cocopops

Achievements: the economy is in the tank and unlikely to improve, Dear Leader has been the subject of repeated global ridicule, the tourism industry has collapsed and the education system is both a: censored, and b: centred around a list of 12 core rules, many of which are vaguely fascist. The military budget of course is up and the education budget is down. Civil discourse is prohibited on a wide range of crucial-to-Thailand's-future subjects. And any election is continually pushed back.

I'm pleased we did not end up in a civil war but despite the ramblings of some in these forums, the those now in power played a large part in engineering a drift towards civil war to provide an excuse for the coup.

I'm also pleased that those who continually blocked payments to rice farmers to force a crisis found way to quickly unblock those funds when the nasty elected "populist" government was removed.

You forgot to mention one achievement, my dear sniggy

Having succeeded in mobilising the most TBF posters to write lies, half-truths and insinuations as result of being on the right tract.

The Education budget is up from 430 to 463 billion if I remember correctly, The MoD budget from 171 to 177 billion I think. Civil discourse on a wide range of subjects crucial for Thailands progress is channeled and actively encouraged via the reform committees. The global ridicule seems in the mind of the poster only.

BTW the Yingluck government after having stated in mid-2013 to have the financing for the RPPS secured suddenly found it didn't have the money and as Ms. Yingluck dissolved the House, the caretaker government couldn't just suddenly borrow 130 billion Baht either. the right track?

It seems another agent is on here trying to counteract any criticism at the government. You really don't fool anyone. Even farmers (I am not disrespecting them at all) have the intelligence to realise they are all getting conned. Nothing has changed for them and probably will not with the current mind set. What I find amusing that this drivel is pushed by yourself on here to, considered more educated people. Bullshit smells the same, anywhere.

I think the poster is expressing the opinion that "not being Yingluck" is the main achievement of the NCPO.

Would having someone extradited from a western country would require Thai lawyers to present some kind of evidence of the charges in a western court? And if so, would this be possible for a Thai official to do? Cause the details of the LM incident to be aired in public?

Good Lord. That discussion completely derailed.

I agree.

I'm an atheist actually but I think you don't need any religion to know some basic ethics about treating other human beings decently and with compassion.

I do know most expats posting here probably identify as Christian and most Thais identify as Buddhist and you would think people from both of those religious traditions would understand that too.

Religion is one of the few things powerful enough to come between thinking people and their natural compassionate instincts. Devoting 10 seconds consideration to the historic influence of the worlds "great" religions on the treatment of HIV carriers worldwide should be sufficient to confirm this.

All one needs to figure out "basic ethics" in this case is sufficient brainpower to imagine how we would wish to be treated if we were ourselves HIV carriers. And while many people fail to meet this standard, we can take solace in the fact that many do not.

Gen. Prayut’s Twelve Values, which he taught to the public in July, have already been rendered into a poem that students at public schools are required to memorise.

It took me a while to realize, but the man really is the greatest prankster of our time, perhaps of all time. He has the nation's children memorizing his poetry now! And he's managed to keep a straight face through the whole frickin' thing! Genius doesn't even begin to describe it...

In every democracy on earth any party or coalition that wins a stable majority implements its agenda. The one they took to the people to win that majority. When they don't do it, it's called "breaking their election promises".

It's simply ridiculous to pretend that Thailand is somehow different in this regard.

It's also good to know that even the poor stupid kwai-dairngs can see the superiority of the new proposals once it has been presented as a football analogy.... Patronizing jerk...

with all due respect Sir, its the only way at the moment, any other way will ultimately lead to the same problems as in the past. we are starting to get direction now,

The method of election didn't cause the problems. And really, how would the result be different? The 2011 election would have still most likely seen Yingluck directly elected as PM and PTP in government. How would it fix anything?

I'm wondering if perhaps the trick will be to do with who is eligible to run. There may be some companion rules that allow the establishment to ensure that only good people become candidates.

Pure speculation of course.

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

Same same, but different, remember "Thaksin thinks PTP acts"? They acted on the orders of one man as well.

It's true that democratic parties attempt to present a veneer of unity to the public. And it is also true that both publicly visible leaders and power-brokers excercise much control over their party members.

