jayboy

I guess the question is: <deleted> does she know about Thailand? You gotta live here to be remotely knowledgeable about local issues.

Actually that's not the question.The question is whether she has anything to contribute that makes her presence worthwhile.

The fact she doesn't live here is irrelevant.Bill Clinton and George Mitchell didn't live in Ireland yet contributed enormously to the settlement in Ulster.

Indeed the fact they didn't live there and had no local associations or loyalties was helpful to their efforts.

As to Thailand there are hundreds of thousands foreign retired or current downmarket sexpats milling around with their Thai "families", some of whom have been here for years.I'm not convinvced their views are likely to be of much intererest or even coherent.

As to Emma Thompson I have to say the rule of thumb applies that luvvies views on matters outside their profession are invaraiably fatuous.She is a fine actress (made me blub in her performance in the little seen, "Wit", dam her).

Tony Blair is a different matter.Can't bear him myself but I can see that he might have something to contribute.

And Jayboy comparing Egypt and Thailand is chalk and cheese. In Egypt you are seeing a government / Army combination out of control. See the hundreds possibly by now thousand(?) being gunned down. It is idiotic to compare the two considering from both sides in the Thaksin led terrorist attack on Bangkok the indiscriminate numbers guilty to both side, and here I compare the 6 that are probable black marks against the Army in the final assault on the temple vs the General and his men who died in the Thaksin paid for assault which then set the tone of response which was measured compared to what is occurring in Egypt.

I do agree however that the Thaksin led attempted 2010 coup against the legitimate government of the time, no matter how much the Reds eyes can't accept that, was criminal and in fact Thaksin has more to answer than that in it is best described as terrorist.

You not only miss the point but don't seem to understand the issue.Of course the circumstances are quite different in Thailand and Egypt (notably the scale of violence) but there are enough similarities to make the comparison not only worth while but extremely interesting.It is by making this analysis, as for example in Ian Buruma's piece posted earlier, that one understands what is the same and what is different.

Incidentally many the defenders of the slaughter by the army in Egypt are making much the same kind of dishonest defence of the arm's brutality as we have heard in Thailand, on this forum and elsewhere.A cut and paste job of the usual suspects exculpation of the army's savagery could be applied in both countries indistinguishably

jayboy: This crude semi-literate post attracts support from the usual reactionaries.No surprise there but there is a problem in the logic they follow.The foreign minister is speaking no more than the plain and simple truth, and I note he does not attribute blame to any one side.Violence is not the answer to resolving political problems.

Also incredibly throughout this thread there is no mention of the criminal military coup which in Thailand as in Egypt made a difficult situation ten times worse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to jayboy: It may be a blunt post, but I do not find it semi-literate. It expresses an opinion in colorful, passionate language that most of us have used at one time or another. Your main point is that its logic is flawed. Why not stick with that?

Fair enough and point taken.One has to deal with so much ignorance and prejudice that occasionally one forgets one's manners.But you are right to rebuke me.

On the topic subject matter here's an interesting article by the excellent Ian Buruma contrasting the situation in Egypt and Thailand.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/give-democracy-a-chance-in-egypt/article13724965/

Why would the Democrat spokewoman posted a " doctored " photo...

I suspect Malika thought she was just having a bit of fun, an ex journalist with the tongue of a street vendor, I think she thought, like most Thais, calling some raed, rhino, in Thai is not that serious, only meaning a flirt, and in the context of tiger, lion and bull on the photo.

In my view Tarit has seriously overreacted, wasting public money on a nonsense issue.

However if Yingluck intends to stay in politics she needs to develop a thicker skin, like a rhino in fact!

I agree it's not a serious issue and also that Tarit overreacted.Nobody should be pursued not least because in a free society mocking politicians isn't a crime.However where I differ slightly from you is to dispute whether this was simply just a bit of fun.It seems to me that there was also an element of malice and above all a total lack of class.Having said that it isn't really a big deal and too many words have already been spent on this silly season story.

I really cannot believe the nerve and thick skin on these people. Fix the sh@t in your own backyard and get your own house in order before you lecture other people. Bloody shameless, self serving animals.

