rickirs

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Both casinos have back-pedaled quite a bit

However, these reports may have been exaggerated as both casinos have denied any ban. The Hard Rock Casino in Las Vegas released a statement which reads: "Mr Affleck, a value guest of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino, is not banned from our property and is welcome back any time." The other casino in question has also denied barring Affleck from their establishment.

Read more: Ben Affleck Is "Welcome Back" At Las Vegas Casino Despite Card Counting Rumours http://www.contactmusic.com/article/ben-affleck-welcome-back-las-vegas-casino-card-counting-rumours_4178833?track=cp

The issue, I believe, is one whereby the patron uses his chip stack, continuously re-arranging it in a way which he uses to track or "count" cards. Obviously if you have a prodigious memory then you may be able to get away with counting for a bit longer. But using "artificial means" like the chip-stack method is easily discerned by a pit-boss or on video, and is deemed to be illegal.

You understand that casinos typically use a "shoe" that contains 3-5 decks of cards that is reshuffled no less than halfway through to maintain random odds against winning that always favors the House. The House has the right at anytime to replace the decks in the shoe. For someone to successfully use chips on the table to "count" cards you'd have to virtually cover the entire table with chips - that would be too obvious.

If a single customer is able to run a streak of winnings, it has no overall impact on the house odds determined by the entire number of players for a 24-hour period. What the HRC got with Afleck is free advertising and intice people in to play their own "systems" of beating the house.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

A Thai poll on these issues is preposterous. Thai seem to have gotten the meaning of "reform" twisted around to be restricted to election reform and not Thai reform in general. Thais need reform of law and order in order to provide penalty and prosecution for corruption and illegal exchange of money. Thais need to reform the police, rules, laws, and punishments. Thais need to reform their system of holding political office, transactions in commercial and government contracts as well as complete civilian control of military.

Based on this poll and survey and Thai responses, it appears that the meaning of "reform" in Thailand is confused and disjointed. It's no wonder that Thailand is dysfunctional. Reform started out to mean corruption in government. Thais need to start with a reform package that defines that law and order is meant not to be broken with impunity and that punishment would be meted out.

Sitting governments should not be allowed to fund programs designed to garner votes ahead of elections. Maybe if they started with candidates having a true "reform" platform and campaigning that platform, everyone would know who is gaming the Thai population and the system for personal gain and power. Let's talk about reform for the benefit of Thais, their welfare, education, economy, and growth not who gets to run and who gets to vote.

How and whom defines what is "true?" Suthep defines it as not making "promises" or "populist policies." Not quite so clear as a blueprint for reform.

"...the Election Commission (EC) would work on amending related laws and regulations to make the election free and fair, he said. It might include regulations on election campaigns, dealing with electoral fraud and breaking election campaign promises."

What prevented the EC since its creation in the 1997 Constitution to improve the election process? The Constitution gave the EC extensive powers to "manage, oversee, and regulate the electoral process." The current Commission membership was largely appointed on 20 September 2006 (after the 2006 coup d'etat) by the King with the advice of the Senate that had been "cleansed" of any Thaksin party members. It has shown it is very willing to force re-elections, disqualify many candidates, and hold election dates hostage to political crisis.

For Abhisit to advise the EC on what it should be doing to make elections free and fair is like telling a dog catcher to catch dogs. But maybe there is a more subtle critcism .... the EC has not done enough to tilt elections in favor of the PDRC/Democrats, especially with the EC's offered July 20th election date that is contrary to Suthep's DEMAND FOR NO ELECTIONS prior to resolving all necessary government and election reforms. Let's see if the EC for once can perform its Constitutional duties without delaying further the elections or having the Court again nullify them. The EC has a real opportunity to show it is part of a Thailand democratic framework.

" ...dad guaranteed a bank loan for a friend in the amount of 4,000,000 THB and now the friend has vanished so her dad has to pay."

If such statement is true about the dad guaranteeing the bank loan, then he has provided the bank in the loan application with evidence that he can pay the loan amounts should the borrower default. Either through documented income, property, or a combination of both. Otherwise, the bank would have rejected the loan application. Banks ordinarily only loan against tangible assets such as real estate, cars, boats, etc. that can be used as collateral and seized by the bank in case of default to recoup any equity in such property by sale of the asset(s). So again, without sufficient documented collateral from either the borrower and/or the guanantee, the bank would have rejected the loan application. If your friend's scenario is not a scam to get money from you, the dad should be able to meet the loan obligations without external assistance.