The key difference is what happens if party members rebel. This article implies that in the current scenario, the military NLA members may simply be replaced if they fail to toe the party line. In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election. At which point those constituents judge the MP's actions and decide whether or not to retain him or her as their representative.

See the key difference? Both democracy and other systems produce leaders that call the shots, but in a democracy the leaders are kept in line as they depend on the support of their followers.

This works at a national level as well - not just within the party. A democratically elected government that makes sufficiently unpopular decisions may be forced to resign by the people. At which point, if they wish to continue, they are obliged to seek a new mandate from the electorate. In this way democracy ensures that we don't end up with a government that is either oppressive or batsheet insane, even if it cannot ensure that things are perfect. No other system features this advantage.

In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election.

I knew this would arise, in most countries you would be right. In Thailand it doesn't really apply because MPs here don't have any idea about representing their constituents. With the party list system, they only have to please the boss.

Under the previous constitution, there were three times as many constituent MPs as there were party list MPs...

Anyhow, your point is a fair one, but I don't think it's specific to Thailand's earlier attempts at democracy. In any democratic country, the number of MPs who are personally well known and popular enough to successfully break with a political party and then come back and win their seat as an independent or another party's candidate must these days be very small. Actually rebelling against the leadership in parliament must surely spell the end of most political careers. So the leadership's power is of course significant, but not absolute.

But we needn't get so dramatic. What I'm saying is that the democratic system forces the leadership to permit and pay attention to dissenting voices within the ruling party, even if it's not visible from outside. Since otherwise, if the dissenting voices grow sufficiently numerous or agitated, they may become capable of forming a breakaway party or replacing the leadership. And of course some may actually take the nuclear option of publicly rebelling against the boss - even if it does spell the end of their political careers.

And this is advantage. A check or balance if you will.

Some great replies. Especially Suradit 69.

I won't interfere as they know what they are doing. I'm sure he will be out soon. I will treat him with no difference to before. Can't wait to have a beer with him.

Huh. I thought you might have gone the other way...

What will you say to him if he says "I was extremely hungry and stressed for X months. I was beaten badly twice and spent long hours wondering if I was going to get raped in there. And you decided I deserved it for having a quiet puff on a joint? I'm not really keen on having a beer with you or any of my family any time soon..."

Again - if your positions were reversed, would you be having a laugh about it with the so-called mates for whom 10,000 baht or a minor tiff with the father-in-law was just too much hassle later on? If I were him, I don't really think I'd be able to...

Still, at least you put some thought into it - many wouldn't. And presumably there are details you haven't posted here. Hope it works out well enough for all concerned.

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

Same same, but different, remember "Thaksin thinks PTP acts"? They acted on the orders of one man as well.

It's true that democratic parties attempt to present a veneer of unity to the public. And it is also true that both publicly visible leaders and power-brokers excercise much control over their party members.

The key difference is what happens if party members rebel. This article implies that in the current scenario, the military NLA members may simply be replaced if they fail to toe the party line. In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election. At which point those constituents judge the MP's actions and decide whether or not to retain him or her as their representative.

See the key difference? Both democracy and other systems produce leaders that call the shots, but in a democracy the leaders are kept in line as they depend on the support of their followers.

This works at a national level as well - not just within the party. A democratically elected government that makes sufficiently unpopular decisions may be forced to resign by the people. At which point, if they wish to continue, they are obliged to seek a new mandate from the electorate. In this way democracy ensures that we don't end up with a government that is either oppressive or batsheet insane, even if it cannot ensure that things are perfect. No other system features this advantage.

If you miss him then pay the $300 and tell your wife that you have spoken. In all seriousness.

Yes, I think we will go that way and the wife won't mind. Dad is possibly trying to put the wind up him so he will learn a lesson.

Du really is a good dad and a top bloke.

What he did was on the lower end of the scale, but illegal never-the-less and he got caught.

Ok gents, he got caught smoking a joint and in possession (personal use only, as far as I know). He was away on a building job so there were no kids around. We don't know the full story, but this is as close as I can get.

Please don't hang him.

You're correct, <deleted> help the guy out! Through one of his mates if you really need to avoid Dad's wrath.

If your positions were reversed, what would you think of Du if he thought "ah, well, too much trouble. I'll just let Sipi do the time..."? Thaivisa would be all like "well, Thai's aren't real friends, obviously he was going to abandon you..."

