jayboy

You are correct.Occasionally a straight man will use ka when he is being flirtatious with the opposite sex.It's not that common however and I certainly wouldn't recommend the practice to a foreigner.

Looks like it's going to be an embarrassingly low turnout for this anti-government rally/protest/dinner party today.

I think the present government is terrible, but unfortunately very few Thais seem bothered, so very little will happen this week unless the big guns whip up the population into some sort of frenzy. At the moment it looks like vastly more people are interested in going about their normal Sunday business of shopping and sitting in traffic jams.

Turnout proved to be pathetic, about 1500 by most on hand reports.English language reported 4,000 language reported 4,000, an obvious exaggeration but it doesn't really matter.The proto fascist leaders ranted the government would be overturned in seven days.How disappointing for the usual suspects.

Opinion polls reported a big loss of support for the government (actually true as often happens mid-term) but buried the awkward finding that PTP was easily the most popular party and the Democrats as unpopular as ever.

If you Abhisit knockers really want to see a leader of this country making an ass of themselves in public on the international stage have a look at :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/657572-wait-till-we-get-home/

Once you have had a good look ask yourself "Will she ever be invited back"

Answer : Not if MRS O has any say in it.

Once you have done that look back at Chalerm's drunken antics when he was deputy PM, as reported in the international media.

Then come back and compare it to Abhisit arriving on Koh Samet by the normal means.

Here we go again.Abhisit makes an idiot of himself albeit mildly and the agitated usual suspects try and divert attention.Look we know all politicians are somewhat ridiculous but this is a thread about Abhisit.

The yellow occupoation of the airports was less destructive but in some ways more poisonous because it set a precedent that street mobs could dictate to elected governments.If one sows the hurricane, one tends to reap the whirlwind.The "very educate" proto fascists in the PAD set the trend and the reds followed their example.

Are you going the 5 year old kid's excuse of " ... but they did it first"??

They set the precedent for lawless confrontation with an elected government and they are meant to be the responsible civilised educated people not the ignorant peasants.

So, that's a Yes.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

So you don't understand what setting a precedent means.And who's behaving like a five year old now?

The yellow occupoation of the airports was less destructive but in some ways more poisonous because it set a precedent that street mobs could dictate to elected governments.If one sows the hurricane, one tends to reap the whirlwind.The "very educate" proto fascists in the PAD set the trend and the reds followed their example.

Are you going the 5 year old kid's excuse of " ... but they did it first"??

They set the precedent for lawless confrontation with an elected government and they are meant to be the responsible civilised educated people not the ignorant peasants.

Surely it is the intellect and not the institution which separates the Prime Minister and Abhisit.

• Louis Vuitton handbag range ... or was it shoes ... or was it she was getting her hair done .

• shopaholic yingluck

• The current corn flakes packet educated leader

There is no place for the usual negative Triped out nonsense on this forum or for the ex leader in Thailand's politics.

The Thai people have given a clear mandate.

What drunken condo bound falungs think is totally irrelevant, if not some what amusing.

Maybe you could enlighten us with the clear mandate 52% of the voting population gave.

Better to be amusing than siting on a bar stool paying some over the hill lady to tell you she loves you. Or to being just plain ignorant.

It's a clear mandate.All democracies tend to be split more or less down the middle so electoral battles are really about convincing floating voters at the margin.The PTP won this battle at the last election, actually quite easily and thus have a convincing mandate.

Naturally a few Neanderthals argue the toss as they do with Obama's victory in the US.But they're not really worth bothering with.

No body argues Obama's victory in the US. You are thinking of Bush and Gore. Same thing we have here the minority got to choose the mandate and look at the results the US got two unwinable wars and we get to make politicians richer than ever before and the poor just as poor if not more so. Also get to have bills that have nothing to do with reunification of a deeply divided country. Rather ones that no matter which ever way they go will just deepen the divide.

