jayboy

What was happening over at the RBSC during the Thai alliance with Japan and occupation by Japan during WWII?

The British, who had dominated the club since it was founded, and other allied nationals were interned by the Japanese and Mom Ratchada Pisek took over as the first Thai chairman. Ratchada moved that the memberships of the allied nationals should be permanently revoked and the motion was carried, despite a vociferous minority who argued they should be only temporarily suspended. After the war the internees were released and insisted that the cancellation of their memberships was unconstitutional. They won the motion and returned to the club. Ratchada was ousted as chairman and the British contingent managed to reclaim the chairmanship continuously until 1960 when the second Thai chairman was elected by the general committee. Since then the club has been dominated by Thais and there has never been another foreign chairman.

The British Club on Silom Road was taken over as the Japanese military HQ. A released member went to the club to see what was going on and was confronted by a Japanese officer with drawn sword on the stairs but fortunately they managed to sort things out amicably. Since the club had mortgaged the property before the war to Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank which was taken over temporarily by German bankers, the title deeds survived intact and were redeemed from the bank after the war. Most of the club's records, however, were unfortunately destroyed by the Japanese.

To be fair, and I accept you are not suggesting otherwise, I don't think there would have been any objection in 1960 on the part of British members to the Thai membership taking over the key positions.One of the rather attractive aspects of the British expatriate community in the old days was a relative absence of the racism that could be found in Malaysia and India.Part of this lay in the different character of the British community then which if not exactly upper class was devoid of the lower middle class prejudices and was able to recognise gentlemanly characteristics in the Thais they came across in business and in social life.Many of their Thai friends if they had not attended decent English public schools and Oxbridge had the natural grace, charm and good manners that is associated with the Thai upper class.Perhaps less significantly many (I suspect a majority) of the British residents had a Thai girl or boy tucked away which provided a natural sympathy for Thais ways and customs.

yo dude.

Why did not suthep and abhisit change the constitution when they were in power????? Because they like all the power it gave them.

The fact is that Abhisit did nothing about reform when in power.As to his criticism of conspiracy theories, it would seem to be a little premature.It might make sense if an elected government was not overthrown by a partisan judicial system (with many judges installed on the back of a military coup).If the current government serves out its term and there is no imposition of an unelected "neutral" PM then Abhisit might have a point, and I would be the first to acknowledge it.In the meantime Abhisit should concentrate on making himself and his party less toxic to the Thai people so they might have a chance to win power fairly without resort to gangsters and compliant judges.

"Toxicity" doesn't have anything to do with it, obviously, with the last election winner being a party run by a self serving convicted criminal with thousands of deaths in his hands and supported by people that openly cheer the murder of innocents.

I presume by "murder of innocents" you are referring to the deaths of Southern Muslims and those executed in the Drugs War.The problem for your argument (and I'm afraid it completely eviscerates your case) is that these policies were enthusiastically supported by those most eager to destroy the present government.

On the contrary, it absolutely proves that the taint of being a contemptible human being has anything to do with electorability, to coin a term.

.

I have no idea what point you are making.Please try and express yourself clearly.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Wait....if PTP thinks that the political system is so rigged that "independent agencies", political parties, courts etc. can conspire to overthrow a democratically elected government that works on legal principles it surely means they're supporting reforms before elections?

At least then "we follow the democratic way" (still my favourite/most listened to comment of the good PM)

yo dude.

Why did not suthep and abhisit change the constitution when they were in power????? Because they like all the power it gave them.

The fact is that Abhisit did nothing about reform when in power.As to his criticism of conspiracy theories, it would seem to be a little premature.It might make sense if an elected government was not overthrown by a partisan judicial system (with many judges installed on the back of a military coup).If the current government serves out its term and there is no imposition of an unelected "neutral" PM then Abhisit might have a point, and I would be the first to acknowledge it.In the meantime Abhisit should concentrate on making himself and his party less toxic to the Thai people so they might have a chance to win power fairly without resort to gangsters and compliant judges.

"Toxicity" doesn't have anything to do with it, obviously, with the last election winner being a party run by a self serving convicted criminal with thousands of deaths in his hands and supported by people that openly cheer the murder of innocents.

I presume by "murder of innocents" you are referring to the deaths of Southern Muslims and those executed in the Drugs War.The problem for your argument (and I'm afraid it completely eviscerates your case) is that these policies were enthusiastically supported by those most eager to destroy the present government.

The caretaker PTP government dissolved parliament. Should they be re-elected in a new election they will start another 4 year term of office. They cannot complete their initial 4 year terms as they have dissolved it.

