ChiangMaiFun

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

From what I understand, he removed the conflict of interest so he could contest the election again.

so that's ok? find out your are guilty... resign... sell the shares... jump back in? that's the state of democracy here? and then give him the DPM role? and you support this?

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

You are using the wrong term. It isn't the "largest majority", it's the largest minority.

The largest minority wanted X, but a majority got together and decided Y. Do you want a minority to decide what the everyone should do, or do you want the majority to decide?

They might be "self serving coalitions of convenience", but the people have voted for MPs, and MPs have decided that it's serves their interests (whether it's personal or voters, the voters voted for the MP).

And anyway, what is PTP, but a self-serving coalition of convenience?

but the majority did not - the MP's did - I guess what you are suggesting is ok IF the MP's told the electorate BEFORE the election - we want your vote for our policies BUT we will jump into bed with Y after you vote us in

but if every other party get's below 25% why not? they won the largest vote - the problem is the 'system' it would be far better if there were 2 or possibly 3 major parties and not all these little parties running around for self-glory - it's not good for Thailand - but as this system is here it should be the largest party but the system is flawed.

The "largest" vote is not what the majority wanted.

The majority didn't want any one particular party, BUT if a majority of MPs get together, then that's what the majority of the people voted for.

It might be better with a 2-party system, but in any large party there are factions - which in a sense are just smaller parties that form a coalition. That's what the TRT/PPP/PTP are - a coalition of smaller parties (factions) working together under one umbrella. I don't know how factional the Democrats are, but you never seem to hear about it.

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

but it's ok for the even smaller parties with even LESS votes to form the government? you are saying this only because you don't like PT - I am saying it as a matter of principal even if the Dems were in that position and I would uphold that principal even whilst regretting the 'Suthep Party' got in

It's not about smaller parties. It's about the majority of MPs.

Both sides will use smaller parties to try and get a majority. The smaller parties WILL decide who forms government.

You can't have a party that only gets 25% of the vote having a 'god given' right to be in government just because they happen to be the largest party. (that's an example, before anyone says "but the PTP...")

I am saying it as a matter of principal, that the majority of MPs should decide who is in government.

edit: it should really be the majority of votes, but one reason for MPs is local representation.

but if every other party get's below 25% why not? they won the largest vote - the problem is the 'system' it would be far better if there were 2 or possibly 3 major parties and not all these little parties running around for self-glory - it's not good for Thailand - but as this system is here it should be the largest party but the system is flawed.

it hasn't happened in the UK at all - what happened is the small Lib Dems sold out - first time it happened in decades and it's a disgrace which will send the Lib Dems into obscurity for selling out their values for 'power' - and to the hated enemy the Tories!!! they will never be forgiven.

and in Aus we have 3 'obscure' MP's deciding the fate of the nation and giving long, long TV addresses to get their fame? it's not what I call democracy (though legal I grant you).

The 3 obscure MPs would have been deciding the fate of the nation which ever way they went.

But what's important is that they decided to support one side rather than another to make a majority. The independents/smaller parties didn't sell out. They got concessions from the bigger party which matched what they wanted for their constituents.

in Thailand? the majority vote for the party they want? and the smaller parties 'sell out' and 'fall in love' to get positions and form a coalition? and you expect those who voted and won the largest majority are going to be happy? come on...

but the PT leader is RIGHT 100% - surely you can see that?

We are not talking about "the largest majority", we are talking about "the largest minority".

Why should a minority decide what is good for a nation?

If the largest (but not majority) party can't get enough support to make a majority, then they shouldn't be in government. Can't you see that?

but it's ok for the even smaller parties with even LESS votes to form the government? you are saying this only because you don't like PT - I am saying it as a matter of principal even if the Dems were in that position and I would uphold that principal even whilst regretting the 'Suthep Party' got in

The Pheu Thai Party Deputy Leader Plodprasop Suraswadi would disagree with you. In an article in today's other paper, he insisted that ONLY the party with the highest number of MP's should be able to form the government.

That's why they will continue protesting after the election when they are not in government.

It's not about biggest, it's about majority.

but the PT leader is RIGHT 100% - surely you can see that?