Did I read that correctly? Do PTP want a half selected Senate?

Presumably it's a tactical retreat. At this point they will agree to anything that is not completely antithetical to their goals so that they can more credibly object to any delays of elections later on.

If they quibble over things like this now they give their opponents the opportunity to get the rhetoric going again and expose themselves to accusations of self interest. The less confrontational they are, the more sympathetic they'll look when the eventual election gets closer. And the more difficult it will be for the junta to create a system stacked against them.

Our current leadership should not underestimate PTP and associates. The people calling the shots for them are a lot cannier than they seem.

Surely the more important question at hand is why you are so completely awesome? And how we can all strive to become more like you.

BANGKOK: -- Thai prosecutors on Wednesday said two Myanmar men will stand trial for the brutal killing of a pair of British holidaymakers on a tourist resort after finally accepting murder charges against them.

The headline from the article reads as if the B2 have now changed their minds again as it says 'finally accepting murder charges against them'.

Is anyone else reading it like this? Or is a mistake in the translation to English? I hope it's the latter.

And then this sentence:

'Thai authorities have strongly denied using the pair as scapegoats, insisting their case is built on solid evidence showing the DNA of the accused from initial tests matches samples taken from Witheridge's body'.

I thought they were cleared at the initial tests by the RTP and arrested after the second round?

Or does the article maybe mean that further tests done by other organisations do not match?

I think the first sentence means that the prosecutors finally accepted that the case made by the police was complete enough to proceed with.

The second sentence seems to be well written at first glance, but it's tricky to figure out exactly what was meant. Perhaps that the initial round of testing has been reviewed and is now considered to show that the DNA of the accused matches the samples found on the rape victims body. Or, more likely, the reporter was in a hurry and all we can really extract from it is "police deny scapegoating" and "solid DNA evidence".

As a very biased Brisbane taxi driver, may i make a few points which apply in Oz and may well here.

A vehicle registered 'private' and operated to carry paying passengers will invalidate TPPI and Comprehensive insurance policies. Comprehensive for a cab is ~AUD4000/year.

Taxi drivers also carry public liability insurance which covers customers entering or leaving the cab

Taxi drivers are required to have annual health checks as well as criminal and driving history checks.

Detection of ANY level of alcohol or drugs, by police or Transport Enforcement, in my system will cause loss of licence. Good luck in ever getting it back.

Clearly there are advantages for customers using traditional taxi services. The problem is that all these advantages have a price tag. It seems that a growing percentage of the market has decided that these advantages come at too high a cost.

It's not unreasonable either really. Of the points you list above, the insurance issue might come up I suppose. And if I was sending a teenager or child somewhere alone I might be willing to pay more for a driver whose background has been well investigated. But in general, for adults traveling during the day, none of those points really mean anything at all. I can tell almost immediately if somebody is unfit to drive, and if they are, I'll have them stop the car and I'll walk away. I had to do this once in Brisbane because a regular cab driver was aggressively tailgating and swearing at another driver*, so there is no real guarantee of appropriate behavior anyway.

In short, the advantages of regular taxis are difficult to quantify and only apply in a minority of circumstances anyway. Smart taxi drivers should work on getting politicians to ban ride-sharing services, you're just too weighed down with bureaucracy and procedure to compete directly.

* I've probably taken 200 taxis in that city and can only remember feeling unsafe twice - it is not typical.

We cant even really discuss the full depths of this but refer to news from abroad instead for those who need enlightened.

Even the BBC website appears to be reporting on the possible significance of this now.

Probably you will just have wait a while. The funds could stay frozen until they're sure there are no more charges coming through on the credit card.

In this kind of situation I reckon a fellow's first investment should be made through Amazon.

The following is a bit depressing, and hardly rocket science. But it is a reasonable overview of the retail investors options and the standard approach recommended by academia:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Investors-Manifesto-Prosperity-Armageddon/dp/1118073762

You indicate that you intend to invest up to $500,000 over the next decade and a half. And that putting food on the table in your golden years may well depend on not ****ing it up. So you're going to spend at least a week holed up in the mancave reading a few investment and a few financial history books, right? Right?!? Although, maybe a week is a little too little...

