Sukampol Dismisses Rumours Of Top General Conspiring To Oust Thai Govt

[cooked]

Military coups are looked upon by many Thais as a perfectly normal political process. Up in Isaan, they really don't care what happens down in Bangkok as long as they are left in peace. I don't think that many coups have taken place since the seventies without the active or passive support from 'a certain higher authority'.

[EyesWideOpen]

Let's do the math. 18 coups since 1932, which is 80 years. So divide it out and you have coup every 4.4 years. The last coup was in 2006, 6 years ago. So that means we are well into coup season. And then factor in the greed and incompetence of the current government, and it would seem that a coup occurring would almost be a certainty... :-) Plus a coup would have the added benefit of keeping that pesky Thaksin out of the country....

[Reasonableman]

You might find it strange that someone might find this offensive, and "disparaging", which was clearly the intent, despite the disingenuous (this week's buzzword) denial.

"Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky."

My fault, I'm wacky. But you lost me there. Should we outlaw coups in your opinion?

My understanding is that they are already illegal. Is there a law on the books providing for or enabling coups? If not, it would seem they must be extrajudicial, outlawed already.

So in your opinion are there circumstances where an elected government should be changed by coup in Thailand?

Such speculation and discussion would be another fascinating topic. But I know you want to stay on topic. Coups are de facto illegal, and we have had assurances from the relevant Minister and Army Head that none is currently being planned. Which prompts the question of why the continued cry of "wolf, wolf, wolf" from certain quarters? But that may also be off-topic.

[kerryk]

So in your opinion are there circumstances where an elected government should be changed by coup in Thailand?

Being elected in democracy is not the same as being given the keys to the Sweet Shop. It means you have passed a job interview, and are required to show up at work and to work to a high standard. If you fail to do those things, you are sacked from your job. Depending on the way you behave at work you may have to be dragged forcefully from the building. The important thing is that the office survives and they can recruit new employees in future.

The majority of Republicans would tell you that someone has grabbed the keys to the sweet shop by passing the largest tax increase in the history of the world. But they are not going to have a coup? Because, the military is not running the country and the existence of a free press would alert the citizenry before it happened. So you have a choice. A rule by corrupt politicians or rule by corrupt military. Most countries have picked the politicians in the past 200 years.

[Yunla]

The majority of Republicans would tell you that someone has grabbed the keys to the sweet shop by passing the largest tax increase in the history of the world. But they are not going to have a coup? Because, the military is not running the country and the existence of a free press would alert the citizenry before it happened. So you have a choice. A rule by corrupt politicians or rule by corrupt military. Most countries have picked the politicians in the past 200 years.

Republicans in the US are in a Republic, which has the President as head of state. That is different to parliamentary democracy, where the PM is not the head of state and is considered merely a hireling or representative of the electorate.

The free press is a none-subject here, we are discussing this on the internet and also it is discussed in newspapers. Either way, the media is not the subject, it is the current Thai Govt and why it has put itself in a position where it would have been ousted legally already in its first year, in other parliamentary democracies. PTP is giving Thailand a bad name internationally with its antics, it is not only thaivisa forum that talks about this leadership, many other websites and forums and news reporters do cover the Yingluck regime and the reports are not painting Thailand in a positive light and that is enough reason for many Thai people to want them ousted.

Thailand's democracy is not advanced and has not cleared up corruption that the checks and balances are there to prevent. Nonetheless, there is great aspiration in the democracy movement in Thailand, for an end to corrupt prime ministers, and for them to take their jobs seriously.

In England, a parliamentary democracy with rule of law, Yingluck would already have been removed from office, not by the army but by first the police and then by no-confidence motion. This would have happened when her regime members first denied then admitted to her having secret business meetings using her PM office for personal affairs. The police would have been called in right there. When PTP handed out home adresses of dissenters to an angry mob, if that had happened in UK the government would also have been charged under privacy and human rights laws. Again, the PM would have been removed. In neither case would she be serving the full four years. In Thailand the system is so leaky that these things are not addressed swiftly and so the removal of corrupt leaders falls to older methods.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[h90]

Sure everyone knows that but who figures out what circumstances? You? Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky.

