jayboy

The easiest way to subvert a security checkpoint is to find the exceptions, and then use them to your advantage. Should the next terrorist with a badge be allowed to walk through without a check? Is it impossible that a "regular" could be bribed or coerced to carry something through?

It already happened back in 1972 resulting in the destruction of a CX airliner over Vietnam with all lives lost.Police Lieut Somchai Chaiyasut was accused of using contacts at Don Muang to place a bomb in a Cathay flight to Vietnam.Newspaper reports at the time mention a policeman coming on board before take off and placing a parcel under the seat of Somchai's 20 year old mistress who was accompanying (this is the scarcely believable part) his own 7 year old daughter on a shopping trip.By coincidence Somchai had just taken out large life insurance policies on the soon to be dead couple.After 11 years he was found not gullty by a Thai court - lack of evidence (though most will have a different conclusion).Somchai thereafter fled to the U.S though shortly after died of cancer.

There's reference to all this in the other paper today in an excellent article by Vorani.

I'm always amazed by the simplistic thinking that tries to label this split in Thai politics as a "Left" vs. "Right" divide. The fact of the matter is that there isn't a single party in Thailand that wouldn't come down a bit right of center. That said, it was the previous government that tried to launch policies that were remeniscent of LBJ's "Great Society". The government in power currently, despite their multitude of promises has only accomplished to lower corporate tax rates and is looking to dispense with taxes on dividends. Who's the Right Wing again? It's a sham, criminal cabal government which used 21st century media practices to delude an electorate whose thinking hasn't progressed past the 19th century. If you can't see that you are either delusional or your posts here are a serial of lies.

While your views on the left-right divide in Thailand are reasonable enough if somewhat commonplace , I'm afraid they are irrelevant to the discussion.Those who believe in a rigid feudal order enforced if necessary with violence, an untouchable military ready to interfere in politics, and all the time retaining a deep fear of popular democracy - are generally known as right wing reactionaries.If the label offends you I am sure I could come up with a suitable alternative.

I'm not sure that most people would recognise Abhisit's govenment as the Thai version of LBJ's Great Society:in fact it's a ludicrous suggestion .Most commentators maintain however that the policy was simply to copy Thaksin's populist policies though on a greater scale - not that it made any difference to the Thai electorate who kicked them out of office.

I'm not commenting on the last two sentences of your post.In the first you have simply "lost it" -criminal cabal government !- so a rational response is pointless.Your second sentence is a flame which I shall overlook on this occasion as normally your posts are more temperate, though obviously I can't speak for the mods.

You're obviously not reading the definitions. They didn't get an absolute majority. That leaves majority and plurality.

I don't really want to get involved in this rather tedious discussion.Clearly my boredom threshold is rather low by some standards.

The short answer however is that Abhisit's government was legitimate under a parliamentary system but it was put together in the barracks with money and coercion.

That's why there was almost universal relief when the current government assumed office with real legitimacy.

However my main point in commenting now is to question your definition of absolute majority which would not be accepted by most constitutional authorities.The convention is that absolute majority refers to electors who voted not those eligible to vote.Still I'm aware that among those who hate democracy there will always be those who invent definitions to suit themselves.

My info is that the action has been taken. Compensation has been paid. This is a step in the right direction as in years passed there wouldn't have been any compensation, just threats. Now, with the internet officials can't hide. They have to pay up.

The report that the police are investigating who uploaded the video suggests you are wrong.Officials will continue to behave appallingly and it was only serendipity and I guess one brave whistleblower that resulted in this incident being reported at all.This official is clearly a psycho but the behaviour pattern - thankfully less gross normally - is in my experience very typical of upper middle class Thais who feel their dignity is being challenged.The true aristocrats in my experience tend to be beautifully mannered treating ordinary Thais with friendliness and compassion.

Which post exactly are you replying to? I would disagree with some of would you say (for example: get legal representation) but agree with other point (for example: learn the language).

I would to some extent disagree with your comments here

1.Pointless to retain lawyers who are inexperienced in immigration or I would argue any legal firm feeding off gullible foreigners.But using experienced Thai lawyers makes a great deal of sense for the busy foreigner - most of my friends, mostly busy executives, with PR did this.Not cheap though.Immigration couldn't care less whether lawyers are used or not, and I also know people who have conducted the whole process themselves - all with very good Thai language capability.

