British foreign secretary urges Thailand to uphold democracy

[Trouble]

Want to see if we get the same "mind your own business, solve your own problems at home" comments.

Farang don't quite understand Thais.

It is not that Thais do not want election.

The majority people want election after reform.

That would not be a bad idea IF someone would please state first what the reforms were to be. Suthep has not given any indication of what reforms he wants.

[englishoak]

Perhaps Suthep's supporters could inform us of the countries in the world that are currently backing Suthep. Links would be nice.

Whatever the number, the video above won't go toward increasing it. Don't think it matters though. The attempted enrollment of foreign support by and for one side or the other is primarily for domestic consumption. Foreign governments are concerned with stability and trade opportunities more than governmental forms or practices. Most often the later can go hang provide the former is favorable.

Yes you are correct to say it doesn't matter - at least not a great deal - what other countries think, but I was curious because every time we get a foreign country urging that democracy be respected, Suhtep's supporters come on herre and say that foerign country doesn't understand what is going on.

Yet I haven't yet seen a country that supports Suthep. I would like to be proved wrong. If any one can name a few?

I guess they're saying (rightly, wrongly or muddleheadedly) that they don't have that support because they're not understood. Mind you, it's a very hard thing to understand or comprehend.

As one academic that talks to the well to do business and elite community was told after explaining the finer points and lack of elective support for the dems and all that money and standing. "I think i get what your saying ... they know and understand us, but we dont know or understand them" ....bingo

[Mister Fixit]

Hague has always been an idiot. Doesn't he understand that there IS no democracy, as he knows it, in Thailand?

[Cricketnut]

Is this the same Country that supports the Democratic role model called Egypt, what a load of cobblers.

Maybe this is due to the perceived threat of The Muslim Brother hood running a country? The English and US have been removing government's for decades who they can neither benefit from or see as a security threat.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[focus27]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax <sarcasm alert>, Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

[Cricketnut]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax , Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

Very good point, look at Australia though. As a Country officially born in 1903, they were able to due what Thailand has not. The simple answer to why this cannot be implemented here is that everybody believes or accepts that it is OK to take a bite from the Mango. Thaksin went wrong and fell foul of the Bangkok Amart by simply devouring the whole fruit, hence no one else was allowed their nibble. Even if one is able to reform the law, the question remaining is will Thais agree to live by this?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[englishoak]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax <sarcasm alert>, Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

Well written sir I would suggest that reforming the law is only one half, the second is enforcing it to apply to all, no matter the wallet size or breeding. The second part i would suggest is actually the more important of the two.

[Thai at Heart]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax <sarcasm alert>, Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

It shows what an perceptive and clever document the magna carts is. Seems that the brits were quite forward thinking, even in 1215.

The concepts are still.universal and powerful with longevity.

The problem with thai constitutions is they never convey a spirit of meaning. The convey a rule and then try to list all possible exceptions. Not a good plan.

At the end of the day, if laws aren't universal, what's the point.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[englishoak]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax <sarcasm alert>, Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

It shows what an perceptive and clever document the magna carts is. Seems that the brits were quite forward thinking, even in 1215.

The concepts are still.universal and powerful with longevity.

The problem with thai constitutions is they never convey a spirit of meaning. The convey a rule and then try to list all possible exceptions. Not a good plan.

At the end of the day, if laws aren't universal, what's the point.

Exactly and why Thailand is in a mess and this election it being blockaded, they have seen 2008 as a clear example they can usurp an elected government once and they are trying it again instead of winning hearts and minds as a political party.

The days of regular coups are coming to an end, it is time to grow up and sort out the problems through dialogue and talking not demands and guns.

Edited January 29, 2014 by englishoak

[love1012]

"This is a matter for the people of Thailand, but I hope their political leaders will find a way forward," he said.

Can't see anything wrong with what he said.

A good and sensible statement from the British foreign secretary.

May be he failed as PM....but he is doing a good job now.

Agree he said nothing wrong. However, he was never PM. He was opposition leader when Tony Blair was practically unbeatable.

