jayboy

Again you are stating things that just aren't true. "setting out to occupy an airport" was not the reported aim of the PAD. They were setting out to meet Somchai (the PM) not to occupy the airport. Your thoughts on what constitutes terror or what might have happened are not a justification for a charge of terrorism.

The AoT Board of Directors knew that doing the Thai thing of going out and meeting with the people would have yielded different results, their man on the ground failed and failed miserably to do his job.

"Vital Areas" were not locked down. The PAD had full run of the place and were even given access to the control tower (I believe that the people that went to the control tower should be charged with major crimes.) The airport was able to open almost immediately upon them leaving and no petty theft was reported even from the King Power people.

So in your Alice in Wonderland world it was the AOT that should be punished not the peaceful PAD crowd that only had the intention of greeting Khun Somchai.Once they were there they decided to stick around for a bit and finally departed after giving the airport a good needed tidy up.

No matter that your ridiculous account bears no relation to what happened according to neutral observers.The slander you make against the AOT has been widely used by PAD fanatics (though at least you do not repeat the lie that the closure was orchestrated by Thaksin) and is incontestably wrong.The AOT had the duty to close the airport down one the unruly mob was on the premises.World airport safety experts have confirmed this.

You have made some shameful posts but I think this is one of the most disgraceful.You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Again, I can't see what that has to do with the price of fish.

History is filled with people who have betrayed their 'own' country - despite the fact they had absolutely no cultural affinity with the people they sold out to. They are generally called 'spies'.

Or should the fact that someone who holds another passport be barred from serving in public life based on peoples automatic assumption that having that passport will make them a sell out.

Why not just bar them all together? Using your flawed logic that people will automatically be sold out, there is nothing to stop a future politician renouncing their former citizenship, entering parliament and the going on to sell out people anyway.

I completely agree.This would be a non issue were it not for Amsterdam's stunt (though I'm not saying he doesn't raise some important and unaddressed issues) with the ICJ.It has always been known that Abhisit was born of Thai parents in the UK.He has never used the privileges associated with his place of birth, eg has always travelled to the UK on the same visa basis as any other Thai.

And yet there is something "alien" about Abhisit which is fascinating and compelling, but it is not connected to his place of birth.It is to do with his long exposure to Western value systems at elite British institutions, let us concede at the best school and one of the best universities.It is not possible in my view to have this kind of exposure and not be troubled deeply by many of the fairy tales, inanities, greedy vested interests and lies that pervade Thai politics.But he is PM and thus has to make compromises and negotiate with those unelected bodies (military, politicised courts, feudal interests etc) that eased his way to power.As a Thai he is also to some extent a creature of his environment, and at some level buys in to this nonsense.He has incidentally been very clever in hiding and distancing himself from early PAD sympathies (unlike Korn - also a decent man - whose more overt support may come back to haunt him and his PAD hardline wife).And so there is a fascinating internal struggle going on in Abhisit's mind and heart.Perhaps he is also biding his time but one thing is sure - those that propelled him to power cannot be entirely sure he will be their tool for ever.

... he certainly has lied less than any other PM in recent history

But this is very far from certain.Abhisit has consistently lied about the murder of red shirts and other civilians by the army last year.

whilst the reds have denied the existance of men in black mercenaries paid for by their boss Thaksin and accredited the deaths of police, army, civilians, non combatants, to ''fake reds'' within their ranks

must be true, the reds never lie...........

We were discussing Prime Ministers, and Abhisit has proved to be an accomplished liar.

I'm sure there are dishonesties propagated by the Red leadership but that is another subject altogether.Your accusations incidentally don't make much sense but to analyse your efforts would take us further off topic.

... he certainly has lied less than any other PM in recent history

But this is very far from certain.Abhisit has consistently lied about the murder of red shirts and other civilians by the army last year.

What an interesting turn in this thread.

No, you don't need a lawyer to make sure you send in all the documents required in the list prepared by the PR department - the list is in English language.