2.Thai language is useful up to a point, and basics essential.But this is not by any means the most important criterion.I know people with PR who barely speak Thai at all.Admittedly this is from some years ago and I am told the requirement has tightened up since.

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post into the metaphorical waste paper basket when I saw this often repeated but profoundly silly statement.

For the record no credible source or international observer saw the election victories of Thaksin and for matter the subsequent Thaksinite parties as other than democratically fair.

Of course there were biases in the media just as there were biases in the media at the last election.In every country there are biases in the media.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

The fact is that some simply cannot bear the fact that the Thai people should have a free choice and are desperate to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too late.Ta sawang laeo.Our eyes are open now.

Back on topic, Jayboy, anything else I should learn about the Taksin criminal conviction that people haven't already (helpfully, thanks) explained to me?

To re-cap, it all looks pretty straight forward that he's a definite convicted criminal in the eyes of the law in a democratic Thailand?

my questions earlier were thus:

Why did K. Thaksin leave Thailand and refuse to come back in the last few years?

My understanding is that he has the resources to refute any unjust prison sentences and the means to appeal.

If he has done nothing wrong, then why hasn't he come back to the country he loves?

Why doesn't he come back and clear up these convictions and allegations against him?

I don't really have much to add on the Thaksin convictions, except perhaps to note the really serious charges were never made against him.Why not?

If you press me I think he should remain abroad or if he comes back he should face the music (serve some time).In reality of course there will be some form of deal.

I don't think the Democrats' obsession with Thaksin is the most important issue in Thai politics.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

Don't be daft. Of course we would. Just that the criticism would be coming from a different group of people.

And just imagine what the level of criticism would have been, had the Dems campaigned with a banned politician as their leader, and on the platform of some far-fetched, and i believe, soon to be proven, for those still in doubt, completely unrealistic and unachievable promises... less kindly, but perhaps more accurately known as lies.

But since the Democrats campaigned on a platform heavily derived from Thaksin's populist policies, I wonder who should be calling whom daft! As I explained earlier in this thread (backed by Chris Baker, not exactly a pro Thaklsin commentator) the Democrats expected to win.They just couldn't have anticipated the appeal to the Thai people of Khun Yingluck (compounded of course by their own incompetence).

Next, the truth is that Thaksin was not really democratically elected. It is true tht he was elected, but for an election to be truly democratic the voting must be anonymous, without any form of coercion, and the voters must be fully and fairly informed. I could get Godzilla elected if I were allowed to control what people were told. If I can manipulate the media, I can manipulate the country. Simple as that.

Like many I simply tossed this rather incoherent post into the metaphorical waste paper basket when I saw this often repeated but profoundly silly statement.

For the record no credible source or international observer saw the election victories of Thaksin and for matter the subsequent Thaksinite parties as other than democratically fair.

Of course there were biases in the media just as there were biases in the media at the last election.In every country there are biases in the media.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had won the last election we would not be seeing this kind of criticism.

The fact is that some simply cannot bear the fact that the Thai people should have a free choice and are desperate to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too late.Ta sawang laeo.Our eyes are open now.

Where did I say that the coup took place against nobody? It was obviously to get Thaksin out. But at that time, Thaksin wasn't elected to anything.

Then say what you mean, namely the coup was to force out a democratically elected leader with a strong majority.

And don't use the weasel words that apologists for the military criminals trot out when the subject is raised.

Thaksin was elected to run the country in 2005, but after 12 months decided to call another election. There was no result in that election, initially because there were too many seats with no result, and finally when the election result was annulled.

The coup occurred when no one was elected.

To be honest I'm surprised this PAD approved version of events is still current, even among the usual suspects, because it has been so long discredited - the coup that took place against nobody! Anyway there will always be a few who fly this kite since in every internet forum there small pockets of eccentricity.

For a more grown up version of this time Chris Baker recently had some interesting comments.

