Sanitsuda Ekachai's blog - Latest comments on No turning back on land reform

In response to: No turning back on land reform

Mr.Bangkok Hotels [Visitor] — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:29:25 +0000

For Bangkok, I strongly recemmend to visiting the floating marking. In fact, there are many floating markets in thailand but Dam nern sa duak is the original one. The market is actually a canal full of boats selling everything: noodles, fruits, souvenirs, handicrafts, and many more. If you don't wish to pay 1000 Baht for the long tail boat tour , you may just take a non-motor boat instead, it cost only 200 Baht.

In response to: No turning back on land reform

Sunthorn Skulpone [Visitor] — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:10:06 +0000

Land reform and wealth distribution are the two actions we need to pursue immediately. There seems to be some misunderstanding of the " NEW POLITICS" I referred to in comment 1. What is happenning now in Thai politics is what we call " OLD POLITICS", i.e. money politics. Few people gets money together and form a political party, use the money to buy votes to get a majority in parliament and then form a government to get more money, illegally, to buy more votes in the next general election and on and on in cycle. So many bad people get into the seat of power.
In contrast, the new politics will make sure that the majority of people who gets in parliament are good people that actually represent the people. These people must be unselfish, brave,..etc...etc.
I agree 100% with the goals of the new politics party. However, I do not agree with everything the party is doing, for example, it seems to me that the separation between PAD and NPSP (New Politics Party) is not clear cut. The end result is that both entities will get weaker.

In response to: No turning back on land reform

Noi [Visitor] — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:55:33 +0000

Does any one of you remember what happened to the last Democrat's land reform? How do we know that this time the duputy primisinter is not lining up his cronies to receive more free bee.
Land Reform is a must policy but some how I don't trust this bunch to do the job.(Sarit did somebody else bidding and he became part of the elites who advocated New Politics)

In response to: No turning back on land reform

KP [Visitor] — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:11:48 +0000

I agree with Comment 12; I suppose the socioeconomic approach he is advocating that is outside of the mainstream capitalist/neoclassical economic theory and communism is "heterodox economics" --an umbrella term to describe among others, institutional and Keynesian approaches referenced earlier. These forms may also be called evolutionary or pragmatic economic approach that take the positives (not implying empirical) of all economic theories and aims to best serve the society at hand. Institutional economics was the mainstream around the turn of the 20th century before the Neoclassicals took the world over. Forgive me, intended or unintended, but I certainly found humor in your response that despite your amazement how discussion metastasizes into a cancerous socialist-capitalist debate, you continued in the next five paragraphs doing just that.

I also think Comment 9 is on the point with respect to socioeconomic approaches embraced by Northern European countries, particularly the Scandinavians.

In response to: No turning back on land reform

Hyperinflation [Visitor] — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:16:28 +0000

It always amazes me how any discussion of social reforms automatically metastasises into the cancer that is socialism vs. capitalism. Really everyone, those aren't the only two options available, even though the vice of the cold war has left us all ignorant of the many other ideas that existed before this.

For example, distributism was a highly popular ideology previously, and could be again. It rejects both communism and capitalism, and would be a very interesting model as we approach a time of severe resource and energy shortages. The problem is capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of the few, eventually leading to social collapse. Socialism destroys initiative that is necessary for a healthy economy. Both are poisons, and neither is appropriate in the collapsing economy we have today.

An economy can be healthy and individual initiative can flourish without the extreme penalties of capitalism. Also, there can be a more reasonable distribution of wealth without resorting to taking it away from others as socialism would have. All you need is to set your laws and social norms in such a way that corporations are frowned upon, and that smaller groups and coops are given societal preference over larger entities.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the Square Faced Fugitive in Exile may not appreciate the new direction, but those at the bottom will finally be given the chances they have been deprived of. We just set a plan for breaking up all massive corporations into successively smaller companies over time, until we return to individually run establishments, where everyone owns his own means of livelihood. Companies should be only as large as they need to be in order to function, and no larger. Modern economics may say this is inefficient, but modern economics is based on the fallacy of infinite growth on a finite planet.

Basing a long term development proposal on modern economic theory is entirely equivalent to basing one on the belief that little green men are going to provide for our every whim. Neither is realistic. It is time to reject the anachronistic philosophies being taught today and search history for some real solutions.

This is what real reform will require. Does any government have the backbone to stand up to the corporations and actually do it, or all they all too enticed by greed to worry about helping the people?

In response to: No turning back on land reform

Maxwell Smart [Visitor] — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:20:52 +0000

Has Mr Thaksin explained why he tried to sell some of Thailand's best rice growing farm land to Saudi Arabians?

In response to: No turning back on land reform

Sunthorn Skulpone [Visitor] — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:02:59 +0000

This is in response to Noi (comments 6,7).
Excuse me !!! Correct me if I am wrong, before Dictator Sarit changed the law when he came to power. People were not allowed to own more than 50 rai. I am no fan of Sakdina and I am not going to defend them here, but I happen to agree with new politics. Democracy is a dinamic process, so don't mix up what happened 60 odd years ago with now. You have the right to disagree with new politics, but don't try to confuse the real issue here.

In response to: No turning back on land reform

Mark [Visitor] — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:40:56 +0000

It's called Social Democracy MIke and it's why European people, in general, have a much better quality of life than Americans.

Democracy, after all, exists to deliver benefits for the many, not the few. That's why Democracy is the best system of Government. It's why it is such an attractive concept. It's why people the world over fight for democratic government Tiananmen Square, June 4, 1989, lest we forget)

I'm pleased to see the Thai Government is taking a systematic, democratic approach to tackling unsustainable levels of poverty, injustice and environmental degradation.

Almost everyone will benefit from a fairer and more balanced Thailand. A country that strives to empower its people and provide opportunities for those that want to improve their lot in life via their own efforts.

Given that 60% of Thai households still have direct links to agriculture, a lawful process of land reform seems like a sensible place to begin.