Pi Sek

The pajero is not that recent I think?

Indeed, I've just double-checked and the 2nd generation Pajero Sport has been in production since 2008. However I think there is a current 2014 version with different driver assistance systems, gadgets, etc, as the brochure has been recently updated for the "new Pajero Sport" (in other words, the question remains... do they all work?).

Hi all,

I'm looking at buying SUVs for corporate use. I need two, they have to be 4x4 and diesel-fueled, preferably with 7-seat capability. I would love to hear experiences of people who have owned any these cars:

"Regular" SUVs:

• Ford Everest 3.0 VG Turbo - I have owned an earlier version before. Reliable, spacious, generally a good car, and the least expensive on this list at 1.27m Baht for full spec. It's only 6-seat but the middle row can comfortably seat 3 adults.
• Toyota Fortuner - I see too many of these cars and don't like them mainly because of that (subjective!). But you can't argue that their re-sell value is pretty good, and that's a big factor for my superiors
• Mazda CX-5 High 4WD - no 7-seat option available (although I think some countries do the 7-seat?). A lot of people say it wins on fuel usage.
• Honda CR-V 2.4 EL 4WD - no 7-seat option available, quite expensive compared to other "regular" SUVs. No diesel version?
• Mitsubishi Pajero Sport - the latest model is quite recent... is this a positive (good, reliable, usable tech) or a negative (new tech still faulty)?
• Chevrolet Trailblazer 2.8 Duramax - I test-drove this the other day, must say I was quite impressed
• Isuzu MU-X 4x4 - the latest model is quite recent... is this a positive (good, reliable, usable tech) or a negative (new tech still faulty)? (I like the seat config... are they only fold forward are is the middle row removable?)

Luxury SUVs:

• Mercedes-Benz GL - I think a great choice except for the fact that they cost 9m Baht. Can't seem to find any 2nd hand ones, so I can't say anything about depreciation.
• BMW X-5 - no 7-seat option available in Thailand
• Porsche Cayenne S Turbo - no 7-seat option available, and it costs 11.3m Baht. Resells after 100,000 km around 3m Baht.
• Lexus RX 350 - no 7-seat option available

Clearly she is the best premier the nation has ever had.

Just slightly edging out Thaksin for first place.

Way to go babe.

What an angel.

Keep it up.

Clearly a post that needs professional help. Agreeing is one thing letting your daft out another.

The P.M. is continuing to do her duty. LIKE what ??? refusing to appear on charges, resting in safe areas. If her popularity was so overpowering she should without fear be able to tour freely around. PROBLEM the PTP in governing have made more enemies than friends.

What does this "logic" say about Sutheps' popularity if he needs 80 odd popcorners to surround him 24/7?

Has she more enemies than friends - I'm sure an election could answer that question, could you please see if Abhisit has changed his diaper and is now ready to front up?

Oh, wow. I honestly thought your original post was made tongue-in-cheek.

Regardless of the obstacles that her government has faced, I find it amazing that anyone can not consider her to be the worst PM in Thailand's history. She has failed in every one of her pre-election mandates (I'm pretty sure I'm right on that?) and also failed to improve the country in any other respect. Indeed, quite the opposite.

But, if one considers governmental performance to be irrelevant to a PM's performance, then I suppose one may think differently.

Ummm she really said Nittiphol clinic!

She really needs to get her story straight! Nittiphol did a press release stating she was NOT a client so Ms Sunisa changed the.clinic name .. go figure!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Regardless of the fact that she is a sycophant part of the Peua Thai propaganda machine, the PCAD guards had no right to detain her nor to physically intimidate her.

Of course, she could well be lying about the severity of the PCAD guards' actions, as you claim seems to be the case according to Nittiphol Clinic (source?), for her reasons for being in the area. But she could also not be lying in this particular instance, given that we do know that they detained her.

