Plus

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

A note, yes there are many 'international' students in some classes, but many of them live here not by choice as 'picking a school here' but 'parents work here' etc.

A valid reason, but I don't think it really applies to university students.

There's someone ranting around here somewhere, but I don't think it's me....

Your stat's aren't that impressive. 50% could mean 4 out of 8 students are international- in some courses. I don't think national statistics support your view that Thailand is [apparently] "already" becoming a hub of education.

If oodles of international students suddenly make a practice of coming here, I think it would help the Thai students out quite a lot (by providing competition and accountability through example not supplied by the present system). I'm all for it; I just don't think it'll happen- and if they do come, if it's to a system as set up presently, I don't think they'll get their money's worth. Either way, they'll probably vote with their feet, so time will tell and all that jazz.

Swear to god, I can't stand another post about how Thai education system sucks. Maybe it wasn't you, but it surely looks like an endless supply of whiners here. All they do is complain, complain and complain. For years, non-stop.

>>>

I don't think Thailand compiles national statistics about foreign student enrollment, maybe at Immigration Dept (student visas), but those stories have been appearing in the press for years. I don't see what to argue about here - they say they HAVE enough international students to promote the "hub" policy. You say they don't. It's your word against theirs.

What is the biggest difference that those 6 countries have?

Respect for education and increasingly or completely liberalised investment and financial markets. They have their networks but someone with a good education can expect to have a long, successful and well remunerated career in a myriad of positions in either domestic multinationals or foreign MNC's. They are embracing the rest of the world, whilst Thailand frets over foreign husbands owning houses and some land through their wife.

As if it doesn't happen in Thailand.

Take a look at this list of recent Prime Ministers:

Banharn Silpa-Archa - son of Chinese immigrants, some even argue he doesn't have the legal right to the the PM.

Chavalit - unremarkable family from Bangkok

Chuan - dirt poor family from the South

Thaksin - immigrant merchant family from upcoutnry

Surayud - son of communist insurgent killed in a battle with government.

It's a myth that there's no social mobility in Thailand.

I wasn't meaning that ordinary people obtain well paid and prosperous careers in POLITICS.

These people rose to the highest positions in the country, having passed all the stages on the way. Do you want me to provide examples of not so famous folks who didn't raise to the very top, and not in politics but in business? Nitpicking, that's what it is.

The guy who runs King Power group or the other guy who runs Amata Industrial parks, first came to mind.

Look at Bangkok, look at how it changed in the space of about two generations - they don't have enough "elites" to account for all this newly acquired wealth.

when a gun is aimed at you, it doesn't need to be fired to have an effect. the threat is enough.

fact is, Scott is spot on. sadly, the military are FIRMLY in charge

More nonsense - what guns pointed to whose heads? What did Anupong do last year when Samak refused to listen? Where were his guns? It was a pathetic attempt at "TV coup" that was brazingly ignored.

What is the biggest difference that those 6 countries have?

Respect for education and increasingly or completely liberalised investment and financial markets. They have their networks but someone with a good education can expect to have a long, successful and well remunerated career in a myriad of positions in either domestic multinationals or foreign MNC's. They are embracing the rest of the world, whilst Thailand frets over foreign husbands owning houses and some land through their wife.

As if it doesn't happen in Thailand.

Take a look at this list of recent Prime Ministers:

Banharn Silpa-Archa - son of Chinese immigrants, some even argue he doesn't have the legal right to the the PM.

Chavalit - unremarkable family from Bangkok

Chuan - dirt poor family from the South

Thaksin - immigrant merchant family from upcoutnry

Surayud - son of communist insurgent killed in a battle with government.

It's a myth that there's no social mobility in Thailand.

Reds are politically isolated, they have absolutely no one on their side. It's Thaksin vs the rest of Thailand.

vs the rest of thailand?

Every little bar girl still loves thaksin and some ppl in the north also.

Nearly every thai i spoke so far likes thaksin, so you must be completly wrong normally!