Don't lecture me on recent US history.There are a great many who question Obama's mandate not least the GOP majority in the US Senate.The rest of your post is just bar talk drivel and unworthy of a response.

Wow, i didn't realize the whole of Bangkok was closed.

Somebody has been reading The Nation( and believing it)

They think that closing down a fee shoppinging centers and hotels is " the entire city"

Yet when you bring up the terrorists that commandeered an internationàl airport they dismiss it.

There was a world of difference between the Airport bloodless sit in by the Yellow Shirts, and the Bloody violence and commandeering a City and Burning Government Buildings in various parts of Thailand,crimes committed by the Red Shirt Mob. You may believe it was of no consequence that several large companies and Vendors lost their livelihood,because of the arson and disruption,but not many would agree with you.

The yellow occupoation of the airports was less destructive but in some ways more poisonous because it set a precedent that street mobs could dictate to elected governments.If one sows the hurricane, one tends to reap the whirlwind.The "very educate" proto fascists in the PAD set the trend and the reds followed their example.

It's not so much well connected as for the reality that the army is never accountable for its crimes, in this case an appalling atrocity.The usual suspects on this forum and elsewhere were more interested in Tak Bai as a way of attacking Thaksin.Undoubtedly he had responsibility as PM at the time and a more honourable man would have reacted differently than the callous way that he did.But he was not personally involved.These crimes were committed by the Thai army with its history of cruelty and brutality.Its senior officers have escaped scot free once again.And the reaction of the usual suspects (unless they can somehow work Thaksin in) .....a long cool silence.

I hope you feel the same about Abhisit and Suthep in 2010. The PM asks the army to restore order after police refuse, the army handles the situation pretty much as you would expect, given that they are an army not a police force. If one PM is charged, they should all be charged, including Yingluck if anyone gets hurt next week.

If, heaven forbid, protestors against the current government are shot in the streets by the army or police of course those in positions of responsibility, certainly including the PM, should be investigated and if appropriate charged.

It's not so much well connected as for the reality that the army is never accountable for its crimes, in this case an appalling atrocity.The usual suspects on this forum and elsewhere were more interested in Tak Bai as a way of attacking Thaksin.Undoubtedly he had responsibility as PM at the time and a more honourable man would have reacted differently than the callous way that he did.But he was not personally involved.These crimes were committed by the Thai army with its history of cruelty and brutality.Its senior officers have escaped scot free once again.And the reaction of the usual suspects (unless they can somehow work Thaksin in) .....a long cool silence.

Does the same apply for Abhisit as well then? As The DL's rent a thugs seem to think that he was personally involved in the deaths of their terrorists in Bangkok.

anyth

It's a fair point.The issue really is whether Abhisit signed off the rules of engagement covering live fire on civilians.But I think it's significant that whatever their responsibility the practical position is neither Abhisit nor Thaksin will be made accountable for these crimes because that would implicate the military - and in Thailand army criminality is never punished.

I think we can hold Abhisit responsible for 2010 sort of by default. He's the one that could've taken action to stop the killing, whether he explicitly greenlighted it or not. By not resigning and calling an election, the killing was made inevitable as it was obvious that the red shirts weren't going to simply give up and go home. By contrast, I'm not sure there's anything Thaksin could've done to stop what happened at Tak Bai, because the suffocation wasn't known about until after they were already dead. But there's enough crimes that Thaksin should legitimately be held to account for, like the 1000+ deaths during the war on drugs, which was no accident.

I think that's fair.The drugs war initiated by Thaksin was his worst crime.One has to wonder however why Thaksin has never been charged with this and Abhisit did nothing about it during his term of office especially as we know through Wikileaks the amart was desparate to find some charge to pursue him (Thaksin) with.Why ignore the biggest crime of all? The smarter members of course already know the answer.