I don't know a single PR applicant (successfull or still waiting since 2006) who used a lawyer. More to the point, I don't know anybody who bought laptops for the immigration officers. Maybe some lawyers just want to justify their invoices to naive applicants.

The reason that virtually no applications have been approved in the past several years has nothing to do with the immigration officers or their laptops. Don't let any lawyer fool you into that line of thinking. In fact, do not use a lawyer. If he says he has to buy laptops, he is crooked anyway, which is proof that he is not to be trusted.

Get real, people. Don't fall for crooked lawyers.

Agree with most of this, but the fact remains that many have used lawyers to good effect.You can do it yourself but the busy executive will probably use a decent lawyer.It's also rather more than putting the documents together by the way.I agree that second or third tier firms should be avoided.

aww, I only get apoplectic if you claim they are recognized as lawyers on their work permit.

But I entirely concur with that.

If you go back (a long way!) in this thread, there were a few posts about people being asked for 'extra' money by their lawyers. Obviously there's no way of telling where the original request came from ...

Now that I can well believe and underlines the need to select the right legal firm.

I note MikeyIdea's comments on Immigration inducements.Since he obviously knows what he's talking about I shall have to factor that in.

The whole 'Party List' thing is crap, it totally jiggers the system.

It should be one man on vote:

Each MP candidate runs in his district and either wins or loses

based on an equal percentage of voters as EVERY other candidate gets to be voted for by.

,

The party with the most popularly elected individual MPs, gets first crack at forming a government.

If they can't do it in a reasonable period of time, say 2-3 weeks, the second biggest vote getting party gets a chance.

If no one can get a coalition of 50+% then run a new election.

The people get who they chose, and some arbitrary mechanism to favor political machines is removed from the equation.

The distinguished Thai expert and ex Cambridge historian, Chris Baker has views

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFPFYlZ4GQY&feature=player_embedded#at=105

Immigration do not ask for bribes from private individuals but they do request "help" (laptops etc) from law firms, another reason to do the paper work yourself

Not in my experience or in the experience of anyone I know.In fact I have never heard of any such irregularities in respect of PR applications when dealt with by the Department of Immigration.There is far too common an assumption that most Thai officials are corrupt:most aren't.

I have commented before on the choice of law firms.It's essential to choose the right firm.Most of the successful applicants I know simply use the international firms they were used to dealing with (headed by foreign lawyers although that undeniable fact gives some people on this forum an apoplexy).Most of this firms will have an experienced immigration specialist (obviously a Thai lawyer) who will take responsibility, although there will be minions dispatched to do the tedious aspects.

I don't deny that this is all rather expensive.One could take a risk and choose one of the firms specialising in servicing expatriates but I wouldn't recommend it.It can be done solo and I know someone who has done it.He spoke Thai very well and was very personable/charming - but he also for various reasons had a lot of time on his hands.

It's probably not worth paying a law firm to help out, since they won't be able to give you any more information than you can get by reading this thread thoroughly and visiting the PR section at Immigration, Chaengwatana, in person. You can get some professional help in obtaining notarised documents and getting notarised translations done but it will be cheaper to do this on an adhoc basis when you need it without paying an overall fee.

The first thing you need to do is get yourself a work permit and start paying as much tax as you can afford, as Mario points out. If you want to apply for citizenship instead, the same applies plus start donating to registered Thai charities and keep the receipts. At least three consecutive calendar years' of notarised tax receipts as a result of working in Thailand with a work permit will be required to apply for PR or citizenship. For the latter refer to this thread Both tracks require a lot of documentation, a reasonable knowledge of Thai and there is no certain outcome to these arcane processes that lack anything approaching transparency. Good luck.

You say it's probably not worth paying a law firm to help out, but the remainder of the post rather makes out the case for doing just that!

I know several successful PR applicants and most of them used law firms.It's really a question of how strapped one is financially and how much time one has to spare.All of the applicants I knew were prosperous and busy corporate executives.

