Interesting Analysis of PAD

[Brad the Impala]

Analysis of the PAD by a BBC correspondent.

There are interesting times ahead.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7762806.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7762806.stm)

Essentially supports what is being implied by some of the media in Australia. An absence last night is also ominous.

[Davey612]

I believe the following article from the FT provides a good analysis:
Financial Times article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/699dff22-c235-11dd-a350-000077b07658.html)

I am not an expert on anything Thai, but I believe what Thailand is experiencing is nothing new for most developing countries. What to do with an agricultural population that has awaken to its power. Thaksin pandered to them and now they know they can be tools for any politician who wants to use them.

And for those who were anti-PAD here, do remember that the current system of cheap "entertainment" comes from this mass of Northeasterners. Do you think they are really smiling?

[Beachlover]

Analysis of the PAD by a BBC correspondent.

There are interesting times ahead.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7762806.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7762806.stm)

Interesting.

They were so well organised and executed it was almost "un-Thai"

[gumblebee]

And for those who were anti-PAD here, do remember that the current system of cheap "entertainment" comes from this mass of Northeasterners. Do you think they are really smiling?

I hope most of us while very much appreciating their services, at the same time also sincerely hope they'll be able to uplift themselves even more, and hope they'll get maximum help from politics for this. Different attitudes between Asia and the West might mean the impact on our "entertainment" might be more positive than you seem to fear (a more open version of say Japan).

[vnman]

might be more positive than you seem to fear (a more open version of say Japan).

And what is that like?

[Bob]

And for those who were anti-PAD here, do remember that the current system of cheap "entertainment" comes from this mass of Northeasterners. Do you think they are really smiling?

I'm certainly "anti-Pad" and the main reason for that is, for better or worse, I believe in the concept of democracy. Pad doesn't; besides, their main leader (Sondhi) is as corrupt a Thai politician that you can name and he's also damn near mental instability.

I do wish you would explain the rest of your comments as, frankly, I'm a bit thick-headed tonight. Are you suggesting that the rural poor would be more morally correct and/or happier if (1) PAD was in charge and/or (2) the rural poor were disenfranchised? If so, I don't agree at all....but some of that disagreement is based on my attitude toward democracy. The rural poor aren't so dumb in my eyes, they having chosen to vote for those who benefit them (agricultural loans, the health care system, etc.) the most. What's so dumb about that? Most people in most countries do just that (if they are given the chance to vote). Or should the rural poor be smart (read this last "smart" as "dumb") enough to support the polticians and elite who have never done a damn thing for them and treat them as ignorant nobodies that are entitled to nothing?

Democracy, of course, works best with an educated public. If the Thai elite want that to occur, the remedy it seems is to provide the free education through the high school level that the various Thai constitutions have "guaranteed" but not provided for years. Advocating that 70% of the legislature be appointed by the elite is just another way of keeping the rural poor powerless and, of course, poor. The elite for years also have voted their pocketbook - supporting whoever will continue the long-established custom that they always get the largest slice of the pie.

If the elite can not understand what is democracy; the rule of the majority, then they should be prepared to acdept the division of the country into 2 states. The Poor vs the rich, meaning Banagkok Vs the rest. Is this is what they eventually asking for?

Respect the democratic institutions and let them work the system. Let the Judiciary do it's job if you have a cause.

Ethnic Thais are a minority in Thailand- perhaps 25 million out of a population of circa 60 miliion.
Most of the NE is Lao, Areas round Buri Ram and Surin are primarily Khmer. The southern provinces are Malay.
Only in Bangkok and the central plains are the Thai to be found
The PPP government gets its support primarily from non Thais.
Perhaps the PAD objects to Thailand being run by non Thais?

I think a lot of people out of Bangkok will be surprised to hear they arent Thai - the ones I know certainly consider themselves to be Thai

I do wish you would explain the rest of your comments ...

Bob, I could hardly agree more. I am starting to feel that with some posters I am reading the foreign language press!

I also agree with your later comments - interestingly the only improvements in education in recent years also came courtesy of Thaksin, namely compulsory education raised to age 15 (from 12) and cheap student loans for those wanting to go on to college. If only Thaksin had not been so insufferably and unnecessarily greedy he would have been a genuinely great leader.