So at this point, if you view this situation not to be a scam, wish your friend a speedy resolution for her dad's situation. You'll be happy to pass on to him any financial advice (but of course you are not familiar with Thai laws) and you'll pray for a fair resolution that is not too burdensome on the dad.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

But even though they have committed crimes, they do not get fired or spend any time behind bars, but mearly transferred to "head office"
"

Hopefully they won't go to the Courts and get reinstated.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

But pretty much as expected, same thing:

1. Yingluk must resign, so we put in a neutral PM, chosen by the Partisan Senate we now control.

2. Rig the Parliament the way we rigged the Senate so we control it.

3. Hold elections if you agree to this in a referendum.

4. Refuse to hold elections if you don't agree in the referendum.

And we can't tell you how we're going to rig the parliament till after we've taken power (which means Thai people would never accept it, if they were told, so they need control of the military to fight the civil war that would ensue).

"Yingluck should make the sacrifice of withdrawing from power,"

Man, I had my bet on him saying "for the good of the people", damn. Instead he went for the "sacrifice" angle.

Simple in business if you mismanage --you are out.

You are taking about a government that is out of favour only--this is not the case---recognize it.

if you plunder you do not ask to be reinstated, you know your days are numbered---LEAVE get out save face.

Isn't that the point of having elections is to replace an alleged failed government with a more promising one? But the party that promises to be a better manager of government must convince the electorate of its creditability to deliver on those promises. Suthep's by his adamant refusal to participate in an open and free election unless its completely on his terms and conditions, and by his own ruinous performance as Deputy PM will hinder such creditability.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Besides, Thailand lacks tough enforcement and harsh punishment in the areas of local internet acts..."

It really doesn't. It's the only non-communist country I've ever been to that actually tried to block Hotmail.

Yep, they should ban Yingluck's Facebook account.

What, and cut you off from your Facebook friend?

Time is fast running out for the Democrats to decide whether they will participate in the July 20, 2014 election if made by royal decree.

(1) Contituency candidate registration for the Feb. 2, 2014 election date began 42 days in advance or Dec. 23, 2013. If the new election date is July 20, 2014, the date for constituency candidate registration might be be June 9 following the previous election schedule. Party-list candidate registration begins one day before or June 8, 2014.

(2) The date of application for candidacy in an election on a constituency basis shall not be later than twenty days as from the date the Royal Decree coming into force or May 20, 2014. Electoral Laws, Chapter 1, Part 1, Sec. 7(1).

If the Democrats do not file its constituency candidates and party-list candidates on or about May 20, 2014 it is already election game over for the Democrats. The remaining option is then a campaign for voters to vote "No" on the ballots or once again shutdown voting stations and hope that the EC violates the constitution so that the Constitutional Court will nullify the election again.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

The NACC is not a court so there cannot be a "contempt of court" charge. The NACC has only investigative authority.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Once again Thailand is being questioned over it's track record , there is systematic failure from departmental heads down , there is no skills in administration , delegation of duties failure and lack of policing, this applies to most government departments , they seem to waffle through the maze of antiquated rules, there seems to be a denial syndrome emitting from the ruling party on anything that resembles a UN fact, it is time Thailand stood up and started being counted, however the leaders of the country over time have discouraged any participation of world standards by the sub - education system, the root of all problems in Thailand. alt=bah.gif>

Lest we not forget an independent military complex that does not answer to the Government and conducts its operations in secrecy. So long as Thailand's military can avoid accountability and transparency to the general public, and intimidate freedom of press through slander laws, its corruptability remains fertile.

"There will be no negotiations, no national government, no coalition government." - Suthep.

About time for Abhisit to completely disassociate himself from the PDRC if he expects any creditability and a political career. I don't think Thailand needs Oxford-educated farmers.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

You uncover exactly the kind of information necessary for fair and balanced reporting. This may be a novel concept with Thai reporting media but exposure may be unfortunately constrained by archaic slander and election laws. Please continue with your sharing your knowledge. It gives TV a necessary perspective on issues.

The EC has responsibilities defined by the Electoral Law that seem contrary to its public statements.

1. "....... the government must ensure a free and fair election, ...."

