Xangsamhua

I will be picking up some computer equipment at Pantip Plaza and will need to take a taxi back to my home on Soi Sala Daeng.

I believe that I can take the taxi up Petchburi Road and turn left (by BTS Ratcheweri) onto Phayathai Road, and then turn left again at Siam Discovery and go straight on rama1 until.... I need to make a right turn onto Ratchadamri Road which will then take me to Silom road. Is it possible to turn right onto Rachadamri Road?

Can't remember if you can hang a right at Rachadamri, but instead of turning left at Rama 1 you can go straight up Phyathai to Rama IV, turn left and then right into Silom with the arrow. Don't go up to the overpass.

True, there's a fair amount of probability that the sun will rise based on previous observations and records, even though it may not rise tomorrow. I think you're right that faith in the creation myth as an historical event requires a stubborn refusal to accept the findings of science and cultural anthropology - blind faith if you like - but mainstream Christians don't take the creation story literally, so it's not the best example to use.

True, it's not the best example but I didn't want to use an example closer to the core of Christian belief so as not to cause offence.

If karma/kamma is as general as you suggest it is, I agree with you and have faith in karma/kamma too, at least in general terms, but I've not yet seen any empirical evidence that karma impacts on future incarnations. Maybe I don't know enough about it.

Neither have I, this is why most western Buddhists either don't believe that karma impacts on future incarnations or are agnoistic on the topic.

Are you basically saying that there's faith, which may be based on at least inferential reasoning, and "blind faith", which is not based on reasoning at all? If so, we do not disagree. What I took issue with was the suggestion that all Christians are governed by blind faith, but Buddhists are guided in all things by the light of reason.

Certainly there are as many Buddhists out there that rely on blind faith as there are Christians, living in Thailand this will be obvious. The difference is it's not really encouraged in the original scriptures.

It's also true that there are Christians out there that are are guided in all things by the light of reason, but the fundamentalist view is faith is everything, you just have to believe in Jesus and you'll be saved. Obviuously this leads to lots of good things in your life but faith is the foundation.

The thing is I really do see any value in that kind of faith so wouldn't want to base my world view or my religion on it.

Those danged fundos - they get everyone tarred with their brush! I often feel it would be better if we banned the term "Christian" as an umbrella term for all the different sects and trends and shopfront assemblies that use the name. I'd identify with Buddhists any time before I would with some other Christians - in terms of what they profess and the way they do it. It probably wouldn't do any harm to ban the word "God" while we're at it, but the horse has bolted. Anyway, atheism and theism (or perhaps deism) follow the same trajectory; the former simply stops short of the act of faith for perfectly logical reasons, leaving us in suspense. Though I don't know how many "real atheists" there are anyway. Even Richard Dawkins accepts the possibility of a non-interventionist supreme being (the deist God), as does Antony Flew after many years of contestation. John Barrow, physicist-mathematician and Templeton Prizewinner (2006?) for scientific work by a Christian, belongs to a small church that he likes because "it teaches a traditional deistic [n.b. not theistic] picture of the universe" (Wikipedia). It's all so complex.

I think the use of the term "blind faith" is dismissive and probably discourteous. If it means credulity, ignorance or stupidity, it may refer to a lot of people, regardless of their beliefs, but the beliefs of Christians, Jews and Muslims - all of whom take the "risk of faith" in a Creator God - are not necessarily based on mere credulity, ignorance or stupidity.

One might think Theism is not the best option, but those who do may have good reasons for it. After all, there is "something and not nothing" and to accept a creative cause of that something is not an unreasonable option despite the objections that can be brought against it. After all, atheism may be perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't provide an "answer" to the question most people ask at some time of their life.

Presumably no Buddhists have "faith" in the law of Karma, as there isn't any scientific evidence for it that I'm aware of.

Obviously we understand the term blind faith differently, I use it to mean faith without evidence. If someone has evidence that the world was created by God in 6 days I would say their faith is not blind.

I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, this is based on evidence that it always has done this, it is faith because until it happens I can't be 100% certain but it's not blind as I have hard evidence to base it on.

The same with the law of kamma, I've seen evidence in my life and the lives of others that doing bad things generally leads to bad results and doing good things leads to good results, this is scientific evidence enough. I can't be certain this will always be the case so there is an element of faith but I have good anecdotal evidence so it's not blind.