Legally speaking the PCAD guards were in the wrong, but you have to wonder what would happen if a Rangers fan walked into a Celtic pub wearing his preferred team's shirt. Asking for trouble?

If she had resigned, she would not be care-taker PM. She didn't resign.

The Democrats didn't want to be involved in the election because they didn't want to legitimise it. The same as in 2006 with Thaksin, Yingluck wanted to use an election to enable the continuation of their corrupt policies.

I don't agree with an appointed government, but I do think it is time for Yingluck (and her relatives) to go. Put another PTP MP in her place that isn't beholden to Thaksin. That is the only way I can see Thailand moving forward.

Whilst I agree with your first two paragraphs, unfortunately I don't think the "another PTP MP" "that isn't beholden to Thaksin" route would work either though, as it's not in the best interests of the financier's ruling elite.

I have always maintained that the rural poor in Thailand need a body that in some shape or form supports them.

The Red Shirts came the nearest to that - although they never captured the hearts of those outside the North and North East excluding the band along the west and a big nump of the lower north east.

The RS flew the flags of the farmers until they took the positively Orwellian step of trading their beliefs for the hard cash of politics.

The "breakaway" RS party will need some support and will also need to garner some friends in the south for it to be a success. It will also need leaders who can't be paid to crusade for somebody else's cause. With a decent set of national agricultural modernisation policies it could have a big role to play even as a coalition party.

The 2 bodies who are losing support from those who toil the earth and the RS and the PTP

Yes, I think there's some truth in that. Take Nattawud for example, in 2010 he had little to lose. Now he's made millions and has a cushy position as Dep Minister of Commerce. He's not going to put it on the line to fight for the rights of the poorest against his own party. I'd be surprised if he even stuck his neck out too much to fight the PDRC or military (in the unlikely event of a coup). Too much to lose.

Nattawut at least opposed the amnesty bill

I might be wrong on this, but I thought his opposition to the Amnesty Bill resulted in an abstention? If I'm right, that was some pretty lame "opposition".

If Suthep and his loonies get their way you won't have a vote.

In numbers: The TRT and Dems had respectively: 15,744,190 and 11,433,762 people vote for them. A difference in % of the population of resp. (TRT, Dems) 48.41% and 35.15%. (say 13%) This was NOT reflected in the seats in Parliament by the self dividing rule of the TRT who changed the constituencies. (TRT/ Dems) 265 seats against 159 seats or in seats 106 (!!). If this had been in the range of anything like 225 to 196 this would have been a fair and acceptable result. (the difference being about 13%) or in seats 29. Read that again: The difference in what would have been an acceptable and fair divide in seats was 29 but it became 106 !!! This would have allowed (just an example) the Democrats to team up with some other parties and still form a Government. Besides in the opposition it would have given them lots more control. Any more questions??

I didn't ask a question and don't understand your reply.

To be honest, Khun Chooka, I think the majority of protesters don't want quite the proposals that Suthep & his loonies want. The same could be said of the PAD/NPP followers in the past and certain UDD-aligned events like Seh Daeng's "we want a battle". Most PAD followers didn't want to eradicate voting rights, most Red Shirts didn't want to trade bullets with the army.

Personally I think they have chosen such a partizan route to give balance to the partizan route offered by many voices within the government camp. I suppose this is another example of "Thainess"... it's about bargaining postures. That's why Thai market/street vendors often give an unrealistic price when you ask "how much" - the final agreed price is a middle ground that leaves both parties relatively happy. Of course however, if the buyer agrees to the unrealistic price...!

In my opinion, this bargaining stance is also why the UDD leaders were told by SMS to retract their agreement to Abhisit's proposals in the TV debate in April 2010. It wasn't just about peace or democracy at that stage, there were other things that had to be negotiated (and that's why Veera Musikapong got so miffed).

Translation into English please . . .

Augment and highly-regulate Parliamentary power/consensus processing to prevent abuse, and make policies that are *for the national benefit* high-priority, and for even those policies to go through a much more rigorous debating system before reaching conclusion.