No. It is the duty of the Election Commission is ensure that elections carried out in Thailand are lawful and compatible with the Constitution. It is also in charge of enforcing National election laws. The Commission also has legal power as a law enforcement agency to investigate and indict those who break election laws. The Electoral Law under Chapter 1,

Section 10. The Election Commission shall have the power and duties as follows:

(1) to control and cause to be held or hold an election and a voting at a referendum as provided by law to be in an honest and fair manner;

(3) to give orders instructing government officials, officers or employees of a government agency, State agency, State enterprise or local government or other State officials to perform all necessary acts under the organic law on the election of members of the House of the Representatives and senators, the organic law on political parties, the organic law on referendum, and the law on the election of members of local assemblies or local administrators

Section 15. In performing duties with respect to an election or a referendum, the Election Commission shall have the power to give an order instructing government agencies, local governments, State enterprises or other State agencies to carry out any matter under their authorities, or instructing those agencies

Sec. 20 the Election Commission shall have the power to appoint a representative or representatives of the certified private organization or organizations under paragraph one to inspect an election and to report to the Election Commission if it is found that the election proceeding was in a dishonest or unfair manner or contrary to laws.

2. "..... the EC might postpone the election in problematic places where balloting cannot properly take place properly."

No. It can’t just simply postpone the election. The Electoral Law under Chapter 1:

Part 2, Sec. 9(2) - If election Commission is of the opinion that it would be inconvenient or unsafe for electors to go to poll, it may disregard the number of electors and designate an additional polling station.

Part 7, Sec. 64 - In case where the polling in any polling station could not be made because of the riot, flood, fire or other force majeure, if such cause is occurred prior to the election day, the committee of a polling station shall fix a new polling place where electors shall be able to cast a ballot conveniently. If the new polling place cannot be fixed, the committee of a polling station shall announce the cancellation of polling in such station and shall report to the Election Commission urgently.

In case where the force majeure in accordance with paragraph one is occurred on the election day, the committee of a polling station shall announce the cancellation of the polling in such station and report to the Election Commission urgently.

The Election Commission shall fix a new polling day of such polling station within thirty days as from the date the ceasing of the ground is known and shall announce such performance at least seven days prior to the polling day.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Wait your average Thai knows about 18th century Venice? Most Thai's I know of don't even know WW2 happened let alone this.

No doubt most Thais don't know that in WW2 Thailand joined the Axis powers of Japan, Germany, and Italy. That put it in conflict with the Allied powers of UK, USA, and Russia; albeit with a wink and nod, Thailand gave nuetrality access to the Allied air forces.

The resignation of the Republic of Korea's PM is not analogous to a resignation of Thailand's PM over matters of public "shame." (I will not use the term "corruption" as it has not been alleged or proven in the case of the sunken ferry).

Republic of Korea (ROK) is basically a presidential republic. ROK’s legislative branch is a 100% single assembly that has no Senate. In the Executive branch the president is elected directly by the people. The president is head of government, head of state, and commander in chief of the South Korean armed forces.

The ROK Government is managed by the Cabinet that serves as the highest body for policy deliberation and includes the President, the Prime Minister, the Vice Prime Minister and various cabinet-level ministers with the President as the chairperson of the Cabinet, and the PM as the vice chairperson. The PM is appointed by the President with approval from the National Assembly. The Cabinet ministers are appointed by the President and report to the Prime Minister. The PM is essentially an alter-ego for the President for administrative purposes - an executive "go-fer."

So the ROK PM's resignation is a political gesture but in no way alters the way ROK government operates. Yingluck's position as PM is not analogous to the ROK PM position but more parallel to the ROK President's position.

The Nation needs to keep looking for lessons to learn.

No doubt the Palaong Chon party would like to see a delay in the election. In 2011 it won 7 House seats largely from its smLL provencial area where it operates. The same might be true for Chart Pattana party that got 7 House seats in 2011 but since has been on the verge of a breakup due to party defections of its House representatives.

"it seems that Washington got less out of it than its hosts" :

"Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines have achieved their goal of a greater US security presence"

China is more aware of active US interests in the Asian region.

US diplomacy appears to be successful despite his absence last year at the ASEAN meeting where China had a chance to dominate diplomatically. Ok, no TPP, yet but Obama faces a patchwork of US economic policies in Asia since its defeat of Japan in 1945. With the US Congress itself undecided what a TPP should be, Obama can't get any agreement passed currently. A more deliberate diplomatic process can only benefit all parties and quite possibly world events in Asia could accelerate a TPP. Time is on the US side.

I agree with Taptin's statement, "Thailand is not equipped for such a democracy."

Thailand's Constitutional Monarchy is by definition an extreme form of an oliarchy. In a Constitutional Monarchy the Head of State is not elected nor accountable by any institution except to be mindful of elitist and wealthy classes that control the majority of the nation's wealth. The country's armed forces are an institution of the monarchy and not of the people. The Thailand Constitution is weak if not flawed in terms of assuring a democratic framework of government with sufficient checks and balances, transparency and accountability to encourage, if not force, political leaders to abide by and respect the rule of law.

