Pi Sek

The simple denouncement of the Constitution Court's ruling is unconstitutional according to the current Constitution - as in, it's written into the Constitution. The Court's decision is final - whether or not it was correct (which I think it was) is of no concern.

Peua Thai are digging themselves into a hole here. I was happy they didn't punish Peua Thai - it wasn't bureaucratically correct, but because it was sensible. That's the positive side of a legal system that doesn't recognise or abide by precedents.

Peua Thai said they would accept the ruling after it was made... now it's about-turn time again. Disgraceful, and fully deserving of another Constitution Court judgement, perhaps more severe this time.

And they wonder why the anti-govt protest continued after the Senate threw out their whitewash bill? With statements like this, it's clear they'll try and resurrect it at some point, no matter what the public thinks.

It really does look ridiculous when CNN and BBC report that Peua Thai are accepting the court's verdict whilst the Interior Minister and Labour Minister, two of the party's biggest names, say they "can't accept it" and the "low intellect puppet" (according to Chai-anan Samudavanija) Prime Minister only answers "ka" when asked about her next step.

This post and many others shows muddled thinking or simple ignorance about the principles involved in the role of the judiciary vis a vis parliament.The attached article by Michael Howard, scarcely a fire breathing radical, sets out the key issues.It of course relates to the UK where judges, unlike Thailand, are not tainted by political pressure.Several justices on the Constitututional Court for example were intimately involved in the drasfting of the constitution propagated by the military junta

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618954/Judges-must-bow-to-the-will-of-Parliament.html.

Presumably your post is indicative of clear thinking supported by knowledge, rather than the muddled thinking and ignorance of those who express a different view? In your opinion of course. Seems very similar to the comments PTP's leader always expresses. Only his view is right.

Thailand cannot be compared to the UK. The level of corruption, dynastic families owning political parties, ludicrous over use of organic defamation laws and constant threat and counter threat of suing, impeachment and charging, do not happen in the UK.

Do you think the valiant Tarit and the AG aren't politically controlled? Does the justice system here really offer justice to everyone with law enforced without bias and favour.

Very different political and constitutional landscapes.

Here we have a party in government controlled by a fugitive criminal, trying to sneak a bill through parliament to whitewash his convictions and outstanding criminal charges, trying to push through changes to the senate whilst ignoring parliamentary procedure and remove restrictions that would substantially remove the check and balances that were put in place to stop a dynastic dictatorship and cheating on voting times to push a bill through parliament to give them unchecked access to a vast loan that will indebt the country for 50 years or more. The government has acted illegally, openly refuses to respect or abide by the law, threatens opponents or anyone with a different view of serious legal actions (somewhat ironically given their regard for the law) and says telling lies is o.k. and ethical. Can you say which government in the UK has acted in a similar way?

Clear thinking is always welcomed regardless of whether arguments are in support of my views or not.You however simply compound your error though I would have though the point was made clearly enough even for bears of little brain.The issue is not just a comparison of the the UK and Thailand, but much more the relationship between the different arms of government - a universal issue.The only reason I included the UK example was to point out some key principles.It could equally have been any other advanced country.But I see you prefer to rant endlessly, ignorantly (country indebted for 50 years etc) and unoriginally about Thaksin so best you carry on without me.I am sure there is an audience for you.

So, after all this, is my thinking muddled or clear?

My point was that ministers are coming out as individuals saying they cannot accept the Constitution Court's ruling and will push to get some sort of "revision", whilst the government's position is that the ruling has been accepted... and that is why the protests against this government are continuing when a simple "OK, we were wrong, we give up, let's move on to running the country" would have gone a long way to winning hearts and minds. But that's not the #1 goal is it?

You chose to ignore this by putting up some kind of strawman argument about the UK courts not accepting political pressure (anyway, you acknowledge above that the Court ruled correctly that the constitution amendments were unconstitutional - so what has that got to do with political pressure?!). Besides, as I see quite a few others have observed, the UK may be a similar democratic government system to Thailand but it's not the same - there is a massive contrast between the Thai and UK legal systems, parliamentary mechanisms and political situations.