True, there's a fair amount of probability that the sun will rise based on previous observations and records, even though it may not rise tomorrow. I think you're right that faith in the creation myth as an historical event requires a stubborn refusal to accept the findings of science and cultural anthropology - blind faith if you like - but mainstream Christians don't take the creation story literally, so it's not the best example to use.

If karma/kamma is as general as you suggest it is, I agree with you and have faith in karma/kamma too, at least in general terms, but I've not yet seen any empirical evidence that karma impacts on future incarnations. Maybe I don't know enough about it.

Are you basically saying that there's faith, which may be based on at least inferential reasoning, and "blind faith", which is not based on reasoning at all? If so, we do not disagree. What I took issue with was the suggestion that all Christians are governed by blind faith, but Buddhists are guided in all things by the light of reason.

Hi ,,, does anyone know who is the minister for "centrelink" ,,,,, a bit brain dead ,,, cant even think what portfolio it comes under

cheers

egg

Try Senator Joe Ludwig Minister for Human Services

thanks for that Xangsamhua ,,, will give it a shot and see what happens

cheers

egg

I sent two emails in the last ten days, one to Nicola Roxon and the other to Joe Ludwig so far no response which hardly surprises me.

No response from Arch Bevis (Brisbane). I'll try him again.

I think the use of the term "blind faith" is dismissive and probably discourteous. If it means credulity, ignorance or stupidity, it may refer to a lot of people, regardless of their beliefs, but the beliefs of Christians, Jews and Muslims - all of whom take the "risk of faith" in a Creator God - are not necessarily based on mere credulity, ignorance or stupidity.

One might think Theism is not the best option, but those who do may have good reasons for it. After all, there is "something and not nothing" and to accept a creative cause of that something is not an unreasonable option despite the objections that can be brought against it. After all, atheism may be perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't provide an "answer" to the question most people ask at some time of their life.

Presumably no Buddhists have "faith" in the law of Karma, as there isn't any scientific evidence for it that I'm aware of.

There are some very well-informed responses on this thread and I suppose it doesn't matter if we go off the topic a bit at times. After all Thai Buddhists probably have an understanding of what Christianity is that may differ widely from Christians' self-perceptions and these may differ widely too.

Apart from the question of whether Christianity is a religion or a philosophy (I think it's both), I'd like to suggest that Christianity is an event and one that differs qualitatively in Christian eyes from other historical events, such as the life and teachings of the Buddha. Christianity, in Christian terms, began when God chose to "break in" to human history by taking on human form and personality through Jesus of Nazareth. The union of God with creation in the stark form it took in Jesus' life and death changed everything. No longer is the realm of God and the realm of humanity divided; Jesus inaugurated the reign of God and since then we are all eligible for citizenship (though the "kingdom of God" has not been fully realised).

This all sounds rather strange, I suppose, to people who haven't been socialised into it, and it does need lots of clarification, and even so it's still hard to get a grip on. (Well, that's what I think.) The point is that Christianity, like Judaism its parent and Islam its cousin, appeals to historical events that not only provide a context but are salvific. In this way the Semitic religions differ markedly from Buddhism and I suspect most Thai people are not fully aware of this dimension, thinking rather of Jesus and Muhammad as simply great teachers and, if they think of Moses at all, probably as a wise old patriarch rather than as one who by dealing directly with God brought the Jewish nation out of slavery.

Some of the Filipinos at our school have teaching degrees; some don't. Some of those that don't have related degrees, e.g. Music for the Music teachers; Nutrition for the Cooking teacher (they teach these subjects in English). Our Filipino teachers get a big increase on their base salary if they can get a 6.0 on IELTS. Nearly all get it. Why blame the Filipinos if they have to leave their homeland to make a living? Isn't that blaming the victim?

Is this a course for the pedagogy, philosophy of teaching, etc., for those without a B.Ed. or equivalent?

And how will farang teachers know if such a course is going to be recognized by the TCT?

Yes, that's what it appears to be.

I'm sorry to be so vague, PB. I've found it hard to get direct information myself, though I did speak with Dr Areewan on the phone. She's not all that comfortable in English, I believe - at least not on the phone - but we agreed to talk when she came to school today to observe a lesson. That visit was cancelled and a video will be substituted for the observation.

