jayboy

works for me ... and you never answered the "SJ" question .. then again ...

I'm always ready to help when I can.Here's a quote from one of your messages on your profile page which might jog your memory.

"sriracha john

2006-12-11

HEY!!! Get back here and post...

We all miss your input... and hope all is well on your end."

Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help further with memory failure.

Actually I didn't overlook who escalated violence. It was the reds. The violent criminal group is also the reds. It is obvious to some that some people will make any excuse for the reds, including them being armed with m79 grenade launchers and assault-rifle (and pretend that they didn't announce their plans for the burning from stages MONTHS in advance.) Some people will take 30+ years ago out of context and ignore Jaran and others openly discussing the Maoist tactics they employ in the red shirt movement.

Red's legitimate grievances? None.

Your remark about taking events 30 years ago "out of context" is more revealing than you might think.It's becoming clear that many on this forum simply haven't got to grips with Thailand's recent history.Your fatuous remark that the reds have no grievances is in direct contradiction to statements from Abhisit, Korn and others, a comment so crass from you it doesn't deserve a reply.So wallow in your fantasy world of "Maoist" tactics, and prance around Ratchprasong to your hearts content.

well asiawatcher,i assume you are a expat living here in thailand as i am myself.My comment to your post is.This is their country and we as foreigners are only guests here.Therefore,they can protest or rally when and wherever they want (thais ) that is.If you don't like it go back to your own country.Nobody is keeping you here.

Maybe that is how you see yourself. I am not merely a guest. I am a taxpayer and I certainly think that allows me to have an opinion and express it. Voting with your feet is always a choice, so is expressing yourself. One way offers no resistance and no encouragement, The other uses a bit of courage and creates dialogue (meaningful or not rather depends on whom you are speaking to.)

I would say that if you are unhappy, find something that makes you happy. That includes your living conditions. I, am more than just content living in Thailand, I am happy here. That doesn't mean that when I see an armed insurrectionist group marching in the streets, tossing and shooting grenades, and burning BKK that I am not saddened and angered. My partner works in an area very close to ratchaprasong and the actions of this violent criminal group put him at risk. "if you don't like it ...." phtttttt't't what a well reasoned argument

You overlook the fact that it was the army that gunned down innocent civilians.Some might wonder who exactly is the "violent criminal group", perhaps those who encouraged murder - the same group that encouraged and financed mayhem in 1976.Still it's becoming increasingly clear that many simply haven't bothered to understand the context of all this including the basic historical research.They might even understand why the reds have genuine and legitimate grievances.More important for these tossers to have unfettered access to the Sino - Thai emporiums, or swan aimlessly around Gaysorn.

Well we are all entitled to our views but I think you are the one who is completely wrong. It is not an accident of history – it is what it is, because for the time being they are satisfied with the current visa requirements - that they weed out most of the ‘dead beats’ with no money that they don’t want here.

If you are correct in your views, how is it that from time to time the requirements are changed? A couple of years back there was a big shake up of the so- called visa runners and even to those who held large deposits here which used to enable them to obtain an annual ‘investment’ visa. That visa no longer exists as before.

I believe they know exactly what they are doing, and are continually reviewing the requirements for retirement visas – hence the need to now hold the 800k in a bank for 3 months, whereas before it only had to be there on the day of visa renewal.

It is also very apparent that they are trying to get rid of the ‘marriage visa’ as they have realised that most people holding such visas are not contributing much to the Thai economy. They used to take the view that the men were taking care of a Thai family, but that view no longer prevails. Their current view seems to be that if you can’t fulfil the minimum requirements for a retirement visa – then ‘on your bike’.

But in spite of all this alleged anti 'dead- beat' or just general anti-foreigner sentiment, the 'powers that be' are smart enough to read their own numbers,supplied to them by their Thai banks, of the amount of money that is remitted here by foreign 'residents' and also as many of those 'powers' are also businessmen in such sectors as property, housing etc, they do understand the contribution that well off foreigners make to their businesses and to the country in general.

They want to keep the rich, high spending ones here (as do most countries), and get rid of the rest.

As I said in my previous post, be warned, for I am sure the retirement visa requirements will be cranked up a notch or two in the not too distant future.

You say you disagree with me but your supporting arguments (tightening up for example on retirement visa criteria) go in an opposite direction, mine.By the way I never said that rich foreigners aren't very welcome;they are and always will be.