I don't mean to have a go at you, and I know the comments above presume a lot. I'm really speaking generally of course, not about you personally. It strikes me as tragic how self-defeatingly lazy folks sometimes are when it comes to this sort of matter.

Good luck!

Wherever they are applied, price fixing guarantees that either (a) there is an inefficient glut and consumers pay over the odds anyway, or ( b ) there is a shortage of goods.

Exactly which of these are we shooting for again?

Word on the street is the conventional oil boys are doing this to drive out the shale oilers who on average cost $80 barrel to produce. It won't take long to give them the message they can do this at anytime they please.

Big boy games. If you were heavily invested in shale oil I would be getting a little worried.

They do say this regards the majority of oil players.

However, Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela need more than $80 to balance their budgets ( $90-$100) whereas Qatar and the UAE need less.($40-$50)

They say the present prices will force out the smaller players in shale drilling but these present prices will have a huge adverse effect for future exploration in the oil world around the Globe.

Let's see, another crisis in the Middle East caused by Iran , Iraq or similar ( Libya) and I think prices will hit $80 again soon. There is already severe unrest through ISIS, Boko Haram and Libya with all the tribesmen. Putin has gone too far to back down and the guy is unstable enough to cause further crisis and worries in Europe and beyond.

From BB today:

To be sure, not all oil producers are suffering. The International Monetary Fund in October assessed the oil price different governments needed to balance their budgets. At one end were Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which can break even with oil at about $70 a barrel. At the other extreme: Iran needs $136, and Venezuela and Nigeria $120. Russia can manage at $101 a barrel, the IMF said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-30/oil-at-40-possible-as-market-transforms-caracas-to-iran.html

I don't know which numbers are correct, but your point stands - not all oil producers are equal.

Cartels that work by choking supply are only effective if nobody cheats. Arguably OPEC hasn't meant shit for decades for that reason.

Whatever else she sometimes presents herself as, she's as smart a player as there is. If it is indeed the goal of our PM to permanently exclude her family from Thai politics, he will need to be very careful as to how he handles Ms. Yingluck. Her name is nowhere near as damaged as her brother's and she is from a sympathetic demographic. The general does not want to start looking like a bully.

Doesn't dare to you mean.

Worlds largest population of muslims how can he. Would start an extremist movement much more popular than he has now.

We don't want that. Muslims will always support Muslims.

And yet the vast majority of those who fight these extremists, and almost all of those murdered by them, are themselves Muslims.

It's not only unfair, it's inefficient and an invitation to creative workarounds. Much better is a simple ongoing wealth tax on the same classes of assets - set somewhere well below 0.5% per annum.

Governments like death taxes because they think folks won't complain as much as (a) nobody likes to dwell on their own or their parents pending demise and ( b ) everyone hates trustafarians anyway. They're a silly idea though.

"Italy’s Rome was the sprawling city that fed its own people and surrounding cities in the Mediterranean." Where did this come from? No city has ever fed its own people, much less the people of other cities. Even by the time of Julius Caesar, 44BC, the farms, plantations, and latifundiae of Italy were not enough to feed the people of Rome and they needed to import wheat from Egypt and North Africa. One of the reasons Rome "fell" was because the Vandals conquered North Africa, depriving Rome of needed tax revenue and making the price of food higher. There were many other reasons, and licentious sex was not one of them, but I'm not so sure Christianity was not. I wonder if this is a mistranslation or a reference to its ancient history under the Etruscans and later the Tarquin kings.

I've read speculations of that sort. The fact that the most intellectually gifted of the age started to become theocrats instead of administrators and others who's energies are devoted to more practical tasks surely cannot have helped...

Curious.

Does that mean that farmers outside the scheme were somehow able to obtain over 14,000 baht per ton? And is the faculty of economics suggesting that this would have been possible in the absence of the rice scheme? Or perhaps is it that the administrative overhead of participation in the scheme ate up all the extra revenue?

Although it's not clear that it really matters - as the report points out, the foolish farmers wasted whatever extra income they got anyway.

Fortunately it is already the new government's policy to "increase farmers' competitiveness by reducing operation costs, and increasing the quality of their crops". So this report confirms we're on the right track.