The courts and NACC must make all evidence and judgments transparent and public, regardless of what the decision is. Equally, PTP should "open the books" and show the reality. If they've been honest then they've nothing to fear and plenty to gain. If they've been lying, cheating and stealing then they should be prosecuted and if found guilty punished in accordance with the law.

Any government that puts itself above the law is not democratic, whether they came from election or not. Allow that to go unchecked will lead to a dictatorship. Accountability and transparency are key check and essential in any democracy.

It's disappointing there is no robust opposition challenging the caretaker government through political channels and the Democrats would do better to address their own failings to increase their appeal. But they received the second largest minority at the last full general election to PTP's largest minority and the gap wasn't mega, hardly a toxic reaction.

It's a very difficult situation though when a government cheats and abuses the parliamentary procedures, acts illegally, refuses to debate or provide information and openly defies court rulings.

I'm sorry but this really doesn't amount to a credible position.The whole world knows what is going on now - a slow judicial coup, showing contempt for the the Thai people by failed politicians and elites who can't win at the ballot box.

The Chicago Tribune (with no reason to take a partisan view) sums it up well.Nobody is being fooled here

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-thailand-protest-judiciary-20140402,0,3999001.story

And I'm afraid that those that sow the wind will reap the hurricane.

Pick that up in some western? Lol. Oooooooooo....here comes the hurricane!! Oooooooo. Brother that'll have 'em shakin' in their boots. You drama queens DO think alike.

Whatever the "world according to you" might think, most people understand what's really going on here, and it's not a "judicial coup" (unless you define that, as the shin-rouge tend to do, as those rascally judges sending down decisions that unfortunately don't allow them to continue their unashamed and obvious abuse of power). Points for repetition of the talking points, however. The more intelligent and objective throughout the land understand the Thaksin oligarchy however, and either see it as a big problem (that would be the anti-government protesters) or a crony-run feeding trough to be eaten out of (that's pronounced pee-tee).

Keep up the weather forecasts though. Very entertaining.

It's probably more effective to reference some established and non-partisan resources rather than resort to simple minded platitudes.Are you able to do that? Thought not.

I apologise if my reference to possible consequences was too hyperbolic.My point, as I thought would have been obvious, is that repression of democracy may end up having some very unpleasant consequences for the perpetrators.

Even after a judicial coup and unelected rule by self appointed "good people" Thailand will have to go through a general election.It's unlikely the Thai people will be in a forgiving mood.

Unless her actual election team did something wrong, she shouldn't logically be held liable for the mouths of others not actually working for her. Same for Sunkhumbhand or anyone else. Actually passing money or working to gain votes or control parties illegally is something else entirely.

But that doesn't seem to be the case in either of these cases.

Simply put someone else said something in support that might not have been proper,

but they were not working for here election committee, so how is she responsible?

The attempted spin to say it is a Dem Plot to make the EC look even-handed is truly an absurdity!

Perhaps the plot against Sukhumbhand is an absurdity.Who knows? We shall see.He is certainly seen as disposable and the appearence of even handedness would be cosmetically useful

The point most seem to be missing is that the Democrats have nothing to do with it.They are simply a tool.

I don't think Jaruvan is relevant one way or trhe other.

Indeed. He had more to lose than gain politically by doing it but went ahead anyway.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100265662/the-gay-marriage-fight-had-no-benefits-for-david-cameron-thats-why-he-should-be-proud-of-it/

Unfortunately the comments are typical Telegraph

Meaning what? The tired mantra of the Daily Torygraph is a little passé and there is now some excellent journalism in it.Incidentally in case you didn't know Dan Hodges is the son of Glenda Jackson!

Here's a few. BTW I had no idea who Dan Hodges was related to. Is that supposed to make a difference?

"Homosexual marriage goes against everything diversity and respect for individual rights stands for."

"In fact gay marriage is just PC gone mad. Nothing is supposed to be better or worse - just equal - and the vociferous gay lobbies have jumped onto the bandwaggon. We'll be having to change the dictionary next, to take out all qualifying adjectives so that we are left with "the same" (old!) and "equal". I think Shakespeare may be laughing."

"Perhaps also David had on his mind that timeless adage and truth 'Better a living bugger than a buried prime minister'."

"Rubbish, let's upset the applecart to please a minority of a minority of 1.5% , all because theEU said so, this is the end of Great Britain!"

