smutcakes

I enjoyed a visit to this park and was happy to get some pictures of the statues.

My biggest concern was the massive area of cement where we were standing.

It is too bad that there was only cement and not large areas of grass and maybe some bushes

to help keep the area cooler. I was visiting in the middle of the day about 1PM, and the

heat was horrible.

a contradictory observation.

what about any of the 300k baht palm trees and landscaping, mentioned in the fb graphic shared by thousands on fb?

Yes, what about it?

Nice to see you back Rubl. Must be a difficult time for you at the moment, its not often someone has got so much, so wrong, so often! so hats off to you for finally fronting up and coming back. I have missed your mindless rambles.

I just pray i am not close by some have a go hero when there is a situation. There is far more chance of them killing innocent bystanders or themselves than actually harming any threat. 99.99% of them would shit their pants, freeze, faint or the alike before being able to even get their gun out. And in the unlikely event they got their gun out they would probably do more harm than good.

Had a fairly big lunch at Masala Art yesterday for a shade under 1k Baht with eatigo.

Enough for two of us and having the leftovers for breakfast as well.

I suppose that works out at 250 Baht a meal....expensive yes but not crazy...and good food.

Not sure if it was on special but I have always found Masala Art very much on the pricey side. Have not eaten in there for a year or so, but occasionally get takeaway and am always surprised by their cost compared to competitors.

I do find the curry really rich and creamy though, for me probably one of the best curry houses in town of its type.

I was on the bits yesterday and saw some bikes. I walked along the platform a choose a carriage without any bikes. Its one bts trip on one day, its hardly reason to get upset.

there is one upstairs in Major Ekkamai.

In hind sight, there was no need to hire a person to run the meeting. It was very simple and the co-owners who had volunteered to the do the job, could have handled it easily.

Maybe it's just my imagination but it doesnt sound as though the meeting or the result were entirely positive.

Yes, co-owners can do everything perfectly well on their own assuming that they are competent and dont have some ulterior motive. In Thailand this is a big assumption that I would not make.

That your previous JPM didnt understand the job does not surprise me at all. I have never met a bigger crowd of idiots as those I have met here who are involved in condo management. Most of them dont seem to know anything at all.

Still, all said it sounds like progress so congratulations are in order.

You have obviously had a poor experience with management teams, committee's and JPM's. In my experience you get what you pay for. Most of the top condo's in BKK have very good management, with committee's full of business people who understand their role and how to run a condominium. In Pattaya it is slightly different, as most of the developers flog their properties as cheap as possible and in reality the buildings cannot afford proper management companies, and this will become more and more evident when these huge developments get completed. Also many Co-owners themselves do not help the situation again particularly in Pattaya by micro managing and failing to understand the laws themselves or the roles and responsibilities of the management company. I think Northshore is a prime example of this, the buildings problems are mostly because of infighting among co-owners rather than problems with management.

Its not written in stone, as regardless of whether your regulations have been amended to align with the amended act, it would take precedent over what is in your regulations. Eg. you tried to amend the building regulations with 51% or 34%, it would be accepted as it meets the criteria of the law. The Act overrides what is in your building regulations, so you cannot have clauses which are over and above that required in law.

cannot change percentages they are set in stone sir, 50%+ for common area changes to common area etc. and if not reached 33/33% at subsequent 15 day meeting. committee is majority of owners present as to vote each and every member and that is the law period

I know you cannot change that. I was saying his 75% regulation can be changed as it is contrary to the law. His regulations have not been amended to reflect the new act, so regardless of his regulations stating 75% to amend the regs this would not stand up and the legal amount to amend the regs would be as per the voting ratios you state.

Well i presume your management company never made amendments to the Building Regulations following the Condominium Act Amendment which reduced that from 75% to 50%, so your rules are contrary to the Act and would not be enforceable should someone challenge that point.

I was aware of that. There are some other quite important modifications to the rules that need to be made also.

Given that we have never been able to get even 50% of the vote together it's fairly irrelevant.

a subsequent meeting within 15 days requires 1/3rd so the 50% is irrelevant of course

Not sure but I think that the 75% of the total vote (not the present vote) to vary the rules is written in stone, even at a second meeting.

Given that we never get 1/3rd of the total vote either it's still irrelevant, which is why I've never bothered to look at the question very closely.

Its not written in stone, as regardless of whether your regulations have been amended to align with the amended act, it would take precedent over what is in your regulations. Eg. you tried to amend the building regulations with 51% or 34%, it would be accepted as it meets the criteria of the law. The Act overrides what is in your building regulations, so you cannot have clauses which are over and above that required in law.