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

but its not true is it? the voters voted for different policies and for different parties not for a mish-mash who give up their policies to get power over a party who won MORE seats than the others individually.

And the majority would have decided that their policies are close enough to be able to work together, or at least, there is enough compromise for them to work together.

That's what has happened in Aus and the UK. In Canada, they have been forming minority governments, but that hasn't been too successful.

edit: actually, in Aus there has been a long term coalition that has been in and out of federal and state government. They have different policies, and often compete against each other in elections. But they have decided that the only way they can get into government over the (often) largest party is by coalition.

it hasn't happened in the UK at all - what happened is the small Lib Dems sold out - first time it happened in decades and it's a disgrace which will send the Lib Dems into obscurity for selling out their values for 'power' - and to the hated enemy the Tories!!! they will never be forgiven.

and in Aus we have 3 'obscure' MP's deciding the fate of the nation and giving long, long TV addresses to get their fame? it's not what I call democracy (though legal I grant you).

in Thailand? the majority vote for the party they want? and the smaller parties 'sell out' and 'fall in love' to get positions and form a coalition? and you expect those who voted and won the largest majority are going to be happy? come on...

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

If a majority of MPs can get together over a party with the largest, but minority, number of MPs, then THAT is the will of the majority of voters.

but its not true is it? the voters voted for different policies and for different parties not for a mish-mash who give up their policies to get power over a party who won MORE seats than the others individually.

A crime remains a crime if it is an open ended situation that keeps it a crime, if a change of status also changes the crime to non-crime then it stop being a crime IF that is how the law is written.

For instance Murder has no statute of limitations.

But Sanoh's Alpine purchases were subject to statute

of limitations after the fact. He had it stalled till too late.

It seems the conflict of interest laws for MPs are only good WHILE the conflict exists and the MP is still an MP.

In the Suthep Media company case,

the punishment is to be forced to resign and be fined IF at the time you are charged you are an MP.

If the charges are not filed, before you resign as an MP, then the substance of the charges ceases to exist.

Suthep resigned, and so as the law is written, there was no charges to be filed, since he was no longer an MP.

He then, divested the media shares that became an issue, handily drubbed the Red Shirt PTP candidate, with a history of dropsy, and returned as a MP.

Hey, I don't write these laws.

Thaksin was caught for signing papers to allow Potjamin to buy the land, those documents still existed,

and the facts of the case still existed at the time of his being charged and later conviction, only LATER did the land deal get thrown out and later still did Potjamin get the money back.

Again I didn't write the laws, but the facts remain Thaksin could not withdraw his signature from the deal, or if he could he did NOT do so, and that is the basis of his conviction. He was no longer PM, but it seems this is not the same law as Suthep was 'not formally charged' under.

Suthep read the law and resigned as MP, knowing full well he would be re-elected and exited the actual state of his being an MP with state concession conflict of intertest. Once that was done, they could not press charges on something that no longer existed.

in short. Thaksin's illegal state remained till he was charged.

Suthep's legal state changed before he could be charges.

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

In all of this, what Mr. Suthep made 2009, as "well done job" for his own pockets-i don't understand only one thing.

In all of that muddy water business, is it just about "violating Constitution" or is it about the conflict of interest or is it simply said, just and only the crime?

In case that he was prosecuted, if he wasn't escape the responsibility by trick-resigning his MP position in return to stay Deputy of PM, how the charge would be?

Probably some law "expert" here could answer. Of course, if could swallow this ugly and dirty game of keep seizing the power-by Mr. Suthep.

Was there a crime? He wasn't charged. He probably did own shares in a company that did business with the state. If true he would have been knocked out of his MP slot and had to run again in the by-elections which he clearly would have won (he recently ran for MP in the Surat By-election and won soundly. He chose to relinquish his MP status so as to not affect his position in the cabinet (only one position, that of PM requires you to be an MP), In the other recent by-elections for similar reasons BJT (remember the ones that the reds labeled as traitors) all won their constituencies cleanly

don't you think it's absurd that you don't have to be an elected MP to be DPM?

well I do have some sympathy with them - if they win the most seats they should lead the government (and yes I do understand the concept of other parties 'selling their souls' to get power)

If the party with the most seats doesn't get a majority, that means a majority of voters don't want them in government (which currently applies to all parties in Thailand). If their are a majority of MPs willing to get together to form government, then it's irrelevant which party gets the most seats.

but it also means the majority don't want the other parties even LESS THAN the winning party! so two small parties can 'get together' and form the government when they got far less votes/seats than the winning party that didn't have quite enough - it's bound to lead to discontent as the other parties will split the vote then 'discover' they love each other after all to keep out PT and that, my fellow TVers, is a recipe for disaster!