Honestly, jayboy, there are blind political firebrand cheerleaders on both sides, there are some on here that are "trolls", I'm sure there are some on here who are employed by the Robert Amsterdam/Sirichoke Sopha types of lobbyist networks to spread propaganda and there are those who try to educate people round to their way of thinking (sometimes rather arrogantly and facetiously). I would put both you and me in the latter.

I try to better myself by not labeling others' posts as muddled thinking (but, by saying that, I think I just have - sorry), maybe you should think about doing the same. Don't get me wrong, you're not an idiot and I respect what you have to say probably more than some other differing opinions to my own, I just think that the way you do it could be more reasonably communicated.

The whole idea of merging the administrative and legislative branches was undemocratic and, if you guys are supposed to represent democracy, then you've just won - no need to look as defeated as you look in the OP photo (except Jatuporn, who is wearing his fake political smile). You can go home now and start looking for real jobs. Unless of course, "fighting for democracy" was just a ploy all along.

I totlly agree, the Democrats are also completely useless. They got so many chances offered on a silver tablet and were not able to go ahead and work on some real solutions solving the problems of the poor and the rural.

Was wondering ineu how you work that out?

You see they first had to take in the corrupt parasite parties in order to make up a government, this in its self hampered what they could do.

Then they had the red riots to deal with.

Followed by the Cambodian incursion which was strange, as it started just after the reds were ousted and ended abruptly when PT came to power.

In spite of that they made the 30b health scheme free as it was costing more to run than it was bringing in.

They paid the poor farmers a direct subsidy for their rice thereby cutting out the middle men.

And in spite of a world recession managed to leave the countries finances in good health.

You forgot the education one. Possibly the most important.. they gave free compulsory education up to M3 (14-15 years) previously P6 (10/11years).

Sorry.. IT IS my favourite

And all that in 18 months.. not the 12 years that Thaksins miscellaneous governments had.

Whilst what you are both saying is all true, Abhisit's Democrat-led coalition government was ultimately a failure... in that they failed to get re-elected at the 2011 election. Personally I did not agree with the way the Thai people voted, and still do not agree with the reasons why they voted in this way (the reasons - a stronger democracy and more wealth... it seems history is proving me right), but I cannot argue that this was the case.

Yingluck's reaction to the court's ruling:

Surprised she did'nt jump about the whistling.

Beat me to it!

Well it may have escaped your notice that the 1997 Constitution was the first one written by "the people". It was also the first time a fully, directly elected Senate had been brought into being. It was also the first time a Constitutional Court was formed. So here we have in the present day the Constitutional Court saying that directly elected Senators are unconstitutional, but from 1997 and up to 2006 the Constitutional Court said nothing about the supposed "unconstitutionality" of that arrangement.

So what has happened between the old Constitutional Court and the new one? A Coup (and two judicial coups) that's what. At least they shied away from a 3rd judicial coup.

<bites tongue to prevent yet another ban>

Having a devil's advocate or whatever is a good thing, I might even argue democratic. It's important to see all sides in the interests of proportionality.

oooooh. This is going to be good watching.

These numpties just don't get it do they.

Whilst you're right, they do have a point, but you addressed that in your post in the other thread when you pointed out that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

"They told us to accept to charter first then amend it later," he (66-year-old retired electrician Banpot Thepboonchan from Rangsit area of Pathum Thani province) said, referring to the military junta's sponsored referendum on the current charter back in 2007.

"Now they won't let us do it."

It's not their intention to change the make-up of the Senate that is the issue - it's their intention to ram it through in a disproportionate and undemocratic fashion.

Nattawut: New round of fight begins

BANGKOK: -- Following the ruling against senatorial charter amendment bill, red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikaur declared that a new round of fight has begun.

Speaking at the red-shirt rally at the Rajamangala Stadium, Nattawut declared: "The bell of a new round of fight between the democratic force and extra-constitutional force have begun!"

-- The Nation 2013-11-20

Unbelievable... was thinking that, when tomross46 quoted this above, it was a joke and not a real quote.

