Lobbying And Unrest Ahead Of Thaksin Ruling Futile

[LaoPo]

A useful cut off date for Dynastic styles would be age 70 on that Forbes list,

Though certainly not an absolute, since there are several extention generations following family style.

And you may notice how few of them are actual household words around Thailand,

biggest exceptions being Shinawatra, Malee and Charoen of CP fortune.

Most keep pretty low profiles.

I'm sorry but I can't follow you here.

I asked:

2. who do you consider to be Modern Nouveay Riche Elite versus Classic Thai/Chinese (not Chinese*) re-investing and Saving Elite ?

The Italic words are your words (except Thai/Chinese which I changed from just "Chinese")

Are you saying that a basic rule would be anybody (being now Nouveau Riche) born after 1940, is not Classic Thai/Chinese re-investing and Saving Elite (but not absolute?).

If so, is someone born in an already wealthy family now considered to be suddenly Nouveau Riche ?

In my perception Nouveau Riche (or: New Rich) are people who created substantial wealth themselves within their own generation.

Thaksin doesn't belong to that group since he was born out of an already wealthy family and increased that wealth substantially (whether that was or not ""allowable" and corrupted wealth).

But he's certainly not to be grouped under Nouveau Riche, IF that's what you meant of course.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Let's everyone work diligently to raise the level of discourse to that which allows members to rise to the level of attempting a considered response.  

Could you please be so kind and rephrase this sentence into "normal" day-to-day English for non-native English speaking souls like myself since I'm staring at your words now for 2 minutes but I'm afraid I don't get it?

Thank you in anticipation.

LaoPo

[Siripon]

A rumour circulating says the British government will be making a statement regarding the seizure of Thaksin's assets in the UK sometime before February 26.

[brahmburgers]

Has anyone mentioned this one -- what about the MECHANICS of returning any of his money, if they do decide to do that. How can a fugutive on the run be authorized to accept money. Shouldn't he be mandated under the law to return to Thailand (and arrest) to collect his monies? Yes, I know money can be wired or placed in an account, but it sounds odd to me to return money to a fugitive. Whether you think he "deserves" to be a fugitive or not is not the point, he is one under Thai law.

Right, send a cashiers check for 2 billion dollars to a bank somewhere in Togo or Nicaragua or a rocky island near Serbia. Then the big man shows up, and the teller asks to see I.D. The man shows his passport. It says "Takki" ....the teller looks at the check, it says "Thaksin" - the teller says, 'Sorry. I don't know who you are, but you can't cash or deposit this check."

[mca]

Let's everyone work diligently to raise the level of discourse to that which allows members to rise to the level of attempting a considered response.

And make posts in a clear, concise manner to illustrate a point rather than descending into a grammatical and vocabulary whirlwind which only serves to confuse things.

No names. No pack drill.

[Samuian]

Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself

- another in the mothers of all of ironies -

represents the new interconnected world where Greedy and Efficient monopolists TRY TO RULE THE FUTURE.

Unless you grasp this -and clearly you don't -your interpretation of contemporary Thai history

just becomes a cartoon like bashing at a brick wall.

Is this meant to be a coherent response to my post, simply copying the language I used almost word for word? It's difficult furthermore to understand beyond this puerile approach what your point is at all.If you are able to put your thoughts together more logically I will attempt a considered response.But frankly you seem to be in over your head.Probably best just sticking to saying nasty things about Thaksin which doesn't demand contextual understanding and isn't too taxing on the intellect.

Well jayboy you and others claim that some opponents, who aren't howling with you and the pack, are happy with "saying nasty things about Thaksin" it's only that you haven't or better are reluctant, if not absolutely allergic against anything but praise about your hero.

A simple fact is that nobody has to claim anything, it has all been delivered by this hero on a silver platter, piece, by piece, evidence by evidential circumstances, like "honest mistakes" - because he was caught up in his apparent greatness and assumed impeccability!

Do you really think his opponents are simply envying him, or are simply caught up in a simple power game, do you really believe the "elite" he excuses, is so simple, stupid and blind, could it all just be so simple?

