jayboy

I applied before the affidavit was required, in 2007.

So you got lucky because you have been approved just before the queue stalled on the wishes of Buddha knows which politician or bureocrat, and got away without a crucial current requirement. Good for you.

While the rest of you were complaining about border runs and work permits and the immigration merry-go-round, I was taking care if business.

Maybe these people they were happier living their lives without no pre-set business goals..

Anyway, what's fibbing about an "intention" that you never end up getting around to, versus lying about being a tourist for twenty years

A big difference in my book, for me to state that I'm renouncing who I am, would take a lot more than citizenship.in a corrupt developing country.

For sure your nickname says it all on what achievements you value in life.

Remember, you can be legally Thai, but you will be falang in facts, forever.

Enjoy the merry-go-round then.

My home country's passport (USA) offers me exactly nothing. I would have no problem dropping it if I had to.

Unless you are a dirt farmer or a prostitute, there is no country in the world one cannot travel on a Thai passport.

Not actually true.Thailand citizens need visas to most countries and securing them isn't always easy or convenient.I am regularly asked to provide sponsorship letters for foreign embassies on behalf of Thai friends and business contacts.Mostly their applications are succesful but the bureaucratic procedures can sometimes be a pain, and occasionally there is a puzzling rejection.In contrast a US passport is extremely useful - far far more than a Thai passport.Presumably that's why it is coveted by millions and millions of people all over the world.I have no issue with foreigners taking pride in their Thai residential/citizen status (I take pride in it myself) but the suggestion that a US passport is worthless leaves a sour ungrateful taste on top of the reality that the statement is nonsense.

 

 

1. Thaksin is a Convicted criminal and fugitive from justice, he is not a politician and isnt even a member of any political parties.  He does however have a cult following of sycophants, but they will fall away now the funding has ceased.

 

2.He hasnt run in any elections since 2006 when the election was invalidated due to electrol irregularities including vote buying.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

 

3. The dynamic growth of the NE is in decline now the native forests have been stripped and the rice industry has been desimated by the Thaksin inspired rice scam.  However, if your refering to the article stating, "Growth in Thailand, Southeast Asia's second-biggest economy, has begun to slow, but the economy of the northeast is in the grip of a boom."  Then you should do more research because.....

The potential may never be realized if a crucial 2.2 trillion baht ($71 billion) infrastructure program becomes a casualty of the feuding between Yingluck's ruling Puea Thai Party and its opponents. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-thailand-northeast-idUSBRE95F00H20130616

 

4. The Democrat Party, at the head of the opposition, agrees with the general thrust of the bill—but not with its financing. The Democrats have come up with their own 2 trillion baht plan, which would use the annual budget (rather than emergency legislation) for less-costly trains and then leave money in the pot for education, health and irrigation.

Rather that Yinglucks idea of putting Thai into a total of 5 trillion baht of debt over 50 years........The big idea is to spend 2 trillion baht ($64 billion) by 2020 towards upgrading the country’s creaking infrastructure. Another 3 trillion baht will come due as interest on the loans, accumulating over the next 50 years. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/10/infrastructure-spending-thailand

 

5.  The next election I believe will be a rude wake up call to Thaksin

 

6.Yes the present administrations cabinet is nervous, but not about the next election, but about whether Thaksin will take their party list positions at the trough and give it to another lackey.  As for the elections, Thaksin is a narcissist so he believes everyone loves him as much as he loves himself, if they dont then they are just jealous of him.  Therefore the only way his puppet party can loose government is through a coup.  A view obviously shared by his sycophants.

 

 

1.Thaksin is a politician.No entirely sane person would dispute that.The "cult following of sycophants" you refer to are in fact the people of Thailand who consistently vote his parties into power.

 

2.At every general election since the criminal coup of 2006 parties associated with Thaksin have secured victory.

 

3.You need to research the economic position of the North East more thoroughly.

 

4.As previously noted there's a legitimate discussion about the funding of the infrastructure programme.In practice the fiscal discipline characterising Thailand's economy since the crisis of the late 1990's will not be abandoned.

 

5.Yes, the next general election will be a critical test for all concerned.

 

6.I don't understand what point you are making.If you calmed down and were less obsessive about Thaksin you might make more sense.

 

Your bar girl is really pursuasive to condition you to think the lies and graft of the shinawatra dynasty are ok.

