2 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

Anything that’s not explicitly illegal, is legal. For example, on the roads, there are only “stop” signs, and no “don’t stop” signs. Strangely, this notion doesn’t always apply when it comes to equal rights for minorities.

 

The notion that the majority can decide what rights  a minority should enjoy is fundamentally flawed.   Once the following are established: Consensual adult marriage is a right Consensual adult sex is a right Sexual orientation is natural and not illegal   Then What two consenting adults of whatever sexual orientation decide to do that other adults are legally allowed to do as a matter of course, should not be subject to majority approval.   In light of current enlightenment, they should automatically have the rights everyone else has and relevant laws (such as regarding joint taxation, spousal benefits, etc) should simply be updated as a matter of course.

In Australia all those rights have been in place for some years.

The current argument has essentially been about the MEANING of the WORD marriage. Which of course is pretty stupid since the REALITY of marriage has changed several times during our lifetimes - with the provision of reliable contraception from the 50s, women's lib & work rights from the 70s, fault-free divorce from the 70s ... Nothing eternal or God-given about it!

1 hour ago, Thechook said:

Will this now be the new dress code for Australia?

In summer it has been for decades.

3 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

I think great that they were given a vote. NZ may have beaten them to it but then 120 people decided my moral view. i tend to think given a vote more than 75% would have been in favour. sadly Australia may be backward on some things but in this case Democracy was allowed a choice.

Ah, the good old Kiwi chip on the shoulder never goes away.

People learn by example, particularly when the example is clearly prospering.

And the people who learn fastest can be surprising. In my family's case it was 1 of my BILs (age now 31) & my FIL (age now 71) who picked up my suggestions & moved forward enthusiastically, the path smoothed by my money. Meantime other BILs & SILs & their spouses (in their 30s) sat around wondering what was happening. All that over the last 4 years.

My basic suggestion was that, because they all live beside a large lake, they have an endless supply of water (even in the drought) & they should use it to produce things that other people in the village further away cannot ie fish, ducks, geese ... , and there's no point in slaving away on rice & cassava fields (even if only for their own consumption) when prices are & likely will remain so low. Good idea but of course it took my money (roughly 400,000฿) over time to produce the infrastructure required (earthworks for fishponds, pumps, etc). All fine now but still not self-sustaining though heading slowly in the right direction.

Now, as groups of dazed-looking middle-aged farmers, many female, are escorted around the tiny (c20H) farm by enthusiastic government officials, I suspect - but do not know - that the question of capital funding is not addressed. Yes, the most important capital is or should be inside their heads but they still need the basic logistic capability to get started.

MBS' performance on Qatar & in Yemen has been pretty awful so far but now he's managed to unite the Lebanese. Quite a feat!

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Change is happening at an ever increasing rate on a global basis. In many 'developed" nations that change is a reversal of globalization and increase in xenophobia.

 

However, despite the increase in communications and information technology, I see nothing in Thailand that points to a liberalization or relaxation of the attitudes towards foreigners. We are guests, and the ones who behave are welcome. But letting us have a say in the running of the country, relaxing and increasing the citizenship requirements and quotas, and increasing our rights - nope. Don't see anything to indicate any change of attitude or desire to change in that area. 

 

 

Come back in 50 years time. (I did say that none of us would be around to see the kind of change you're talking about, but the preparatory ground is there. Do you think the wonders of Western civilization all developed overnight?)

55 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Why? What makes you think that will ever happen?

You obviously haven't noticed that 'modernity' is slowly creeping up even on Thailand. Here in the provinces at the end of the world, the number of falangs you see down the street or at the supermarket is increasing steadily. As multiculturalism increases here, as modern communications educate young Thais in the ways of the world (despite the education system), as economic necessity opens up the country to more and more 2-way trade, so the culture will change.

I see all of this on a daily basis in my own family here: Mum & Dad in their 70s basically speak only Khmer and know little of what happens more than 20 kms away. Their multiple children represent the change & its mixes: all speak Khmer to their parents, Thai to each other and Lao to the neighbours down the road (& 1 SIL). The also range from 'no change' in attitudes to university-educated & working o/s. THEIR children refuse to speak anything but Thai (drummed into them at school).

And so it goes. You may not see it, or approve of it, but change is happening all around us - some slow, some fast, and all leading (sadly, in my view) to abandoning many attractive characteristics of the old Thailand. Again, I see this in my village: The old help-your-neighbour attitudes, all in together, are weakening as the kids learn about capitalism and the greed and individualism that goes with it. Jealousies are rising (particularly in relation to the 'rich' falang and his family.

Change is a mixed blessing but hard to avoid.

Parliament of Queensland Act 2001

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Don’t lose your rag with me. 

 

Talk to the poster who says dual citizens can stand for state elections. 

 

Its not me by the way. 

And the problem here is?

The Queensland regs as set out above say you have to be an Australian citizen to stand for election to the QUEENSLAND Parliament. They say NOTHING about holding dual citizenship or having to renounce your citizenship of another country. This is much the same as in every Australian state & territory.

