Thais not smart people

[Guest trailrider]

Or they would not allow all of these politicians to take advantage of them and wreck this wonderful place.

[Guest beermaker]

No.  Nor smart.  really stupid people for many reasons.

[Bob]

It's my view that your calling the Thai people "not smart" or "stupid" only reflects your ignorance of the Thai education system, how people are raised here from birth, their cultural history, and the fact that rather important information (which a westerner, who's taught to question things for himself, would find very interesting) is not taught and in many cases prohibited from being disseminated.  Can't blame the individual Thais - who likely have IQ's similar to other populations - for that.

[vinapu]

stupid people are one making stupid remarks and stereotyping others,

 

if we take deep look at our own societies , don't you think that others may see us and our countries as stupid ?

Each country and society has flaws in eyes of others.

 

Thailand is one of those 50/50 societies , the same like USA at the moment for example.

 

They are many countries where politicians wrecked them to applause of general population - look at European history of XX century and figures like Hitler or Milosevic and their legacy, both were greatly supported by their own people

[Alexx]

Switzerland is the only country I know where the people really control their politicians, not the other way round. (If that's always a good thing there is, of course, another question.) All illusions aside, democracy doesn't really work all that well in most countries.

Why should Thailand be any different? They don't even have hundreds of years of experience unlike others!

[TotallyOz]

Thais are stupid? LOL Americans elected George Bush to two terms (even though not really the first term as it was given to him and the very "intelligent" people in the USA voted him back in).

[Guest buckbee]

Americans elected George Bush 

 

Australians are worse they elected Julia Gillard, now that was real smart

[Guest trailrider]

This is not at all where I expected this discussion to go.  I expected a discussion of how bad the Thai major political parties are.  Perhaps I should have not been so unclear in my original post.

 

So, let me try to get it back on track.  The Thai population is obviously very split on how they want their country to be.  Essentially, it is the haves against the have-nots.  Thaksin is the only one who has ever shown that he is willing to help the poor.  Unfortunately, he did not do this in an altruistic way.  He enriched himself much more than he gave them.  The apparently feel that they have no other place to go and want to grind the yellow shirt crowd's faces into Thaksinism.

 

The yellow shirts, presently being led by that utter ass, Suthep, are, in my eyes, a bunch of greedy bastards who could not only care less about the poor but want to get control of the country through another coup.  They have not been legitimately in charge in years and cannot get elected so they want to be reinstalled by the military as leaders of the government.

 

The military has apparently not forgiven Thaksin for what they see as him having treated them very poorly when he was in power so they will be easily talked into a coup.

 

It is fact that Yingluck, who appears to have never had an original thought in her life, is nothing but a rubber stamp for whatever her brother, Thaksin, orders the government to do. Also, it is apparent that no one foresaw how that stupid amnesty plan to try to get him back into the country, without having to go to jail, would so irritate the yellow shirts.  She and her ministers have had a terrible PR campaign as relates to the governments position and Suthep has, much to my regret, conducted a great one.

 

Now we are once again facing a coup.

 

These are my opinions.  Take them or leave them.  Up to you as Thais say.

[Bob]

Can agree with some of your thoughts, Trailrider, but I do think a little bias is showing up with respect to your comments about Yingluck.  I realize you believe she's just a puppet and never had an original thought herself but I'm doubtful that's exactly the case.

 

As to your comment about the Thai people being "very split", I agree if what you're saying that the level of polarization is much like that which presently exists in the US; however, if by "very split" you mean that the divisions are somewhat "evenly split", I don't agree at all.  Peua Thai/Thaksin are supported by the majority of Thais at the ballot box and that isn't likely to change.  I see Suthep and his backers as simply pushing for a military coup as they see no other option (they can't win a national election - not too dissimilar to the Republicans' plight in the US).

 

I also don't agree that the military is especially pissed at Shinawatra or that they need any anti-Shinawatra feelings to prompt a coup; after all, they've done it 17 times or so since 1932 and the Shinawatras have only been in politics for about 10-11 of those years.  Come to think of it, given there has been a military coup here on average once every 5 years (actually less than that) since 1932, one might argue that having only one of them in the last 13 years is tremendous progress! hehe

[Guest trailrider]

As to your comment about the Thai people being "very split", I agree if what you're saying that the level of polarization is much like that which presently exists in the US;

 

This is EXACTLY what I mean.  Good analogy to the Domocrats vs. Republicans!

[vinapu]

Thais are stupid? LOL Americans elected George Bush to two terms (even though not really the first term as it was given to him and the very "intelligent" people in the USA voted him back in).

exactly , did not want to say this in order not to be offensive but we need to remember that few weeks ago USA government was shut down for lack of funds to pay its way to astonishment to whole world.

 

Will we be calling America people stupid because they tolerate this?

