ChiangMaiFun

what's the petrol consumption? handling? I love the look of them - any experiences? I see K Sports in BKK are selling a few

http://www.one2car.com/MITSUBISHI_PAJERO/C10100107

http://www.one2car.com/MITSUBISHI_PAJERO/J26100374

http://www.one2car.com/MITSUBISHI_PAJERO/K02100470

K SPORT CARS.

Tel: 081-911-2933,02-728-0692-3.

22/372 Soi Ramkhamhaeng 153 Road, Soi Sanitary 3 (Bangkok) - Saphan Sung, Bangkok 10240.

I meet many folk who say they 'work' here but online - and so do not need a work permit - as payment is from overseas etc.

but I have doubts about this... any views?

Please don't call me Farang, I have a name! Once again two faced Thai's.

Why does the title of the thread say "Report Says 93 Red Shirts Killed In Last Year's Crackdown",

when the title of the article says "PCI report says 93 killed in last year's crackdown" and the article says "up to 93 redshirt protesters, innocent bystanders and soldiers were killed".

Of the 93 victims, about 78 were civilians, six were reporters, cameramen and members of the rescue team, while nine were soldiers or police officers.

reporters, rescue teams...? soldiers and police? all red shirts? anyway let's never, ever have it again RIP

It took me more than one time to quite grasp what this news report actually said. It's a particularly poor translation.

If anyone else is confused, this is my take:

- A Red Shirt* claimed that the current textbooks "could lead students to believe that they** were the cause of all the places being burnt down across the country***".

- The Office of Basic Education rubbished this claim and basically clarified the curriculum.

- The Office of Basic Education nonetheless opened an investigation based on the Red Shirt claims and will reprimand any school found to be pushing a political agenda at schoolkids.

* not sure if the group issued a statement or one of the leaders has piped up on his own or what...

** the Red Shirts or the schoolkids?

*** presumably in May last year.

Ummm I would say that there is some room for nuance in the statement "if the school is found to have taught against" ..... It doesn't seem tp say that the school cannot teach the facts at all. It seems to say that subjective information would be looked at and punished. Fact: Arisaman amongst others called for the burning of BKK. Fact: Bangkok had many buildings burned. Fact: The reds rallied at provincial offices upcountry and some red leaders were identified and charged with the burning of provincial offices in places like Nong Khai. No anti-red bias in stating facts.

another post by the famous 'all yellow if gold' poster! no analysis, no independence and no objectivity - I will not go so far as another poster to say 'JD' is being paid to write these things but he sure is biased - talk about 'better dead than red' propaganda - shame on you!

This kind of cretinism should not be tolerated. Facts are facts.

quite right! the books should detail the Army's shooting of innocents - spot on!

Some of the books I've seen seem to think it's too soon to mention World War II.

or Thailand's alliance with the Axis powers!

Jungle Chef

The Makro on Hang Dong has cases of Beer Lao for sale. The dark is not cheap and the pale is about half the price. To find it go in and bear right before you get to the meat/fish etc. It's with all the rest of the beer at the end of the aisle about 2 over. It's a little hidden away like most things in Makro but worth the effort.

Happy hunting.

thanks for the update, I'll chk it our for sure! enjoy the brew

I am having a craving --- is this still accurate? Anyone know a place in town to get it by the case (both dark and pale!) I feel a party coming on (Songkran!) and am having all of my staff over one afternoon evening!

'i am having a craving'? all of my staff 'one afternoon evening'? you have been at the beer too heavy buddy

I really was hoping you would answer the "2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th" election question. In the instance that your conditions were not met and it went to 4 elections that would be over 6 months without an elected government!

After the first election, two (or more) parties that would have formed a coalition, but aren't allowed to in CMF-land, would merge.

Then the merged party would win the second election, satisfying CMFs rules, but with the same result as a coalition and with the cost of a second election.

a clear-cut 'winner' is monstrously more preferable (but unlikely I grant you)

I would say that is arguable as well. A clear cut winner with 50%+1 representation in parliament versus a coalition of 3 parties that in total represent 65% would suggest that the coalition is more representative of the electorate.

