JAG

8 minutes ago, PREM-R said:

So many posts in this thread have 'hit the nail on the head' regarding education in Thailand.  Westerners may see Thai education as a failure, but those who 'own' the country are delighted with the results, they are exactly what they require. 

 

The 'Dek Dee' system provides the country with future citizens (minions) who 'know their place' in society.  The poor get the basic indoctrination and those whose parents can scrape together the money for 'higher' education give their children the possibility to obtain the 'golden ticket'  to allow them to enter local government, education or work for a bank etc.  These minions are differentiated from the other minions by having a uniform to signify their 'superiority' over the basic minions. 

 

The hierarchical system remains in place and the, mostly, Sino-Thai's continue their domination of the country.

I would argue that change is coming. The people now have access to communication channels, information and media which is not under the control of those who are uniformed. People always have a natural inquisitiveness and curiosity, and no longer can they be shut off from information and discussion. Once the poor, the minions, realise why they are poor, why they are minions then the pace of that change will grow like a snowball. It can't be stopped. It will be a very good thing for this society, and a very bad thing for the people who currently run it.

Anything, everything, no matter what the cost, no matter what the effect upon the USA, upon the world, it must be done..

To reverse every one of Barrack Obama's actions and achieve ments whilst he was President!


Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Your usual gamesmanship and meandering in response to points that should be easy to comprehend for anyone who takes an unbiased view.

 

Thaksin was seen as a breath of fresh air when first elected. People said "he's so rich he doesn't need to steal" - how wrong they were. His supporters also stopped opposition parties campaigning in Shin territory. Even entertainers who supported the opposition were warned off - don't come and sing or else! At least one canvasser was murdered. People were coerced, bribed, promised good things and threatened with consequences. But perhaps you think that's fair electioneering? Would any country allow a convicted crook on the lam to rule by proxy? Hiring and firing ministers to share out the spoils with constant cabinet reshuffles? 

I will agree that Yingluck was trying to organize a new election before she was removed by a court for an abuse of power. But the Shin militia attacking the anti Shin protesters and demonstrators gave the excuse the army wanted. Shins shot themselves in the foot - again. But Thaksin. I'm sure you would agree, had no right to seize the position of caretaker PC he had previously resigned, kicking out his replacement; drag his heels on a new election, and try and present himself as the official PM to the UN.

I think your obsession with having an election equals democracy, which it doesn't and seeming loathing of senior military officers clouds your judgement and allows you to mask the true nature and behavior the Shins have demonstrated.

 

Yes, to your last paragraph. It could be that. Or it could be that the real easy source of their big gains during their years in power was taken out of their hands. Sadly placed in other's probably.

 

Are you really saying that as long as you win the election, you can do whatever you want? If so, you'd fit in great with the Shins.

3

 Not gamesmanship or meandering - the point I make is fundamental, absolutely fundamental to the whole argument, to just about every discussion we find ourselves in about the current political situation. This fundemental point is that the Thai people have consistently chosen Thaksin, his party and, if you like, his proxies over successive elections. These choices have as consistently been overturned by the military. You simply will not address that point, I suspect because you know that it is one that can in any way be defended. You know what the Thai electorate have consistently decided, and you will not accept it. You make a series of allegations against Thaksin and his parties " His supporters also stopped opposition parties campaigning in Shin territory. Even entertainers who supported the opposition were warned off - don't come and sing or else! At least one canvasser was murdered. People were coerced, bribed, promised good things and threatened with consequences."; allegations which are unsupported by the findings of any of the international or domestic bodies which monitored those elections. You, however, condone a long-term junta government (4 years plus) who seized power during an election, have governed by decree or the deliberations of an appointed crony legislature, and have instituted restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly and political activity which would not be out of place in a 1970s South American Junta state; and you regard, and defend it as being better than your nemesis Thaksin. And you suggest I am the one who is obsessed.

Yes, I have a low opinion of the senior military officers who have stolen this countries government and its peoples' sovereignty. You know why, we have discussed it often enough. I am under no illusions about the nature of Thaksin and his party. I am under no illusions as to why the Thai people have consistently chosen them, and I am under no illusions as to why they have been equally consistently overthrown, by the military at the behest of a very small proportion of the Thai people.

Elections (free and fair and these were) do equal democracy. They are it's foundation. Overturn them and you deny democracy. Support and justify them being overturned and you support the people being denied democracy, and that at the end of the day is what you are doing.

 Let us turn your final sentence around: Are you really saying that as long as you have the guns, you can do whatever you want, and whatever your sponsors want no matter how the people vote? If so, you'd fit in great with those denying the Thai people democracy.