And, Davey, I hate to nit-pick but the point has been made several times before: Thailand is a Newly Industrialised Country, not a Developing one.

Oh, and Brad, thanks for the article.

Ethnic Thais are a minority in Thailand- perhaps 25 million out of a population of circa 60 miliion.
Most of the NE is Lao, Areas round Buri Ram and Surin are primarily Khmer. The southern provinces are Malay.
Only in Bangkok and the central plains are the Thai to be found
The PPP government gets its support primarily from non Thais.
Perhaps the PAD objects to Thailand being run by non Thais?

Unadalterated crap on every level - historically, geographically, ethnically, linguistically and culturally.

The only correct part of your post is that the Southern provinces are largely Malay, which is hardly surprising as they have only been part of Thailand for a century. The rest is, simply, rubbish.

Advocating that 70% of the legislature be appointed by the elite is just another way of keeping the rural poor powerless and, of course, poor.

Which is exactly why PAD should stand for People Against Democracy. I've long thought that constitutionally Thailand looked more like a feudal state of 17th century Europe than anything to be found in the 21st century. We fly into Thailand and expect similar functional relationships with commissioned officers of the State as we experience in the State we come from. No wonder the Thai think we are in dire need of help when they've been coping with the Mai Pen Rai strategy which when stretched too far can get very ugly, very quickly.

I do wonder if we are in the eye of the storm and the winds will start again after the birthday deference period. If it does bear in mind that in any given situation whilst you may be right, you don't have rights.

I've long thought that constitutionally Thailand looked more like a feudal state of 17th century Europe than anything to be found in the 21st century.

"Constitutionally" Thailand is as much a 21st century state as most European countries, if not all. The problem is that the constitution and the law are not applied equally or universally.


We fly into Thailand and expect similar functional relationships with commissioned officers of the State as we experience in the State we come from.

Is there a translator in the house?

Why would the vast majority of those coming here, for whatever reason, expect any relationship ("functional" or otherwise) with any "commissioned officers of the State"?



It is not only the Thai who think you are in dire need of help.

[Davey612]

And for those who were anti-PAD here, do remember that the current system of cheap "entertainment" comes from this mass of Northeasterners. Do you think they are really smiling?



I do wish you would explain the rest of your comments as, frankly, I'm a bit thick-headed tonight. Are you suggesting that the rural poor would be more morally correct and/or happier if (1) PAD was in charge and/or (2) the rural poor were disenfranchised? If so, I don't agree at all....but some of that disagreement is based on my attitude toward democracy. The rural poor aren't so dumb in my eyes, they having chosen to vote for those who benefit them (agricultural loans, the health care system, etc.) the most. What's so dumb about that? Most people in most countries do just that (if they are given the chance to vote). Or should the rural poor be smart (read this last "smart" as "dumb") enough to support the polticians and elite who have never done a damn thing for them and treat them as ignorant nobodies that are entitled to nothing?

Democracy, of course, works best with an educated public. If the Thai elite want that to occur, the remedy it seems is to provide the free education through the high school level that the various Thai constitutions have "guaranteed" but not provided for years. Advocating that 70% of the legislature be appointed by the elite is just another way of keeping the rural poor powerless and, of course, poor. The elite for years also have voted their pocketbook - supporting whoever will continue the long-established custom that they always get the largest slice of the pie.

Ok, your explanations are clear and concise. That is what I was trying to convey in one sentence. Rural populations, no matter where, tend to be conservative. If they become the majority block (all the time), the feudal system that allows us to enjoy the "entertainment" industry may disappear (at least in its current form). Former interior minister Purachai has shown that tend. So, for all our discussion about how higher goals for democracy in Thailand are, and that the PAD is a terrorist organization, I believe that it is actually the PAD's view of government (the continuation of a sort of feudal system) that affords the cheap supply of labor to a industry that we all adore. Otherwise why we fly thousands of miles every year? Such an industry exist worldwide, but is better run in Thailand.

