Interesting Analysis of PAD

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.