Two sides - one is the UDD section of the Red Shirt movement, a section of a pro-democracy movement with fascist ideals. The other is the Constitutional Court, which has just ruled that amendments to make Thai constitutional Law less democratic is unconstitutional.

According to Nattawut, one is the "democratic force" and the other is "extra-constitutional force". Classic!

In my opinion, an excellent decision.

The Constitution Court, as they exist and are authorised to do, ruled that unconstitutional amendments to the existing constitution were unconstitutional according to the existing constitution.

By all rights, Peua Thai should have been punished... maybe not dissolved, but certainly punished. However, the judges exercised their discretion and rightfully showed an understanding of "Thainess", that sometimes enforcing the Law is socially unacceptable and dangerous. This truly is Thai democracy at work.

Good work, ought to leave most sides happy (or at least not unhappy)... the UDD and Peua Thai should be happy that PT have not been dissolved; the Democrat Party have won a lot of face and legitimacy without looking like fascists; the courts have proven to the public that the judicial branch is not a sell-out; and the public should be confident that their country is still theirs.

The only ones left unhappy should be the non-UDD Red Shirts, who really should now be pushing for PT's disbandment, and the ultra-Yellow Shirt section of society, who are not interested in anything except stagnant politics. And these these two groups represent a few thousand people at most.

???

The garbage collector car's driver wasn't do anything bad. He did his work as every day. If you see the garbage car collects litter probably you have to know this stands or goes very small speed.

So I don't understand at all this "reckless driving".

Rest in Peace NZ old buddy.

December 2009 - the very nasty bend between Hin Ta Hin Yai and Huathanon. Three brothers from Watford, UK, had been out drinking in Lamai and were going home at around 1am. They were drunk and had some of the bargirls take them home on motorbikes. One of the brothers' bikes (driven by a sober girl) crashed head-first into a garbage truck which was travelling at very high speed in the opposite direction, and had cut across the dangerous bend and crashed into the opposite side of the road about 200m along (near Krua Chaoban) and flipped over. The girl died instantly, the guy died at about 5am from loss of blood from a major artery in his leg.

I witnessed it, acted as translator and consoled the brothers at the hospital. I didn't know them beforehand. I can say with authority that the garbage truck was travelling very fast (too fast to take the bend in his own lane and fast enough to tip this very heavy vehicle) and was entirely at fault. I cannot honestly remember if its lights were all on - but the street lighting was very poor, the road surface was recently-tarmacced and very black and the bend is notorious for accidents as well.

Therefore your first paragraph is uninformed and actually pretty disrespectful. Your second one is much better.

The rice subsidy scheme is mere chicken feed (pun intended) compared to the agricultural cock-ups that European governments have got up to in my lifetime!

Really? Which particular cock ups devastated a market leaders exports to the point of no return? Which ones left the bank supporting these ridiculous subsidies on the verge of bankruptcy? Which ones were based on the frankly ludicrous idea that one producer of a widely grown crop could could just dictate to the rest of the world the price it could be sold at? Which ones were so poorly thought through that there was no where to store it properly, resulting in the rotting and insect infestation of the poorly stored crop? Yes the EU has had some stupid policies but nothing on the criminally inept scale of this rice scheme.

To be fair, a few of my friends in UK agriculture from the 90s were all doom-and-gloom about milk subsidies and the state of the British beef trade... but I don't know enough about it to present a decent argument.

<snip>

I think the corollary of your point is that it would take an undemocratic government to move Thailand away from its populist consensus. And at this juncture that's probably true - it would have to be a government not beholden to the masses and their material desires. But as you can probably guess, I certainly wouldn't advocate that as any sort of solution. Quite the opposite. lol.

Actually, a government not beholden to the masses and their material desires would be a solution... just probably not a workable solution, and certainly not an acceptable one! As you say, it's a difficult step for a consumerist society to come to terms with not having things they want, especially if they believe they need them. Anyway, what's Thai for "austerity measures"? (I sincerely doubt we have ever heard that expression in Thai parliament!)