Arkady recently explained the context very well:

"I understand the concept of the trickle down effect in economics but I also understand the concept of moving up the value added ladder in the way that Singapore took a policy decision to ditch the low value added assembly industries in the 80s, even though they were still contributing to aggregate demand at the time. It will be up to the Thai planners, if they have a mind to, to decide where they want be on the retirement business value added ladder in 25 years time and plan accordingly. Economics is not the only consideration. There is an official "national security" mindset that always takes the view that Thailand is a small country with limited resources that needs to protect itself from being swamped by foreigners of various type who might otherwise threaten Thai cultural values and crowd out the Thais. If they do stop to think about it, it is unlikely that continuing to go after the mass retirement market would be a winning argument that politicians would want to promote to the electorate. It is more likely that politicians will make hay out of measures to control the large and growing populations of foreigners who have settled permanently on temporary visa extensions without any quotas, checks on criminal records, tests of knowledge of Thai language and life in Thailand, medical insurance or good behaviour bonds, and with only subsistence level financial requirements. Even if the criminal elements are only a small minority, they do exist and attract a lot of negative publicity. It is not hard to imagine this aspect being highlighted as a reason to control things. Thailand's move in 1952 to limit Chinese immigration from thousands to only 100 people a year also brought out many arguments about the economic inadvisability of doing this to nil effect and the vast majority of non-Chinese Thais wholeheartedly supported the measure."

Let there be no doubt - the comparative ease of obtaining a retirement visa in Thailand is not an accident of history. It is there because the smart ones in the government understand the contribution retirees make to the Thai economy.

I am afraid you are completely wrong.Indeed the current position is to a major extent indeed an accident of history.If you believe the "smart ones in the government" have given the matter serious thought at all you are much mistaken.To my knowledge if there is a view at all it is that there are far far too many indigent foreigners abusing Thailand's generous entry policy.In fact all the evidence suggests there is a tightening up, not in the drastic way you suggest but little by little over time.

Another reason to only rent in Thailand.

Rent your home, rent your wife, rent your children.

When you are no longer welcome just leave and go somewhere else.

It doesn't matter if you are married, have children, have work, Thailand really doesn't want foreigners staying long time.

Let's face it, we all know we are not really wanted in this country. We should just accept that.

I'm not sure it's true that Thailand doesn't want foreigners staying long time, simply that foreign resident "retirees" should not be a drain on the country (at minimum) and (preferably) be relatively well off.

It's true that Thailand offers retirement visas but there's no official policy of encouraging foreigners to retire here.There is profound irritation at others who abuse Thailand's generous entry policy and either live permanently or even work here on the basis of a wholly inappropriate visa status.The whole visa run industry is a blatant defiance of the spirit if not the letter of the Thai law.In a word many influential Thais are frankly pissed off at the vast legion of poorly educated and modestly well off foreign "residents" that do nothing for the country but through their khi nok character bring the country's reputation down at a time when Thailand is looking to take its tourist industry upmarket.

Frankly if a resident, even if properly authorised, cannot afford gilt edged health insurance that covers all eventualities (or of course the wealth to cover all bills), he has no business being here at all.The reality however is that most of these people seem to think they have some sort of right to stay here permanently.Short answer is that they don't and the repercussions of their misunderstanding will become clear in due course.All the signs are already there.

I am pleased to report that there is a fresh compromise in the wings.This will allow Red demonstrators to have their demonstrations in Ratchaprasong on the condition they do a little light shopping.Details follow:

http://notthenation.com/2011/01/rajprasong-vendors-demand-reds-buy-more-handbags/

Sounds like you are discussing a New Mandala forum post. To properly document what you say is said over there would require link or a direct quote, which would then elicit a reply back on what was said on the New Mandala forum, and then possibly a reply back to that reply, aka "discussion". I'd just rather just skip entirely what is said on a New Mandala forum post. If I wanted to discuss what was said there, I'd post over there on that other forum.

Let us know when the NCCC charges Abhisit with malfeasance the same they did with Somchai and Chavalit. The other defendant in their case, the National Police Chief, lost his job over his involvement.

It's not "I" that thinks Somchai should be tried. It's the NCCC that charged him. If the NCCC wishes to charge Abhisit, then that's up to them. If you think the NCCC erred in their decision to charge Somchai and others, then I would suggest you contact them and air your concerns.

