3 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

A long time ago!!           , as I understand it the PM does not even have to be an elected MP

As is the case in the UK. Although it has been a long time since there was an unelected PM. The closest we came was in 1940 when Lord Halifax nearly became PM. 

6 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

In general they have

No they don't. When was the electorate asked if Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Gordon Brown, John Major were to be the country's PM. And before you chip in yes subsequently some of the above did actually hold a general election. The PM is selected by  which ever party holds the most seats. Isn't that how Thailand does it? I will give even odds that Starmer is still the PM in four years time.

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

It may be accurate, just in different forms.

• Thailand Interior Minister Phumtham Wechayachai assumed caretaker responsibilities, two days after unelected (bypassing Thai voters through their elected political parties) Paetongtarn was banned from duties.
• Similarly, Wechayachai was an unelected (bypassing Thai voters through their elected political parties) PM in a Parliament controlled by a pro-military coalition and military selected Senate. 

Looking back, wasn't there a similar unelected process that led to Paetongtarn Shinawatra becoming PM? 

When was the last time a Thai PM was elected  through an electoral process involving registered Thai voters in a Constitutional General Election and their respective majority political party choice for House ministers to elect the PM?

 

Yeah, sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

So Paetongtarn gets benched, and Interior Minister Phumtham pops up as “caretaker.”

 

Funny how these caretakers never seem to be chosen by actual voters. But hey, at least our trusty military‑picked Senate is keeping us safe… from real democracy.

Over the border, we’ve got Hun Sen’s dynasty still going strong.

 

He basically handed the throne to his son like it’s the family tuk‑tuk business. Elections? More like “press the ‘Yes, Supreme Leader’ button and collect your T‑shirt.”

 

Meanwhile, Thaksin’s clan keeps boomeranging back into Thai politics.

 

The family’s exiles and comebacks are starting to feel like a long‑running soap opera: “Return of the Shinawatras"

 

So here’s the million‑baht question:

 

When was the last time either country let voters pick a party, let that party pick a PM, and then actually stuck with it, no generals, no courts, no royal decrees, no billionaire phone‑ins from Dubai? Anyone? 

 

Different flags, same magic trick: wave the constitution, distract the crowd, the people’s choice disappears.

 

Here is a question for the Cambodian supporters. As I understand it this is about the land surrounding the Preah Vihear temple and the aggresive encrouchment onto Cambodian territory by the totally unreasonable Thais (the Cambodian supporters view). So why is the border in Chantanaburi and Trat part of this cease fire?

26 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

No they don't. When was the electorate asked if Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Gordon Brown, John Major were to be the country's PM. And before you chip in yes subsequently some of the above did actually hold a general election. The PM is selected by  which ever party holds the most seats. Isn't that how Thailand does it? I will give even odds that Starmer is still the PM in four years time.

I look at very simply, by electing the party you are electing the PM, not hard to understand.

28 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

No they don't. When was the electorate asked if Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Gordon Brown, John Major were to be the country's PM. And before you chip in yes subsequently some of the above did actually hold a general election. The PM is selected by  which ever party holds the most seats. Isn't that how Thailand does it? I will give even odds that Starmer is still the PM in four years time.

Strange post 

41 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

As is the case in the UK. Although it has been a long time since there was an unelected PM. The closest we came was in 1940 when Lord Halifax nearly became PM. 

thanks for that ,   I never knew it applied to the uk

14 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

thanks for that ,   I never knew it applied to the uk

It is actually a very long time since there was an unelected PM but in theory the party in power elects the PM and it doesn't have to be an MP. As far as I can see the last PM who wasn't an MP was Robert Gascoyne-Cecil 1895 to 1902. He had been PM twice before. He had been an MP at some time but when his father died who was a a Lord he inherited the title then he gave up being an MP.

I think it is very unlikely that an unelected MP will ever be PM in the future but not impossible.

39 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Strange post 

Keep up. The previous posts.

 

 When was the last time a Thai PM was elected  through an electoral process involving registered Thai voters in a Constitutional General Election and their respective majority political party choice for House ministers to elect the PM?

 

 A long time ago!!           , as I understand it the PM does not even have to be an elected MP

 

When are PMs elected by voters. Even in the UK voters have no say on who the PM is.