As to whether that would take an undemocratic government... well, I suppose that would depend on just how bad the Thai consensus on the Thai economy becomes, but I think you're right, I can't see Thais voting in any numbers to reign in over-spending even if things went completely tits-up. Having said that, when was the last time Thailand didn't have an undemocratic government?

I think one of democracy's failings is that what is good for a village isn't necessarily good for the country. What's good for the country isn't necessarily good for the world. What's good for the economy isn't necessarily good for society. What's good right now isn't necessarily good in a few years' time. That's a lot of variables for a Somchai, Pi Sek or Emptyset to take into account, especially when it's not what seems important to us at the time.

Not that I can come up with anything better

You talk as though government spending as a percentage of the economy is somehow grossly out of whack.

They have accumulated debt of less than 50% of gdp and in no way maintain a social system in line with that in the west.

They might not spend it correctly but spending per se is not out of line.

Hi Thai At Heart, welcome to the most intelligent and insult-free discussion I've seen on Thaivisa for ages!

Yes, you're right, govt debt as a %age of GDP is not over the top at the moment, but that wasn't the gist of my post. Prior to the above quotes we were talking about private debt.

However, the Forbes editorial I referred to above by Jesse Colombo - who is admittedly rather pessimistic - states that "Thailand’s government spending is up by nearly 40 percent since 2008", and then he goes on to list where they're spending it and examines the revenues they're likely to get back (or not, as he suggests!). That is worrying, and I think the IMF is trying to convey the same message.

Also note that I wasn't having a go at just the current government... and that I also mentioned that in 2006-2007 the debt levels were the lowest they've been for ages which, in my opinion, is because the 2006-07 junta government were absolutely not concerned with economic stimuli.

Is this some sort of "evidence" that whistles are weapons? In that case, maybe Isaan Rambo was right all along and an armed response to the anti-govt protests is justified?

You couldn't make this stuff up... well, I couldn't anyway.

So, Isaan Rambo, one of Seh Daeng's "hawks", is saying there will be trouble at the anti-govt protests. Is this a warning or a threat?

It is quite possible, especially as many Red Shirts from Korat are planning counter-rallies next week... and he is the UDD's Korat warlord, so he is possibly in a very good position to make this prediction.

As for his claim of weapons at the protest site - denied very quickly by the organisers and, given the lack of any violent behaviour (apart from whistle-blowing "assaults"), a claim that can only be considered baseless without evidence - I can't think why he hasn't already been hit by a defamation suit.

The pen whistle is mightier than the sword M79

<snip>

I think the corollary of your point is that it would take an undemocratic government to move Thailand away from its populist consensus. And at this juncture that's probably true - it would have to be a government not beholden to the masses and their material desires. But as you can probably guess, I certainly wouldn't advocate that as any sort of solution. Quite the opposite. lol.

Actually, a government not beholden to the masses and their material desires would be a solution... just probably not a workable solution, and certainly not an acceptable one! As you say, it's a difficult step for a consumerist society to come to terms with not having things they want, especially if they believe they need them. Anyway, what's Thai for "austerity measures"? (I sincerely doubt we have ever heard that expression in Thai parliament!)

As to whether that would take an undemocratic government... well, I suppose that would depend on just how bad the Thai consensus on the Thai economy becomes, but I think you're right, I can't see Thais voting in any numbers to reign in over-spending even if things went completely tits-up. Having said that, when was the last time Thailand didn't have an undemocratic government?

I think one of democracy's failings is that what is good for a village isn't necessarily good for the country. What's good for the country isn't necessarily good for the world. What's good for the economy isn't necessarily good for society. What's good right now isn't necessarily good in a few years' time. That's a lot of variables for a Somchai, Pi Sek or Emptyset to take into account, especially when it's not what seems important to us at the time.

Not that I can come up with anything better

Yes, I certainly agree it would be a proposal that some would see as a solution - I meant it was one solution that I would never propose. I'd never want to give up whatever miniscule amount of say I have in the way my country is run, so why should I expect others to give up that right? I actually find it fascinating that there are people who would willingly give up that right - like the protesters calling for the suspension of democracy. I guess stability & order and a fall back towards old traditions is more important than being able to vote in & out governments for some people. And I can comprehend that. Democracy is often chaotic & throws up results a lot of people don't like; but if you look at the modern history of Europe, we somehow nevertheless always manage to muddle through. I just think talk of going back to an unelected government is a dangerous road to go down, an undoubted step backwords and I'm glad you seem to agree on this.