He would make a good PM now, pity Thailand don't have many politicians of his caliber.

Hahaha - Hague is a failed politician Governing with a party with a 27% mandate - learn about you own country PLEASE before instructing ours!

Its called a coalition and its called working with compromise, you would do well to curb the attitude about a country that includes and considers ALL immigrants and parties as being equal and part of the electoral process and most of all with respect.

We do our protesting at the elections and accept the decision of the electorate unlike this place ......... before you say anything else the advice given to Thailand should be heeded.. we had our civil war hundreds of years ago and it didnt end well for the elite monarchists then either.

Sensible words from the UK ignore it and all the other countries advice at your peril.

Haha ignore the British or they will send the Navy - youre country is a laughing stock so much that you need to come here to Thailand to spout your tripe!!!!!! They are such a model of democracy that they invented......the concerntration camp in South Africa!! Dont tell me about your British democracy - your little island will be owned by Asians soon!!

[love1012]

As for William Hague, well, he comes from a country that has no written constitution and a half appointed half hereditary Upper House. I believe they call them "Lords".

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax <sarcasm alert>, Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

Well written sir I would suggest that reforming the law is only one half, the second is enforcing it to apply to all, no matter the wallet size or breeding. The second part i would suggest is actually the more important of the two.

.....and what about the bit that calls a corrupt lying cheating murdering dictator on the run from the country he was trusted to govern a demi god because he greases their sweaty little palms and murders his opponents?? How does that fit in with Western democracy - your hypocrisy is beyond belief!!

[englishoak]

sure sure and everyone else is a saint and Thailand has such a stable system. Your a child with a childish outlook, too bad for your country with people of so narrow vision and opinion of others with any different views.

The world is not impressed and neither are the majority of your countrymen.

Take care little bird lest you fly too close to the sun, with those illusions of grandeur your liable to get singed.

[love1012]

sure sure and everyone else is a saint and Thailand has such a stable system. Your a child with a childish outlook, too bad for your country with people of so narrow vision and opinion of others with any different views.

The world is not impressed and neither are the majority of your countrymen.

Take care little bird lest you fly too close to the sun, with those illusions of grandeur your liable to get singed.

oh now whos being childish? boohoo you hate Thailand and disrespect us so much but still live here and meddle in our affairs - you have no idea what the majority of "my countrymen think - youre not Thai! You just pretend and play at being a red shirt upholding the great Shinawat democracy - there are things that Thai people know that foreigners can never have any idea of red shirts and yellow shirts are Thai people.

Thailand that you see in your eyes is the tip of the iceberg that we Thais know - before you tell me to take care let me ask you - a red shirt a yellow shirt and a farang with views like ours - which other would the red shirt and the yellow shirt protect if they really had to make a choice. Your views on this site are like owning tickets for an event that has finished. You cannot and never will be part of this country - you cant own anything and you cant vote - you only pay us money that we laugh as we take - those are laws that EVERY Thai will never break!!

[daiwill60]

Wish the frigging Foreign Min would pull its finger out of its own arse and allow passport renewal to be done in other countries, and at same cost as back home in UK, just like wot sweden does for its citizens and holland etc. Sort that out Willie boy , and you may get my concern, and be seen to be fair and not scamming Brits. And you think you can comment on what is happening to people in another country, look after your own first, I say. thai people couldnt give a monkeys arse what the UK Govt thinks.

[JetsetBkk]

And it has delivered strong and decisive government for 100s of years.

That the UK does not have one single document that can be called a constitution does not mean that it has no rules. The Thai revolution of 1932 sought to model its constitutional monarchy on the UK. I'm not sure how they went about this - as even some British constitutional experts seem to get lost in the tangle of power relationships at times - but it would be an onerous task to try and fully duplicate such a system. Thailand has structures such as a Privy Council and House of Lords (Senate) but I don't think anything resembling The Crown.

It could be said that the British public are duped into a veneer of democracy behind which lurks an older oligarchic structure. The British republican revolution didn't last very long. If the Thai constitution appears designed so that all roads lead to the Senate, and beyond, try reading about the powers vested in The Crown.