[Marsilius]

Please stop misusing the word "feudal"!!!

A feudal system of society is one where land is given out by an overlord (usually a king or a powerful baron) as a "fief" - i.e. it is handed over to the recipient (the "vassal") on condition that he performs military service for a fixed term (often 40 days/year) in exchange and it may be taken back into the overlord's hands if the vassal fails to perform that military service. Examples are medieval western Europe and samurai-era Japan.

The very lowest rung of such feudal systems were the armed knights or the samurai warriors. Peasants, who did not fight but worked the land, were not part of the feudal system per se. [The knights, it is true, obliged the peasants on their lands to supply them with labour for their estates and with food - but that is the "manorial system" which is a different thing entirely.]

Feudalism died out centuries ago, when governments realised that (1) allowing their vassals to control such armed power was an open invitation to rebellion, (2) the invincibility of the heavily-armoured knight/samurai was successfully challenged by military innovation - the longbow and then gunpowder, (3) 40 days/year proved inadequate for modern campaigns. For all these reasons and more, it was more effective to replace knights with professional mercenary troops. Overlords thereupon sold off the fiefs outright to vassals or communted the feudal obligation of military service to simple monetary rent, so raising the cash to employ those more effective professional mercenaries for twelve months a year.

Thus, certainly if we date the modern kingdom of Thailand back to its origins in the late 18th century, it has never been a feudal state - though the social structures often associated incidentally with feudal states (e.g. rigid caste-based aristocracy, powerful church, etc.) have certainly characterised the country to this day when we see them being challenged by the economically powerful middle classes (who, of course, had no part in the "feudal sysyem" at all.)

Please stop misusing the word "feudal"!!!

Marsilie adversus solem ne loquitor quoniam homo sapiens non urinat in ventum*

Marsilius,

I have attempted to make this point before but to no avail: to the Corporal and Brad the Impala in May, then to who, bing and Brad the Impala (again!) in September.

555 bases his view of the feudal system on similar misconceptions - wrong but understandable. Davey612, on the other hand, is simply confused.


(*: Marsilius, don't waste your time pissing into the wind)

[Brad the Impala]

Today, the word feudal is sometimes used as a general term for a set of social relationships that seems unprogressive or out of step with modern society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feudalism

Proof that if you look hard enough it is nearly always possible to find one sight on the internet that will agree with you, even if it is as obscure as a footnote in the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.

Absum.

[Brad the Impala]

Proof that if you look hard enough it is nearly always possible to find one sight on the internet that will agree with you, even if it is as obscure as a footnote in the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.

Absum.

Didn't have to look hard for a site. It's the dictionary site that I usually use. Dictionary.com

Perhaps one day you will be able to acknowledge that a perspective other than your own is valid.

[Marsilius]

Today, the word feudal is sometimes used as a general term for a set of social relationships that seems unprogressive or out of step with modern society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feudalism

Reading your dictionary's entry in full, it clearly agrees with what I said in my post above. The quotation you cite here is merely given as an extra "note" rather than added to the accepted definitions that are listed "1", "2", etc.

It would have been more accurate to have added a few extra words so that it read: Today the word feudal is sometimes used sloppily and erroneously as a general term for a set of social relationships that seems unprogressive or out of step with modern society.

[Brad the Impala]

Today, the word feudal is sometimes used as a general term for a set of social relationships that seems unprogressive or out of step with modern society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feudalism

Reading your dictionary's entry in full, it clearly agrees with what I said in my post above. The quotation you cite here is merely given as an extra "note" rather than added to the accepted definitions that are listed "1", "2", etc.

It would have been more accurate to have added a few extra words so that it read: Today the word feudal is sometimes used sloppily and erroneously as a general term for a set of social relationships that seems unprogressive or out of step with modern society.

Yes, yes, why don't you rewrite the dictionary!

[Davey612]

Please stop misusing the word "feudal"!!!

Marsilie adversus solem ne loquitor quoniam homo sapiens non urinat in ventum*

Marsilius,

I have attempted to make this point before but to no avail: to the Corporal and Brad the Impala in May, then to who, bing and Brad the Impala (again!) in September.