Delighted to note that this intelligent and sophisticated response is so representative of the grasp of the English language that the "educate people" are famous for.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

1. Thaksin is a Convicted criminal and fugitive from justice, he is not a politician and isnt even a member of any political parties. He does however have a cult following of sycophants, but they will fall away now the funding has ceased.

2.He hasnt run in any elections since 2006 when the election was invalidated due to electrol irregularities including vote buying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

3. The dynamic growth of the NE is in decline now the native forests have been stripped and the rice industry has been desimated by the Thaksin inspired rice scam. However, if your refering to the article stating, "Growth in Thailand, Southeast Asia's second-biggest economy, has begun to slow, but the economy of the northeast is in the grip of a boom." Then you should do more research because.....

The potential may never be realized if a crucial 2.2 trillion baht ($71 billion) infrastructure program becomes a casualty of the feuding between Yingluck's ruling Puea Thai Party and its opponents. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-thailand-northeast-idUSBRE95F00H20130616

4. The Democrat Party, at the head of the opposition, agrees with the general thrust of the bill—but not with its financing. The Democrats have come up with their own 2 trillion baht plan, which would use the annual budget (rather than emergency legislation) for less-costly trains and then leave money in the pot for education, health and irrigation.

Rather that Yinglucks idea of putting Thai into a total of 5 trillion baht of debt over 50 years........The big idea is to spend 2 trillion baht ($64 billion) by 2020 towards upgrading the country’s creaking infrastructure. Another 3 trillion baht will come due as interest on the loans, accumulating over the next 50 years. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/10/infrastructure-spending-thailand

5. The next election I believe will be a rude wake up call to Thaksin

6.Yes the present administrations cabinet is nervous, but not about the next election, but about whether Thaksin will take their party list positions at the trough and give it to another lackey. As for the elections, Thaksin is a narcissist so he believes everyone loves him as much as he loves himself, if they dont then they are just jealous of him. Therefore the only way his puppet party can loose government is through a coup. A view obviously shared by his sycophants.

1.Thaksin is a politician.No entirely sane person would dispute that.The "cult following of sycophants" you refer to are in fact the people of Thailand who consistently vote his parties into power.

2.At every general election since the criminal coup of 2006 parties associated with Thaksin have secured victory.

3.You need to research the economic position of the North East more thoroughly.

4.As previously noted there's a legitimate discussion about the funding of the infrastructure programme.In practice the fiscal discipline characterising Thailand's economy since the crisis of the late 1990's will not be abandoned.

5.Yes, the next general election will be a critical test for all concerned.

6.I don't understand what point you are making.If you calmed down and were less obsessive about Thaksin you might make more sense.

Don't know who the guy is but its a very elegant letter, leaving Yingluck a way out of the scheme without losing face. Actually she'd be gaining a lot a face if she'd follow his advice. The only thing is that big brother won't be agreeing on this.

He was formerly Governor of the Bank of Thailand and then Minister of Finance in the military controlled government after the 2006 coup.He resigned after the junta gave special treatment to his long standing rival, Sondhi Limthongkul.Despite working as a low paid civil servant all his life, he is reportedly worth Bt 800 million.His wife has a net worth of Bt 300 million.It is not clear how a relatively low paid senior bureaucrat has amassed this huge wealth.

The voters from Isaan will find out some time in the far future, that they have been used for the profit of some wealthy few...

Sadly that has always been the case over the years and with many different political hue governments.

Thaksin and his clan and their brown nosing acolytes have perfected the art of shafting the Isaan people at their ( the Isaan peoples) own expense.

Interestingly though slowly but surely a little light is creeping into the political landscape in Isaan and those red sunrises and sunsets are not so appealing as they once were.

The old adage ''Red sky in the morning shepherds warning'' it seems is at last being heeded slowly by the people of Isaan.

What a load of mindless nonsense.First of all the North East is now the most dynamic growth region in Thailand and although poverty exists there has been remarkable progress over the last twenty years.It's a question for discussion what are the causes of this new prosperity, but it's not really debatable that great progress has been made.As to politicians role it's first important to understand that in all democracies policies are formulated to attract electoral support, not the only consideration but still a very important one.In the North East for decades, despite the huge populatiuon, electors were essentially regarded as voting fodder and not taken seriously by the Bangkok establishment - poor ignorant peasants.Thaksin changed all that and that is why his support in the NE and North is so solid.He didn't adopt populist policies because he is a good man:he did it because he is (usually) an astute politician.The Democrats have followed in his footsteps in copying and in some cases enhancing policies designed to appeal to rural voters.

