jonclark

And what were the answer choices???

Farangs in Thailand.

Better watch out as you are being watched my the big Army chief.

All farangs are being watched by the Army Chief - that's impressive eyesight.

Seriously, other than the fact that this comment was meant for domestic consumption, it would have been a far more intelligent and constructive comment had he asked all parts of society to help, other than just the Thais. After all farangs have more farang friends than Thai have and are more likely to hear the gossip / bar chatter etc. before the Police catch on to it.

Can we blame the government? Don't we all have bad people in our country.

If a few of our national went to do bad things, must the government take responsibility?

Are we saying that there are no known terrorist that is truely Americans, British, Irish, French, German, Spainish, Russian, etc (not those nationalised after they became adult)?

There are plentity of Thais caught and charge for terrorism last year (during the Red protest), and we are still proud of Thailand.

That all depends on whether the government was involved in helping (i.e. suppling travel documents, money, equipment, knowledge, etc.) these people with their attack. If they were then yes, they should be held responsible. In the same way that if say Suthep or Taksin actively supported elements which led to the deaths or injury of soilders or civilians during the riots then they too should be held responsible.

I guess with the Iraninan connection intelligence at the highest levels of various governemnts may pin point the blame, but i doubt if that intelligence would be made public as it may compromise 'the source'.

Jurin, a senior MP from the Democrat Party, said it could be because the ruling politicians were afraid of possible abrupt political change.

This notion pops up every once in awhile.

Obviously from 'undemocratic coupist's' who entertain the possibility of changing a Government through non-electoral means.

Tsk, tsk, you've obviously forgotten the frequent, monthly references to coups by your hero Jatuporn - Possibly Jurins just satirizing Jatuporns spurious claims.

Yes, Jatuporn and other UDD/red Shirts regularly raise the specter of coups, considering the many 'coup inclined' initiatives of the Opposition, principle amongst them being their constant treks to the judiciary.

There is no saririzing here, but suggestive discussion about coup potentials.

Many of those considering this par-for-the-course politically, forget that their last coup escapade has evolved such a country-wide anti-coup and pro-electoral politicised majority, that I think they fail to fathom the consequences next time around.

The days of freeby coups are over, and the alertness of Jatuporn and others attest to that fact.

So Jatuporn alertness to coups means he's a hero / defender of democracy. When the opposition restates jatuporns fears, they are seen as villains / enemies of democracy. touchy, touchy no double standards, or do you think Jurin is pro coup??

I think everyone realizes rightly and correctly that the days of coups are finished in Thailand. Anyone who is pro coup or pro military rule should up sticks and go and live in Burma. The shine of PTP will be short lived and already the gloss is coming off. As the old saying goes - you can't polish a turd.

The dems will eventually return to power be it 4 , or 8 years down the road, patience is a virtue. History shows they have outlasted all other political parties and they will outlast UDD/PTP and all its future reincarnations, through the simple fact that, as UDD supporters constantly point out the elites back them, so the dems have the money, and thereby the political attrition to go the distance as an opposition until government calls as it will one day.

I hope PTP remains as a political force as it makes democracy stronger. The constant creation, dissolving and reincarnation of political parties results in a weaker democracy.

Jurin, a senior MP from the Democrat Party, said it could be because the ruling politicians were afraid of possible abrupt political change.

This notion pops up every once in awhile.

Obviously from 'undemocratic coupist's' who entertain the possibility of changing a Government through non-electoral means.

Tsk, tsk, you've obviously forgotten the frequent, monthly references to coups by your hero Jatuporn - Possibly Jurins just satirizing Jatuporns spurious claims.

This headline reminds me of a previous Parliamentary debate confrontation.

I recall early in this Governments mandate, Abhi and Suthep tangled with Jatuporn and Nathawut.

Jat. and Nat. had Abhi. and Sut. for lunch in that debate.

I wondered how the Opposition would spin that embarrasment.

I didn't have to wait long.

They avoided it by characterizing it as 'bickering', not mentioning the substance and nature of the exchange.

The Parliamentary session was described as a debate about this or that, but when it came to the Jat/Nat - Abhi/Sut, the debate descended into 'bickering', according to them, with no details provided.

It was a quick and neat little side-step.

I remember that too - actually quite funny.

But what everyone wants to see is Yingluck debate Abhi. After all if Nat and Jatu can beat him she should have no problems, so why is she never there to answer in person - cat got her tongue??

If according to Chalerm the suspects brought the explosives once they were inside Thailand, and if as reported in the news that explosive was C4, the only ones with access to C4 in Thailand i'd assume would be the military. You'd think finding out who is selling C4 to foreigners in Thailand might be an avenue for investigation?? As is must be a very select few who sell C4. That is uinless Thailnd wants to become a hub of C4 sales.

Irrespective of the hows and why's I think the fact that 3 of the 4 have been detained (okay 1 blew of his legs which made running away impossible) in such a short space of time is a very commendable effort. I'm sure the US and Israelis won't mind covertly greasing a few palms for a few hours intelligence gathering with the suspects.

Maybe Suchart also read on the negative comments on TV regarding his tea money proposal.

