jayboy

Students who are actively attending University at the time of military conscription are not required to enter the military.

Its just another plot by the redshirts and more insidious lies, the type of lies that are blatantly false and right up in your face like always.

haha so funny - he gets caught draft dodging and it's the red shirts?

As I mentioned in another thread, Thai students who graduate overseas with a Bachelor or Master's degree can apply to serve only 6 months military service. Apisit did this and was appointed a lecturer at the military college in Nakhon Nayok where he taught economics if I remember right, for 6 months.

Then he is in the clear OR your summary is less than the full story

According to some of the brass I associate with - it's all but on. As to it being a ridiculous statement, think about it. Votes won't get them out, Dems can't organise anything, the latest protests shows there may be a party with some goolies prepared to have a go and the only solution is military intervention and with an average of one coup every 2-3 years, it is a very sensible statement - unless you have only just arrived

Very interesting.Do you mind me asking where exactly you associate with the brass who keep you up to date on their coup plans? On the face of it this is a rather odd scenario, namely that generals should share treasonable plans (which in certain circumstances could be accorded the death penalty) with an expatriate of obscure provenance.

Sow the whirlwind, reap the hurricane.

........storm in a teacup.

Possibly and this kind of draft dodging is very common among the well off in Thailand.In the overall scheme of things I agree with you it's not that important.And yet and yet... it may serve a purpose in reminding the privileged that they remain accountable.It also gives Abhisit a flavour of the political motivation that he dislikes so much when applied to himself.

this thread is about abhisit so rather than play the deflection game with you I will discuss abhisit.

There is no correlation between this case and others with the scenarios he mentions. he is talking about people with criminal convictions not having their ranks removed, Of course if the law states that ranks should be removed after a conviction then he would have a point, however in this matter there is no conviction, there is a simple a man that has a rank that was not qualified to hold that rank in the first place, either by his wrongdoing or by someone else. The rank should be removed but salary should not be paid back as he actually worked for that salary.

Does anyone know if the law states that once convicted of a criminal offence ranks should be removed from and individual?

You should be careful when contravening the official party line. If, as you say, he is entitled to his salary as he adequately carried out the task of military lecturer, then obviously he has carried out his national service commitment and is not a draft dodger as claimed by the committee.

This makes them look both petty and spiteful, and the whole brouhaha a political ruse to discredit an opponent. But we knew that, didn't we?

Sow the whirlwind, reap the hurricane.

Er not really.I disagree with Voranai almost the time but I recognize his perception and clarity of intellect.As a matter of fact he was a guest speaker at the recent Oxford and Cambridge Dinner. (I appreciate this is rather out of your social circle).Some of those living in an obsessive online world world of bile and hatred seem not to understand it's possible to disagree with someone while at the same time recognising his excellent qualities.

One expects those who cover themselves in Red cologne to whiff a bit wherever they eat.

'Yingluck is a phenomenon' an example of 'perception and clarity of intellect.' ??? Hilarious.

'Social circles'? Oh the confusions of a semi-detached class war tourist.

The angry brigade are so ideologically revved up they can't or won't recognise the truth (the PM is a phenonomen) because in its bizarro even kinky world of Taksin fetishism, the truth doesn't doesn't compute.

Frankly what you managed to glean or not glean is neither here nor there.The interesting aspect is why one of the country's most perceptive political commentators regards Yingluck as a phenomenon.

Loose translation: most perceptive = exactly what I think.

Er not really.I disagree with Voranai almost the time but I recognize his perception and clarity of intellect.As a matter of fact he was a guest speaker at the recent Oxford and Cambridge Dinner. (I appreciate this is rather out of your social circle).Some of those living in an obsessive online world world of bile and hatred seem not to understand it's possible to disagree with someone while at the same time recognising his excellent qualities.

Being called a phenomena can have positive and/or negative implications.

BTW may I be so bold as to point out a seemingly contradiction in your post? You presume 'out of social circle' and at the same time happily continue with 'Some of those living in an obsessive online world world of bile and hatred seem not to understand ...' Does this imply that you consider withdrawing from active participation in this forum?

Now before (if) you answer, please remember where 'physical violence may be a sign of verbal incompetence', just using the obvious labels to describe opponents isn't really much better. IMHO of course

I'm afraid I dont understand the point you are making.I'm not aware of using any labels to describe any member.

As to Yingluck I'm quite comfortable with describing her as a phenonomen,and certainly yes that can have both positive and negative aspects.

When abhisist went and spoke to the terrorist leaders in the south, sorry insurgents, did he report to the police on his return?