Actually winning an election would seem to be beyond their ablility, inspite of all the English Public School twits that adorn their hierarchy.

For clarification, because I'm not that familiar with your type of thinking, is anybody who attended an English public school a "twit"? if so I'm afraid your comment comes over as just class based chippiness. If not why are Abhisit and Korn "twits" given their undoubted intelligence, acumen and articulacy?

3. What the heck is Isra News Agency??? I've never heard that name before.

It is the Thai Press Development Foundation.

Homepage = http://www.isranews.org/

This is the OP's original article (in Thai) on the asset hiding Cabinet Minister Plodprasob:

http://www.isranews....2%E0%B8%99.html

btw, there's' also another interesting related article there regarding the many luxury autos owned by Yingluck's Cabinet Ministers, eg. Plodprasob has 13 while Natural Resources and Environment Minister Preecha Rengsomboonsuk has 17:

http://www.isranews....8%E0%B8%87.html

.

All this is quite interesting but many urban Thais own several expensive cars even in my pissy muubaaan.What would be really encouraging to see would be some "drill down" solid analysis by the Thai press of (in the first instance) politicians' wealth and how it was accumulated.

I always wondered how this guy , who is clearly not the sharpest tool in the drawer, amassed a billion baht. Now it is abundantly clear......

I don't know enough about his record to comment on his intellect, but I too would like to know exactly how a relatively poorly paid civil servant amassed such a huge fortune.It's actually quite important to know.

Trouble is a huge number of politicians, officials and senior military officers have a similar back story if not usually on the same jaw dropping scale.So omerta rules.

Thanks for your comments about my "simple ignorance", and well done for seeing that I was indeed mocking the BBC, you post is trollstyle & doesn't actually say anything.

Well my post does actually say that Yingluck did not win the election through vote buying, contrary to your original statement and subsequent back pedalling.No serious organisation or individual supports your view.If you wish to discuss on an anecdotal basis (my auntie's friend's neighbour etc took the red shilling) best do it with someone who doesn't bother with evidence or analysis.

The western media especially BBC actually talked about Yingluck's massvotebuying as a breakthrough for women worldwide, an inspiration for Thai women, a new direction, hope for the rural poor etc.etc.

Your use of language is very unclear but I'm assuming you mean the BBC made no mention of mass votebuying and instead, mistakenly in your view, emphasized the positive aspects of Khun Yingluck's victory.I tend to share your scepticism about some of the so called positive aspects.However your attribution of her victory to mass votebuying is simply incorrect, and I suspect in your case is simple ignorance rather than dishonesty.No serious organisation (including international observers and the defeated Democrat party) or individual takes such a view.If you dislike the current government there are several aspects which legitimately deserve criticism.There's no need to make stuff up or repeat stale lies.

What is the good moral standing of the PM? She's not even legally registered her marriage.

I respect people worthy of respect and she has none.

There are millions of decent Thais who have not registered their marriage.Do they all lack your respect?

As to the last sentence this is a classic tautology, to the effect you think what you think.Most of us have gathered you don't like the Prime Minister -fair enough - so it's not really clear why you need to make the same point a zillion times.But at some level don't you ever wonder why you have made so many hundreds of posts, all very similar and for what audience?.Those who think like you don't need convincing and for the rest of us your approach is redundant.Anyway it's an open forum and free speech (not of course sexist abuse) is to be valued.But should you ever wish to make a serious observation bear in mind that its value will be demeaned by your track record.It's a pity really because I sense you have reasonable background knowledge: in the politest possible way you are really your own worst enemy.

That's 'holds degrees' and not 'hold degrees'as you're referring to the 3rd person singular. I note that almost every post on this thread contains either a spelling or grammatical error; quite ironic considering the topic.

It's more than ironic: it's quite comical.The post you quoted actually had other grammatical errors but best not give a tutorial now.

It particularly amuses me how Thai critics of Khun Yingluck's English capability more often than not have rather poor English themselves.And as you have pointed out some native English speakers apparently also have trouble.Incidentally it's not for us to criticise members' poor English.The charge is hypocrisy not faulty grammar.