You think so?

Good grief what would the world be coming to if TV members started influencing government policy, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel !!

"..adding that despite the donation schools would still have the mandate to decided whether or not to enrol the childrens of the donors".

So we are expected to beleive that in the wacky world of Surchart, parents roll up to the school on admissions day, pay a 'school fee' which the school accepts and then a few days later the school rings up and explains to the parents, "Thanks for your money, but you need to find another school for your son / daughter - so sorry no refunds!!!" To which the parent replies "Oh no problem after all what's 20'000 baht, can you recommend any other schools??"

A really good idea in principle but a couple of points?

1. Whose land will the forest be planted on? (and also the monkey cheek retention dams)
   
2. Will villagers whose land is used be compensated? If so by how much?
   
3. Who will be responsible for maintaining the forests?
   
4. What are the consequences of chopping down the forest?
   
5. Where will the saplings come from?
   
6. Are the saplings suitable for the local climate?
   
7. Is it actually possible to plant a whole forest in 3 months?
   

I actually think this is a good plan, but i fear the devil is in the detail as they say

If a problem exists turning a blind eye to it doesn't improve the situation, bringing it into the public eye, addressing it and trying to regulate it can.

Would you prefer that noone raised the issue and it just carried on behind closed doors? If we can't see it and noone discusses it then that's just fine and dandy....

"Donations to schools - its such an innocent sounding phrase. Conjures images of smiling parents handing over money to the school, safe in the knowledge that the money will be used to improve the library, pay for the new computers, repairs to the school roof, etc. In reality it goes straight into the school directors pocket. Because lets be honest at the end of the day who will be the one authorizing the school accounts which go to the MoE??"

That's the whole point, it goes straight into the school directors pocket, so shouldn't someone try to outline this system and change it, rather than just ignoring it?! That's what happens now and has been happening for years, what will happen if all donations have to be declared, put through the books and the use of the money scrutinized?

Is it a perfect solution? No, but it's better to try and change it than just ignore it.

Totally understand what you are saying. But by legalizing donations those 'better' schools will be actively seeking larger and larger donations to admit students. Thereby progressively squeezing out over a number of years the percentage of students who are equally able but less financially well off, until eventually you have a two tier state school system. Effectively 'semi-privatly funded state schools' and 'state schools'.

Directors will be fighting tooth and nail to get into schools which have a better name as they will know there is more money to be skimmed from parent donations. I don't think even you believe that the school directors will declare the real amount handed over by parents. A very large % will end up in the directors pocket and their direct supervisors at the MoE with perhaps 10% of parents money, a token amount if you like trickling back down to students. Which makes the whole issue of educational development null and void.

Its similar to the top cop at the local police station, he pays a 'promotion fee' to run that station, over the duration of his tenure he skims money from the fines / bribes paid to the police to recoup his money plus his fee. That is what will happen in schools.

What I would prefer to see is the MoE providing proper funding for all education and outlawing (not encouraging) all forms of bribes for school places. If schools need donations then as I said previously the donation, should be at the discretion of the parents and asked for after the school term has started when it is too late to remove the child from school or money can be raised as a whole school fund raising campaign.

Clearly the issues of drug use and donations to schools are totally different, how can you take one person's suggested solution to a certain problem and twist it to apply to a completely different topic?! Regulating donations to state schools and legalising "drugs" are not the same at all.

That said taking your own arguments you make a good case for the legalisation of controlled substances - "The reality is drug use will continue to be prevalent in Thai (and all other) societies despite the best government efforts to stamp it out. That is the reality. So lets legalize all forms of drugs so that the flow of drug money is transparent and we the government can use that money to help hospitals provide better care to their patients."

I find it difficult to argue against this stance as clearly and by your own admission making them illegal has had the opposite effect, it criminalises large elements of society and forms the basis for a highly lucrative unregulated business. Legal means regulated, taxed and controlled, illegal clearly means the opposite in reality.

Let's not even start on what is deemed acceptable drug use and what isn't, it's only through social conditioning and legality that alcohol is seen as an acceptable drug when the medical facts show it to be much more harmful than many "illegal" substances. If anything the fact that many of these drugs are illegal makes them more appealing to the younger generation's instinct to rebel against the establishment. I digress...

Donations to schools - its such an innocent sounding phrase. Conjures images of smiling parents handing over money to the school, safe in the knowledge that the money will be used to improve the library, pay for the new computers, repairs to the school roof, etc. In reality it goes straight into the school directors pocket. Because lets be honest at the end of the day who will be the one authorizing the school accounts which go to the MoE??

If schools need to raise money do it the old fashion way, something along the lines of a school fair or fate, students wash cars, launder clothes and raise money through sponsored activities.

That way all students have a chance to participate and have a stake in their school, their education and its' development. If schools need parents to donate money ask all parents for a donation once all the children have been accepted. The size of the donation is at the discretion of the parents. So we end up with free and fair access to education. A child's access to education should not be dependent on a large sum of money passing hands, prior to them actually attending school.

Donations to schools are bribes to accept some students at the expense of others and that is wrong.

