Misterwhisper

"Army chief Gen Prayuth Chan-Ocha has called for a new push to solve border disputes with Cambodia, saying the previous demarcation was carried out 300 years ago with low technology."

Did the general doze off during history lessons or is he simply ignorant of the fact that the current border line was only demarkated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries during the Indochina colonial period after Thailand had gradually lost substantial parts of its eastern provinces to France? Hardly "300 years" ago. What the general unwittingly implies is that the border between the two countries should be demarkated the way it was 300 years ago when half of modern Cambodia was under Siamese rule.

And of course the general promptly takes the opportunity of the border demarkation issue to lament the "lack of modern weapons and equipment [of the Thai military], saying the country spent only 1.6 per cent of GDP on arms purchases". Perhaps if the generals spent their allocated budget more wisely than wasting it on aircraft carriers that don't sail due to lack of spare parts and fuel, dirigibles that don't fly, Ukrainian second-hand APCs that are never delivered and submarines that are rather useless in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Siam, they might - just might - have enough funds available to upgrade the [comparatively cheap] personal equipment and handguns of their troops who, as the general admits, are stronger in numbers [but perhaps not as strong in fighting spirit] to keep notorious warrior nations like Cambodia off sacred Thai soil. Another viable way to save budget would of course be to dismiss 80% of the obscenely inflated general staff corps, many of whom seem to while away their time to retirement by playing golf, dozing off on their inactive posts or planning the next military hardware wishlist.

Meanwhile, the good general contradicts himself over the border issue by stressing that three basics for foreign policy - understanding, trust and equality - ought to be observed in order to "ensure smooth bilateral ties" while at the same time saying that "the Army would not let the country lose territory and was ready to protect national sovereignty". The latter statement is nothing short of meaning that only a border demarcation that favours Thailand's claims can be just.

I think that public outcry especially on the Thai Internet forums already is a sign of (social) change in itself. When people learned that a) the girl was under-age, didn't have a driving license, c) was allegedly recklessly speeding and d) came from a prominent family with an aristocratic-sounding name, their alarm bells sounded. In the not too distant past (I am talking a mere 3 or 5 years ago), all these factors together almost guaranteed that the suspect got off scot-free with a mere slap on the wrist (see the "Moo Ham" case, for example). The outrage voiced by all too many Thai posters only goes to show that the increasingly influential middle class (I don't believe, grassroots Thais got involved in the discussion in this particular case) saw yet another case in the making that would have been swept under the carpet before long and they didn't want to let it happen this time. Faced with such strong awareness among the public, neither the family of the 16-year-old nor the investigating police nor the judiciary involved will dare to play shenanigans.

Now, as many posters in this forums correctly pointed out: justice must be meted out by a court of law after thorough scrutinization of the evidence presented by the prosecutor and after having given the suspect the opportunity to defend herself through her appointed counsellor. Likewise, the families of those killed in this tragedy must have (and indeed do have) the opportunity of filing separate lawsuits against the suspect. Whether they will take this opportunity or not after having been offered (and accepted) monetary compensation from the girl's family is entirely another issue.

There has been much hairsplitting in this forum whether the incident should be deemed an "accident" or not. I believe the fact stands that the girl did not have the intention of deliberately killing 9 people, no matter how careless/reckless/irresponsible/immature/etc. she may have been. I also doubt that the van driver wanted to end her shift in a coffin accompanied by 8 of her own passengers. In the end it has to be established by a court of law who shares what guilt and to what extent. It is not going to be an easy task especially under the pressure the court finds itself in now that the public and the media have become so closely involved and are following each and every step of the case.

I am a little surprised to hear that the alleged owner of the car (which the girl allegedly had borrowed) might face a fine of no more than 2,000 Baht. That tremendous amount might be okay if you lend your car to an unlicensed driver and nothing happens. But since there was a horrific accident resulting in a staggering 9 deaths, my feeling is that the car owner should be subject to a much stiffer penalty.

