jayboy

And will we ever get ANYTHING on the Red Shirts part?

Depends who you mean by "we".

That si the job of an opposition. Hopefully they will do it well with clear cut evidence. The coutnry has seen enough of lies and inuendo. Hopefully they will also find someone other than Jatuporn to present the evidence, so it doesnt start as tainted.

Hammered

If clear cut and indisputable evidence is presented then surely it doesn't much matter where it comes from - Jatuporn,Robert Amsterdam, Wikikleaks or Rupert the Bear.

I think it's too easy to write of information because the source is seen to be "tainted" in some way.

After all what's source for the goose is source for the gander.(Sorry, couldn't resist it..Happy Christmas)

The source does matter. Many people rule out The Nation as a source (and without any verification from other sources I am not too sure I blame them!) If someone repeatedly lies and gets caught lying then they will be discredited out of hand. (Producing doctored youtube stuff to play over and over .... well .... can you trust him?) Similar to the "Boy who cried Wolf!"

I think it's fair to say that a dubious source (you mention PTP) needs to be treated with scepticism.My point was however that sometimes truth emerges from the most unlikely quarters, particularly in a climate of censorship and self censorship such as Thailand.

That si the job of an opposition. Hopefully they will do it well with clear cut evidence. The coutnry has seen enough of lies and inuendo. Hopefully they will also find someone other than Jatuporn to present the evidence, so it doesnt start as tainted.

Hammered

If clear cut and indisputable evidence is presented then surely it doesn't much matter where it comes from - Jatuporn,Robert Amsterdam, Wikikleaks or Rupert the Bear.

I think it's too easy to write of information because the source is seen to be "tainted" in some way.

After all what's source for the goose is source for the gander.(Sorry, couldn't resist it..Happy Christmas)

It isn't a matter of fawning, Kuhn A. -- it is just that they are in charge; you aren't...

If the Thai IMM policy makers are so oblivious to what would really be in the Kingdom's best interests, maybe those best interests as YOU see them have not been packaged properly by those who might have some influence on such misguided persons whose policies are now configured -- in your humble opinion -- to have Thailand remain an Asian backwater.

As far as long-term alien resident rights in Thailand go, the #1 volume poster on the ThaiVisa Finance Forum refers to US Government officials as 'our jailers' who deny US citizens their fundamental Constitutional Rights so I guess you cannot win.

BTW as far as robust debates go I would say the attention span of the average TV reader is about 2 sentences ... and they are far more interested in how to comply with the IMM regulations as they exist today rather than your robust opinion on what you think the regulations should be ...

Arkady can and no doubt will speak for himself, but I think you have completely missed the point.It is not a question of what we as foreigners think the regulations should or should not be.In brief an anachronistic situation has developed where a very large number of foreign retirees on modest incomes, and on short term visas have settled permanently in the Kingdom.There was no government policy directive underpinning this and the Thai authorities have regulated with a light hand but on an ad hoc basis.Given the rapid economic and social transformation of Thailand it is logical that a long hard look at this sector will be undertaken.It cannot be ruled out that such an overhaul would involve a very substantial increase in financial criteria.This is not just speculation:the trend is already there to see - for example the large increase in fee for successful PR applicants (and these are people who unlike most retirees are well educated and relatively well off).

The Navy yesterday deployed its aircraft carrier and an amphibious landing ship to help flood victims in the South.

Good to see that that monstrously expensive, unjustified, absurd and vainglorious aircraft carrier purchase being applied to some useful purpose.

Still if the cost (and the corrupt pockets it helped fill) had been applied to disaster relief decades of funding would have been available.

How the Spaniards must have laughed behind closed doors at the useless Thai tossers responsible for military procurement

The Democratic Party screeched to high heaven about these very policies when Thaksin suggested or enacted them. Yet now Abhisit and the Dems enact these very same policies they wept crocodile tears about.

I can see how the Reds are cynical and disdainful of that. I also understand how many here, blinders firmly attached, have no clue as to what the fuss is about.

I think if you look at the detail, the policies are different.

Popular, yes, but not simply cash handouts, or unfunded or unsustainable spending.

