?

 

So when are the elections and what political parties have been formed? The quicker they dispose of this current situation the quicker Thailand can move into some form of reform.

I am not sure who is frustrated here, things are debated sometimes heated. But I doubt that anyone sleeps bad over it or lets his life be changed by it. That only happens when things really affect people like street violence. We are just foreigners, we can't even vote just debate it. So how worked up can one become over something that one has no say in ?

 

I find the debate entertaining, but it does not influence my life one bit (besides street protests and violence) if Thaksin is in power or the General. I might get frustrated if local government is messing up and it influences my life. Immigration in general gets harder all the time no matter who is in power. I have yet to see it get easier. The Thai politics in general don't affect us. The normal Thais are now also not affected by this all the only ones who might be pissed now are the farmers and people who were in positions of power before but are not now. 

[JAG]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

I am not sure who is frustrated here, things are debated sometimes heated. But I doubt that anyone sleeps bad over it or lets his life be changed by it. That only happens when things really affect people like street violence. We are just foreigners, we can't even vote just debate it. So how worked up can one become over something that one has no say in ?

 

I find the debate entertaining, but it does not influence my life one bit (besides street protests and violence) if Thaksin is in power or the General. I might get frustrated if local government is messing up and it influences my life. Immigration in general gets harder all the time no matter who is in power. I have yet to see it get easier. The Thai politics in general don't affect us. The normal Thais are now also not affected by this all the only ones who might be pissed now are the farmers and people who were in positions of power before but are not now. 

Well according to "Wikki", there are 13 million farmers, and 40% of the population work in agriculture related fields, (fields - get it?).

 

That in itself a significant number and proportion to be pissed off - but I think more significant is the point that the  "pissed off" proportion are concentrated in specific areas, where if electoral records of support  for Thaksin and his party(ies) is anything to go by they constitute a significant majority.

 

Another relevant point is that they contribute the majority of the "conscript" manpower which makes up the army, manpower which the current regime relies upon to ultimately guarantee its hold on power.

 

If this "reform process" passes them by - quite likely given the focus of this regime on Bangkok and what may be described as the "higher tax codes" then this could well exacerbate things.

Edited July 30, 2017 by JAG

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

This is exactly the problem, they all want to exploit their position and there is no real punishment for doing so. 

That is certainly the case now.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Well according to "Wikki", there are 13 million farmers, and 40% of the population work in agriculture related fields, (fields - get it?).

 

That in itself a significant number and proportion to be pissed off - but I think more significant is the point that the  "pissed off" proportion are concentrated in specific areas, where if electoral records of support  for Thaksin and his party(ies) is anything to go by they constitute a significant majority.

 

Another relevant point is that they contribute the majority of the "conscript" manpower which makes up the army, manpower which the current regime relies upon to ultimately guarantee its hold on power.

 

If this "reform process" passes them by - quite likely given the focus of this regime on Bangkok and what may be described as the "higher tax codes" then this could well exacerbate things.

I don't worry much about the army getting disloyal. That won't happen if need be the good general can keep Thailand under the junta indefinitely. Not something I would like to see but I am sure its possible. The only reason they are pissed off is that they don't get their handouts. The problem is the middle class gets pissed off if they have to pay for it. (rich aren't paying for it). I can understand the middle class not wanting to keep paying for handouts and not having to say anything while they are the ones financing it. Feels totally unfair.  

[robblok]

Just now, heybruce said:

That is certainly the case now.

Has always been the case.. and without change on that aspect nothing ever will change because getting in power would be too profitable

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

This is exactly the problem, they all want to exploit their position and there is no real punishment for doing so. 

 

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That is certainly the case now.

 

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Has always been the case.. and without change on that aspect nothing ever will change because getting in power would be too profitable

But there won't be change under military rule.  Why would the military change a system that has put its leaders in power and made them rich?

 

Corrupt autocracy never gives way to clean democracy.  There is always a period of corrupt democracy before the people get sick of it and use the power of the vote to force a clean-up.  There is no vote under military rule, therefore there is no incentive for rich generals to change a corrupt system that benefits them.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

But there won't be change under military rule.  Why would the military change a system that has put its leaders in power and made them rich?

