way2muchcoffee

As a third year BUIC student i got to say - its expensive, although cheaper then abac. I am not sure bout the Thai program prices but i do realize school is mostly about money. BMW's Mercs or just pimped out hondas. I see Nam Cha and Dtang Mo running around all the time (sluts;; wooo) and me and some of my richer friends smoke ice and horse in the bathrooms or the student lounge. Sometimes i feel upset when i am in class and the18 year old slut in front of me has her iphone, blackberry, and her dog who is chilling in his Prada dog carrying case and they are having a real time facebook photo shoot when i am trying to focus on the teacher incoherently reading gibberish from the slides. hel_l lets get drunk and high as fuc_k and go party, seems like the A's and B's are still easier enough to get. Can cheat easily and openly in exams, and if it really gets hard you can just buy the degree if you REALLY want too.. think its around 80 - 100 thousand though.. Oh well. I ve heard some terrible shit about the ABAC prof's ie camboadian, burmese, indian, which actually is all fine but just - super sub par teaching skills. BU has a few foreign teachers, some great, some ok, and some who just go with the flow. Now that P'petch has taken over after the passing his father I have seen some great changes starting to come.... and the rama4 campus is awesome compared to moving out to the (albeit) nice abac bangna campus.. which usually involves hardcore drug parties at the bulildings/dorms around there. What can ya do though.. studying is fun but some times its hard. safety first.. 70 percent OF my first year friends are dropped out/ switchd to thai program or just bought their BA..interesting and fun, and those uniforms dont hurt at all either. what can ya do ? keep on rockin in the free world lol!!

Outstanding! Now, let's see a show of hands. Everybody who is ready to send their daughter to BU raise your right hand.

Anyone? .... .... .... anyone?

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

Are you talking about the law and the constitution of Thailand or are you talking about hot dogs and hamburgers? All of your problems seem to revolve about not agreeing with the law of Thailand. Perhaps that is what you should be lobbying for to be changed. The current government is in power because of the law. If Abhisit has violated the law the PTP would have discovered it by now. They didn't and he hasn't. I really don't understand what you are banging on about.

Why wouldn't they be? Is there some anti-Thaksin 101 course folks study at school or college? Considering I'm not overly impressed with the Thai eduction system how would it make a difference?

Nothing in the uni curriculum is anti-Thaksin. Perhaps when people learn a few things beyond their local ampher they realize that Thaksin is a corrupt criminal element and has no business in politics. With knowledge and experience comes wisdom and integrity. Why are the student groups not out there with the reds?

The army had no legal mandate to intervene.

The first true thing you've written. The army had no legal mandate, except for the fact the the Thaksin caretaker government had exceeded the constitutional time allowed for it's existence. They most certainly had a moral mandate.

The past election was tainted by the involvement of the military.

Of course this wasn't a problem for the Samak and Somchai governments, nor was it a problem for any pro-red posters here.

As Mr. Abhisit is apparently very popular, he should have no problem winning the election and then he can do as he sees fit within the terms of his legitimate mandate.

He already holds a legitimate mandate. He was voted in by parliament who were in turn elected by the people. Do you disagree?

A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power.

Sorry. The Thaksin government was a caretaker government at the time of the coup. This caretaker government had been in place longer than the constitution allowed for. It was itself illegal. The coup ended that.

It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise.

There was not a case in front of them to rule on because there was no legislature to submit a case. Don't be disingenuous.

nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration.

The was no legislature to dissolve the government administration. Thaksin had already dissolved parliament.

A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power.

Sorry. The Thaksin government was a caretaker government at the time of the coup. This caretaker government had been in place longer than the constitution allowed for. It was itself illegal. The coup ended that.

It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise.

The judiciary of the time was in the pocket of Thaksin. They would not rule otherwise, nor was there a case in front of them to rule on because there was no legitimate government at the time of the coup.

nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration.

The was no legilature to dissolve the government administration. Thaksin had already dissolved parliament.

The army had no legal mandate to intervene.

way2muchcoffee.

I am indeed flattered that you feel you have the need to quote me. albeit in an argument just for the record I do not post in colour neither do I shout.

Perchance that is down to your editing skills robert00 ?

robert00. Plainly you are of a democratic frame of mind as is Thaksin

I would suggest that you transport your own Male Bovine Waste Faecal Matter to your house plants where it will indeed prove of some use to them.

Thaksin is a corrupt megalomaniac who is trying to hi-jack a movement for his and his cronies own ends.

Sorry. Didn't mean to include you in my quote siampolee. As you surmised it was directed at robert00.

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

^^ It appears that robert00 is advocating the assassination of Abhisit. That just isn't on.

This is so wrong I won't even quote the post.

Now we begin to see the real agenda of the Red Shirt Brigade,Thaksins money is useful to them along with Hun Sens socialist principles.

