As I had an opportunity many times on this forum and elsewhere to mention there is a gross misunderstanding both within foreigners and many urban Thais what are the root-cause reasons of Thai crisis. They are (surprise, surprise) of economic nature. E.g. the so-called Thai elite mostly comprised by big land owners ( or their inheritance) (guess who is the biggest land owner in Thailand). On the opposite side-millions of landless peasants. Many people do not realize that not only Thailand is agricultural country in present, its future to significant extend depends on this industry. Agricultural products Thailand produces and exports (rice, sugar, fruits) are of critical need all over the Asia (including giants like China and India)
will secure the Thai future in the changing world where the wealth and prosperity generally moves from West to the East.
What really triggered the coup is the menace of land redistribution which would be a natural consequence of poverty elimination process started by Thaksin. Elite used an accidental figure, Sonthi ,and natural unhappiness of urban Thais resulted from corruption (which, of course, was nothing new in Thailand) to mount the coup and remove Thaksin.
One should mention here that Thaksin has no monopoly on land redistribution policies. Nor he started the changes out of symphathy to Thai poor. However, he was interested in economic progress of Thai society
and steps he undertook were necessary on this path. Thai elite quite successfully used the propaganda trick
in attempt to personify Thaksin policies and link them to personal corruption,conflict of interests (real or imaginary). This trick worked once but is no longer working.
Looking at the history of corruption restraint in other Asian countries, it is quite clear that it is a process
linked to the level of economic development . This issue cannot be resolved through military coups or court decisions (which usually take a form of witch hunt of political opponents ands settling political scores) but usually a result of economic development which, in turn is impossible without elimination of poverty.
The key to understanding the current political struggle is to see it through the prism of economical interests
of various social groups in Thailand. E.g. the living standards in Metropolitan Bangkok are much higner than in rural Thailand and correspondingly the economic interests are not identical. But in the end of the day both urban and rural Thais need the same: rapid economic growth which will lead to elimination of corruption and rising living standards. The only looser in this process is Thai elite .
Thailand has a bright future and is destined to move only up (to the detriment of those who believe that Isaan boys are destined to service the limp organ of Gaybutton (allegorically speaking) and nothing more and who henceforth allign themselves with Thai elite).
0
what it is all about
Started by Guest_Leopold_*, Mar 14 2010 03:20 AM
7 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 259 posts
Veteran
Posted 16 March 2010 - 12:20 PM
Note that Leoplod's economic analysis of, well, everything, has not exactly been deemed 'interesting' to the bourgeois sex touristas and sexpats on this Board.
Perhaps a mighty BUMP might help that along: A shove from behind (so to speak) often being welcomed by unappreciated and misunderstood intellectuals.
Perhaps a mighty BUMP might help that along: A shove from behind (so to speak) often being welcomed by unappreciated and misunderstood intellectuals.
#3
-
- Members
-
- 1,274 posts
Veteran
Posted 16 March 2010 - 12:57 PM
QUOTE(Leopold @ Mar 13 2010, 04:20 PM) 
What really triggered the coup is the menace of land redistribution which would be a natural consequence of poverty elimination process started by Thaksin.
What land redististribution plans, policies, or menace? By saying something like that, one would presume that you're aware from some source (perhaps a newspaper article or a statement or policy position by Thai Rak Thai or Shinawatra?) that some person or party had suggested or proposed redistribution of land between the elite and less-elite.
If, on the other hand, there was no such plan or policy, your "illuminating" analysis tends to be a bit dim.
#4 Guest_Leopold_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 March 2010 - 08:48 PM
QUOTE(smiles @ Mar 16 2010, 12:20 PM)
Two losers in real life (Bob and Smiles) bored to death in their retirement, with nothing to say and nothing to do, continue to migrate from one message board to another, spreading pretentiosness, shallowness and bad smell from unstoppable farting. From now on, you are nonexistent entity for me, Smurks.
#5 Guest_Leopold_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 March 2010 - 10:59 PM
QUOTE(Bob @ Mar 16 2010, 12:57 PM)
What land redististribution plans, policies, or menace?
Do you really expect that I will waste my time trying to explain to ameba like you complicated issue of land
distribution in Thailand? Forget about it. Your behavior totally excludes you from the circle of people with whom any kind of intellectual discussion is possible. Last response to you, m...f...r.
#6
-
- Members
-
- 1,274 posts
Veteran
Posted 16 March 2010 - 11:10 PM
QUOTE(Leopold @ Mar 16 2010, 11:59 AM)
Do you really expect that I will waste my time trying to explain to ameba like you complicated issue of land
distribution in Thailand? Forget about it. Your behavior totally excludes you from the circle of people with whom any kind of intellectual discussion is possible. Last response to you, m...f...r.
Perhaps I should rephrase my prior comments more in line with your current rant. You were dead wrong with your theory as there have been no statements or policies by Thai Rak Thai or its progeny regarding land redistribution. You find that theory in a bottle of Sangsom?
#7 Guest_Leopold_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 March 2010 - 01:38 AM
QUOTE(Bob @ Mar 16 2010, 11:10 PM)
Perhaps I should rephrase my prior comments more in line with your current rant. You were dead wrong with your theory as there have been no statements or policies by Thai Rak Thai or its progeny regarding land redistribution. You find that theory in a bottle of Sangsom?
What a fucking idiot! Now for the benefit of others who are interested in this (really complicated issue).
Thailand is not Zimbabwe. Idiot Bob understands land redistribution as confiscation and handing over in other hands. In Thailand the land reform was enacted in 1975. It is a long and complicated story. But I give here a hint: in essence, the mechanism Thaksin used is through providing the capital and clarifying deeds on the land. Just google and you will find the answer.
N. B. Your (I address brown-nosed Bob and refer to his other recent post) obsession with Sarah Palin raises an issue about your sexuality. Are you sure you like boys?
#8
-
- Members
-
- 1,274 posts
Veteran
Posted 17 March 2010 - 07:59 AM
As you say, "for the benefit of others", attempting to simplify (poorly, I might add) the process of obtaining title to lands one's family has occupied for decades has nothing to do with "land redistribution." I'd call you a pseudo-intellectual, Khun Leopold, but I don't want to take the time to help you understand what those terms mean.
