Samui Bodoh

Whatever the real story is, he just looks guilty.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

It’s the same arrangement we have with Laos on multiple hydroelectric projects, in which Thailand has long been a major purchaser of the electricity produced. 

 

Proponents of such deals say they represent win-win solutions, appeasing both opponents and proponents of new projects in Thailand and creating a fresh source of revenue for our less prosperous neighbours.

Do you not understand the difference between hydroelectric and coal-fired plants? One is clean, renewable energy and the other is a climate-change promoting mess.

This is one of the stupidest ideas I have seen in a long time...

The only reason that Trump wants a parade is that he thinks it will result in him getting a promotion to 'Grand Marshall".

3 minutes ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

 

Yes. Thanks for that.

 

I'm so looking forward to my condo corridors stink of pot.

I am looking forward to that as well!

On 2/6/2018 at 11:48 PM, boomerangutang said:

It brings a grin to my face when I read Canadians in this thread - saying their pot is superior.

It may be (to them).  But if you ask a Jamaican, an Oregonian, a Hawaiian, a Colombian, a Californian, or a Colorado grower, they'll probably say the same about their locally-grown stash.

 

To really have a handle, a person would have to sample all the types.  Additionally, there are so many specialty types now.  Some are like tranquilizers and nearly put you to sleep, others are like acid trips, while other types of pot are.....  I honestly don't know, but it's fun to read the labels at the shops.

 

I grew pot in northern California before it was legal.  I never made much more than a few bucks, due to rip-offs and cops.  Oddly, I stopped smoking pot years before I farmed it, and still don't smoke.  It's not my type of high.  Perhaps I'll check it out again, in my senior years.

 

The 2 main reasons I stopped smoking weed at age 20, was because it was poor quality and it fueled my introverted personality.  Indeed, I only smoked it as a teen because my buddies were always sticking a lit pipe in my face.  Peer pressure.  Though there were a bunch of fun times.  The times I enjoyed pot most, were when I did it with other drugs: alcohol or speed. 

I am not into that nationalistic bragging- it wouldn't be very Canadian, eh?

However, hand on heart I have had this conversation 7-8 times in my life as a Traveler;

Hey, where are you from?

I am Canadian.

I know a bit about Canada, whereabouts?

British Columbia. BC.

BC? As in BC Bud? That stuff is awesome!

Sooooo, I stand by my comments regarding BC Bud!

Cheers

3 hours ago, YetAnother said:

zero sympathy for their self-created problem; the only options, all being negative for them, suits me just fine;

is surprising how this watch foolishness came to light and how fast it exploded

"...is surprising how this watch foolishness came to light and how fast it exploded..."

I strongly agree with the "zero sympathy" comment in the first sentence, let me respectfully disagree with the second. 

First, it is just so weird that it was bound to attract attention sooner or later; a General borrows some other guy's watch(es) to wear? Who does that? If a friend of mine came to me and asked to 'borrow an expensive watch' for a while, I would say something like "what the hell is the matter with you? Are you a chick who wears jewelry?"

The second reason that I disagree is that this is simple; the really difficult corruption to stop is in one legal clause of a 89 page contract or in subsection 33.4.5 of a new regulation. This is splendid simplicity, "Hey look! The General has  a multi-million Baht watch! How'd he get that?".

Let's hope that one day the General receives what he deserves...

I also think the UK is leaving (a bad idea, but...)

The question is what comes after the departure? If the UK is smart they will try very, very hard to get some kind of free trade agreement in place to ensure that the damage they face is mitigated somewhat. 

Simply put, I do not see any other trade blocs that they can join; swallow some pride and be nice to the EU on the hope that they give favourable terms.

The UK is, or ought to be, in extreme damage control mode at the moment...

1 hour ago, webfact said:

THE RULING junta is facing a major question involving one of its key figures: Should General Prawit Wongsuwan be allowed to step down amid mounting pressure because of his wristwatch scandal?

What a cynical tale!

How about a different question; as he seems not to be able to explain were he got the expensive watches and how he paid for them on his salary, why isn't he being put on trial for unexplained wealth? Would anyone else be allowed to stay on their job in his circumstances? Would Yingluck? 

It is weapons-grade hypocrisy.

2 hours ago, webfact said:

For one thing, the case showed how the military’s mentality focused mostly on warfare, she said, questioning in this case who the “enemy” was.

 

“Is it the people? They taking to the Internet and dissimulating all these half-truths, in an operation funded by the taxpayers’ money, to fight against who exactly?”

I find the comments above the most interesting in the story.