I agree it would be healthy if other political parties could strengthen their presence in the NE, but that means (in the case of the Democrats) detoxifying their brand.The next general election will make the position crystal clear.

Does a criminal conviction for fraud, becoming a fugitive to avoid punishment for said crime, and avoiding much more serious charges equate to " a (usually) astute politician" then in your opinion? Guess so - he's still running the country.

His support in the NE is based on bribery (vote buying), intimidation ( Red Shirt thugs), clever propaganda, and a belief by many that he's the best of a bad bunch. His adopted populist policies have delivered more to the select few clan members than to the masses. What have they really delivered to the people in the NE? Dynamic growth area - really? Can you provide details?

There is no doubt the current regime is nervous. Loosing the Bangkok governor elections, and the the Don Meuang bye election (after the astute Dr. T, predicted they could field a utility post and still win), Moody's and World Bank's adverse comments on the Thai economy and particularly the rice scheme losses, adverse reaction to the 350m and 2.2 trillion off budget loans the government want to pocket, and the 4 planes his sister wants to buy. Now they react by invoking ISA's and surrounding themselves with 1200 riot police to protect them from 250 "granny and school kids" protesters.

The next election will be interesting. Many Thai friends told me they voted for PTP last time. Amazingly, many thought YL would actually be the leader. And, they all don't want to vote for the Dems who they consider HiSo lackeys. But, none are happy with the scams, corruption, opening lies and arrogance when admitting lies, and the fact that Thaksin really calls the shots.

PTP avoid referendums like the plague - wonder why that is?

1.His reputation for astuteness is based in his still being easily the most popular Thai politician, and political parties associated with him winning election after election.In particular as previously noted he took the rural majority seriously and hence earned its loyalty and gratitude.Best of a bad bunch? Well yes I don't dissent from that evaluation.

2.He did not win by vote buying and no serious source supports that.

3.Are you denying the NE is a dynamic growth region in Thailand? If so do try and undertake some basic homework.

4.There is a genuine debate on off budget financing.The concept isn't new and the Democrats accept the infrastructure programme is necessary.You say they want to "pocket the funding", a babyish comment if I may say so.Evidence? Khun Korn, the most articulate of the critics doesn't say that.

5.Yes the true test will be the next general election.The best regarded polls now suggest the government's popularity has slipped but is still well ahead of the opposition.

6.Is the government nervous? Yes and it always has been.Not surprising given the history of military and judicial meddling of the last decade.Hence the great compromise and the pandering to the military.I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Bangkok governor or Don Muang election results.In fgact specifically on the former the results were profoundly unsettling for those Democrats who saw middle class Bangkok as an impregnable stronghold.

While pro-democracy student activists of the 1970s campaigned against the influence of the military in politics, General Boonlert Kaewprasit, chairman of the Pitak Siam group, said the military was currently idle, in a posture of waiting and seeing, and indecisive when it should have taken a stance.

The military is doing what it should be doing, preparing to defend Thailand and performing humanitarian programs. It should never be an agent of political change.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, but there is a naivety in your summary of what the military should be doing.The Thai military is not in the business of defending the country (or more precisely that function is very low on its list of priorities).Its main priority is to make money for the senior officers who run it.To date that objective has been secured by linking up with the old unelected elites.If the situation changes the military would have no problem in principle as long as its budget was kept high and there was minimum interference from the politicians.Yingluck and her brother know this perfectly well.The important thing to remember notwithstanding protestations of patriotism, flag waving and oaths of loyalty, there is in fact no honour - just another set of greedy businessmen (actually worse than most businessmen who do not disguise their objectives)

It wouldn't be fair not to acknowledge some decent exceptions in the opfficer corps, and my comments are no reflection on the enlisted men.

I think you will find the officer corps are the volentary members as the Thai military is mainly conscripts. But I agree like many organisation the Thai military is riddled with corupt personell and hamstrung by corrupt practices. I even believe this systemic corruption is only eclipsed by the massive corruption of the Yingluck/Thaksin administration. However, its interesting that you would use my post that advocated a non political function for the military to again misdirect the topic to one that perpetuates the division of Thai society into political allegencies.