I really don;t know why they don't have an investigation, admit there was some corruption, arrest some low level folks and one senior person, put it all over the newspapers that the junta is rooting out corruption wherever it may be, then have trials, sentence the little people to long sentences and the senior person can be given leave to appeal for as long as he lives.

They cannot get one senior person, they all know to much about each other.

Also if they admitted it, one would presume it would be a LM case against one of the top Generals, and if it was treated as ruthlessly as other LM cases against mere civilians, perhaps it would also be a round up of the Committee in control of the Project which includes more Generals, and the PM's brother.

A GM can vote to only elect people named Fred if it wants to, as long as that decision gets a majority vote according to the rules.

I agree with most of your points, except that a 75% vote to amend the building regulations would be needed. The highest requirement in the Act is 50% of total Co-owners (not just those in the meeting).

Actually i believe to dissolve the Condominium you need a unanimous decision.

Yes, that was the reason I wrote "majority ... according to the rules".

In my building a vote to change the rules permanently requires a 75% majority of the total ownership (not just those present).

However a one-off vote at a second AGM just requires a simple majority of those present, regardless of how many they are. Voting to apply a specific number between 3 and 9 to the committee as a one-off does not alter building rules, which merely state "between 3 and 9". Such a vote just defines that rule.

My objection to applying a fixed number is that it is unnecessary, anti-democratic and probably just some devious trick by interested parties (management/JPM) to manipulate the committee structure to their benefit.

If I was a management company I would much rather have a committee of 3 to deal with than a committee of 9, as the committee of 3 would probably be much easier to manipulate. Especially so if one or two of them were my shills.

Never underestimate the true extent of deceit and underhandedness in some Thai condo buildings. Sometimes it seems that absolutely everyone is on the make.

Well i presume your management company never made amendments to the Building Regulations following the Condominium Act Amendment which reduced that from 75% to 50%, so your rules are contrary to the Act and would not be enforceable should someone challenge that point.

Not all buildings suffer from poor and corrupt Committee's and management. Many have good management and Committee's. It is often better to have smaller more committed Committees who have time on their hands than larger Committee where people are busy a lot and not committed. Personally i think 7 is a good number. Having 9 is often very difficult to get quorum or approval for issues

But to commit the condo to never having a committee larger than 3 is crazy.

Any such decision would only apply for the duration of the mandate in question (ie 2 years). At the next election the decision to restrict the number would need to be made again, if desired, and also the decision of which number to restrict it to.

To make a permanent change to the building rules (which is perfectly legal) would require a 75% vote in favour which, in most buildings, is unlikely to happen.

I have never been convinced about the merit of reducing the size of a committee. I fail to see the benefits. I also see it as illegal.

I also dont see the merit or the need. But it is not illegal. A GM can vote to only elect people named Fred if it wants to, as long as that decision gets a majority vote according to the rules.

I agree with most of your points, except that a 75% vote to amend the building regulations would be needed. The highest requirement in the Act is 50% of total Co-owners (not just those in the meeting).

Actually i believe to dissolve the Condominium you need a unanimous decision.

Well every AGM/EGM i have been to, and there are many, candidates have been presented to the meeting. I and everyone else will then write on their voting sheet which candidates i want to represent me on the Committee. If there were 8 candidates, i might only nominate 5 names, or i might nominate all 8, or maybe only 1.

The voting papers are then collected, the votes counted, and those persons with votes in excess of the 50% of those in the meeting will be elected to the Committee, where it be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8.

Of course i can vote for individuals, not a Committee on Masse. I simply write the names of the candidates i prefer, and not vote for those i don't want. If other persons also do not vote for certain candidates, that candidate would not have above 50% of the meeting and would not be elected to the Committee, whether their is available space or not.

Delight, you have completely lost me on this topic, not really even sure what you are implying.

Condominium's can and do pass resolutions saying there Committee will only be 5 or 7 persons. Many Condo's do this, but it is necessary to get over 50% or 33% of the entire ownership as you are altering the regulations of the Condominium.

For this example lets say a Committee of 7 was approved and the building regulations altered and registered to reflect this.

You then have an AGM with Election of the Committee on the Agenda and 13 applicants raise their hand in the meeting for the position.

Voting is taken and then the top 7 of those would be placed in the Committee provided they had the vote of the majority in the room. If the building had not specified a 7 person Committee then the top 9 would be in the Committee provided each individual had over 50% of the voting in the room.

I really have no idea what you are getting at on the whole voting en masse thing. Each individual is put forward and elected or not elected by the voters in the room.

Admittedly land departments do often vary on whether candidates need to get over 50% of the vote or not, especially if there are vacancies on the Committee and a vote on fixing the number of members has not been taken.

Surely a fan is a fan.

