monkeycountry

People might not like her statement, but it is definately true. Virtually all rural thais, and most other Thais for that matter, would give a blank stare if asked what some of the ground pillars of a functioning democratic society are?

Many westerners would not know either btw.

The same Thais would also draw a blank if asked how many zero's are in a billion, and many even in a million, which is why it makes no sense to ask them their opinion on economic matters.

Funny...we have a staff of 10 at our business and pat 9-11k per month. Not too difficult finding staff either. Maybe you're a scary farang.

Certain types of businesses, especially in PTA, can easily get staff even when offering low salaries, as the salary is not the main part of the staffs income.

Personally I find a caretaker government that cannot really make any decisions the best solution - no matter who it is. This way the government can still manage the country's day to day affairs, but is prohibited from making major stupid decisions such as wasting fortunes on rice scams or high speed trains. This also reduces government corruption.

I thought the same when the army was in charge after the coup.

In general, with the kind of politicians Thailand has on general, I think it is best for the country when the governmemt does not make any major decisions at all, but just manage day to day affairs.

Long term this is of course not a solution.

Two things to clarify before this general topic proceeds:

1. Im am not a 60 yr old guy with a 20 yr old girl.

2. She is not calling me that when we are bed- that would be weird.

I am in my early 40's and my current thai girl is 27. This age gap according to many psychological studies is ideal- these studies stipulate that a man should half his age and add 7 years for the optimum aged partner.

She is highly educated and her family are middle to upper class.

The first time she called me 'daddy' I was wondering if I should run for the hills but have since learnt from another source that I have to understand that thai women appreciate the man taking on several roles in the relationship... her husband or partner has to be her lover, father, friend etc. Also, a good thai girl takes care of her man as though he were a child, yet loves him to dote on her like a father.

Does anybody relate to this? Have your lady ever called you 'daddy'. Or should I go and buy a new pair of Nike trainers and start running up a hill?

Having said that, I think any age gap is perfectly fine and that the mentioned "studies" are made by and for people with nothing better to do.

Btw, my thai gf is a rocket scientist from the Singha family :-)

Can the police/DSI freeze anyones bank accounts without a court order, and are the banks required/allowed to follow orders from the DSI/police without a supporting court order?

Next time Tida arranges a convoy of buses from isaan to bangkok, I am sure Tarit/DSI will freeze the bank accounts of all the vehicle owners and summon them for questioning :-)

Besides, is there a law that forbids financial support to protesters and rallies, or is the DSI making up laws as they go?

Transgender people obtaining basic civil rights is not evil. It is good. They are people and deserve MORE inclusion, not less.

actually the mr/ms on your id is a reflection of what you actually are, not what you feel like or think you are. Why should ladyboys or any other group have more or less rights than anyone else?

As far as I know they have exactly the same rights as anyone else - noone can change their status (except ms/mrs), so why should ladyboys suddenly get special treatment?

Not special treatment, dear. The SAME treatment for people who have this issue of having a gender different than the one they were born with. Not suggesting this be granted casually but only to persons who have shown long term evidence that there is credibility and a lifetime commitment behind the request of legal gender change.

Using my definition, noone has a gender different from the one they are born with, and ladyboys already have exactly the same rights as everyone else.

Regarding your suggestion that it should not be granted lightly, I think we both know how easy it is to obtain a certificate of anything in Thailand, provided you have cash. Further it is rather difficult for a teenager or youngster to show a lifetime commitment of anything. And what if he/she changes his/her mind? How often should you be allowed to change?

I think people should call themselves whatever they want, but your id card is a legal matter, and changing it based on what you feel like, no matter how strongly you feel, has a number of legal consequences.

First of all, if one person is allowed to change, then everyone should be allowed to change. Afterall noone can reasonably decide how strong someone elses feelings are.

secondly, as men and women have different legal rights, changing from one to the other might give a person certain legal advantages such as military conscription, monkhood, rights over ones children, tax issues, marriage rights and much more.

When you get off your 18th century soapbox, that is rotten by now, you will find that men, women and whatever, all have identical legal rights. The differences you mentioned are fortunately disappearing fast and remain confined to subcultures like military or religion.