When did Abhisit speak to the terrorist/insurgent leaders in the south?

and were any of them convicted fugitives?

.

No I don't think so.The draft dodging charge is in limbo and the more serious charge of manslaughter may not come to court.He has yet to become a fugitive.I hope this answers your question.

I am doing you the courtesy of assuming you are neither thick nor irretrievably prejudiced.Read the article more carefully again.What do you think Voranai is saying, why is he saying it and what are his main points? Jot them done on a postcard if you feel confused.

Listen, i am telling you what i gleaned from his article.... Yingluck has been underestimated... not for her skills... would be difficult to underestimate them... but for the power she possesses simply by not really doing anything, not really saying anything.. makes her a hard target to attack, particularly with that lovely smile of hers.

So OK, great, she can potentially provide the key for Thaksin to ferret his way back in. She can potentially make trouble for all those fascists we hate so much.. but at the same time, greasing wheels for a new bunch of undesirables... ok... at which point should i be dazzled?

Frankly what you managed to glean or not glean is neither here nor there.The interesting aspect is why one of the country's most perceptive political commentators regards Yingluck as a phenomenon.

Loose translation: most perceptive = exactly what I think.

Er not really.I disagree with Voranai almost the time but I recognize his perception and clarity of intellect.As a matter of fact he was a guest speaker at the recent Oxford and Cambridge Dinner. (I appreciate this is rather out of your social circle).Some of those living in an obsessive online world world of bile and hatred seem not to understand it's possible to disagree with someone while at the same time recognising his excellent qualities.

I fancy nine out ten Thais are going to be disappointed.... but if by any chance she does get involved in anything resembling a live debate expect her to be wearing some very elaborate 'earrings'!

Well I would have to agree with you. BUT they arrived at that figure through a Thai poll. Kinda detracts from the statement.

After al this is Thailand hub of polls where you tell them what you want and they go out and get you a poll to prove it.

I,ve always treated political related polls in particular with suspicion.

How first of all can say for eg 1,500 pollsters represent over 30 million potential voters who have an opinion.

The areas seem to me are always favourable towards the ruling party and as you rightly stated, i,m with you HD.

I go by the last sentence in your quote and the obvious bias towards whoever or whatever the polls are initiated for and on behalf of.

Polls are totally meaningless and most certainly are not representative of a Thai consensus /opinion and thus is totally irrelevant apart from propogandist purposes.

\Then there are the lucrative monetary incentives available to achieve and favour a desired result.

marshbags

There are quite a few posts on these lines, though this one is particularly asinine and poorly thought through.Actually the message in understandable English from these people is always the same - I don't believe in this poll and the methodology is flawed because the results are ones with which I do not agree.The reality is of course that all polls should be treated with some scepticism (at least some US pollsters will soon definitely have some egg on face) and perhaps especially in Thailand, but to deny they have any significance at all is just absurd.Most sensible people pay no great significance to any one poll, but over time a useful indicator can be obtained.

Yes, the iStudios are not official Apple shops, but Thai resellers. In my experience, they are ok for accessories and such, as they sell for the official price, same as the online store.

But for anything costly, I'd go for the online store. The iStudios have the same service problems as elsewhere in Thailand.

For example: a while ago I purchased an "Airport Express" which is a small, very neat wifi router. First, they tried to overcharge me 200 Baht. When I mentioned the correct price from the Thai Web Apple Store, "oh sorry, we made a mistake". Yes, sure, but it was worth a try....

Then when I opened the package at home, it came with a surprise: the plug was the Singapore plug, the big british style with 3 poles. I went back to the iStudio and they refused an exchange. "you can use an adapter!". They claimed that this model only comes with a Singapore plug. When I showed them the photo from the Thai website which had a US-style plug, they claimed only in America, not in Asia. They typical Thai BS "you payed already and we won't care".

Later I saw at another iStudio the same device with the correct Thai plug. Probably the former iStudio got a delivery from Singapore with the wrong plug. But instead of returning it, they just sold it to a farang. Less hassle.

While not all iStudios may do such practices, you avoid such stress by ordering from the Apple web store.

The level of service in most iStudios in Thailand is appalling often accompanied by surliness, ignorance of products and snake snake fish fish English.The iStudio in Paragon is particular rubbish.I avoid all of them like the plague.But the Apple web store is excellent and efficient.

I am doing you the courtesy of assuming you are neither thick nor irretrievably prejudiced.Read the article more carefully again.What do you think Voranai is saying, why is he saying it and what are his main points? Jot them done on a postcard if you feel confused.