Regards your third paragraph, yes, but I think that goes back to what I said about muddling through in the end. Even people with very sophisticated models get key decisions wrong. In fact, they often seem to get things more badly wrong than a bloke in a pub could if he were simply making random choices (2008 crisis is a case in point!). I think there actually tends to be safety in numbers here, there's a good chance one person will get things wrong, but it tends to lessen when you have 60 million. That might be just wishful thinking though. You're also right about what's good for the village etc, but what better way is there to manage competing interests? Again, most autocrats tend to be self-interested.

It is an important point though, that's why it's worth re-iterating that democracy isn't just about voting. Or rather it shouldn't be about just voting. A properly democratic government should also promote liberal values: tolerance, pluralism, respect for minority rights and so on. When those values are inculcated, managing various interest groups doesn't tend to be such a problem. Of course, it's not going to be perfect. In terms of voting preferences, I think the vast majority of people are going to put their own immediate interests first and foremost. And someone in every society is going to lose out to an extent, but I just tend to hope it's the rich guy, not the poor guy. lol.

I think we both acknowledge that those protesters calling to remove the democratic model are probably doing so from a very dubious point of view, which is why you and I find them "fascinating" (good choice of word!). Even with my slightly fascist stance, it's an unrealistic and unsuitable way out.

60 million thinking better than 1? Yes, I agree, as did Socrates (and that, along with his method of proving it, was the reason he was put to death). However, there's a caveat - education, and hopefully we all know that this is a mute point in this country. You say "most autocrats tend to be self-interested" and that was the point of my rhetoric question about the last time Thailand didn't have an undemocratic government. That's also why I'm so against Thaksin, because I think he was the single most autocratic person in Thailand's history post-Rama V.

You're right, democracy isn't just about voting (that's something many pro-PTP Thaivisa posters seem to have trouble with... the difference between a democratic government and a democratically-elected one - although obviously they're not mutually exclusive). Tony Blair, much as I dislike the guy, said something at the "democracy forum" or whatever it was, that actually raised my estimation of him a little - "Democracy is not just about how a majority takes power, it is how the majority relates to the minority". I'd put it slightly differently - that democracy is as much about not making the minority unhappy as it is about making the majority happy. Well, I wish any government the best of luck with that one!

Good discussion, by the way

This is Thailand na. You not Thai, you not understand na...

I nearly split up with my girlfriend over that very same thing last night.

... edit to add, even though I was awarded Thai citizenship last year!

<snip>

I think the corollary of your point is that it would take an undemocratic government to move Thailand away from its populist consensus. And at this juncture that's probably true - it would have to be a government not beholden to the masses and their material desires. But as you can probably guess, I certainly wouldn't advocate that as any sort of solution. Quite the opposite. lol.

Actually, a government not beholden to the masses and their material desires would be a solution... just probably not a workable solution, and certainly not an acceptable one! As you say, it's a difficult step for a consumerist society to come to terms with not having things they want, especially if they believe they need them. Anyway, what's Thai for "austerity measures"? (I sincerely doubt we have ever heard that expression in Thai parliament!)

As to whether that would take an undemocratic government... well, I suppose that would depend on just how bad the Thai consensus on the Thai economy becomes, but I think you're right, I can't see Thais voting in any numbers to reign in over-spending even if things went completely tits-up. Having said that, when was the last time Thailand didn't have an undemocratic government?

I think one of democracy's failings is that what is good for a village isn't necessarily good for the country. What's good for the country isn't necessarily good for the world. What's good for the economy isn't necessarily good for society. What's good right now isn't necessarily good in a few years' time. That's a lot of variables for a Somchai, Pi Sek or Emptyset to take into account, especially when it's not what seems important to us at the time.