This crude semi-literate post attracts support from the usual reactionaries.No surprise there but there is a problem in the logic they follow.The foreign minister is speaking no more than the plain and simple truth, and I note he does not attribute blame to any one side.Violence is not the answer to resolving political problems.

Also incredibly throughout this thread there is no mention of the criminal military coup which in Thailand as in Egypt made a difficult situation ten times worse.

Wrong."Slut" is too strong agreed, but it can mean something like eagerly flirtatious.It's usually mentioned in fun or in a self mocking way.

This is one of those Thai stories that to use a cliche is Kafkaesque.Nobody comes off well whether it Yingluck, Tarit or the Democratic spokeswoman - though the latter is particularly contemptible in my view for her sheer vulgarity and bad manners.

After the US president's visit, doesn't your description seem accurate? But how do we get from 'fun or in a self mocking way' to 'particularly contemptible in my view for her sheer vulgarity and bad manners'?

Because there is a huge difference between ribbing among friends and making a malicious posting on Facebook.It's a question of class - which some will immediately understand and some never will,

Yes, we colonials are much less class conscious. Do you still tug the forelock?

Even on the simplest issues you manage to miss the point.

The reference was not to social class distinction (though you are kidding yourself if you believe it doesn't exist in Australia) but the natural class that may equally be seen in a poor farmer as a peer of the realm.

Why is Thailand going bankrupt, where did the money go???? Look at where our Prime Minister travels, and you know the answer...

On what basis do you make the statement Thailand is going bankrupt?

Apparently, you think it is funny to make a false and misleading statement like that. I do not. Get back to me once you have read the Thai national budget and national "balance sheet". I hope you have the ability to read a financial statement and to understand "big numbers".

Thailand is approximately 50% of GDP in debt and growing.

Expenditure is greater than income and growing.

Imports now exceed exports and growing.

Given the above, a 2.2 trillion loan over 50 years and a wavering Moody's rating which would vastly increase interest payments I'd say he was about right.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The Moody's adjustment in Thailand's rating was essentially a technical one applying a changed methodology in assessing local currency risk.

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-adjusts-country-ceilings-for-Thailand-Oman-and-Mongolia--PR_277902

Money quote:

"The adjusted local currency ceilings are consistent with the methodological framework which positions the ceiling against Thailand's Sovereign Bond rating of Baa1 and Sovereign Bond Methodology factor scores, three of which are the key drivers of the ceiling. In Thailand's case, these consist of a 'moderate' assessment of Economic Strength, a 'moderate' assessment of Institutional Strength and a 'low shaded to moderate' assessment of susceptibility to political, economic or institutional event risks.

The adjustment in the short-term FC bond ceiling stems from Moody's assessment of low transfer and convertibility risks given the country's ability and willingness to service both its public and private cross-border debt obligations. This view is supported by Thailand's healthy external liquidity position, characterized by low external debt and ample foreign exchange reserves."

The overall Moody's conclusion on Thailand was therefore very positive as the release above demonstrates.Needless to say it was ignored/censored in the political coverage by the English language press (The Nation and Bangkok Post) though it was mentioned in the business pages.There is I suppose an excuse for the usual suspects on the forum who don't really understand the issues and lack the capacity to be analytical.I'm not sure there's an excuse for the English language press (that is the reactionary editorial side not the occasional guest columnist who talks good sense)

That is 220 k USD PER MONTH.

Please, how many people does she take with her. This really is taking the p**s.

I can;'t believe that the CEO of GE, or Microsoft costs a remotely similar figure.

Not a valid comparison.The comparison is with the Prime Ministers/Presidents of economically similar sized countries in the region - say Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.By that correct comparison the budget looks very reasonable particularly as Khun Yingluck has significantly improved Thailand's overseas image after the incompetence and stupidity of the Abhisit/Kasit regime's efforts overseas.

In Thai idiom, the phrase ‘Tiger, Lion, Guar, …’ is followed by the word rhino. When placed together, the 4 words refer to a slutty woman (rhino also hold the same meaning as a standalone word).

Rhino (raeet) is not used as "slut", AFAIK, a "rhino" is an annoying, pretentious person. I can't thing many things more pretentious than pretending to be the PM of a country, so there's that.

Wrong."Slut" is too strong agreed, but it can mean something like eagerly flirtatious.It's usually mentioned in fun or in a self mocking way.