It's not so much well connected as for the reality that the army is never accountable for its crimes, in this case an appalling atrocity.The usual suspects on this forum and elsewhere were more interested in Tak Bai as a way of attacking Thaksin.Undoubtedly he had responsibility as PM at the time and a more honourable man would have reacted differently than the callous way that he did.But he was not personally involved.These crimes were committed by the Thai army with its history of cruelty and brutality.Its senior officers have escaped scot free once again.And the reaction of the usual suspects (unless they can somehow work Thaksin in) .....a long cool silence.

Not bad you managed to defend and condemn Thaksin in the same paragraph.

Yes that's quite true because nothing is ever black or white.It's a world of nuance where for example, since we are talking about them, both Thaksin and Abhisit have their strong points and their weak points.Discussion to achieve understanding doesn't deal in cartoon like or bar room talk where everything is crystal clear and without ambiguity.For some that's the comfort zone where Thaksin (or Abhisit) is the devil incarnate with few if any redeeming features.But for educated and perceptive people there's always ambiguity, with the understanding that any one person may have good and bad qualities.

It's not so much well connected as for the reality that the army is never accountable for its crimes, in this case an appalling atrocity.The usual suspects on this forum and elsewhere were more interested in Tak Bai as a way of attacking Thaksin.Undoubtedly he had responsibility as PM at the time and a more honourable man would have reacted differently than the callous way that he did.But he was not personally involved.These crimes were committed by the Thai army with its history of cruelty and brutality.Its senior officers have escaped scot free once again.And the reaction of the usual suspects (unless they can somehow work Thaksin in) .....a long cool silence.

Does the same apply for Abhisit as well then? As The DL's rent a thugs seem to think that he was personally involved in the deaths of their terrorists in Bangkok.

It's a fair point.The issue really is whether Abhisit signed off the rules of engagement covering live fire on civilians.But I think it's significant that whatever their responsibility the practical position is neither Abhisit nor Thaksin will be made accountable for these crimes because that would implicate the military - and in Thailand army criminality is never punished.

There can be a reasonable debate whether a majority of Thais support Thaksin.There is never any "evidence" apart from opinion polls which are obviously not completely accurate.I have never actually seen an opinion poll pose that particular question anyway.

But some points cannot be denied

1.He is the most popular politician in the country albeit a very divisive one.

2.Parties very closely associated with him have consistently won national general elections in recent years.

3.The vast majority of PTP voters are supporters of Thaksin.

4.The success of Thaksin and the PTP did not arise from vote buying, regional power broking, an ignorant electorate but rather the failure of the existing political establishment to address the aspirations of the Thai majority.

5.The fall of governments associated with THaksin has not been because the THai people wished it but rather through army intervention and latterly a highly politicised network of judges.

As noted there can be a reasonable discussion of whether a majority support Thaksin.The reality is however that democracies tend to be pretty much divided down the middle (eg US, UK, France, Japan,Germany etc) and landslide results tend to be found in totalitarian regimes.

It's a question of playing by the electoral rules.But as in the US where embittered reactionaries even now question Obama's mandate, there are those on this forum who mutter about the Thai government not having a majority.It was ever thus.

1. He is the most unpopular politician in the country.

2. He has "won" elections because the people who don't want him don't all vote for the same party.

3. That would definitely imply that the original statement by DiNiro is not true.

4. <deleted>? Ofcourse Thaksin's success arose from regional power broking. Why else would regional parties have merged into TRT?

5. Like the politicised judges that let Thaksin off his assets charges?

I didn't say anything about the government having a majority. I was questioning the statement that the majority of Thais support Thaksin. The evidence doesn't point to that.

1.Yes, that's probably true.I said he was very divisive.Seems odd but he manages to be the most popular and the most unpopular.Not unusual - Obama fits that category too.

2.Er, yes.That's true with almost every election in every parliamentary democracy.

3.How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Can argue forever over what can't be proved.Anyway I speak only for myself.

4.I didn't say anything about the background to Thaksin's political success.All parties have regional networks and the Demoicrats a particularly murky one in the South.I was simply pointing out that when the Thai people had to choose they chose Thaksin or his representatives.