Not that I can come up with anything better

You're trusting Chalerm all of a sudden? lol. Not sure his word counts even as an 'informed rumour', more likely to be a deliberate red herring. I'm sure he has his reasons for saying that, though I also think there's no way he could've blamed the military without massive fallout. Anyway, I doubt we'll even know for sure, but as there's no solid evidence either way, I think it best to think the simplest explanation most likely. The army knew they'd have much more chance of a succesful operation with Seh Daeng out of the way, and it can't be any coincidence that operations were stepped up during the days that followed. Many also wanted revenge for what they perceived to be his involvement with the Romklao killing although I doubt that was the reason for the killing, just a further incentive, main reason was operational.

Also, why would Thaksin have him killed at that point if he were going to do so? Not only was he going to be a scourge to the military, but I actually think Seh Daeng was proving a useful decoy, distraction attention away from the generals who were really directing the men in black. Still, as I say, we'll never know for sure. He was such a loose cannon that you could see reasons for both sides to want to put him out of action.

"why would Thaksin have him killed"

Because he was saying that he was now in charge of the revolt, on the orders of the Big Boss, and the other Red-leaders should take their instructions from him, also that he was linked to the MiBs. This was embarrassing to Mr T, he didn't want this stuff coming out into the open, unlike the military who were delighted at someone openly saying who was directing the whole mess.

That person has yet to have any related-charges laid against him, but no doubt a general-amnesty would be comforting to have, just in case.

And Chalerm should name names, if only to help his boss's little-helper at the DSI, unless of course that trail too does not lead to the government but to those trying to overthrow them on-the-streets. But I wouldn't take any bets, that he ever will speak up. So much for "fighting for justice" !

Yes, and he'd also had a huge fallout with the red shirt leaders and red shirt guards over the barricades at Chualongkorn Hospital which they were trying to remove and Seh Daeng refused. Apparently he pushed the chief red shirt ground to the floor or something. Actually once spoke to Sean, the ex-UDD international spokesman or whatever he was, about this and he said he remembers Seh Daeng came marching over to main camp where the UDD core leaders were, looking so furious that Sean thought he was going to kill Nattawud or Dr Weng. So there's that too.

But then, especially given the military seemed to control most of the area he was shot from, it seems on balance more likely that the military did it. Occam's razor and all that. And Seh Daeng I think was actually a legitimate target. Maybe not at the point he was shot, especially given the bullet could've easily hit someone else, but clearly he was armed and was very likely responsible for the grenade attack at Silom and numerous other grenade attacks. Whoever shot him probably did both sides a favour.

Our conclusions here are exactly the same.

A recent Forbes editorial wasn't quite so optimistic:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/04/thailands-bubble-economy-is-heading-for-a-1997-style-crash/

In my opinion, the economy at the moment is in dire straits.

Lets hear your educated opinion then? What is in dire straights?

Good morning Khun Smutcakes, I hope you're well today.

My educated opinion* is that household debt is currently far too high and the government is spending too much money with not enough means to recover it (this has been the case for many years, so Peua Thai are not the only causes of it).

Look at the graphs in the Forbes article, they're very telling... bursts of government debt levels whenever the governments (again, by the way - TRT, PPP, Dems and Peua Thai) needed to garner public support (e.g. when they're close to an election, or when they're engaging in popularity contests to justify undemocratic or illegal actions). Government debt was nice and steady when Gen Surayudh's coup-appointed government was in power, although that's not surprising because 1) they didn't actually do anything with the economy when in power and 2) they didn't really care about public opinion anyway!

I should also add that it's a Forbes editorial/opinion piece, although it is based on some pretty accurate economic statistics.

(* I don't usually like to use this expression, but I sort-of have to because it was in your question! Why is my opinion educated? I would say because I read a little bit and I take interest in what others are saying and form my own conclusions, and I realise my conclusions can be wrong and am willing to read/listen further.)