"The man's insane if he believes that : the relationship between a same sex couple can ever be held as equivalent to that of a heterosexual couple. And to teach children that it is ,is the most regressive piece of legislation, I can think that has ever been passed.

We don't teach children that 1+1 = 3 or that 2+2 = 3, since it is only 1+2 or 2+1 that = 3."

"Well I suppose in these modern times we should all be more tolerant and compassionate. After all, buggers can't be choosers."

These quotes aren't from Dan Hodge's article just some nutty commentators.Most reader comments are bizarre; check out the Guardian for craziness.

My reference to Dan Hodge's mum was a fun fact only.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Indeed. He had more to lose than gain politically by doing it but went ahead anyway.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100265662/the-gay-marriage-fight-had-no-benefits-for-david-cameron-thats-why-he-should-be-proud-of-it/

Unfortunately the comments are typical Telegraph

Meaning what? The tired mantra of the Daily Torygraph is a little passé and there is now some excellent journalism in it.Incidentally in case you didn't know Dan Hodges is the son of Glenda Jackson!

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Why not sooner???? Furnish is Canadian and it's been legal since 2005 there. We were the fourth country to legalize same-sex marriage and actually, the first to accept one spouse not having to be from the legalizing country. So with John being British, they could have done it easily. No news here.

I guess you'd have to ask the happy couple!

It's a good question I suppose.

Only a guess, but Elton being British and the power half of the couple, perhaps preferred to keep everything English.

Also British civil unions before carried the same legal rights as marriage anyway, so there was no compelling legal reason for their FAMILY (with the two children that THEY HAVE TOGETHER) to go Canuck.

Cheers.

I agree Canada is to be congratulated for being early in this. As a southern neighbor, we look up to y'all. Literally.

It's worth pointing out that huge credit must go to the slightly unlikely figure of PM David Cameron who pushed the legalisation of same sex marriage and overcame significant opposition from within his own party in parliament and the country..A good example of leadership and I note his integrity, and perhaps more importantly persistence, on this matter has been praised by many.

Indeed. He had more to lose than gain politically by doing it but went ahead anyway.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100265662/the-gay-marriage-fight-had-no-benefits-for-david-cameron-thats-why-he-should-be-proud-of-it/

I understand now- this is all a Democrat plot to make PTP look bad worse, if that's possible.

It's only connected to the Democrat Party at the margin.The puppet masters behind Suthep use the Democrats, not the other way round.They would ditch Abhisit if it served their agenda.

A topic to be revisited in due course .

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Why would anybody enter into a far-reaching conspiracy to make PTP look bad/worse when they are doing an excellent job of it themselves?

It is nothing to do with the PTP, rather a heavyhanded attempt to present the EC and other "independent agencies" as non-partisan.

I suggested the topic be revisited later on.I had in mind the advantage of being able to comment with more evidence available.I freely admit this is speculation now, albeit soundly based.

Incidentally I note that Bangkok Pundit believes Sukhumbhand may well be absolved by the Court given the past record of Democrats who have been charged with electoral offences.However even if he is absolved the EC pretence of being non partisan can be peddled to the naive and ignorant.

[but President Obama met with the Chinese premier at the Nuclear Security Summit and discussed not just about Ukraine but the whole range of Asia issues.] So am I to understand that China has the say over S.E. Asia which includes Thailand. If ASEAN have any brains, they will keep the USA and other Western countries out of S.E. Asia and work towards self preservation. You can guarantee one thing, if Supthep and his mob get their way and change the landscape of politics in Thailand, you can kiss the country goodbye because they are the puppets of the west.

You've got that backwards. If pitting the West/US against China in Thailand politics, then the Shinawatatra government is aligned with the West/US and the Thai army/royalists with China.

The Democrats are also very much aligned with USA...Just recall the Victor Bout case where Abhisit sent him over to USA, braking the law, making Russia upset. And no one complained, neither the Shinawatra Party, nor any Democrats nor anyone else.

USA says "jump" and Thailand asks "how high".

But to be fair, I wouldn't speak about countries, I would speak about the regimes. It is not the USA or France or the population there who are looking out for wars, it is just a small ruling elite.

And you would suggest that Thailand should cave in to Russia whenever that country is "upset".You seem to have overlooked the fact that the US had a valid case against the arms dealer concerned.

But you are right the tide of anti Americanism is rising and it is not confined to the less sophisticated types.There are reasons enough for this (most notably the Iraq War) but in my experience those who demonise the US are saying as much about themselves as the object of their hate.

As for looking for wars I can understand the sentiment if related to George Bush Jnr.It doesn't really make any sense with Obama.

