way2muchcoffee

Alternatively, if the coup hadn't happened we would probably have Thaksin managing an economic mess and probably hanging on for dear life politically. He would have pushed ahead with privatisation, the unions would be livid, a lot of people would feel very wronged by now. Abhisit would probably be gearing up for an earned spell as PM with a coalition minus Newin.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, supposition about terrible things that didn't happen even better.

Again. You might be right. Or scorecard might be right. I guess we'll never know. I do agree that Abhisit's ascendancy to the role of PM was premature. Unfortunate for him, and for the country.

True, but it was one of the stranger events in electioneering. Nothing illegal; yes, principled; I don't think so, but then when was Thai politics ever a paragon of principles.

Some believe that Thaksin's faults and the conduct of his party was the only reason for their demise, or some look at it as a long drawn out process with many players to remove a controversial and probably corrupt (as though all others are whiter than white) party from politics and an individual from society.

I tend to think both are valid and this saga will not come to a head until Thaksin deems it worthwhile and safe enough to come back to the country or he is desperate and will go for broke. I don't think he is going to stay away for ever.

You might be right. I do, however, think that Abhisit is a principled man. I believe he has the intelligence and the ethics to lead Thailand out of its malaise. Unfortunately, I think it is precisely because of his honesty and his principles that he is alienated from others in society, power, and politics. Even in his own party. His decency and his conviction will ultimately be his downfall.

True enough, but the Dems did fail to pitch. Or do we forget that small issue.

Yes. They did 'fail to pitch'. There is nothing illegal about that at all. They made a principled stand. There was, however, a great deal of illegality involved in Thaksin's solution to this particular problem. His actions over this issue ultimately resulted in the dissolution of his party.

I am not sure about the airplane and the pilot or whatever, but I am just saying what I am saying. Thaksin was elected by people but removed by military, not by the people or by any sort of legal process.

Elected by the people? Sorry. In a parliamentary system the PM is elected by the MPs, who represent the people. Moreover, Thaksin removed himself from the position of PM by dissolving parliament and then found himself unable to conduct a proper vote for a new parliament. His solution to the dilemma was to concoct a scheme of fraudulent elections, so that his beloved party could maintain control of parliament, and then formally re-elect him as PM.

At the time of his removal he was a caretaker prime minister. He had no mandate. He was never directly elected to this position by the people. He had already claimed to be leaving politics. He just had a bit more work to do, to the tune of 75 billion baht to his personal bank accounts. At about that the time many people, especially the military, got fed up with his grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth. So, yes, he was removed from this 'caretaker' role.

Agreed. Bring 200k. Have 100k in reserve at home.

What are you observing from your Thai family in terms of them hating the rich?

Good question. I noticed this smiling, good nature amongst poor Thai people immediately, despite leading lives that lacked any of the comforts I expect. I grew curious as to their feelings about the rich. So one night I asked my girlfriend, now wife, how she, her friends, and family really felt. I didn't get much response. She didn't care to talk about this. This was early on in the relationship. A year later I asked the same question. Our trust and comfort levels were much higher and she felt she could be honest about this. She explained that everyone she knew actually despised the rich. The consensus was that the wealthy are parasites, living a life of luxury, of the blood, sweat, and tears of the poor. She then explained that they all play the game of showing respect and kow-towing, because they have to. It is called survival. A couple of years later I put the question to a number of her friends when we returned to the village for a trip. I was met with silence and stares initially. The questions made them uncomfortable. I had been with my wife for five years at that time and these people knew me. Eventually, after a couple of beers, they loosened up and shared. Their comments were similar to what my wife had stated earlier.

I have a theory. Most Thais are hearing impaired.

It starts off from the moment they are conceived. They are bombarded by village announcements, trucks with loudspeakers, blown speakers from excessive volumes, music, tv, advertisements on the bts, ladies with microphones in malls, vcd players on buses and vans, chickens, glass packs on cars or motorcycles, traffic, police whistles, and the list goes on and on. Everyone is assaulted by noise for large portions of their lives. So they speak loudly, not only because of the ambient noise, but also because they can't hear very well.