....well imho - it's WAY too simple!

Edited January 18, 2010 by Samuian

[jayboy]

Well jayboy you and others claim that some opponents, who aren't howling with you and the pack, are happy with "saying nasty things about Thaksin" it's only that you haven't or better are reluctant, if not absolutely allergic against anything but praise about your hero.

A simple fact is that nobody has to claim anything, it has all been delivered by this hero on a silver platter, piece, by piece, evidence by evidential circumstances, like "honest mistakes" - because he was caught up in his apparent greatness and assumed impeccability!

Do you really think his opponents are simply envying him, or are simply caught up in a simple power game, do you really believe the "elite" he excuses, is so simple, stupid and blind, could it all just be so simple?

....well imho - it's WAY too simple!

But it is in fact you that are reducing a complex situation to asinine simplicities like those bovine matrons who used to attend PAD rallies.You either haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying or just prefer the simplistic way of looking at the problem.I have repeatedly made my very poor opinion of Thaksin known. Yet you and those with a similar mentality describe him as my "hero" because you can't or won't grasp the broader context.Any attempt to describe or discuss a complex situation is howled down.Yes I do believe there is a power struggle and broadly speaking, with many caveats, support those who are struggling against a greedy and selfish elite comprised of motley military, feudal and business reactionaries (many of whom are now seriously frightened thus more likely to be brutal and dangerous).

But that's just all too complex for us, isn't it.Let's just concentrate on reminding everybody that Thaksin's a rogue - as though the world and his dog didn't already know that.Thinking hard about the issues is just too difficult for these people.

[animatic]

Thaksin came from well to do, but certainly not uber-rich stock in Chaing Mai.

His wife was a major step up financially, a move she now seems to regret.

Check your facts, he was from a backwater, larger city family, and not the

biggest fish in that pond. Son of a bigger fish, but not biggest fish in a little pond.

Sure Chaing Mai is 2nd largest, but only a fraction of Bangkok, in size, population and financially.

Today the city is only 170,348 person, and 1,547,085 across 21 suburban districts.

Some say 1.6 million Hardly more than about 1/10th of Bangkok today, estimated typically at 15 million.

At regional level, the 1990 population densities in descending order were as follows:

Bangkok: 4,028.9 persons per km2, the Central Region: 137.8 persons per km2,

the Northeast Region: 122.9 persons per km2...

No considering the population density was much lower when Thaksin grew into business age,

he was from a pretty small burg. Density ratios did change favoring Bangkok over this period

We can extrapolate that Chaing Mai was about 50-60,000 souls in 1960 + or -

Thaksin would be 21 in 1966 approximately.

Where Thaksin was at age of majority and where he was upon ascending to PM,

and where he was when deposed from the Temasek fallout,

are Sesame seeds to Apples to Watermelons in difference.

Compared to many of the 'old school' guys on that Forbes list,

he is most certainly graspingly Nouveau Riche. One symptom of this is

a over weening demand for respect not earned but likely expected to be purchased,

and a grasping for accolades to raise your status to match your wealth.

Another is monomaniacal determination to make huge piles of cash to

justify this social climbing ethos. This mind set is only made worse in a kow tow society,

where wealth and money = status and status is all important.

Old money usually stays quiet except for a large business deal,

or charity giving functions as a philanthropist, and often more quietly as the later.

The biggest philanthropist splashes are usually from Nouveau Riche too.

Bill Gates or Richard Branson for instance.

Edited January 18, 2010 by animatic

[hammered]

Well jayboy you and others claim that some opponents, who aren't howling with you and the pack, are happy with "saying nasty things about Thaksin" it's only that you haven't or better are reluctant, if not absolutely allergic against anything but praise about your hero.

A simple fact is that nobody has to claim anything, it has all been delivered by this hero on a silver platter, piece, by piece, evidence by evidential circumstances, like "honest mistakes" - because he was caught up in his apparent greatness and assumed impeccability!