This is one of those Thai stories that to use a cliche is Kafkaesque.Nobody comes off well whether it Yingluck, Tarit or the Democratic spokeswoman - though the latter is particularly contemptible in my view for her sheer vulgarity and bad manners.

i have always understood the term to mean 'horny' as in aroused, but not exactly polite usage.

Yes there is an element of that but it's normally in jocular context between friends.

Wrong."Slut" is too strong agreed, but it can mean something like eagerly flirtatious.It's usually mentioned in fun or in a self mocking way.

This is one of those Thai stories that to use a cliche is Kafkaesque.Nobody comes off well whether it Yingluck, Tarit or the Democratic spokeswoman - though the latter is particularly contemptible in my view for her sheer vulgarity and bad manners.

After the US president's visit, doesn't your description seem accurate? But how do we get from 'fun or in a self mocking way' to 'particularly contemptible in my view for her sheer vulgarity and bad manners'?

Because there is a huge difference between ribbing among friends and making a malicious posting on Facebook.It's a question of class - which some will immediately understand and some never will,

In Thai idiom, the phrase ‘Tiger, Lion, Guar, …’ is followed by the word rhino. When placed together, the 4 words refer to a slutty woman (rhino also hold the same meaning as a standalone word).

Rhino (raeet) is not used as "slut", AFAIK, a "rhino" is an annoying, pretentious person. I can't thing many things more pretentious than pretending to be the PM of a country, so there's that.

Wrong."Slut" is too strong agreed, but it can mean something like eagerly flirtatious.It's usually mentioned in fun or in a self mocking way.

This is one of those Thai stories that to use a cliche is Kafkaesque.Nobody comes off well whether it Yingluck, Tarit or the Democratic spokeswoman - though the latter is particularly contemptible in my view for her sheer vulgarity and bad manners.

It was the students that caused the fall of the corrupt government dictator in 1973, Can they do it again? This is the student revolt than PM Samak said only one person dies, but hundreds are still missing.

Er, with one slight caveat.In 1973 the students were on the side of the Thai people not the fascists.The so called Peoples Army is the direct fascist descendant of the elite financed and supported villaged scouts and red gaurs

Why do I doubt that the UDD has similar reforms in mind as posters on this forum?

Because they represent a large proportion of the Thai people rather than a few embittered not very well educated foreign reactionaries with too much time on their hands?

You forgot the proto-fascists.

Would that proportion of the Thai populace that they represent be those they lied to about the legitimacy of the previous government, encouraged to carry out criminal acts on the basis of those lies, and then labelled that government as murderers for suppressing that insurrection? Just how legitimate is a government who used lies as a basis for much of their election campaign? And then paid off their criminal propagandists with MP positions, and a promise of amnesty, which k. Nattawhut is so desperately seeking before he is jailed for a looong period.

Er no, the protofascists are the street mob extremists (Dr Tui etc) supporting the old order - nothing to do with the UDD or forum members.

Your other sentence is just an incoherent rant, so no need to respond.

Why do I doubt that the UDD has similar reforms in mind as posters on this forum?

Because they represent a large proportion of the Thai people rather than a few embittered not very well educated foreign reactionaries with too much time on their hands?

There is nobody clever enough in this country to monitor a website.

You'd be surprised at what they "can" do here in terms of monitoring/surveillance. It's not as backwards as you imply.

Agreed.Abhisit's government set up the cyber scouts to spy on citzens for sedition so the infrastructure is in place.

Still the OP has a point.I don't know any Thai student who isn't able to bypass MICT controls.

Tony Blair to advise on reconcillation and reform? Like asking Dracula how to improve blood donating.

Actually I would have thought Tony Blair could make a slight but useful contribution in private discussions rather than in a public forum.But there are two problems.Firstly the achievement in Northern Ireland has been oversold since it more or less ignored the middle ground and effectively handed power to extremists.Thus its long term soundness remains unsure.Secondly, Tony Blair is as near mad as makes no difference.Mathew Parris the maverick but highly perceptive ex-Tory MP saw this problem before most of us, as far back as 1994.Amusingly quite recently when Parris was asked about the difference between Blair and Gordon Brown he said in the case of Tony Blair madness was a metaphor.In the case of Gordon Brown it was a diagnosis.