In simpler terms, "please do anything that stops more blood being shed in the streets over what are basic social science issues."

Kudos for making an effort to try and define "political reform". I think a pertinent question is whether part of that reform would be the electoral process. Given the propaganda and intimidation we see thrown around, much of it based on lies, I would say "yes".

During the last election I went to see Suthep and Abhisit at Saphan Hin in Phuket Town. Suthep was regular as clockwork - "Us & Them" ranting and drawing cheers of "Thaksin auk pai", (whilst Abhisit was trying to talk about economic details - I don't think many were listening after the first 3 minutes). Elsewhere Jatuporn was still preaching his proven-doctored Abhisit "Kill 'Em All" voiceclip as fact. Where is the place for such incitement of hatred in a true democracy?

So I would also say that political reform must come before an election, not after. The PDRC protest movement would seem to agree with me (even if they're guilty of hate speech themselves), the government don't. Unfortunately we're running out of time before Feb 2 comes along and the very question of need for political reform is causing further division and animosity between the different sides of the argument.

Personally I agree that debate is the way forward, and in a true democracy this MUST be done under officially-controlled circumstances such as in Parliament. Unfortunately, this leads me to recall something I posted in a thread late last year...

<snip>

But what I've really noticed through these recent protests is that the Thai people only seem to sit up and take notice of what's being said when it's done from a rally stage. Newspapers and TV news don't seem to convey any message of untowards-ness in parliamentary affairs (or, if they do, the audience is apathetic). The country is becoming more divided, the economy is as bad as I've seen it since 2001 (OK, world factors have had a big impact), the government has absolutely failed on doing what it said it would do, and both the government and its opposition are leaning towards fascist traits - yet Thais still only come out to voice their objections when there's a protest on. So it makes sense that politics is successfully conducted on a stage rather than in parliament.

Sad really.

Corruption costs the country Bt300 bn every year, claims Abhisit

Hataikarn Treesuwan

The Nation

Suthep Thaugsuban, leader of the anti-government People

The Democrat Party yesterday unveiled its anti-corruption proposal as part of its national reform blueprint.

BANGKOK: -- Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said corruption is costing Thailand Bt300 billion per year, or 2 per cent of gross domestic product. With that amount of money, the country could build 30 Parliament Houses, 201 BTS stations, or 5,100 large secondary schools, he said.

The party yesterday held a press conference to announce its blueprint for national reform after it decided to boycott the February 2 election and spend time considering the reform measures.

Abhisit declared the anti-corruption mechanism as the first point in a seven-point national reform blueprint. He said the proposal has 20 measures.

For example, laws should be amended so that corruption cases have no statute of limitations, National Anti-Corruption Commission investigations should be increased, and so too the role of the Office of the State Audit and the Auditor-General. Moreover, there should be retroactive examination of politicians' and senior government officials' tax payments.

Laws should be amended to control the government's use of advertising budget, and judicial officers should be banned from sitting on state-enterprises' boards of directors, the party's proposal said.

Information related to state enterprises should be transparent in the same way as listed companies. The party also proposed setting up a fund to support civil movements against corruption.

While Abhisit was speaking, a man who declined to be named blew a whistle at him. "I respect my vote. Please stop creating political speeches because your party [the Democrat Party] has never won an election," the man said. Abhisit replied by saying "Thank you", before the Democrats’ supporters took the protesting man out of the room.

-- The Nation 2014-01-08

See this is the real suthep! He hates foreigners so much he's reduced to giving the farang baby a slap...............

This is really the act of a low level coward. Poor baby

And look at the yellow thugs behind on the picture... They seem to wait till Suthep finishes to slap the poor baby before to strangle him viciously.

It's really horrifying to what extent these criminal anti-government mobs can go to reach their insane goals.

Sent from my HTC One using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I usually call for a bit of middle-ground when talking politics, but ... this is really the act of a low level idiot.