"The only way to get a consensus is by elections" is not accurate. Consensus in politics is a gradual process of debate and acknowledgment, resulting in an agreed set of conditions which can move forward. Elections, by contrast, are a purely individual box ticking number-crunch and have nothing to do with agreement at all. Consensus is actually what is required in parliament, at least in modern democracies such as England where the Opposition's views have to be heard and respected and debates are (almost always) structured around consensus-forming, highlighting the most contentious items and either removing them or debating them further until there is agreement.

Military intervention is a failsafe or self-defense mechanism that is employed by parliamentary democracy around the world in 21st century. Parliamentary democracy is books and pens and debate in essence and as such it is entirely fragile without the support of the army and police.

Obviously Thailand is not a modern progressive democracy. Nonetheless, the military has to step in if the centre of government is threatened from within. It is the same as calling the police if your house is burgled. The police do not live in your house 24/7 because you take it on faith that there will not be armed criminals in your house. You call the police in that emergency. Exactly the same, in democratic government you take it on faith that there will not be autocratic dictatorial criminals in office and you do not need to have the army living in parliament all the time, but they are called in if there is an emergency.

How many times has the military stepped in as a fail safe to change democracies in Sweden, UK and the US in the past couple of hundred years? I would submit that the military is the reason consensus is not reached. If the politicians know they have to stay in session till they work out a deal they will work out a deal. A free press is far more important than the military. That's the reason the reds and yellows are united on that one issue, No Free Press.

But if the military would have stepped in when Hitler attacked Poland, or when Bush attacked the Iraq, than millions wouldn't die and the holocaust wouldn't have happened.

How can you have a free press if you have a democratic elected Hitler (just as example) in power? If you have a leader that gains control of the police and or courts or has his own paramilitary troops than only a military coup can remove him.

[Buchholz]

Kerryk, Perhaps the confusion arises from your refocusing discussion on "outs the Thai Government" (sic).

<snip>

Oh, and sorry but I don't understand your reference "outs the Thai Government." [/size]

I think you meant "oust".

Well done whybother et al, you win again. You have succeeded in dragging the thread this way and that until all reasonable debate about the topic is abandoned while the shrill voice of yunla is heard bleating away about the party she hates. Is it a technique you learnt from the dems?

Perhaps he's read too many threads where you dragged the topic off-course by tapping your "But, Abhisit" keyboard key or any other number of tactics you've used to derail a thread's topic.

[billd766]

Actually, I am still waiting for you to find the 1,796 cases recently where amnesty has been granted legally.

What 1,796 recent cases?

Are you suggesting that granting amnesty is illegal? Maybe you should mention that to the PTP who is trying to push amnesty laws through parliament.

Yes there is an amnesty every year on the King's birthday.

In December last year the King granted an amnesty for some 22,000 convicted criminals who were in jail.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/video/2011-12/06/c_131290820.htm

These people were already taken to court, found guilty, sentenced and had served a part of their sentence.

AFAIK an amnest can only be grantedto a person who has already been convicted, is in jail at the time, has served part of his sentence and has shown remorse.

I am quite happy to be proved wrong by anybody and will apologise if what I have written is not correct.

[phiphidon]

The majority of Republicans would tell you that someone has grabbed the keys to the sweet shop by passing the largest tax increase in the history of the world. But they are not going to have a coup? Because, the military is not running the country and the existence of a free press would alert the citizenry before it happened. So you have a choice. A rule by corrupt politicians or rule by corrupt military. Most countries have picked the politicians in the past 200 years.

Republicans in the US are in a Republic, which has the President as head of state. That is different to parliamentary democracy, where the PM is not the head of state and is considered merely a hireling or representative of the electorate.

The free press is a none-subject here, we are discussing this on the internet and also it is discussed in newspapers. Either way, the media is not the subject, it is the current Thai Govt and why it has put itself in a position where it would have been ousted legally already in its first year, in other parliamentary democracies. PTP is giving Thailand a bad name internationally with its antics, it is not only thaivisa forum that talks about this leadership, many other websites and forums and news reporters do cover the Yingluck regime and the reports are not painting Thailand in a positive light and that is enough reason for many Thai people to want them ousted.

Thailand's democracy is not advanced and has not cleared up corruption that the checks and balances are there to prevent. Nonetheless, there is great aspiration in the democracy movement in Thailand, for an end to corrupt prime ministers, and for them to take their jobs seriously.