We are at opposite ends of the argument, but rest assured, as long as you continue to seek to defend and justify the junta, I will continue to challenge you, and I will continue to point out the fundamental - you cannot and will not accept the decision of the Thai electorate, because it results in a government which you obsessively dislike. If that irks you, so be it.

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Why, just because he contrived to win an election? Or do you believe his performance was actually better?

 

Btw, interesting that since PTP were removed the Shin's don't make Forbes top rich list anymore. Just saying.

 

A very succinct two line post, which sums up your position.

You state "he contrived to win an election" - winning an election is done by persuading more people to vote for you than the alternative parties. Thaksin has consistently done that, but you dismiss it as "contrived" and therefore - to yourself at least - justify his repeated removal by the military. What goes unsaid (as ever with you) is that both coups this century were staged during the election process, free elections, called in response to opposition demands, and which were likely/obviously going to result in a Thaksin (or his proxy) victory. As ever you allow your hatred of the man and his party blind you to this fundemental denial of the electoral will of the Thai people. 

Incidentally, could it be that "the Shin's don't make Forbes top rich list anymore" because they have been nudged out, in Thailand at least, by a number of other individuals who have prospered significantly since the coup and junta government ( which they backed) have come to power?

1 hour ago, smedly said:

How that should actually read

 

An Election Commission secretary general warned Monday that members of Pheu Thai who reportedly flew to visit the fugitive former leader in Singapore could be facing permanent disbandment from politics in Thailand

 

No point in disbanding a party as they will just form a new one so what would be the point

All about timing - do it before the election is called, but after the inevitable deadline for forming a new party. That removes Pheu Thai from the political scene for that election...

12 minutes ago, Bullie said:

My son was forced to buy 3 (three!!) different outfits, including a military-style boyscout outfit, which he is forced to wear once a week. I personally strongly disapprove of this, but my wife decides and she does not "want any trouble". Thing is, it's 6 pieces of clothing, one new belt, 3 (three!!) differently coloured pairs of shoes and a hat. All in all it set me back 2,500 baht and at the end of the year he will have outgrown the clothing. Why not ONE airy, sensible COTTON pair of schoolclothes in stead of this amalgam of thick cotton and polyester, making my boy sweat profusifely all day?

 

All clothes AND shoes were sold through the school. I smell something rotten here....

Be thankful he is a boy! My daughter is fastidious about her "turnout" (and bless her she is of course the prettiest girl in M1); that means three skirts, three white shirts, a Guides outfit, a set of PT kit, a Lanna shirt for Fridays, black shoes, white daps, a jacket and a school rucksack.

That's why daddy is having his shirt collars turned before school starts!

I should imagine that it is a "given" that Pheu Thai will be banned before the election.

However, probably not until much close to the poll date. Not once campaigning has commenced, that could be seen as interfering with the election (perish the thought), but close enough to the election to prevent, or at least hamper, any reincarnation. Perhaps we should look upon the banning of Pheu Thai, when it occurs, as a sign that the election is soon to be called!

2 hours ago, Tilacme said:

JAG i have followed your comments and your post is nicely put! There are however those want to be the arbiter of what is right and they use that to say "i am offended"  , its the lefts idea of control, and i dont agree with it. This is where BS lives, if you want more look at his posts.

 

Well I must confess that I too am offended. 

Mr Trump is the president of The United States. He speaks on behalf of that nation. He has publicly lied about the UK, and publicly mocked France, over the Paris massacres. I am British (English) and I am offended by his tawdry and disgraceful actions, in pursuit of his personal political agenda. If I was French I think I would be calling for the guillotine to be dusted off!

It has nothing to do with "left wing politics", to which I do not subscribe. It has nothing to do with control. It has everything to do with the fact that he has disgraced the USA ( your country and your people) in the eyes of it's two oldest - and in the case of the UK it's staunchest - friends in Europe if not the world.

His behaviour is abhorrent, vulgar and yes disgraceful. I have quite a number of American friends, I don't know how most of them voted, but I pity them having a man with such a moral vacuum as their president. I am familiar with the argument that it is the presidency as an institution and not the man which should be respected, how can it be respected in the face of such despicable and dishonourable actions?

I will say it once more, if he does not withdraw his remarks, and apologise for them, then the United Kingdom and The French Republic should make it very clear that he, not the US government or its people, but he, Donald Trump, the man who mocked the slaughter of innocent people in Paris, and lied about a London Hospital being awash with blood, is not welcome. We can call it a "special relationship".

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Oops, looks like NRA-ites have hijacked the thread...

Is that what they are "BP", I thought that they were just plain old fashioned racists...