You have given a reasonable response so I will reciprocate.My issue with your post is your assumption that my comment served to "misdirect the topic" you introduced, namely the objective of a politically neutral military.I think this a profound misunderstanding of the nature of this forum which is to discuss, elaborate and sometimes disagree.Nobody of any political view could demonstrate my comment was irrelevant, or designed to change the subject.It was in fact designed to cast light on the matter.Perhaps your disapproval simply reflects introduction of a realistic assesment of the Thai military, namely its prime interest in financial aggrandisement, rasther than humanitarian assistance or (excuse me while we snigger) defending the country.

While pro-democracy student activists of the 1970s campaigned against the influence of the military in politics, General Boonlert Kaewprasit, chairman of the Pitak Siam group, said the military was currently idle, in a posture of waiting and seeing, and indecisive when it should have taken a stance.

The military is doing what it should be doing, preparing to defend Thailand and performing humanitarian programs. It should never be an agent of political change.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, but there is a naivety in your summary of what the military should be doing.The Thai military is not in the business of defending the country (or more precisely that function is very low on its list of priorities).Its main priority is to make money for the senior officers who run it.To date that objective has been secured by linking up with the old unelected elites.If the situation changes the military would have no problem in principle as long as its budget was kept high and there was minimum interference from the politicians.Yingluck and her brother know this perfectly well.The important thing to remember notwithstanding protestations of patriotism, flag waving and oaths of loyalty, there is in fact no honour - just another set of greedy businessmen (actually worse than most businessmen who do not disguise their objectives)

It wouldn't be fair not to acknowledge some decent exceptions in the opfficer corps, and my comments are no reflection on the enlisted men.

Terrorism was probably the wrong charge. Treason is more realistic. Inciting an uprising - wonder if that's a treasonable offence under Thai law?

It might well be a treasonable offence.But knowing Thaksin I suppose he would somehow manage to award himself a post facto pardon.But of course it's all hypothetical.If that is his intention the odds seem stacked against him.

Whatever you say about his opponents at least they are not cowardly enough to award themselves a pardon if for example they implemented a criminal offence like a coup.Oh wait, that's exactly what the scumbags did.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

I am questioning your definition of a mandate.

Surely being elected PM by a majority of elected MPs gives you a mandate. The MPs are representatives of the people after all.

If that doesn't give you a mandate, is it just some arbitrary percentage of the peoples vote?

You are apparently very concerned to demonstate that Abhisit had as much a valid mandate as Yingluck.Unfortunately that will be a losing battle.

Nobody with knowledge of a parliamentary system is suggesting Abhisit's tenure as PM was illegitimate.Nevertheless he secured the position in a grubby and convoluted way.

When he finally presented himself to the Thai electorate, they kicked the bum out.

Yingluck in the same election was given a clear mandate.

The difference between a technical and moral mandate would be clear to most people.A similar situation in the UK occurred with Gordon Brown (without of course the coups and rigged constitutions) who became PM without presenting himself to the electorate.He was certainly legally PM but on the first available occasion the British turfed the bum out.Incidentally Cameron only got 36% of the vote, much less than Yingluck and nobody queries his mandate.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

How do you think Samak, or Thaksin, got to be PM? You don't think there weren't corrupt back room deals in how Thaksin bought smaller parties under the TRT prior to the 2005 election, or for Samak to form a coalition government in 2007?

Abhisit had as much a mandate as Samak or Somchai, after a majority of MPs elected him PM.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Which is right, but not important. Because every election in Thailand is full of massive vote buying. So the results don't mean anything. So if it is Abhisit or Yingluck, both are not democratic elected, as the election was not democratic. No one can really predict what would happen if there would be no vote buying at all. I guess many people wouldn't vote at all.

On the next level is party buying, MP buying which makes it even worse.

Nothing will change as long as there is no serious punishment. At minimum for vote buying both sides should loose the right to vote and to be elected for lifetime and pay a huge amount of money or jail term.