And yes, everyone is entitled to change sex. All that said from someone that has no particualar interest in transgenders and no interest in changing his own sex.

I don't know which country you are referring to, but in Thailand men and women still have different legal rights on many issues other than military and religion, such as the ones mentioned above.

These rights differences may or may not be disappearing, but until they do, they still exist.

And even if it was only say military conscription, it would be very convenient for men to change sex the day prior to conscription, and then change back again the day after. Afterall alot of young men are quite confused about their sexuality and life in general at that age :-)

It's a question of respect to call someone as he or she wishes to be called.

And it's common sense to call a katoey SHE...

Who are we to judge?

Let's be nice to each other and respect

Agreed ......

Be nice to me, and give me the right to call a man "A MAN"

I really fail to see why anyone would want to call a katoey anything other than HE ...... that's what HE is ....... why would you want to lie?

It is not about "lies". It is about how someone feels he or she is.

Instead of throwing around with that penis or vagina argument, just imagine how it might feel if you are born a woman in a men's body.... can you follow it? Perhaps not, but if you are interested there is plenty littérature about gender and transgender.

As for those who get aggressive discussing this topic, please step back and consider yourself.

I think people should call themselves whatever they want, but your id card is a legal matter, and changing it based on what you feel like, no matter how strongly you feel, has a number of legal consequences.

First of all, if one person is allowed to change, then everyone should be allowed to change. Afterall noone can reasonably decide how strong someone elses feelings are.

secondly, as men and women have different legal rights, changing from one to the other might give a person certain legal advantages such as military conscription, monkhood, rights over ones children, tax issues, marriage rights and much more.

Transgender people obtaining basic civil rights is not evil. It is good. They are people and deserve MORE inclusion, not less.

As far as I know they have exactly the same rights as anyone else - noone can change their status (except ms/mrs), so why should ladyboys suddenly get special treatment?

Just to be clear, if the average western country allows people to change between mr and ms on their national id, based on what the person feels, wants to be or looks like, then any lawyer will find it easy to allow anyone to change to whatever they want, as the decision is no longer based on facts, but purely on feelings, which noone can prove or disprove.

after all the courts will allow equal rights for all, so whoever feels like a mr, ms, it or whatever will be able to push it through in court with a lawyer using whatever argument the ladyboys use.

What you call a person on the street is an entirely different issue of course, and I guess there are no clear rules for that.

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

Who says that a dictator would be less corrupt. Haven't the world seen enough dictators who empty his country for money. Just look at Marcos in the Philippines. Its an illusion that everything gets better just because one man is in charge. The dictator system opens for all sorts of corruption, setting aside the laws and protection of the people etc.

I am not sure if you intentionally replied to my post? Your question does not seem to have much to do with my post. Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think anyone says a dictator is less corrupt - except perhaps the dictator himself. A dictator is obviously not a good solution.

I now the word dictator sounds a little rough, but a leader which is not elected after an election among the people is a dictator. Sorry to say it.

It is an illusion that someone or a group of very good and special people should be able to choose this god like figure who would run the country like an angel and do all the good things for the country and its people. Every dictator starts like that and ends up plundering the country and putting all his friends into powerfull positions so nobody can ever remove him again.

The only problem the demonstrators have is that they are not in power, it has nothing to do with the politics or to do anything good for the country. They can see that the Democrats will not get back to power in maybe 10 to 15 years by a normal elction, therefore they want an unelected person (from their group) to run the country and change the constitution and electoral rules so they can get back to power.

I don't agree with that definition, and can think of plenty of ways to find a leader that are somewhere in between a standard general election and one man simply taking power through force. Whether the alternatives are any good I do not know.

I don't care what the red shirts or the current demonstrators want. I don't think the majority of them know what is good for them or the country anyway. With the general level of education and knowledge in Thailand I actually think it would be better for Thailand if it's leader was chosen through a lottery!

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

Who says that a dictator would be less corrupt. Haven't the world seen enough dictators who empty his country for money. Just look at Marcos in the Philippines. Its an illusion that everything gets better just because one man is in charge. The dictator system opens for all sorts of corruption, setting aside the laws and protection of the people etc.