5.Silly response.The judicial system in Thailand has always been biased towards the government in power, though not noticeably now.However it's a completely different matter to the old establishment's systemised judicial intervention (as a less tainted alternative to military coups).

There is no evidence that the majority of Thais don't support Thaksin either.The evidence doesn't in fact point anywhere other than the country is deeply divided.

There can be a reasonable debate whether a majority of Thais support Thaksin.There is never any "evidence" apart from opinion polls which are obviously not completely accurate.I have never actually seen an opinion poll pose that particular question anyway.

But some points cannot be denied

1.He is the most popular politician in the country albeit a very divisive one.

2.Parties very closely associated with him have consistently won national general elections in recent years.

3.The vast majority of PTP voters are supporters of Thaksin.

4.The success of Thaksin and the PTP did not arise from vote buying, regional power broking, an ignorant electorate but rather the failure of the existing political establishment to address the aspirations of the Thai majority.

5.The fall of governments associated with THaksin has not been because the THai people wished it but rather through army intervention and latterly a highly politicised network of judges.

As noted there can be a reasonable discussion of whether a majority support Thaksin.The reality is however that democracies tend to be pretty much divided down the middle (eg US, UK, France, Japan,Germany etc) and landslide results tend to be found in totalitarian regimes.

It's a question of playing by the electoral rules.But as in the US where embittered reactionaries even now question Obama's mandate, there are those on this forum who mutter about the Thai government not having a majority.It was ever thus.

1. He is the most unpopular politician in the country.

2. He has "won" elections because the people who don't want him don't all vote for the same party.

3. That would definitely imply that the original statement by DiNiro is not true.

4. <deleted>? Ofcourse Thaksin's success arose from regional power broking. Why else would regional parties have merged into TRT?

5. Like the politicised judges that let Thaksin off his assets charges?

I didn't say anything about the government having a majority. I was questioning the statement that the majority of Thais support Thaksin. The evidence doesn't point to that.

1.Yes, that's probably true.I said he was very divisive.Seems odd but he manages to be the most popular and the most unpopular.Not unusual - Obama fits that category too.

2.Er, yes.That's true with almost every election in every parliamentary democracy.

3.How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Can argue forever over what can't be proved.Anyway I speak only for myself.

4.I didn't say anything about the background to Thaksin's political success.All parties have regional networks and the Demoicrats a particularly murky one in the South.I was simply pointing out that when the Thai people had to choose they chose Thaksin or his representatives.

5.Silly response.The judicial system in Thailand has always been biased towards the government in power, though not noticeably now.However it's a completely different matter to the old establishment's systemised judicial intervention (as a less tainted alternative to military coups).

There is no evidence that the majority of Thais don't support Thaksin either.The evidence doesn't in fact point anywhere other than the country is deeply divided.

The pin was not removed ? Police are looking for some clearly determined offenders

One doesn't have to be a genius to work out which political grouping was responsible for this laughable incident (put it in the same category as faked Al Quaeda movies, although to be fair that involved making a slight effort).

Mr. Jatupon Prompan, who also serves as an MP for the Pheu Thai Party, said violent confrontation is exactly what the anti-government forces want to see.

I doubt the anti-government forces want to see it...but I'm pretty sure they'll get it going on the past history of the reds and 'peaceful' protests

Why do you doubt it? I would have thought violent confrontation was exactly what the anti government forces wants to see - preferably bloody - although of course it would not be openly admitted.The rationale is obvious, namely it would provide the excuse for a military or judicial intervention to save the nation, protect the nation's key institutions, end corruption etc.We have been here before.The onlky difference is that whereas in the past such interventions have followed a fairly predictable course, the consequences now would be completely unpredictable

Good or bad, there is no denying Thaksin has the support of the majority of Thais.

Can you supply any evidence that a majority of Thais support Thaksin?