Actually you are completely wrong.It is very clear that in recent Thai elections (which have been scrutinised internationally) that if vote buying was stripped out there would have been no impact on the overall result.You would be on safer ground if you had argued that PTP was in thrall to Thaksin or the Democrats in thrall to the army and old elites.But if I am not mistaken from your previous posts you were a strong supporter of PAD, and its philosophy (as is your right).But to be truthful those in that position have a problem with democracy itself.That is a legitimate position and is gaining support intedrnationally as the democracies in the West look more troubled.But a more honest position on your part would be to attack the weaknesses of democracy, rather than rely on drivel about vote buying.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

WOW!!! i'm gonna say this one last time VERY SLOWLY,,,

NO where did I say Thaksin was the PM at the time of the coup, FACT!

now, you say I was (implying) he was PM at this time, so YES you miss quoted me, FACT!!! you are now saying I (implied) it,

ok up to you to see as you like, so now i'll Quote you Thaksin was the ("care-taker)" PM at this time,

next sunshine, the issue is about the immunity for the coup leaders,,, for me retro legislation is sometimes a good thing and sometimes bad, ie cancelling of the immunity,

Just tell me which PM you were talking about when you said "the PM was in New York" and "Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled" in the same sentence.

Just tell me,,, do you accept the democratic vote of the people of Thailand, They voted for Thaksin and that the democrats could not fight their way out of a political paper bag...

you don't have to like it sunshine but if you support democracy then you need to work on your, ohh bugga the dem's lost again and Mr T won issues,

it's the Thai peoples choice not your unless you are a Thai citizen, get over it...

I accept that Yingluck is the elected PM, just as Abhisit was the elected PM.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Unbelievable that some of the usual suspects are still peddling the tired old line that Thaksin wasn't PM at the time of the coup.Difficult to get behind this kind of muddled thought process.Are they saying that because of the constitutional procedures involved (ie Thaksin standing down before the election) the coup somehow was ok and Thaksin has nothing to complain about? Does anybody but a few old expats still think this is significant and that the coup was not designed to overthrow Thaksin? Nobody else does.Certainly the people involved in the planning and execution of the coup don't for a moment deny the object was to eject Thaksin).Are these usual suspects entirely balanced on this matter?

<deleted> are you going on about? How do you go from Thaksin not being PM to the coup being OK? You're the one with the muddled thoughts.

I have never said that the coup was OK or that it wasn't to get Thaksin out. I would just like some people to actually get their "facts" right.

Good try but you fail to address the point at issue - namely the bizarre suggestion that the coup's purpose was not to dispose of Thaksin once and for all.Can't you get it into your head that we all know the constitutional position of Thaksin at the time of the coup, and that he was caretaker PM is not actually the key salient fact.

Ok well I guess you could contact Wikipedia and clarify this

Which part do you want clarity on?

Possibly if you take a read on this subject at Wikipedia, (history of Thailand since 1973), at the of the page you are invited to clarify any part you think you have a more accurate facts on and then we can all be as informed of the facts as you plainly think you are

I just highlighted a couple of corrections to your post. If you think one of my points is incorrect, let me know which one, and I will provide more information, even wiki links if you want.

But seeing as you believe Wikipedia so much.

- The elections were finally declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court, which found that the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Disputing_the_election_result

- Thaksin wasn't the Prime Minister when the coup occurred. He stood down when he called the 2006 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006#Background. He was never elected PM after that.

- PPP didn't win a majority of seats in the 2007 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

Unbelievable that some of the usual suspects are still peddling the tired old line that Thaksin wasn't PM at the time of the coup.Difficult to get behind this kind of muddled thought process.Are they saying that because of the constitutional procedures involved (ie Thaksin standing down before the election) the coup somehow was ok and Thaksin has nothing to complain about? Does anybody but a few old expats still think this is significant and that the coup was not designed to overthrow Thaksin? Nobody else does.Certainly the people involved in the planning and execution of the coup don't for a moment deny the object was to eject Thaksin).Are these usual suspects entirely balanced on this matter?

A few comments on lawyers for PR

1.Most people with knowledge will tell you they are not necessary.They are right.

2.What this particular outfit promise cannot in fact be promised - because it is not within their power to guarantee a result.No decent immigration lawyer would agree payment by result.A decent lawyer would examine your situation and advise whether you were likely to qualify or not.

3.Those who qualify for and achieve PR meet very clear criteria (as advised by Camerata, Arkady etc).There's no mystery here.

