Meerkat
-
Posts
641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Meerkat
-
-
There was a thread a while back here about the Chevy, along with some reviews from the Thai and Western press. Think it's more of a CRV rather than a Fortuner (off-road I mean). Also check out the new Pajero Sport that's about to be released.
If you're not totally bored of the Fortuner, found this link to Toyota Thailand's press release on the 2008 Fortuner as well which is just being introduced now. Looks like they've added tons of goodies inside, uprated the suspension and introduced traction control, VSC and better brakes too. Sounds pretty good, but I'm wondering if the new larger wheel size will impede off-roading at the expense of better on-road comfort (worrying about wheel-well to wheel clearance - like you I need competent off-road characteristics).
-
Good to see some competition for the Fortuner; had mine for nearly three years now so thinking about exchanging it. Don't like the rear three-quarter view of the Pajero though - looks like they just plonked the back on at the wrong angle.
Fortuner update supposed to be released here tomorrow according to one report I've read; exterior minor facelift and some internal improvements like SatNav and proper roof-mounted aircon for rear seat pax as well as cruise control. No idea if they're standard or options.
Anyway, both of them will be worth a look.
-
Had exactly the same symptoms with a PC of mine in HK a few years ago after leaving it on doing some tasks overnight. Turned out the GPU fan wasn't working properly (bit gummed up), and coupled with the room not being air-conditioned overnight, I'd managed to "cook" the GPU which also caused some heat damage to the motherboard. Bit annoyed with myself as some online investigation afterwards showed that the GPU/fan in question (going back a few years - I can't remember the make/model) was overly susceptible to failure.
Hope your problem doesn't turn out as terminal as mine.
-
Started programming at school on a TRS-80 Model 1, Level 1 (4k RAM, 4k ROM) and then ZX80 and '81s. RAM-pack wobbles with the latter of course, but never did have the guts to see if I really could fry an egg on it!
First computer I owned was an Oric 1. Remember that one - the Spectrum "killer"! Actually was technically superior to the Speccy, but suffered from "Betamax" syndrome. Finally admitted defeat and joined the dead-flesh crowd. Then onto an ST which I still have somewhere. Memories also coming back of using FORTH on a Jupiter Ace at some point...
Have an Speccy emulator for my Mac now - occasionally fire it up and reminisce over a game of Sabre Wulf or Starquake...
-
Remind me again:
Which side publicly declared to a United Nations agency last year that they would actively support a Cambodian bid for this year's approval?
Which side then walked out of bilateral meetings/didn't even bother showing up only until they realised that their actions had caused the other side to change tactics (and thereby outmanoeuvre them)?
Who's the "bad neighbour"?
-
Better surely to present the case to a neutral third party who can make an impartial decision based on the facts and arguments presented by both sides?
Cambodia would certainly be willing to go back to the ICJ.
What about Thailand?
I'd guess no.
The last time Thailand went to the ICJ it lost actual, real territory. I don't think they'd want to risk it a second time. It's also for that reason that I don't believe either of the countries went back to the ICJ for a clarification of the original judgement, just in case they lose anything (and the Temple having been adjudged to be on Cambodian soil, I'd also guess that any review could do more damage to Thailand than Cambodia).
Also, and more importantly, any government that does go to the ICJ could legitimately be seen as ceding territory (to the ICJ to dispense with as it sees fit) - something as we have just seen that is too sensitive domestically (even though Noppadom's plan didn't cede territory).
-
Thanks. We can be assured that Samak is well aware of this and the potential of accusations against him by his friends in the military if he gives in an inch. He won't.
The gentleman written about in the article is an advisor to the Supreme Command. It is the Supreme Command's Royal Thai Survey which is the body responsible for coordinating national boundaries, so you've got to hope that they're on top of any situation!
Personally, as long as it is explicitly stated by the General and Joint Boundary Committees that one border demarcation in no way sets a precedent for another, I don't really think it would be much of a problem. Thailand no longer recognises the ICJ's jurisdiction anyway (they let their "membership" lapse after Cambodia took them to court over PV in the fifties), so Cambodia couldn't force them to court now as they did back then for instance.
-
-
The current system is neither workable, no representative.
