Bangkok No Fun any more

wrote:

You are so wrong on so many things it's hard to know where to start.

Thailand is a monopoly driven hell hole for business. To start
a business (unless you are from the USA) you have to have
7 thai owners along with you.

The US has an Amity treaty that allows this. The US is *not* the only
country with an Amity treaty.

Most get around this illegally
by going to a lawyer, and having 7 of his buddies sign their
shares over to you, but if you are found out, you are out of
business.

If you do business illegally in *ANY* country you run the risk of
losing it all.

To get a phone, you have to first get a line, which
may take 3 or more weeks, then you have to get a phone
number.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. In most places lines already exist if you want
a land line. But few people do. You can get a cell phone in minutes.

When I tried they kept saying bock full, bock full,
in other words they had no lines because they were all taken
in the box in my area. To get any drugs in Thailand you have to
use the Siam brand because that is all there is, it is a
total monopoly.

Wrong again. I get name brand drugs like Celebrex at any normal
pharmacy.

The phone system is one monopoly, the
the internet is a monopoly, and all just buy from that one.

There are a large number of ISPs.

So, Thai people, cease your protests for you do not know what you are
doing!!! Appreciate Thanksin(intended).


Please, if you marry a thai your children are then foreigners.

Completely wrong. All children of a Thai citizen are Thai citizens.

If you are not Thai you have to go out of the country every
2 to 3 months, or you cannot go out of the country
without their permission.

Now I understand your problem. You are a visa runner. You don't have
legal permission to live in Thailand. I don't have to leave the country
regularly but I have no problem leaving the country whenever I want.
It's a matter of having the correct visa.

a foreigner you never have
a secure existance, no matter if you marry a thai have
children, start a business and hire a 1000 thais. At
the whim of the state you can be kicked out of Thailand
and your visa denied.

Really? Of course that's technically possible anywhere, but perhaps
you'd like to enlighten us about someone who was married to a Thai and
had children and started a business and was kicked out "on a whim".

That is why Thailand will never be
anything but a third world nation, unless it changes this.
No one in their right mind is going to invenst in this
type of situation. You cannot even own the land under
your business.

Yes you can if it is a legally registered business with Thai partners.

Tchiowa ,
Thai person = Malaysian Chinese = tricky

"....lobert...." wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
"Touche'" wrote ...
He's trying to make clean new image of Thailand

Cronyist corruption, suppression of dissenters, re-writing law to enable
foreign control of core infrastructure while getting paid royally for
the
favors, summary executions and 'disappearances' . . .plus just for icing
on
the plum cake, disdain for long-term consequences including
environmental
impact . .
Yes, a real clean new image he's trying to make.

and it's unfortunate that the people do not realise it.

Remarkable, since he spends so many hours in front of tv cameras
broadcasting what he says he is doing. I guess people must be seriously
deluded--pehaps some evil spirits have taken over their minds?

As a biz man he is trying to change the facade of his country

"facade' is a good choice of word.

into an economic power in SEA region.

OIC--just need the right sort of make-over, pretty up her face some.
Never
mind the fundamentals--why would investors care about such?

Selling Shin Corp is nothing more than good biz sense

Just like transferring big chunks of Shin to his household servants was,
since those 'inconvenient' laws forbade him to maintain control while
'serving' as PM.
Silly laws--like that one that had Shin strapped to being controlled by
Thai, as if something as essential as communication and information
services
wouldn't do better if controlled by Singapore money. Sure fixed *that*
problem, now didn't he?

and it's a pity that the people do not realise the true implications.

Such a shame that some look at a thief and see a thief--shame on them.

OK, maybe he makes a good chunk of money out of it, but so what?

Is Thailand going to depend on the sex trade and the drugs trade
forever.?

Yes, much bigger money than agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing.
I'm waiting SO very expectantly for your detailed economic analysis of
Thailand's economy, as it's obvious you know so very well what you're
talking about.

Thanksin is trying to change this and get the people to rely on the
manufacturing and IT sector but the people are not ready. That's the
problem. The people are just not ready. They don't have the thinking
power
that he has and the vision that he has.

Yes, just a bunch of dumb little people whose poor little brains can't
compare with his Mandarin superiority.
Do you think the Great Man might permit you to grovel before his
superior
feet?
After all, *you* applaud his superiority so very well.

further breathless bull**** snipped


What is wrong for a Singapore company to purchase the telecommunication
business in Thailand.

