jayboy

I just hope she has learnt some lessons from the speech and never tries to repeat it or anything like it again.

Why? She was speaking no more than the truth.

In the UK there is opposition to the institution of monarchy ...

A tiny minority of cranks.Polls have shown that time and time again.

The Minister's comments are absurd and counter productive.It is entirely normal in a democracy for its leaders to be criticised, teased and mocked.If there is libel, slander or defamation involved then the minister concerned has the right to take measures in accordance with the law.Normally however it is foolish to do so and politicians should have thick skins.Ludicrous assertions (eg the prostitute jibe) tend to rebound on the original source.The public isn't as gullible as some believe. It is disheartening also that this kind of stupidity gives ammunition to the reactionary element in Thailand (whose own record on allowing free speech is disgustingly bad) to say (as it were) - look at them, they're just as repressive as us.

It amaze me why someone who wants to move to Thailand for retirement reasons would not plan in advance for health insurance before even coming here. That should be one of the top things to consider at that age before making a move.

Such a smug attitude clearly written by someone who doesn't know how it feels to be UNINSURABLE.

It may seem a little heartless but it does draw attention to an important point.There is no official Thai policy to encourage low and middle income foreigners to retire here.Certainly there are many such expatriates falling into this category but the phenonomen is relatively recent - certainly not more than thirty years or so.Thai Immigration policy is very liberal in some ways and the current arrangements represent a pragmatic response to the very large numbers seeking to retire here.Over the last few decades Thailand has developed fast and there is no pressing economic need to encourage a large population of relatively poor Westerners.I don't believe that existing retirees will be adversely affected but equally it's unrealistic to expect the Thai authorities to extend privileges in health care to people who can't afford medical treatment or who don't have comprehensive health insurance.The cost of the latter is sometimes profoundly underestimated.For a 65 year male the premium cost for a first class cover could easily be Baht 200,000 per year with increases thereafter well over the inflation rate.

The painful conclusion is that there are many thousands of expatriates -if they are going to be careful about their health - who should not really be here at all.They simply can't afford it.Realistically the vast majority can't or won't go home, and in the case of those who have Thai partners and families one can entirely understand their reasoning.

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

Probably again forum rules if I just say "quit the BS", but the topic here is Ms. Yingluck having learned a lesson, allegedly that is. That has nothing to do with a Democracy like Thailand where the less education people can be manipulated into voting for a political party with a nice lady as visible postergirl and with said party owned by a criminal fugitive. If you could graciously consent, I only go back 200 years, but in the Netherlands we never had a political party owned by a single person. I do not know enough of UK history to say anything about the situation there. In Thailand village elders still tell their flock who to vote for and check that that's actually done. Democracy in it's infancy. A few facts PM Yingluck simple forgot to mention in her speech in Mongolia.

BTW 'mandate' doesn't mean can ignore the law or block the opposition from doing it's work. That's undemocratic, another item Ms. Yingluck failed to mention. One may be excused to wonder what lessons Ms. Yingluck refered to as having learned

I note the genial mask slips when confronted with unpalatable truths.

You repeat the stale and offensive canard of the less educated being manipulated into voting a particular way.All voters vote in their own interests and it is absurd to suggest that an educated urbanite is somehow less selfish with his vote than a rice farmer.You also confuse education with intelligence.

If you genuinely believe the current government is in power because "village elders" ordered people to vote in a particular way, you need to do more homework.

It's absolutely reasonable that the PM's speech should be criticised by her political opponents.However since their own record in nourishing Thai democracy is so appalling it's not surprising their protests are unconvincing (and in the case of many comments in the social media - completely unhinged).

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but 47% of the vote count does not alter criminality or the basic tenets of democracy.

Simply not an adequate response.In most democracies (actually almost by definition) the winning part doesn't have North Korean type landslides.The USA for example is almost always split done the middle.However close the margin the winners are the winners and all sides accept the rules of the game.

