In Town

Leffe is good, the others, not so much...

Why such hate? Its clear the prosecution of Yingluck is more persecution than justice. Everyone in the entire world knows that, including everyone in Thailand. It is aimed at her brother.

quote "Everyone in the entire world knows that, including everyone in Thailand."

Are you quite sure that every person in the entire world knows?

Is that called poetic licence, exaggeration or what.

You would probably find that of the estimated In demographics, the world population is the total number of humans living on Earth. As of July 2015, it was estimated at 7.3 billion.^[1] The United Nations estimates it will increase to 11.2 billion in the year 2100.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Of that 7.3 billion people over 6 billion have never heard of Thailand and of the rest perhaps 90% (my guess) don't care either.

Excuse me. Let me qualify my statement. Everyone in the entire world, that follows events in Thailand. Satisfied?

Why such hate? Its clear the prosecution of Yingluck is more persecution than justice. Everyone in the entire world knows that, including everyone in Thailand. It is aimed at her brother.

We should also remember the mentally disturbed Germanwings pilot Lubitz locked the pilot out of the cockpit and intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps, killing all 150 passengers and crew on board.

Oddly,

While the U.S. has had more mass shootings in terms of raw numbers than other countries, at least three European countries—Switzerland, Norway and Finland—had higher rates of mass-shooting deaths per capita, according to researchers Jaclyn Schildkraut of the State University of New York in Oswego and H. Jaymi Elsass of Texas State University.

One of the problems with these studies is the focus on mass "shootings". Its not surprising that countries where firearms are available have more "shootings" than countries where firearms are not available (like Australia), but focus on "killings" instead of "shooting reveals a different story. Here is a list since the Port Arthur murders, which led to the banning of all firearms in Australia:

• Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
• Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
• Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
• Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.^[5]
• Lin family murders - On July 2009, Lian Bin "Robert" Xie killed his sister, her husband and three members of their family (5 persons from the Lin family) with a hammer. The faces of the victims were so disfigured that forensics had to be used to identify them. The motivation for the family massacre were partly because Lin had criticised Xie for not having a job.
• 2011 Hectorville siege - A shooting that took place on 29 April 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, shot four people on a neighbouring property (three of whom died), and also wounded two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.^[6]
• Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18 November 2011.^[7]
• Hunt family murders - Geoff Hunt killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself on September 9, 2014.^[8]
• Cairns stabbings - A woman stabbed 8 children to death on 19 December 2014. 7 of them were her own.^[9]

^{It does seem that mental illnes, which has yet to be successfully outlawed, is a contributing factor here. Unless you want to ban hammers and matches.}

I think there is bipartisan consensus on this issue. Republicans (and many Democrats) don't want to focus on guns, as they know that is a vote loser. At the same time Democrats don't want to focus on the actual proximate causes of mass shootings and possibly much of the increase in suicide, the decision taken in the 70s and 80s (by Democrats) to deinstitutionalize the the mentally ill, and the proliferation of violent video games and movies (produced by Democrats) that simultaneously glorify violence, and desensitize impressionable and mentally unbalanced youth to the consequences of violence.

maybe the next time there is slaughter on the streets of Thailand and the police are doing nothing - the military should just stay back and let it happen, that seems to be the solution some are advocating here, and lets remember that most of these conflicts are caused by the corrupt practice of the sitting governements and their unlawful attempts to push through agendas that don't sit well with most of the Thai people, is that what Thailand really needs - an uprising and utimately a civil war

I don't think so

The sooner they write a constitution that firms up and stops these people in office abusing their position the sooner we will see a lasting peace here, some simple rules would have made it impossible for PTP to even attempt what they tried 3 years ago and none of this would have happened

That'such an amazingly simplistic and naive analysis. What good does a new constitution do when it just gets torn up?

Thailand has several fundamental problems that need to be solved before we can see real progress.

Thaksin (and the present snouts in the trough) is a result of these problems, not the cause - and certainly not the solution.