Up to you to decide who I'm talking about - after all not all opinions are the same.

It's really horrifying to what extent some people can go to reach their insane goals.

Actually I see this the handling of this "heckler" as a missed opportunity. Here we have someone that was well within his rights to protest, just like everyone else. If I were Abhisit, I would have invited him up to the mic stage and had a short conversation with him, adding that his questions were very relevant and that this shows a willingness of Thai people to move forward. Then, if he continues to rant, then security can take him away.

The only reason that the Democrats are not contesting the election is that they do not feel an election would solve the political problems the country is facing, and so the country would not be able to move forward - it would probably exacerbate the issue. I agree, but many wouldn't... including this guy it seems. But unilateral speeches to Abhisit's own supporters aren't going to change hearts and minds - dialogue is what's needed. So, invite him up, Abhisit! Then we might see the ruling party follow suit and be forced listen to someone other than themselves.

"If you cannot even reform yourself, how can you reform the country?"

Under the current political MO (party-list MPs, family-run politics, unscrupulous coalition partners using their parliamentary voting rights as bartering tools, etc), the Dems know they need reform - this has been publicly admitted by many top Democrat party members - but executing such reform is a painful and lengthy exercise. At least they acknowledge that reform is needed - if it wasn't, the country wouldn't be in this mess. It would be nice to see such acknowledgement from the others.

"When you were the government, why didn′t you do it?"

In short, because the current political MO doesn't allow it. A Democrat apologist could go on about having other priorities, specifically guiding the economy through a worldwide financial storm and facing non-peaceful protests for the majority of their term - but they wouldn't have been able to do it even if they wanted to, because they had political dinosaurs like Suthep trading horses with the Chidchobs, Silpa-archas and others of questionable morality.

"Stop the discourse about anti-corruption."

Why? It's a big problem, and one that's become a bigger issue in Thai public perception in the last decade than it ever has before.

"You have intimidated other people, so can they not intimidate you as well?".

A loaded question but a relevant one. There should be no place for intimidation in pure politics... but there is, on a large scale. This is a problem, and something that adds weight to calls for political reform.

"I am not your rival, I am the people!"

Excellent answer to a stupid remark from Abhisit. However, this guy, like Suthep, is one of the people, not the people. And the division in Thai society at the moment is causing the country produce partizan individuals, who claim they act for the people, in droves. More proof of need for political reform.

Please add my voice to those who are struggling to hold back their hysterical laughter at the ridiculous suggestion that Yinglak deserves recognition for "peace efforts".

They should really get someone with a bit of vibrance and charisma, like the other side did with Col. Sansern in 2010, to come out with this type of fighting talk rather than someone who looks like a vampyric dinosaur who happens to be the cousin of both the PM and her fugitive criminal brother who sponsored and commands the government. Someone more like Arisaman from his popstar days.

So one of the people that was implicated during the Ratchaprason uprising in 2010 wants to arrest Suthep ? Same charge, or different ? Why doesn't he make the arrest and claim the money himself ?

"Red leader" is an honorific title, and is not meant in any way to indicate that the person holding it would approach the front where they could possibly be hurt.

Kwanchai is amongst my least favourite people on the PTP/UDD side, below Thaksin and above Chalerm. He probably ranks close to Surapong. However, in his defense, he did lead from the front in late April 2010 (the attempted Pathum Thani jailbreak which ended in the friendly fire incident) until he got the phonecall from Chalerm and made a getaway by taxi to pose for photos in McDonalds whilst a bunch of his combatants got arrested.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/29/politics/Red-shirt-procession-30128216.html

Emptyset

I think you have made your point mate and we all know which side you are on: not the side of logic or reason. You are fighting a lone battle in this thread and for that I admire you.