I agree democracy is about more than elections.In Thailand that is obviously work in progress, and political pressure on the courts was an issue long before Thaksin.The problem in Thailand in recent years is that the established elites find it difficult to accept the peoples verdict when it is in conflict with their wishes.

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained. If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result. None of this is ideal or heathy. However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large. And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash. That's exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round. Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

My knowledge of the English language needs to be improved. I always thought that 'elected' and 'endorsed' had different meanings.

So, the not placed, non-candidate Thaksin was not not-elected, but his party was endorsed. Next we'll hear that PM Yingluck did not not-complain about the damage to her family and how her non-candidate brother Thaksin was somehow 'elected' as his party was 'endorsed'. I'm sure the congress on democracy would have really loved to have that construction explained.

Your English language skills are adequate if not very polished.It's your analytical intelligence that needs working on.Political parties endorsed by and closely assoviated with Thaksin have in recent years consistently won general elections in Thailand and show every sign of doing so in the future.Not so hard to grasp.The last government headed by Abhisit came to power through dubious back door deals, again not so hard to grasp.After the criminality of the military coup and a series of ludicrous decisions by directed courts yielded nothing but electoral humiliation, the old elites realised they had to work within the rules of democracy.In a parliamentary democracy this type of back door activity is permitted but as time goes by it's morally and politically necessary to face the electorate directly.When this finally took place, Abhisit and his Democrat party were very clearly rejected by the Thai people.What Yingluck had to say in Mongolia brought the reactioonary bigots out from the sewers but we shall see how she is regarded in the next general election, assuming the criminal unelectred elites don't find some way of defying the Thai people once again.Again not so very hard to grasp.

Personally, since there are major arguments against Thaksin's baleful influence, I would in the DEmocrats' position be working on making our policies more acceptable to the Thai people.Simply ranting about Thaksin doesn't improve anything and indeedserves to underline the distance between the greedy old unelected elites (and their mainly Sino Thai middle class hangers on) and the Thai majority.Again not that hard to grasp.

Interesting. Now pray tell, it's Thaksin one of those unelected elite? With the PM lamenting her brothers victimizing in a lesson not learned yet?

No Thaksin despite his shortcomings was not one of the unelected elite.In case you hadn't noticed the people of Thailand have endorsed political parties associated with him again and again.

Yingluk and all red shirts should think why did the coup happen and why did so many who opposed the military in 1992 welcome them in 2006.

The insane autocracy and arrogance of her brother is the answer

It seems she has learnt nothing.

Agreed Thaksin was and is a meglomaniac.But it doesn't alter the fact that the unelected elites and the army have been criminally incompetent, to the point that the objective they profess to be of the highest importance is now theatened and in danger.This was nothing to do with Thaksin.

I'd agree with the PM that democracy went off-track about a decade ago, that was halfway through her brother's rule, when he began to talk about his party staying-in-power for 20 more years, and when the corruption by his government & its supporters began to emerge.

That's when I began to suspect that he wasn't, as many had hoped, the great looked-for improvement in Thai politics, but just one more normal grubby politician. Pity about the missed opportunity, but that's life.

Yingluck is also very careful not to blame the minor parties, who supported the Democrats during the two-and-a-half years they were in-power, might that perhaps be because both PPP and now PTP are quite happy to have them on their coalitions, do you think ?

Hold your nose dearie, they may smell but they follow the money, which makes them useful to your big brother, as he attempts to dismantle the rule-of-law and return to take back the power which he sees as rightfully his !

The last time it went of course was when Thaksins thugs did exactly what was being done now by putting pressure on the courts to get them to fold in his 2002 trial. Same piece of scum back doing the same thuggery now. Nothing has changed. We are heading down the same path to more bloodshed again now.

As for Yingluck. Have held off on her till now, but with her latest stupidity in Mongolia she now sits just as equally blame full for the events that are about to unfold on Thailand as the rest of her greedy thieving Dictatorial Shinawatra clan. The Isaanites in their uneducated millions deserve better than the pond scum Shinawatras.

Care to enlighten us on the events that are about to unfold?