361 Nonthaburi Rd.(Sanambinnam Rd.)

Thasaai District, Amphur Muang, Nonthaburi 11000 , Thailand

Tel (66) 2 528 4800-4849

Nobody is suggesting Thai Visa discussions shouldn't be self contained without constant reference to other forums.Nevertheless since the subject matter (political developments in Thailand) is often the same there's no doubt that members will be interested in NM topics, and hopefully vice versa.The impression you give is a deep seated dislike of discussion on topics which have also been aired over at NM.That's not very healthy and frankly intellectually impoverished.If you don't like debate go somewhere else.

And by the way I should avoid the hectoring and bullying tone if I was you.It got you into trouble before and probably will again.

No need to re-hash this 2 year old incident for the umpteenth time as nearly all people here know what happened then despite spin attempts years later through confirmed Red slanted people like Nostitz, but suffice to say, yellows and Reds are a different situation in that we were talking about a same day occurrence, not the weeks and weeks the Reds had been warned.

Appropriately, criminal charges have been filed against the appropriate people and we can wait for the trial of Somchai and Chavalit et al to re-hash it again.

Haven't read the comments on that NM thread for a while, but I think even a die hard PAD supporter started to argue with Nick and eventually conceded he was right. Nick might be biased towards red in political opinion but when it comes to documenting the facts I've no reason to believe he'd lie. I'd say he's one of the most trustworthy reporters around when it comes to a strict detailing of events. Other people dispute whether PAD were warned or not.

Well, I'm going to take the anti-red line people on here propagate and turn it on the yellows "Som nam na, I say. They knew they shouldn't be there. And when it was clear the leaders knew the police were using deadly weapons they did nothing to call them back! No, in fact it's the leaders fault, they'd been incited these people for weeks and brainwashing them with propaganda. It's obvious to anyone the leaders wanted their own protesters killed so they could use it against the government! Even the Wikileaks said so! And yet some on here still support the PAD terrorists and believe that Somchai's actions should be investigated! Of course they shouldn't. Somchai deserves a medal for even trying to negotiate with terrorists who wouldn't back down!"

Not saying I agree with all or most of that, but I'm lazy, so what the hell...

Nostitz is no reporter, he's a blogger and a photographer.

If you wish to discuss New Mandala forum posts, you should go to the New Mandala forum and post there.

More than PAD believed Somchai's et al actions should be investigated. That's why they had charges filed against them by NCCC... charges which, btw, are older than the airport charges this thread is about, and which we are all still waiting for action on.

.

Unfortunately despite your best efforts you can't drown out reasonable discussion of issues.It's perfectly reasonable that topics debated on New Mandala should also be debated here, obviously in the context of Thai Visa and conforming to forum rules.

I see this thread has quickly turned in to a yellow propaganda thread where the resident forum yellows try to rewrite history and make people believe the yellows did no wrong.

they seem to forget the deaths and injuries caused BY the yellows, they forget the financial implications caused by the yellows, they forget that the light handed way they were treated means they are still causing problems now, such as venturing over the border. Well now it seems the government do not need them anymore, they served their purpose, now they are being rounded up at last, and their get out of jail free cards seems to have been revoked, and about bloody time too, their arrogance will mean they will continue to commit offences though, it just remains to be seen what more damage they will cause.

However one plus point is now that this government does not need them, they may turn agaisnt this lame duck and get rid of them and actually do Thailand a favour for a change.

You are right sand it's contaminated

Some people here seem to have just as selective a memory as the late k. Samak. Even some UDD core members spoke out.

"Prime Minister Samak's comments about the 1976 massacre has many speaking out against his diminishment of the event's brutality"

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87178

Actually Emptyset gives a very accurate and concise explanation of the Samak role so it's slightly odd that Nisa came back with the unhelpfully bland Wiki quote.Samak's role was disgraceful but he wasn't the prime mover.I don't quite see what you mean by "selective memory".

Clearly as I said earlier there are several intelligent forum members who simply haven't done (apparently) any detailed reading of the last decades of Thai political history.It explains why so many posts from whatever vantage point lack rooting in any understanding of context.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact ...

It's a fact that there are many in Bangkok who were sympathetic to the red-shirt cause. Lots of people in Bangkok come from the Isan area, so no surprise. Lots of Bangkokians voted PTP, lots of others Dem's. Lots of people in Bangkok were sympathetic to the yellow-shirts, no surprise either.

To say 'warm welcome' and 'even hostile observers surprised' is less a fact than an interpretation and as such more like an opinion. Somehow I think the soldiers which arrived in Bangkok as part of the September 2006 coup got a much warmer welcome

You're absolutely right.This is a subjective matter.I suppose what surprised me was the very positive reaction of non Isaan Bangkokians, mostly working class or lower middle class I agree.I did also see negative reactions mostly from middle class office workers in the Sathorn area.