Do you really think his opponents are simply envying him, or are simply caught up in a simple power game, do you really believe the "elite" he excuses, is so simple, stupid and blind, could it all just be so simple?

....well imho - it's WAY too simple!

But it is in fact you that are reducing a complex situation to asinine simplicities like those bovine matrons who used to attend PAD rallies.You either haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying or just prefer the simplistic way of looking at the problem.I have repeatedly made my very poor opinion of Thaksin known. Yet you and those with a similar mentality describe him as my "hero" because you can't or won't grasp the broader context.Any attempt to describe or discuss a complex situation is howled down.Yes I do believe there is a power struggle and broadly speaking, with many caveats, support those who are struggling against a greedy and selfish elite comprised of motley military, feudal and business reactionaries (many of whom are now seriously frightened thus more likely to be brutal and dangerous).

But that's just all too complex for us, isn't it.Let's just concentrate on reminding everybody that Thaksin's a rogue - as though the world and his dog didn't already know that.Thinking hard about the issues is just too difficult for these people.

For everyone to consider issues as they really are Thaksin plus a few others need to be taken aout of the equation. Nobody on any side is considering anything rationally right now. The current cotnradictions that line up obscene reactionaries with open minded liberal people on every side will only start to resolve themselves when the elite personalities are gone or devalued and all sides (there are more than two) are led by bigger than life characters with their own agendas that overshadow any real poltical discussion or at least any real and meaningful one based on ideals, fairness and equal consideration in a safe and open environement

[ballpoint]

Has anyone mentioned this one -- what about the MECHANICS of returning any of his money, if they do decide to do that. How can a fugutive on the run be authorized to accept money. Shouldn't he be mandated under the law to return to Thailand (and arrest) to collect his monies? Yes, I know money can be wired or placed in an account, but it sounds odd to me to return money to a fugitive. Whether you think he "deserves" to be a fugitive or not is not the point, he is one under Thai law.

That could explain this strange email I got recently:

Dear Exhalted Sir,

I am writing as one who, formerly the richest man in Thailand, has fallen on hard times. This situation will not continue however, and I have made plans to regain my fortune. These plans are not important here, suffice it to say they involve the ruination of those who tried to take it from me, along with anyone silly enough to go along to the mass protest I have arranged on an auspicious date.

In a piece of good fortune for you, I have selected your excellent self to be the conduit for the return of my precious money. Simply send me the details of your bank account, and I will have the money transferred to it on its way to my numbered account in The Congo. In return, I will leave the sum of $1000,000 in your account, send you a copy of "I stole it my way" - my official biography, and promise not to park any LPG tankers outside your esteemed residence.

Act now, this offer will not last.

Your eternal master,

TS.

[jayboy]

For everyone to consider issues as they really are Thaksin plus a few others need to be taken aout of the equation. Nobody on any side is considering anything rationally right now. The current cotnradictions that line up obscene reactionaries with open minded liberal people on every side will only start to resolve themselves when the elite personalities are gone or devalued and all sides (there are more than two) are led by bigger than life characters with their own agendas that overshadow any real poltical discussion or at least any real and meaningful one based on ideals, fairness and equal consideration in a safe and open environement

I think that is a very sensible and level headed comment.Thanks Hammered.

[sinplyred]

Of course they will fail, as in most major court cases the verdict and ruling is predetermined

[animatic]

Let's everyone work diligently to raise the level of discourse to that which allows members to rise to the level of attempting a considered response.

Could you please be so kind and rephrase this sentence into "normal" day-to-day English for non-native English speaking souls like myself since I'm staring at your words now for 2 minutes but I'm afraid I don't get it?

Thank you in anticipation.

LaoPo

No reason to this is perfectly clear and proper English.

Why not buy a English/Whaloon/Chinese dictionary and learn a few more good words.

[Publicus]

Let's everyone work diligently to raise the level of discourse to that which allows members to rise to the level of attempting a considered response.

Could you please be so kind and rephrase this sentence into "normal" day-to-day English for non-native English speaking souls like myself since I'm staring at your words now for 2 minutes but I'm afraid I don't get it?