So a question must arise as to why this Thai experiment is not working - assuming, of course, that it isn't. One key aspect that makes the copying of the British model so difficult is that it is based on centuries of laws. Laws that have not so much sought to define the power of the rulers but more the powers of the individual in defence from the rulers, be they monarchs or governments. Many new states place their Constitution as the first source of the law of the land - changing the Constitution thereby changes the laws. In the UK, the law, the common law, comes first and the relationships of power are imbedded within the law.

What is the history of Thai law? Anyone? Well, it looks like the Laws of Manu were used before the creation of the modern state. I assume that body of Hindu laws was somehow scrapped - I don't know - but it leaves the country without a legal history, or structure, or culture. Where the UK has evolved from the Magna Carta to the Poll Tax <sarcasm alert>, Thailand has lurched from one crisis to another. Reforms don't need to take 800 years, but they do need to aim at the right targets.

I think if there is one defining difference it is the law of the land; a respect for the law not as absolute truth but as the battleground to define rights and privileges and powers. Corruption is endemic in this world, but the way to fight it is through the courts. To try and reform democracy and corruption are the wrong targets; what needs reforming in Thailand is the law.

Well written sir I would suggest that reforming the law is only one half, the second is enforcing it to apply to all, no matter the wallet size or breeding. The second part i would suggest is actually the more important of the two.

.....and what about the bit that calls a corrupt lying cheating murdering dictator on the run from the country he was trusted to govern a demi god because he greases their sweaty little palms and murders his opponents?? How does that fit in with Western democracy - your hypocrisy is beyond belief!!

As is your hyperbole.

[fasteddie]

I think the American administration should get a lesson of good diplomacy from W. Hague and not insist on elections, at whatever cost, with the excuse that is in the name of Democracy.

"It’s important that constitutional democracy is upheld," Hague said in Jakarta after talks with his Indonesian counterpart Marty Natalegawa.

That's what he said, now what's that you're saying again?

[fasteddie]

Want to see if we get the same "mind your own business, solve your own problems at home" comments.

Farang don't quite understand Thais.

It is not that Thais do not want election.

The majority people want election after reform.

Problem for Thais like you is that we do understand you.

Everybody understands you and we don't like what you do and we know you don't think or you would realise you just trying to give away your rights (don't care about your rights eh?) but more importantly you are trying to give away the rights of everybody in the country... and give them to one of the most horrible people ever to live in asia.

Oh yes we do understand fascism. It is Thai people like you with no education about history or sense of reasoning powers. If you knew anything about history, you would not support Suthep.

Reform yes. If you are all so intellegent, make a political party to compete with Thaksin. And don't cry like a baby about vote buying.

Dems did nothing in power for anybody other than the army (gave them massive budget rise) and chase after ghost of thakisn around the world. If you really are educated you have to show people you are and stop behaving like 13 year old teenagers with angst problems.

Majority of Thais do want elections, and many more will vote PT than for Suthep. It is not your right to use violence and block polling stations. In western country you would be arrested, tasered and if you invade White house like you try at Gov house and Police office... You would all be shot with real bullets until you went away.

You are very lucky that the big corruption in thailand is the Army and Elites. They are protecting you,, Suthep and his criminals. But, they can't do it for ever so you'll have to either stop, negotiate or the reds will come with more people than you can ever imagine and they will make you stop!!

Oh yes, the BIG corruption is the Army and the elites, it's never Thaksin is it?

Thailand wouldn't be in the shape it is in now if Thaksin had governed the country with honesty as he was mandated to do.

It was his abuse of power that gave the Democrats ammunition to build a substantial opposition to the abuses.

If you were so intelligent, you would know this and if you were the least bit honest, you would acknowledge it as well!

"It was his abuse of power that gave the Democrats ammunition to build a substantial opposition to the abuses."

That's a good one, the Dems (sic) have been thrashed at every election since Thaksin came to power, so much so that they've surrendered and are not even participating in this one.

