why is the thai baht still strong

[gobbledonk]

Good times in Rayong on 20k a month, eh ? All ammunition for my suggestion that some of the decrepit Farang in Pattaya pack up and move to Rayong !

[Julian2]

OK I don't get this...almost all currencies are down' date=' world wide economic slump etc...the THB gets stronger...they are supposedly losing manufacturing jobs to Vietnam etc due to cheaper labor...tourism is supposedly been down...the country has all sorts of political problems/violence and could get worse or stay bad for awhile...yet the THB stays up...sorry I don't get it...not talking just the USD HERE, BUT THE EURO, AUD, POUND ETC... [/quote']

 

Actually the Thai economy is well on its way to making a very good recovery. Unemployment is almost zero, with manufacturing and construction desperate for both skilled and semi skilled labor. Exports are up almost to pre-2008 levels, domestic consumption is moving upwards nicely. Prior to this month, tourism was well on its way to recovering. Foreign investors are net buyers into the SET to the tune of some billion USD just this year (even after the past weeks drop). Thailand is sitting on some 141 billion dollars of foreign currency reserves. It has a current account balance of some 20 billion USD as of Feb 2010.

All of this leads to a demand for Thai Baht which is what is driving the baht stronger. The BOT is not artificially keeping it strong, what is trying to do is keep it stable and admits to intervening to make more baht available in order to keep in from getting too strong.

 

Any of these so-called serfs that can show some initiative and get a skill can make a pretty good living with a future. My wife’s nephew graduated from an upcountry technical collage last year. He is now working in Rayong making 20k a month as a computer technician. Her cousin has been working there for over 10 years now. He has a house, a car, and all the other trappings of a middle class life. I just don’t believe this class war stuff, it is all populist propaganda. The opportunities are there, but you have to work for them. Which I guess is the problem, seems people just want the handouts.

TH

I agree with virtually everything you say, I object to the current government on moral grounds, an unelected government installed by military subversion of the minor parties and the judiciary.

The claims that the country was going to the dogs economically under Thaksin is rubbish, poorly formulated arguments by farang who feel obliged to kowtow to Thais from whom they derive their income.

 

Edit: And another thing, how much harm do you think the government current cry of "terrorists on the streets of Bangkok" has done the tourist industry?

[ThaiHome]

Well, the biggest problem with your position is that the current government was legally elected and would have been under either the 1997 constitution or the 2007 constitution. I will again explain the facts. You can then tell me how this is an unelected government.

 

The result of the December 2007 election was the PPP got 36.63% of the constituency vote and 39.60% of the proportional and the Democrats got 30.30% of the constituency and 39.63% of the proportional. The PPP won 47% of the seats and the Democrats 34%. At that point the minor parties, including the third place finisher, the Chart Thai who had campaigned they would not join the PPP, joined the PPP in forming a coalition government and elected Samak as Prime Minister. After Samak resigned after being convicted of lying to the Election Commission about his employment by a TV station while Prime Minister, the same collation elected Somchai as PM. The fact that Samak lied and receiving pay while PM is illegal are not in dispute.

 

During the 2007 election campaign, an executive of the PPP, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, was video taped giving money to village chiefs to pass out. He was convicted in July 2008 of electoral fraud. Very few dispute that and The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) who monitored the 2007 election even mentioned this incident in its report as a positive sign of enforcement. The constitution requires that if an executive is convicted, the party must be disbanded and in December 2008 the Constitution Court ruled that the PPP was disbanded and all party executives were banned from holding political office.

 

In preparation for the PPP disbanding, which everyone knew was done deal. a new party, the PTP was formed and virtually all the non-executive PPP Members of Parliament joined that, except for a faction led by Newin Chidchop, a banned ex-TRT executive, who formed a new party called the Bhumjaithai Party.

 

With the disbanding of the PPP, Somchai was forced to resign as PM. At this point the Bhumjaithai and the Chart Thai joined the Democrats in forming a coalition that controlled the majority of the seats and elected Abhisit as Prime Minister by a vote of 234 for and 198 against. Subsequently a by-election was held in January 2009 to replace the MPs that were executives of the banned parties. The result of that was the Democrats gained 7 seats, and the Bhumjaithai gained 21, further solidifying the coalition’s majority.

 

So, there are the facts, free of hyperbole or rhetoric, now please tell how this is an unelected government.

TH

[Nervous God]

Back to the currency argument, like Australia and China, Thailand is a export country, tourism rice etc.

 

A weak baht helps Thailand a strong one makes no sense, Australia artificially lowered it's $ during the last crisis 2 years ago, still works to keep it low.

 

No reason for the government to prop up the Baht, unless they or someone else owes a LOT of money. . . . . .

[Julian2]

As I said, the judiciary and the minor parties were subverted by the army after the illegal military coup.

 

When the government lost the majority in parliament an election should have been called immediately. This is normal democratic procedure.

The only reason they did not do this is because the Democrats would have lost. If there had been a sniff of a win they would have been to the polls in a flash.

 

The crimes of Thaksin, Somchai, the PPP, the TRT et al have received public exposure. Are you suggesting that the Abhisit/Suthep gang are squeaky clean? Will the the Thaksin faction drag them into court with undeniable filmclips and proof of wrong doing when they come to power?

You'd be foolish to think otherwise.

 

What do you think of the cry of terrorism? How do you think the Americans would like to see Al Qaida operatives and their supporters marching through the streets of New York while their leader publicly swans around the world?

It would be like Christmas come early wouldn't it?

 

I've put a bit of thought into categorising the farang who take sides in this dispute. Without any accusations of simple-mindedness many of the Reds' supporters seem to fall into those that have no financial loyalty to Thailand, their income comes from overseas pensions or investments.