Thank you in anticipation.

LaoPo

No reason to this is perfectly clear and proper English.

Why not buy a English/Whaloon/Chinese dictionary and learn a few more good words.

Okay LaoPo, I'll spell it out to you: I'd say about 1/2 of Jayboy's responses command posters of a certain pov to state something that in his opinion would allow him to "attempt a considered response." I rarely allow myself to mix it up with Jayboy but I used to read his posts and lately only occasionally skim them, but it long since became a tiring line.

Comprende?

[jayboy]

Comprende?

I don't think anyone does frankly.

I have no problem at all in debating issues with someone of different political views, indeed welcome it.When however, as in your case all too often, there is an inability or unwillingness to communicate clearly I sometimes ask for those views to be clarified so a considered response can be given.You can affect weariness with my line if you like although to do so is itself a rather tired debating strategy.Frankly I suggest you cut out personal attacks and try and focus on the issues.You should also cut out the flaming when for example a member who disagrees with you is labelled "pointlessly trollish".

[mca]

I have to say that the tag "troll" is thrown around a bit too much by people on this forum. In many cases inaccurately. A person who has a differing viewpoint is not a " troll". There is nothing in Dustybin's post that suggests "troll" Maybe his brevity of posting style and language isn't to the liking of of some but that doesn't mean he lives under a bridge.

Why not buy a English/Whaloon/Chinese dictionary and learn a few more good words.

If we use the wikipedia definition of a troll as " someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community," then shouldn't the above be considered trolling?

[way2muchcoffee]

I have to say that the tag "troll" is thrown around a bit too much by people on this forum. In many cases inaccurately. A person who has a differing viewpoint is not a " troll". There is nothing in Dustybin's post that suggests "troll" Maybe his brevity of posting style and language isn't to the liking of of some but that doesn't mean he lives under a bridge.

Why not buy a English/Whaloon/Chinese dictionary and learn a few more good words.

If we use the wikipedia definition of a troll as " someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community," then shouldn't the above be considered trolling?

According to that definition the example you mention is trollish as is nearly every one of dustybin's posts. And probably so is the post I'm typing right now....

Edited January 18, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Dustybin]

Of course such lobbying is futile, lobbying implies some degree of intelligent argument on a democratic foundation.

The potential lobbied are glancing back over their shoulders at the guns.

[LaoPo]

Let's everyone work diligently to raise the level of discourse to that which allows members to rise to the level of attempting a considered response.

Could you please be so kind and rephrase this sentence into "normal" day-to-day English for non-native English speaking souls like myself since I'm staring at your words now for 2 minutes but I'm afraid I don't get it?

Thank you in anticipation.

LaoPo

No reason to this is perfectly clear and proper English.

Why not buy a English/Whaloon/Chinese dictionary and learn a few more good words.

Blasé snobism springs to mind

A kind question is not honoured?; but what can one expect from someone who is not honourable enough to answer an honest proper question by another fellow member?

I wouldn't ever think nor dream to answer another member like you just did. It's utterly impolite.

I know I'm not perfect but your attitude is shameful.

You aren't even capable of spelling Walloon correctly and than tell me your sentence is perfectly clear English?

Apart from that: Wallonia is French Belgium and I'm not from Belgium nor Wallonia.

At least I'm trying to write and read in English, my non-native 2nd language, as good as I can. To ridicule me for that shows who YOU are, not me.

I'm disgusted and shame on you Animatic.

LaoPo

[Publicus]

Comprende?

I don't think anyone does frankly.

I have no problem at all in debating issues with someone of different political views, indeed welcome it.When however, as in your case all too often, there is an inability or unwillingness to communicate clearly I sometimes ask for those views to be clarified so a considered response can be given.You can affect weariness with my line if you like although to do so is itself a rather tired debating strategy.Frankly I suggest you cut out personal attacks and try and focus on the issues.You should also cut out the flaming when for example a member who disagrees with you is labelled "pointlessly trollish".

As I stated, I rarely allow myself to mix it up with you. The reason is that it's not worth the time or effort. I just don't deal with brash, condescending and rhetorical people.