If this story is true, and I can think of no reason to believe that it isn't, then it tells us that the military knows already that it is terribly unpopular and unlikely to retain power in any legitimate manner. Further, it knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Prawit's watch(es) are an issue of such importance in the upcoming political campaigns that it feels the need to use subversive tactics to try to combat it.

Or put another way, they are running scared.

Keep at it, Thai people! Military 101 is to figure out your foes' objective and deny it to them. In this case, the Junta's objective is legitimacy; circle the wagons and focus on denying that legitimacy as part of a campaign to oust them from political life.

Yes, there should be limits on the number of people permitted to visit certain special areas/sights. However, there is not a practical method of limiting overall tourism, nor should they even try.

In areas such as National Parks, it is reasonable to set limits on the numbers of visitors a day (many countries do this) and have a system whereby foreigners and Thais alike can share in the site.

In sites such as temples or palaces and the like, there could be a system of XX number of visitors an hour, and sell tickets for that particular hour. This would allow everyone to enjoy the sites and have an opportunity to see the place(s) on more than a superficial level. The difficulty is that we all know that Thai officials would use the limitations to enrich themselves, thus negating the benefit of such a system. Arghhhh!!!

In terms of overall tourism, I suspect that the free market will decide what the limit is, and thus the government and/or other authorities should stay out of it. In my particular case, I avoid tourist areas that I feel have been oversold or overused or over-visited; I just don't like the crowds and thus don't go. And I doubt that I am alone in that thought...

For special sites, impose limits and monitor strenuously for the (inevitable) corruption. In general tourism, the market will dictate what is do-able and what is too much; leave it alone to find the appropriate levels. 

3 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday that a controversial memo attacking federal law enforcement written by congressional Republicans vindicates him in the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the "memo" written by partisan Republican members of the Intelligence committee vindicates Trump in any way, shape or form.

This is nothing more that the proverbial "Big Lie" technique of politics whereby a politician screams garbage over and over again and expects everyone to believe it. The difficulty in this modern age is the magnification given to the "Big Lie" by Fox "news" and other right-wing media. 

I fervently hope that Americans will wake up and see through this crap. I cannot say that Trump is guilty of conspiracy with the Russians in the election (I simply don't know), but every move that he makes seems to be aimed at deflecting attention from some guilty secret. And secrets always come out sooner or later; I hope that the secret(s) comes out before the damage done is beyond repair. 

I have said it before and (sadly) will say it again;

Donald Trump is an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything it touches.

God help us all

The evidence of unexplained wealth is at least enough to warrant his suspension from his duties, if not merit a full investigation of his finances.

If the Junta has any credibility, he should be removed from cabinet immediately.

Enough.

40 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

I think unless things dramatically change, there will be a natural cap on tourism.

The amount of tourists getting killed or injured seems to be on the rise, especially Chinese.

Unless the government starts to address road safety, marine safety and crime, not to mention the ever inflated baht, the people will stop coming.

There will always be tourists but the numbers will dwindle...

 

Just my opinion, not fact :)

I tend to agree with the post above, but I would add a point or two...

In addition to the crime and safety aspect, there simply comes a time where saturation is achieved. I truly love some of the temples in Thailand, but I will not visit them if there are too many people or if I have to wait too long. Further, If I fly into Thailand and end up waiting for several hours to get through immigration, then I am not going to do it anymore. If I go to a popular beach and I need to really search for a good spot because there are too many people, I'll either go to another beach or give it a miss. Etc. Etc. Etc.

My point is that, to me at least, there is a time where things are "full" and Thailand is approaching that point. And, once you reach that point, things then begin to go downhill rapidly; I hope Thailand has the wisdom to not let it get that far.

15 minutes ago, JAG said:

I live in a rural area, some 25 kilometres from Chiang Rai. My wife and her family work two small farms, a total of about 18 Rai, belonging to my father in law and my wife and I respectively. They grow rice and vegetables( for our own consumption and to sell), raise fish to sell and bananas and pineapples.

 

If it were "up to me" then I would wish to establish a nationwide network of genuine cooperative ventures, initially funded with government money, to reduce the production costs ( purchasing seed and fertilizer in bulk) and cutting out many of the dealer's and middle men who keep a disproportionate amount of what money the crops raise. Such a network, governed by and in the interests of the farmers, and not by "people of influence" would perhaps be better able to resist the pressure from the major food processors to cut prices.

 

Dangerous radical stuff I know...

Radical stuff indeed! 

I worked for a while in a province in Eastern Indonesia where the 'middle men' had to hire new agents/representatives for every visit to the area as the locals hated them so much that none would ever make a second visit! However, the locals still got screwed...