But this is DIFFERENT from what applies under the Australian Constitution to candidates for election to the AUSTRALIAN Parliament. (Sigh)

2 minutes ago, free123 said:

interesting: in thailand an Australian cannot even buy land nor become a tthai citicen regardless how long he lives there ( maybe in some very very rare cases never heard of one )... in australia everybody can buy land even if the person is a foreigner also loans are possible ( https://www.homeloanexperts.com.au/non-resident-mortgages/buying-property-in-australia-guide/ )...now in aussie a ex foreigner try to run for elections... try all the above in thailand and u are in about a big negative surprise... 

Australia is a rich country built on migration over 200 years. Thailand is poor by comparison and has an inward-looking (insular) culture. That will change over time.

'Unfairness' - whether in international trade or in life generally - is largely a question of perspective.

Seen from afar (from the rich countries) the trading practices of poor countries seem 'unfair' (ie designed to overcome their educational & technical incompetencies by paying their workers low wages). Seen up close (from within a poor country) one wonders what else they're supposed to do - given that trade is basically the ONLY way to grow out of poverty.

20 minutes ago, isitworthit said:

Cannot run for State Goverment if citizen or subject of a foreign power

i just had a look thats what it says for State 

Not so (for the umpteenth time - how hard is it to understand?):  s.44 of the Australian Constitution applies only to the Federal Parliament. The State & Territory Parliaments have their own rules under their own Constitutions: these are similar in many ways to the Federal provisions but they do NOT insist on a candidate for election renouncing any foreign citizenship. They merely insist, reasonably enough, that the candidate be an Australian citizen. Depending on the country of their foreign citizenship, this may mean their renouncing that foreign citizenship at the same time [because of the FOREIGN country's rules not allowing for dual citizenship], but in most cases dual citizenship will be just fine.

We live in a multicultural, increasingly globalized world. Surprise surprise!

3 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

You will never see that in Thailand!!! 

Yes, it will happen, but none of us will be around to see it.

And how long do you think that "negotiate with individual countries for free trade agreements" is likely to take? 10 months? More like 10 years ...

And I notice that your priority is to negotiate with the Anglophone (or, in the case of Usofa & India, the semi-Anglophone) countries. Which, I guess, says it all about the neo-imperialist dreams & nostalgia of the Brexiteers.

All round, I think you might be in for many very nasty surprises in the years ahead. But that's democracy for you.

2 hours ago, Kenegg said:

How do you know this when they don't keep accounts?

Of course 'they' keep accounts. You can't run a corner grocery store without accounts. The accounts are published regularly for all to see.

Talk about paranoia! "They're all liars. I just know it!"

The figures for 'total contributions by nation' to the EU budget in 2014 are, for the 4 biggest economies:

• Germany 29.143b€
• France    20.967b€
• Italy         15.888b€
• UK            14.072b€

An obvious question is: Why would the EU want Britain back anyway?

Of course there is some loss to the EU with Britain's departure - strategically as against the other great powers, and economically (though nothing compared to the economic damage Britain is already doing to itself) - but there is also considerable gain longterm in losing a fractious member that whines the whole time, always demands special deals on everything and generally makes arriving at agreements for action much more difficult than it should be.

33 minutes ago, mercman24 said:

we saved their asses twice in world wars, ungrateful bar stewards, just send them a bill for double what they are asking us, see how they react to that

You sound like the New Zealand of my 1950s childhood: We're British you know and anyway we won The War!

If done well & professionally, the assessments could be very interesting indeed.

"Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."

Interesting that the lean and hungry men - who one is inclined to think would be driven ONLY by ideology - turn out to be greedy too. It is their greed that brings them down.

1 hour ago, LomSak27 said:

Thailand has had a trade surpplus with the USA for decades, while Trump would like to change that most  advisors regard the best way to do business with the Thais is to ..... drumrollplease ..... buy goods from other countries. Vietnam and Indonesia are already cutting heavily into Thailand Agricultural exports to the US.t

There is of course an alternative, probably better all round: The US could actually produce more goods & services that Thais - and other poor-to-middle-income peoples - actually want and can afford. Not sure what that might be but American capitalism has always prided itself (rightly so) on its enterprise, ingenuity & inventiveness. So get to it, Fellas, and stop whining!

Rooster one day. Feather duster the next.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

I suspect it's just another one of the many borders around the world that were fixed after WWII as the colonial empires collapsed, with no regard to the will of the people living within those borders.  Probably as a "Thank You" to Franco for staying neutral and not attacking Gibraltar when the Brits really needed it.

Oh rilly? An interesting version of history.

I think you'll find the borders were already there when Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile got married in 1479. Just a few years before WW2. But who cares? it's all in the past, whatever ...

Energy + initiative. She'll go far, eventually.

1 hour ago, nausea said:

I suspect The Nation can get away with these kind of articles cos it's an English language newspaper, might as well be in ancient Klingon so far as most Thais are concerned.

 

Surprisingly well-written too, in REAL English. Only a native speaker could do that, I think.