Secondly, The F-5s and the F-16s is outdated and an upgrade is desperately needed. And Gripen's price is below half than the equivalent from the US. So they will get an agile fighter at a good price.

Even Thaksin seemed to think so...

Doesn't there need to be some rational assessment of threat when purchasing big ticket defence items?.For example the NATO armies had to rethink heavy armour requirements after the collapse of the Soviet Union meant it impossible tanks would battle it out on the plains of Germany.What is the nature of the threat to Thailand?

I can entirely see that a modern airforce is necessary to deal with any future nonsense from Laos,Cambodia or Burma.Beyond that I can't really see the threat beyond the long range possibilities I mentioned earlier.

As to the Gripen are there any like for like comparisons between the price Thailand paid and the price the Swedish airforce paid? One has to exclude sales to South Africa, Czechoslovakia etc as the record of corruption on those transactions is well documented.

this ridiculous purchase is driven other than by armed forces immunity from budgetary restraint (the armed forces budget has exploded upwards since the criminal military coup)

Do you have some insider information that differs from:

This year's budget was identified as 1.6 yesterday

which is still below the average for ASEAN

previously it was 1.5

ASEAN countries military expenditure as a percent of GDP

?.? (unreported) Myanmar

4.1 Singapore

3.9 Brunei

2.4 Vietnam

2.0 Malaysia

1.5 Thailand

1.1 Cambodia

1.0 Indonesia

0.8 Philippines

0.4 Laos

ASEAN average (not counting unreported Myanmar) = 1.9

On a world scale of military expenditure as a percent of GDP, Thailand ranks # 89.

With respect you seem to be quoting yourself.

No "insider" information is needed.Nobody seriously disputes that armed forces expenditure accelerated after the coup.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LB26Ae01.html

if the claim is correct and can take down 8-1. then why hasn.t usa /europe/ bought them ??? don't fly anywhere near Chiaphum guys !!!!!!!!!!

They are talking about against aircraft's of the region by neighboring countries, not against other Gen 3.5/4 aircraft's.

Fatuous response.The question is not the capability of neigbouring countries, but the capability those countries providing Thailand with a strategic threat (Reasonable subject for discussion - which countries might these be?)

To deal with any problems with Cambodia,Laos or Burma there is no need to have aircraft of the Gripen specification.Thailand will never take on China and in some senses is already a vassal state.Malaysia is not a threat, nor Singapore.The latter would incidentally whup Thailand's ass if push came to shove - but only a theoretical concern.Longer term I can see that an Islamicised Indonesia - the sleeping giant - might be an issue echoing Sukarno's regional expansionism but this is no more than a very long term threat.

However much apologists like TAWP might bleat that all is correct,no serious observer believes this ridiculous purchase is driven other than by armed forces immunity from budgetary restraint (the armed forces budget has exploded upwards since the criminal military coup) and of course corruption.

A fine aircraft.Good to know that it can shoot down enemy fighters on a one to eight basis.

There are however a few problems with the Thai purchase - price (including the notorious "extras" and "accessories"), relevance to purpose, spending prioritisation, civilian overview of military procurement, corruption track record of both Gripen and the Thai military etc etc

What you can be sure however is that uncritical admirers of the Thai military will never have a rational discussion of any of these subjects.

Actually, there is no known problems, but there is unproven accusations by the likes of you.

But if you have any evidence, and by that I mean evidence, then by all means present them.

What you can be sure however is that uncritical admirers of the Thai military will never have a rational discussion of any of these subjects.

Gripen JAS-39 C/D...

A fine aircraft.Good to know that it can shoot down enemy fighters on a one to eight basis.

There are however a few problems with the Thai purchase - price (including the notorious "extras" and "accessories"), relevance to purpose, spending prioritisation, civilian overview of military procurement, corruption track record of both Gripen and the Thai military etc etc

What you can be sure however is that uncritical admirers of the Thai military will never have a rational discussion of any of these subjects.

Any bets that the hoarding of Palm oil, besides that going to better paying bio-diesel, is also being done to embarrass the government with the average housewife, just prior to the coming election? One of the few ways to dent the image at the home owner level. And not coincidentally make a much higher profit in the end too.