The big problems of the rich and famous.

If it has been me as Oprah I would have gotten all New Yorker on that snob and said: Look, B-word, show me that bag now or you won't know what hit you.

Which would simply have confirmed the store assistant's prejudices.

Who would have imagined the individual responsible for much of the mass communcitian system utilized in Thailand today, the same man who used a sign board with an X to denote refusal to answer a reporters inquiry, has been responsible for numerous innocents demise, responsible for numerious social upheavels/riots, brought the cronies/family into the positions of power of several governments since he absconded, and has enriched himself several times over at the expense of the Thai populist, would have a hand in this latest declaration?

Only those not suitable to brain washing nor those blind due to personal greed. Just hope there is strength in numbers and the number stand up to be counted..

Er, who exactly was it that established Thailand's cyber scouts to spy on online communications?

Clue:It wasn't Thaksin or anybody connected with him.

Very disappointing that no reference made to fruit and vegetable carving, surely the apogee of Thai civilisation and culture

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Your concept of personal mandate is a personal construction to suit your own views, not supported by law or parliamentary procedure. That it it should trigger an election or otherwise diminish the legitimacy of a government is the stuff of fantasy, and does not reflect the realities of politics.

It's not reflected in law and statute because it's nothing to do with these.It's a question of political strategy, that is shoring up a PM's position who has not faced the electorate as a potential leader.It's not even controversial so don't get too worked up.It's a consideration that applied to Samak and Somchai as much as Abhisit.

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Yingluck obviously has some sort of mandate, since her party won a majority of seats, even though they didn't get a majority of the vote. But I wasn't comparing her to Abhisit.

The PPP didn't "win" the election, but were able to form a coalition government by getting Samak elected PM in parliament. When Samak was forced to step down, the PPP chose not to call an election, and went to parliament to elect a new PM where Somchai was elected PM. Later, after PPP were disbanded, PTP was in government and chose not to call an election. They lost the vote for PM in parliament, where Abhisit was elected and was able to form a coalition government.

"Winning" the election is about forming government. Abhisit won the election in parliament and was able to form government.

Samak, Somchai and Abhisit were no different to each other. Their parties didn't get a majority of seats and didn't get the majority of votes. But, what they all got was the majority of MPs to support them. That gave them all the same mandate.

Cutting to the chase I agree.But once PM all three (Samak,Somchai and Abhisit) would need to consider recharging their personal mandate for reasons detailed in my earlier post.

How can they be democratically elected when the government the people chose is removed by a coup and then the courts?

It's quite simple but you are obsessed with Thaksin so you're never going to allow yourself to come to terms with it.

The people elect MPs. The MPs elect a PM. The PM forms government.

The MPs that were elected by the people elected Abhisit as PM and Abhisit formed government. That makes it a democratically elected government.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

Murky, but still democratically elected.

But, how do you get a mandate? Do you need the majority of people to vote for you? Or do you just need to get the majority of the MPs to vote for you?

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Do they think that foreign embassies are not aware of the implications of amnesty?

Does Abhisit really think that Kasit is the right person to "explain" the position to foreign diplomats.

In my experience over many years and over many subjects when a Thai decides it is necessary to explain something to a foreigner, what follows is generally a stream of confused and confusing drivel.

Maybe they could retain your services so that you could explain it all for them................

That's a intelligent post (or rather it woiud be if you were five years old).

Returning to my earlier post I should have made it clear I was referring to matters where the subject is projected as specifically Thai and thus hard for a foreigner to comprehend.In these circumstances the explanation is invariably drivel.

How can they be democratically elected when the government the people chose is removed by a coup and then the courts?

It's quite simple but you are obsessed with Thaksin so you're never going to allow yourself to come to terms with it.

The people elect MPs. The MPs elect a PM. The PM forms government.

The MPs that were elected by the people elected Abhisit as PM and Abhisit formed government. That makes it a democratically elected government.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

Do they think that foreign embassies are not aware of the implications of amnesty?

Does Abhisit really think that Kasit is the right person to "explain" the position to foreign diplomats.

In my experience over many years and over many subjects when a Thai decides it is necessary to explain something to a foreigner, what follows is generally a stream of confused and confusing drivel.