Yet, now, I demand to know when did I ever post to a member who disagrees with me that he/she is "pointlessly trollish"? Cite the post. Produce the member. I've never made such a post, ever. 

Kindly provide me with your "attempt at a considered response." 

[animatic]

Snobism, interesting new coinage.

Isn't that snobbish?

No wait it's just mispelled, like I did Whaloon...

Aw heck, I forgot a comma too.

Time top be keelhauled on the good ship LaoPo!

Did you mean Snobbism?

Why quibble, when you just want to insult me.

You did, happy now?

I have read your posts for some time and find it a distinct red herring

when you say you can't understand Pubs simple, but well worded, sentence.

I do use all those words in daily life. The right word for the right job.

"attempting a considered response" = Jayboys input, not Pubs.

You use 'Blasé', but have issues with:

~Dilligently... due diligence has been used repeatedly on TVF.

~Discourse... has been used as a word for discussion many times before.

I really don't see your point on these words,

other than trying to needle Pub, which you do regularly.

I use a dictionary daily for words I don't know, or want to be SURE about.

I keep it on my browser as well as a hard copy.

So I don't find it in any way insulting or trollish to suggest this is a good idea for anyone.

Since it is what I expect from myself.

Since we are on an English language board, it is expected to be written in English,

Whether colloquial for effect or proper 'Kings English'.

So why must it be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?

Many read English boards to improve their English, by learning more, and unknown usages,

not to converse down to the temporary level of the least knowledgeable.

That doesn't benefit them a bit. All stay at a low level and never aspire to rise.

As too Whaloon,

I must blame Sriracha John who told me he thought LaoPo was 'disgruntled in Belguim'.

I have had no hint LP understands much French, so Whaloon seemed the better choice.

And I didn't have time to pull up my dictionary to spell Whaloon, which I should have.

I do actually have a life outside of here...

This was not a answer to your question in a different post, I haven't answered that yet,

this was a totally different posting and there was no reason to mix them up,

since THAT might create an even greater confusion.

Edited January 18, 2010 by animatic

[caf]

I have to say that the tag "troll" is thrown around a bit too much by people on this forum. In many cases inaccurately. A person who has a differing viewpoint is not a " troll". There is nothing in Dustybin's post that suggests "troll" Maybe his brevity of posting style and language isn't to the liking of of some but that doesn't mean he lives under a bridge.

Why not buy a English/Whaloon/Chinese dictionary and learn a few more good words.

If we use the wikipedia definition of a troll as " someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community," then shouldn't the above be considered trolling?

This post, as is your previous post, is a clear definition of the inflamatory posts being engineered by two posters. As you said, no names no pack drill.

It starts at post 24, then 30, 44, 45

There is little pont in my making any contribution to what started as an interesting thread until the hijacking is removed.

Differing viewpoints should be encouraged; flaming messengers is no way forward.

caf

[Publicus]

I have to say that the tag "troll" is thrown around a bit too much by people on this forum. In many cases inaccurately. A person who has a differing viewpoint is not a " troll". There is nothing in Dustybin's post that suggests "troll" Maybe his brevity of posting style and language isn't to the liking of of some but that doesn't mean he lives under a bridge.

Why not buy a English/Whaloon/Chinese dictionary and learn a few more good words.

If we use the wikipedia definition of a troll as " someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community," then shouldn't the above be considered trolling?

This post, as is your previous post, is a clear definition of the inflamatory posts being engineered by two posters. As you said, no names no pack drill.

It starts at post 24, then 30, 44, 45

There is little pont in my making any contribution to what started as an interesting thread until the hijacking is removed.

Differing viewpoints should be encouraged; flaming messengers is no way forward.

caf

Such wisdom should and must be heeded. 

[peecee]

This is what the whole crisis is about really isn't it. You have large group of people in this country who are contemptuous about law and order. They really believe that court verdicts are things that can and should be influenced by large scale protest.

