jayboy

Even the dimmest light-bulb would shine through that. Varsity shtick? Give me a break. How old are you? 19?

I think I would rather listen to Yingluck. Maybe she would make more sense. Even in Thai.

It's probably not the most sophisticated or mature line of japery ever broadcast for the forum's edification.

But when the little fish (with accompanying chips) rises so unfailingly for the bait it's hard to resist.But you're right of course - time to cease and desist.

However it's instructive to note , in the context of this thread, how those in the lead at taking the mick of the PM's provincial accent and manners are the most sensitive when their own educational and social credentials are called into question.However we would all be well advised to remember that that it's just an anonymous internet forum - where anybody can pretend to be somebody.

The other newspaper has this from 28th of Feb:

On Monday, the Democrat Party held a big seminar in Hat Yai. The meeting passed the Hat Yai Declaration, outlining seven action plans with the basic aims -- to protect the monarchy; oppose changing Article 309 of the constitution for the benefit of Thaksin Shinawatra; oppose the amendment of the lese majeste law; resist the setting up of red villages; and to set up networks to oppose corruption.

Good plan and so wonderfully attuned to the modern world and Thailand's needs.Should ensure the Democrats continued electoral success.

I went to Wikipedia to look up Margaret Roberts (as she was then) at University and found this..

Roberts attended Huntingtower Road Primary School and won a scholarship to Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School.^[7] Her school reports showed hard work and continual improvement; her extracurricular activities included the piano, field hockey, poetry recitals, swimming and walking.^[8][9] She was head girl in 1942–43.^[10] In her upper sixth year she applied for a scholarship to study chemistry at Somerville College, Oxford but was initially rejected, and was offered a place only after another candidate withdrew.^[11][12] She arrived at Oxford in 1943 and graduated in 1947 with Second Class Honours in the four-year Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree; in her final year she specialised in X-ray crystallography under the supervision of Dorothy Hodgkin.^[13][14]

So I guess that unless Wikipedia is wrong then I assume that she actually did get a BSc in Chemistry and not as suggested a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Margaret Thatcher graduated as a Bachelor of Arts.The Bachelor of Science degree (which no longer exists) is the equivalent ofthe modern M.Sc, a post graduate degree.

Still at least you know now not to rely on Wikipedia, something for Yoshiwara's benefit we never did at the varsity.We were too busy invading and trashing the rooms of skulking state educated students.Happy days!

What sort of fool thinks because he paid a 1st or Business class fare he is ENTITLED to be treated with priority on the ground. You pay the airline but the government runs Immigration services.

Maybe the riot police should be deployed as riot police and stop those f****** queue jumpers, the people who have the husband in one line and wife in another, and they ( bot+ half a dozen kids ) all pile onto the one that's moving fastest as they approach the 'line'. Ignorant and arrogant pricks

Quite a few fools I should think since in almost every country including the UK First and Business Class passengers have access to fast track immigration facilities.

Actually I don't believe the stated end of these facilities in Thailand will last too long.It simply doesn't compute - how will Thai VIPs (and there are tens of thousands of them - in their own estimation) get the special service that is their god given right.Queue with hoi polloi - you must be joking.

Margaret Thatcher attained a BSc from Oxford University.

No she didn't but it's a common mistake among all you non Oxbridge types.Despite studing chemistry (or reading chemistry as we used to say at the varsity, Yoshiwara) she graduated as Bachelor of Arts later upgraded in the usual Oxbridge manner to Master of Arts (without the necessity of further examinations).

I guess the Thaksin apologist forum crew need one or two pompus prigs on their team. Still wanting to flash the label around and at the same time railing against the so-called Thai elite who you will tomorrow undoubtedly accuse of doing the very same thing. Pot calling the kettle black. All a bit sad really.

Speaking as a "pompus" prig, even the dimmest bulb surely understands the varsity shtick is just that - self mocking and not to be taken seriously.

The rest of your post has me rather baffled.Are you suggesting that well educated people cannot criticise other well educated people? Actually the unelected elites in Thailand are not that well educated as a rule - though of course there are many exceptions.

Just saying things for the sake of it.

I thought that was the point of the forum, preferably with some interesting perspective, knowledge and wit.

In my view a typically half baked editorial.He speaks of strides by Thailand in human rights but nothing the current government or previous ones has done (as opposed to empty rhetoric) supports his claim.Furthermore he appears to think that Thailand can pick and choose on the human rights agenda.Needless to say he seems he can speak on behalf of Thailand which of course he can't.Most striking of all is the complete lack of journalistic courage.