Too many crooks indeed!

A promising candidate for the Sriracha John Memorial Prize for the most irrelevant introduction of Thaksin (don't deny it) to a particular subject, in this case palm oil hoarding.

Stupid also because most of the refining takes place in the South, a Democrat stronghold.

The policeman was perfectly correct.It's not an excuse to say rural Thais ride around shirtless on motorbikes (I have never seen a shirtless Thai ride around in a car).

It's symptomatic of a large number of generally lower class foreigners who ,while mainly failures by the standards of their original countries ,have more money than the average rural Thai.They talk about their Thai "families" but have not the remotest understanding of Thai culture except the bar world where in general they met their partners.I have met countless rural school teachers, policeman and civil servants who while having little money make an enormous effort to look presentable, clean and tidy.Of course a fat vulgar half naked foreigner driving a car with his "family" is going to offend and upset.It's mainly a question of good manners , a point I would have thought even these knuckle dragging proles might understand - apparently not.

Yea let the private sector have a free hand then they can make bigger profit.

After all being in business is all about making profit. seems to me there needs to be a restraining hand in there somewhere.

Why? The article makes it clear there should be sensible regulation, but it needs to be a very light hand.

It is the private sector and the drive for profit that has lifted Thailand out of poverty.

This isn't a class struggle, except for the fact that the person the red shirts are fighting for is struggling to find some class.

I'm sure that passes for wit in the less demanding Pattaya salons.

It's great that opinionated farang have a place (TV) where they can rant about the "inconveniences" that are part of a textbook class struggle. The Reds can be denigrated for fighting for their fair of share, and making it difficult to shop.

You'll have to show me which textbook has class struggles led by a billionaire.

Don't know about billionaire, don't know Thaksin will turn out to be a leader (rather than a catalyst) and don't actually accept the old fashioned class struggle concept (though interestingly among non-communist intellectuals Marx and his dialectical materialism tools are receiving renewed interest.May be connected with capitalism's recent crisis).

What I do know and there are countless examples, revolutionary leaders have often had aristocratic or upper class backgrounds.Chou Enlai is one recent example but there are many others through history.

Once again you lie. The whole argument was based on that there was not a large slew of licensed lawyers in the function of lawyers in BKK, that most foreign 'lawyers' here are merely advisers.

But of course in your warped mind you backtracked until you adopted this position to be your point. O-well. But it shows how you rationalize to yourself to 'always be right'. I wasn't really involved in the argument, but it was funny to follow. Classical.

And from it we learn how you will argue here.

Gosh.Epithets like "you lie" and "warped mind" on the rather dull subject of foreign lawyers.What happens when you're really annoyed?

A friend of mine who works for a certain Thai bank was sent to Cambodia some years ago to open a branch. The project failed when the agents who were lent the money to further lend to borrowers in various provinces, defaulted or disappeared. My friend concluded Cambodians could not be trusted. This was in contrast to Laos where a branch was opened with no serious problems.

On another note, a neighbour in Ban Pai is married to a Thai from Buriram. One day I noticed two dogs locked in a fierce fight on their property. I recommended throwing water on the dogs but the husband refused.The neighbour said,'He's Khmer,they're bloodthirsty and cruel'.

In my experience that is quite a common perception of Khmers in Thailand,and of course it was only 35 years ago that the Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of their own population.

I think what you describe would be confirmed by most knowledgeable people.The trouble with the Cambodians is that they are heirs to a genuinely great civilisation, a country which lost its way and became instead a small marginal player.I think one can observe in Cambodia a characteristic also seen in human beings, namely the lack of achievement manifesting itself in bitterness and aggression.None of this given Cambodia's history is particularly surprising.What does stick in the gullet however is Thailand, with all its comparative advantages descending to the same puerile level, even when headed by a sophisticate like Abhisit.Of course we know the PAD leadership and the wacky reactionary end of the military are vomit inducing but even so it's sad that wiser heads have not intervened to dissuade these cretins from demeaning the country they profess to love.