The fact that you cannot find evidence doesn't really signify much.The coup leaders didnt appoint Abhisit but he was certainly the old order's candidate whose path to power was steered and guided.Frankly this is hardly a matter of much controversy and certainly not confined to red propaganda.

To stop the criticizing general Prayuth might want to mention that the original go-ahead was given by then PM Thaksin himself, ages ago in 2004.

You have evidence for this? It doesn't on the face of it make any sense because the PM, even a dubious one like Thaksin, would not be involved in a minor military procurement decision.I assume you are not lying so please provide supporting evidence for what you claim.

i would not assume that Thais have a higher regard for farangs who speak Thai, I think for some the opposite maybe true; eg when i first came to work in Bangkok, i asked my then secretary (quite a hiso, middle aged, Thai lady) to book me some lessons in the office ; I thought i should try to have at least a basic knowlege of the language. Her reaction was why bother? everyone in the company spoke English and would prefer to speak to me in English, all the meetings were in English, anyone i would need to talk to outside the company would likely also speak English and anyone who didnt well, thats what she was for. None of her previous bosses had bothered to learn it and anyway she added "only low class foreigners speak Thai ." I ignored her advice and went ahead with the lessons though i suspect quite a few Thais would share her views, shocking though that maybe for some on this forum.

I would tend to agree with this but adding a caveat it was a view much more prevalent in the 1960's and 1970's.At that time Bangkok had a much smaller and generally higher social status expatriate community, mostly employed by trading companies, embassies and the leading universities.Many - perhaps most- had girls or boys on the side and I expect these had a better grasp of basic Thai than the others.There was certainly no particular status attached to speaking Thai well though the capability would have been respected.I think you are right that the more patrician type of Thai would have been mildly puzzled at a foreigner speaking fluent Thai.Strangely enough I think there was more social mixing then than now between foreigners and well born Thais, but the language used would generally have been English.Now there are far more Thai speakers at a good level, notably the army of teachers which didn't really exist in the old days.In addition there was no army of expat residents who were in the country for no apparent reason than liking it .Some of these speak quite good polite Thai but most don't, not really surprising given the company they keep.

Thai is not among the easiest languages (French, Italian, Indonesian)

for Westerners but it is very far from being the most difficult

(Chinese, Japanese, Arabic)

no offence meant Khun Jayboy but i think you possess a wealth of no idea when

it concerns the languages you mentioned.

No offence taken because it's not my original thought.It's the view of many professional linguists including the astonishingly accomplished J.Marvin Brown whom many older hands will remember as the main developer of the AUA Thai Course.

Fluency is difficult, the tonal aspect of Thai ( and other Asian languages ) is effectively a cunning barrier against learning for we of a Western extract.

This issue has been the topic of conversation a few times in the last few days in my residence/hotel. My attitude is that it's retarded not to be able to count to 10 in Thai, not to know the words for left and right, not to be able to return a greeting in Thai.

Seriously, think about it........" I've lived here for three years and I can't count to 10 ".

Shocking and ignorant.......shame can be a good motivator to learn.

The tonal aspect of Thai is often invoked by those who don't know it as being a major obstacle to learning the language.It isn't.

Thai is not among the easiest languages (French, Italian, Indonesian) for Westerners but it is very far from being the most difficult (Chinese, Japanese, Arabic)

The language test you set (counting up to 10 etc) for foreigners after 3 years is absurd.After a fortnight - if that - seems about right.

Fees for Ascot are very reasonable. I think it's a hidden gem

But didn't you say in an earlier post you negotiated a discount?

Discounts for siblings are standard at many schools.However if a school starts offering discounts in a non transparent way this can be a dangerous and slippery slope because it inevitably leaks out and gives the impression of desperation.Also parents who are struggling to afford the stated fees will be understandably resentful if other parents are negotiating a cheaper deal.