You're going to have to wait like everyone else for when he dumps all that toxic waste into Thailand's newly established "sovereign wealth fund". How do you people live with yourselves, seriously? You want to talk about the "elite" university you went to one day and then act like you don't know anything the next. Good money in that?

I don't really understand what you're saying but I deduce you have no idea about the Zimbabwe connection.Probably not worth a post you might on reflection consider.

The "varsity" thing is a light hearted windup by the way.

For the un-initiated, Thaksin has platinum mines in Zimbabwe, not diamonds.

Also for the unaware, it's difficult to imagine that the despot Mugabe wasn't involved in business dealings within his country that involves billions of U.S. dollars.

If this is true, and I have no knowledge one way or the other, it is absolute dynamite and enough to destroy Thaksin's international reputation for ever.It would also give context to the appointment of a certain PTP female Minister not persona grata in the US.

So can you put some flesh on the charge? This isn't a wind up.I would be genuinely impressed if this accusation could be made to stick.

Margaret Thatcher attained a BSc from Oxford University.

No she didn't but it's a common mistake among all you non Oxbridge types.Despite studing chemistry (or reading chemistry as we used to say at the varsity, Yoshiwara) she graduated as Bachelor of Arts later upgraded in the usual Oxbridge manner to Master of Arts (without the necessity of further examinations).

Margaret Thatcher attained a BSc from Oxford University.

No she didn't.Despite studying chemistry,she graduated as a Bachelor of Arts which was upgraded in the usual Oxford manner to Master of Arts (no additional examinations).

She's an airhead shill and there's not much to be done about it now. Next!

Actually you have no evidence for that.In fact so far her record has been surprisingly effective.

You could legitimately argue she is just a cypher for her elder brother.That has justification in fact.

She's obviously no intellectual but airhead? Still for some any old insult will do.

And a polite suggestion.It is rather well known that to end a post with the aggressive "Next !" simply suggests a rather unsophisticated approach to debate.

Birds of a feather it seems.

Actually, while you may claim I have no evidence, and I admit I haven't met Yingluck, I have met Potjaman, and Yaowapa and Yaowarat and Payap . All they ever talked about was money. They seem to be your vulgar icons.

Well in that case you should restrict comments to what you purport to know rather than make lazy easily disproved false assertions about the PM.

And since when did any wealthy Sino-Thai not have money other than an absorbing interest?

The problem with having a translator, as they most likely rightly surmised beforehand, is that people can then ask questions through the translator that she is unable to answer. Safer to just give a speech in Thai and handout in Japanese.

You seem to be unfamiliar with Japanese business etiquette.It would not be normal or even good manners to grill a visting and friendly VIP.No the answer to this rather commonplace and over discussed matter is just old fashioned cockup by Thai officials.

She's an airhead shill and there's not much to be done about it now. Next!

Actually you have no evidence for that.In fact so far her record has been surprisingly effective.

You could legitimately argue she is just a cypher for her elder brother.That has justification in fact.

She's obviously no intellectual but airhead? Still for some any old insult will do.

And a polite suggestion.It is rather well known that to end a post with the aggressive "Next !" simply suggests a rather unsophisticated approach to debate.

Complaints complaints and more complaints......has anyone complained when Obama spoke English to Chinese, Japanese and Russian audiences.

Or when Japan PM, Russia President/PM, France President all gave their speech in their respective mothers' tongue....

For a proper analogy, you fail to recognize that Obama doesn't possess a Masters degree obtained in the native language from a Chinese, Japanese, OR Russian university.

Additionally, you also fail to recognize that the Japanese PM, Russian President, and French President don't possess a Masters degree obtained from an English-language university.

Yingluck has a obtained a Masters Degree conducted in the English language. For some zany reason, people logically conclude then that she should be able to speak English.

.

Doesn't really make much sense and the Master's Degree comments are just plain silly.There are many reasons for leaders to speak their own language when overseas.Jaques Chirac spke English perfectly well but hardly ever used it overseas.De Gaulle was the same.

Japanese executives tend to speak as little English as they do Thai.None of them complained.The fault was of course not to have provided simultaneous Thai -Japanese translation for which Thai Foreign Ministry officials/PM's staff should be blamed.But it's a storm in a teacup, much ado about nothing very much.

Checking out the social media this morning it was amusing to note that the hysterical criticism from Bangkok urbanites of Yingluck for this little embarassment, came from those whose own English was studded with errors of grammar, spelling and syntax.It was ever thus.

Same old BS/opinion, presented as though it were somehow proven fact, from Canada !

The good news IMO is that the PAD remain focused on their main concern, the possible whitewashed return of the disgraced self-exiled former-PM, and aren't planning to overthrow the government or set-up Yellow-villages or make other gestures of 'reconciliation', or otherwise follow the example of their opponents.