In England, a parliamentary democracy with rule of law, Yingluck would already have been removed from office, not by the army but by first the police and then by no-confidence motion. This would have happened when her regime members first denied then admitted to her having secret business meetings using her PM office for personal affairs. The police would have been called in right there. When PTP handed out home adresses of dissenters to an angry mob, if that had happened in UK the government would also have been charged under privacy and human rights laws. Again, the PM would have been removed. In neither case would she be serving the full four years. In Thailand the system is so leaky that these things are not addressed swiftly and so the removal of corrupt leaders falls to older methods.

"In England, a parliamentary democracy with rule of law, Yingluck would already have been removed from office, not by the army but by first the police and then by no-confidence motion. This would have happened when her regime members first denied then admitted to her having secret business meetings using her PM office for personal affairs."

In reality,in England. The Levenson Inquiry reveals that 3 PM's (Blair, Brown and Cameron) have been hosting dinners at various times over a number of years with members of one of the largest media groups in the World at the PMs country retreat, Chequers and at No.10. Secretly, business was discussed which amongst other things included talk of a takeover bid of a rival broadcaster, EC regs on broadcasting rights for Premier League Football and the sacking of an MP who spoke out about said media company. Cameron also lunched on board the murdoch family yacht and a covert meeting at an Oxfordshire horse race meeting, 50 different meetings in all.

The result - an inquiry and nothing else except a bit of embarassment.

"The police would have been called in right there. When PTP handed out home adresses of dissenters to an angry mob, if that had happened in UK the government would also have been charged under privacy and human rights laws. Again, the PM would have been removed. In neither case would she be serving the full four years".

Andy Coulson - resigned (not sacked) as PM Communication Director because it was "difficult to give 100%" to the job - mainly because he was up to his neck in the news of the world phone hacking scandal and paid bribes to police (but still cameron hired him). At long last has been charged with perjury. Cameron? Still PM.

So I think your comparison of what would happen in the UK is well off the mark.

[phiphidon]

Perhaps he's read too many threads where you dragged the topic off-course by tapping your "But, Abhisit" keyboard key or any other number of tactics you've used to derail a thread's topic.

Oh the irony, do you remember ticking the " like " button on this post?

It seems discussing other posters is far more important than the topic,

by several pages, even after deletions.

Nothing to see here people. Move along, stop blocking the street.

[Yunla]

So I think your comparison of what would happen in the UK is well off the mark.

The UK was the first nation on Earth to forcibly remove a Prime Minister using a 'vote of no confidence'. That was in 1782. Since then a total of eleven Prime ministers have been removed from office by this method, most recently in 1979 with Callaghan who was kicked out for incompetence.

Blair was a lawyer, his wife was a lawyer, most of his cabinet were lawyers. They planned everything to stay within the law wherever possible, or to stretch laws and relegate blame. Had he openly committed the crimes that Yingluck has openly committed, accompanied by parliamentary absenteeism and refusal to debate or even read his own bills, Blair would have been out by 'no confidence' and facing criminal charges.

Meetings at number 10 and Chequers are not secret meetings in hotels with secret businessmen and they are not denied afterwards. Number ten visitors are cataloged for one thing, hotel rooms are not. You are really stretching your credibility comparing Cameron's aide with Yingluck.

Cameron attends Parliamentary debates and answers questions unscripted there. He is doing his job. Yingluck is not. When she adds ethics-violations, abuse of office to her parliamentary absenteeism and refusal to read/discuss her own bills, she becomes eminently 'no confidence' voteworthy. And she should also be arrested for human rights / privacy violations re; distribution of home addressed to an angry mob. I confirm that Cameron, Blair, and Brown would all have been arrested and voted on for the private address thing alone. Especially if they refused to investigate, prosecute and sack the people responsible for it as Yingluck has done.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[kerryk]

How many times has the military stepped in as a fail safe to change democracies in Sweden, UK and the US in the past couple of hundred years?

The facility of the army removal is a last resort and used not often or not ever. But leaders are fairly frequently removed from office when they break the law, usually by police and the courts. The problem in Thailand is that the institutional corruption grants leaders impunity to keep breaking the law, or they refuse to go quietly. In the West, leaders step down quietly and are arrested, they do not need to be removed by the Army because they are not operating as corrupt dictators in a corrupt oligarchy.

