Unwisemonkey

The orders to appoint Chalerm are so far removed from reality that you could imagine they come from a long way away. Dubai, even.

That may be the point. It may be his one way ticket out of parliament if he can't craft together what's necessary.

The more I read about this, the more it sounds like she consented while blacked out then woke up. I don't think the laws in the west are fair towards men and there are plenty of false rape allegations made in every country, however the laws were reason enough I made sure I never messed with a drunk girl unless we were already knocking boots. To say anyone let alone a man is going to be able to accurately tell how much a person has had to drink and if they are in a black out is foolish because alcohol affects everyone differently depending on age, body weight, health, tolerance, how much you've had to eat, and even genetics. There are plenty of instance of people carrying on during a blackout and no one around them being any wiser until the next day when they are asked what happened. Is it unfortunate what happened to this girl? Yes indeed. Was she raped? Who knows?

I suspect this happens much more than is known and for the pleasure of Thai men more that foreigners . Really Shocking !!!

Where'd that nail go? Oh that's right you hit it on the head!

Somkid disclosed that CUPT also planned to ask the government to adjust the salary subsidy granted to foreigners, which was currently fixed at just between Bt20,000 and Bt30,000 per head.

I'm having trouble believing this figure, not unless it's offset by Filipino teachers. Let's do the low end of the spectrum: Government subsidizes ฿30,000 for a teacher. The Head of the school demands the low end ฿150 baht per class hour taught average 20 hours a week equals ฿3,000. Multiply by a foreign staff of 5 and then 4 weeks in a month, that's ฿60,000 per month for the head.

It's not economically viable for the agencies that pay the tea money to the head for foreign staff; tge agencies would not even exist with these kinds of numbers, Unless the tuition costs are covering it.

Beyond that there is the fundamental issue of the government policy of do as I say not as I do. A foreign company must provide a minimum salary of ฿60,000 a month for the foreigner they are hiring but schools are exempt? Lame.

They should also tell tourists.Not to rent motorcycles,

If they have No or Little,previous riding experience in their homeland.

As opposed to enforcing laws against businesses that rent to tourists without proper licenses?

Until then, it is their crow pie to eat indivisibly.

Don't worry, there's enough crow to go around.

One of the indirect result, i.e., collateral damage, to come from this "image problem" is that your Thai wife/GF will always be suspect. But if you don't care that people in the west automatically assume that your wife/GF is a hooker, then no worries.

That's more like force feeding. And you're 100% correct. Just another frustrating item on the agenda that marginalizes international families and their rights.

How about Thai people using the sex industry?

Isn't it easier to blame the Farangs rather than to see the whole picture?

In my view us farangs are a bit to blame. We come here with a view "ahh well what harm can it do" "they come with me and I give them money, everyone is happy". "the girl looks happy"

What we don't realise is that this line of work (unless they get lucky and marry or go abroad) after years of doing it will more than likely end up with the girl being mentally and physically in bad shape. Years of having sex with different men, lying, drinking, smoking and then the biggest pyschological problem from years of earning alot of money too easily and for not much effort is never good for the mind. So by their mid 30s they have either been lucky and met their knight or thats it, career over. Now they are mentally and physically ruined, they cant ever go and work in a normal job because after years of getting maybe 30,000+ a month there is no way the mind can work 5 times longer for 5 times less the wage. So the only option is to have a baby girl with a Thai guy who will probably be lazy, not work and eventually leave. And then guess what the whole process starts again.

This is really the process that has been going on since the Vietnam war where most of this all started and wasn't put down ever since. Now Thailand has a generation of girls and women who are unable to break out of the cycle.

So all in all i think the blame is a mixture but ofcourse Isaan in history has always been more neglected by Bangkok so its no surprise I suppose.

As with alot of problems and as proved by the story above Thai people are always more bothered about the exposure of a problem rather than the problem itself. As we all know Thai peole are unable to think long term. The long term benfit to getting rid of prostitution would ofcourse be great but all the time this industry is making an immediate income then Thais will always endorse and allow.

Shame

Hogwash. at least 85% of prostitution in Thailand is a domestic exchange. It's their culture that's to blame. Foreigners did not start this, nor do foreigners account for enough economically to account for growth in the industry.

