BangkokReady

Brilliant film. It took me such a long time to watch it as well.

Laws are also meant to prevent any situation occurring where a coup or civil war is seen as necessary. Unfortunately, once someone is "voted" into power in Thailand they are able to restructure the political system and change laws at will to allow them to have complete and unchecked power, hence coups occur.

Absolutely, but if you look at how attempts at democracy actually play out in Thailand, you can see why people are often in favour of coups. No doubt, the junta should have gone back to democracy after a couple of years. Thais should try for democracy, but the coup "backstop" is clearly something that cannot be removed completely, otherwise you just end up in the same situation but with a different group. Neither total control by the elite, nor total control by the poor, results in an optimal outcome for the country.

Consequences? Punishments? They don't even stop the scrotes from wearing stupid hats to hide their identities! This is the land of jumping jacks and push-ups, then back onto your unregistered bike with no licence or helmet, carrying four children, driving the wrong way at high speed. You wouldn't want to make anyone feel bad...

Can you report something that hasn't happened yet? "Predicts" maybe?

Thailand is not coping well without tourism. It is clearly not simply a case of "everyone has returned to their villages and found another source of income". It is obvious that much of the Thai economy and most Thai people were supported by tourism income. Time to open up with few restrictions and rescue the economy and the Thai people. One would hope that in the future Thai people will have a newfound appreciation for foreigners and the money they bring in that Thai people clearly rely on to survive. But I doubt it.

Not technically untrue, but there are rules about who can run, how they can motivate people to vote for them and who can actually be in control of the people who are being elected. Keeping one family or one person in power indefinitely through corruption, cronyism and buying votes is not democracy. In a normal, functional democracy, sure. Where people can vote fairly and elections can allow leaders and parties to change freely, yes, coups are not needed.

No, you're right. The headline should be something like "Can democracy ever function effectively in Thailand while clan politics remains?".

I think both our explanations point to the fact that it gives men options that women would rather they did not have.

It's not for me, but generally all involved are consenting adults. It's not something I would advise people to do, and I don't plan to marry a bar girl, but people should be free to do what they want within "the law". It's derided because prostitution is seen, from a Western perspective, as only benefitting the man and exploiting the woman, with the woman being forced into it by her circumstances. (The real reason for the objection is likely that it gives men options and older/unattractive Western women don't like that.) Obviously this isn't the case in Thailand typically, but people still try to argue it because it is so deeply rooted in their minds.

He slept in a toilet?

I'm not convinced that any Thai people consider foreigners to actually be humans, or at least that they are some sort of different lesser species.

With sex maybe, but doesn't the man determine who he commits to for marriage?

So, generally speaking, you don't think there will be much difference, in terms of marriage success, suitability as a parent and past volatility of childhood, between a prostitute who has had sex with hundreds of men and a woman who doesn't have sex outside of committed relationships?

So a twenty something woman would hook up with a thirty something man, but a thirty something woman would not hook up with a forty something man?

Ummm, not OK for me as I don't do it. I wouldn't recommend it for males either, but, as I understand it, the same damage isn't done to men from promiscuous sex as is done to women. I believe it to be the truth, backed up by general life experience, anecdotal evidence, as well as scientific research.

Are you saying a 40 year old could not date or marry a Thai girl in her mid to late 20s?

Unfortunately, many people see no issue with a women having had a high number of partners. As with the person you are replying to, hundreds of men or being a literal prostitute are not deal breakers, it doesn't wear out and you can test for STDs, so what's the problem? I would assume that these people must view women very much as just existing for sex, for them, and perhaps they have a very casual view of sex themselves. Personally, I don't believe that a woman who has been with just a handful of guys in committed relationships will act or feel the same in a relationship as a woman who has been with hundreds of men or worked as a prostitute. What is the problem with a woman having been with hundreds of guys or worked as a prostitute? Maybe the fact that she is the kind of woman who would have sex with hundreds of guys or work as a prostitute? The girl that goes out every weekend and lets a different dude have at her, barely remembering his name the next day, simply doesn't have the same attitude towards sex and relationships as a woman who carefully dates a couple of guys looking for marriage. They aren't the same and won't behave the same in a long term relationship. It's also highly likely that they will come with a history of abuse and some sort of drug dependency.

So if someone is drunk and they get rear ended or t-boned and it's totally not their fault, they get the blame regardless? I guess that's one way to put people off driving drunk, but it still means that someone else is getting away with causing an accident.

So were they making out or having sex? And how does anyone know if the security guard could not see into the car?

It doesn't. There isn't. Test before entering Vietnam, that's it. Why would you end up in quarantine?

So if the drunk driver was driving completely normally and safely, and did not do anything to actually cause the accident, while the motorcyclist was driving dangerously and caused the accident to happen, it is all the fault of the drunk driver? Something a little off about that. Driving while over the alcohol limit is an offence, but it does not automatically assign blame. You're not thinking logically.

You seem confused. He was the director of education, in Thailand. He did not direct the education of anyone.

To the news story? It adds detail for the interest of the readers. To the assigning of blame? I guess it suggests that the bike may have been moving very fast as it has the capability to do so. The driver van driver being drunk doesn't remove all responsibility from the rider if they weren't driving in a safe or legal manner. It just doesn't work like that.

PCR 72 hours before flight, vaccinated, normal travel insurance with covid cover maybe. That's all that is needed.