In the West, poor people envy and hate rich people but in Thailand, poor people just envy rich people. The benevolence of the poor in Thailand is one of the really wonderful things about Thailand and Thai culture.

I agree and disagree. I believe the poor in Thailand both envy and hate the rich. This has been confirmed countless times by Thai family and friends from the poor end of the spectrum. They despise the rich with a seething hatred borne of being unjustly treated and having no hope to improve their situation. They mask this well, but it is there, under the surface. It is exactly this hopelessness, IMO, that is the cause of the apparent 'poise' in which the poor of Thailand manage to accept their lot in life. They know dang well nothing will change, no matter what they do, so they stop trying. The appear lazy, but they know that it doesn't pay to be industrious. They turn to 'sanuk' in whatever form it can be found. This includes the negatives of alcoholism, drug abuse, unsafe sex etc, but it is also the source of the genuine smile seen on the faces of the poorest in Thailand. I could be way off, but these are my observations and thoughts.

LOL. This exact thing has happened to me 3 times now. Each time it requires a reshowering with a fresh towel. Most inconvenient when you're trying to get off to work in the morning.

Back in America we have pretty clean elections compared to Thailand but overt vote buying still takes place in some areas. Example: In the inner-city Black areas Democratic politicians pass out "street money" the last few days before election. Does this mean that Obama is not a legitimate President because his party "bought" votes?

I think you misunderstand 'street money'. Street money is given to the campaign volunteers and footsoldiers in the days leading up to an election. It is to help defray some of their personal costs, and to provide an incentive to work hard to get out the vote on the last few days of the campaign. It is not handed out to citizens to buy their votes as you suggest. It is interesting to note that Obama refused to engage in this tradition during his campaign.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/11/na...a-streetmoney11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_money

May i ask where you get this information from that innocent motorists are stopped here and cash demanded for being totally legal?

It appears that the majority of postings on here complaining about scams blah blah are farangs knowingly breaking the law but also playing the percentage game of cheap fines aka no helmet, u turns, jumping lights....etc.....

We should have a poll.

What motorists have been fined in Thailand and for what reason?

The truth would come out then......

I've been fined 5 times. Twice I had done something wrong. That means I was extorted 3 times (two of those were on a single trip). That was a bad day.

I get your point. But it still remains, if you don't violate a traffic law back home, you won't be ticketed.

I guess the difference is that, by using cameras, they are simply catching more people who violate traffic laws. Here it seems to have very little to do with any sort of traffic violation. Pure extortion.

While the cost comparison is worth noting, the comparison is invalid for many reasons. Cost of living, salary differentials are a part. But the main difference is that you are guaranteed that you won't be ticketed by a camera unless you actually violate traffic law.

I see your point. For me it isn't a big deal. There are much more important things to spend time on. I don't use the type of software mentioned above because it doesn't bother me to have to delete an extra spam message or two.

I don't really see the big deal about this. Unlike in the US, you are not charged for incoming SMS messages. Just delete them as the come in. If your phone is of reasonably high quality, you can get software that will screen incoming sms, filter appropriately, and you can select the type of notifications your phone gives.

Yep - it's the bucket method for me. Living in the city it's really the only practical option at the moment. Perhaps if I ever get to the countryside I'll move to the half-drum style. I like charcoal and wood chips.

Remember one thing , you go to ATM or Bank to take money and the thai people go to bank to deposit your money, who is clever now

With this line you confirm what you decry.

Sorry, but I don't understand any of your points (especially when you use such big words).

Buy a dictionary.

You merrily contradict yourself, just to be anti-red...Let's ignore them if we can and focus on this thread and the PM.

I see. So the opposition party should have no say or influence. They lost and therefore should be ignored? I don't follow the logic. They are not to be ignored. They represent a significant portion of the population.

1) Yes, his primary goal is to work for the Thai people which he has stated, up until this latest release, will be best served by asking them directly for their input. Now, he has given way to political pressure.