It occurs to me that Richard Nixon a crook was granted amnesty by Gerald Ford without the threat of a coup. Bill Clinton was impeached and still didn't go. Want me to go on? Changes to governments in the West are made by Elections.

[Buchholz]

Perhaps he's read too many threads where you dragged the topic off-course by tapping your "But, Abhisit" keyboard key or any other number of tactics you've used to derail a thread's topic.

Oh the irony, do you remember ticking the " like " button on this post?

It seems discussing other posters is far more important than the topic,

by several pages, even after deletions.

Nothing to see here people. Move along, stop blocking the street.

Sure I did.... and after that post, the off-topic discussion briefly stopped.... then was followed by an avalanche of more off-topic posts... to which one just throws up their hands and joins in with it. Very similar to people responding to all your off-topic posts that derailed countless other threads.

Irony... it's much more on your posted post.... rather than an unobtrusive "like".

p.s. I know how historically you've struggled to master the quoting function, but the post by animatic you quoted was made "Yesterday, 20:03" not "Today, 10:57"

.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Buchholz

[kerryk]

Sure everyone knows that but who figures out what circumstances? You? Not to disparage you but a lot of your posts are a bit whacky. And some other posters on Thai Visa come on like refugees the from the 1930's in Europe or Russia. You probably think you are OK but I don't. So there we have a problem. The only way to get a consensus is by election and for elections to work one has to outlaw coups. Do you see the logic in that. No of course not because you are whacky.

"The only way to get a consensus is by elections" is not accurate. Consensus in politics is a gradual process of debate and acknowledgment, resulting in an agreed set of conditions which can move forward. Elections, by contrast, are a purely individual box ticking number-crunch and have nothing to do with agreement at all. Consensus is actually what is required in parliament, at least in modern democracies such as England where the Opposition's views have to be heard and respected and debates are (almost always) structured around consensus-forming, highlighting the most contentious items and either removing them or debating them further until there is agreement.

Military intervention is a failsafe or self-defense mechanism that is employed by parliamentary democracy around the world in 21st century. Parliamentary democracy is books and pens and debate in essence and as such it is entirely fragile without the support of the army and police.

Obviously Thailand is not a modern progressive democracy. Nonetheless, the military has to step in if the centre of government is threatened from within. It is the same as calling the police if your house is burgled. The police do not live in your house 24/7 because you take it on faith that there will not be armed criminals in your house. You call the police in that emergency. Exactly the same, in democratic government you take it on faith that there will not be autocratic dictatorial criminals in office and you do not need to have the army living in parliament all the time, but they are called in if there is an emergency.

How many times has the military stepped in as a fail safe to change democracies in Sweden, UK and the US in the past couple of hundred years? I would submit that the military is the reason consensus is not reached. If the politicians know they have to stay in session till they work out a deal they will work out a deal. A free press is far more important than the military. That's the reason the reds and yellows are united on that one issue, No Free Press.

But if the military would have stepped in when Hitler attacked Poland, or when Bush attacked the Iraq, than millions wouldn't die and the holocaust wouldn't have happened.

How can you have a free press if you have a democratic elected Hitler (just as example) in power? If you have a leader that gains control of the police and or courts or has his own paramilitary troops than only a military coup can remove him.

You are really asking this after the Arab Spring!

[Yunla]

Want me to go on? Changes to governments in the West are made by Elections.

They are also made by something called a "vote of no confidence". That is a powerful democratic tool to remove 'malfunctioning' or 'openly corrupt' governments from Office. Yingluck and PTP can and should be removed for both of those two reasons. That is how a democracy would remove them, but in Thailand where we do not have a democracy, it falls to the army to remove malfunctioning regimes instead.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[kerryk]

Actually, I am still waiting for you to find the 1,796 cases recently where amnesty has been granted legally.

What 1,796 recent cases?

Are you suggesting that granting amnesty is illegal? Maybe you should mention that to the PTP who is trying to push amnesty laws through parliament.

Sorry Whybother actually I read your other post wrong. I thought you meant amnesty was illegal. Again sorry.

[kerryk]

Want me to go on? Changes to governments in the West are made by Elections.