That's the attempt at opinion poll I was talking about.

This country is firmly controlled by the military, not the electorate.

Another myth - where is any evidence of that? Where was the military when reds stormed Pattaya? Where was Anupong when reds were trying to kill Abhisit on Sunday? Who set up the emergency center to quell red riots? Abhisit himself.

Where is the military in the latest row over police chief?

Where is any evidence of military controlling anything in the past nine months?

..Thai history shows in the last 30 years 18 or more military coups...

Where did you get your history????

The problems will be resolved when the country is firmly controlled by the electorate.

Ha ha ha, like that is going to happen.

Every country on earth is controlled by elites who get endorsed by the electorate.

Reds are politically isolated, they have absolutely no one on their side. It's Thaksin vs the rest of Thailand.

vs the rest of thailand?

Every little bar girl still loves thaksin and some ppl in the north also.

Putting your attempt at opinion poll aside.

Thaksin is just one man, he's got his fan club, just like any other politician of any size. Out of nearly ten parties going into elections, not one is aligned with his PPP. Some of their own MPs vote against them in parliament.

Reds are politically isolated, they have absolutely no one on their side. It's Thaksin vs the rest of Thailand.

So far Democrat led coalition appears to be stable and long term looking. It might implode from inside, but surely not because reds have something to offer - 'cos they don't.

Thaksin's is still one man figthing against the whole country, on his last leg and suffering from cancer. Reds might run around with his pictures for a while but they don't make the weather and have absolutenly nothing to offer.

Who takes "we will bring Thaksin back as economic advisor and he will solve all problems" crap seriously?

Yeah yeah bla bla bla it's impossible bla bla bla bla bla it's an April 1 joke bla bla bla bla bla.

Foreign students are already here. Period.

And there will be more coming.

The policy didn't come out of nothing, and the govt better get their shit together, providing all kinds of services to prospective students. Here, in Thailand, Australians have their education fairs and I believe have a permanent facility to help those who want to study there. That's what Thailand should do in its prospective markets, too.

...the majority of Thais have been very frustrated with the state of Thai politics for decades, but saw some movement forward for the first time ever when MrT actually gave something back - hence his support.

I can agree that many people saw him giving back more, but to imply that he has somehow improved Thai politics is outrageous. His "Democracy is not my goal" speech on the eve of Constitution day really said it all.

..I very much hope that MrT's government would be 'forced' to work for the country rather than personal benefits - that's what he is elected for.

It's a hope against hope. He has been elected twice and failed to do so, and now he's seeking power to save his wealth, not to help the country. You, of course, can believe otherwise, but the idea of Thaksin's selfless struggle to help Thai democracy is a hard sell outside red circle.

In terms of reputation and English, Singapore's universities are really winning the regional battle. Thailand will be fighting for a share of what's left after Singapore's full.

Japan is behind in terms of English but way ahead in terms of subject matter, etc.

Thailand simply doesn't have the excess capacity of English-speaking expertise necessary, either..

The fact is even Ramkhamhaeng has some courses with 50% international students. There IS demand, there IS capacity, there IS a chance of becoming a hub.

What should be government response be? "fuc_k those students. We will NOT help them, we will NOT help our universities because of endless rants on Thaivisa. We DON'T stand a chance. Go back where you come from, you are NOT welcome to study here."

Maybe they get dregs who couldn't get a place in Singapore, but they'll get them. I also don't think Singapore has any excess capacity itself, Thailand maybe already ahead of them in providing infrastructure and facilities to support practically unlimited number of foreign students. Thais could replicate the success of "medical hub" policies, I don't see the problem. It's already working.

Well, I was referring to the quality of the education, not that it is cheap.

It's all related. Thailand only needs to offer better quality and convenience for the money people can afford. If they can't pay for Japanese/Australian/UK/US education, there's no point in comparing quality. Apples and oranges, BMW and Toyotas.