555 bases his view of the feudal system on similar misconceptions - wrong but understandable. Davey612, on the other hand, is simply confused.


(*: Marsilius, don't waste your time pissing into the wind)

Thanks for showing me the way. Confused? Explain why a patronage society (which is basically what the PAD wants as status quo) is not akind to feudalism.

Say whatever you want, but I believe that what the PAD wants is more what most people here want - the continuation of a subclass of Northeasterners. Without them in such a status, our cherished "industry" may disappear.

[Marsilius]

No, no, I would not need to rewrite it if people actually used words in their accurate meaning.

[Marsilius]

Explain why a patronage society (which is basically what the PAD wants as status quo) is not akind [sic.] to feudalism.

Given that there are no completely egalitarian societies in existence, almost all societies depend on systems of patronage of one sort or another to exist and operate - although the terms and commodities involved in that patronage will vary considerably from place to place and time to time.

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
[A. De Morgan "Budget of Paradoxes", 1872, p.377]

Feudalism involved patronage with (specifically) land and that patronage was repaid by (specifically) the military service of heavily armoured mounted knights. I was unaware that Sir Lancelot fought in Thailand.

[Brad the Impala]

Feudalism involved patronage with (specifically) land and that patronage was repaid by (specifically) the military service of heavily armoured mounted knights. I was unaware that Sir Lancelot fought in Thailand.

I think that you will find that Sir Lancelot probably never fought anywhere!

if people actually used words in their accurate meaning.

I think it is perfectly valid to use a phrase such as "looked more like" to modify the use of the word "feudalism". If you have a sensitivity to the use of the word, the problem is with you.

[Bob]

Thanks, Davey, for the explanation. I still don't get it though so I'll just merrily enter the weekend in my thick-headed state. I only made the comments because I thought I was disagreeing with what you said or implied. Now, I'm not sure and somebody (GF, you're elected) ought to bitchslap me from this miserable snowy wasteland back to anyplace in Thailand....

[Marsilius]

if people actually used words in their accurate meaning.

I think it is perfectly valid to use a phrase such as "looked more like" to modify the use of the word "feudalism". If you have a sensitivity to the use of the word, the problem is with you.

The exchange of information and opinion on this board is based on impersonal, written communication. As we "speak" to each other, we cannot, for example, incorporate the nuances of facial expression or physical gesture that add so much to and facilitate verbal communication.

If we want others to understand, with no possibility of ambiguity, the points we are attempting to make, it therefore behoves us all to use language in its accepted, "standard" form, comprehensible to everyone else whether with or without recourse to a dictionary. If, on the other hand, we all choose to use individual words to convey simply what we personally mean by them, any idea of a useful and productive exchange of views is jeopardised.

Can we please put this use of the term "feudal" to rest as its use, deliberately or otherwise, is extremely misleading.

Thailand is not nor has it ever been, now or 100 years ago prior to the abolition of slavery and the absolute monarchy, a feudal state in any conventional sense of the term.

Traditional feudalism, as Marsilius has rightly explained, "refers to a general set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility of Europe during the Middle Ages, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs" (Wikipedia). Such a system has never existed in Thailand in any comparable form. The period of such feudalism was from the 9th to the 14th century, so any reference to "a feudal state of 17th century Europe", whether modified by the phrase "looked more like" or not, is simply wrong on every count.

The mis-use of the term in the "modern" sense, such as that referred to in the note in the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, (which clearly shows that it is not a definition) is confusing and mis-leading. Far more appropriate would be the use of the term Neofeudalism:

"Neofeudalism literally means "New Feudalism" тАж The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor тАж. This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism." (Wikipedia)


On a separate note, Davey, while you are perfectly at liberty to "say whatever you want", or to believe what you want, you are no position whatsoever to claim to know "what most people here want" - in this case "the continuation of a subclass of Northeasterners". It is certainly not what I want, nor do I know any farangs who hold such a view.


On another separate note, I fully agree "that it is perfectly valid to use a phrase such as "looked more like" to modify the use of (a) word ". It is rather hypocritical, though, if the same validity is not accorded to the use of the similar phrase "sounds like", but that hypocrisy is just something I have got used to.