Reduced fees for highly talented children is a different matter

Schools want different types of students for different reasons. Some want blue eyed blondes to make them appear to be more like an international school for example. If you have something you think the school wants then give it a shot. I went to many schools and asked for discounts, some said yes off the bat, some took lengthy negotiations, some gave a flat no. It depends on circumstances. What you've described above is nonsense sorry to say. Leaks out how?? Such and such school is crap cos they give discounts??? Doesn't happen. Expats gossip about everything from maids/childcare to supermarkets/holiday resorts to removalists etc and it remains just that, gossip.

I'm not so sure.There is no objection to schools offering reduced fees to pupils for particular reasons of which academic, artistic or sporting prowess are the most obvious.You are sadly probably right that in Bangkok some international schools might want to have a higher proportion of "blue eyes" as a marketing strategy (by definition the second tier ones insecure about their "international" status:the first tier ones wouldn't need to).However my main point is that it is extremely unfair if some parents struggle to come up with school fees if other parents in a similar position receive discounts.As earlier mentioned I am not referring to children with special talents or sibling discounts - these are perfectly normal.As long as there is clear explanation and a transparent process there is really no problem.You are in my view completely mistaken if you think this kind of discrimination -where it exists - can be hidden or written off as gossip.Indeed I am aware of two families that have avoided schools for thjis reason (and to be fair also because the ownership/financial management aspect wasn't very clear).The market for international schools in Bangkok is very competitive and if there is no parental confidence in the transparency of fees being charged, that will eventually rebound to the detriment of the school concerned.Education shouldn't be like buying a used car where one has to negotiate with some spivs for the best price.

Just to put it in perspective, 60% of Britons oppose the taxpayer funding the funeral, and 41% disagreed that she was Britain's greatest peacetime prime minister as opposed to the 25% of Mail, Express and Telegraph readers who think she was.

So most agreed she was the country's greatest peace time Prime Minister.Personally I would rank Clement Attlee above her but she would certainly be in second place.

Clem Attlee when PM used at the end of the day walk the couple of miles from the train station to his home.When some suggested that as Prime Minister he should take a chauffeur driven car,he responded that would be a quite unnecessary waste of tax payers money.A different and I think a better type of politician.

Fees for Ascot are very reasonable. I think it's a hidden gem

But didn't you say in an earlier post you negotiated a discount?

Discounts for siblings are standard at many schools.However if a school starts offering discounts in a non transparent way this can be a dangerous and slippery slope because it inevitably leaks out and gives the impression of desperation.Also parents who are struggling to afford the stated fees will be understandably resentful if other parents are negotiating a cheaper deal.

Reduced fees for highly talented children is a different matter

Many older poeple will judge Margaret Thatcher's time through the prism of their own experiences. I spent the Thatcher years in Wales and Scotland, and saw at first hand what her policies meant for ordinary people. It was a time of retrenchment and insecurity in my own area of employment. The seventies had been a difficult decade, not least because of the sharp increase in oil prices, and Britain did need to change. Yet the way this was done brought enormous social costs. For those in the Southeast of England though, the pain was relatively short lived and the gains tangible - hence her popularity there. The enduring impact came in areas like privatisation, deregulation, monetarist economics, and the toleration of increasing social inequality on the theory that this would bring faster economic growth. Your verdict on the Thatcher government is likely to depend on whether you believe these brought the claimed benefits. Personally I wish we had chosen a different path.

A brief and pithy post, with the member concerned (if I may summarise) clearly sceptical about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher given the social impact of her policies in the regions.I disagree with little except that I believe that on balance the changes she introduced were positive.I also believe citizen33 might recall the total despair that many of us felt at the way the country was going before Mrs Thatcher came to power.Perhaps not worth my comment but I'd like to record that if all our posts had a small fraction of citizen33's calmness, intelligence,solid content and balance this would be a better forum.

If you recall there were rock solid institutions called Building Societies with sensible lending policies. Also rock solid Mutual Societies almost all of whom went the way of the Halifax one of the most rock solid of all. What an achievement.

You are talking nonsense.Banks are and always were separate from building societies.In any case the demise of building societies was nothing to do with Thatcher.The disastrous deregulation of the banking sector did not happen on her watch but under that of Labour.