It's you that needs to try some honesty!

[englishoak]

sure sure and everyone else is a saint and Thailand has such a stable system. Your a child with a childish outlook, too bad for your country with people of so narrow vision and opinion of others with any different views.

The world is not impressed and neither are the majority of your countrymen.

Take care little bird lest you fly too close to the sun, with those illusions of grandeur your liable to get singed.

oh now whos being childish? boohoo you hate Thailand and disrespect us so much but still live here and meddle in our affairs - you have no idea what the majority of "my countrymen think - youre not Thai! You just pretend and play at being a red shirt upholding the great Shinawat democracy - there are things that Thai people know that foreigners can never have any idea of red shirts and yellow shirts are Thai people.

Thailand that you see in your eyes is the tip of the iceberg that we Thais know - before you tell me to take care let me ask you - a red shirt a yellow shirt and a farang with views like ours - which other would the red shirt and the yellow shirt protect if they really had to make a choice. Your views on this site are like owning tickets for an event that has finished. You cannot and never will be part of this country - you cant own anything and you cant vote - you only pay us money that we laugh as we take - those are laws that EVERY Thai will never break!!

My dear I care not who runs the country and do not care what colour one wears, I merely defend freedom of choice and the right to vote, this site is created for us to speak as we wish and if you dislike that too bad. I suggest if you cant deal with it you go to one of your more sympathetic forums and pat each other on the back.

You think I am bothered about not having citizenship ? lol wrong I am here to do business and believe me my clients being mostly Thai pay me far more than i spend, so i am content in the knowledge your country and Thais pay me not the other way around Im quite happy here thank you and shall leave when I choose, i have no intention of making it my permanent home ...I do pay my taxes though which is more than the majority of Thais do, so feel more than qualified to comment and there's nothing you can do about it and will continue to show fascist ideals and rhetoric and supporters up for the dinosaurs they are

Your gloating and boasting of taking and giving nothing back just highlights the problems you face within, greed and arrogance is not a virtue and xenophobia will as time goes on show to be the weakness it is. Also your poor supposition that no one can understand Thainess is a fallacy and one of the most bs rhetoric's here.My daughter summed it up perfectly the other year, Thainess is simply an aversion for responsibility and something that is said to usually cover fault, guilt or embarrassment.

Have a good day

[ikke]

Want to see if we get the same "mind your own business, solve your own problems at home" comments.

Farang don't quite understand Thais.

It is not that Thais do not want election.

The majority people want election after reform.

majority ? you might need a calculator....

[Thai at Heart]

sure sure and everyone else is a saint and Thailand has such a stable system. Your a child with a childish outlook, too bad for your country with people of so narrow vision and opinion of others with any different views.

The world is not impressed and neither are the majority of your countrymen.

Take care little bird lest you fly too close to the sun, with those illusions of grandeur your liable to get singed.

oh now whos being childish? boohoo you hate Thailand and disrespect us so much but still live here and meddle in our affairs - you have no idea what the majority of "my countrymen think - youre not Thai! You just pretend and play at being a red shirt upholding the great Shinawat democracy - there are things that Thai people know that foreigners can never have any idea of red shirts and yellow shirts are Thai people.

Thailand that you see in your eyes is the tip of the iceberg that we Thais know - before you tell me to take care let me ask you - a red shirt a yellow shirt and a farang with views like ours - which other would the red shirt and the yellow shirt protect if they really had to make a choice. Your views on this site are like owning tickets for an event that has finished. You cannot and never will be part of this country - you cant own anything and you cant vote - you only pay us money that we laugh as we take - those are laws that EVERY Thai will never break!!

And, what has that got to do with the current mess unfolding in thailand at the moment?

[chainarong]

At the 110 blog, I don't think anybody will read this , however , Mr Hague do you refer to the Westminster system of Democracy or the Thai Democracy system , because sir there is a big difference.

[Neurath]

What reason cannot give, a mystic essentialism can provide. When a person or persons start throwing around essentialist qualities of nations or parts of nations that can only be grasped by themselves and their tribe you know that you are in the presence of fools, as they're incapable of seeing that what they are doing is a major part of the problem they're seeking to solve.