The teacher from our school (who has since gone to an international school) did it last year or the year before and got the licence as a result. The teacher currently doing it is confident of the same. She heard about it from the previous teacher. I know that Bansomdej has had online courses for this purpose before, but the current programme and procedures seem rather looser than I expected.

I can only suggest that if people are interested they email Dr Areewan and maybe that'll get the numbers up for a course quicker; hence she'll respond quicker and something will happen. At least nothing is lost by doing so.

One of our ex-teachers has done this course and a current teacher is doing it now.

It's run by Bansomdejchaophraya Rajaphat University (BSRU) in Thonburi. It cost about 8000 baht and takes a few months (I'm not completely clear as I'm relying on information from my colleague who's a little unclear herself). It's largely self-managed apart from an introductory day at the university. You just get the notes and send in the assignments. Your practical teaching assessment is done by video I think. It satisfies requirements for the teacher licence (assuming one has the requirements to enter the course - a degree in something, I suppose), but presumably would have no weight outside the local context.

The coordinator is Dr Areewan Iamsa-ard. She is a real person (see http://www.academiae.biz/EEProgram/MyPhilosophy.asp) but she only responds to email when there's enough candidates to statrt a new course. Her email address is [email protected]

I hope this is helpful. I've spoken to her on the phone, but she prefers email, even if she doesn't answer it right away.

The information above is correct as far as I can tell, but it seems a very loose arrangement. For example, my colleague doesn't remember filling out an application form. I would think that interested persons should send Dr Areewan their basic personal details and qualifications and that should do for a start.

My kids are 9 and 10 (in Thailand). To get them to keep their rooms clean I threatened to cancel cable TV, computer and playstaion games. They ignored me. So I cut them for 2 weeks. However the rotten little b^ggers got around it by dragging out the old toys they never used - mechano, lego, board games , bicycles and general toys and even started playing outside and running around.

Cutting out what they liked forced them into doing what I did as child. Just need to keep thinking up new reasons for the punishment as seems a lot of good coming from this - ie imagination, exercise and thinking.

Good news. Let's hope they get a liking for it. What if they go back to computer games etc and clean up their rooms as well?

64 next month. Married 35 years to my lovely wife from Vientiane. Lived in Vientiane 6 years and 1 year in Korat in the 70s. Now in LOS since 2002. Thai Visa is a great forum.

On the other hand the reason Thais are so benevolent towards Christianity is that they do not feel threatened.

They won't allow Christians to actively convert, they won't allow Christians to declare Buddhists are going to hel_l on very corner.

It's ok, just don't rock the boat.

They reduced Christianity to personal, private affair and stripped it of the missionary zeal.

So yes, that kind of Christians, domesticated ones, is acceptable, beyond that we don't know.

As a Christian I don't think that Buddhists go to he11. Or maybe I should rephrase that. As he11 just refers to the grave in the bible, we all go to he11!

Nor do I. I think the hel_l notion entered Jewish thinking as a result of their exposure to Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian Captivity (6th century BC) and flowed through to Christianity. (See Riley, The River of God, HarperCollins, p.141) However, hel_l and damnation appears to have been alive and well quite recently in some Thai Christian communities, to the annoyance of their Buddhist neighbours. Dr Herb Swanson, a Presbyterian missionary in Chiang Rai province, relates how the Christian community's taunting of the Buddhists in his village with the prospect of hellfire caused considerable tension and sometimes violence. The problem was resolved when the Buddhists built a new phraviharn and invited the Christians to participate in the celebrations. This put the latter on the spot, but after much discussion they agreed. From that point on relations improved dramatically. The Christian value of loving your neighbour began to overwhelm previous intolerance and condemnation. The change in the community was "miraculous". Dr Swanson talks about these events and the changes they brought about in a homily to parishioners in the States at http://www.deltapresby.org/Kindness%2093007web.pdf. It's also interesting, and rather sad, that in agreeing to participate in the Buddhist celebrations, the church in that village was criticised by other churches (he doesn't say which).

A friend of mine once said "If I weren't a Buddhist I'd be a Christian". The inference (in the context of the conversation) was that she'd been born into a Buddhist family, so she's a Buddhist.