Thailand has a "faux" democracy. It has all the "decorations of democracy like a parliament and supreme court, uses democratic terms like "Demorcat Party," goes through an electorial process for some of its national leadership, and has some government checks and balances of a parliament. But it lacks the completeness of a democratic system that does not fear a majority-elected government leadership nor fear the freedom of speech.

With regard to Taptin's statements, "When an overwhelmed team runs a corporation, the worst-case scenario is bankruptcy for those concerned. When a group of people has to do everything "for" a country after winning an election, there is no limit to how bad things can get," I get some confused signals. When corporate leadership finds itself with an unmanageable company, leadership instincts are either to breakup the company into smaller, more manageable parts, spinoff (ie., liquidate) parts of the company to reduce the company to a more manageable size, or to provide for more delegation of decisions by flattening the leadership organization.

When Taptin's corporate analogy is applied to the Thailand nation, one could interpret that he is suggesting a breakup of Thailand's monolithic federal government into numerous jursidictional states or provinces. Such a system has worked well for a number of well-known, large democratic nations, albeit with much more complex electorial requirements and federal laws assuring states' rights. On the other hand, Taptin's statements might be suggestive of the elimination of a federally centralized government except for some nominal governmental role such as foreign relations and national security and replacement with autonomous regional governments. That concept didn't worked well in the case of Crimea being an autonomous region of Ukraine. But no one can doubt that Taptin has taptined the imagination.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It's not democracy that's the problem, it's Thailand's version of it. You can't create an inherently flawed system riddled with corruption and then slap on the label 'democracy' and expect it to work.

I think that's exactly it: "democracy" is a label and is used to make the package look prettier, edible and officially approved. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of China, (Former) German Democratic Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo...

I guess we can also add names of political parties for the same reaons such as the Democrat Party.

Prayuth seems to be a very strong-willed, moral, accomplished leader who keeps balance in his profession.

But it's unfortunate that he still feels some insecurity about himself that he has to also threaten to file lawsuits against newspapers that publish reports accusing him of not doing anything. His statement reflects a character weakness of an inflated ego even if it isn't true. If he believes he is doing right why should he care about what is published? He's not running for elected office. He can simply respond, using the public opportunity given to him that removes the appearance of grandstanding himself, by citing his accomplishments. Sometimes, attack isn't the best defense but rather defense is the best defense.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

In which democracy can a government spend 30 billion USD without transparency? Only thing we know is that they still owe the farmers around 3 billion USD. This is most probably the largest corruption case in Thai history. The fact that Yingluck hasn't released any figures since her party implemented this scheme 3 years ago proves that they have something to hide.

How about the Abhisit/Suthep Democrat administration government spending 2007-2010; was it anymore transparent? The PTP administration is operating with the same legislative transparaency requirements of the Democrat administration, which is to say with minimal requirements. I'd like to hear about Constitutional reform from the parties to make ANY government budgetary funding and expenditures more accountable, as well as investigations and deliberations by ALL the independent agencies.

"EC secretary-general Puchong Nutrawong said there were 74 complaints against the election winners in 15 provinces, but since the commission could not finish deliberating the complaints with in the 30-day deadline, it decided to endorse the 15 senators first."

Yes, of course the EC has up to one year to further investigate and ask the Supreme Court's Election Division to disqualify any of the endorsed Senators. But wouldn't you think that given the current situation of an interim government, political conflicts, allegations of government lack of transparency and accountability that the EC take its investigative reponsibilities more seriously upfront. Choosing to wait later sometime within the next year to review elected Senator's backgrounds is allowing uncollaborated senators to operate freely (and perhaps irresponsibly) now. There is no necessity for the EC to grant automatic endorsements. One might perceive EC's rush to endorsements as a politically motivated act.

So it would seem that even though they have a quorum they still need the permission of a caretaker cabinet to convene.

Why should that be ?

I thought that the senate was above parliament and therefore above a cabinet appointed by MP's.

Here we have a caretaker cabinet restricting the time the senate can sit.

Surely this is not right, specially considering that the senate has to deliberate things that can have an (adverse) effect on said caretaker cabinet

Constitution (2007) Chapter 2, Section 22 - "During the expiration of the term of the House of Representatives or the dissolution thereof, the Senate shall act as the National Assembly in giving an approval under paragraph one." All acts of the National Assembly require endorsement of the Prime Minister. Since Yingluck is the interim PM, it might follow that the Senate as its role of the National Assembly would require Yingluck's endorsement (in the form of a royal decree?) to convene. Obviously, the new Senate is comfortable in requesting an endorsement from Yingluck to convene that would seem to validate my understanding of the process.