[Brad the Impala]

Seems like it is not only a few posters here who are, according to some pedants, misusing the the words feudal and feudalism.


Thailand has historically vacillated between democracy and dictatorship. What usually happens is that a strong central government, reminiscent of Chinese collective control, forces its way to power through democratic processes undermined by such non-democratic practices as coercion, vote-buying, etc. After taking control, the degree of corruption, the absence of give-and-take dialogue among factions, and the traditional feudal mentality that makes it impossible for society to reform, all lead to another coup.

www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/12/05/thai_protests_end_but_problems_persist/9778/ (http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/12/05/thai_protests_end_but_problems_persist/9778/)

I see. It's better that democracy doesn't get too established in Thailand because it will make the poor richer and allow them more choice as to what to do with their lives, and therefore there will be a smaller supply boys flowing into the industry that 'we all adore.'

[quote="LC Sulla":139uping]Ethnic Thais are a minority in Thailand- perhaps 25 million out of a population of circa 60 miliion.
Most of the NE is Lao, Areas round Buri Ram and Surin are primarily Khmer. The southern provinces are Malay.
Only in Bangkok and the central plains are the Thai to be found
The PPP government gets its support primarily from non Thais.
Perhaps the PAD objects to Thailand being run by non Thais?

Unadalterated crap on every level - historically, geographically, ethnically, linguistically and culturally.

The only correct part of your post is that the Southern provinces are largely Malay, which is hardly surprising as they have only been part of Thailand for a century. The rest is, simply, rubbish.[/quote:139uping]

The name Thailand was invented in 1939 by the Phibum government , before that it was the Kingdom of Siam with a king ruling over Thai, Chinese, Mon, Lao, Shan,Khmer , Malay and various other ethnic and linguistic groups.

One of the government edicts in 1939 said тАЬWe must remember there are many new Thai. Now we have Thailand we can mix the true Thai together with the new Thai to work together in friendship for the united nation. тАЬ
This meant applying pressure for non тАУ Thai to speak and act in ways which confirmed their membership of the national community. Everyone was urged to learn and speak the Thai dialect of the central region
In 1942 a National Culture Commission was established to DEFINE and disseminate Thai culture


Isan тАУ Lao and Khmer parts - has continually resisted this cultural imperialism.
In Sila Wongsin set up an independent village realm in Khorat , Troops attacked the realm and Sila was publicly executed
In May 1961 Khrong Chandawong and Thongphan Suthimat were publicly executed for advocating socialism and separatism.


{From Wikipedia
Isan (Isan: ภาษาอีสาน, RTGS: phasa isan, IPA: pʰaːsaː iːsaːn) is the principal language of the Isan (northeastern) region of Thailand. A tonal language of the Tai-Kadai language family, it is the main language of trade and communication in the Isan region, except for in cities and in media where it gives way to Thai.

The language is noted for its similarities to the Lao language spoken in the neighbouring country of Laos. This is because Isan was historically once a part of Laos (or more properly the Kingdom of Lan Xang), and also because large forced population transfers from Laos to Isan were undertaken at various points in history. In fact, the two languages are mutually intelligible and almost identical, with differences contributed mainly by neologisms created after the two areas were no longer a single political entity and modern Thai began to contribute to the Isan vocabulary. Although Lao and Thai are themselves closely related and somewhat mutually intelligible, Isan is more akin to the Lao language and there are fewer problems in comprehension between speakers of Isan and Lao than between speakers of Thai and Isan. The language is still sometimes occasionally referred to as Lao, either by Thais pejoratively or by older Isan people who may yet regard themselves as part of the Lao ethnic group. Isoglossic differences in Isan mirror those on the other side of the Mekong, so that a speaker from Nongkhai sounds more like a speaker from Vientiane than he would with a speaker from Ubol, who may sound more like someone from Champasak. Nonetheless, there are unique tonal patterns and vocabulary distinct from Lao. There is no official standard, although radio broadcasts and traditional centres of morlam music in Isan have had a unifying effect on the language.