[Thai at Heart]

What reason cannot give, a mystic essentialism can provide. When a person or persons start throwing around essentialist qualities of nations or parts of nations that can only be grasped by themselves and their tribe you know that you are in the presence of fools, as they're incapable of seeing that what they are doing is a major part of the problem they're seeking to solve.

Is that code for "falang no understand thainess", being utter b*******t?

[jamstock]

Want to see if we get the same "mind your own business, solve your own problems at home" comments.

Farang don't quite understand Thais.

It is not that Thais do not want election.

The majority people want election after reform.

Can someone explain what this "reform' would entail?

[Neurath]

What reason cannot give, a mystic essentialism can provide. When a person or persons start throwing around essentialist qualities of nations or parts of nations that can only be grasped by themselves and their tribe you know that you are in the presence of fools, as they're incapable of seeing that what they are doing is a major part of the problem they're seeking to solve.

Is that code for "falang no understand thainess", being utter b*******t?

Sure That and all he other essentialist BS that one hears about. There are versions of it in sexual politics and racial politics and so on. It's a pretty wide-spread malady afflicting the weak minded and the bully inclined.

[buddy]

William Hague the British Foreign secretary is a career politician who has never had a real job like most of the political class including the British prime minister Cameron and "leaders" of the opposition, Milliband and Clegg whom all support the Anti-democratic (note not "un" democratic) European Union.

So this man is in no position to lecture Thailand when he and his ilk have robbed the U.K of its own democracy by signing away British sovereignty to a foreign power without asking the British people first!

[tetleythedog]

Is this the same Country that supports the Democratic role model called Egypt, what a load of cobblers.

Yes mate it is .........and it's the same country that let Thaksin buy Man. City, even though we can't buy anything here.

[kinmaew]

Coming from the same country that colonized half the world, took whatever they liked from the "Natives" but today seemingly upholds all the human rights in the world. Thais do not want democracy, people whose custom it is to crawl on your hands and feet do not want democracy and never will its not part of their culture so why all this pretending? I find the whole thing irritating because it is not addressing the root cause of their problems.

[Spalpeen]

sure sure and everyone else is a saint and Thailand has such a stable system. Your a child with a childish outlook, too bad for your country with people of so narrow vision and opinion of others with any different views.

The world is not impressed and neither are the majority of your countrymen.

Take care little bird lest you fly too close to the sun, with those illusions of grandeur your liable to get singed.

oh now whos being childish? boohoo you hate Thailand and disrespect us so much but still live here and meddle in our affairs - you have no idea what the majority of "my countrymen think - youre not Thai! You just pretend and play at being a red shirt upholding the great Shinawat democracy - there are things that Thai people know that foreigners can never have any idea of red shirts and yellow shirts are Thai people.

Thailand that you see in your eyes is the tip of the iceberg that we Thais know - before you tell me to take care let me ask you - a red shirt a yellow shirt and a farang with views like ours - which other would the red shirt and the yellow shirt protect if they really had to make a choice. Your views on this site are like owning tickets for an event that has finished. You cannot and never will be part of this country - you cant own anything and you cant vote - you only pay us money that we laugh as we take - those are laws that EVERY Thai will never break!!

.

Yet another poster here who has just mysteriously appeared within the last two weeks. Claims to be a Thai female but writes English EXACTLY like a white middle aged farang. Pathetic, really.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Spalpeen

[wedders]

Coming from the same country that colonized half the world, took whatever they liked from the "Natives" but today seemingly upholds all the human rights in the world. Thais do not want democracy, people whose custom it is to crawl on your hands and feet do not want democracy and never will its not part of their culture so why all this pretending? I find the whole thing irritating because it is not addressing the root cause of their problems.

Thais do not want democracy? Really? So why is it then that 80.6% of those polled by the Bangkok Post last weekend said that they wanted the elections to go ahead as planned, ie prior to reforms?

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app