Eventually Thailand will have to take action to cut down the influence of the proverbial 'persons of influence', but I suspect that (sadly) it is going to take a while. Perhaps there is some bright young thing at university now who will return to the area and act as an honest agent in the future.

Yes, I know, but one can dream...

29 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

It would be a good idea to make ALL farming land chanote so that the farmers and owners have full legal title to the land.

 

quote from your post about rural debt.

 

"The issue of rural debt is one that I have worked with in other Asian countries, and is one of the trickier issues to face. Ultimately, one has to put the onus on the debtor for the problem, as difficult as that seems to be. If a poor farmer buys a truck that they cannot afford, where is the responsibility on the rest of us to bail them out? Forgive me for being a bit hard-hearted, but...

 

Perhaps the farmers borrowed during the PTP gravy days of the ridiculous rice scheme and believed that it would go on at that price for every grain of rice forever.

 

To be fair Yingluck did drop the purchase price at one point but quickly put it back when the farmers protested.

 

I live in rural Khampeang Phet  and locally this government has and still is improving the road network. A couple of years ago they dug a load of storage ponds and last year they dug a borehole to ensure year round water. In 2016 we had no government water supply for 6 months and the local fire trucks were out 5 days a week filling everybodies storage ongs. Last year the borehole came on line and for the first time in 6 or 7 years we had water all year round.

 

The main crop out here used to be man saparang (tapioca) as it is fairly hilly and that is easy to grow, sugar cane seems to be coming on now and rice in flat places with access to adequate water supplies.

 

If a budget were availabe here then the biggest problem would still be adequate water supplies so that people could have fish farms or perhaps grow fruit.

 

There are quite a few tractors around here but I can't think of a farmers co-operative anywhere local.

Hi billd766

Thanks for your post; while I lived in rural areas in other Asian countries for many years, I haven't in Thailand and do want to learn a bit more (Koh Samui cannot really be described as 'rural' to my eyes).

I'll leave aside the issue of new trucks; you might be right re: the rice scheme (don't know), but as a 'development' purchase I simply don't have sympathy for truck buyers, whatever the reason. If your family is in debt because of the truck, sell it and walk is my view.

I find it is interesting that you mention the road network; my own opinion is that it is one of the most important but most underappreciated elements in rural development. 

It is good to hear about the water issue. You mentioned that the main crop used to be tapioca but that it is changing to sugar cane. Is there a reason for that? Was that a decision made by locals or based on input from outside? I am getting at the idea of whether there is good Agriculture extension work going on there or not. Any idea? Are outside ideas entering your area?

Are there any government-sponsored economic development projects? A new market building? Crop (or other) promotions? Any effort to find new markets for the tapioca and/or sugar cane? Any demonstration gardens for new crops? Is there any effort to introduce some kind of local industry for the off-season?

Sorry- lots of questions, but I am curious 

Cheers

Well done!

55 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

'Gov't plans infrastructure projects immediately slammed by Thaigeezers' should have  been the headline.

 

What elections- they look like they are being put back even further as of today. Why not try the glass half full for a change?

 

As for crop diversification what's wrong with that?  Las year I was in an area where the tomatoes were just rotting on the vines as it was not worth picking them for the return they would have made. It's not easy at the bottom of the food chain.

You seem to think that I am against a government infrastructure plan; nothing could be further from the truth (see my second post, not just the first). Unfortunately, when I read this story, I don't see anything that looks good.

You mention the elections being put back and that I should see that as a 'glass half full' thing. Sorry, I do not agree. I think the Thai people have a right to select their own leadership through a democratic election rather than have something imposed on them via coup. I guess we will have to disagree.

Second, I simply do not see much of a plan. They have ear-marked several billion Baht for 'consultation' (read free lunches) and data collection. There already is a great deal of data on Thai people, the only conclusion that I can see for the collection of more is to include information regarding voting. What do you see different? Why do you think they are planning even more meetings? 

I see virtually no specifics or action plan. I have worked with international development projects across Asia for decades and thus have some experience in these matters. I do not see any specifics, deliverables, goals or outcomes. Perhaps you see something that I don't? What will this 'plan' accomplish? And how will you know?

Finally, given the egregious track record of Thai governments (all, not just coup ones) regarding accountability, transparency and responsibility in their governance, the logical conclusion based on the newspaper story is that this will be a massive waste of money, the use of government money for holding meetings in order to build political networks, and a slush fund for their supporters.

To sum up, I see a giant pile of money to be spent with few or no controls, objectives, accountability or even clear purpose. Based on everything that I have seen in Thai politics over the last few months, I think it'll be used by the Junta to try to influence an election.

Respectfully, what do you see different?