But they just don't get it, the whole stand against Thaksin is related to the general public's insistence on justice being upheld for a change. Sure there's double standards all across Thailand but it should not be used as an excuse to let these people off the hook. Courts shouldn't influenced by a large mob coming to aid of one man's guilt, if the protests were a large group demonstrating their dissatisfaction about, say, a verdict on environmental issue in their neighbourhood then it would be appropriate for the judges to taken into consideration the impact on their lives.

I'm not quite sure how on one hand you can inveigh against justice being influenced by large scale protest and on the other speak approvingly of the general public insisting on justice being upheld for a change.

I agree with the view that in this case the courts should not be influenced by red protests.Justice should be blind or at least even handed.I'm quite sceptical about the view expressed in other posts that justice should somehow reflect the mood in the country at large, whether supporting Thasin or those that oppose him.Indeed sometimes justice is served in standing up to the prevailing national sentiment.What is important is respect for the law itself.It would be naive to pretend that the courts in any country are immune from external influences in interpreting the law.Nevertheless with a panel of men with independence and integrity justice can be served, albeit imperfectly.

The concern in Thailand is frankly not justice being influenced by popuar sentiment let alone street mobs, but its control by other more powerful interests given the elite's failure to thwart the popular will in other ways including a coup and a rigged constitution.

Courts, judges and an independent judicial system do define themselves in part by standing up as necessary to prevailing public opinion and sentiment. Concomitantly, courts must have credibility among the body politic, so courts cannot long stand apart from the prevailing mood of the public, nor can judges long make arbitrary rulings without resulting consequence. These principles comprise a core reason the Anglo system of jurisprudence relies on a balance of case precedent (stare decicis) and contemporary standards. Contemporary standards also require that judges up to the highest courts be women, an expectation of society unheard of until Pres Ronald Reagan shattered that glass ceiling in the early 1980s.

Contemporary standards, for example, are being applied by numerous state courts in the US with respect to gay marriage, whether by a direct case law interpretation of a state's constitution (original jurisdiction) or because of laws enacted by a state's legislature either pro or con. Gay marriage is being recognized in the jurisprudence of contemporary times - not as of 100 years ago or 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Gay marriage rulings by courts haven't had to reverse precedent as there just hadn't been many precedents for courts to consider. As another example, the same is true of the 1954 unanimous ruling of the US Supreme Court that racially segregated schools are unconstitutional - the ruling especially impacted one region of the country, the South, but had to reverse directly and radically the 1896 Supreme Court ruling (Plessy v Fergusen) that it was not (which is why it was important the 1954 ruling was done unanimously).

Half a world away in Thailand, precedent is of little consequence in a court's deliberations and to farang and Thais alike the vital matter of how judges become judges is murky and little known or understood. Regardless, we do know that the Thai judges who comprise these panels of men are of the elite sociopolitical and socioeconomic classes so we can expect such judges to rule accordingly. To get an idea of what 'accordingly' usually means we need to look at who the judges are, the processes by which they became judges and who their sponsor(s) may have been. We know further that the judiciary will rule from the elitist perspective and in the context of the present prevailing circumstances, that the judges will rule regardless of what a militant segment of the population may think, believe or do.

Meanwhile, as TiT, be on the lookout for a man entering the courthouse carrying a cakebox.

So it's old Thai elite v new money ethnic chinese?

[Publicus]

For everyone to consider issues as they really are Thaksin plus a few others need to be taken aout of the equation. Nobody on any side is considering anything rationally right now. The current cotnradictions that line up obscene reactionaries with open minded liberal people on every side will only start to resolve themselves when the elite personalities are gone or devalued and all sides (there are more than two) are led by bigger than life characters with their own agendas that overshadow any real poltical discussion or at least any real and meaningful one based on ideals, fairness and equal consideration in a safe and open environement

I think that is a very sensible and level headed comment.Thanks Hammered.

??????????

[Publicus]

This is what the whole crisis is about really isn't it. You have large group of people in this country who are contemptuous about law and order. They really believe that court verdicts are things that can and should be influenced by large scale protest.