There was a "massive and general welcome for the reds before it went pearshaped"? Wow! They proclaim a million will be there but in a city of between 8-12 million they could get a total of 100,000 (mostly paid and trucked in) but hey ... that's a massive and general welcome!

As for connections between the reds and communism you need only look at Thida and Weng. Both actively involved with the Maoist CPT in the past.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

Samak's role was disgraceful but he was more of a cheerleader for violence than its instigator.He is incidentally dead so he's not part of any movement.There was a banned member Sriracha John who maintained Samak's final illness was faked, but the general consensus is indeed that he is dead.Bucholz might like to comment.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

More ad hominem attacks from Jayboy ... even in the face of all the evidence

Neatly avoiding the facts that don't fit with your view.

There was a "massive and general welcome for the reds before it went pearshaped"? Wow! They proclaim a million will be there but in a city of between 8-12 million they could get a total of 100,000 (mostly paid and trucked in) but hey ... that's a massive and general welcome!

As for connections between the reds and communism you need only look at Thida and Weng. Both actively involved with the Maoist CPT in the past.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

[quote name='Nisa' timestamp='

But the problem is the Reds don't take a stand in regards to making things better for the poor except for their continued broken record demand of what the think is democracy. Their demands back in April were not to better the lives of the poor but simply to disband the current government immediately at any cost to the country. The cannot be taken seriously as being interested in democracy when their only agenda is to oust the leaders in charge if they are not those they want. Maybe they do believe in the struggle of the poor based on their choosing Red as their color and the number of communist Red Star caps I see at the rallies and if their goal is to make Thailand a communist nation then this may explain the lack of any proposed policies or grievances beyond trying to overthrow the government.

Yes, people are aware of the class struggles in Thailand AND MOST DO CARE but the answer is not the reds as they have blown all credibility. A more moderate fraction needs to break off from this group in order for the poor to be represented seriously and allow others to understand what it is they want and how they believe it can happen. The truth of the matter is people who are not Reds are by far not yellows. The vast majority of people I know in BKK do not at all consider themselves Yellows but do support Abhisit and do think the Reds are either lunatics or too ignorant or selfish to care what their leaders are doing to them.

I don't think any reasonable person could be other than disappointed in the quality of Red leadership.However your comments are politically rather naive and in places fatuous (your commie gibes) and there is no indication from what you say why there was a massive and general welcome for the Reds in Bangkok before it all went pear shaped.It's not for you or I to talk patronisingly of the need for "moderate factions" to break off.Yes there was a demand for the Government to hold elections - hardly surprising given the outrageous bias shown by the various organs of state (I am being deliberately vague) in shoring up elite interests.I support Abhisit as well but it doesn't mean I don't sympathise with the Red movement.

The 2 outstanding questions are

1) Do Thai/Chinese business men treat their employees any worse than other businessmen in Thailand.

and

2) Who specifically was he referring to as a when he was speaking of a business man that he claims is a visa-runner?

(both seem to be relevant to the thread since this is about businessmen in Thailand

Of course you can find like minded acolytes on this forum.What comfort you draw from them is a matter for you.

As to (1) since the vast majority of businessmen are Sino-Thai, it's not a very intelligent question.

As to (2) I have no idea what's bugging you on this, specifically why you need to know names.Do you have some personal interest in visa running?

Moving away from your nonsense to the thread subject matter, there was an excellent article by Veera Prateepchaikul in the other paper this morning, analysing the spirit of compromise which has brought a sensible settlement between UDD and the Ratchaprasong business operators.

I wonder if jayboy can stand the light .......

Jayboy, who are these businessmen specifically that are visa-runners you keep referring to? I am guessing you will stand mute on this direct question.

BTW -- I don't think I have made the claim that I am upper-middle class, I do think I have made the claim that my Thai partner comes from an upper middleclass background and is upper middle class. (I come from a middle-class acedemic family. My father is a retired professor etc) As far as your other attacks on my education etc ....... Pttttttt't't't.

You are still imho a bigot when it comes to how you talk about the "sino-thai"

Sorry I don't do personal stuff and would suggest you follow my line.

I note you are calling me a bigot again despite my careful explanations.I suspect for reasons unknown you just don't like the term "Sino-Thai"

As to your background you can pretend to be anything you like.Nobody cares but for the sake of plausibility I should avoid playing the upper middle class Oxbridge type if I were you.