The inflation rates are low, BUT the price of everything seems

to be increasing,especially foodstuffs, as the PM said it must

be all in our minds !

regards Worgeordie

Well, to be fair, if you just go on the statistics, you'd assume it was true that price rises were slowing. The consumer price index at the beginning of the year dropped to as low as it's been since the beginning of 2009, and is still lower than it's been since around March 2009. See: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/consumer-price-index-cpi

The IMF report also says:

"Despite two significant minimum wage hikes, core inflation declined gradually from 2¾ percent in early 2012 to under 1 percent in June 2013 (Figure 3). Increased labor costs appear to have been partly absorbed through lower profit margins, higher labor productivityor by cutting nonwage compensation. Headline inflation fluctuated in 2012 mirroring movements in energy and raw food prices, but fell significantly in the first half of 2013."

Hmm, official inflation figures... sorry, frankly I don't believe them!

I think you and I have had this conversation before, I have noticed prices for the consumer goods that I buy have gone up in some cases by almost 100% (e.g. I bought a "cheap" pair of football boots 3 weeks ago for 720 Baht, up from 450 Baht for the same pair last year). I can no longer find 30 Baht noodle soup/fried rice, and it now costs 150 Baht to fill up a Honda Wave. Rent is also significantly higher. Many things in the supermarket for around 10 Baht are now around 12 Baht. I'm not suggesting inflation is 20%, but there's no way real-life prices have gone up by 1-3%.

Yet again, another display of utter arrogance from a member of this Governments Cabinet. First Moody's give a warning and then an organization no less than the IMF itself suggests an urgent course of action to prevent further deterioration of the economy and Kittirat says that the IMF should check all data first !Kittirat says that investors still have confidence, the same day it is reported that foreigners are pulling money out of Thai stocks and Investments! No doubt another lie to appease a demanding population at the moment. I feel there is little hope for this country.

Read the report. It's far less hysterical than all that. It's a recommendation, not an 'urgent course of action'. Actually the report is mostly positive. The report also notes that Thai authorities are in broad agreement with the "IMF's assessment of prospects and risks". So it doesn't seem they're coming from radically different perspectives, despite this news report.

A recent Forbes editorial wasn't quite so optimistic:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/04/thailands-bubble-economy-is-heading-for-a-1997-style-crash/

In my opinion, the economy at the moment is in dire straits.

Empty set.

I do remember a video of an Army truck that wandered into a red area by mistake. The soldiers were being very calm. Asking to just go on their way. They had guns but were not dressed in flack jackets etc. The Red shirts pulled them out of the truck. The soldier in the back started to panic. Shouting at the Reds just to let them go. Then about 8 or so Reds jumped in the back and threw the soldier out. He was standing in the crowd being shouted at when a Red picked up the rifle and shot him. All hell broke lose. People shouting.. but unfortunately I cannot find it on YouTube now... possibly because it's been taken off by the uploader. Who would have been one of the crowd.

You see most people don't want to implicate themselves.

Sent from my phone with the app thingy

That is as I remember it. I'll let others dig for it though.

I also remember that footage, but I don't think they were combat soldiers and they weren't armed. They were in military uniforms.

The Red Shirt mob stopped the truck, the driver was forced out and was wai'ing for his life, then the cameraman went over to the passenger side door to film the person sitting there being yanked out, and then was a "bang". The cameraman went towards the back of the truck and one of the military personnel in the back had been shot (dead, I think). Some Reds in the mob were screaming in horror.

However, I don't think the shooter was caught on film so there's no proof that it was a Red Shirt, nor that the poor guy didn't commit suicide or something.

Are we talking about the same incident?

This is an absolute joke, and Tarit is a fool for pursuing this along with the AG.

If they were serious we'd have Nattahwat, Weng, Thida, Arisman, Jatuporn, Thaksin, that knob from Udon (Kwanchai) all up on similar charges.

I think your comment is unreasonable. Thida didn't order or condone any violence as far as I'm aware.

Health care may have originated with the Democrats way back when, but Thaksin was the man who got the legislation through parliament.

I suspect you know this, but the reason the Dems didn't get this legislation through parliament is that studies showed it to be non-sustainable.

Thaksin decided that his own popularity was more important than a sustainable healthcare service. His actions left some hospitals without any beds. He very nearly crippled the healthcare service for good.

But I'm sure we all agree that he did it with the best of intentions.