I believe I said "a bit to blame"..................................... first sentence

Hope your not suggesting we are not to blame at all ?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. No foreigners are not to blame one iota. It is their country, their culture, their responsibility. And that's how they want it every time they scream and cry and moan in their infantile manner "This is Thailand" to avoid accountability and responsibility. Any suggestion from a foreigner that is for the benefit of foreigners and Thai's alike is always met with violent opposition and treated with extreme prejudice. They rally around claims such as the one on the website we can not link to that Farangs cannot understand "Thainess" When we arguably understand it very very well.I know plenty of foreigners that have a vested interest in the positive direction of this country, but when you have a government that makes the path to residency so restrictive that cottage industries for visa runs sprout up, there is a problem. When a foreign man must support his Thai wife to get a marriage visa to stay in the country... when it is exactly the opposite in developed countries, there is a problem. These may sound like a trivial issues to cite but it's relative to the overall nature of exploitation and subsequently prostitution that this country and culture embraces wholeheartedly. The government exploits, prostitution exploits.Give foreigners living here who have a vested interest in the development of Thailand a channel to be part of the solution, then I'll gladly accept a portion of the blame. Until then, it is their crow pie to eat indivisibly.

The previous thread on the subject.

http://www.thaivisa....st#entry6104139

This is the important bit:

"they require to do a full audit and replacement of pirated software in all government offices to be even considered for removal. Other criteria that need to be met include declaring piracy as organised crime andmaking landlords responsible if tenants sell pirated goods."

I wonder if government offices includes schools..

To the OP ... I do understand your question HOWEVER ...

A wee story for you.

We used to be marked the 'Sports' drink Gatorade

Great for marathon runners or endurance athletes ... but marketed to the Sunday Golfer.

But this wasn't enough ... then we had ...

A brilliant piece of marketing. Having convinced the punter that his electrolyte levels had dropped to dangerous levels and that 'performance' could be enhanced by the original product ... this new market is now tripling it's market by demonstrating the need for the above products.

Do we need this sh*it ... a resounding no.

Do the Thais use this stuff because they sweat a bit ... a resounding no.

Drink water, maintain a healthy diet (fruit and vegetables, protein and carbs) and forget about the consumerism mentality you learnt back in your home country.

When you do need that stuff (the sachets you show above) is when you get sick from diarrhoea and you body is dehydrated and lacking the essential salts.

Apologies for the harsh words ... but it's a reality.

Others experiences may differ ...

.

Day's that I spend eating a good deal of fruit and vegetables with or without the chili salt or sugar mix My water intake is low. You can get most of the water you need by eating fruits and veggies, you'll just get a gorilla belly.

How about we just address the issue of pandering to irrational beliefs, and using them against believers?

How many years? Takes education, investment in time and money.

In the Thai context a glimmer of hope in that the Thai Royal Family has invested money and patronage for some schools in the Deep South for local Muslims; from memory 14 schools.

It doesn't take years or schools to implement military tactics. I am not suggesting changing beliefs, but using them as weapons to destroy morale of terrorists.

Why hand back bodies of terrorists for ritual burial with honours for bravery and claims for martyrdom? Do you think that will make these people like you?

Depends on your POV. I believe not handing the bodies back to the families for burial will cause yet more distrust of Thai government agencies and further inflame the conflict. As Arkady has indicated unless their are some significant change in policy the killings will just go on and on.

In the English language media their is yet more conflicting reporting. One report said the bodies had not yet been given to the families as they had to undergo forensic examination. Another report quoting Thai officials said the video of the coffins and locals was misinformation and an investigation is to be carried out. Yet another report now says there was 30 attackers, not 100 and so it goes...

My 2 baht in paraphrase: The king is the protector of this and that and ALL Religions in the land. The government also subscribes to the kings values

That said It's been Thai policy to be tolerant and respectful of religions. It's the kind of liberal extremism that is debated in the States and European nations that is so hypocritical. In the states it's part of Our constitution that prohibits the quartering of soldiers during peace or wartime. But somehow jihadists get the get out of constitutional law free card because of perverted secularism. Seems to be the case here. However it is the taxpayers, and that includes those who pay the VAT at the local pub or restaurant, that are covering the cost. Personally I think this is worthy of protest from foreigners and Thai's alike. Why are we paying for the quarter of enemy soldiers? I don't think the fact that they were related to the jihadists should make a difference. They were quartering enemies of the state, enemy combatants.

They should get nothing and be grateful they are being allowed to stay in the country for associating with terrorists.

If operators were serious about making their vehicles safer they could fit a GPS and check the vehicles speed when they return. Excessive speed = driver not paid.

But first they would have to care about the safety of their passengers.