''Whats' mine is mine, what's yours is also mine''

Why don't you stop talking BULLSHIT!!!!

Why don't you read the rules of this forum? Stop posting in color, and stop shouting please.

The day the Reds have declared the class war, they have opened a Pandora box, and launched a huge machinery. The environment is ideal: drought in The Northern Thailand, price of rice, industry -insolently booming and contrasting with the Northern poverty, leading class focusing only on the industrial development and not taking seriously into account the revendications of the rural population...we are in a dynamic situation, forget about the 1997 Constitution, it is the past, new developments are on going: the only question is; "Is the Current Government able to defuse the situation, particularly by doing the required concessions to Rural population, reducing the insolent wealth gap between Thais?"

The Center of Gravity of the revendication is shifting quickly, it is not sure that the Reds will be able to control the situation until the end. Thaksin is less and less the center, and may finished sidelined, but at least he will have gotten his revenge on his ennemies....

Perhaps you are right. However it should be noted that the government has done a great deal to effect the lives of the poor and downtrodden

1) Initiated a sustainable and equitable crop-scheme

2) Transformed the '30 baht death card' into a sustainable universal health policy

3) 15 years free education to all - including tuition, books, lunches, and uniforms

4) Increased the stipend for elderly and disabled persons living in poverty

5) Formed low interest loans through legitimate banks to help those under the thumb of loan sharks

6) Free education through university for disable people

7) Continued to make loans available to anyone through the village loan scheme

8) Currently investigating ways to tax wealthy landowners and land profiteers through land tax

9) Challenged corruption in any government ministry wherever it was found

10) Allowed peaceful protests without violent crackdown (unlike their predecessors)

11) Paid water bills for all families, up to about 500 bt

All this was done in 1 year. The PTP were in power for the same period and achieved nothing at all. What more, short of just handing out fistfuls of money to each household, do you expect the government to do?

A fair number of reds do not support Thaksin. But people in general, and Thais in particular, need a leader to look up to. He is/was a hero for many and as such will remain at the fore of the movement. Without him, it will begin to fracture even more than it already has.

The point is, his relevance is decreasing within the movement. Even if they win and he is somehow allowed to return without going to jail (unlikely), there are institutions in place that would prevent him from resuming the premiership easily. Those agencies and institutions won't go away nor will the laws, rules and regulations of the country unless there is a civil war and that is looking less likely.

New people will rise to the top in leadership roles (in all parties). Hopefully they will listen to the wants and needs of the people.

You can be pro-red, anti-Thaksin and anti-coup. It's not possible to turn back the clock of time.

The problem is that the stated aim of the redshirt leaders is to revert to the 1997 constitution, exonerate Thaksin of all charges, and allow him to resume the role of PM. It doesn't matter what other worthy goals they may have as long as these are are included in their platform. It isn't even clear what their platform is beyond the goals related to Thaksin.

I'm cheering for the reds. I am disappointed that they seem to have so little support from the whites in Thailand online. Could it be that a large percentage want to see a largely disenfranchized majority of the population? It does help fill the brothels they rely on for affection and ensures an available workforce of domestic servants that work for peanuts.

I'm also disappointed by our Canadian political and media elite. Supposedly we are at war in Afghanistan because of our deep faith in democracy. If we in Canada have so much faith in democracy why are we so silent on behalf of the heroes that are trying to restore it to Thailand ?

It isn't the reds who lack the support of TV posters. It is the red leadership and their stated goals of exonerating Thaksin that make it impossible to get behind a movement whose other goals are laudable.

Well done Reds - did an excellent job. Just shows the level of purchased support they have in Bangkok - about as much as some people on TV think.

Obviously they have support that is not purchased. Clearly some of their supporters are skint. Nevertheless, the kind of money they were paying is double or triple the typical daily wage of your average Thai. So in the end we'll never know how many were paid and how much. We won't know how many of those who were paid would have paid their own way if they could have. We won't know how many only attended because they were paid. Too many things we'll never know, so it is really impossible to form a solid opinion about the strength of the movement and the rally. Kudos to all sides for keeping it peaceful.

I would suggest that the main problem is that the army hasn't yet learnt after 70 odd years to accept an election.

Even worse, the people have worked out, that if the army can simply throw a tantrum and get rid of a government, a minority of the people can too vis a vis PAD and UDD.

On the face of it I would agree. However there is a very real question that must be addressed. Here's the scenario:

A very corrupt man is PM. He has enormous support amongst large segments of the population. He breaks the law with impunity. He engages in vote buying and party buying on an unprecedented scale. He steals billions of tax payer money to line his and his friends pockets. He commits massive human rights violations. He engages in widespread policy corruption and kickbacks. He plants corrupt judges into the judiciary. He plants staunch loyalists into positions of power in the police and military. He denies freedom of speech by refusing to answer questions that would cast him in a critical light and by silencing critics in the media through frivolous lawsuits. In short he is building a dictatorship where he is immune from any of the traditional ways of removing a PM from power.