I seriously doubt (unfortunately) that any but the Dems will win Bangkok and the South - I think there really will be a split North/South - but I do think we should support whoever wins if it can be shown that it was, generally, clean.

I doubt the red shirts will accept a Democrat led government, especially if PTP win the most seats.

The PAD won't accept anything, and will continue protesting regardless of what happens. They will get more than 100 people protesting with them if a PTP led government start changing the constitution or other laws to get Thaksin off his jail sentence and other outstanding charges.

well I do have some sympathy with them - if they win the most seats they should lead the government (and yes I do understand the concept of other parties 'selling their souls' to get power)

Before the last election every poll except for the army one was fairly to very inaccurate.

Exactly.

And polls can be purchased, and then disseminated, to make what ever preconceived idea you want come out on top.

I seriously doubt (unfortunately) that any but the Dems will win Bangkok and the South - I think there really will be a split North/South - but I do think we should support whoever wins if it can be shown that it was, generally, clean.

Suthep gave title deeds to 592 plots of land in Khao Sam Liam, Kamala and Nakkerd hills of Phuket province to 489 farmers. It was later found that members of 11 wealthy families in Phuket were among the recipients

YEA great guy!

"New Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban is the least honest politician, but his immediate boss Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is the most trustworthy, according to Bangkok Poll. Among 1,136 residents of Greater Bangkok responding to the survey, 39.2 per cent consider Democrat secretary-general Suthep as the least straightforward, followed by Newin Chidchob, the de facto leader of the Bhum Jai Thai Party, at 24.2 per cent and Transport Minister Sophon Saram at 8.3 per cent.

The opinion poll on "Believe in Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to solve the corruption problem" was conducted by Bangkok University Research Centre last week. The most sincere politician is Abhisit at 49.8 per cent, followed by Democrat chief adviser Chuan Leekpai at 30.3 per cent and Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij at 2.2 per cent.

The worst form of corruption is politicians abusing their policy for their own benefit at 40.8 per cent, followed by collusion at 16.4 per cent and double standards in policy and law enforcement at 13.0 per cent.

Despite Thailand's hosting the 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference from today to Saturday, 72.3 per cent believe the corruption problem in this country won't change, while only 15.5 per cent think it will improve and 12.2 per cent fear it will increase."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/10...l-30141904.html

personally i think Suthep is the worst part of Abhisit's cabinet and I would admire him so much more if he didn't have him around - he is a major weakness and i can never find any Suthep supporters, anywhere, Abhisit should show some leadership but doubt he will.

Suthep gave title deeds to 592 plots of land in Khao Sam Liam, Kamala and Nakkerd hills of Phuket province to 489 farmers. It was later found that members of 11 wealthy families in Phuket were among the recipients

YEA great guy!

I looked at your link ... I don't understand WHY you linked to a Wiki article about the province as I did not see any mention of the alleged misdeed (pun intended).

I didn't I just copied the sentence and it must have copied the link - apologies

Suthep Thaugsuban = a dangerous, two faced liar of the highest order..

Nah, there are people of a much higher order that are far more dangerous and two-faced. Like the man Suthep would escort to jail

Lets worry about Thaksin if he ever makes it back here, until then I stand by what i say..and further add for an "educated" man he sure seems to be quite stupid, reminds me of past Indonesian leaders actually full of rhetoric and absolute baseless propaganda

This thread is based upon the presumption that Thaksin does in fact return Until then I would say that Jatuporn, Weng, Arisaman etc all still beat Suthep hands down on being dangerous and two-faced I am not a huge fan of Suthep by far. He is the old style of politician that Thailand can well do without but let's be fair compared to many others he's not as bad as you would think. The Dems must have one hawk in their midst to be taken seriously and Suthep fills that role nicely.