Northern Khmer, also called Khmer Surin, is the dialect of the Khmer language spoken by the Khmer native to the Thai provinces of Surin, Sisaket, Buriram and Roi Et as well as those that have migrated from this region into Cambodia.

Northern Khmer differs from the Phnom Penh dialect (considered the standard) in the number and variety of vowel phonemes, consonantal distribution, lexicon and grammar, giving Northern Khmer a distinct accent easily recognizable by speakers of other dialects. Speakers of Northern Khmer can easily understand all other varieties of Khmer but speakers of standard Khmer who have not been exposed to Northern Khmer often have trouble understanding Northern Khmer. These facts have led some linguists to advocate considering Northern Khmer a separate, but closely related language.

End quotation}


Thailand has a population of 65 million
Of this approx
30 % are Lao
14% are Chinese
6% are Khmer
5% are Malay


For someone who claims to have lived in Thailand for a number of years you appear remarkably ignorant of your country of residence.

For someone who claims to have lived in Thailand for a number of years you appear remarkably ignorant of your country of residence

My congratulations, LCS. After making one post on this topic which was "unadalterated crap on every level", based on inaccurate information which failed to support your incorrect and absurd conclusion, you have managed to make another. While it is quite possible that I "appear remarkably ignorant of (my) country of residence" that is at least preferable to being remarkably ignorant.

I have no major disagreement with your breakdown of the population by ethnic origin, but that is totally different from ethnic grouping. It also, more importantly, has no bearing whatsoever on your original point:

The PPP's support is mainly from the rural poor . While you call them "Lao" or "Khmer", those same "Lao" or "Khmer" who are the (very few) rural rich would tend to support the PAD. Your view that "the PPP government gets its support primarily from non Thais", is simply not an issue as the question of their ethnic origin has never, as far as I know, been raised by any of those involved.

The PAD's support is mainly from the urban rich/middle classes. While you would call them "Thai" and suppose that "Perhaps the PAD objects to Thailand being run by non Thais" you are overlooking the vast number of those here you call "Chinese", most of whom are in that category and most of whom also support the PAD (unless they are politicians), which totally negates your point.

Your brief lesson on Thai history was totally irrelevant. Apart from by JI in the South there are no serious separatist movements in Thailand, in Isan or elsewhere. This is simply not an issue in current mainstream Thai politics.

Your excerpt from Wikipedia was, presumably, meant to support your statement that Northern Isan was essentially populated by "Lao" and Eastern Isan by "Khmer", not by "Thai". It does not. Even where linguistics are concerned it makes it very clear that Isan spoken in the North-East is a separate language to both Thai and Lao in its own right and that "Khmer Surin" is only spoken by some of those in the East, of Khmer descent. Your original post that "Areas round Buri Ram and Surin are primarily Khmer" is no more (or less) true than a statement that "areas" of London are primarily Bangladeshi, "areas" of Milton Keynes are Hong Kong Chinese, "areas" of Sydney are Greek, etc, etc. It is meaningless.

If you are going to use a source as a reference, at least use one that supports your argument. Wikipedia, which you quoted at length, does not:

There are presently upwards of 30 distinct Tai ethnic groups within Thailand, making up nearly 85% of the nation's population....This core population includes the central Thai (33.7%)..., Northeastern Thai ...(34.2%), northern Thai (18.8%), and southern Thai (13.3%)....Up to 14% of Thailand's population are of Chinese descent...Malay and Yawi-speaking Muslims of the south comprise another significant minority group (2.3%).

While it is debatable that one or two generations ago your point may have had some merit, now it is incorrect and contrived. In other words, crap.

Seems like ...

Sounds like ... looked like ... seems like ... whatever next?

{Gone Fishing wrote

Unadalterated crap on every level тАУ historically, geographically, ethnically, linguistically and culturally.

The only correct part of your post is that the Southern provinces are largely Malay, which is hardly surprising as they have only been part of Thailand for a century. The rest is, simply, rubbish.

My congratulations, LCS. After making one post on this topic which was "unadalterated crap on every level", based on inaccurate information which failed to support your incorrect and absurd conclusion, you have managed to make another. While it is quite possible that I "appear remarkably ignorant of (my) country of residence" that is at least preferable to being remarkably ignorant.