I wonder how many Thais are really Buddhists in the sense that they really take the Buddha's teaching to heart and try to model their lives on them. I suspect there aren't many Thai "Buddhists" in that sense. Not many "Christians" in the West either.

how are christians regarded in Thai buddhist society? i know that christians are only less than 1% of the population in Thailand but are Christians in general able to 'mesh in well,' so to speak? do buddhists in Thailand regard their fellow christians as 'brainwashed' or something or is christianity generally accepted in thai society? are thai christians mostly from the hill tribes or are they thai chinese or are they ethnic thais?

Just noticed this question from the OP. I don't know about the Protestant missions, but the Catholics, who have focused more on welfare and development work rather than evangelism, have gained hardly any converts among Thai Buddhists. Their original work (16th century) was among the Catholic community already present in Ayudhaya, then (17th century) refugee Catholics from Vietnam and Cambodia established parishes in Bangkok (Samsen district). The Chinese and Portuguese formed a Catholic community in Thonburi in the 18th century (still there - the Goodijeens around Santa Cruz).

At present, the main concentrations of Catholics are in the Northeastern provinces bordering Southern Laos where there are many Vietnamese, the Eastern provinces, also a place of refuge for Vietnamese Catholics, the Northwest, where there are many hill people, and Bangkok with its large Chinese population. Where these minorities are not found in significant numbers the Catholic population is tiny.

There was one particularly dark period for Catholics in Thailand, and that was during the Jomphon Por (Marshal Pibunsongkhram) period just before the Japanese occupation, when Catholics were imprisoned as possible spies and seven, including children, were shot by the police in Mukdahan province. Like much of what happens in Thailand, though, it had nothing to do with Buddhism - just national chauvinism and an excessive desire to please the boss.

Hi,

I'm in the process of researching distance learning programs from UK, US and Australian universities for an on-line Masters.

I work in a government university and enjoy my job. My question is whether to study for a TESOL, education, linguistics or general English Masters course. Which one of these in your opinion will be of more use to a government university teacher in Isan? I was leaning towards the MA-TESOL from Sunderland University.

Many Thanks.

Nick.

You can do the TESOL strand for your MEd at some universities. Otherwise an M TESOL or M App Ling should be equally acceptable anywhere. A Master's in Linguistics doesn't necessarily cover the teaching of language. I don't know how a Master's in English Literature would be regarded by universities here. For the schools sector, anything with the word "Education" in it is the most easily accepted, but one would hope that university people understand that "Applied Linguistics" is about language teaching.

If you are a UK citizen, wouldn't it be cheaper to do a course from a British university than an Australian or US one (unless you have dual nationality)? If you are looking to the antipodes, don't forget that NZ has some good TESOL programs too.

While many people and also the English translation of Thailand's constitution call Buddhism a religion I have always held and continue to hold the view that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, but perhaps this is a mere question of semantics.

--

Maestro

Interesting and very readable article here http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf on whether Buddhism is at core a religion. Harris argues that religions permit faith that can't be fully supported by reason (something I think they acknowledge, on the ground that reasoning is finite); hence religions are bad; hence Buddhism shouldn't be a religion. (I think he confuses "religion" with attachment, as in "blind" faith or dogmatism, but the article is an interesting one.)

I think Rama 4, King Mongkut speaks for many:

"What you teach us to do is admirable, but what you teach us to believe is foolish."

King Rama IV studied Latin with Bishop Pellagroix, the Apostolic Vicar, and in turn taught the bishop Pali. The king assisted at the bishop's funeral and accepted as a gift from the missionaries the bishop's episcopal ring.

Apart from the unfortunate aftermath of Constantine Faulkon's stupid attempts to convert King Narai the Great, creating a pretext for the Revolution of 1688, there has always been a good relationship between the Catholic Church and, later, the more responsible Protestant missionaries (Mor Bradley, Dr McFarland, etc.), with the monarchy. Responsible Christian mission work, where it brought about material benefit and peace to the people, has always been well regarded in Thailand.

Back from dinner and I found a site that relates directly to this conjecture and specifically to Ranjit Pal its author...it is this link:

http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm

It is Jan-Mathieu's (Carbon,Corpus Christi College, Oxford) review of Ranjit Pal's book titled Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander.