There is even a low tech solution that's been around for years. It's called a governor. You can push the accelerator all the way to the floor but the vehicle will only go as fast as the governor permits it to.

When are they going to just say enough is enough and squash this bug?

One of many many monks up to naughtiness I think. Then again any cult that demands celibacy from its followers will end up with many who eventually need to blow their gasket on hookers or whatever warm body they may have access to in the temple.

Buddhism is not a cult.....although there are cult like sects within it..(such as Dhammakaya).

It does demand celibacy from the monks and novices, but they are free to leave. If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen....if you can't keep the precepts, then disrobe.

but we know that many 'monks' ordain not for the correct reason...to gain enlightenment....but because it is an easy life and can be profitable too for those with no morals.

However do not tar all with the same brush.

Why is Dhamakaya considered by many, like yourself, a cult? I've been there myself and though I don't subscribe to any religion I hardly can say that my observations were led me to be witness to cult activities. They are different from Theravada Buddhism no doubt. But they are not isolating members from friends and families or anything that I can see that is traditionally a cult like activity.

They abandoned the idea that one must live many lives to find Nirvana for a more shall we say "Christian idea" that they have Nirvana in them already. In other words they can find salvation in this life. Which is why it must be so appealing to the masses.

The chances that the firearm the motor cycilist was showing was illegal anyway are pretty high. There are quite strict laws in Thailand for "licence to carry" permits anyway, however the majority of off-duty police and service personnel assume it is their given right to carry when in fact it isn't.

" I don't really care all that much if I own a gun or not, but let's be realistic about the situation then............."

My problem with your suggestion earlier in the OP as to why visitors/tourists/ex-pats should not be allowed to carry firearms is:

In the scenario you have described, where you have seen a threat involving a firearm, whether real or imagined, how many people would panic and take the initiative and fire the first shot to negate the threat?

You may be level-headed, but I can assure you that many other people are not. That is the reason, in almost every country in the world, there are restrictions on firearms, especially "licence to carry" for visitors.

BTW, if you are an ex-pat living here, it is possible to get a gun licence. Licence to carry is another story.

It is pretty scary when these things happen, but for the majority of cases, it is posturing and intimidation; if he was going to use the weapon he would have done so. Lets not get too paranoid out there, eh!......................

I appreciate the level headed response but as Neversure stated I would have preferred to have had a weapon and been able to act. I think you're right also though gun restrictions are meant to keep the guns in the hands of level headed people, and although this may have been posturing, I prefer to err on the side of caution against posturing. Where I'm from that's called pumping one's self up so as to engage in aggressive actions. I've survived an unprovoked violent attack personally and have the scars to prove it. I don't take posturing lightly.

As for this particular experience the man who was only maybe 20 years old did not even have a license plate on his motorcycle, and he followed us for some length of time. I'll assume he's willing to use it, I'm not particularly keen on intellectualizing weather or not this a threat when I could only have a second or two to react, and in this case my only options would have been to duck and cover and hope for the best. I think suggesting paranoia however is distasteful. It is not paranoid when you see something with right in front of your face. He had a pistol, he was trying to intimidate the taxi driver, and myself, and posed a very clear and present danger. His behavior was intentional and harassing after that. There are simply too many stories of Thai's killing Thai's with guns, Thai's killing foreigners, and vice versa not to take seriously the threat of someone brandishing a weapon. Nearly every day you have some poor guy or some poor girl who's had their brains blown out for one petty reason or another. Life is cheap in this country and this world for that matter and I won't devalue mine, nor an innocent Taxi driver whose offense was being a bad driver.

Do I understand the poster. YOu think that if you had a gun on you things would have been ok? what if the biker had decided to shoot the car you would have shot them first? or if you brandished your gun the biker would ride away?

if the biker has a gun and is not worried about threatening people with it, another firearm will likely escalate the problem as everyone starts trying to measure the length of their..............

ahhh logic

Assume much?

Better idea is ban all guns altogether.

and knifes, stun guns, brass knuckles, sticks that can be sharpened into a stabbing weapon, bats, clear away all stones and rocks. Where will it end. Idiots will always find a way to kill.

True, but it would mean in the op's situation a stone throwing or stick wielding motorcyclist wouldnt have felt so threatening perhaps.

I'd just like a level playing field.