4.Thai language skills are modest but they are not non-existent.

5.In terms of putting the docs together a decent secretary would be as good as a lawyer (tho she/he might want a modicum of guidance).

5.For those with the financial wherewithal and disinclination to put the documentation together, a reliable lawyer/legal firm could make sense.

6.A poor choice of lawyer (eg the outfit referenced) could be worse than no lawyer at all.

7.Avoid all lawyers that pitch to a farang clientele - the usual bottom feeders

Khun Yingluck has charm and good manners.The boorish element on this forum does not.Whether you choose to identify with the latter (as seems to be the case) is for you to decide.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sondhi is out on bail for other charges besides this one. Anyone kept count on just how many years in total he has been sentenced to and the number of cases he is out on bail awaiting appeal for? Must be four at least.

I was wondering the same thing.

This guy has been through a lot. Remember the mob of assassins who shot up his car with machine guns? He took a bullet glaze across his scull? I seem to recall the bullets were the same ones used in military arms. Given the amount of ordinance that goes missing and his political leanings, it would appear they were not the military. or at least not regular military. or at least serving military.

You need to do your homework.It is an open secret which military elements were involved and who they were linked to.Don't be under the misapprehension that all those who share an enemy are friends.

Amazing insight Jayboy. Just astonishing.

In the future, you may wish to not mistake guarded comments and withholding details... or understatement... for ignorance. I thought it was obvious. Obviously, not to you, despite your brilliance and insight. and . homework. wow.

er, ok now you understand everything.Odd then that your earlier post was just bar talk nonsense.His "political leanings" for example which you seemed to attach importance to were in fact irrelevant to his attempted assasination.

Although I would love to see a drop in the tax or duty on wine, methinks Mr Heinecke is using very doubtful economic arguments for what would benefit his own companies.

He has joined the self-serving Thai business club.

He has always been a member and though a very talented and intelligent man has played by the let us say quite flexible Sino Thai rules.What is more he has all the right connections.Look at his board at Minor Group - tells one all one needs to know though probably only those well versed in high level Thai business would understand why (which would exclude almost all present company I imagine)

The fact that his proposals would benefit his company seems to me neither here nor there.He is speaking on behalf of his industry, perfectly acceptable.

I would have thought any reduction in the preposterous price of decent wine made good sense for Thailand

Sondhi is out on bail for other charges besides this one. Anyone kept count on just how many years in total he has been sentenced to and the number of cases he is out on bail awaiting appeal for? Must be four at least.

I was wondering the same thing.

This guy has been through a lot. Remember the mob of assassins who shot up his car with machine guns? He took a bullet glaze across his scull? I seem to recall the bullets were the same ones used in military arms. Given the amount of ordinance that goes missing and his political leanings, it would appear they were not the military. or at least not regular military. or at least serving military.

You need to do your homework.It is an open secret which military elements were involved and who they were linked to.Don't be under the misapprehension that all those who share an enemy are friends.

"A prime minister has no right to spend tens of millions of baht to promote herself. This is not a Miss Universe contest. How can she earn fame for the country when it is so hectic locally?" Kasit asked, adding that any international media outlet that ranked Yingluck as influential might have looked too much on the surface.

Don't worry, the international media are not giving her any more credit than she deserves. They are also laughing at her.

I haven't seen any indication yet that the international media have got hold of the stupid remark about food from the idiot FM, more's the pity.

But the international media is not so cretinous as some of the meatheads on this forum.There is no story here except in the minds of those who loathe Yingluck.The Foreign Minister's reported remark is perfectly reasonable.Obviously he wasn't specific but clearly he wasn't talking about visits to Japan, China, the US, UK,Australia.He was talking about more challenged countries where in the absence of decent food it would be quite reasonable for Thais to get busy with noodles in their hotel rooms.Thai businessmen overseas do it all the time - I've been with them on many occasions.Clearly this doesn't mean the Thai delegation would skip official functions.Whatever Yingluck's faults are, she is a thoughtful and polite woman.Some of the usual suspect meatheads could learn manners from her.

My entry on the tabien baan says British since only done recently.However I'm wondering whether for long established PRs the old style entry needs in practice to be updated because the tabien baan isnt needed for the endorsement and re-entry permit.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app