Committee members are voted individually. Its the very essence of having a Committee that those on it are voted by the ownership. It is the reason why Committee members are not allowed to give a proxy to someone to attend Committee meetings on their behalf, because they were elected individually themselves, not anyone else they might give a proxy to.

There is a Q&A section on the lands department website where many of these questions are submitted and answered. (In Thai) However in true LD style their answers are not always clear, and often refer back to article X or Y which the lack of clarity of the article is the very reason for asking the question.

I think in practical terms, any issue which requires registration of result at the LD. e.g. registration of Committee/removal of, election of JPM, it is necessary to have it in the agenda. For more mundane matters relating to daily running of the Condominium it is generally none of the LD business as they would never hear about it, and may be done with a show of hands in a meeting.

When registering documents with the LD, they always require the agenda of the meeting, and in some cases request the voting slips as well. I don't see how anyone can do the minutes when it is done by a show of hands as everyone has different voting ratios, so it would be incredibly difficult to calculate after.

Lanna Guy- Some lands departments take a different view on the majority requirement for Committee Members. I know of one high end condo in BKK which had 9 people trying to be on the Committee. The top 7 got above 50%, the bottom 2 did not. The LD registered them as Committee Members as well- as seemingly they took the view that more was better, and one of the bottom 2 was kicking up merry hell. As i mentioned earlier different LD's treat that differently.

The removal of the Committee member would not be accepted without it being stipulated on the agenda. Not to mention you are unlikely to have voting forms prepared for the agenda.

Agreed how do you vote on something that's not on the agenda.

You need to prepare voting forms. These need to be counted and then lodged with the land department.

Given the nature of some committees and their relationship with a developer/ 3rd party it can be almost impossible to get an item into AOB. You can request it, but it is simply ignored.

You can quote the laws all you like, but as has been stated it can be manipulated if necessary.

As for voting for committee members if a co- owner is put forward and receives only one vote and it is under 9 he becomes a committee member.

This one is a difficult one, and i have seen different land departments take differing views on this. I think LD's like to take a view that the more on the Committee is better, but when there is a contenious issue and some dont want a person on the Committee, they tend to point out the clause which stipulates all resolutions require majority vote of those in attendance. As i said i have seen Lands departments go both ways on that, normally selecting the option of least resistant. (ie the person who shouts less).

The removal of the Committee member would not be accepted without it being stipulated on the agenda. Not to mention you are unlikely to have voting forms prepared for the agenda.

I wonder if corruption in a park that is dedicated to the Thai royalty can be considered lese majeste.

I am sure if it was any other than the army it would of very much considered so. Just another example of the crazily selective enforcement of laws.

Amazing that one of the leaders of the PDRC rallies is allowed to so openly be involved in poltical issues when eveeypne else is banned.

Also that for someone so supposedly demanding of reforms and non corruption he has not found the time to mention the Park scandal.....

I would suggest that CP could show the way by sacking one if their Directors and staff caught for insider trading......

The fact another report suggests he does not accept he did anything wrong as he was not 100% sure the deal would be done is ridiculous.

Even a first year university student would understand that even contemplating purchasing shares in a company you were thinking of buying a large stake in would be a very obvious conflict of interest. The fact that he does not know or believe this, is quite frankly staggering, so staggering its an obvious lie or a sign of a company or group of people thinking they can simply act with impunity.

Personally i thought he got away lightly with a fine. I would ban him from holding any board positions, which it is clear he is simply not cut out to do from an ethical and moral standpoint.

A few years ago i am sure FIFA would have welcomed him with open arms. For the time being at least i think they are having to act a little more prudently with authorities breathing down their necks.

Personally i would say the very last thing FIFA needs is Somyot.

We are constantly told that Americans love their guns and consequently the carrying of them is what they choose to do. Well you get what you vote for. These mass killings are getting more and more common and will continue because the gun culture ain't going away anytime soon. We all played with toy guns when we were kids (at least I did) but then you grow up and move on. It seems in the US that most people don't grow up but just exchange the toy guns for real ones.

I agree, in theory i see people saying that if they were in a certain situation etc they would be armed and the outcome would be different. Sadly i think the vast majority would in the event of being caught in a gun related attack would crap their pants, panic and probably start firing wildly at anything that moved. They would of course if not already dead from the original shooting, draw attention to themselves and probably end up with them and their families dead very quickly.

To many have a go heros who have no idea what it is like in a live attack with multiple assialants, automatic fire, grenades and body parts flying.

I just simply cannot fathom why so many Americans still seem to feel that their gun control laws are not a major factor in their very high incidence of gun crime, it simply defies belief why they want the right to carry so much, when it is so clear how much damage it is doing in their society. I just dont understand why someone needs to carry a gun, for what?

If they dare to have corruption in a scheme like this just think how much is being siphoned off on all the other rushed and pushed through mega projects!!!