This must be the year of the gun. I stayed late at my office finishing up some work, and enjoying some private time. I finished up and decided to walk to the intersection of Phahonyothin and Ngam Wang Wan Road and catch a taxi home to save a few baht. I ended up walking south along Phahonyothin to get past the bus stops where a taxi would stop and pick me up. The bus stopped to pick up some passengers and there was a man about 20 years old on an enduro style motorcycle, looked like it had mud tires on it though, who was stopped in front of it. A taxi came from the other side of the bus and I hailed it. The Taxi driver eager to get a fare hurried over and in the process cut off the man on the motorcycle as he started pulling forward forcing him to stop suddenly. I've seen this a million times and usually it's just par for the course in BKK and the motorcycle just moves on. The driver of the motorcycle drove up to the Taxi driver, engaged the clutch and started revving his engine at the driver. All the while I am opening the door and asking if the driver will take me to my destination, I had not noticed the motorcycle driver mad dogging the taxi driver with such intent until I saw the driver wai'ing and saying "katort krap" over and over. He said he would take me to my destination and I put my hand up to the motorcycle driver to apologize as well for flagging the taxi figuring all would be good, just a little Thai culture due process. I got in the taxi and the motorcyclist pulled ahead of us and then the bus passed all of us. The motorcyclist continued revving his engine while in front of us.

The Taxi switched lanes and moved ahead of the motorcyclist and then we came to a stop where the motorcyclist pulled up on our right slightly ahead of us. He turned and looked at us then reached into his cargo pants pocket and pulled out a pistol, and began adjusting it on his leg. He then placed it in the backside of his pants and let us drive ahead of us and followed us for several hundred meters pulling up beside us here or there. I managed to get a picture of him but it was very blurry. All in all it was very frightening.

I am not an anti-gun person. In fact I am a gun rights supporter. I haven't owned a gun in many years now and have relatively little use for one even defensively because I avoid trouble. I don't drink, and I don't associate with low class types. However I felt quite defenseless in this situation. I know I'll get quite a bit of flack for this in light of yesterday's Norwegian gun nut shoot-out, but I don't see the sense in why foreigners are relegated to criminal class in this country for possessing firearms. I avoid trouble but sometimes trouble just finds you Why I am told to bring a knife to a gunfight because I'm a foreigner is just absurd. Do we have less of a right to defend ourselves in the same capacity as would be attackers?

I don't really care all that much if I own a gun or not, but let's be realistic about the situation then. You can't have one class of people living in a country with a secular set of government protected rights over another. It's just not adequate. So if this is the case, why not just make gun ownership illegal in Thailand across the board Thai's and Foreigners alike?

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

My friend got his girlfriend pregnant in college. He is Catholic so abortion is not an option from his point of view. He kissed another girl at a party and his girlfriend had an abortion at six months pregnant to get back at him. He begged her not to. In Spain a woman admitted to stealing sperm from a used condom from a doctor she wanted to be impregnated by. She was successful and subsequently the doctor was ordered to pay child support. The argument a from feminists is that men are trying to control them and their bodies which they don't understand is hyperbole and ad hominem. Many men in faced with pregnancy wanted or unwanted have a very clear idea about what their interest is in the child and the child's welfare as well.

I don't agree with either of the above posts. In far too many cases the man just runs away - as he can easily do - and the woman is just left 'holding the baby' so to speak. If a man wants a baby then he needs to find a wife or g/f who is on the same wavelength.

Women have every right to make decisions about themselves & abortion is very much their problem. Far too many rules & regulations about sexual matters are made by men, often religious, sometimes pontificating clergy who have no feeling toward the rights of others, especially females.

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

I'm not for taking away a woman's choice if a man has run out on her, obviously he's made his choice clear by running away like a coward. But if a man is willing to stick around and support a child without the woman, he has just as much choice in the matter as the woman. He provided an equal amount of genetic material. Rare as it may a case like that occur, it does not negate a parents inherent right. It's equivalent to saying only women have the right to decide who is fit to pass on their genes.

This however does not prevent me from being realistic about the situation as it pertains to Thailand and generally speaking I'd also agree it is a step in the right direction.

I understand a woman's right, etc. but what I do not understand is that if she chooses to have the child, the man who was the sperm provider is somehow obligated financially.

In summary, a woman should have the right to do with her body as she wishes. No problem there if we logically finish this sentence with ", if the woman is soley responsible for the condition her body is in." What I mean is, if the woman somehow gets pregnant without a man present (such as invitro-fertilization) then sure; give her all the rights she wishes to do with that thing as she wants. The problem I have with the logic of these skewed women's rights is that the man, on the one hand, is ignored, or on the other hand, expected to take full responsibility no matter what his (emphasis on "his") decision is.