How should a country remove such a leader?

Which is worse for a democracy, a coup to remove a corrupt and criminal leader, or to allow the leader to continue to rape the country for personal profit while trampling on all democratic checks and balances?

Seems obvious really. If you are over-changed you give the money back every time, no exceptions.

Yes You are right, it was PAD. "However, the public has grown weary of the PAD and support has been dwindling. Their name is misleading as they want to end democracy and have officials appointed by profession and social group. This would return power back to them and away from rural populace, who they deem to ignorant to understand the issues". I am still trying to find the half vote reference

I've not heard of the 'half-vote' idea before. I am aware of the idea floated by PAD for appointed legislators and was thinking that you were referring to that in your post. If you do find a source or reference for the half vote idea please post it. More information is always a good thing, especially if it challenges entrenched views.

I may be wrong but wasn't it the Democrats or their supporters that said the votes

from the poor people of Thailand in an election should only be worth half a vote because

they are uneducated. Can't remember the exact wording so don't jump down my throat.

This doesn't sound like equality to me.

You are wrong. Perhaps you should find out facts before posting misinformation.

seeing as I am wrong perhaps you could correct me as to

who said this.

Jayboy just did.

I may be wrong but wasn't it the Democrats or their supporters that said the votes

from the poor people of Thailand in an election should only be worth half a vote because

they are uneducated. Can't remember the exact wording so don't jump down my throat.

This doesn't sound like equality to me.

You are wrong. Perhaps you should find out facts before posting misinformation.

It's not personal but ignorance needs to be identified and corrected.

That's not true. You are making it personal by insulting people. If your points are valid then make them and let them stand on their own.

This incoherent and predictably ignorant rant is probably not worth commenting on but for its representation of quite a widely held set of views.This type of person is obsessed with Thaksin to the point of bringing him into every discussion - even where he's not or only partially relevant.

Why must you insult people who disagree with you? You do this frequently. Does it make your argument stronger?

After reading to many of Morans posts I'm going to drink myself into a comma.

What a great mis-statement. I'm not criticizing your spelling gaff, because I find the statement intriguing. Drink myself into a comma. The image it presents is nonsensical but I like it.

Abisit the legitimate thai PM........only in a thai pantomine! (Where even the horse objected to abisit being its rear end).

Oh no he isnt!

Abisit has been geremandered from an illegal military junta coup, on the back of that great democratic institution "coup-issued law" (whatever that is-maybe Democrat Obama can explain to everyone, if he calls.)

Ably aided and abetted by that other pillar of thai "democracy"... "junta appointed judiciary"

Illegal Military junta coup

coup-issued law

Appointed judiciary

CLOD - please provide evidence for your 'junta appointed judiciary' claims. I have seen this claim repeated many times, but not one shred of evidence for this has ever been posted. Yes, the CNS formed the AEC. But the AEC was an investigative body, designed to gather evidence. This was necessary because Thaksin controlled the police. The judges are a different matter. You are claiming the judges were hand-picked and appointed to make the rulings. For all the research I've done I've not found any evidence to suggest that was the case. Since you seem so certain and willing to post this over and over I assume you do have evidence. So please post it here.

I don't think Thaksin was born a ammarat in fact his first job was plain old policeman.

Hmm. Not really true is it? He was an 'officer' in the RTP. Saying he was a plain old policeman is not correct. It is like comparing a lieutenant to a private in the military. Not the same thing at all, especially in Thailand, as only connected families are able to get their sons into positions of power in either the military or the RTP. Moreover Thaksin's father was a wealthy businessman and MP for Chiang Mai. Please try to be more honest in your posts monkfish.

Indeed.... situation in the south is worse than ever, sending the burmese refugee(s) afloat in boat tied up didnt help, cambodian logger deaths, the treatment of the karen refugee(s). Let's face it I don't think Mark has any room to criticize.

However like with Khun T. - military is pulling its weight where it should not.

I think that Thaksin is not responsible for the horrors of Krue Se and Tak Bai. Similarly, Abhisit is not responsible for skirmishes with soldiers and murders of loggers along the Cambodian border and the Rohingya boat fiasco. Responsibility for these events rest squarely on the military. The military does not answer to the government. The autonomy of the military is codified in Thailand's current and all past constitutions.

Thaksin is most certainly responsible for the war on drugs. Abhisit is most certainly responsible for the recent deportations of immigrants and refugees, though the military has some culpability in this as well.

If we are going to blame the government and it's leaders for various human rights abuses it is important to understand what events they have control over in order to avoid being tools of the propaganda machines of either side of the current political divide.