Or, perhaps Thaksin is the answer. Objectively, it is beyond doubt that he provided the best governance Thailand has ever had, raising all boats with a rapidly expanding economy, but helping most the rural forgotten, the poorest of the poor. It is indisputable that he was removed from office because he threatened the corrupt and privileged status of the amart, those Thais who have made millions exploiting and robbing the workers of Thailand they disparagingly call buffalo, or prai (serf).

I'm constantly amazed at the number of foreigners who happily defend feudal and military rule.

Welcome back Richteacher, Moonao or whatever you previous incarnation was.

Points for slipping in the amart reference, but you forgot to mention "Mark" and "yellow thugs" in this dribble.

Overall 6/10 for this effort.

Could do better.

If Thaksin is the answer....it must have been one hell of a question.

I'm sure the families of the thousands of murdered "drug dealers" wait in anticipation.

I understand your problem with Thaksin is the "War on Drugs"? It was endorsed by everyone in the senior senior leadership of this country, and endorsed by the people of the country, and the abuses you speak of were committed by who? Thaksin? The Army? The police?

I do notice you don't dispute that Thaksin provided the best governance this country ever had, so that is a positive.

maybe the next time there is slaughter on the streets of Thailand and the police are doing nothing - the military should just stay back and let it happen, that seems to be the solution some are advocating here, and lets remember that most of these conflicts are caused by the corrupt practice of the sitting governements and their unlawful attempts to push through agendas that don't sit well with most of the Thai people, is that what Thailand really needs - an uprising and utimately a civil war

I don't think so

The sooner they write a constitution that firms up and stops these people in office abusing their position the sooner we will see a lasting peace here, some simple rules would have made it impossible for PTP to even attempt what they tried 3 years ago and none of this would have happened

That'such an amazingly simplistic and naive analysis. What good does a new constitution do when it just gets torn up?

Thailand has several fundamental problems that need to be solved before we can see real progress.

Thaksin (and the present snouts in the trough) is a result of these problems, not the cause - and certainly not the solution.

Or, perhaps Thaksin is the answer. Objectively, it is beyond doubt that he provided the best governance Thailand has ever had, raising all boats with a rapidly expanding economy, but helping most the rural forgotten, the poorest of the poor. It is indisputable that he was removed from office because he threatened the corrupt and privileged status of the amart, those Thais who have made millions exploiting and robbing the workers of Thailand they disparagingly call buffalo, or prai (serf).

I'm constantly amazed at the number of foreigners who happily defend feudal and military rule.

I hope that during the PM's visit to the UN later this month someone will inquire about his policy of taping shut the mouths of critics of the government, but I'm not holding my breath.

Criticism of the government seems to be increasing. Looks like we might be in for a hot winter.

The 1997 constitution is called "the people's" because it was drafted with significant input from the public. The 2007 constitution, whatever its merits, was drafted by the military without popular input. Those who argue it is legitimate because of the referendum might be unfamiliar with the actual circumstances of the referendum. At the time the people were presented with the choice of "accept this constitution or we will pick one for you", and were assured that "if you don't like it you can change it after the election". Also, it was illegal to campaign against the constitution.

In the event people made the choice to accept the constitution so they could have elections and regain power, then change the constitution, but when they actually tried that they were impeached. This is the primary reason people rejected this draft. They know that if they accept it they will never be allowed to reform it and make it more democratic.

The 1997 constitution is not perfect, but it certainly has more popular legitimacy than any other Thai constitution, and as such the UDD's demand seems reasonable. The Democracts may agree with this as well, since they would have a chance to compete and have some power (right now they have none) and would still control the "independent" institutions.

The rural people did vote in the Shiniwatras. This was their first taste of western democracy. They thought it was good until the truth was revealed. They no longer respect any political party as they know that the elite and their supporters are corrupt. They have gone back to more traditional politics and the Army/Military are less corrupt than any politician.

No it was not Western democracy and the voted for the Shinawatra because they handed out money for the votes. Getting 500 also meant for them that Thaksin is a nice person (giving them money).

Right. They didn't like him because he listened to them, provided services for them. They didn't like him because he was the first Thai politician to ever pay attention to the rural poor, reduced child mortality and increased economic development. Keep repeating that and maybe you can at least convince yourself.