As for ranking - they should sell programs, not universities. Chula can set up an excellent international MBA program, for example, but it's quite possible it would not have any effect on their overall ratings whatsoever.

I've seen an article a few days ago about some international committee giving Thailand a low safety grade, I'm sure it is one of the reasons for this new policy.

Most of the measurements in that grade have nothing to do with licenses, btw. There's one about law enforcement, and Thais got a low score there, but there are others like "child seats" or speed limits that are relatively easier to improve.

Idiots who drive on the wrong side of the road with lights off know dam_n well it's agaisnt the rules. You can make them pass ten tests with flying colors, it's not the reason they do it. Idiots who pull out of the soi without looking at coming traffic are just idiots. They can pass lots of tests, won't improve their driving habits a bit.

Law enforcment is very important, but only to a degree - a few extra speed limit signs will probably get Thailand a higher grade very cheaply.

As for real safety - the police job is to facilitate the traffic, they will be lynched if they tried to stop and fine every offender at 8AM on a busy road. When lights are green the police will wave at you to go faster even if you are already doing 100km/h. The official speed limit makes no sense in these situations.

And just think of trying to pull over a motorcycle weaving through traffic at 100 - it would be far more dangerous than simply letting him go. I think it's the rule for police in Europe now - don't race with those who drive too fast, it's too dangerous for other road users.

Some police checkpoints are meant simply to extract money, but not always. Sometimes they set them to enforce driving behaviour in a particular spot, like illegal u-turn in a dangerous place or driving on a shoulder and then trying to merge before a one lane only bridge.

The official rules are too general to apply to every traffic situation. Sometimes the alleged benefits of having a clear hard shoulder are insignificant comparing to thousands of extra cars that can use it in a very heavy traffic, sometimes opening it up will only worsen the congestions half a kilometer down the road. There are too many variables that official rules simply don't cover.

Do they seriously think that they are going to be better than Japan when it comes to education?

Why not?

Does Japan offer a variety of courses in English? I don't think so. And let's not forget the expenses of living in Japan - incomparable to Thailand.

I think Thailand can cater to growing Asian middle classes that don't even notice those spelling mistakes and can't yet afford to send their kids to Australia.

Well, they are standing up to Patcharawat, and he is retiring next month.

I also don't think they are relying on the petition only - I bet they have their own backup, perhaps some honest (gasp) officers who recommened them to go public.

I've read somewhere that Thailand has a lot of international students already, why not make it official policy? They aren't going to attract Americans but Laos, Burma and Cambodia are practically Thailand's backyard. They are not going to challenge Australia either but build their own niche, their own value for money.

Then there's a growing number of Western institutions setting up various Masters programs here - they can surely market themselves to all neighourhood, including Malaysians and Singaporeans.

I don't see the probem with this.

Lots of people, from Senate speaker to Interiot Minister himself, are saying that police chief appointment is not a reason for either House dissolution or Abhisit resignation.

The fact that the panel had guts to refuse PM's nomination is a testament to democracy in itself.

Red shirts apparently can't tolerate that - their version of democracy is when everyobody follows the boss and rubberstamps everything put in front of them.

The economy is also showing signs of recovery, they can't get Abhisit for that. What else is left?

For now Anhisit can safely ignore whatever reds came up with and focus on containing their violence. The Chiang Mai attack is despicable, and it's difficult to point fingers at anyone but reds. "Agent provacateur" theory could work only if there's any response favourable to any particular party. So far there's nothing, not even against reds. It looks like the sole purpose of the attack was to get yellows, without any hidden motives.

Not to start wars, but during Thaksin years standing up to police pooyais was simply impossible.

I was at Sanam Luang last week, and there was nothing violent or thuggish about it. Nor was there anything violent or thuggish about the couple of yellow shirt rallies I've passed through. The majority of peaceful folk on both sides just want democracy and an end to corruption.

I thought reds idea is "everyone's corrupt but Thaksin paid back more". No?

