Abhisit: at what price?

[drake]

Many circles are looking forward to a new regime. And from the looks of it.....this will come about the first in July.

Meet the New Boss.
Same as the Old Boss.

Now we might as well ask 'New Govt.: at what price ?'

Rarely ever that the 'right' people rises to the top these days.
Those who clamored to get in to the driver seat usually have a self serving agenda and more often than not p0wned.

Say, how's that 'back to Siam' campaign going anyway ?

[vin]

Abhisit: at what price?

Well to my knowledge he has not stolen billions from the thai people, unlike thaksin.

[dutchboy]

Vin,

First off, Thaksin aledgedly stole. A proper and independent investigation and court case still has to be held for that.

Second, almost every politician in Thailand (and surrounding countries) "steal" money from the country/people.
If you believe that AV is not doing that, it's your right, but I would assume nothing good when it comes to money and politicians.

[trisailer]

Abhisit has had years to produce real measurable change that benefit's all the Thai people. Most international economic publications conclude that his administration has failed to produce the change that is most needed in Thailand.

The biggest issue is growth. Thailand is currently producing half the growth of it's Asian neighbors. A huge factor in that failure is the level of corruption that exists. Most observers conclude that he has not done enough to the curb corruption that is sapping the Thai economy.

Transparency International rates Thailand 78th of 178 countries in it's corruption index. I don't think there is a published number of the baht that represents, but there is a number associated with the US. The US rating is 7.1 and we know that that US corruption represents 12% of GDP. It's not a huge leap to recognize that Thailand’s corruption is twice that of the US and the TI ratio reflects that. Thailand’s TI ratio is 3.5 so if one can assume (because I have no real numbers) that Thailand’s ratio reflects a 24% of GDP than were looking at Thailand's loss due to corruption as $116,953 BILLION US dollars! That would buy a lot of notebooks.

The other factor is that the corruption does not effect citizens equally. It is likely that it effects the poor more than it does the rich, so it a greater burden falls on the poor and the poor know this because they wake up to it each and every day.

There is a huge gap in incomes between the rich and the poor in Thailand. For comparison the gap between the top 5th and the bottom 5th of various countries is:
Sweden and Japan 3:5
Europe and the US 5:8
Asian Neighbors 7:12
Thailand 13:15

Inequality in income is much worse than it should be given the success of the country and where are the programs to bring it back into line?

I also have a big problem understanding why the red protest last year resulted in so much violence. Clearly the protestors stated aim was to shut down the government (not to violently takeover the government) Given that everyone knew in advance that this protest had the potential to get out of control, my question is why did the Abhisit administration allow people to gather without taking reasonable security precautions? Every developed country in the world has protests and any security expert knows that it is necessary to let people protest, but take steps to insure that it is contained and controlled to protect life and property. The Thai Army has 700,000 soldiers actively serving. It would have been possible, and I would argue necessary to search every vehicle and person entering the protest area for weapons.

I have participated in many protests and this is standard security protocol. How is it possible to assume that the protesters intention was towards violence when they prior to the event the reds held “schools” to teach people about nonviolent protest and why would they bring women and children to the protest knowing that violence might erupt? They gathered peacefully for a month before violence broke out. The violence occurred when the security forces attempted to take back the bridge. One thing is clear. Both sides got out of control, but ask who is the responsible party? Do governments not have the right and the responsibility to protect life and property? Searching people entering the area would not deny anyone their right to protest. It is accepted practice.

The question of who started the violence is in dispute. Human Rights Watch interviewed hundreds of witnesses and reviewed video, but fell short of declaring who is responsible. If the question is in debate why not have a independent commission investigate the facts and learn the truth?

Who had the most to gain politically from the violence? Every protester in the world knows that whatever their cause is it will not benefit them if they become violent. Most protesters assign there own people to police their own people. Violence is counter productive to the cause so it begs the question, Why?

One thing is abundantly clear, a significant percentage of the Thai people are fed up with the current situation and populist programs to placate them will not be enough to restore balance and stability.

It is apparent to me that Abhisit is not the real power running things but was the 5th choice of those who are. Three of the PM's who were elected by the people's vote were disqualified by the real power and it appears that Thailand is right back where it started, worse off than it was and falling behind in the economic development race with it's neighbors.

Real leadership would be focusing on the real issues that face Thailand and producing real change that benefits all the people. Ask yourself why these problems do not exist in country's like Sweden? It is because the product of working people's efforts are more evenly managed.

[drake]

Um, let me venture a wild guess,
you votes straight Dem ticket in the US and now you are here promoting "Puae The fugitive"
(or whatever his party name/puppet(s) of the month is/are)
55555

[tohwae]

Abhisit can be the Prime Minister again. I hope so.

[hatethksin]

I think the Yellow shirts have made a good point with the "vote no" idea. Since our choices of government are all part of corruption, why not hold up the country's development and go for reforms. I'd much rather pause the growth of our country just to get the right people in their rightful chairs. People say "why stop the country's development?" Is it worth choosing a path of development when corruption is involved either way? NO.

[surinfarm]

I think the Yellow shirts have made a good point with the "vote no" idea. Since our choices of government are all part of corruption, why not hold up the country's development and go for reforms. I'd much rather pause the growth of our country just to get the right people in their rightful chairs. People say "why stop the country's development?" Is it worth choosing a path of development when corruption is involved either way? NO.

Some might suggest that any such growth and development would be far more detrimental and chaotic for the society. What we don't want would be to mirror any cultish civilisations that are fancifully deemed advanced. Not progressive for this culture.

[surinfarm]

Abhisit can be the Prime Minister again. I hope so.

You might get your wish. History usually gets it's play and is repeated often in Siam.

[dutchboy]

hatethksin wrote:
I think the Yellow shirts have made a good point with the "vote no" idea. Since our choices of government are all part of corruption, why not hold up the country's development and go for reforms. I'd much rather pause the growth of our country just to get the right people in their rightful chairs. People say "why stop the country's development?" Is it worth choosing a path of development when corruption is involved either way? NO.

First off, PAD rarely (or rather never) has a good idea.

Secondly, in a democracy, being a political party (PAD's Heaven and Earth) calling for a non-vote or no-vote is the most undemocratic thing you can do. Political parties are supposed to be striving to get votes, be part of the government and try to influence to lawmaking in the country.