Listen, i am telling you what i gleaned from his article.... Yingluck has been underestimated... not for her skills... would be difficult to underestimate them... but for the power she possesses simply by not really doing anything, not really saying anything.. makes her a hard target to attack, particularly with that lovely smile of hers.

So OK, great, she can potentially provide the key for Thaksin to ferret his way back in. She can potentially make trouble for all those fascists we hate so much.. but at the same time, greasing wheels for a new bunch of undesirables... ok... at which point should i be dazzled?

Frankly what you managed to glean or not glean is neither here nor there.The interesting aspect is why one of the country's most perceptive political commentators regards Yingluck as a phenomenon.

extraordinary Yingluck phenonomen??

Easy with the gushing, you might have an accident.

The article says a lot about how Yingluck may well be the key to success for Thaksin, and a lot about how she may be dangerous for some groups, but precious little about how a PM who "doesn't debate because debating is not her forte", who "doesn't answer tough questions from journalists because she is unseasoned and inexperienced", is actually doing anything whatsoever for the country, besides helping to reconcile people who have been divided and go on being divided by her own family, and in particular her brother for whom she works.

Some people it seems are falling over themselves to be impressed by a PM who does nothing but smile nicely for the cameras.

Classic case of confirmation bias.He presumably thinks he has read Voranai's article properly but in practice cherry picks nuggets which show her in a poor light and thus misses the whole point of the article.Voranai notwithstanding his reservations does show why Yingluck is in the ascendant.

I did read the entire article very carefully thanks. Please enlighten me as to what it is that the author felt the PM was capable of achieving and what makes her so extraordinary... because as i say, all i gleaned from it concerned what a potentially powerful weapon she is for Thaksin, how some certain groups have good cause to fear her, and how her not confronting any problems makes her... let me see... what is the right word?.... non confrontational perhaps?.... and this makes her well suited to reconciling the groups that her own brother has spent the last six years helping to divide.

Apologies for not falling to my feet in wonder at her actual achievements for the country... i'm afraid i'm still in the dark as to what precisely they are...

I am doing you the courtesy of assuming you are neither thick nor irretrievably prejudiced.Read the article more carefully again.What do you think Voranai is saying, why is he saying it and what are his main points? Jot them done on a postcard if you feel confused.

Good article today in the other paper today on the extraordinary Yingluck phenonomen by Voranai, an articulate and longstanding opponent of Thaksin.My take is that Yingluck could be the saviour of the old order (that part which is in tune with the best of Thai traditions and virtues) but the motley bunch of fascists, reactionary military and unreconstructed throw backs should be afraid, very afraid.

extraordinary Yingluck phenonomen??

Easy with the gushing, you might have an accident.

The article says a lot about how Yingluck may well be the key to success for Thaksin, and a lot about how she may be dangerous for some groups, but precious little about how a PM who "doesn't debate because debating is not her forte", who "doesn't answer tough questions from journalists because she is unseasoned and inexperienced", is actually doing anything whatsoever for the country, besides helping to reconcile people who have been divided and go on being divided by her own family, and in particular her brother for whom she works.

Some people it seems are falling over themselves to be impressed by a PM who does nothing but smile nicely for the cameras.

Classic case of confirmation bias.He presumably thinks he has read Voranai's article properly but in practice cherry picks nuggets which show her in a poor light and thus misses the whole point of the article.Voranai notwithstanding his reservations does show why Yingluck is in the ascendant.

Isn't this where you go " Muahahahahahaha"?

Muahahahahahaha

Got to admit my final sentence was comically over the top.

“The best solution for the current political crisis is to amend the constitution to pave the way for political reform.”

“The only way out of the current crisis is to amend the Constitution.”

Abhisit Vejajiva

Do you have an original link to those quotes. I'd like to see the context.

Edit: Ahh ... I see the first quote was said in February 2006.

And the second quote was also said in February 2006. http://nationmultime...cs_20001598.php

Good article today in the other paper today on the extraordinary Yingluck phenonomen by Voranai, an articulate and longstanding opponent of Thaksin.My take is that Yingluck could be the saviour of the old order (that part which is in tune with the best of Thai traditions and virtues) but the motley bunch of fascists, reactionary military and unreconstructed throw backs should be afraid, very afraid.

The fact that the Democrat Party's political platform was geared toward the poor is entirely the influence of the redshirt movement.