Maybe you suggesting that some Thaksin supporters didn't vote for PTP at the last election and that all of those that did vote PTP do support Thaksin.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

There can be a reasonable debate whether a majority of Thais support Thaksin.There is never any "evidence" apart from opinion polls which are obviously not completely accurate.I have never actually seen an opinion poll pose that particular question anyway.

But some points cannot be denied

1.He is the most popular politician in the country albeit a very divisive one.

2.Parties very closely associated with him have consistently won national general elections in recent years.

3.The vast majority of PTP voters are supporters of Thaksin.

4.The success of Thaksin and the PTP did not arise from vote buying, regional power broking, an ignorant electorate but rather the failure of the existing political establishment to address the aspirations of the Thai majority.

5.The fall of governments associated with THaksin has not been because the THai people wished it but rather through army intervention and latterly a highly politicised network of judges.

As noted there can be a reasonable discussion of whether a majority support Thaksin.The reality is however that democracies tend to be pretty much divided down the middle (eg US, UK, France, Japan,Germany etc) and landslide results tend to be found in totalitarian regimes.

It's a question of playing by the electoral rules.But as in the US where embittered reactionaries even now question Obama's mandate, there are those on this forum who mutter about the Thai government not having a majority.It was ever thus.

Good or bad, there is no denying Thaksin has the support of the majority of Thais.

I would dispute that and would cite the losses of all by elections, bar 1, by the PTP, since the last general election, as proof.

In that case you would dispute every opinion poll for the last two years which show the PTP as the most popular party, though having a decline in margin in the last six months - but still several points ahead of the Democrats.

The acid test is of course another general election which significantly the Democtats are anxious isn't held any time soon.

Could also be that the half-Chinese "foreigner" living in Dubai was involved in the sprank.

That's a strange phrase.If one was going to stigmatise "half Chinese" people in Thailand that would include half the population of Bangok and urban centres, the court, the privy council, the senior officer corps of army, the navy, the airforce, most big business, the medical prefession, the legal profession etc etc

Is Thaksin half Thai/Chinese or isn´t he?

Meaningless question.Does he have Chinese ancestry? Yes along with many millions of other Thais including the Royal Family.

Could also be that the half-Chinese "foreigner" living in Dubai was involved in the sprank.

That's a strange phrase.If one was going to stigmatise "half Chinese" people in Thailand that would include half the population of Bangok and urban centres, the court, the privy council, the senior officer corps of army, the navy, the airforce, most big business, the medical prefession, the legal profession etc etc

Almost every senior army officer or senior civil servant has a net worth that is inexplicable in terms of salary received and/or inherited wealth.

Why not concentrate on a certain family whose wealth is easily explainable - by corrupt business deals, tax evasion, and conflict of interest deals carried out while in office?

Because it is as you say easily explainable (and also not relevant to this thread).I think you mean tax avoidance (legal) not evasion (illegal) if you are referring to the Temasek deal.

Another example of the usual suspects invoking Thaksin quite irrelevantly whenever discussion strays on to ground where they are uncomfortable (ie massive corruption in military and public sector)

As I didn't mention Thaksin, irrelevantly or otherwise, I now have to wonder who you usually suspect. My point was why look at inexplicable wealth, when there are obvious examples of corruption in political families, a group you left out, before descending to the second level. However massive the corruption in the military and public service, and there's nothing "uncomfortable' about it, it is minor compared to that currently being carried out by politicians.

Then again, that is your discomfort zone, when comparisons are made of the relative value to Thais of their lost opportunities compared to democratic principle.

Actually you did refer to Thaksin - dragged in as usual out of context.Or if his family was not a certain political family - explain which one you had in mind.

There is a kind of hypocrisy at work here.For some the corruption in political circles is used as a weapon by the reactionary right to beat the concept of democracy.It's not so much corruption they hate as democracy itself.And to cap it all among the most shrill supporters in this proto fascist group are senior military senior officers who live the life of millionaires, having never been paid more than very modest salaries.Go figure.

Corruption is a blight on Thailand at all levels.There is no level which is "better" than other levels.