I suppose that is one interpretation. Perhaps the correct one. Another would be that the only point of the referendum was to determine whether the people approve the plan for Parliament to amend the charter. Given that the majority of Parliament now opposes the charter, there seems to be little point in a referendum.

2) The various parlimentary groups are going back and forth in irrational ways. So the PM said he will take charge and take the debate forward through the people (that was strong leadership which I applauded). When the PAD threaten to take to the streets he immediately backed down - weak leadership...

Actually only one group is going back and forth in irrational ways. The PM has been working toward reconciliation with the opposition party. Remember - the PTP was a primary instigator in the whole charter rewrite agenda. I could be in error, but I interpreted the PM threat to kill the charter amendment referendum as a direct result of the ever-changing position of the opposition party. The PM, in working toward reconciliation, was willing to listen to the opposition and provide them with some of their wishes. Compromise.

Given that he already knew the PAD position on this issue, their threat to take to the streets would have had zero impact. It was expected. The PM was willing to have this happen in the hopes for a greater reconciliation. He was willing to turn his back on his friends and extend an olive branch to his enemies - for the greater good of Thailand. That is what I call strong leadership.

1) He needs to ignore what other parties think and do what's best for the Thai people.

Hmm. I thought politicians were to represent the people, even those who support opposition candidates. I also thought Thailand was severely divided and in deep need of compromise and reconciliation. Perhaps I missed something?

2) Your assesment is wrong. Both the PAD and reds are now aparently against Abhisit's stance. My feeling is (just IMO) that he backed down from the PAD, not the reds. This was in complete contrast to what he said he would do the week before...

Really. I was under the impression that much support for Charter Reform came from the PTP. As I recall the Democrat party was lukewarm to the idea, but decided to work toward compromise. The PAD was never for Charter Reform. Newin's group were pro. It looked like a majority pro Charter Amendment. So, as a good PM should do, he went forward with it, knowing it would alienate some of the Democrat supporters who also support PAD.

Who was on the phone to make him change his mind?

Don't be disingenuous.

Back on topic: Abhisit needs to decide what is right for the Thai people, not what is easiest for him politically...

He did. He listened to the opposition. He took action. He was willing to inflame the PAD situation to do so. He was looking for compromise and reconciliation. Then the phone rang. Five minutes later 'the people' no longer wanted charter amendments.

Rights? You must be joking.

You have the right to do whatever you're asked, or potentially face a major hassle that could be costly.

I don't get ripped off. I don't take taxis without meters. I know the routes to take. I speak enough Thai to clearly express my routing wishes and they generally agree. When they offer an alternative routing, I judge the cost and time differentials and if it is within 10 minutes or 20 bt I don't worry about it. I always tip a taxi driver between 5 and 25 bt, depending on distance and the bills in my wallet. When taking motorcycles, which I do every day, I never set the price in advance. I just hop off at the destination and pay approximately the correct amount plus 10 bt. They never object. Tuk-tuks are to be avoided unless you are close to your destination and know the correct price.

There is really nothing to be done that will have any effect on the boy. He will choose what he will choose. No monk, treatment center, tough love, soft love, AA, physical isolation, separation, or anything else will provide a magic fix for the boy. Only he can fix himself. The best that loved ones can do is to protect and insulate themselves from the runoff damage his behavior causes. That's it. He'll either sort himself or he won't.

I would probably leave it alone. I didn't pay for the food. I wouldn't want to take my leftovers home. It feels like bad manners.

It's not much of a story I agree.

A more important and less reported story is the depth of the government's unpopularity in many parts of the North East.Abhisit's irregular visits there are necessary (there can be no no-go areas for a PM) but a PR nightmare for the administration.

An alternate interpretation is that there are a handful of hard-core demonstrators in each province who gather to protest at any opportunity. The only aim is to heckle, make the PM or others as uncomfortable as possible, and to hopefully make the newspapers. It really doesn't matter to them whether the purpose of the visit is valid, helpful, or necessary.