"there was neither conflict with the legislative branch nor a policy clash to warrant a snap election...."....but there are other 'conflicts' warranting a snap election.

No, they don't.

None of the items on the new red agenda warrants new elections. More importantly, if they argue those points instead of their usual "illegitimate" charge they tacitly admit that Abhisit has all the rights to PMship and then reds contradict their own agenda - respect for electoral results. There will be next "no confidence" debate where they can raise all those points and some more, if they want.

.. if an election were held that a Taksin nominee would win.

Win what? What does elections "win" mean? There's very little chance that PTP can form a new government despite winning more parliament seats than anybody else, and if they do - they will be forced to work for the country, not Thaksin. They tried that already last year - Thaksin's nominee government doesn't mean Thaksin will get any benefits.

I'd subscribe to both, but only Nation is delivered where I live.

Local news are mostly duplicated, but not so with political comments and opinions. Bangkok Post has more syndicated content, Nation has more business pages, with more news and interviews and regular columns, Bangkok Post has better sport coverage, but Nation's on the ball as far as English Football is concerned.

I used to read BP online but after they "upgraded" their website i gave up - it's become impossible to find anything - clicks, clicks, clicks with more and more links offered everywhere, but they never guess what I'm interested in and it's always tucked in some remote corner.

Same for the Nation, it had pioneered this kind of webdesign, and they both got a lot of stuff that doesn't make it to the web version at all.

I was told that a group of Thai wineries (monsoon valley, and the other purveyors of boones farm type garbage wines) lobbied some of the Thai senators,

and got them to pass the anti import wine bill. It was supposedly to "protect" the Thai wine industry.

I think this is incorrect.

The prices of local and imported wines are roughly the same - ridiculously high. Import duty itself doesn't make much difference, certainly not a crucial one when people choose what form of alcohol to buy.

After 1997 crisis there was a push for buying local and cheap, all luxury items were taxed through the roof, including locally made ones.

MU-7 is based on Isuzu's prehistoric, ten year old platform while newer Toyota and Mitrubishi took full advantage of eased regulations that allowed shorter base and coil suspensions.

Captiva is smaller than Fortuner or Pajero Sport, they should be in different categories, but size doesn't really matter much in Thailand.

I still think the current gov't should make some concession to the Reds. The PM needs to make it clear that these current problems are amongst Thais, and he needs to emphasize that there are innumerable things that Thais agree upon: Royalty, Sangha, love of nation, etc.

No point. Concessions or not, you said it yourself:

.. there's one great big thorn in the side of the beast. Namely: Thaksin.

Govt. problem is not with reds, it's with Thaksin. Reds are just a fan club/foot soldiers and they don't have any demands on their own. They only repeat meaningless mantras handed down by Thaksin ideologists.

Looking at the bigger picture - Thaksin turned to red power only after conviction, as a tool to save his frosen assets, no one knows what he will want when he loses that fortune, too. Reds are not going to dissipate, of course, but they always need a compelling reason to rally about. First it was govt overthrow, then it was the petition. What will be the next idea? Will Thaksin keep supporting it? It's a top-to-bottom movement, follow the leader the movement, it won't create any big troubles on their own. At most they can disrupt government meetings upcountry or kill some yellow supporters.

Then there will be referendum on the const amendments with elections around the corner and red agenda will be completely irrelevant to democratic process.

I beleive in the latest published versrion of the petition they called Thaksin an "elected PM". That is factually incorrect. He himself dissolved the House and subsequent elections didn't produce neither the parliament nor the elected leader. On the day of the coup his status was only "interim PM".

That's probably right "258-million-baht Democrat party donation" but is it the tip of the iceberg? And when I say iceberg I really mean tea money. Cos there ain't no iceberg's in LOS!

Oh, that.

Means they could find nothing on Democrats since that "happened" five years, or three elections ago and opposition made it a centerpiece of their CURRENT no confidence debate.

Again, it was already discussed, there's nothing new.