MZurf wonders why I should post an opinion. As all authoritarians do. Jon WetherallThinks I am uninformed. Maybe, but I live in the boonies (ie where most Thais live at their purist) You city centric blokes are way out of touch as to where the real culture lies and your city centric "democracy" is dismissed by non urban Thais. Naïve indeed!

Urban Thais like to think they are superior to rural folk, but the truth is they are demonstrably intellectually less developed. They remain enmeshed in a traditional feudal culture, while rural Thais are already modern.

multicolour shirts = yellow shirts on laundry day

I think both sides are equally hideous. The main difference is that one side was elected and the other elected themselves.

I think both sides have their bad side but one of the two sides is just more violent as the other. And I prefer them both not to shut down the country or city.

You may be right that there have been more violence perpetrated by people associated with the red shirts, but removing a legally elected government and installing a junta really does invite the crazies out of the wood work.

I'm not sure its crazy to fight tyranny. Also not sure more violence has been committed by the red shirts.

Why is this person still allowed to speak?..........The reds must love him, but they definately don't get it!

What do you mean? Are you suggesting only positive critique of the draft constitution should be allowed, or are you objecting merely to this particular individual being allowed to express his opinion? Much as I disagree with the opinions of some people, I'm not sure it would be good for the long term health of the country to suppress dissent, disagreement, or differing opinions.

Yes, it was clearly Thaksin's fault. He wasn't in the country, but still, he forced the soldiers to shoot civilians. And the popcorn shooter? His was just a measured and reasonable response to the continued influence of the Shins in Thailand. The floods? Thaksin. The drought? Thaksin? No alcohol when you are thirsty? Thaksin...

Two people from one political side and only one from the other side, it's not really balanced, right?

How would you achieve a balance with Yingluk on one end of the beam. Calling her a political lightweight, even an airhead, doesn't do justice to what more resembles a helium balloon.

Misogynistic, as I said. Her brother is an evil genius who easily controls most people in Thailand, while she is just a ditsy airhead who cannot tie her shoelaces.

I think your caption under your icon is probably accurate, as you seem full of it.

Despite the misogynistic rantings of some here, my feeling is that Yingluck would mop the floor with both of them. All have had an opportunity to govern, but only YL has been effective, and only YL has actually business experience. Sometimes substance really does matter.

What? Cauliflower?

Abhisit, while well-spoken, is to me the very definition of the boy toy empty suit.

Despite the misogynistic rantings of some here, my feeling is that Yingluck would mop the floor with both of them. All have had an opportunity to govern, but only YL has been effective, and only YL has actually business experience. Sometimes substance really does matter.

I livecin Pakkred also. Love the place, I hopes its stay farang free.

There is a nice local floating market at Wat Tha Kieng. Only local people.

Pakkred - farang free

Nichada - farang bloody expensive

Maung Thong United FC play nearby, and it is always fun to catch a game.

Its heartening to see the professors finally standing up for democracy and free speech. Sad though that they could not do it for poor or powerless farmers, and only got the courage to stand up when it affected students. They are finally starting to realise that they are not a protected class, and that their cheerleading against democracy for the masses led to a loss of their freedoms as well.

This seems like perhaps the beginning of the end for the junta government. Increasing public disgust at the injustice of these arrests will perhaps grow, leading to further public protest and further arrests. Its clear now the government has lost the once solidly yellow academic community, both students and professors; and the business community is increasingly dismayed by the poor economy. What next for Thailand?

There is a group of posters on TVF that seem to relate every political issue to Thaksin. They accuse everyone with a different opinion than theirs of being a paid stooge of the evil one. But as this group grows smaller and smaller their claims become more and more outlandish, and it seems more and more likely that in fact they may be paid propagandists for the anti-Thaksin business group. Anyway, these days they don't even try to argue, or hide their agenda.

It's interesting to see how concerned the government is with the student movement for democracy. They know, I think, that as this movement grows it will become more and more difficult to control, because the students are actually the children of the elite who run the country. It was easy to portray the red shirts as the "other", as stupid hicks from the countryside unable to think for themselves, but it will be much more difficult to do so to the children of the generals, admirals, and corporate elite.

interesting days folks.