I have no major disagreement with your breakdown of the population by ethnic origin, but that is totally different from ethnic grouping}

Is this meant to mean something or is it just to obfuscate? What on earth is ethnic grouping?

It also, more importantly, has no bearing whatsoever on your original point:

The PPP's support is mainly from the rural poor . While you call them "Lao" or "Khmer", those same "Lao" or "Khmer" who are the (very few) rural rich would tend to support the PAD. Your view that "the PPP government gets its support primarily from non Thais", is simply not an issue as the question of their ethnic origin has never, as far as I know, been raised by any of those involved.

Just because , тАЬas far as you knowтАЭ, the issue has not been raised by those involved, does not make it a non issue. Few Thais articulate their racist behaviour but they are educated/ indoctrinated to believe themselves superior to Lao, Khmer , Burmese, Arab and negroes. Any viewing of Thai soaps makes this abundantly clear. Any conversation with тАЬThaiтАЭ Lao or тАЬThaiтАЭ
Khmer would also reinforce my point.

That rich Lao and Khmer prefer to support their class rather than their ethnicity is hardly surprising.


The PAD's support is mainly from the urban rich/middle classes. While you would call them "Thai" and suppose that "Perhaps the PAD objects to Thailand being run by non Thais" you are overlooking the vast number of those here you call "Chinese", most of whom are in that category and most of whom also support the PAD (unless they are politicians), which totally negates your point.

This is a valid point. I should have said Thai and Thai/ Chinese rather than Thai

Your brief lesson on Thai history was totally irrelevant. Apart from by JI in the South there are no serious separatist movements in Thailand, in Isan or elsewhere. This is simply not an issue in current mainstream Thai politics.

Perhaps you havenтАЩt noticed that the vast majority of parties in parliament are regionally based. For example Chidchob has his power base in BuriRam/ Surin. Separatism or at least regional devolution is and has always been a major thread in Thai politics.

Your excerpt from Wikipedia was, presumably, meant to support your statement that Northern Isan was essentially populated by "Lao" and Eastern Isan by "Khmer", not by "Thai".It does not.

Yes it does. Ethnicity ( as determined by mitocondrial DNA and Y chromosone variants) and language are intimately linked. Languages belong in families which evolve over time and North East Laos is a far closer relative of the other Laos languages than Thai.
I would refer you to the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza for a better understanding of this , particularly his 1988 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, in which he maps genetic trees against linguistic families.

Even where linguistics are concerned it makes it very clear that Isan spoken in the North-East is a separate language to both Thai and Lao in its own right and that "Khmer Surin" is only spoken by some of those in the East, of Khmer descent. Your original post that "Areas round Buri Ram and Surin are primarily Khmer" is no more (or less) true than a statement that "areas" of London are primarily Bangladeshi, "areas" of Milton Keynes are Hong Kong Chinese, "areas" of Sydney are Greek, etc, etc. It is meaningless.

This is a childish comparison of no scientific merit. You should rather be looking at, for example, Yugoslavia under Tito or the Catalan and Basque areas of Spain for a comparative

If you are going to use a source as a reference, at least use one that supports your argument. Wikipedia, which you quoted at length, does not:

There are presently upwards of 30 distinct Tai ethnic groups within Thailand, making up nearly 85% of the nation's population....This core population includes the central Thai (33.7%)..., Northeastern Thai ...(34.2%), northern Thai (18.8%), and southern Thai (13.3%)....Up to 14% of Thailand's population are of Chinese descent...Malay and Yawi-speaking Muslims of the south comprise another significant minority group (2.3%).

While it is debatable that one or two generations ago your point may have had some merit, now it is incorrect and contrived.

I believe you may be English. Did one or two generations remove the difference between the English and Welsh or Scots??

You have failed to justify your original dismissal
тАЬUnadalterated crap on every level тАУ historically, geographically, ethnically, linguistically and culturally.тАЭ
On any level.