If there is a back door deal between the old elite and Thaksin on the latter's return, there is nothing the PAD can do about it.They will simply be squashed/ignored as in the past once they have served their purpose.It is not just coincidental that the old elite has now allowed Sondhi to be prosecuted and sentenced for his past criminality , and the squeeze put on the airport seizure terrorists.I'm not sure the PAD could set up yellow villages even if they wanted to since there is a minor practical problem that nobody would want to belong to them.Therefore the PAD will remain for the time being as a small band of proto fascists, thugs and Sino-Thai grannies: the more alert grouping of anti Thaksinites having deserted PAD and its creepy leadership long ago.However, and certainly not a contingency to be ruled out, if the concordat between Thaksin and the old elite broke down, the PAD - or something very like it - would no doubt be resuscitated to provide a street backing rentacrowd for entrenched privilege.So the PAD - a collection of useful fools - is kept in reserve at the moment.Nobody on either side of the divide really gives a toss what they think at the moment.

You must have led a very sheltered life if you think high ranking officials and wealthy & influential people escape justice only in Thailand.

Suggesting that this is somehow unique to Thailand implies a childish naiveté on the part of the usual cadre of Thai bashers who haunt this board.

You must learn to distinguish from what you crudely describe as "Thai bashing" and informed criticism.I don't think anyone suggests Thailand is alone in the wealthy and influential tending to escape punishment for various offences including criminal ones.However it is a great deal worse than most developed countries in that respect and that can be partly explained by some fairly well entrenched cultural attitudes.Thus it is particularly Thai that a judge when sentencing a privileged person will often hand down a lighter sentence reflecting the guilty party's position in society , whereas in other countries a judge tends to take the opposite view (he abused his good education and privileged position etc).You should perhaps pause for thought before accusing others of childish naivete when clearly you are unfamiliar with some of the basic elements in Thai society.

Your suggestion that all the people who voted for PTP at the last election - undeniably a large proportion of the voting population - were also in full support of the red riots of 2010, and think that Thaksin's role in it was righteous and justified, think that he was fighting for democracy, think that he is not a part of the elite, think that the acts of the government and military in dealing with the protesters at the time were wrong, is a suggestion that people from afar might be inclined to go along with, to believe.. and perhaps that includes Muramoto's family, and i certainly wouldn't blame them or anyone else who takes a distant overview of the situation here, coming to that conclusion, especially when one considers the amount of misleading information being propagated by those with a vested interest in painting a certain picture.

I think it can be assumed that the majority of those who voted PTP are neither hostile to Thaksin nor unsympathetic to the Redshirt case.If they were they would have voted a different way.Your comment also reflects the rather tired and intellectually bankrupt view that only those on the spot can understand the complexities of Thai society and politics, as if some poorly educated retiree with a fetish for the Thai military (we have heard from them ad nauseam over the last couple of years) has an insight unaccessible to (say) a scholar from the famed Cornell University Thai department.Clearly both sides of the current dispute have a particular "narrative" to sell and embroidery/embellishment - misleading information if you like - can be found on both.What is not in dispute ,and the facts transcend politics, is that there was some poor behaviour on both sides in the Bangkok confrontation.Hira Muramoto was the unfortunate victim of shocking army indiscipline.Until we have a proper accounting there is no way of knowing whether this was general or exceptional.The evidence I have seen to date suggest the latter and that overall the army behaved professionally.

That would all depend on how much research they have done into Yingluck's brother and how much they know about his role in the protests.

Well I assume they would be aware that the redshirts generally follow Thaksin, as do the Thai people as a whole as we know from the last general election result.Japan is a functioning democracy and one assumes most peoples sympathies would lie with the Thai people - not the militarists, feudalists, corporate monopolists and other unelected elites.I doubt whether most foreigners would have an issue with Thaksin's organising presence.

But are you suggesting Thaksin was also behind the army killing of civilians - as an agent provocateur? Seems weird but there is an increasing tin foil element in discussion of Thai politics - notably the anti-globalists (opponents of the Arab Spring andsupporters of Syria's Assad incidentally) who are so crazy it simply isn't worth discussing politics with.In Thailand they believe the U.S is backing Thaksin as part of a globalist capitsalist conspiracy.OK the net always throws up a loony element so one shouldn't take the nutters to seriously.