 

Corrupt autocracy never gives way to clean democracy.  There is always a period of corrupt democracy before the people get sick of it and use the power of the vote to force a clean-up.  There is no vote under military rule, therefore there is no incentive for rich generals to change a corrupt system that benefits them.

I don't agree... a good military ruler can clean up corruption far better then a democratic ruler. Too bad that Prayut did not do this. All Thaksin did was entrench himself deeper and deeper making it harder and harder to remove him. So he was not going away.

Edited July 30, 2017 by robblok

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't agree... a good military ruler can clean up corruption far better then a democratic ruler. Too bad that Prayut did not do this. All Thaksin did was entrench himself deeper and deeper making it harder and harder to remove him. So he was not going away.

Can you give an example of a good military leader who lead a coup then cleaned up a nation's government?  The very idea of a "good military ruler" who came to power by staging a coup against a democratic government is absurd. 

 

Thaksin was corrupt but he built roads, schools and clinics in the parts of the country that were badly under-served and where the majority of Thais live.  That is why he was more popular than the succession of corrupt governments that kept wealth and power centered on Bangkok.  Had democracy been allowed to stay in place the people would have eventually concluded that the bad things Thaksin was doing outweighed the good.   But by then by then a political system that puts power in the hands of all the people, not just a Bangkok minority, would have been entrenched.   The Bangkok elite would not allow that.

 

That is what has been happening all across Central and South America.  Initially the people were so relieved at getting rid of repressive military rule, and so happy to have elected leaders that served the neglected majority, that they overlooked the obvious corruption.  However once democracy became entrenched and the price of corruption became obvious, the people started voting out the crooks and demanding better.  That never happens under military rule.

 

Thailand was on track to achieve this democratic reform much more quickly than Latin America; had the election proposed for July 2014 gone forward it would have been held during a low point in the PTP's popularity.  However it would not have elected the Democrats, the party preferred by the elites, so the elite decided a coup was more in their interests.

 

 

[Chris Lawrence]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

I am not sure who is frustrated here, things are debated sometimes heated. But I doubt that anyone sleeps bad over it or lets his life be changed by it. That only happens when things really affect people like street violence. We are just foreigners, we can't even vote just debate it. So how worked up can one become over something that one has no say in ?

 

I find the debate entertaining, but it does not influence my life one bit (besides street protests and violence) if Thaksin is in power or the General. I might get frustrated if local government is messing up and it influences my life. Immigration in general gets harder all the time no matter who is in power. I have yet to see it get easier. The Thai politics in general don't affect us. The normal Thais are now also not affected by this all the only ones who might be pissed now are the farmers and people who were in positions of power before but are not now. 

You make me laugh sometime Robo. I think its your European sense of humor.

 

The last post you were tearing strips off me because I mentioned the Russian Revolution and you tied me into being a red advocate. Couldn't work how that was a tie in?

 

I will try and be a bit more understanding.

 

If I go off the deep end next time I will remember to add the proviso 'does not include Robblok'.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

You make me laugh sometime Robo. I think its your European sense of humor.

 

The last post you were tearing strips off me because I mentioned the Russian Revolution and you tied me into being a red advocate. Couldn't work how that was a tie in?

 

I will try and be a bit more understanding.

 

If I go off the deep end next time I will remember to add the proviso 'does not include Robblok'.

Violence mate.. violence.. advocating / promoting violence that is what i read in your posts.. and that is unacceptable  You seem to be wanting violence here in Thailand many of your posts are about that. Violence does affect me. 

[JAG]

I don't worry much about the army getting disloyal. That won't happen if need be the good general can keep Thailand under the junta indefinitely. Not something I would like to see but I am sure its possible. The only reason they are pissed off is that they don't get their handouts. The problem is the middle class gets pissed off if they have to pay for it. (rich aren't paying for it). I can understand the middle class not wanting to keep paying for handouts and not having to say anything while they are the ones financing it. Feels totally unfair.  