I agree that the parents should not be indicted if it can be established that their daughter drove illegally without their knowledge. One cannot possibly monitor one's offspring 24/7. But if it should turn out that the car was in fact NOT borrowed, but was purchased by the parents FOR their daughter (although it might be registered to a third party) in the full knowledge that she is not yet eligible to legally steer a motor vehicle under the laws of Thailand, then I'd say the parents MUST be held accountible to a certain degree, too. Ignorance of the laws of the land ("She could drive in L.A. and had a driving license") cannot be and must not be an excuse.

We do not know all the facts and press reports cannot be trusted 100% all the time. If we have hateful and - regrettably - "lynch-mob-like" comments in this or predominantly Thai-language forums, then this is ultimately a good development. It is about time that this so-called "democracy" is manifesting itself. No more special treatment for the upper echelons. No more behind-the-scenes deals just because you are "priviledged". One law for all.

Love it! Sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek, thus thoroughly to my liking.

And here are 4 reasons why that clumsy group of Thai waterbuffalos should not be released unconditionally and without having been punished by a Cambodian court of law:

1) They intruded knowingly and deliberately into Cambodian territory.

2) They were arrogant enough to believe that Thais can do anything they want without having to face consequences ("I Thai. I better than anybody else.").

3) If a Cambodian group would attempt the same intusion onto Thai soil, they would be immediately arrested and slapped with a draconian sentence ("How dare those people trespassing on sacred Thai soil?!")

4) The PAD splinter group "Thai Patriots Network" have agreed to call off their rally at the border, because even they realized that demanding the release of a bunch of arrogant twits who have brought their situation upon themselves is not worth risking a further deterioration in bilateral relations.

5) Thais just cannot always get what they want/demand.

Yeah, we really need a survey to find that out.

According to a report in today's "Bangkok Post" she admitted that she was speeding and not wearing a safety belt. There should be now 4 charges brought against her: 1) steering a vehicle without driving license; 2) reckless driving causing death and injury to other parties; 3) not wearing a seat belt as required by law and 4) being below the legal age of steering a sedan. Charges also must be brought against the parents for neglection of duty and against the owner of the Honda Civic for letting the girlie drive, but I am dreaming. I know, she probably will get off scot-free and pay her "penalty" out of her monthly lunch allowance. Those obscure Thai laws like "...subject to imprisonment of 2 years and/or a penalty of 50,000 Baht" were devised by a certain class of people who intentionally stressed the "and/or" for very obvious reasons.

Certainly government corruption should be exposed wherever one finds it, but somehow I cannot help but thinking that this is yet another case of the kettle calling the pot black. Pheua Thai seems to be spending their entire time as opposition party with hunting down every small irregularity within the government party ranks while blissfully overlooking that their own phalanx is through and through rotting with corruption/nepotism/cronyism.

Tar and feather him, that blithering twit!

Thaksin, what a wonderful choice given his own record in upholding human rights at all cost! There we finally have someone who can testify with authority, particularly because he was right smack in the middle when the Thai military dispersed all those peaceful protesters and therefore has first-hand insight. Hold it! Wasn't he photographed shopping in a luxury boutique in Paris that day? The mind boggles.

Red Bull is not Thai, it is Austrian. Kating Daeng is Thai.

The license to manufacture and distribute "Krathing Daeng" in Austria and Europe was acquired by an Austrian entrepeneur, that is true. Since "krathing Daeng" would be incomprehensible and difficult to pronouce, an English transliteration (i.e. "Red Bull") was chosen to market the licensed product in Europe. The ingredients and manufacturing process are similar to the original Thai product, the bottling and labeling rather similar. The Thai brand owner is receiving considerable licensing fees fro the Austrian licensee. To come to the point: "Red Bull" never was an Austrian brand, but is a legally licensed product originating in Thailand.

Now isn't that poetic justice? There we have Thais blatantly pirating branded goods from around the globe on an ever increasing scale and when similar things happen to their own products, they cry "foul"? On the other hand, shouldn't they be proud that some of their brands are even worth pirating? Whatever one may think about the issue, in the end it is a clear case of the kettle calling the pot black.