Both immediately prior to the coup and the 2010 Bangkok riots were linked by a common factor, which irks Thaksin to this day and provides a suitable backdrop to his deliberate march to turn the Thai state into his personal fiefdom. Prior to the coup there was one important piece of state power jigsaw missing from Thaksin's armoury. The army. The coup stopped him putting his own people into the army leadership and closing out political control which already had effective control of the police force through appointing his proxies to the leadership. Knowledge of this explains why Thaksin's stooges permanently rail against the army leadership which is not in his pocket. Some are confused why the riots continued even after a deal was ostensibly made between the then government and the reds to hold an early election, a demand which was seemingly the main objective of the reds. It wasn't. The main objective was to bring down the government ahead of the army leadership appointments. The army again. Fast forward to the so-called Charter. We can be absolutely sure that the main objective of Thaksin is to stranglehold any independent institutions that threaten him. Second on his list after the army is the judiciary. The forum red apologists haven't got a clue. But then they never did.

At the varsity the dons would have a field day with a confused set of assertions like this.You seem to have overlooked the Thai army's appalling record of political interference, corruption and gross incompetence.As has been pointed out by leading experts the role of the Thai army is not to protect the nation ( it is dismally feeble at the miltary's proper functions) but to amass wealth for its senior officers.It was delightfully amusing to see the military apologists becoming so excited when the army helped out in the recent flooding (i.e doing what they were supposed to do) as though this compensated fot the long timeline of abuse.It is entirely natural that a civilian government should attempt to bring the discredited military under its control as in Indonesia for example where the army had some features in common.Of course there are concerns about the independence of the judiciary as there always are in Thailand, but the record after the last coup ( directed judicial intervention) hardly supports the thesis that Thaksin was the worst abuser here.

Don't expect that she would be given a warm overcome there anyway.

But she has been given a warm welcome over there.

As for the family of the murdered cameraman, I doubt whether they would have any issues with Yingluck - with Abhisit perhaps who had civilian control of the trigger happy generals.

I would settle for 'offer compensation for anyone on location that wasn't engaged in any crime'.

Occupying a street/business area is.

Actually no it's not.

As to committing crimes there is prima facie evidence senior army figures have done just this - but because this is Thailand they will never be brought to book.

Is there no end to the mean spiritedness of some?

On the other hand for most farang applicants realize it's not worth it, hence the small number of people applying. With annual extension of stay fee at 1,900 baht compared with the 190k (or 90k for those with Thai family), the only real thing it offers is the the right to boast for the farang who like to think themselves better than other farang. However I suspect a US Green card style PR with right to work without work permits would attract a lot more applicants.

I think you are mistaken.The relatively small number of applicants reflects the strict criteria for PR, a consequence of which is that Immigration gently discourages ineligible or dubious applicants from submitting papers.For example all retirees are ineligible: those without at least a 3 year track record of work permits (and appropriate visa) and tax payments are ineligible etc etc.Whether it is worth it depends on ones viewpoint.If one is able to easily afford the fees and if one values security of tenure, then it is worth it.I have never heard of anyone with PR looking down on those without it: my guess is that someone that petty minded wouldn't have obtained PR anyway (because most successful applicants are well educated professionals who don't feel the need "to think themselves better than other farang".)

You don't need a lawyer. When your work permit is cancelled, you have to go to the immigration and have your extension of stay cancelled. Then you go straight from the business section of the immigration section to the PR section (you need to pull a new number first), and they will stamp you an EoS for six months based on application for PR.

If this is the case it is a relatively new development.

In the early years of the last decade I investigated this precise point with a prominent Thai immigration lawyer.At that time if a work permit was cancelled during the PR application process there was the real risk the whole process would have to start from the beginning when the new permit had been issued (which for tax continuity reasons would need to be fairly promptly after the old one had expired).If however the application had been processed already in Immigration and was just waiting for Ministry of Interior approval there was unlikely to be a problem.

I am pleased that the authorities are apparently more flexible now.The previous disposition did however have a certain logic to it given that the business case for PR was predicated on a particular employment.

Once the PR application has been accepted, it means the documents are complete. I changed jobs shortly after that, went to the PR section and they said they were only interested in my situation at time of application, so it did not matter whether I lost the job or not - in fact, I had applied for the 7-day extension already and they said I should have come to them instead, they would have given me 6 months for free.

So, I am only saying what they told me many years ago at Suan Plu.

Interesting since that directly contradicts what I was told.Still you had it from the horse's mouth as it were.On the other hand, given his expertise, I can't dismiss my lawyer's view so easily and I'm hazarding a guess that another official at Suan Plu might not have been so understanding of changing employer before final approval.Still my information dates back several years and I don't know the current position.To state the obvious after approval one can change one's employer as often as one wants - with work permit of course - or not indeed work at all.

The way to clarify the matter of course would be for a non involved party (because an applicant might understandably not want to draw attention to himself0 to pose the question directly to a senior Immigration official now.