How sound is the dominant belief amongst educated and wealthy Thais that poor and less educated folks are essentially stupid, corrupt, violence and a drag on national progress?

Answer: more of a myth, or at best, half the picture of today's Thailand.

Some cling to these self-perpetuating beliefs in order to justify rule by the few, others use it to support ideas like Thailand need to do away with the notion of universal suffrage.

Are poor and less-educated people necessarily stupid?

While they are less formally educated, poor people learn from life's experiences. Call it life's education, many poor people exhibit the ability in understanding real politik. Many, who are red shirts, see Thaksin Shinawatra not as a man of virtue but a politician who delivers, despite all his ethical shortcomings. On the contrary, many of the so-called educated middle class and elites long for virtuous rulers although it's most unlikely not to be found in any mortal person.

Are poor and less-educated people more corrupt?

Yes, the vote selling. But who does the vote buying anyhow? And who are the bigger cheaters: the big politicians found of virtually all parties, the corporate fat cats 'committed' to handing tea money and kick backs, bureaucratic bosses too ready to accept bribe, and the invisible hand/s who cannot really be made accountable?

It is foolish to think a section of the populace has a monopoly on corruptibility.

Are poor and less-educated Thais more violence prone?

Reds burning down Bangkok last May comes to many people's mind though the court verdict has yet to be handed down. But think about structural violence. The system which ensures that most poor remains poor and less educated through systematic exploitation and suppression is very violent. Structural violence is much less visible, like most people not knowing that they engage in daily slaughtering when they eat meats, fish and so on whom the slaughter house have conveniently done the dirty job for them.

Lack of equal access to quality education, legal assistance, even political rights themselves is part of structural violence. Yes, there's social mobility, but very few manage to climb up and even less manage to look back and care for the millions others who didn't make it.

Are poor and less educated people a drag to national progress?

Yes, if they are prevented from maximizing their potential and contributing to society. This leads us to the question of whether people on top who suppress and exploit majority of the people from developing their potentials are in fact the main drag to national progress or not?

Can Thai society really progress when its populace is fed with daily propaganda detrimental to the use of rational facility? Are the elite and middle class who suppress political voices of the majority of the people through supporting military coup not a drag to national progress?

All this doesn't mean poor and less educated folks are always right simply because they are poor or less educated, however. But when majority of Thai people are prevented from contributing, it's rather like society where majority are prevented from swimming. The whole society may just simply drown one day because the few by themselves cannot keep the society afloat forever.