Not quite true. Thaksin may indeed head up the red shirts, but it wasn't this particular movement of his that provided the catalyst for the increase in populist policies aimed at the poor, it was his TRT party that takes the credit for that. They got the ball rolling and woke up all Thai politicians to the power of politicising the poor. We could have easily done without the last five odd years of red shirt destruction and mayhem, and still the Dems and all the other parties, would have geared themselves towards the poor at election time, because they now know the poor hold the key to power, and as stupid as they can be (the politicians not the poor), i don't think they are going to forget in a hurry.

In other words Thaksin changed the political landscape of Thailand forever by mobilising the rural and poor majority - precisely what I have been saying for years.Gradually,slowly and painfully the truth is being recognised.

i do 'sympathize' with red shirt 'people'. there is a difference with sympathizing with the plight of those people and 'supporting everything they do and want' that not many here seem to either want or are able to see the difference between the two.

<snip>

Most posters here sympathize with the poor. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the red shirts though.

Indeed, it's funny how phony that nonsense is about that attempted connection.

Red Shirts prove that time and again such as immediately having millions of baht in cash for bailing of their leaders while letting hundreds languish in prison unaided and betrayed.

There's no shortage of endless examples where Red Shirts have clearly shown their colors and ignored and misused the poor.

.

However much the usual suspects bluster the irrefutable truth is that we would not even be discussing the plight of Thailand's poor if the redshirt movement did not exist.The fact that the Democrat Party's political platform was geared toward the poor is entirely the influence of the redshirt movement.PTP would not have gained power without the support of the redshirt movement.

i do 'sympathize' with red shirt 'people'. there is a difference with sympathizing with the plight of those people and 'supporting everything they do and want' that not many here seem to either want or are able to see the difference between the two.

<snip>

Most posters here sympathize with the poor. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the red shirts though.

Frankly who gives a toss about us lot, expats - mostly it would appear, to put it tactfully, not the best and brightest - with too much time on our hands.

But your question is an interesting one for Thailand at large.What is the decent attitude for a middle class well educated Thai who broadly accepts the status quo but feels that his/her country is dangerously unequal? It's all very well to say one sympathises with the poor (who doesn't) but what then is to be done? The Democrat opposition seems uncertain, on one hand broadly adopting and even expanding Thaksin's populist policies, yet maintaining links with quasi fascist PAD/Siam Pitak/Yellowshirt mob.I think it's only realistic to accept that the redshirts have concentrated the mind powerfully on the plight of the less well off sections of society.Much was the same in Europe in the mid - late nineteenth century with communists, anarchists and socialists fulfilling the redshirt.Gradually the main stream parties took over the interests of the poorer part of the population.An alternative of course would be for the redshirts to go main stream.As always success means compromise and accepting some things which previously seemed unacceptable.But in terms of putting the interests of the poor on the agenda the redshirts place in history is assured.

Romney's group bought companies and loaded them up with debt. Took all their money, and let them go bankrupt, while running away with the cash. That is not business, its larceny.

Obama's administration has been involved with venture capitalism by their Energy Department loan guarantees.

The only difference is they are loading up the failing energy companies with taxpayer cash, not private capital. This might also be considered larceny

I would have thought the Republican mantra about private capital was looking a bit shop worn after Sandy.Perhaps I am wrong and Goldman Sachs, Bain and Company are going to "invest" in the reconstruction effort.

If you want a proper example of larceny consider how venture capitalists like Romney pay a very low tax rate on "carried interest"

Probably best not not pontificate on British attitudes if, as is quite clear, you don't understand them.In terms of impact Obama is overwhelmingly more popular than Romney among Brits of all kinds.A recent poll put Obama at 91% approval rating in the UK.The incident you mention of Michelle upsetting royal protocol is a falsehood - I have seen no British account of it suggesting any offence was taken (only in the crazed US right wing media).In fact on a subsequent visit the Queen personally gave Michelle and the kids a guided tour of Buckingham Palace - unheard of and confirming HM's fondness for the Obama family.The Churchill bust incident could have been better handled on both sides but is now forgotten.On the other hand Romney's stupidity and lack of tact on his UK visit made a very poor impact.There's a more general truth.If you like and respect someone you overlook his small errors and mistakes.If you think someone is a tosser you don't.

jayboy - you have to stop reading my posts - I fear I am having a bad influence on you. I mean, you've dropped the word 'tosser'. Rather un-you is it not?

It was an inexplicable lapse.Nevertheless in dealing with someone like Romney one must hunt around for an appropriate epithet.

So by that reasoning, we don't need a Secretary of State to understand foreign policy, we need a President who does. And, Romney has sure shown his adeptness in that area.