Can you demonstrate exactly how?

Or is it just another example of bending the truth to fit a political agenda?

To begin with it is a Nation article.

That in it self lends very little credibility to the article.

That being said. What is the truth.

From my vantage point it is a group of armed peace lovers going on a camping trip in down town Bangkok and to maintain the camping experience they stopped thousands of honest innocent citizens from making a living. All so they can camp out and get a pay check from out of country.

When the Government asked them to move out they resisted. They also refused to negotiate. They just said I want and would excepted nothing else. In the end the Government had to use force and they retaliated with weapons. There by turning a peaceful camping trip into a armed conflict.

Why is every one so down on the government for stopping them. There refusal to negotiate gave the government no choice. If any thing they should be down on the government for letting it go on so long.

The government did no wrong. Don't any body even try to say they were firing on unarmed civilians. They like in many wars were the support for a armed conflict they knew what was happening and choose to support the conflict.

In any war there is a large civilian support system that gets killed. This was no different. Time to accept the reality of what happened and move on.

Thailand did not deserve what the red shirts choose to give it and they do not deserve to have to nit pick over it to no concevable good. All they do is divert energy away from beneficial projects.

Interesting how agitated some become whenever the events earlier this year are scrutinised, "nitpicking to no conceivable good.... the government did no wrong.... time to move on" etc.I doubt whether many pay much attention to jayjay's hysterical agitprop but one lie has however to be nailed because the army, notwithstanding its overall professional behaviour, did fire on unarmed civilians.One could in addition as plausibly argue that the red shirts did not deserve their treatment.The reality of course is that no side was blameless.Nevertheless it is the responsibility of Abhisit to ensure a proper accounting for the death toll.And The Nation is quite right to call for this.

Are you trying to say that the complain has never been uttered by the Red Shirts before or that it is common for PM's to run to other nations diplomats and make complaints along the line of 'Mommy, they are bad to me!'?

I entirely take your point that Samak had a bee in his proverbial.

But what's emerging is multiple sources, quite distinct from Samak.

If you agree, I think we should close this necessarily oblique exchange down.

Latest wiki leaks post by the Guardian has explosive revelations - Samak committed LM.

Superb! You have managed in your reference to Samak's alleged LM headlined the most uninteresting and least relevant of the revelations.

Eh, no, his complaint IS the most important aspect.

As the allegation is already known, has been murmured for years now, and not proven.

However, that a PM would go to US diplomats and complain about it - unheard of.

And to point out again: Just because he complains about it doesn't make it true. Hence, his allegation has equal value now as when they were first surfacing years ago - i.e. not much.

I'm not often speechless on this forum.This is one of the few occasions I'm lost for words.

Do you have a hat? Will you be prepared to eat it?

again I find myself agreeing with Jayboy.

Scary!

Wonders will never cease.But actually I'm always ready to engage in a give or take discussion.I've never claimed to be omniscient and have learned a lot from people like you with whom I usually disagree.I think what pisses people off is not my views but my hauteur.I'm working on that!

Latest wiki leaks post by the Guardian has explosive revelations - Samak committed LM.

Superb! You have managed in your reference to Samak's alleged LM headlined the most uninteresting and least relevant of the revelations.

You are 100 percent wrong. Where did you get such a daft idea? That is not the point of most retirement visa programs globally. I know this because I have made a study of these programs globally. Most are not by any stretch of the imagination for elite retirees only. More wealthy than a poor person in the country and contributing something to the local economy? Yes. Most first world countries have no such retirement programs. An exception is Australia, where indeed the requirements are for the elite only. That makes sense for a first world country. It makes no sense for the vast majority of countries offering retirement visa programs like Thailand.

You can call it daft.Many influential Thais would disagree.You are kidding yourself if you think there is undiluted pleasure in having a horde of penny pinching foreigners permanently resident on short term visas, to say nothing of the criminals and sex tourists that blight the country's reputation and abuse its culture of hospitality.

Thailand is not remotely a third world dump like Ecuador or even the Philippines.It is becoming a prosperous country and the trajectory is upwards and at a quickening pace.