Suthep gave title deeds to 592 plots of land in Khao Sam Liam, Kamala and Nakkerd hills of Phuket province to 489 farmers. It was later found that members of 11 wealthy families in Phuket were among the recipients

YEA great guy!

Suthep Thaugsuban = a dangerous, two faced liar of the highest order..

exactly!

Democratic Party is stronger in Bangkok .FACT. Of course the Poo Thai financial backer will be pumping millions baht in their campaign which wont be declared in the party's election accounts. The favours promised and given along with the Baht handovers will flood across the cities.

same all parties - just read up on the land dealings of the DPM! I can't see a true, good man amongst them all

Just remember, being the largest party does not give them the right to be in government (unless they get more than 50% of the MPs, which is very unlikely for any party in the next election).

It just gives them the right to have first go at forming a coalition government.

If they can't form government, then it falls to the next biggest party to try and form a coalition government.

coalitions just lead to watering down of policy and introducing people to positions they do not deserve just to get POWER and the country teeters on with enormous energy spent on horse trading and switching sides and all that instead of serving the people who need them most - the poor, downtrodden and uneducated mostly.

You can get good internet. If crucial I would apply for two separate connections; they're not expensive.

Work permit: I would personally not worry about it if your employer is outside Thailand, your customers are outside Thailand and you make money outside of Thailand.

Visa: That's indeed a point of attention.

its an interesting point - but he will still be working inside Thailand and probably, technically, would need a permit.

You might want to consider that "dog" is on the menu here in Chiangmai and most of the North.

Your dog will be just fine here - Just get a nice shirt coat for it in the US... The ones they wear here are a bit tacky...

we have enough dogs here - leave it behind

as for money most farangs seem to budget about 50/60,000 a month and can live well on that - if anyone is 'paying' their gf above 10,000 'allowance' they are overpaying. Personally I pay nothing apart from meals and that sort of stuff - but then again if I wanted a 'steady' gf why come here? variety is the spice of life! this is controversial but I feel sorry for those farangs who settle with one girl here - as Elvis once said 'why buy a cow when you can get milk under the fence'

TOT works for me

heading for another split - personally i hate all this horse trading as it leads to such discontent

the Nissans too big - so is the CRV.

Just to re-cap - I'm looking for a short 4x4 - I think it still come downs to the older Vitara or the Mitsubishi Pijaro

Has it got to be 4x4 ?

Nissan Cube from around 600k lots here, also they do a 4x4 but expensive in 4x4 trim..

Toyota Bb same sort of thing, around 650k lots here but no 4x4

Toyota Sparky, is rather narrow but same sort of boxy shape

DAIHATSU - TANTO same sort of shape size and price.

PROTON - PERODUA KEMBARA lots here + is 4x4 year 2004 - 2008.. 230 - 400k

Suzuki S4 Brand new just under 800k no 4x4 imported, but they do make them in 4x4

There are others but not many about so not listed.

I have looked at the Daihatsu Tanto and Nissan Cube but they are a long way off what I'm looking for - the old Vitara or the Mitsubushi Pajaro fits the bill!

the Nissans too big - so is the CRV.

Just to re-cap - I'm looking for a short 4x4 - I think it still come downs to the older Vitara or the Mitsubishi Pijaro

Has it got to be 4x4 ?

Nissan Cube from around 600k lots here, also they do a 4x4 but expensive in 4x4 trim..

Toyota Bb same sort of thing, around 650k lots here but no 4x4

Toyota Sparky, is rather narrow but same sort of boxy shape

DAIHATSU - TANTO same sort of shape size and price.

PROTON - PERODUA KEMBARA lots here + is 4x4 year 2004 - 2008.. 230 - 400k

Suzuki S4 Brand new just under 800k no 4x4 imported, but they do make them in 4x4

There are others but not many about so not listed.

I guess it doesn't have to be a 4x4 but i was planning to do some long trips which may involve some mountain driving - are the vehicles you mention shorter than the CRV or Fortuna? this is more important to me than 4x4