As president, on a State visit to the UK, Obama talked over the God Save the Queen and bungled a formal toast to Queen Elizabeth and then he gave her an iPod loaded with videos and photos of himself as an official gift. His wife hugged the Queen even though she is not supposed to be touched. When British officials offered to let Mr. Obama to hang onto the bust of Churchill in the White House for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks." Obama has cocked it up a lot worse with England than Romney even though the mainstream media chooses not to highlight it.

Cocked it up? Is it your contention that the President has damaged the relationship between the UK and the US?

No and neither has Romney. Both made a silly Faux Pas or two and that should be the end of it. However, only Romney's are repeated over and over again by the mainstream media.

Probably best not not pontificate on British attitudes if, as is quite clear, you don't understand them.In terms of impact Obama is overwhelmingly more popular than Romney among Brits of all kinds.A recent poll put Obama at 91% approval rating in the UK.The incident you mention of Michelle upsetting royal protocol is a falsehood - I have seen no British account of it suggesting any offence was taken (only in the crazed US right wing media).In fact on a subsequent visit the Queen personally gave Michelle and the kids a guided tour of Buckingham Palace - unheard of and confirming HM's fondness for the Obama family.The Churchill bust incident could have been better handled on both sides but is now forgotten.On the other hand Romney's stupidity and lack of tact on his UK visit made a very poor impact.There's a more general truth.If you like and respect someone you overlook his small errors and mistakes.If you think someone is a tosser you don't.

I am a Brit (English) and hope that Labour (equivalent of the Democrats) triumph in 3 or so years time when its our turn, so some sensibility will be retained in your country and will return to mine!!

This post shows a very common though completely incorrect understanding among some British people about American political parties.

The Democrats certainly contain a small fringe that could be accomodated in the British Labour Party but the main stream US Democrats are as near as makes no difference to David Cameron's style of conservatism.It's an open secret that Cameron and Obama get on extremely well not only personally but on most policy grounds (okay not so much on fiscal stimulus).Within the Democrats there are many in Congress who are far to the right of most British conservatives.Frankly it's very difficult to equate British parties to American ones, though tempting because of cultural affinity between the two countries, because the political traditions are so very different.If I can generalise - always dangerous - Americans are far more sceptical of the state and more self reliant, and their political parties reflect this.At the same time communal activity and neighbourly support is far more impressive in the US than in the UK.

You are always going to get different factions in all political parties (unless it is a dictatorial or communist state) across the broad spectrum of policies. However, I maintain that the Labour party in the UK is, and always has been more akin to the Democrats and Republicans to the Tories.

I would argue your point about community spirit and neighbourly support being "far more impressive in the US than the UK" - you obviously haven't been to a traditional village in England or witnessed 'the Dunkirk spirit' during the second world war!!!

It was our defiance of Hitler and determination to overcome the 'evil' of the nazi regime that won the day!!!

It's not a question of different factions in all political parties - of course there are.Your error was to believe that the Republicans somehow equate with the British Conservatives and the Democrats with British Labour.You now say "more akin" which I think is arguable but still needs clarification and comes with several caveats.The fact remains that most leading British conservatives, certainly David Cameron and most of his cabinet, could very happily exist in the American Democrat Party.What you suggest was I think more applicable half a century ago.

You misunderstand my point about communal spirit.I think anyone who has lived both in the US and the UK knows exactly what I mean.

By the way British defiance of the Nazis was admirable but it did not "win the day".The Red Army did that.

I am a Brit (English) and hope that Labour (equivalent of the Democrats) triumph in 3 or so years time when its our turn, so some sensibility will be retained in your country and will return to mine!!

This post shows a very common though completely incorrect understanding among some British people about American political parties.

The Democrats certainly contain a small fringe that could be accomodated in the British Labour Party but the main stream US Democrats are as near as makes no difference to David Cameron's style of conservatism.It's an open secret that Cameron and Obama get on extremely well not only personally but on most policy grounds (okay not so much on fiscal stimulus).Within the Democrats there are many in Congress who are far to the right of most British conservatives.Frankly it's very difficult to equate British parties to American ones, though tempting because of cultural affinity between the two countries, because the political traditions are so very different.If I can generalise - always dangerous - Americans are far more sceptical of the state and more self reliant, and their political parties reflect this.At the same time communal activity and neighbourly support is far more impressive in the US than in the UK.

Fox News international as shown in Thailand is not the same as Fox News USA version. There is lots of repeat fluff in the non-U.S. version. Mark the date. I'm defending Fox News.

Ditto with the BBC. BBC World is a disgrace. The Beeb ought to be ashamed to have their name on it.

Care to expand on this extraordinarily strong criticism because without an argued case it is with respect rather meaningless.

Discarded