I'm not suggesting existing retirees should be sent packing (though the Thais may decide otherwise), but the current system is obviously anachronistic for reasons already explained in detail.

The signs are already in the air - restrictions on visa runners, tighter implementation of visa regulations, slow down in PR processing.

Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.

Why? Do you realize many retirees own their homes in Thailand? That means they pay no housing costs. Many who are renting or not renting are doing quite well on spends well under 800K baht per year. To repeat, this is elitist. The current retirees at the current levels are no burden at all on the Thai society. Rather they are a benefit. There is hardly any safety net for Thais much less retired foreigners. We pay our own way at these current levels and there is no problem with that.

Note that in the Mexico retirement visa program, those who own a home in Mexico qualify at one half the required level as those who don't (and even the upper level is under 800K baht per year income). If the financial rules are raised, at least an adjustment for those who own condos here should be strongly considered.

But the whole point of most countries retirement programmes is that it should be elitist, in other words to attract wealthy, educated and reputable retirees.

Those who just get by probably shouldn't be here at all.

How do retirees own their own homes by the way?

The next part I find rather funny. "It's a very broad church with a corresponding..." The rallies certainly never show that and to steal a line you used lately, your pavlovian response to the yellow shirts and casting them all as Sino-Thai and disregarding everyone else is amazing! Yes I certainly see a couple of more middle class folks at red gatherings, usually driving a truck loaded with the less fortunate and never sitting in the mix agreeing with what is being said from the stages. Or are you implying that this very broad church are just the unseen millions? I mean, really, there are the PTP folks (relying on the continuation of the patronage system) and some folks aligned with the more draconian of the red leaders ... but a broad base in anything but the rural farmers? Notta chance unless they see something in it for themselves.

I actually agree that the red rallies are largely rural working class and lower middle class events, though the urban element is surprisingly high and increasing over time.However whether you like it or not there is much support from many who wouldn't dream of attending rallies and who have no time for or are completely disillusioned by Thaksin.Before the May events descended into violence no Bangkok resident could not be struck by the support from ordinary people on the streets for the Reds.The internet is alive with Red support from professionals, students, middle class and educated people.

I assume your reference to a couple of middle class folks driving trucks is facetious, but anyway the reality is the Red supporters are almost everywhere.

- Several posters have mentioned that they would like Thailand to get rid of “undesirables”, Jayboy refers to "...Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?,...". I'm not sure what he means by this except that it is probably racism and just meaning he wants to get rid of people he doesn't like <insert nationality>. Perhaps you are alluding to there being some foreign criminals resident in Pataya or other places. But your ideas still do nothing to eliminate these criminals, since criminals also have money and usually lots of it. Most would easily have enough assets to meet any new high income/asset criteria that immigration could possibly set. So higher income/assets criteria is not likely to filter out “undesirables” like many would believe , it would only reduce the overall number foreign retirees/residents.

I don't see how I can be accused of racism.Nothing I have said even touches on ethnicity.What I personally feel is neither here nor there.

My earlier post is I think clear but to summarise.Thailand has changed significantly over the last thirty years and is no longer a poor country.There is no obvious economic argument for a large (and mainly downmarket) expatriate population, particularly of modest wealth or skills (if they work).Thais are tolerant people and rules change very slowly.However there is some evidence that at the policy level there is concern that Thailand is hosting many thousand of expatriates semi permanently who are on short term visas, and defying the spirit if not the letter of the law.Few other countries would tolerate this, particularly the visa run process.In brief Thailand needs fewer expatriates and those who are here should meet specific criteria.Legitimate businessmen are already looked after very efficiently.Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.The key challenge for the Thais is the vast mass in between.Whatever one's views one can sympathise with the Thais wish to have along hard look at these people, particularly since the regulations governing them have grown like Topsy over many years.

Actually the conversations covered many topics, but you find talking about politics amazingly dull? Hmmmm

Politics isn't boring but that's not the point I understand why you might want to deflect the subject which was your view (and those who think like you) on why some posters are supportive of the red cause.