If she wishes to abort the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the abortion to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is not financially obligated. He is ignored by all and considered a non-entity in the matter, We never hear about a man on the issue of abortion. It all points to a woman's right.

If, however she wishes to have the child / fetus (whatever) she should be allowed that right. The man, for the sake of argument, does not wish for the birth to take place, yet has no say in the matter and subsequently is financially obligated. He is considered inhuman and full attention is brought on him as being a dead-beat, or worse. That is all we hear about in the matter. It all points to the man.

Sorry, ladies, but I simply do not get this double standard that you wish to foist upon my senses.

It would make sense to me, and I would fully support your right "haben oder nicht haben" if all of you pro-abortionionists were to include the man in BOTH decision making processes.

Henceforth, I submit that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. However, if the man who contributed to her condition wants the baby, he should pay the woman substantially to keep it until it is born. If, however, the woman wishes to carry through, and the man wants it, then the woman should pay the man compensation for loss of equally owned property (based upon the logic of financial obligations placed upon the man were the baby carried to term) and based upon her decision to deny the man the equal right to have a child for his own to raise without the woman being financially respnsible for that upbringing.

I think this term "woman's right" is not carried far enough to a point of being legitimate simply because it deny's the man any fair representation for any decision that the woman makes, and hence gives her the "right" to be irresponsible and either have the matter settled with an abortion and not owe anything to the grieving father, or to have the full backing of many to suddenly place all obligation, duty and responsibility on the man, who is expected to wait in the wings for the outcome of a woman's decision.

Kittipong Saejeng says, "Based on laws of each coun?try, women should be able to make a decision on their own without influ?ence from men if they will undergo abortion or not."

I say that Kittipong Saejeng can kiss my ass if you have enough time to pull your lips away from everyone else's asses. It is folly and a solution will never be arrived at if sensible men are treated as sperm doners who are expected to await the outcome of a woman's decision as if those men are no more important than the things in the woman's body. Abort the baby; abort the man. Have the baby, have the man; whether he likes it or not. Don't tell me I don't matter one day, and then tell me I owe something the next.

You want rights? Then take responsibility for all involved so you get the respect you need to obtain those rights. This is a universal law, and it should not end simply on the basis that you are a woman. You are no more special than a man, and I would expect you to act accordingly in the matter.

My friend got his girlfriend pregnant in college. He is Catholic so abortion is not an option from his point of view. He kissed another girl at a party and his girlfriend had an abortion at six months pregnant to get back at him. He begged her not to. In Spain a woman admitted to stealing sperm from a used condom from a doctor she wanted to be impregnated by. She was successful and subsequently the doctor was ordered to pay child support. The argument a from feminists is that men are trying to control them and their bodies which they don't understand is hyperbole and ad hominem. Many men in faced with pregnancy wanted or unwanted have a very clear idea about what their interest is in the child and the child's welfare as well.

It would seem that greed is slowly destroying the special things Thailand has to offer.... the latest being it's world renowned jasmine rice.

Is it really "world renowned"? I think basmati rice would be the preference of most.

What stops both of them being "world renowned"?

Nothing actually. I apprehensively admit I worked as a chef prior to coming to Thailand and having to work as an English Teacher. Basmati rice and Thai Jasmine rice are both "world renowned" as very fragrant rices but each is their own animal and suited for completely different styles of cooking. Basmati is not as starchy, and doesn't stick to it's own grains as much as the Jasmine rice does so you can get the multi colored effect you see in dishes like Biriyani from layering rice and seasoning. It also is better for eating thick Indian style curries with Naan or other Indian Flatbreads. Jasmine on the other hand is great when a watery Thai curry is spooned over the top and is more satiating for the higher starch content which is why you'll see a lot more potatoes in Indian dishes then in Thai dishes, as well as the absence of bread for the most part.

That being said so it relates to the topic...

I'm surprised Thailand never bothered to get a proper trade agreement localizing the name "Jasmine" to protect it's interests the way Mexico has for Tequilla, and France has for Champagne and Cognac.

Phuket has long ago turned into another Pattaya snake pit.

Oh no. You're wrong. Pattaya has never been as low class and trashy as Phuket. Infested with lying thieves and murderers. I hope the Russians beat them flat.

I've been to Pattaya once and Phuket twice now with a much longer duration of stay in Phuket. I tend to agree with your POV after my experience Phuket just seems to be a magnet for scum and villainy. It's the Mos Eisley of Star War's where Pattaya is more like pleasure Island from Pinnochio.