It's very necessary for Thai students to know about Thailand. Believe it or not, I've had to teach my grade twelve students about the Chao Phraya River, and even basic Thai history. I usually relate topics in our text book to Thailand. The truth is, they really don't know.

Yes that comment mirrors others I have heard from friends in the teaching profession.But learning about Thai history, geography and culture is surely not in substitution for improving English language skills.A cynic might argue that as Thai history as described in government text books is pretty much acknowledged to be a pack of lies, there could be some who actually discourage access to other sources of information in other languages.

This is part of the Yingluck government's effort to promote the world's lingua franca in this our tongue-tied country.

It would further the effort if Yingluck and others in her cabinet, like her cousin the Foreign Minister Surapong, and who supposedly hold degrees from western countries, could role model English speech instead of fumbling and stumbling with it and ask for translators.

Apart from Abhisit who went to the most elite English high school and university (similar to Kukrit and Anand) most Thai Prime Ministers have barely spoken English at all.Chuan and Banharn could scarcely string a sentence together.Yes it would be good if Thai leaders all spoke as well as Abhisit and Korn but I doubt whether foreign dignitaries are too concerned.When was the last time one heard a Chinese or Japanese leader (or for that matter Sarkozy or Merkel) speaking acceptable English?

There are many subjects that are taken by students all over the world that probably aren't needed or used.

Thai's are capable of learning English just as well as any other group. The difficulty is that it requires constant, consistent education by reasonably well-qualified teachers.

For Thai learners, the linguistic distance between English and Thai is rather great, different sounds, different alphabet, tonal system etc. .

Interesting.I accept these good points but remain a bit puzzled why China and Vietnam, with no British colonial tradition to build on, remain so more advanced than Thailand in English language skills.The Nation article (one has got used to the rather pointless political slant which hardly seems relevant on this issue) also seems a little confused at first accepting that better teachers are needed and then suggesting that English proficiency is less important than "knowing one's own country" whatever that means.This is just making a dubious virtue out of a necessity.The reality is that Thailand needs urgently to upgrade its English language skills not just to interreact better with ASEAN but also with the wider regional and global community.I am sure I'm not the only one who has attended international conferences where the Thai delegation has been a silent presence.At first I put it down to cultural factors, a natural diffidence.I now believe it's equally about poor English language skills (the Thai accent is not important:personally I find it rather charming).

Perhaps the Indians will be rather unhappy even shocked to receive a political leader from Thailand who is clearly only in power because of her dynastic connections.

On the other hand perhaps they wont be.Jawaharlal Nehru - Indira Ghandi - Rajiv Ghandhi - Sanjay Ghandhi - Sonia Ghandhi - Rahul Ghandhi - Priyanka Ghandhi.

jayboy>> Unlike you I have openly stated that if this man is guilty I hope he goes away for a long time. You see, I abhor all criminals such as this and see no reason to make excuses for them. Unlike you.

It's not about me however irritated you might be about this matter.Reality has a way of making built in political prejudices look absurd.

I have not stated my opinion, unlike you dare I say, on his guilt one way or the other, because of the presumption of innocence - regardless of political background.That's why I suggested revisit this matter in a few months.

My interest albeit a little facetious was in the comical contortions the usual suspects have got themselves into on this affair.Somehow it stretches credulity to believe their defensiveness and double speak would be apparent if the accused was of a different political party.

I did and you responded with out actually answering it. But from your response I see that there aren't any other countries that the Democrats picked a fight with.

Huh? Am I to answer points I didn't raise? I don't even believe the the Democrats were picking fights.The problem was just sheer incompetence.

I appreciate it's irritating for you and the other usual suspects that this government's performance in foreign affairs is so superior. Just suck it in and remember it's actually good for Thailand, and on that all should be able to agree.

I had suspected the usual suspects to be wriggling with discomfort on this thread but hadn't expected this level of double think and even dishonesty.For some Yingluck becomes the subject even when the discussion is meant to be about - well we know what it's meant to be about.

The biggest laugh however comes from his koosdeboer with his shared thoughts of Team Korn (that bastion of carefully repressed PAD prejudice) and Komchadluek.

For rational people simply make a mental note to revisit this subject in a couple of months when the position is clearer.