Most, but not all, I'll agree, Government supporters work for Thai companies, or companies that do business with them.

I suppose it's better not to shit where you eat.

[ThaiHome]

They aren't propping up the baht. In fact since 2001, the focus has been on curbing excessive strengthening and volatility, both through intervention in the market and imposing capital controls several times.

For some reason, this urban myth that the BOT keeps the baht strong just won't go away, despite overwhelming evidence of exactly the opposite.

Though somewhat dated (year old) here is an interesting paper on the BOT policy.

Link

TH

 

[Nervous God]

CRAP - first time this year we've agreed mate thanks!

[Julian2]

Thanks for that, I'll work my way through it later.

[ThaiHome]

It is true that the Military strongly recommended that a solution be found that would bring stability to government, but the fact is that both Newin and Chumpol Silpa-archa saw a political opportunity to increase their influence and cabinet positions by forming the coalition. That opportunity still exists today, which is why the coalition is holding.

 

The PPP had every opportunity before the disbanding to call an election, but choose not to. Why didn’t they? We may never know, but one might speculate they were themselves worried about their own weak showing in many areas that resulted in them not winning an outright majority in December 2007. There was a good chance that dispite winning the most seats, the Democrats and other parties could form a majority coalition. Nevertheless, it was their choice not to before the disbanding and there is no legal requirement to call an election after because the PPP never had a majority on their own.

 

Would appear, that despite your constant rhetoric about double standards that the Democrats are going to get disbanded as well due to the TPI donation and the 29 million accounting error. We will probably know in 6 months or so.

 

I’m not sure I even understand your third paragraph, certainly don’t understand your analogy about Al Qaida operatives and their supporters marching through the streets of New York. I don’t think anyone doubts that there were people out to create terror the other Saturday night, who they might be or what cause they support is questionable, but to call them terrorist is pretty accurate.

 

You may have spent time categorizing the farang who take sides in this dispute, but your conclusion is seriously flawed. I think a more accurate way of categorizing goes back to a thread from last year on the Politcal Compass. It seems to me that some people seem to want to put a western liberal/conservative class war paradigm on this, when in fact it is little more then a dispute between the ruling class itself using the poor and middle class as pawns.

TH

[KimDidMeGood]

Well, the biggest problem with your position is that the current government was legally elected and would have been under either the 1997 constitution or the 2007 constitution. I will again explain the facts. You can then tell me how this is an unelected government.

 

The result of the December 2007 election was the PPP got 36.63% of the constituency vote and 39.60% of the proportional and the Democrats got 30.30% of the constituency and 39.63% of the proportional. The PPP won 47% of the seats and the Democrats 34%. At that point the minor parties, including the third place finisher, the Chart Thai who had campaigned they would not join the PPP, joined the PPP in forming a coalition government and elected Samak as Prime Minister. After Samak resigned after being convicted of lying to the Election Commission about his employment by a TV station while Prime Minister, the same collation elected Somchai as PM. The fact that Samak lied and receiving pay while PM is illegal are not in dispute.

 

During the 2007 election campaign, an executive of the PPP, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, was video taped giving money to village chiefs to pass out. He was convicted in July 2008 of electoral fraud. Very few dispute that and The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) who monitored the 2007 election even mentioned this incident in its report as a positive sign of enforcement. The constitution requires that if an executive is convicted, the party must be disbanded and in December 2008 the Constitution Court ruled that the PPP was disbanded and all party executives were banned from holding political office.

 

In preparation for the PPP disbanding, which everyone knew was done deal. a new party, the PTP was formed and virtually all the non-executive PPP Members of Parliament joined that, except for a faction led by Newin Chidchop, a banned ex-TRT executive, who formed a new party called the Bhumjaithai Party.

 

With the disbanding of the PPP, Somchai was forced to resign as PM. At this point the Bhumjaithai and the Chart Thai joined the Democrats in forming a coalition that controlled the majority of the seats and elected Abhisit as Prime Minister by a vote of 234 for and 198 against. Subsequently a by-election was held in January 2009 to replace the MPs that were executives of the banned parties. The result of that was the Democrats gained 7 seats, and the Bhumjaithai gained 21, further solidifying the coalition’s majority.

 

So, there are the facts, free of hyperbole or rhetoric, now please tell how this is an unelected government.

TH

 

Julian was referring to moral grounds, not legal ones. Of course, the government is technically legit, but it is not representative of the people’s vote; being a coalition government it can hardly govern because there is no clear direction in terms of policies.

Abhisit himself, by agreeing to the parliament dissolution, acknowledges implicitly that the political situation is unsustainable; the only point of discordance being the timeline for that dissolution.

 

Any of these so-called serfs that can show some initiative and get a skill can make a pretty good living with a future. My wife’s nephew graduated from an upcountry technical collage last year. He is now working in Rayong making 20k a month as a computer technician. Her cousin has been working there for over 10 years now. He has a house, a car, and all the other trappings of a middle class life. I just don’t believe this class war stuff, it is all populist propaganda. The opportunities are there, but you have to work for them. Which I guess is the problem, seems people just want the handouts.

TH

 

The point is that the young guy had to move from upcountry to Rayong to have a decent future. I don’t think Thailand’s future lies in moving rural people to industrial areas. The rural world is at the heart of Thailand’s economy, yet it’s the last sector to get attention from the central government. Rural people feel looked down at and disenfranchised in such a way that Thaksin’s populist gesticulations resonated as a huge change for them. Thaksin certainly did not solve a lot of the problems in the upcountry but at least he appeared to be paying some attention; and that was enough to get some of those “so-called serfs†stating that they are ready to give up their life for their fight.

 

Abhisit would have been wise to use some “Thaksinism†and woo those upcountry folks as his first political priority. Had he done that, there would be no Red Shirts movement at all.