But they just don't get it, the whole stand against Thaksin is related to the general public's insistence on justice being upheld for a change. Sure there's double standards all across Thailand but it should not be used as an excuse to let these people off the hook. Courts shouldn't influenced by a large mob coming to aid of one man's guilt, if the protests were a large group demonstrating their dissatisfaction about, say, a verdict on environmental issue in their neighbourhood then it would be appropriate for the judges to taken into consideration the impact on their lives.

I'm not quite sure how on one hand you can inveigh against justice being influenced by large scale protest and on the other speak approvingly of the general public insisting on justice being upheld for a change.

I agree with the view that in this case the courts should not be influenced by red protests.Justice should be blind or at least even handed.I'm quite sceptical about the view expressed in other posts that justice should somehow reflect the mood in the country at large, whether supporting Thasin or those that oppose him.Indeed sometimes justice is served in standing up to the prevailing national sentiment.What is important is respect for the law itself.It would be naive to pretend that the courts in any country are immune from external influences in interpreting the law.Nevertheless with a panel of men with independence and integrity justice can be served, albeit imperfectly.

The concern in Thailand is frankly not justice being influenced by popuar sentiment let alone street mobs, but its control by other more powerful interests given the elite's failure to thwart the popular will in other ways including a coup and a rigged constitution.

Courts, judges and an independent judicial system do define themselves in part by standing up as necessary to prevailing public opinion and sentiment. Concomitantly, courts must have credibility among the body politic, so courts cannot long stand apart from the prevailing mood of the public, nor can judges long make arbitrary rulings without resulting consequence. These principles comprise a core reason the Anglo system of jurisprudence relies on a balance of case precedent (stare decicis) and contemporary standards. Contemporary standards also require that judges up to the highest courts be women, an expectation of society unheard of until Pres Ronald Reagan shattered that glass ceiling in the early 1980s.

Contemporary standards, for example, are being applied by numerous state courts in the US with respect to gay marriage, whether by a direct case law interpretation of a state's constitution (original jurisdiction) or because of laws enacted by a state's legislature either pro or con. Gay marriage is being recognized in the jurisprudence of contemporary times - not as of 100 years ago or 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Gay marriage rulings by courts haven't had to reverse precedent as there just hadn't been many precedents for courts to consider. As another example, the same is true of the 1954 unanimous ruling of the US Supreme Court that racially segregated schools are unconstitutional - the ruling especially impacted one region of the country, the South, but had to reverse directly and radically the 1896 Supreme Court ruling (Plessy v Fergusen) that it was not (which is why it was important the 1954 ruling was done unanimously).

Half a world away in Thailand, precedent is of little consequence in a court's deliberations and to farang and Thais alike the vital matter of how judges become judges is murky and little known or understood. Regardless, we do know that the Thai judges who comprise these panels of men are of the elite sociopolitical and socioeconomic classes so we can expect such judges to rule accordingly. To get an idea of what 'accordingly' usually means we need to look at who the judges are, the processes by which they became judges and who their sponsor(s) may have been. We know further that the judiciary will rule from the elitist perspective and in the context of the present prevailing circumstances, that the judges will rule regardless of what a militant segment of the population may think, believe or do.

Meanwhile, as TiT, be on the lookout for a man entering the courthouse carrying a cakebox.

So it's old Thai elite v new money ethnic chinese?

Well, while there's a lot more to it than that, one could say when it comes down to its essence, that might be an accurate broad summary statement - the stating of it in the proverbial nutshell.

Of the four centers of ancient civilization - Egypt, Greece, India and China - the strongest influences here are India, followed by China.

To LOS from India came Buddhism, harmony with nature (tropical climate in sharp contrast to Russia or Canada), spirits, circular thinking (reincarnation) rather than linear thinking (progress); plus the baking tropical heat that makes one sluggish, slow, unambitious and immobile physically and metaphysically, among other similar or same factors.