 

In general they have

 

As is the case in the UK. Although it has been a long time since there was an unelected PM. The closest we came was in 1940 when Lord Halifax nearly became PM.

 

No they don't.

 

When was the electorate asked if Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Gordon Brown, John Major were to be the country's PM. And before you chip in yes subsequently some of the above did actually hold a general election. The PM is selected by  which ever party holds the most seats. Isn't that how Thailand does it? I will give even odds that Starmer is still the PM in four years time.

 

End of chat.

 

So in the UK since Tony Blair became PM only David Cameron actually stood in a General Election to become the PM. Yes Boris Johnson and Theresa May was voted by the Conservatives to become PM and he did subsequently stand in a general election. Just pointing out that in the UK the electorate does not does not choose the PM. Exactly the same as Thailand.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Keep up. The previous posts.

 

 When was the last time a Thai PM was elected  through an electoral process involving registered Thai voters in a Constitutional General Election and their respective majority political party choice for House ministers to elect the PM?

 

 A long time ago!!           , as I understand it the PM does not even have to be an elected MP

 

When are PMs elected by voters. Even in the UK voters have no say on who the PM is.

 

In general they have

 

As is the case in the UK. Although it has been a long time since there was an unelected PM. The closest we came was in 1940 when Lord Halifax nearly became PM.

 

No they don't.

 

When was the electorate asked if Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Gordon Brown, John Major were to be the country's PM. And before you chip in yes subsequently some of the above did actually hold a general election. The PM is selected by  which ever party holds the most seats. Isn't that how Thailand does it? I will give even odds that Starmer is still the PM in four years time.

 

End of chat.

 

So in the UK since Tony Blair became PM only David Cameron actually stood in a General Election to become the PM. Yes Boris Johnson and Theresa May was voted by the Conservatives to become PM and he did subsequently stand in a general election. Just pointing out that in the UK the electorate does not does not choose the PM. Exactly the same as Thailand.

 

 

Ok, that sounds much better now. Thanks.

No matter what with low season looking really low and war issues the pound gets even  less & less baht. Unbelievable. at 43.38. No wonder more empty beaches and quiet hotels. 

While halting the random shooting is an excellent idea this is all theatre.

 

Until the border is defined it's all just mental masturbation

10 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

When was the last time a Thai PM was elected  through an electoral process involving registered Thai voters in a Constitutional General Election and their respective majority political party choice for House ministers to elect the PM?

 

Yingluck 2010??

 

 

9 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Ok, that sounds much better now. Thanks.

I know how you feel. The lay out of AN does make it difficult some times to follow comments within a thread.

9 minutes ago, KhaoHom said:

the border is defined

At least the temple is said to be Cambodian (international law, The Hague)

1 minute ago, Geoff914 said:

I know how you feel. The lay out of AN does make it difficult some times to follow comments within a thread.

Exactly.Thanks for clarification 

3 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

At least the temple is said to be Cambodian (international law, The Hague)

This is the really stupid thing. The temples are clearly khmer. Built by Khmer kings. This is indisputable.

 

It's so typically Thai, small minded and selfish not to slice the border and allow the Khmer temples to remain on the Cambodian side.

 

I am probably one of the few board members that have even visited these temples and can tell you that none of them for the average tourist is worth visiting.

 

I find it really Petty and juvenile to be arguing over these temples. If the actual argument is about large pieces of agricultural land that is worthy of cultivation that might be and I stress might be different. I don't think this is the issue at all

36 minutes ago, KhaoHom said:

This is the really stupid thing. The temples are clearly khmer. Built by Khmer kings. This is indisputable.

 

It's so typically Thai, small minded and selfish not to slice the border and allow the Khmer temples to remain on the Cambodian side.

 

I am probably one of the few board members that have even visited these temples and can tell you that none of them for the average tourist is worth visiting.

 

I find it really Petty and juvenile to be arguing over these temples. If the actual argument is about large pieces of agricultural land that is worthy of cultivation that might be and I stress might be different. I don't think this is the issue at all

I really don't know how these stupid clashes will end and why they happen now?