I wonder why the US is not way up there? Here every little fart can steal, just like India etc. in the US the fraud is much bigger, but way up, all the way up

We are talking about corruption here. You can't compare USA and Thailand. Yes, money can be lost due to

Mismanagement there, but not lining someone's pockets like in Thailand

Can you sat Bernie Madoff?

What on earth had Bernie Madoffs scam got to do with corruption? Are you sure you understand what corruption means?

Methinks you don't know how Bernie got away with it for so long. Or why on earth Nixon said, "I'm not a crook." Maybe you should google, "too big to fail" or "of course you can keep your insurance policy" or weapons of mass destruction." Then try Jimmy Hoffa and Mayor Daley and every mayor Detroit and Washington DC has had for more years than I can remember. Or you can check out the following link

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/03/338027/top-10-ways-us-is-most-corrupt-country/

As always you have a lot of info that I and the US courts who convicted Madoff do not have, so I urge you to publish the info, or at least give it to the courts, so they can convict the guilty.

I assume of course you have something to give them other than just another conspiracy theory?

I usually think it can't get much worse in the area of corruption, but I suppose there is always room for deterioration.

I wonder why the US is not way up there? Here every little fart can steal, just like India etc. in the US the fraud is much bigger, but way up, all the way up

We are talking about corruption here. You can't compare USA and Thailand. Yes, money can be lost due to

Mismanagement there, but not lining someone's pockets like in Thailand

Can you sat Bernie Madoff?

What on earth had Bernie Madoffs scam got to do with corruption? Are you sure you understand what corruption means?

Is anybody surprised?

Percent wise it's score fell much less than Australia. So good on ya Thai mates.

I only got 5 out of 100 in my math test, but at least I beat the monkey next to me, so I am proud of myself :-)

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

if the people want to eat chickens you need to explain to them that without chickens there will be no eggs

you can't just tell them they must go hungry because your so clever and you said so

otherwise they will just come back tomorrow with spears and hurt / kill you and eat the chickens

Completely agree. We call that "explaining process" education. Unfortunately most people in Thailand get no or very poor education, so they will likely either eat the chickens or come back with spears or both.

Perhaps we need to focus on the goal before we focus on the way to get there.

I think everyone agrees that the goal is to find an intelligent leader who genuinely wants what is best for the country as a whole, and who have no vested interests. I am sure such people exist, but I also think they are hard to find.

I think people on both sides would agree that HM the king is such a person, but for a number of reasons, he should not be the leader.

HM the king however have vast resources at his disposal, so using those resources he could probably find a few good leader candidates and properly screen them. Then when those candidates have been found, each could be asked to make an election campaign, and the population could then vote for one of these candidates, but noone else.

I am aware that this is not a perfect solution, but it would likely ensure that we get a leader who is better and less divisive than the usual bunch.

People talk about majority rule as if there are no other or better options, and that this option is the best for all countries.

I recall a project to improve life for some rural poor in africa many years ago.

Some aid program started a chicken farm with a bunch of local africans working at the farm. They took care of the chickens, and then sold the eggs to make money to buy food and other goods, which worked well for everyone.

Eventually the educated aid guys went home, thinking the africans could now run things themselves.

When they came back 6 months later they found that the africans had eaten all the chickens and the farm was abandoned.

Had the aid guys stayed at the farm and voted with the africans on how to run the farm, the chickens would also have been eaten, as the africans obviously outnumbered the aid guys.

So the question is. What would have been better for the africans. To let the smart aid guys run things, even though they were a minority, or to run the farm with majority rule?

There are obviously a lot of problems with an appointed leader, but majority rule in a 3rd world country may also not be a good solution, even for the majority who wins, as their lack of education means they may not understand the long term consequences of their votes.

I do not have the right solution, but I can see that western world democracy is not good for the majority of Thais, especially the poor, who are easily cheated by selfish leaders (on both sides).

Yeah i hear whats being said about covering up buts whats the use of banging if u cant get a good blast off at the end, i'm at an age now where it really does' nt matter

To you perhaps, but nice attitude you have towards the girls and everyone else. Unfortunately I am quite sure your type is quite common

I think more often than not these kinds of nonsense problems is immigrations way of asking for some tea money.

Well, it is not all bad news. The more they beat eachother, the more the SET will drop monday morning, which means cheap shares for those who are into that :-)