I would worry very much about the loyalty of the troops, given where the rank and file come from. I rather suspect it is something that keeps " the good general" awake at night.

 

Keeping the country under the junta longer only makes the possibility of violence, whether by opponents or the junta itself, greater as time goes on. At the moment the end game might possibly still be peaceful, can you not see that the more that endgame is postponed the more opposition will grow.

 

As for the middle classes becoming "pissed off", well they can campaign for and support a party which will stand up for them.The solution does not come from disenfranchising everyone who does not agree with them.

 

[Chris Lawrence]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

Violence mate.. violence.. advocating / promoting violence that is what i read in your posts.. and that is unacceptable  You seem to be wanting violence here in Thailand many of your posts are about that. Violence does affect me. 

Where? Because that is what I read in your post above together with your past statement of hating the reds. 

 

My posts are about history repeating itself.

 

Again if you feel I am advocating violence point it out to me. 

 

What is going on in Thailand at the moment is a smoke screen. All this YL rubbish and government mobilising itself, the rounding up of suspects, the movement of officials etc. etc. etc. They have got the wagon train in a circle and you won't get in. They have let go of people they can't trust.

 

The real money is now being made with the farming out of projects. management of borrowed funds and debt. If you have trillion baht projects in the pipeline and your fee is .25% or higher how much is it. The banks in Thailand will be lead lenders, which ones. The hedge funds? Construction companies will be Thai based with foreign advisors. The subterfuge that you list as violent reaction is only their to probably increase the interest rates by a few basis points.

 

Some Thai workers will benefit. But what benefit is agriculture going to play? Populist programs smell, but have been used for over 40 years. Rubber is being subsidised, even with the market a low?

 

Did you read the 2017 top 50 Forbes list for Thailand. Did you see that Boss (red Bull) is listed but has had his money removed?

 

I was going to do a bit more research on these companies but had to enjoy myself. Have a dig Rob, your an accountant. 

 

Look I might be completely left field thinking, but its in the money somewhere.

 

Again this is history in Thailand repeating itself. Most top 50 Thais have increased their wealth by double digit figures in the last year. My bank is paying 1% interest. They seem to improve when the army takes over?

 

Don't get caught with someone saying there is a pressure cooker waiting to explode. As I said above the Russian Revolution started back with the advances of Napoleon into Russia in 1805. Again my only point is that history can repeat itself. I may not be always clear with what I am writing as I expect others to chase it up as well. I don't usually spoon feed people as my health affects my cognitive process at times.

 

You may be right and this will blow over. The general's war plan may succeed? There is tremendous spending going on and it will fuel the economy, as long as the General doesn't manage it. I don't see him as a strong financial manager. There are others there who we don't hear about; one of these guys needs to take the reins to manage the money and projects.

 

The Chinese are already trying to dictate terms. When is the project going to start? I would tell them to wait or forget, but never come out in press saying such things.

 

No violence is a smoke screen. That is just being subjective. Be objective.

 

This is when the rich Thais get richer. Again history repeating itself.

 

How much is this work going to cost and what profit margin stays in Thailand?

[robblok]

Just now, JAG said:

I would worry very much about the loyalty of the troops, given where the rank and file come from. I rather suspect it is something that keeps " the good general" awake at night.
Keeping the country under the junta longer only makes the possibility of violence, whether by opponents or the junta itself, greater as time goes on. At the moment the end game might possibly still be peaceful, can you not see that the more that endgame is postponed the more opposition will grow.
As for the middle classes becoming "pissed off", well they can campaign for and support a party which will stand up for them.The solution does not come from disenfranchising everyone who does not agree with them.

The thing is JAG guess you and I differ in that area.. I feel for people that pay Tax but have no influence at all because they are a smaller voting block then poor farmers. I know that I would be pissed off a lot if I had payed taxes and people on the dole were in a majority and decided what was done with my tax money while they themselves did not pay into the system.(then only a crash that ruins everyone would bring some sense back.. but at that point everyone is ruined already)

 

That is how the middle class is feeling.. paying for others but being totally ignored because they are not a big voting block. I have heard them say that they should get more votes for the money they pay in taxes. I can understand why they feel like that. It might make the rich pay more in the system too if they got more votes then. I feel its  unfair if your asked to finance something but have no say in it anymore but someone who does not pay in the system has a say in it.  (call me non democratic if you like I don't care i feel people who pay for stuff should decide how stuff is used)

 

just imagine.. you have to pay for diner but others decide where you will go and what food even if you hate it.. but you have to pay for it.. sounds fair ?