Your inability to engage in reasonable debate , instead resorting to schoolboy insults , does you no credit

LCS,

Unlike some you obviously have no problem with dealing with points in turn, as some do, so I will do the same (boring though it may be to some, if anyone else is reading this rubbish).

What on earth is ethnic grouping?

Ethnic grouping is what you have done and are still doing, calling Thais in Northern Isan "Lao" and those in Eastern Isan "Khmer" - they are not. "Lao" people are from Laos, and hold Laotian passports, and "Khmer" people are from Cambodia.

Just because , тАЬas far as you knowтАЭ, the issue has not been raised by those involved, does not make it a non issue.

It is a non-issue with anyone who has not raised it (anyone except you) - if you know of anyone involved who has, name them.

Any conversation with тАЬThaiтАЭ Lao or тАЬThaiтАЭ Khmer would also reinforce my point.

It would contradict it entirely- those you refer to as Thai Lao or Thai Khmer are the very ones who would be most insulted by being called "Lao" or "Khmer", as you have done. Try it and see what happens.

That rich Lao and Khmer prefer to support their class rather than their ethnicity is hardly surprising.

But it is surprising that poor Thais (who you call Lao and Khmer) support their class????

This is a valid point. I should have said Thai and Thai/ Chinese rather than Thai

As you should have said Thai/Khmer, Thai/Lao, etc., which would have been more accurate but still of no relevance to the disagreements between the PAD and PPP. Since your original point was supposing that "the PAD objects to Thailand being run by non Thais" and the Thai Chinese are far more culturally, ethnically, linguistically and historically separated from what you call "Thais" than those you call "Lao" or "Khmer", you have managed to defeat your own supposition.

Perhaps you havenтАЩt noticed that the vast majority of parties in parliament are regionally based. тАж Separatism or at least regional devolution is and has always been a major thread in Thai politics.

Regional devolution is far from separatism, in any country or any context!!!!

"Your excerpt from Wikipedia was, presumably, meant to support your statement that Northern Isan was essentially populated by "Lao" and Eastern Isan by "Khmer", not by "Thai".It does not."

Yes it does. Really?? Where??

"Your original post that "Areas round Buri Ram and Surin are primarily Khmer" is no more (or less) true than a statement that "areas" of London are primarily Bangladeshi, "areas" of Milton Keynes are Hong Kong Chinese, "areas" of Sydney are Greek, etc, etc. It is meaningless."

This is a childish comparison of no scientific merit. You should rather be looking at, for example, Yugoslavia under Tito or the Catalan and Basque areas of Spain for a comparative

Absolute rubbish. If you have not noticed, ETA is a terrorist organization that was after an independent Basque state and the former Yugoslavia was split up along largely religious grounds. There is no comparison whatsoever with Thailand and Isan, where there are no popular separatist groups (except JI) and those Thais you call Lao and Khmer could think of nothing worse than becoming part of Laos or Cambodia; they consider themselves Thai as much, if not considerably more, as those of non-Anglo-Saxon origin consider themselves British, Australian, etc. If you think there is the same support for separatists here as there was in the former Yugoslavia prior to separation and is in le Pays Basque and Catalonia then show it.
.
I believe you may be English. Did one or two generations remove the difference between the English and Welsh or Scots??

There is, again, no comparison that can be drawn between Welsh and Scottish devolution and Thailand - Welsh and Scottish independence movements have existed, with strong but varying degrees of popularity, for centuries and still do. In Thailand they do not (except in your mind) and when they did they had little support - if you disagree, then show some evidence.

You made a thoroughly stupid comment, based on nothing apart from your own imagination - if you can support it by naming any major parties with an ethnic rather than a class, economic, political or personal base then do so; if you can show evidence of any current support for separatist movements in Isan, do so (even Newin Chidchob's party, which you mention, calls itself the Friends of Newin Chidchob, not the Friends of Buri Ram); if you can't, then do the sensible thing and shut up.

I could have called your point contrived, incorrect, unlikely or plain wrong, but I could see no point - crap was a far more appropriate term. The last thing I need from someone as misinformed and out of touch as you is "credit" - but I will give you plenty if you can show any evidence to support your original supposition.