virtualtraveller

Lets not forget, the elected senators are done so on the basis of one per province. This is definitely not very democratic since it's not proportionately representative. So 8 million Bangkokians - the more educated of the population - get to choose 1 senator, the 300,000 people of Mukdahan get to choose 1. Immediate and obvious flaw which is why Peua Thai's attempt to make it 2 per province, non appointed, wasn't much of an improvement. It's fairly obvious which political camp this would favour. All these 'democracy through elections' apologists forget this.

If you've got 3% of the voters turning out in some provinces, and several with 10%, regardless of ifs and buts, then you have to concede that any govt resulting from this exercise cannot be truthfully called representative of the 'people' or 'majority'. It was an expensive but necessary exercise to prove to everyone that elections at present are not successful democracy in action. You need the majority to participate in order to validate a result.

Reporting from Chiang Mai, this is a very happening city, probably the second most cosmopolitan provincial town in Thailand, with a 10% growth in local economy, and as per the figures released unofficially by the EC 25% of the voters voted no or boycotted the election. The rural areas may be very red but the city has many opposed to this govt, and they are the ones earning the money. They are unable to speak up for fear of intimidation.

Also, it's one thing to call for the 'overthrow' of the Shinawatras but the PDRC for all their fighting rhetoric do advocate elections and support democracy, they are doing it in without an organised armed militia. The suggestion among some UDD/Reds to raise an army and break away as a separate state is a far more serious action.

Should have thought about this before publicly supporting a much hated anti democratic movement ...

All the more reason to support a group aimed at reforming the country and putting the thuggish reds in their place.

Thaksin needs succession like a hole in the head. He would end up with the poorer half. It's not to be encouraged, but yes it's just rhetoric from dumb people who fail to understand macro economics. Someone has to pay tax in this country, and it's the other half that you want to succeed from.

Come on, tempers and tensions are running high, at worst this is just a publicity own goal for the PDRC, she wasn't roughed up, she was released after an hour, the guards were over zealous and who can blame them in this climate.

On the one hand you can describe it as a battle between the old elites versus a new elites. On the other you can describe it as a battle between an old feudal system at the ballot box and a new determination for modern democratic principals of one independent-mind, one vote.

Wasn't it Worachai's amnestyt bill that set the whole thing in motion? Honestly these guys are such hypocrits. Problem with Peua Thai is they believe their own hype. They are in a state of denial that they have done anything wrong. Far as they are concerned they won an election, they are darlings of the people, and any misstep is a dastardly opposition seeking to overthrow them.

Truth is, there is plenty of evidence to disband them alone for being a proxy. It hasn't been done because the masses will see it as a judicial coup. Now that the country is not seeing their rice money, they will more willingly accept that Yingluck being 'removed' after being charged for corruption in the scheme, is realistic.

Given what we've seen from a PT govt over two years, and all the holes they've dug for themselves, it's no wonder the opposition are putting them under pressure when the opportunity is at it's best. The present PT blank cheque governing needs to totally eradicated, once that's done they can return as an elected govt accountable to the law.

All this talk about a return to a tyrannical dictatorship govt that is appointed is nonsense, nothing could be more tyrannical than what we've lately seen under Yigluck the puppet.

Thanks, she had an onward ticket but it was with another airline so they couldn't change it. Seems petty, and in 10 years travelling here I've never heard of an airline enforcing this. I suppose a different person might have successfuly argued. Unless there is suddenly some strict enforcement by Thai immigration, seems an inexperienced check in clerk was being unreasonable. For goodnessake, if she lands and they don't want to give her a 30 day, there's always the Qatar airline counter to rebook the ticket or put her on the next flight to London.

Sorry, though Qantas might be right in asserting this, it's a case of being inflexible, and few other airlines do this. It's consistent with my poor impression of their customer services. Pity Emirates have a codeshare with them, I would never willingly have booked that airline, never will in the future either.

My dear old mother tried boarding a Qantas flight in Auckland yesterday bound for Bangkok, they turned her away for the reason that 'anyone visiting for longer than 3 weeks needs a tourist visa', huh!

Last time I checked;

1) Visas on arrival for Brits (and 30 other nationalities) get 30 day visas on arrival at Suvarnabhumi, always have without proble

2) It can be extended locally for a further 10 days

3) As long as you have an onward flight for repatriation the immigration aren't fussed since some travellers come and go through Thailand multiple times over several months.

My Mum had planned to stay for 35 days, she's now had to delay 5 days and rearrange flights and hotels, while she waits for a tourist visa in New Zealand, what a bother.

Any comments? Since I plan to take this up with the airline I would really appreciate if other forum members could briefly add their recent experiences of successfully flying to Thailand for stays longer than 30 days, without a tourist or non-imm visa, and name the airline.

Many thanks

Tarit thinks he's deputy prime minister, my my this man has certainly risen well above his station in life, since 2011. I bet Chalerm isn't too pleased.

This election will never stick, I'm willing to put money on it. There are so many flaws with it that contravene the constitution for a fair election. There won't be a parliament quorum for months. If a govt is formed the house will have a 80% dominance from the ruling party, that is a democratic regression. We should be asking ourselves if the Democrats decisions to boycott was reasonable, and for that ask the 500,000 people who took to the streets in the past two months. Better still ask the majority who didn't vote for a party in the last election. A govt selected through a minority process will never have legitimacy.

Tell us something new Walden, any one of 10 people on this forum could have written a background article like that on the crisis.

Truth of the matter is that many of these companies sponsor both major political forces. They hedge their bets. Out one and you may lose an ally. Tarit didn't think of that one but Thaksin likely did and must have had a word. Who says the elite are batting for one particular side.

It's a good point. Let's not bend the facts here. Everyone in Thailand (almost) supports democracy, but what sort of democracy is the issue of contention. Peua Thai's (or should that be Thaksin's) version is 'blank cheque authority to the winner takes all at elections'. Should they fall from grace one day, would they really propound that same ideology when their opponents win?

The last election was a fake election, without the main opposition taking part it will always be a farce producing a result of questionable legitimacy. The question remains; was the Democratic party reasonable to boycott, citing reform first because the election process and resulting govt pervert a true democratic status. Well, the numbers vindicated them. Even when everyone gets a chance to vote the reality is; THE MAJORITY opted to give this present democratic process the thumbs down. And since Peua Thai always harp on about majority, they should concede defeat and allow a reform process to get underway, and come to an agreement on future elections that will gain the respect of the majority of the people.

Fewer than 35% of the whole electorate appear to have chosen a political party, and less than 50% of the previous number of voters (2011) voted for a party. The no votes and boycotts are a very significant number.

Let the poor girl alone, she's suffered more than an appropriate sentence for smuggling a harmless drug. I think both her and the reputation of Indonesia are the worse for wear. We'll never get to the bottom of the truth, but it was great for Australia's ridiculous media circus, certainly sold papers and books. For 9 years of hell she can now retire on the book proceeds for the rest of her life, along with her family. Not bad.

If there's going to be a fight in a Chiang Mai bar, for whatever reason, it's going to happen there at Spicy. It's a rough after hours place, and fights between Thai and farang aren't uncommon when there's alcohol and pride involved.

And, yes, she's looking fat.

And yes, here's the truly surprising part, lots and lots of urban folk in Chiang Mai are not red - they hate this govt and are too afraid to speak up.