From China comes an inherent work ethic which needed no radical new formulations by a John Calvin, the arrogant self perception of being the center of civilization on the planet (the Middle Kingdom), a past age of glory as is the case concerning India, a survivalist civilization (if a decrepit one in contemporary terms) and among other things the belief that the present China, the PRC, despite its reliance on the decrepit ways of the passe' past, can regain its lost dominance despite the fact 800,000,000 of its people live a subsistence life, i.e., on less than USD $2 a day.

While the humongous populations of the two centers of ancient civilization in the modern world make each India and China unsustainable growth models, the forces of their original civilizations in this region of the world make the two central factors in the development of Thailand. And, while Thailand will never attain the (modest but remarkable) level of democracy in India, it does have the entrepreneurnal drive of the Chinese-Thais, who also possess the deeply held decrepit tradition of arbitrary rule from on high (continued contemporaneously by the new emperors of the new and young Communist Party of China dynasty in business suits).

So, again, the short answer to your question is yes. That is, the uninspired and lethargic Thai-India crowd vs the aggressive and slowly adaptive PRC Chinese. In short, the Thai Establishment vs Thaksin & family Inc.            

[LaoPo]

Snobism, interesting new coinage.

Isn't that snobbish?

No wait it's just mispelled, like I did Whaloon...

Aw heck, I forgot a comma too.

Time top be keelhauled on the good ship LaoPo!

Did you mean Snobbism?

Why quibble, when you just want to insult me.

You did, happy now?

Snobism and snobbism are both used and depends where you're from so don't start ridiculing me again. The British used it first.

And mispelled is wrong also and in fact: misspelled. But we all make mistakes, don't we.

I wasn't insulting you; you insulted me, ridiculing me as if I'm not good enough with my English to be in your circle with Publicus when you told me to get a (wrong) dictionary; give me a break.

Maybe you missed the message from other members but the style both of you write in, make many smile and shake their heads about so much "importance" you want to show off....

You're trying to bluff your way around on ThaiVisa in a way I haven't seen in all those years.

You don't seem to get it that most members just scroll on to the next messages to posts which are readable and not littered with "important" and complicated words NOBODY ever uses in normal SPEAKING language as well in WRITING, other than in books; books nobody buys.

If Mrs J. K. Rowling would have written her books in your kind of language, nobody would have bought her hundreds of millions of copies.

Write as you talk; more interesting and will bring a more clear message.

I stopped reading this last one also since I'm not interested in your blah-blah, or is it Bla-Bla ?

LaoPo

[jayboy]

As I stated, I rarely allow myself to mix it up with you. The reason is that it's not worth the time or effort. I just don't deal with brash, condescending and rhetorical people.

My impression is that you were mixing it up all the time.However now you are reduced to flaming, you can sit in the corner by yourself.If you decide to discuss issues like a grown up you might, depending on the comment being comprehensible, be favoured with my pearls of wisdom.

[animatic]

Engineered, as in a conscious organised effort to do something.

Not so, any more than you are engineering your countering attitudes together.

Or are you?

If Mrs J. K. Rowling would have written her books in your kind of language, nobody would have bought her hundreds of millions of copies.

Ah, you make my point. Like I said dumbing down to the average school child's level.

I don't aspire to write best sellers for school children. I do like her books and have read a few.

But no one confuses them with great literature either. Nor with great historian researchers.

I would rather write like; Irvine Welsh, Yann Martell, Alison Weir, Patrick Susskind,

John Grisham, Robin Cook, David McCullough, Ian Rankin, Issac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke.

All writers who pick the best word for their meaning in totally different manners.

Or even Piers Anthony, who writes both higher and lower levels depending on series.

I do use discourse and diligence in daily conversation, as well as dem guys, and vats not to like.

I will not pretend I am worse or better than my vocabulary is, that is being false.

I am somewhat dyslexic and so my spelling is not always up with my reading list and vocabulary.

I read to be able to continue reading a proper speed. If that means I have a large available vocabulary, so be it.

[animatic]

I stopped reading this last one also since I'm not interested in your blah-blah, or is it Bla-Bla ?

LaoPo

You then obviously missed the explanation you asked for.

Don't read my posts, fine by me.