It seems from this source that Alexander's Palibothra is used as a place from which other sites are referenced....I don't know for sure exactly how this works but in theory if Palibothra's location was corrected by moving it west then alot of other places would be repositioned to the west to to maintain their same distance and direction for Palibothra I guess....here's what Jan-Mathieu has to say about some of the books content. In regards to Pal's suggested relocation of Palibothra Jan-Mathieu says that it is, "provocative challenge to current orthodoxy" but goes on to further describe the work in general with:

"As a scholarly study, however, Pal's methods of analysis and presentation leave much to be desired. The book reads like a draft of a manifesto that skips from one argument to the next haphazardly. Few primary sources are cited directly and instead copious use is made of secondary sources in the endnotes, to the detriment of solid argument. The confused, often obscure style of exposition diminishes the book's appeal to a great extent. The presence of Karl Jung and Robert Graves, those two masters of befuddlement, in the acknowledgments (p. 7), immediately warn the reader to turn the pages with careful fingers. Pal's writing is so terse and confused as to seem stilted."

and more specifically about how Pal relocates other places to match his new location for Palibothra:

"Pal's anti- Jonesian mission in this chapter goes well beyond Alexander's conquests. It involves relocating many of the places and persons that are mentioned in the Greek literary sources and were previously associated with places east of the Indus to sites in what is today South-East Iran. Pal gleefully embarks on this errand and takes it too far -- ironically emulating Alexander? Greek personal and place names are associated with Sanskrit or other names with very little or no demonstration. Here is a representative sample of his awkward style of argumentation: 'It may be that Alexander also knew Chanakya or Bagoas. His name Chanakya may be linked to Kana(uj). Golla Vishaya may be Chaldea or Babylon where Bagoas' tree-park was a famous landmark. Bagoas may have been behind the Bessos affair' (p. 47). Pal repeats this flow of bold, relatively unconnected speculations in nearly all the paragraphs of the book. His provocative linguistic associations are interesting and certainly quite possible, but not very convincing since not properly analysed and evidenced. The strongest part of the first chapter comes at its very end, in the paragraph entitled 'A Call to Archaeologists' (pp. 63f.). Here Pal acknowledges the desperate need for further research on Indo-Iran: '[a] patient search [...] may one day reward the investigator with the sought-after traces of Alexander'. Indeed, that is precisely what is needed to support Pal's arguments: secure evidence of Alexander's transit, and not only conjectures based on linguistic similarities."

The review also agrees with me that Alexander was not a contemporary of Gotama Buddha but lived somewhat later....it suggest a couple of centuries.

5. This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

Reply: I don't think that the Buddha being born in Iran would affect the dates of Greco-Buddhist or Indian-Buddhist art. Could it be that Indian-Buddhist art is of a more recent date because the Muslim invaders completely destroyed Buddhism in India and destroyed its temples and arts?....so the existing art work post dates that invasion and therefore is of a later period than the Greco stuff?...that would be my guess but I want to stress that its only a guess. It might also be noted that there was no Buddhist artwork done during the Buddha's lifetime and probably not any significant amount for some time thereafter.... again I don't know this for sure although I'm reasonably sure about none during the Buddha's lifetime.

6. To locate the origin of Buddhism in India, subsequently spreading Eastward, is to reverse the otherwise consistent Westward flow of ancient migrations

Buddhism wasn't spread as a passive "migration". The Buddha (I think at the time of his death) instructed his monks to travel out in all directions to spread the teachings and that no two should take the same path.....the message being that the message should be spread to everywhere. I think the concept of a "flow of ancient migrations" does not really apply to the spread of the Buddha's teachings and this has implications for items 3,4, and 5 as well.

Enough for now. What do you think?

Chownah

I think you've done pretty well. The reference to the Jan-Mathieu review was helpful. I have the impression that Ranajit Pal, though learned, is not part of the formal scholarly community and may let his forensic enthusiasm override his methodological self-discipline. As I said earlier, he doesn't appear to be attached to an institution of higher education or research. Of course he could still be on to something, but it appears he hasn't really established it yet.

I was a bit confused by the Alexandrine reference, too, as I knew that Alexander was well after Gotama, but assumed that the city of Palibothra identified with him must be generally recognised as a site of early Buddhist activity. In confusing it with Patna, so the thesis goes, Jones led everyone astray and located early Buddhism far East of its actual locus of activity during Alexander's/Iskander's time. This in turn led to the siting of Lumbhini in the India-Nepal border region and the mislocation of Kapilavastu.