But back to the "largest minority wins" argument ......

you would argue with God Himself - its your nature - I am done with this now as its repetitive and boring

a clear-cut 'winner' is monstrously more preferable (but unlikely I grant you)

agreed - hold another election

Or just merge a couple of parties until they get a majority.

yes... BUT... if you voted Liberal you did not vote to join a Tory government and if you voted Tory you did not vote for a link with the Libs - I believe the Libs will pay a very heavy price for their dalliance at government (which they do not deserve as they got so few votes) - particularly that lier Clegg who completely backtracked on his promise of not raising University fees - until he got a taste of power and showed he had NO scruples or honesty when the puppet masters the Tories said 'we put up fees'.

What 'you' DID do is vote for a party to get into government, and they either do that by winning a majority of seats, or by forming a coalition.

Why stop smaller parties from being in government?

If the largest party gets to form a minority government, how do they enact any laws? They don't have a majority in parliament, so they get out voted in everything. It becomes a pointless government.

agreed - hold another election

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

The flaw in your argument is that every party is made of individual MPs, and more relevantly, factions. Just because they call themselves one party doesn't change anything.

If Y and Z actually became a single party, does it make any difference? Instead of 50% voting for two parties, 50% have voted for one party.

If one of the smaller parties merged with the Democrats giving them a larger percentage than the PTP, would that make you (or millions of Thais - PTP supporters) happy? Probably not. You would probably say "But they just merged to get the extra MPs. It's not fair".

You are still getting your terms mixed up. 40% is only a minority. You still seem to think that a minority should rule the majority.

As much as I hate the composition of the government in the UK, I have to admit that for the first time in aeons it actually represents over 50% of those who voted. The governments of Blair and Thatcher never had such a mandate. Coalition government has that advantage whatever the mix of parties, and of course coalition government is government of compromise or at least it needs to be if a party wants to actually be in government

yes... BUT... if you voted Liberal you did not vote to join a Tory government and if you voted Tory you did not vote for a link with the Libs - I believe the Libs will pay a very heavy price for their dalliance at government (which they do not deserve as they got so few votes) - particularly that lier Clegg who completely backtracked on his promise of not raising University fees - until he got a taste of power and showed he had NO scruples or honesty when the puppet masters the Tories said 'we put up fees'.

that's not positive because you are taking different parties and adding them together when people did not vote that way. Let's leave this now as you will never accept any argument apart from what suits you and it must get boring for others to read the same old stuff from both sides

You're right. It's seems we can't agree. I can't understand your reasoning. I suppose you would disagree with all of the Liberal/National governments that Australia has had.

Let me ask you this: If the Democrats were to get a higher percentage of votes (shown by the party-list vote), but PTP were to get more MPs, who do you think should be in government?

Dems

There is a lot of cynicism around which I guess comes from the bottom of a bottle or two of Chang. But I remain full of hope and stick to the occasional Beer Leo.

I've had a couple of Thai wives/ the first was a from a 'good' and wealthy family. Problem is they were trying to palm her off because she was an embarrassment to the family and quite mad. I didn't spot it till too late.

The second: Highly educated money spender. Well educated. But decided married life was not for her and she left. She admitted to missing the comforts of life but we remain good friends and she demanded nothing from me.

Now, I have met a really nice Thai lady of the 'old' school valuing Thai customs and culture. Doesn't want money, no sex until we live together after her parents approve, self educated. 32 years younger than me and very loving and warm.

Part two of my post may appear within the next 7 years or not at all ....... (aaah cynicism creeping in ...)

why do it?

On a separate subject - a lot of attacking Thai women who can speak English to some fair degree. This is as prejudiced as the accusations placed on them for their (generalised) skin colour preference. Many Thai women learn English for their jobs. Many jobs demand English and are NOT in the sex trade! There are also a lot of Thai English teachers too!

True but one can tell in a heartbeat whether a girl learned her English in a bar or not.

I often meet guys with their wife or girlfriend, who tell the most remarkable story of how and where they met..................then she happens to speak.

Why don't people just say they met in a bar?