They are also made by something called a "vote of no confidence". That is a powerful democratic tool to remove 'malfunctioning' or 'openly corrupt' governments from Office. Yingluck and PTP can and should be removed for both of those two reasons. That is how a democracy would remove them, but in Thailand where we don not have a democracy, it falls to the army instead.

Sorry I did it again. I should have said vote and not election. The US doesn't have the no confidence option so they have to wait 4 years till the scoundrel is out.

[whybother]

The US doesn't have the no confidence option so they have to wait 4 years till the scoundrel is out.

They can remove a president through "impeachment": http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

[Yunla]

Sorry I did it again. I should have said vote and not election. The US doesn't have the no confidence option so they have to wait 4 years till the scoundrel is out.

wiki> "In presidential systems the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence, as was done by the United States Congress to Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s^, and was contemplated against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but these motions are of symbolic effect only. Presidential systems also usually have the procedure of impeachment by which an executive or judicial officer can be removed."

Once again I am comparing UK and Thailand because they are parliamentary democracies run by a PM. The US is not.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[kerryk]

Want me to go on? Changes to governments in the West are made by Elections.

They are also made by something called a "vote of no confidence". That is a powerful democratic tool to remove 'malfunctioning' or 'openly corrupt' governments from Office. Yingluck and PTP can and should be removed for both of those two reasons. That is how a democracy would remove them, but in Thailand where we do not have a democracy, it falls to the army to remove malfunctioning regimes instead.

I still haven't managed to find those laws of democracy so maybe I got it wrong but I think you may be confusing democracy with parliamentary procedure. I don't think a coup is part of normal parliamentary procedure. Maybe it is in your elusive laws of a democratic government.

Are you saying now that Thailand does not have a parliament?

[Yunla]

I think you may be confusing democracy with parliamentary procedure.

Yes you are right. We should have one of those parliamentary democracies that have no parliamentary procedure. They're the best. We could just let Yingluck do whatever she wants for twenty years then let her kids take over after she retires.

We can still call it democracy if you want, we'll just scrap that boring old "parliamentary procedure" which is such a tiresome drag and isn't glamorous at all. Not having any rules of governance also saves training-time because it means people don't have to study those rules or learn about politics or egalitarianism or anything.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[mca]

self deleted

Edited June 30, 2012 by mca

[kerryk]

I think you may be confusing democracy with parliamentary procedure.

Yes you are right. We should have one of those parliamentary democracies that have no parliamentary procedure. They're the best. We could just let Yingluck do whatever she wants for twenty years then let her kids take over after she retires.

We can still call it democracy if you want, we'll just scrap that boring old "parliamentary procedure" which is such a tiresome drag and isn't glamorous at all. Not having any rules of governance also saves training-time because it means people don't have to study those rules or learn about politics or egalitarianism or anything.

I think you are saying that there is some rule book that states the duties of the PM under Thai law and includes her duties in the Thai parliament.

Where is that book? Does it have a name?

2. I think you are saying if she does not follow this book that doesn't exist it is OK for the military to have a coup and remove her party from power. Yes?

[Bill662]

Democracy in thailand is flawed but still its the best system for any country

Based on what informations?

Go campaign for a military dictatorship elsewhere.Try the USA

[Yunla]

I think you are saying that there is some rule book that states the duties of the PM under Thai law and includes her duties in the Thai parliament.

Where is that book? Does it have a name?

2. I think you are saying if she does not follow this book that doesn't exist it is OK for the military to have a coup and remove her party from power. Yes?

I'm saying that she has violated ethics-codes with conflict-of-interests, condones human-rights abuse and breaches privacy laws by giving out home-addresses of dissenting citizens to an angry mob, has violated the authority of the office of PM by using it for personal undeclared business deals, and in addition she is consistently absent from parliament and does not read or debate bills including the bills of her own party, all of which mean she should have a no-confidence vote called against her.

In addition she has not implemented any worthwhile policies since she came to office, coupled with her absentee leadership style this makes her an incompetent leader, again this is a reason for a no-confidence vote. I think members of her party should be charged with crimes relating to the address-disclosure scandal. The fact that she has not taken action against them is another reason she is unfit to lead government. I don't think and have never said I want the army to take action, I would want regulators, police and the parliamentary standards authority to take action against her as they would do in short-order in more modern law-abiding parliamentary democracies. Sadly, in corruptsville none of that will happen so its the army or nothing. So before you shout 'Thailand doesn't have those laws', spare a moment and think that maybe that is why it is falling apart at the seams, and why people are trying to change this to a more progressive accountable democracy.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[kerryk]

I think you are saying that there is some rule book that states the duties of the PM under Thai law and includes her duties in the Thai parliament.