An earlier posting (Garro 31/01) refers to the Ashoka pillar at Lumbhini. There's some discussion of that in the link http://www.lumkap.org.uk/ . The link argues that the Ashokan inscription is spurious. I'm in no position to judge the validity of that claim. I guess, for me, if there's anything in the Ranajit Pal argument it shows us that we can't afford always to take current scholarly paradigms as gospel.

Peace

Xangsamhua

Where the Buddha was born has no significance for his teachings that I'm aware of.

I don't think the article was researched very well....I think the author was just trying to create controversy. If you think I am wrong (I'm often wrong) then you might glean from the article a list of points which support this new thesis and we can discuss them.

Chownah

I would tend to agree with Chownah that it is not really that significant where he was born.

I would go even further and say that it is not that important that the historical Buddha existed.

The teaching are effective in themselves.

I like the story of Gotama but if it were proved as false tomorrow it would not have much bearing on my respect for the teachings.

I have no axe to grind in this matter. I was just curious. I agree that it matters not where the Buddha was born, though I'd prefer that he was an historical figure and, hence, am curious to get the record stratight if at all possible. Taking up Garro's suggestion, I'd list in simple terms the main points of the article as follows:

1. Some (perhaps most) scholars dismiss the proposition that the Buddha was of royal blood.

2. The belief that he was born in Lumbhini is based on a fraud perpetrated by Dr Alois Fuhrer in the late 19th century.

3. William Jones blundered in locating Alexander the Great's Palibothra at Patna.

4. Patna is believed to be a significant early site of Buddhist activity, but Palibothra is in that part of ancient India now located in Iran, well to the West of Patna.

5. This would explain why Greco-Buddhist art is older than Indian-Buddhist art and why the Bamiyan staues are/were in Afghanistan.

6. To locate the origin of Buddhism in India, subsequently spreading Eastward, is to reverse the otherwise consistent Westward flow of ancient migrations.

I suppose it's reasonable to respond to all this with a shrug and "Who cares?", but I'd be interested if anyone has a view on it. It's an historical question rather than one of Dharma practice, but a curious one nevertheless.

I wouldn't start a raft of "Save the Poor Luk Kreung Children" NGO's just yet! When it comes to Thai kids and luk kreung kids , all other things being equal, things are just about equal.

I've seen discrimination happen - once - in a competition where it was felt that a child's luuk kreung background gave them an advantage over other Thai kids. This might be seen as affirmative action for disadvantaged Thai-Thai kids, but, as in affirmative action abroad, kids get penalised through no fault of their own. Hopefully other advantages in being luuk kreung outweigh the kind of disadvantage they might suffer in this kind of case. I don't think being a luuk kreung in this country is a bad thing to be.

I wonder what those of you with more expertise than me (which would be most of you) think about the thesis that the Buddha and Buddhism came from Iran rather than India or Nepal.

The thesis has been put forward by an Indian scholar, Ranjit Pal, but I can find very little reference to him on the web (where he teaches, etc.). Anyway, the discussion is at this link.

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat/2007/09/17/entry-2

I put it to my wife who argued that the Buddhism/India tradition is just too strong to be challenged, regardless of the alleged distortions of European scholars during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Peace

Xangsamhua

Any suggestions for Bilingual school in or around Bang Na

Girl or boy?

If for a girl, St Joseph's Convent has a bilingual program.

Girl age 3 thanks

I think St Joseph's take kids from age 6. Their number is 02361 3719-20.

St Andrews International take little ones. Ph 023933883. Website

http://www.st-andrews.ac.th/sukhumvit_107/index.html

Good luck.

Any suggestions for Bilingual school in or around Bang Na

Girl or boy?

If for a girl, St Joseph's Convent has a bilingual program.

I suppose ANZAC Day is the most meaningful national day in Australia, but maybe young people are less cynical about days like Australia Day. I know my daughter and son-in-law and their friends here in Bangkok respect the day (and have a good time while they're about it).

Hi ,,, does anyone know who is the minister for "centrelink" ,,,,, a bit brain dead ,,, cant even think what portfolio it comes under

cheers

egg

Try Senator Joe Ludwig Minister for Human Services