[vinapu]

This is not at all where I expected this discussion to go.  I expected a discussion of how bad the Thai major political parties are.  Perhaps I should have not been so unclear in my original post.

 

So, let me try to get it back on track.  The Thai population is obviously very split on how they want their country to be.  Essentially, it is the haves against the have-nots.  Thaksin is the only one who has ever shown that he is willing to help the poor.  Unfortunately, he did not do this in an altruistic way.  He enriched himself much more than he gave them.  The apparently feel that they have no other place to go and want to grind the yellow shirt crowd's faces into Thaksinism.

 

The yellow shirts, presently being led by that utter ass, Suthep, are, in my eyes, a bunch of greedy bastards who could not only care less about the poor but want to get control of the country through another coup.  They have not been legitimately in charge in years and cannot get elected so they want to be reinstalled by the military as leaders of the government.

 

The military has apparently not forgiven Thaksin for what they see as him having treated them very poorly when he was in power so they will be easily talked into a coup.

 

It is fact that Yingluck, who appears to have never had an original thought in her life, is nothing but a rubber stamp for whatever her brother, Thaksin, orders the government to do. Also, it is apparent that no one foresaw how that stupid amnesty plan to try to get him back into the country, without having to go to jail, would so irritate the yellow shirts.  She and her ministers have had a terrible PR campaign as relates to the governments position and Suthep has, much to my regret, conducted a great one.

 

Now we are once again facing a coup.

 

These are my opinions.  Take them or leave them.  Up to you as Thais say.

This is much better analysis than resorting to calling Thais stupid and I agree with most of what you just said.

 

as for coup military must take into consideration that times when coups were in fashion are long gone and it's why they are showing some restraint so far . They must weight world's opinion a bit.

 

Amnesty plan not only irritated yellow shirts , but red shirts too as people guilty of massacres of their people would be part of amnesty as well, this miscalculation backfired unexpectedly for Yingluck and her  brother , but this is just politics.

[Guest trailrider]

vinapu, don't get confused.  I did not call the Thai's stupid.  That was another who posted here.  When I said in the header that they were not smart, I wanted to get board members attention. 

 

Also, I neglected to remember that the red shirts were also very much irritated by this amnesty plan as you so adroitly pointed out.

[vinapu]

I really did not have anybody particular in mind , just verbalized what I strongly believe in - stereotyping is stupid. Good you brought this subject so we could discuss politics a bit, itself subject as contentious as boys tips.

[Guest RichLB]

It's quite likely my political ignorance will once again be displayed, but why is a coup such a horrible thing?  From what I pick up from the various propaganda pieces in the news and on Thai television, it's claimed Yingluk is a do nothing dictator and Suthep is characterized as wanting to be much the same - both apparently (according to whatever bias one reads) not good for the Thai people.  So, why would a peaceful military takeover until election reform could take place be a bad thing?

[Bob]

Some rather startling comments/terms there, Rich.

 

Before asking a couple of questions, I'd guess you'd agree that a military coup is an action by the armed forces of a country to overthrow and replace its government?

 

The questions:

 

(1)  Do you think the voters or the military ought to decide who the leaders of a country should be?

 

(2)  If some of the voters don't like the political party that's running the government (a political party which was elected by more than half of the voters), do you think it's appropriate to attempt to force a coup by trying to close down the government?  

[vinapu]

  So, why would a peaceful military takeover until election reform could take place be a bad thing?

Because there's no guarantee military would be any better at governing lacking legitimacy at the same time.

 

World had it's share of rescuers in uniforms and rarely they have anything to show for it, yes they are exceptions but exceptions they are only.

[Guest RichLB]

Some rather startling comments/terms there, Rich.

 

Before asking a couple of questions, I'd guess you'd agree that a military coup is an action by the armed forces of a country to overthrow and replace its government?

 

The questions:

 

(1)  Do you think the voters or the military ought to decide who the leaders of a country should be?

 

(2)  If some of the voters don't like the political party that's running the government (a political party which was elected by more than half of the voters), do you think it's appropriate to attempt to force a coup by trying to close down the government?  

(1) I think the voters in a fair election should decide who rules the country.  But, with the majority of the voters centralized in one city, leaving the vast geographic majority of the country without a voice, I'm reminded of Madison's warning viz a viz the tyranny of the majority.  If the Suthep supporters are to be believed that's exactly what has happened in Thailand.  Throwing in croneyism (I have no idea how to spell that), corruption, and outright theft of the national treasure I have doubts if pure democracy is the answer here - it certainly doesn't seem to work well in the US.

(2) I don't think the proper word is "appropriate", "expedient" might be better.  As I see it, whichever side of this crisis prevails chaos is the likely result.  I assume (naively, I'm sure) that the military could establish a stabilizing government until election reforms are agreed upon and that might be a good thing.