Do you also figure it's just fine that Temasek's borrowing half the money
from Thai banks?

snipped straw man proposition
I see you have nothing to say to my comments, so you just write some
nonsense about what you say I approve of.

maxwell wrote:
"....lobert...." wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
"Touche'" wrote ...
He's trying to make clean new image of Thailand
Cronyist corruption, suppression of dissenters, re-writing law to enable
foreign control of core infrastructure while getting paid royally for
the
favors, summary executions and 'disappearances' . . .plus just for icing
on
the plum cake, disdain for long-term consequences including
environmental
impact . .
Yes, a real clean new image he's trying to make.

and it's unfortunate that the people do not realise it.
Remarkable, since he spends so many hours in front of tv cameras
broadcasting what he says he is doing. I guess people must be seriously
deluded--pehaps some evil spirits have taken over their minds?

As a biz man he is trying to change the facade of his country
"facade' is a good choice of word.

into an economic power in SEA region.
OIC--just need the right sort of make-over, pretty up her face some.
Never
mind the fundamentals--why would investors care about such?

Selling Shin Corp is nothing more than good biz sense
Just like transferring big chunks of Shin to his household servants was,
since those 'inconvenient' laws forbade him to maintain control while
'serving' as PM.
Silly laws--like that one that had Shin strapped to being controlled by
Thai, as if something as essential as communication and information
services
wouldn't do better if controlled by Singapore money. Sure fixed *that*
problem, now didn't he?

and it's a pity that the people do not realise the true implications.
Such a shame that some look at a thief and see a thief--shame on them.

OK, maybe he makes a good chunk of money out of it, but so what?

Is Thailand going to depend on the sex trade and the drugs trade
forever.?
Yes, much bigger money than agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing.
I'm waiting SO very expectantly for your detailed economic analysis of
Thailand's economy, as it's obvious you know so very well what you're
talking about.

Thanksin is trying to change this and get the people to rely on the
manufacturing and IT sector but the people are not ready. That's the
problem. The people are just not ready. They don't have the thinking
power
that he has and the vision that he has.

Yes, just a bunch of dumb little people whose poor little brains can't
compare with his Mandarin superiority.
Do you think the Great Man might permit you to grovel before his
superior
feet?
After all, *you* applaud his superiority so very well.

further breathless bull**** snipped

What is wrong for a Singapore company to purchase the telecommunication
business in Thailand.

Do you also figure it's just fine that Temasek's borrowing half the money
from Thai banks?

snipped straw man proposition
I see you have nothing to say to my comments, so you just write some
nonsense about what you say I approve of.


What you have said about Thaksin were before his last election but he
was re-elected with stronger mandate. So what's wrong? If the people
have nothing against what he had done, what right has the small group of
opposition to demand for his resignation and even boycott the election.

What is wrong for Temasek's borrowing from Thai banks, it's still
commercial transaction.

"....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote in message
...
maxwell wrote:
"....lobert...." wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
"Touche'" wrote ...
He's trying to make clean new image of Thailand
Cronyist corruption, suppression of dissenters, re-writing law to
enable
foreign control of core infrastructure while getting paid royally for
the
favors, summary executions and 'disappearances' . . .plus just for
icing
on
the plum cake, disdain for long-term consequences including
environmental
impact . .
Yes, a real clean new image he's trying to make.

and it's unfortunate that the people do not realise it.
Remarkable, since he spends so many hours in front of tv cameras
broadcasting what he says he is doing. I guess people must be
seriously
deluded--pehaps some evil spirits have taken over their minds?

As a biz man he is trying to change the facade of his country
"facade' is a good choice of word.

into an economic power in SEA region.
OIC--just need the right sort of make-over, pretty up her face some.
Never
mind the fundamentals--why would investors care about such?

Selling Shin Corp is nothing more than good biz sense
Just like transferring big chunks of Shin to his household servants
was,
since those 'inconvenient' laws forbade him to maintain control while
'serving' as PM.
Silly laws--like that one that had Shin strapped to being controlled
by
Thai, as if something as essential as communication and information
services
wouldn't do better if controlled by Singapore money. Sure fixed *that*
problem, now didn't he?

and it's a pity that the people do not realise the true implications.
Such a shame that some look at a thief and see a thief--shame on them.

OK, maybe he makes a good chunk of money out of it, but so what?

Is Thailand going to depend on the sex trade and the drugs trade
forever.?
Yes, much bigger money than agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing.
I'm waiting SO very expectantly for your detailed economic analysis of
Thailand's economy, as it's obvious you know so very well what you're
talking about.

Thanksin is trying to change this and get the people to rely on the
manufacturing and IT sector but the people are not ready. That's the
problem. The people are just not ready. They don't have the thinking
power
that he has and the vision that he has.

Yes, just a bunch of dumb little people whose poor little brains can't
compare with his Mandarin superiority.
Do you think the Great Man might permit you to grovel before his
superior
feet?
After all, *you* applaud his superiority so very well.

further breathless bull**** snipped

What is wrong for a Singapore company to purchase the telecommunication
business in Thailand.