As to Kenney she doesn't seem that profound but I don't see why she has become an object of hate for many of the Suthep mobsters who accuse her of being pro Thaksin.As earlier noted it reveals more about them than the Ambassador.

Anand is a respected statesman though hardly neutral.But he is not in the running though given his prestige it's inevitable his name is mentioned.The guy being lined up is Palakorn for whom Suthep is now doing the spadework.Palakorn, an eminent figure, has had a long association with the old establishment.I have nothing personal against Palakorn (indeed I admire him) but a non elected PM in the current context would be a terrible disaster.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Perhaps the NACC have the evidence!!

Why would they make it public??

Once made public, the accused could manufacture evidence to counter their evidence...

The NACC isn't here for the news-agencies - they have a job to do and are getting on with it. They control what information that want in the public domain.

Perhaps this is why you haven't "seen any evidence".

nor you so I guess neither one can draw any conclusions yet... unless you have other info?..that is why I said we should know more next week..eh?

My interpretation is that they have evidence for some other things but not the 60B to Hong Kong.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The graft has been so massive that it involves many transactions. I doubt very much the NACC is pushing her to appear with records clearing her on some thing they have no evidence to show she did wrong. If they had nothing she would not have to defend herself.

That would be like grabbing any one of the street and accusing them of murder and making them prove they didn't;'t do it when there was no evidence they did it. They will or they will not get the paper work they require and which she has had plenty of time to prepare. It will in all likely hood take at least a week to hear any thing concrete.

So sit back relax and wait there might be other charges such as murder she will have to defend her self on. Also dereliction of duty.

Just out of curiosity does any one have any idea of how many charges she would not have to face if she dropped all her trumped up charges against Abhist and Suthep and stepped down from her post and declared she was not going to run again? Just a thought.

1.There is as yet no confirmation of any graft.As with most economic activity in Thailand it is quite possible but it remains unproved.

2.The NACC is an instrument of one side including those that wish to muzzle democracy in Thailand.

3.In your remarkably foolish post you seem unaware that your final sentence confirms NACC is partisan and discredited - though even here you are confused.The caretaker PM had nothing to do with the murder charges Abhisit and Suthep were charged with.

I give up.

Maybe we should just split Thailand in two and call it North and South Thailand, just like North and South Korea.

Let the red shirts and their version of Kim Jong Un, Thaksin Shinawatra, find out what happens when you have a DESPOT as a leader and your economy depends on synergy with the South.....

It is so obvious that North Thailand is backward and depends on the economic engine of South Thailand and that without the support of the South, North Thailand will become as backwards as North Korea.

The economic engine of the south is built on the back of the cheap labour supplied by the north.

Both wrong I'm afraid.The South (at least the Upper South) is prosperous because of tourism and primary commodities like rubber and oil palm.If there is an economic engine however (of course excepting the Bangkok powerhouse) it is the North East where the development in the last decade has been remarkable.And don't forget social and political upheaval happens when things are getting better not when they are stagnant or worse.

"However, the Prime Minister and her government should not be the ones hosting the general election because they are part of the conflict, said Chavanond."

Democrat Party? What are they on - is he telling them they can't participate in the election because they happen to be the caretaker government?

Incredibly stupid statements and action.

Why compete in an election when the ruling party refuses to accept the verdicts of courts and independent agencies? The Dems have always respected their position of being the opposition. But with the present group of (self exiled) criminals running the country, what would it be worth to be an opposition party?

There are different views about the independence of the courts and independent agencies.But I fail to understand the relevance one way or another with the Democrats refusing to face the Thai public at a general election.

What you fail to understand is that a renewed election doesn't make sense with the same criminal fugitive led Pheu Thai party participating, with the UDD / red-shirts fanatically 'defending' those criminals.

The Democrats face the Thai public daily with their stand on corruption, the ineptitude of the 'Yingluck' government, the continued harassment by police and grenade throwing "unknowns".

I'm not sure I understand you.How do the machinations of the PTP/red shirts prevent the Democrats contesting the election? How does the election not make sense?

Whatever the hostile post election environment (which obviously is an issue for the PTP as well) the victorious Democrats could initiate a programme of reform most of which doesn't relate to electoral procedures.

As always those opposed to elections go very vague when asked to be specific about their objections.One must assume in the absence of evidence it's just cold feet about their electoral prospects.

But if anyone can make a coherent case my mind remains open.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"However, the Prime Minister and her government should not be the ones hosting the general election because they are part of the conflict, said Chavanond."