If they have a good relationship there's nothing wrong with it.

you can take the girl out of the bar - but never the bar out of the girl

no - 40%, in my scenario, is the largest majority of an single party - not a majority of the electorate - I wasn't arguing that

OK ... so you mean the largest party. Nothing to do with majority/minority. I think I understand now.

"therefore 40% who voted for the majority largest party are dis-enfranchised."

It always happens that a large percentage are dis-enfranchised. The positive thing is, 60% (or 51%) who voted for the parties that got into government (ie the majority) are not dis-enfranchised.

that's not positive because you are taking different parties and adding them together when people did not vote that way. Let's leave this now as you will never accept any argument apart from what suits you and it must get boring for others to read the same old stuff from both sides

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

So it's Ok to form a coalition with these MP's that reflect some hazy concept of a party? I mean you (not you personally) couldn't really trust them could you? Even though they shore up your coalition you couldn't tell what would happen when the next party turns up and flashes a few baht or a promise of a lucrative position that they wouldn't be off like a robbers dog. Thai politics - To Bowdlerise the late great Derek and Clive, you've got to ask yourself, "Is this a way to run an <deleted> Ballroom?"

Read the quote again ..... Focus on the second line

Wow! I was quoted!

but it's wrong - people don't vote for individuals (in the main) - it would be anarchy to not have a party system (and in fact it IS more anarchic because there is a lack of party discipline here).

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

People rarely vote for a person - they vote for a party - same in UK most people don't know the names of their MP's but vote Labour or Conservative (and occasionally Liberal) and that's why they have big political televised debates - not about the individual MP it's about the party and it's policies. Many 'more famous' MP's have gone independent in the past and been kicked out - people vote for parties and mostly for the PM. This is obvious.

My friend suggested i should have shouted out in a really deep loud voice "Hey baby, nice t*ts!" Haha!! If i had had the courage, i wonder if she would have been offended Ah well, sorry to be a spoil sport for the oglers. So sorry boys!

you are right... and a quite word to the manager would be appropriate

The best thing about a parliamentary system is that it does require compromise most of the time. If party x gets 40% and parties y and z each get 25.1%, then it is not only fair to say that a coalition of y and z represents the will of the people better than party X. The only thing that can be said about party X is that they are the largest minority.

The worst thing about a parliamentary system is that it requires compromise. In Thailand that compromise easily lends itself to corruption

To suggest that in a situation where smaller regional political machines are bought up and brought under one banner is better or more representative than those smaller regional political machines keeping their independence and horsetrading after an election instead of before one, just doesn't make much sense to me in Thai politics.

Looking back to the 2007 elections, there were smaller parties that ran on a platform that they would not join PPP to form a coalition government. After the elections they joined with PPP to form a coalition government. Calling "foul" on them doesn't make sense, since their duty is to respond to their electorate and if they fail to do so then their electorate can get rid of them at the next election. Earlier is even possible.

It is the same with internal factional politics inside a party. When PPP was dissolved the 'friends of Newin' decided NOT to join with the new PTP party. That faction was never loyal to PPP, they were loyal to Newin. When several of them came up for election in the by-elections of last year, it would be fair and accurate to say that the electorate did not punish them for choosing not to become part of PTP, since they won under the banner of BJT.

edit to make a new paragraph -- to show that two ideas were similar but not the same.

The worst thing about a parliamentary system is that it requires compromise. In Thailand that compromise easily lends itself to corruption

we will agree on that and requires PMs to appoint horrific DPMs

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

The flaw in your argument is that every party is made of individual MPs, and more relevantly, factions. Just because they call themselves one party doesn't change anything.

If Y and Z actually became a single party, does it make any difference? Instead of 50% voting for two parties, 50% have voted for one party.

If one of the smaller parties merged with the Democrats giving them a larger percentage than the PTP, would that make you (or millions of Thais - PTP supporters) happy? Probably not. You would probably say "But they just merged to get the extra MPs. It's not fair".

You are still getting your terms mixed up. 40% is only a minority. You still seem to think that a minority should rule the majority.

no - 40%, in my scenario, is the largest majority of an single party - not a majority of the electorate - I wasn't arguing that