Do you also figure it's just fine that Temasek's borrowing half the
money
from Thai banks?

snipped straw man proposition
I see you have nothing to say to my comments, so you just write some
nonsense about what you say I approve of.


What you have said about Thaksin were before his last election but he was
re-elected with stronger mandate. So what's wrong?

Need I remind you that 'Touche' was arguing that "(Thaksin is) trying to
make clean new image of Thailand" ?

If the people have nothing against what he had done,

That's like saying theft is okay if the thief is popular. What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law. What
Thaksin's suppression of critics and buying of votes accomplished was to
show to the world that Thailand is not only corrupted but remains
corruptible. I realize your 'populist' argument is not totally without one
kind of value, but consider that it was not until after His Majesty spoke at
length, saying that it was okay for *His* actions to be criticized, that
Thaksin finally backed off pursuing libel suits against his own critics.
Surely you would not argue that the Thai people do not honor and welcome the
guidance of His Majesty?--well, let's say I *hope* you'd not argue that.
(please note that I do NOT make claims of what I think your belief actually
is)
Surely you should also consider that getting away with breaking laws that
protect the People (like the law that forbids a PM to serve while being in
control of a corporation---that's as specific of an anti-corruption law 9by
intent) as any you'd find) is not okay just because judges themselves fail
to enforce--not if the Law itself is to have meaningfulness.

what right has the small group of opposition to demand for his resignation
and even boycott the election.

It's called using what power they have to force the issue of how can there
be proper elections when the PM has been allowed to break laws and suppress
accountability. How is it that you'd apparently rationalize Thaksin's crimes
'because he got away with it,' (as if popularity counts (or should count)
regarding law breaking), while on the other hand condemn minority parties
who rightly claim that Thaksin has repeatedly vacated the legitimacy of his
office?

What is wrong for Temasek's borrowing from Thai banks, it's still
commercial transaction.

Think of where the banks get their money from.

Is the purchase by Temasek worth the loan interest ajd the portfolio itself?

"....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote in message
...
maxwell wrote:
"....lobert...." wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
"Touche'" wrote ...
He's trying to make clean new image of Thailand
Cronyist corruption, suppression of dissenters, re-writing law to
enable
foreign control of core infrastructure while getting paid royally for
the
favors, summary executions and 'disappearances' . . .plus just for
icing
on
the plum cake, disdain for long-term consequences including
environmental
impact . .
Yes, a real clean new image he's trying to make.

and it's unfortunate that the people do not realise it.
Remarkable, since he spends so many hours in front of tv cameras
broadcasting what he says he is doing. I guess people must be
seriously
deluded--pehaps some evil spirits have taken over their minds?

As a biz man he is trying to change the facade of his country
"facade' is a good choice of word.

into an economic power in SEA region.
OIC--just need the right sort of make-over, pretty up her face some.
Never
mind the fundamentals--why would investors care about such?

Selling Shin Corp is nothing more than good biz sense
Just like transferring big chunks of Shin to his household servants
was,
since those 'inconvenient' laws forbade him to maintain control while
'serving' as PM.
Silly laws--like that one that had Shin strapped to being controlled
by
Thai, as if something as essential as communication and information
services
wouldn't do better if controlled by Singapore money. Sure fixed *that*
problem, now didn't he?

and it's a pity that the people do not realise the true implications.
Such a shame that some look at a thief and see a thief--shame on them.


OK, maybe he makes a good chunk of money out of it, but so what?

Is Thailand going to depend on the sex trade and the drugs trade
forever.?
Yes, much bigger money than agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing.
I'm waiting SO very expectantly for your detailed economic analysis of
Thailand's economy, as it's obvious you know so very well what you're
talking about.

Thanksin is trying to change this and get the people to rely on the
manufacturing and IT sector but the people are not ready. That's the
problem. The people are just not ready. They don't have the thinking
power
that he has and the vision that he has.

Yes, just a bunch of dumb little people whose poor little brains can't
compare with his Mandarin superiority.
Do you think the Great Man might permit you to grovel before his
superior
feet?
After all, *you* applaud his superiority so very well.

further breathless bull**** snipped

What is wrong for a Singapore company to purchase the telecommunication
business in Thailand.

Do you also figure it's just fine that Temasek's borrowing half the
money
from Thai banks?

snipped straw man proposition
I see you have nothing to say to my comments, so you just write some
nonsense about what you say I approve of.


What you have said about Thaksin were before his last election but he
was re-elected with stronger mandate. So what's wrong? If the people
have nothing against what he had done, what right has the small group of
opposition to demand for his resignation and even boycott the election.