As i said in my previous post the issue here is not if something is real or unreal , but acceptable or unacceptable. Both drugs and bribes for school places are unacceptable, legalizing either of them in no way makes them more acceptable.

jonclark, #9 ^

If that is the heart of the argument - not accepting the reality, well lets just apply that to another situation and see if it holds up there - drugs

Comparing apples and oranges just doesn't work in most cases, including this one.

As your analysis clearly demonstrated.

LOL - only accepting reality which is what your chum surchart wants us all to do.

"Critics just don't accept the reality"

If that is the heart of the argument - not accepting the reality, well lets just apply that to another situation and see if it holds up there - drugs. But before I do that lets just make one thing clear - Both corruption (tea money) and drugs benefit the few (those who receive the money) whilst at the same time they stifle and cripple the development of young people and the country, that is the common element here

The reality is drug use will continue to be prevalent in Thai (and all other) societies despite the best government efforts to stamp it out. That is the reality. So lets legalize all forms of drugs so that the flow of drug money is transparent and we the government can use that money to help hospitals provide better care to their patients.

or to quote and expand on callgaryl

"Better to accept the reality, shine a light on it and be constructive about dealing with it.

Better to expose and channel these funds for the benefit of the hospital, instead of 'lining of the drug dealers pockets"

I don't adhere to this idea in the slightest as drugs are a blight on society and the young. But if you accept the reality that drug use, like tea money and corruption will continue it is the most logical solution. Indeed we might well be inferring that drugs are 'acceptable with such a policy, likewise by allowing tea money to be used to secure a place at school we are also inferring that corruption is acceptable.

What is reality and what is acceptable are two different things. And that is what is at the heart of this argument

I think on 3'000 baht a week the term survive is more apt than live. Yes you can survive on 3'000 baht a week, but you should have some back up cash for example hospital visits if you are sick or have an accident (unless you have some form of work insurance).

So if you pay money to the school, you get the same antiquated, learning-by-rote, box-ticking, hypernationalist education, but in a different room from the proles. Nice.

which also includes air con and a sense of superiority.

In my limited experience i have found that if the video is full of bikini clad girls etc, it's to generally distract the viewer from the fact the music is shit. If Thailand made better music, less offensive videos for the prudish censors to get worked up about. Simple

Yep - just seen the video - the song is utter crap

Trying to prevent this practice would piss off a lot of parents, who are focussed on one particular school for their little Johnie or Sally. If it was prevented, they would find another way

What about the finacially less able parents of a bright child whose place is 'bought' by richer parents (probably from the democratic party voting middle classes, who as you infer might get pissed off - although why you would worry about that is beyong me given your support of PTP)) for their little darling. Surely they'd be pissed off as well!! Or should they focus on a school more suited to their social standing in Thai society, such as a temple school.

Access to educaton based on ability not money.

Glad to see a PT government minister is finally supporting the Amarat and the elite who can now pay for the privilage of a better education.

With each passing day the masters and minions of this government become increasingly drunk on the power their positions provide. They aspire (personally) to be like the elite (rich, powerful, influential and untouchable) they swore (lied) to rid Thai politics of. Different day - same shit lol.

Personally I'm all for this as I am middle class Bangkok (which = elite according to UDD etc.) so yeah, given the shocking record of terrible decisions that the parents of the poor/UDD/PTP supporters have made I definatly don't want my children sharing a classroom with their kids. Some of their poor decision making maybe contagious.

jonclark, #4

Indeed in a mature democracy he would have been replaced, but Thailand isn't a mature democracy is it?

Correct on all counts.

But one works with what one has, and for all its huge flaws, there are efforts to improve it.

The politicization of those not considered part of the Amart, is one of the improvements.

Considering the family referenced, the voters were fully appraised and they decided.

For starters, that needs to be respected, and I do.

Sure as hell, beats coups' by elements of the Opposition..

So you resepct the results of the referedum which was held to decide on the current consitution?

.

In mature Democracies, they would already have replaced a thrice electoral loser with R'song baggage, and photographed the new person in this circumstance.

Indeed in a mature democracy he would have been replaced, but Thailand isn't a mature democracy is it? In a mature democracy the Shinawatra family link to any form of government would have also would have been completely,permanently and publically severed. In a mature democracy there would be equality for all. In a mature democracy ideology and not personal greed or ambition would inspire governments. In a mature democracy ....ah whats the point, dreams ore for fools and lets not kid ourselves, Thailand is not a mature democracy and that suits Abhisit, Yingluck and Taksin perfectly.

Rather than discuss Mr. Amsterdam, how about some attention be given to his statement. Do people agree or disagree with this;

The Yingluck administration is not fully in charge of this country. We all know it. We all know the Army has a veto over what happens here. Let's not pretend. And therefore I understand that were this government to [sack General Prayuth], it would be removed militarily without hesitation," he said. Nevertheless he wished Prayuth could be removed

I agree with him. The military is still calling the plays and that is why there cannot be any progress on key issues such as corruption.

Perhaps he just misunderstands. We often hear that Farlangs don't understand Thailand and Thai people, So perhaps...just perhaps this farland doesn't or mis understands????