Democrat Party? What are they on - is he telling them they can't participate in the election because they happen to be the caretaker government?

Incredibly stupid statements and action.

Why compete in an election when the ruling party refuses to accept the verdicts of courts and independent agencies? The Dems have always respected their position of being the opposition. But with the present group of (self exiled) criminals running the country, what would it be worth to be an opposition party?

There are different views about the independence of the courts and independent agencies.But I fail to understand the relevance one way or another with the Democrats refusing to face the Thai public at a general election.

Who wants to play against a team that wins by cheating every time.

At last a clear statement justifying the Democrat boycott (though I think a misguided one).

To make sense of it at least two questions need to be answered:

1.How was the last election not valid and fairly conducted especially since all independent observers were satisfied?

2.What precise reforms need to be put in place to make the next one fair?

I'm not unsympathetic to a national effort across parties to reform the system and tackle corruption, but for clarity's sake there needs to be an understanding on an improved electoral process.

If the response is just the usual claptrap (Thaksin buying farmers votes etc) we can only conclude the Democrat boycott is for the reason they are unelectable.

And in that case the advice should be ditch the incompetent leadership, cut ties with the gangster Suthep, tell the Bangkok middle class that they cannot have the casting vote, develop some policies attractive to the Thai people as a whole.. and then win an election.

How about no vote buying by any one? Buy one vote automatic two years in jail. Sell your vote 5 times the amount for a fine. How about freedom to choose who you vote for? This means no one standing over you to make sure you vote the way the village head man tells you to. How about a secure way to hold the ballots until they are counted?

Now give us your PTP claptrap why we can't do that.

Any sensible measures to minimise or eradicate vote buying and other electoral abuses are obviously to be welcomed.However all the evidence shows that undesirable though vote buying is, outcomes are not affected.Chris Baker and Acharn Pasuk, no suckers for what you describe as "PTP claptrap", describe the suggestion that vote buying undermined the validity of the last election as "dangerous nonsense".

Careful what you wish for, how many democrats have taken to the PDRC stage speaking loosely over 'overthrowing' the govt.

1. Former Democrat MPs involved in the PDRC rallies were careful to resign beforehand.

2. Calling for the overthrow of a government is a democratic right in Thailand. Secession is not.

Not even a good try...

Actually you are wrong.What has often been advocated from the PDRC platform is sedition, the overthrow of an elected government.In most countries those involved would have been facing charges.Having said that I agree that in a robustly democratic country one should err on the side of tolerance.But I'm not sure that loose talk about secession (which would not have taken place if not provoked by seditious movement in Bangkok) is any more illegal than actual sedition.In any case many Muslim Thais from the Southern Provinces have been advocating secession for decades - and nobody (except posturing nincompoops of the NACC/military top brass variety) would think of making this a criminal offence.

Utter piffle.

In most countries a government that has been shown to lie, cheat, break the law, incite people to disobey the law would be thrown out, not even considering the numerous corruption and mismanagement issues.

No one has been convicted of sedition - simply something you have decided applied to those who have a different view to yourself.

Secession and inciting armed rebellion are serious offences in most countries. Treason, which it is, is usually one of the most heavily punished serious crimes. That PTP ministers openly speak at a public gathering encouraging this treason whilst being filmed is much more than the "loose talk" you try and pass it off has. It reveals the extreme contempt and arrogance PTP usually display to all other than themselves, their contempt for the very country, its traditions and laws. They have shown they are prepared to lie and cheat in parliament and have displayed a propensity for violence to enforce their views.

That caretaker government ministers are prepared to publicly advocate armed rebellion is a measure of how far these criminals are prepared to go to keep power.

YL should have immediately censured these traitors and removed them from the caretaker administration. But they were probably following orders just like she has to,

The suggested defense "we only committed treason and encouraged armed rebellion because of seditious actions against us" is nonsense and pathetic. The government should enforce the law - something they do like doing because it doesn't suit their agenda and they don't think it applies to them.

You are very muddled in your analysis but you actually inadvertently make my key point for me.Suthep is on record as calling on the army to overthrow the democratically elected government, ie armed rebellion.He has (to date) failed and we will see whether charges of sedition will be pursued in the future - though I suspect they won't.The whole PDRC strategy is to provoke violence.

As to charges against the government (as with those against Suthep) these should be pursued in the courts.However it is reasonable that the courts and related independent agencies should demonstrate they are non partisan.This is an uncertain area in Thail;and

Google the author and make your own minds up whether she is entitled to preach to anybody about a moral compass.