If you lack ability to understand a post then I doubt you can make the assumption it confirms any of your nonsense conjectures. But then again, that is your MO.

Do tell, how many foreign lawyers are working as solicitors in Bangkok now? Even when you are completely wrong you manage to bring a thread to some 10(?) pages of defense of your incorrect statement. It is your MO.

So excuse me if I don't really assign your opinion or ideas much weight.

And the objection (and personal attack) was about Robert Amsterdam, not Andrew Marshall. If you are able to keep people apart.

I have been criticised for many things but not yet my ability to comprehend.

On the question of foreign lawyerts practising in Bangkok, I actually won the argument and the irrelevant introduction of this issue suggests you are aware you are losing this one.There are hordes of foreign lawyers as anybody who has had dealings with Freshfields, Allen and Overy, White and Case knows.They may be licensed appropriately as advisors but that's beside the point.

I'm well aware that Amsterdam and Marshall are separate.Who suggested otherwise? Since there is a well documented tendency to slander and abuse Amsterdam (to the point of nasty anti-semitism in some cases) I accept on this forum much of a debate on the issues he raises is unlikely.Marshall sums up the evidence in a sober and non-emotional way.Any fair person knows the Thai Government has many unanswered questions to address on the killings last year.Some like you prefer to treat those who raise these questions with abuse, anything to avoid difficult questions and hard thinking.Others, in a category I include myself, are broadly supportive of the Abhisit Government but are keen to see a much greater urgency and transparency in investigating both civilian and military deaths.Andrew Marshall covers much of this important ground, including the lack of co-operation from the armed forces.

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward

No, it is about admitting that he will never read nor contemplate the points we put across and that as a payed propaganda tool he has no interest in being correct, sincere nor balanced.

It would, by all accounts, only be a point to counter his points by those that have the venues to have their replies published in largely the same amount or places that RA pushes his stories. Hardly something many of us here have, so it is a waste of time.

So we jump directly to the truth of what he is.

Confirmation of what I said about the default position.Neither the knowledge, analytical ability or energy to do the hard thinking so takes the intellectually slovenly approach of personal abuse.

Needless to say the points made in the post under reference by Andrew Marshall (Reuters) are simply ignored.

Are you saying that you lack the analytical ability to understand my post and therefor decide to push some personal abuse instead? I would agree.

Because what you don't acknowledge or realize - please advice which one it is - is that often the points have been countered (often many times) either here or at other places. And even after a lengthy post of rebuttal, what is the sum? Apart from some flames from the red shirt apologist or hardcore supporters (especially over Twitter, using anon user-handles) nothing of value is gained. RA doesn't respond to emails, posts or Twitter-messages because he isn't personally vested and only following his payed agenda. And those too deep in their beliefs will rationalize away every counterpoint and refuse to really read them.

So now, tell us, what is it you want us to do? Write the same posts over and over again? Like whenever a poster here says 'this government isn't elected' or 'this government was installed after the coup', assertions which are both wrong but posted on multiple occasions. Now when even easy facts like this doesn't really get across, how do you expect the rebuttal of a multi-page propaganda-created report is going to be handled?

Confirms what I already said about the default position, then becomes incoherent.

Andrew Marshall is incidentally very far from being an apologist for any side.

And people were saying that Abhisit was doing this just to get votes. Just goes to show, doesn't it.

Were they saying that? I doubt whether this issue will have much impact electorally one way or the other.The Thai people are not as stupid as some of the PAD fascists and army reactionaries apparently believe. Most people I speak to think Abhisit's ambivalence on this issue is the result of his dependence (one can argue about the degree) on the forces that led him by hand to power, ie military coup,rigged constitition,army interference, judicialisation of politics, buying off minority parties, hysterical state financed propaganda etc etc.

And there are still people burbling on about watersheds, as though that was relevant in anything other than a minor technical sense.All adds to the gaiety of nations.