I wondered whether there was some intelligent underpinning.Clearly there wasn't, just some odd comment about violence - as though any sane person supports it whether from the red or yellow thugs, or the military.

All very weird.

LKY's daughter in-law (Temasek holdings) did'nt complain about Taksin being 'corrupt'. Bought up his shares with a smile on their faces.

And your point is?

Doh - do we have to explain everything to you?

And your point is?

And BTW, since I was referring to the Singapore side, but you assumed I was referring to Taksin....

I guess that makes YOU the pavlov dog!!!

Woof Woof!!

Touche! I stand corrected.

LKY's daughter in-law (Temasek holdings) did'nt complain about Taksin being 'corrupt'. Bought up his shares with a smile on their faces.

And your point is?

That a clever crook is still a crook. Taking advantage of corruption does'nt leave your hands un-dirty. I thought it was obvious.

No it's not obvious at all.You need to read up on the details of the Temasek sale not just grunt out a Pavlov dog (Thaksin crook, Thaksin bad) reaction.The sale was legitimate and was supported by key elite Thai institutions such as Siam Commercial Bank.There were some tax irregularities certainly but the campaign against the deal only gained traction when Thaksin's domestic enemies saw it as leverage.

LKY's daughter in-law (Temasek holdings) did'nt complain about Taksin being 'corrupt'. Bought up his shares with a smile on their faces.

And your point is?

Bilahari was also critical of the Thai government in 2008, labelling then premier Thaksin Shinawatra as "corrupt" along with "everyone else, including the opposition." Opposition leader is Mark.

Personally I have always found the Singapore leadership cadre to be nuts, intelligent yes but a bit barking.Bilahari, Koh, Mahubani (the craziest "can Asians think?" of the lot).

Grudging respect for Harry Lee though.

Meanwhile Kausikan was also allegedly critical in his assessment of Singapore's other neighbour' date=' Thailand reported the Australian press.

He had supposedly said that Thaksin Shinawatra was "corrupt" along with "everyone else, including the opposition".

[/quote']

Remember the law-bending and use of nominees in the case of Temasek acquiring Shin Corp?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_Shin_Corporation_to_Temasek_Holdings

The squeaky clean Singapore govt and its cronies seem to be willing to bed with those they called corrupted if the purpose serves their interests. Birds of a feather flock together?

Of course, the advice for such a structure was proposed by a rather respectable law firm in Thailand. And ironically, is used by hundreds if not thousands of companies in the country.

And supported by the then Siam Commercial Bank with its elite shareholders.

As a postscript to Arkady's excellent post, I suppose one consideration is that the kind of high value foreigner Thailand wants and needs (eg skilled MNC manager) is not necessarily interested in PR.From my experience these kind of people see a Thailand posting as a say 5 year interlude before returning to the mainstream in Tokyo, London, New York etc.For these people the Thai work permit/visa system is extremely efficient and trouble free.Indeed with a capable secretary/competent lawyer (which most would have) the annual renewal process would be no more hassle than signing the usual mountain of documents.So PR while of interest to some of these wouldn't really interest most of them.Therefore the kind of pressure that would make the government sit up and take notice isn't really there.

Very encouraging and thanks for the report.For no very good reason I had come to the conclusion that local renewal would be a pain, and had been thinking of a one day renewal when next in the UK.Your report suggests local renewal works very well.

Sorry, ... my post wasn't clear. By "who" I meant their character, who they are as people etc ... not who as in identity. Perhaps what I should have said is that the people I talked to throughout the evening had opinions about "why" some posters are "red".

I chose not to participate in that line of discussion but I did tend to agree with the people.

It still seems an extraordinarily dull way to spend an evening.let me guess..posters sympathetic to the Reds dont understand the network system and mostly have Isaan ex bargirls as companions etc? Surprise me that the discussion was on a more intelligent level.

A more interesting discussion would be why millions Thais are sympathetic to the Red movement despite the huge black propaganda effort.Truth is it's a very broad church with a corresponding political complexion - from left to right.To me the fascinating aspect is that it is much more socially representative than often suggested, though I agree with a base of working and lower middle class.