I wasn't making a moral judgement, simply querying whether the benevolent Quaker employment philosophy has many followers among the Sino-Thai business class.

lol ... Sino-Thai business class? Jayboy are you assuming that there is any difference in how the Thai/Chinese ethnic group pays and treats employees in Thailand compared to other groups? If so, can you show any empirical evidence of this? Yet again the attack on the Thai Chinese ethnic group? Why? Your basic premise seems to be that businesses all tend to use the same typical policies to maximize profits, so singling out this group you attack over and over smacks of bigotry to me.

You have elsewhere proclaimed you are "well educated and, less convincingly, "upper middle class."

Yet you have difficulty in understanding a simple proposition which has been made several times, namely that to point out that business in THailand is dominated overwhelmingly by Sino-Thais is not the same as making an attack on that community.Got it now?

Your other points I have dealt with elsewhere.

...made it look like Thai employers are a 'special breed of evil'. This is merely the way things are done - and should be done in any situation where two parties negotiate an employer-employee contract.

No that wasn't my intent, and it's not what I think about Thai employers.

I suppose my comment was less than flattering about the social and intellectual calibre of visa runners (and those "businessmen" who are in reality visa runners) .. but that's a different story.

The clown show continues...

Irritated by the sensible compromise negotiated by police, traders and redshirts?

Our PAD representative from Sri Racha resorts to baby talk.

.... and yet again Jayboy attacks the poster (with innuendo and not facts apparently) instead of dealing with the post.

Bucholz's post clearly showed where Thida lied about not blocking/shutting down traffic around Central World ... so instead of dealing with that ......

If the police and traders are satisfied, that's good enough for most people.The hardline purveyors of hatred will never be satisfied.

No you misunderstand me.It's perfectly acceptable even commendable, and represents Thailand's accession to modern politics.That's why on balance I support the Abhisit/Korn approach.

What is the Abhisit/Korn "approach"? This pairing might be more competent/qualified than what PT has to offer at the moment (but let's remember this much lauded pairing has taken on board much of PT/PPP's platform), but I don't see any evidence AT ALL of them having a different "approach"? As far as I can tell both sides have roughly the same economic & social policies, the only difference is one side is closer to the traditional elite than the other. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only crucial difference is rhetorical and stylistic, a matter of perception, I suppose. Abhisit is unlikely to be able to communicate to the rural poor in the way Thaksin was able to (don't know why because it's not like Thaksin had anything to do w/the rural poor before he became a politician).

You are right to query the pairing.In my case it's really a shorthand way to describe a policy that addresses social needs fairly, but is based on hard headed economic principles.It's the "competence" of the Abhisit/Korn pairing that appeals.I just don't see it with the PTP or to be frank with most of the coalition partners.

Thai employers "concerned" about their "poor" employees are rarer than Oxbridge Ph.D's on a visa run bus to the Cambodian border.They pay what they think they can get away with.

Uhm, that is how it is supposed to be and it is in all parts of the world.

Do you run your own business, are you employed or lifting social service benefits?

I wasn't making a moral judgement, simply querying whether the benevolent Quaker employment philosophy has many followers among the Sino-Thai business class.

So you admit that Thai, American and Japanese employers pay their employees the lowest salary they think their employees will accept to perform the job assigned, no-matter if the employee is poor or rich or the skin-color they have?

I don't see where you're going with this or why.But anyway you seem a reasonable polite sort of person so here goes..

Actually while obviously you are broadly correct, there are significant differences in the examples you mention related to culture, meaningful minimum wages etc etc.Remember that the average Sino-Thai businessman is only a few generations away from being a wretched illiterate peasant.These people dragged themselves up amazingly but there's not likely to be much sympathy for the concept of generous salaries.In other words the dog eat dog mentality is more prevalent.I don't particularly have any issue with this.

Thai employers "concerned" about their "poor" employees are rarer than Oxbridge Ph.D's on a visa run bus to the Cambodian border.They pay what they think they can get away with.

Uhm, that is how it is supposed to be and it is in all parts of the world.

Do you run your own business, are you employed or lifting social service benefits?

I wasn't making a moral judgement, simply querying whether the benevolent Quaker employment philosophy has many followers among the Sino-Thai business class.

As for 'if they get away with it' suggests the Dem's have done something devious, wrong, bordering illegal even maybe. Your opinion I guess, but personally I see no proof of that.

No you misunderstand me.It's perfectly acceptable even commendable, and represents Thailand's accession to modern politics.That's why on balance I support the Abhisit/Korn approach.