Some international analysts said the army wanted to show who's the master in Thailand and show the people an incompetent PM. So, running for the next PM, an army General again? Who knows?

On 7/29/2025 at 9:59 AM, ukrules said:

But their civilian lords and masters in both countries have already given them their orders, what gives?
 

This is the operational implementation of what the PMs decided.

53 minutes ago, KhaoHom said:

This is the really stupid thing. The temples are clearly khmer. Built by Khmer kings. This is indisputable.

 

It's so typically Thai, small minded and selfish not to slice the border and allow the Khmer temples to remain on the Cambodian side.

 

I am probably one of the few board members that have even visited these temples and can tell you that none of them for the average tourist is worth visiting.

 

I find it really Petty and juvenile to be arguing over these temples. If the actual argument is about large pieces of agricultural land that is worthy of cultivation that might be and I stress might be different. I don't think this is the issue at all

They aren't arguing over the temple. They are arguing over the land surrounding temple. Also Chantaburi and Trat are nowhere near the temple but are in dispute also.

13 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

I really don't know how these stupid clashes will end and why they happen now?

Some international analysts said the army wanted to show who's the master in Thailand and show the people an incompetent PM. So, running for the next PM, an army General again? Who knows?

The skirmish was not actually about the temples and the border.  It was about Hun Sen wanting his boy PM to look strong and what better way to achieve that than a bit of war.  The temples and border were the levers / excuses - not the objective.

Is this one of the five wars which Donald Trump, in his speech yesterday, claims to have ended?

10 minutes ago, PeeJayEm said:

The skirmish was not actually about the temples and the border.  It was about Hun Sen wanting his boy PM to look strong and what better way to achieve that than a bit of war.  The temples and border were the levers / excuses - not the objective.

Maybe another view. Who knows? But I don't think so.

On 7/29/2025 at 4:12 PM, Artisi said:

That really is the leading question "what gives", as there is no way that Cambodia is really any great threat to Thailand - other than being a pain in the ar$e. 

tells you who realy runs both countries !

38 minutes ago, sherlockh said:

Is this one of the five wars which Donald Trump, in his speech yesterday, claims to have ended?

Five?  I can think of three including this one that Trump sorted out. What are the other two?

54 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Five?  I can think of three including this one that Trump sorted out. What are the other two?

 

Vietnam and WWII....where is your head at?

8 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Vietnam and WWII....where is your head at?

Better give him credit for the Korean war and two gulf wars as well then.

 

2 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Better give him credit for the Korean war and two gulf wars as well then.

 

 

 

That would be silly

5 hours ago, KhaoHom said:

This is the really stupid thing. The temples are clearly khmer. Built by Khmer kings. This is indisputable.

 

It's so typically Thai, small minded and selfish not to slice the border and allow the Khmer temples to remain on the Cambodian side.

 

There are a million+ pure-blooded Khmer people on the Thai side, and numerous Khmer temples and ruins dotted all over a few provinces in lower Isaan. Is your claim that those should "remain on the Cambodian side" purely by virtue of being historically Khmer culturally? Whether you like it or not, Khmer culture is Thai heritage also.

 

While we're at it, there are Khmer-speaking people, and temples/ruins, in both Laos and Vietnam. As a Khmer ethno-state, does Cambodia have a claim on those too, in your view?

 

Being "built by Khmer kings" is not an appropriate criteria to assess this situation.

18 hours ago, tai4de2 said:

 

There are a million+ pure-blooded Khmer people on the Thai side, and numerous Khmer temples and ruins dotted all over a few provinces in lower Isaan. Is your claim that those should "remain on the Cambodian side" purely by virtue of being historically Khmer culturally? Whether you like it or not, Khmer culture is Thai heritage also.

 

While we're at it, there are Khmer-speaking people, and temples/ruins, in both Laos and Vietnam. As a Khmer ethno-state, does Cambodia have a claim on those too, in your view?

 

Being "built by Khmer kings" is not an appropriate criteria to assess this situation.

Yes Khmer temple built by a Khmer King therefore it is Cambodian sets a very worrying precedent. Europe, the Middle East and North Africa is littered with Roman remains. Romania is so Roman it is even in the name of the country.