Whilst I have been carrying a whistle around my neck for the last few weeks and am praying for the good of the country (for social and economic reasons) that Yinglak and the whole Shinawatra-inspired populist kleptocracy is undermined, driven out in shame and condemned by the Red Shirt movement for betraying them (I won't hold my breath on that one), I think emptyset's arguments here are entirely based on logic and reason. Generally I think emptyset is someone who I can disagree with and at the same time whose opinion I can respect, because he is pretty well informed, he doesn't offer the same one-sided vitriolic BS that we get from other posters (on both sides) and he doesn't attempt to flame or insult.

It is extremely unlikely that Sergeant Narong was killed from the Labour Ministry rooftop. At the same time I also think it's extremely unlikely that we can trust the police under the current circumstances. And it's extremely unlikely that we can 100% believe in Akanat's, Chalerm's, Surapong's or Suthep's statements at any time.

It is incriminating because of his silence. It is secretive because they said no police were on any rooftops. They were wearing uniforms but they did make attempts to hide their presence, as did the minister who denied they were there.

Why should a government official explain what the police did?

Is this a serious question? I guess the values from my country don't apply everywhere - fair enough, there's good and bad everywhere.

What silence? The police just came out and commented on it. And who said that there were no police on any rooftops? You have a source for that? And how exactly did they make attempts to hide their presence in your opinion?

Yes that is a serious question. Police matters are handled by the police. That is the way it works in any European country.

What silence? This thread didn't even mention the rooftop when the police were "gathering evidence" at the Labour Ministry. And, Chalerm came out on Friday or Saturday and said there weren't any police on the roof? No link for that - I saw it on the news. I'm sure it's available on the Internet too and maybe one of our information-gathering posters can find it for you if you don't have time.

What attempts to hide their presence? Crouching behind a wall in an elevated position?

When people are injured or especially if there are deaths involved, there is usually a need for officials to answer for the actions of police, in Europe or anywhere else, if the police are "battling" protesters. Even in Syria. I guess we don't agree on this, and never will.

What did anyone expect? Ninjas? Police, exactly where they should have been. The question is, did they do anything wrong?

No, the question is why the government didn't admit it right away but tried to blame the demonstrants.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

But, to this day, we are supposed to believe that the MIBs, such as the one's on the BTS tracks, were ninjas!

The guy that claimed to train them said they were closer to Samurai.

However this is nonetheless a very incriminating admission, especially with Chalerm's public fielty to Thaksin and his silence to demands for him to explain their secretive presence on top of his building, and one that won't go down with anyone who has a reasonable sense of balance - but especially with those from the anti-Shinawatra crowds - regardless of whether they were merely look-outs/observers/recorders as was quite justifiable.

Why is it an incriminating admission? And what exactly is secretive about placing riot police on top of buildings? They were wearing uniforms and made no attempt to hide their presence. And why should a government official explain what the police did?

First you accuse them of being silent. And when they do speak out, it's incriminating.

It is incriminating because of his silence. It is secretive because they said no police were on any rooftops. They were wearing uniforms but they did make attempts to hide their presence, as did the minister who denied they were there.

Why should a government official explain what the police did?

Is this a serious question? I guess the values from my country don't apply everywhere - fair enough, there's good and bad everywhere.

I will assume that Tarit will now be charging Surapong, Chalerm and Yingluck with murder

Because police-chief Adul is not able to control his men??

Then lied to the public, only to admit it to Gen Prem, who officially have no political role to play!

The political game in Thailand stinks on all levels!

And change is badly needed! But as long all sides are only interested in getting their place at the trough, it is not going to happen.

Makes me sad to see Thailand, which could be a very prosperous country, going down the drain, because of greed and powerhunger!!

If you feel this way, maybe you should go and buy a whistle and join in the discussion outside your local provincial hall one evening. More opinions are good, for everyone.

That's a very opinionated and subjective editorial. If it was written a little more objectively, it would have delivered the more pertinent message that it was trying to deliver: that this democratically elected government is extremely autocratic and its brash arrogance to assume their word is gospel is undermining the values that make democracy a fairer system than fascism.