Where is that book? Does it have a name?

2. I think you are saying if she does not follow this book that doesn't exist it is OK for the military to have a coup and remove her party from power. Yes?

I'm saying that she has violated ethics-codes with conflict-of-interests, condones human-rights abuse and breaches privacy laws by giving out home-addresses of dissenting citizens to an angry mob, has violated the authority of the office of PM by using it for personal undeclared business deals, and in addition she is consistently absent from parliament and does not read or debate bills including the bills of her own party, all of which mean she should have a no-confidence vote called against her.

In addition she has not implemented any worthwhile policies since she came to office, coupled with her absentee leadership style this makes her an incompetent leader, again this is a reason for a no-confidence vote. I think members of her party should be charged with crimes relating to the address-disclosure scandal. The fact that she has not taken action against them is another reason she is unfit to lead government. I don't think and have never said I want the army to take action, I would want regulators, police and the parliamentary standards authority to take action against her as they would do in short-order in more modern law-abiding parliamentary democracies. Sadly, in corruptsville none of that will happen so its the army or nothing. So before you shout 'Thailand doesn't have those laws', spare a moment and think that maybe that is why it is falling apart at the seams, and why people are trying to change this to a more progressive accountable democracy.

I hear what you are saying but if Thailand were falling apart at the seems I would have left. I'm buying a new house. Thailand is in better shape now then it has been in since the airport was occupied by those nuts, The economy has recovered. The baht is up. There is 0 unemployment. Three new restaurants have opened near me in the past month all with interesting new food and all busy. Life is good.

Edited June 30, 2012 by kerryk

[indyuk]

Totally dysfunctional Gov. The Thai people would be far better off if the Military ran the Government. Things seem to run smoother and safer. I hear this from Thais all the time. Let the military run things and get rid of the corrupt Gov.

Yet another stupid proposal from and insider or Hiso (or both). To seek personal wealth at the cost of an unstable homeland is the policiy of imbeciles and thieves. If Thailand wishes to steam ahead with the rest of the world she has to embrace democracy. Thailand's future lies in it's Constructional Monarchy with all citizens supporting their government and their Monarch.

[siampolee]

kerryk.I've been here for 21 years and the signs you see were indeed very common in 1997 and we all know what happened then don't we?

Rest assured that whoever holds the reins of power here will have their own interests at heart first and foremost.There is indeed a very wide gap twixt the U.K and American and western ideals as to what constitutes good governance in Thailand and Asia in general.

Much the same applies to the African continent and the Indian continent.

Democracy is like a child in its infancy in the aforementioned regions whereas in the west it's a pubescent teenager,spotty in places.

Remember the quote , ''Powder and paint make a lady what she aint.''

Edited June 30, 2012 by siampolee

[Yunla]

I hear what you are saying but if Thailand were falling apart at the seems I would have left. I'm buying a new house. Thailand is in better shape now then it has been in since the airport was occupied by those nuts, The economy has recovered. The baht is up. There is 0 unemployment. Three new restaurants have opened near me in the past month all with interesting new food and all busy. Life is good.

I'm happy to see you are enjoying life in Thailand and the local restaurants. The new house sounds great and I hope it all works out for you.

Kind regards and best wishes, from one of those airport nuts.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[OzMick]

Democracy in thailand is flawed but still its the best system for any country

Based on what informations?

Go campaign for a military dictatorship elsewhere.Try the USA

Even someone with a PHD in Orwellian Newspeak would not dare call a country with as many military coups as Thailand has had since 1932 , a democracy.

Thailand is rated as a flawed democracy, ranking 58th out of 78 democracies and so-called democracies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)Coups are one of its flaws, but IMHO rank much lower than corruption, vote-buying, rampant nepotism/cronyism and feudalism that plague this country. Try to understand that Thai coups are not attempts at changing from constitutional monarchy to dictatorship, but the removal of corrupt governments.