[JAG]

15 hours ago, robblok said:

The thing is JAG guess you and I differ in that area.. I feel for people that pay Tax but have no influence at all because they are a smaller voting block then poor farmers. I know that I would be pissed off a lot if I had payed taxes and people on the dole were in a majority and decided what was done with my tax money while they themselves did not pay into the system.(then only a crash that ruins everyone would bring some sense back.. but at that point everyone is ruined already)

 

That is how the middle class is feeling.. paying for others but being totally ignored because they are not a big voting block. I have heard them say that they should get more votes for the money they pay in taxes. I can understand why they feel like that. It might make the rich pay more in the system too if they got more votes then. I feel its  unfair if your asked to finance something but have no say in it anymore but someone who does not pay in the system has a say in it.  (call me non democratic if you like I don't care i feel people who pay for stuff should decide how stuff is used)

 

just imagine.. you have to pay for diner but others decide where you will go and what food even if you hate it.. but you have to pay for it.. sounds fair ?

No, it sounds like a recipe for a society in which a small section of society monopolise the wealth and resources of the country. A society in which the infrastructure and the facilities are concentrated geographically and in terms of accessibility in the hands of a privileged minority whilst the majority become an ever poorer and more restless disenfranchised underclass.

What does history tell us about that, C18 France, C19 and early C20 Russia, C20 China ...?

[robblok]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

No, it sounds like a recipe for a society in which a small section of society monopolise the wealth and resources of the country. A society in which the infrastructure and the facilities are concentrated geographically and in terms of accessibility in the hands of a privileged minority whilst the majority become an ever poorer and more restless disenfranchised underclass.

What does history tell us about that, C18 France, C19 and early C20 Russia, C20 China ...?

Seems you and I have a different view, i feel that people who pay for something should have more say in how stuff is used then those who don't pay into a system. This might just have encouraged the real rich to pay some tax. I know real anti democratic views, but I think the middle class is not happy now either with their money spend on subs. 

 

But the system makes sense if you look at it smaller.. like in general the person paying for diner can choose what to eat and where. Now if he had to pay but no choice in when and what it suddenly sounds a lot more unfair. How come it changes when its about tax money ?

 

What you are talking about is the rich.. i am talking about the middle class.. besides the real rich don't pay much tax anyway so they would not have much votes. Its more that the middle class gets more votes. 

 

I do get your reservations too, I understand those..just don't find the system fair where those that pay most have least to say. Democracy might be the best system but it certainly has its drawbacks. 

[robblok]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

No, it sounds like a recipe for a society in which a small section of society monopolise the wealth and resources of the country. A society in which the infrastructure and the facilities are concentrated geographically and in terms of accessibility in the hands of a privileged minority whilst the majority become an ever poorer and more restless disenfranchised underclass.

What does history tell us about that, C18 France, C19 and early C20 Russia, C20 China ...?

Seems you and I have a different view, i feel that people who pay for something should have more say in how stuff is used then those who don't pay into a system. This might just have encouraged the real rich to pay some tax. I know real anti democratic views, but I think the middle class is not happy now either with their money spend on subs. 

 

But the system makes sense if you look at it smaller.. like in general the person paying for diner can choose what to eat and where. Now if he had to pay but no choice in when and what it suddenly sounds a lot more unfair. How come it changes when its about tax money ?

 

What you are talking about is the rich.. i am talking about the middle class.. besides the real rich don't pay much tax anyway so they would not have much votes. Its more that the middle class gets more votes. 

 

I do get your reservations too, I understand those..just don't find the system fair where those that pay most have least to say. Democracy might be the best system but it certainly has its drawbacks.