Violence is always wrong, by both sides... Whoever did it, sure didn't help the cause.

I've just watched the Child's Play pentology with my girlfriend, as these are her favourite farang movies (I got an intellectual one).

According to Chucky, violins are bad, not violence.

As long as you're happy with it, enjoy violence then...

World is nice because people can have different opinions, so your comment was welcome... As long as we respect each other.

Just for the record, I am all for mutual respect, and a fictional killer doll doesn't really influence my views. I was just trying to create some levity.

Sadly enough after listening to the neo-facist Sutheps rants over the last couple of weeks, PTP seems like a not so bad alternative anymore!!

I know, they are rotten to the core and corrupt beyond believe, but the lesser of the two evils!

doesn't it get boring to write "fascist" in every posting, without ever give a reason?

Just repeat it often enough in the hope something will keep sticking....

Fascism is this: one faction trying to seize power without regard for the majority or the bulk of the population.

Fascism is not only applicable to ruthless crimes and pogroms (although historically they fall in that category) but to the one faction (in this case Suthep and company) trying to overrule democratic institutions, the Constitution or the the will of elected officials. Do you believe that Suthep will retire from politics, as he claimed? Why is an old politico who was caught red handed when Minister of Agriculture and resigned not to be indicted, why is he bent of seizing power, allegedly, for the "people". What people? His people? What is his chief motivation? Not altruistic for sure.

Vote buying goes on from both sides. The money is spent by Democrats and PTPs on people who would vote anyway for those parties of their allegiance. Spare us the same litany about Paymaster, the puppet Master in Dubai.

Democrats, at this point in time of Thai history are the worst of all evils.

You are not correct about fascism. That's not what it is at all.

Fascism is about imposing views on others and restricting others' rights. In some cases, it either means totalitarian use of power without regard to the minority, in others without regard for the majority. The key term is totalitarian... and that's why both Suthep and Thaksin are fascists, and the UDD and PAD are/were both fascist movements (it's also why I differentiate Thida, a fascist representing the UDD section of the Red Shirt movement, with non-fascists like Sombat Boonngamanong, whose Red Sunday group actually want stronger democratic values).

I'm a closet idealistic fascist by the way (as was Churchill and many other "champions of democracy" in the 1920's).

Violence is always wrong, by both sides... Whoever did it, sure didn't help the cause.

I've just watched the Child's Play pentology with my girlfriend, as these are her favourite farang movies (I got an intellectual one).

According to Chucky, violins are bad, not violence.

I hope the mods don't see this as off topic but sometimes reporting can be influenced or at least an attempt at by the reporters' own embassies.

I say this because about 17 years ago in Manila I met two German reporters working for a business related publication who were there to report on a conference of Pacific Rim nations. They had received a great orientation briefing at the German embassy which was soured by a request / warning not to write what they saw around Manila of a negative nature.

The diplomat who spoke said something along the lines of if they publish something negative etc. it was the embassy that had to pick up the pieces and take the flak from the Phillipine's Foreign Ministry.

I'm not saying that the BBC are influenced by the embassy here but diplomats do not like problems.

Should we all bring up stories about 20 or 30 years ago about Germans in the Philippines? And ...

And what ? ust pointing on that things go on behind the scenes and news reports can be tailored to suit rather than being as direct as they might be.

Too complicated ?

No too off topic. 17 years ago in Manilla? Aw come on now. The mod already said stay away from Vietnam comparisons. This is today in Bangkok. You have a debate between a poster on a blog run by Russia being compared to BBC and NYT. A Russian blog and the New York Times or the British Broadcasting Corp. Who ya gonna trust?

I do not trust Russian blogs (or any bogs for that matter), but it would certainly be folly to trust either the NYT or the BBC. They are both scoundrels with regards to factual reporting and have preferred the tabloid news route for well over a decade.