[Bob]

Rich, thanks for responding. I don't agree with much of what you say and/or find it rather confusing or puzzling.  And it seems you really don't have much of a handle on the background here.

 

Regardless, what election reforms are either you or they talking about?  So far, I have no idea what reforms they are suggesting (other than they don't want Isaan farmers to have the same level of voting rights that they have).  Some have mentioned the "buying of votes" problem but all the political parties have done that and I personally believe Peua Thai would win any election even if no "vote-buying" took place. 

[Guest RichLB]

 And it seems you really don't have much of a handle on the background here.

 

You sure have that right.  I'm not even well versed in my home country's (USA) politics.  But, from the little I know, it seems this is a crisis without a solution.  An election doesn't seem to solve the problems of the grievances presented by the Suthep supporters since the prevailing powers would undoubtedly win again.  Having no election yields the same dilemma.  Even it, by some fluke, Suthep's party should win, wouldn't the Yingluk crowd mount their own "rallies"?

     Given that, I ask if an intervention by a third party (ie, the military) might quell the existing standoff.  Of course, I recognize that a PEACEFUL coup might be a pipedream - but the last coup was bloodless, wasn't it?  Then I also consider that the military might not be as neutral as I hoped in which case a coup would only make matters worse.

     Taking into account those reservations, that's why I asked the more informed here what the consequences of a coup might be.  Would it really be such a terrible thing?

[Bob]

"A crisis without a solution."  On that, Rich, we fully agree.  I see no good way out of this mess either as I think all the things that need to happen would take a decade or two. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I asked a few close Thai friends after the 2006 coup what they thought about it (I was real neutral asking the question so I wouldn't spark a reaction).  The answer I got (exactly in two of the cases) was: "It's not my business."  That answer totally shocked me and I didn't follow up asking more questions (although, in my mind, I wanted to say: "Well, if it's not your business, who the hell's business is it!?!") as I didn't believe it was my business to get involved or to show my western contempt of the general apathy.

 

As to your question as to what would happen if another 2006 coup happens?  Sadly, probably nothing.  The military would set up one of their stooges as the leader again, they may or may not draft up another meaningless constitution, and elections would follow in a year or two.  And foreign governments would rail against the coup mildly and really not alter any of their relationships with Thailand.  But..... maybe we're not asking the right question and I'd think that might be: "What does a coup solve over the long term?  In my view, it solves nothing - the corruption continues on all sides, the rich get richer and the poor poorer, the education system remains a stagnant mess, and Thailand continues heading down the path towards becoming a banana republic.  Peua Thai (or some new-named party favored by the non-elite) will win the election, and we're right back to where we started.

 

It's my view that different and more dramatic effects will happen after certain events involving the monarchy occur but we can't talk about that here.

[vinapu]

  I'm not even well versed in my home country's (USA) politics. 

Certainly this helps you to keep proper level of sanity, as it was said here before there's not much USA can lecture other countries when comes to politics.

 

I like your dignified response above but not your longing for military to bring 'order', this would be justified only if demonstrators would start killing each other IMHO.

 

Bob's last sentence is a prophecy

[Guest trailrider]

This is a most interesting discussion.  At least to me it is. 

 

In no way do I believe that the military could take over a country and do anything good.  Historically, military take-overs lead to dictatorship.  In the last Thailand coup, the military took over and then turned the operation of the country over to the democrats who are the party of the rich and middleclass.  Certainly not a party who represents the poor.

 

The obsession of the Shinawatra government to get Thaksin back into the country only reinforces any reasonable presons vision that they are only using the poor/farmers to accomplish this.  Consequently this ploy has led to the present situation where this jerk, Suthep, has been able to fire up even the middle-class and he himself is now delusioned with power.  He is like a rock star who thinks that he is everyones leader.

 

This leaves the people with little hope.

 

One of the most fascinating things is the average Thai's attitude, as pointed out by Bob, that many Thai's don't really care what happens here.  But it is hard to criticise them for this when so few vote in the US and many other countries.

[Guest RichLB]

This morning's Bangkok post had an interesting OpEd piece entitled, "A Reform Proposal the Free Thailand from Political Deadlock".  The author addresses the issue of a coup and presents a set of reforms he believes might be a good start at fixing the Thai system.  The link is:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/388825/a-reform-proposal-to-free-thailand-from-political-deadlock

[Bob]

Read the article, Rich.  While the author seems rather level-headed, I actually didn't see any specific reform that he was recommending (nor have I seen any specific reform stated by either the government or the protestors).  Everybody is screaming about the need for reform but nobody seems to want to say first what it is specifically that they want reformed.

 

What'd be funny is if they set up the reform body that the author suggests and, at the first meeting, nobody suggests anything!  Everybody would likely agree on a stiff law prohibiting vote buying but I doubt if that'd solve or change anything.  Other than that, I don't think the government and the protestors would agree that the sun rises in the east on some/most/all mornings.