Hate ‘populism’? Then you hate democracy

Thailand, as a country that has huge wealth inequalities, needs a few populist policies to assist the poor.
The issue isn’t whether the country needs policies aimed at poverty-reduction, but whether the powers-that-be in Bangkok will allow it. And if it is not allowed, then it is likely that the troubles will continue into the future, despite the military. If you are on a farm in Isaan, and you see the gleaming towers of Bangkok on the Internet, it is a natural question to wonder why you are being excluded.
Populism is a label. “Populist” policies are happening now (see the rubber policy for Southerners). And populist policies will continue.
The question is, who will benefit from them. And that is the continuing dispute.
Samui Bodoh
I’d hope that one result of the Yingluck negligence case might be that future governments will monitor these schemes more closely, and react to reports of corruption more rapidly, so that less public money is wasted on populist schemes which fail to help the people they’re aimed at. 
I’d also hope that, with experience, Thai voters will become slightly more cynical when politicians (of any party) make extravagant promises pre-election about how much they will give away, since those promises are not often delivered-upon after the election.
The rice scheme didn’t help the poorest farmers so much. Meanwhile not all graduates get Bt15,000 per month, the self-employed or employees of small family enterprises don’t all get Bt300 per day, most students didn’t get “a laptop just like mine”, rubber-farmers still suffer from low world prices, many Thais failed to keep up the payments and lost their cars, land, and so on.
Future governments should be more wary of making un-affordable promises and should work harder to ensure that policies delivered actually help the poor rather than provide merely “bread and circuses” or cynical pre-election promises.
Ricardo
Farmers and everyone else should be subjected to market forces. If you deny that, you will blow up your country in the end. Your citizen will be forced to buy stuff at higher prices because of the high import taxes to help protect a failing internal market. 
Robblok
Odd that you believe in market forces, yet also approve of disenfranchising the Thai people completely.
Anyway, the rest of the world disagrees, because agricultural subsidies are the norm.
The rest of the world also disagrees, because control over such a thing is democratic, not based on the opinions of a few self-elected elites forcing it down everyone else’s throat.
You want to see more industrialisation in Thai farming – ie, more done with fewer people? I’m sure the current regime and its supporters would like to do away with the peasantry completely and replace them with their own landed gentry. Then the process would be easy. You have to know first what to do with the millions who are going to be suddenly displaced. The current plan is simply to keep them weak, for purposes of political control.
Personally, I almost agree with you. Food should be much more expensive – but that’s because I advocate population control and economic contraction, not because I want market forces to help churn out food more efficiently, or subsidies to keep food cheap. And then, I don’t force my opinion on anyone.
Ddavidovsky
ThaiVisa