sunsnow Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Hmm, begs the question...how long time Thailand needs to develop... (constitution) [[[in general: Now making this question, makes me wonder --- how and since when one start counting a country, any country, as developing country? When and how u start calling it something else than developing? What examples there are from this transition? Hmm, is there some sort of common, accepted definition for developing country? When for example if looking back in history some East European countries that run their business now "better" than Thailand were still "developping". And why these developing countries dont have the same problem with their constitution? If they even have any "constitution"...When Japan was developing country the last time? Taiwan? S-Korea? Hmm, I think I go googling...tada ]]] Ok, came back. Thailand is not "developing country". Stop hiding behind that name (what a reason and thing to hide behind anyway... :roll: ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country Thailand is between developing and developed. Shape up ppl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce551 Posted August 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 I disagree that Thailand is a developing country. I think Thailand is a very sophisticated country with many world class Thais who are experts in their respective fields. Yet, the Thai government doesn't seem listen or hear to what Thailand's best people are saying about the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 I disagree that Thailand is a developing country. I think Thailand is a very sophisticated country with many world class Thais who are experts in their respective fields. My opinion is that overall it is still a developing country, despite having some brilliant people and some relatively sophisticated social mechanisms. It still has not been able to find a workable political system that can endure. Economically and politically it is still very much developing. In one sense, I guess, all countries are still developing. If they weren't, they'd be dead. But while many have found a workable political framework, flexible and elastic enough to have stood the relative test of time (decades, centuries), Thailand simply has not found that yet. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it is going to any time soon. Yet, the Thai government doesn't seem listen or hear to what Thailand's best people are saying about the country. Can't think of any Thai government that ever really has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 FYI. the united nations development programme considers thailand a middle income developing country. it bases this judgment on its human development index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsnow Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Wikipedia's NIC article takes into account the HDI. And sure, as Loburt points out, Thailand has especially on the politics side serious "Developing country" issues (to put it mildly and kindly), but as NIC gives idea, Thailand definetly isn't the poorest country or otherwise in total "developing country" situation. Hence, personally, made a sweeping comment on to the thing that sometimes it feels that "but we/the are still a developing country" is used as some kind of "excuse" for poor performance on certain fields. Begging the question: "how long u think u can honestly keep up faving that flag. WTHeck u gonna do about it?" :-) Cheerio, let there be voting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Wikipedia's NIC article takes into account the HDI. But sure, as Loburt points out, Thailand has especially on the politics side serious "Developing country" issues, but as NIC gives idea, Thailand definetly isn't the poorest country or otherwise in total "developing country" situation. Hence, personally, just made a sweeping comment on to the thing that sometimes it feels that "but we/the are still a developing country" is used as some kind of "excuse" for poor performance on certain fields. Begging the question: "how long u think u can honestly keep up faving that flag. WTHeck u gonna do about it?" :-)Cheerio, let there be voting! the careful observer will note that as the UNDC defines, it, development is a question of degree. but even if it were the poorest country should that not be motivation to strive to get it right rather than an excuse for floundering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 the careful observer lives in a developed country. he has a secretary. she takes the notes. that's development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 the careful observer lives in a developed country.he has a secretary. she takes the notes. that's development. as long as he's boffing her it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigKus Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 I disagree that Thailand is a developing country. I think Thailand is a very sophisticated country with many world class Thais who are experts in their respective fields. Yet, the Thai government doesn't seem listen or hear to what Thailand's best people are saying about the country. Thailand is a real developing country.. we could not take that just 1-2 % of world class Thais in their fields out from 68 million of the population and considered our country is developed. One problem that caused the country developement goes nowhere is good people dont want to involve political and unforturnately that only jerks want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigKus Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 Well all I can say is:I Like Thailand Yes, i believe you... as long as you are just a VISITOR everything will be fine for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 Hey does that mean I am not welcome to move there full time? I'm so sorry, but we are completely full up at the moment. Not a single vacancy. Have you considered Kabul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 I'd leave Kabul politics to the Kabulshiters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 the careful observer lives in a developed country.he has a secretary. she takes the notes. that's development. as long as he's boffing her it's all good. Is the Secretary from a developed country or...?? as long as she's well developed it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 When for example if looking back in history some East European countries that run their business now "better" than Thailand were still "developping". And why these developing countries dont have the same problem with their constitution? If they even have any "constitution"...When Japan was developing country the last time? Taiwan? S-Korea? Hmm, I think I go googling...tada ]]]Ok, came back. Thailand is not "developing country". Stop hiding behind that name (what a reason and thing to hide behind anyway... :roll: ). Thailand is between developing and developed. Shape up ppl. i would also suggest that some East European countries are NOT running their business better than Thailand .... in fact until relatively recently they were ALL being run from Moscow !!! and i'm sure ALL thais will appreciate being told to "shape up" by a prick from finland !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigKus Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 And the government shows how much respect it has for those of another opinion: Thirapat dismissed suggestions that those who voted against were not happy with the military-backed government's performance, and blamed activists who campaigned for the document's rejection. "The main reasons (people voted no) are likely to be because they did not understand the constitution, which has also been distorted," he said. In other words; you're for me or an idiot. Or how to use democracy for what it's worth. Too sad to say but its true, people voted 'no' while they have been living under this constitution whole life.. and some voted 'no' because they thought Taksin would be able to return to power and distribute easy money to them again.. Geeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 DId any vote YES because they were paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Too sad to say but its true, people voted 'no' while they have been living under this constitution whole life.. and some voted 'no' because they thought Taksin would be able to return to power and distribute easy money to them again.. Geeee Are you suggesting that this was nothing more than a decision based on rumour, misunderstanding, misinformation, propaganda, and whatever the media happened to be saying? Congratulations! True democracy at last! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyboy Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 I asked one of my students ( who is 17 ) what she thought of the draft and what it meant for Thailand and she said , " I think what my father tells me " I really wish i was making it up........ :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Let's be honest. Even if the US or a European country, with a much better education system, drafted a new constitution and put it to the public for a referendum, how many people do you think would actually read it and understand it before voting? In a situation like this where people will naturally have difficulty understanding a complex document written in legalese and what the ramifications of what it says are, naturally it will be open to distortions by people campaigning for or against it. And many people will decide how to vote based on those distortions or false beliefs. These things also happen in "our" elections. Yet, what is the alternative? To not put it to the people to decide and just let an elite draw it up and approve it on its own? It was definitely a flawed process on several levels, but as with democracy itself, it was better than the alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beej Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Must mean that only 58% give a ****?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Must mean that only 58% give a f*ck?! actually that's a pretty high percentage for a democracy isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 In most instances, when the public is asked to vote on an issue - a proposition, constitution, whatever - the turnout is almost always far lower than when they are asked to vote on who their leaders will be. So yes, the turnout was actually pretty good, all things considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commie Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 It's interesting to see how on 5 pages of discussion only couple of Thais expressed their opinions on THEIR Constitution. No surprise with 58% or whatever it was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 I think if you look through most threads in the Politics forum that deal with Thai politics, very few Thais ever post. The overwhelming majority of Thais on this site are young women, and generally speaking, they didn't sign up to post about politics. But we do get some occasionally, such as BigKus and Periboea and others. And their comments are often wise, and always welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Punisher Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 The overwhelming majority of Thais on this site are young women, and generally speaking, they didn't sign up to post about politics. I'll go out on a limb and say neither did most of the guys. That does not seem to affect our willingness or ability to make comments on political topics however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now