What is wrong for Temasek's borrowing from Thai banks, it's still
commercial transaction.

maxwell wrote:
"....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote in message
...

What you have said about Thaksin were before his last election but he was
re-elected with stronger mandate. So what's wrong?

Need I remind you that 'Touche' was arguing that "(Thaksin is) trying to
make clean new image of Thailand" ?

And he is, with his anti-drug and other crackdowns. He may not be
succeeding but the statement that he is trying is undeniable. Certainly
has a better image than New Jersey.

If the people have nothing against what he had done,

That's like saying theft is okay if the thief is popular.

No, it's like saying that theft is okay if the people say that theft is
okay.

What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law.

Why? He didn't pay taxes because the law said he didn't have to. That's
not "above the law", that's following the law. Of course what you mean
is that he's above "your personal law" which you, as a devout elitist,
has decided overrules any law that the people make.

What
Thaksin's suppression of critics and buying of votes accomplished was to
show to the world that Thailand is not only corrupted but remains
corruptible.

That's what it shows *you*. You don't hardly represent the rest of the
world.

I realize your 'populist' argument is not totally without one
kind of value, but consider that it was not until after His Majesty spoke at
length, saying that it was okay for *His* actions to be criticized, that
Thaksin finally backed off pursuing libel suits against his own critics.

Libel suits are within the law. So, yet again, Thaksin is following the
law not above the law. In this case the King advised him to back off so
he did out of respect.

Surely you would not argue that the Thai people do not honor and welcome the
guidance of His Majesty?--well, let's say I *hope* you'd not argue that.
(please note that I do NOT make claims of what I think your belief actually is)
Surely you should also consider that getting away with breaking laws that
protect the People (like the law that forbids a PM to serve while being in
control of a corporation---that's as specific of an anti-corruption law 9by
intent) as any you'd find) is not okay just because judges themselves fail
to enforce--not if the Law itself is to have meaningfulness.

what right has the small group of opposition to demand for his resignation
and even boycott the election.

It's called using what power they have to force the issue of how can there
be proper elections when the PM has been allowed to break laws and suppress
accountability.

That's the standard argument that elitist rebels have used to overthrow
popular governments for years. What it means is that the people don't
support them so they'll use "any means necessary" to take power because
they know that the people are just too stupid to support them. That's
pretty much what you've said in several posts.

How is it that you'd apparently rationalize Thaksin's crimes
'because he got away with it,' (as if popularity counts (or should count)
regarding law breaking), while on the other hand condemn minority parties
who rightly claim that Thaksin has repeatedly vacated the legitimacy of his
office?

"Rightly claim"? Is that enough? The Republicans "rightly claimed" that
Clinton vacated the legitimacy of his office by lying under oath. If
the people who don't like the country's leader "rightfully claim" that
he did something they don't like should the leader step down? Even
though the people don't believe it? Even though the people don't want
him to step down? Just on the say-so of a New Jersey nitwit?

What is wrong for Temasek's borrowing from Thai banks, it's still
commercial transaction.

Think of where the banks get their money from.

Hmmm. Depositors? Investors? Where did you suppose they got it? The
Tooth Fairy?

On 15 Mar 2006 05:17:17 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:

maxwell wrote:

What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law.

Why? He didn't pay taxes because the law said he didn't have to.

Which law? The one that was changed 2 days beforehand? Mere coincidence to
your buffalo mentality! :-)

And you also neglect to remember that his son/proxy DID get caught breaking
the law.

Dave

Dave Baker wrote:
On 15 Mar 2006 05:17:17 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:

maxwell wrote:

What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law.
Why? He didn't pay taxes because the law said he didn't have to.

Which law? The one that was changed 2 days beforehand? Mere coincidence to
your buffalo mentality! :-)

And you also neglect to remember that his son/proxy DID get caught breaking
the law.

Dave

The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

His son had also paid the fine for what he had done.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:20:21 +0800, "....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote:

Dave Baker wrote:
On 15 Mar 2006 05:17:17 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:

maxwell wrote:

What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law.
Why? He didn't pay taxes because the law said he didn't have to.

Which law? The one that was changed 2 days beforehand? Mere coincidence to
your buffalo mentality! :-)

And you also neglect to remember that his son/proxy DID get caught breaking
the law.

Dave

The law was amended in accordance to the constitution, so what is wrong
with the amendment even if it was amended on the same day?

Where is the separation of power? A law is changed & the leader benefits to
the tune of millions of dollars 2 days later? You know the old saying - if it
looks like **** & smells like ****....

His son had also paid the fine for what he had done.

Which helps prove he was guilty, and it's common knowledge that he's only a
proxy for his father.

Dave