How do you work that out? It is working - it's a fairly typical system based around geographic constituencies. The government's current problems stem from a hangover from Thaksin's administration, but the system itself is robust. These problems are slowly but inexorably grinding their way through the courts and everything will shake itself out, most likely with a different looking cabinet from the one we have now - maybe even with a Democrat-led coalition, but still within the confines of the constitution. It is as representative as any other party politics system. Not perfect as I said, but a good compromise.
Your lesbian rice farmer living off rented land will get to vote four times, what's the problem?It is complex, no doubt about it, and all sectors of society are not going to be represented equally, and there will be debates about proportions of unions vs lesbians and so on.
Well if they're not going to be represented equally, what's the point of trying to create a system that's supposed to do exactly that? Why should she get 4 votes when her straight neighbour who only makes a living by selling food only gets 2? She is getting more representation in the form of votes. The system is so idiotically complex that it should be a non-starter. To make such a system workable the functional groups would have to be slimmed down so much that they would then cease to be truly representative (like in that bastion of democracy, HK, where there are only 28 groups - there has been lots of commentary about exactly how representative that's turned out to be).
Let's make one thing clear first - there's no way "new politics" is going to become a reality under present conditions, it's all only hypothetical.Hopefully it will never become a reality under any conditions. Nevertheless, seeing as the PAD has brought it up, the debate is interesting, and helps to show exactly how much in cloud-cuckoo land their leaders really are. Seriously, I really doubt most of the PAD supporters actually know what it is they're giving up their evenings and weekends to support.
Now, back to representation - they can set criteria for getting any number of seats for any interest group. Every couple of years the performance of the current members and new applications reviewed and considered. More vocal and active groups get more seats, less active and redundant once lose their seats. I don't think it's too difficult to design KPI indices for legislators.Quite apart from who should design and monitor these KPI, again it's just getting more and more convoluted and unworkable. We already have an easily workable and tried-and-tested system of KPI - they're called direct elections.
Let evolution run its course.The evolution of democracy in Thailand would be great. It's never going to happen though with the military seeing themselves as the ultimate arbiter of government (ultimate under the Monarchy of course) - something that "New Politics" seeks to enshrine.
-
Let's take it to an extreme. How about a lesbian rice farmer who also makes money from land rental? Would she get votes for agri, property, women's and gay's constituencies, as well as her geo one too? Would she be made to choose only one "specialist MP" to represent her views, and not be allowed to vote for any others?
You see the only way for "representation for ALL sectors of society" is for everybody to represent themselves - something I think you'd agree is preposterous. And the selection process itself is fraught with complications. If they are appointed by another body then of course that is open to abuse. We already have almost half the Senate appointed by judges who themselves are affirmed by the Senate itself. If, instead of selection, there is a limited "election" process to work out who is eligible for the larger elections, the level of complication becomes absurd - and expensive. The only area where there might be a potential case for specialist representatives would be to replace the already arbitrarily appointed Senators, but certainly not in the Lower House.
I haven't even touched on how the weighting of seats for the different sectors should be determined - another huge area of contention.
I agree that constituency MPs are behoven to their sponsors' interests, but how would that be any different with functional constituencies? You reckon the agri constituency wouldn't be "owned" by the richest companies in that sector for instance? It certainly wouldn't put a stop to lobbying either.
Geographical constituencies are the best "fudge" to try and make sure that each vote is as important as the next. Not perfect I grant you, but it is as important that a system of government be workable as it is representative. Geographical constituencies' overriding pervasiveness throughout the many forms of democracy globally should be indicative that centuries of history tell us that they are the best choice.
The reality of the situation is that were a party more to the PAD's liking in power, the proposal wouldn't have even come up. It is solely because elections and a coup have been unable to uninstall Sondhi's opponents from government that increasingly far-fetched notions of "democracy" must be dreamt up to try and make a system whereby a minority can govern the majority. The goal is disenfranchisement by any other name.
-
If you read about Nopadol's negotiations - he in fact has done the best deal that Thailand can expect, given the '62 judgement.
The best deal is a joint listing and joint management of the whole site, not just the temple cropped as closely as possible. That was Thai position all along and I expect Tej to continue in that direction. It's a win win for both countries.
To say that's the best deal, when Cambodia has already - on multiple occasions - said that they wouldn't do such a deal, is fantastical. You might as well say that the best deal would be for Thailand to list the site on its own: it just wasn't going to happen.
Cambodia has always held the trump card - the Temple itself. The Thai negotiators (the same ones that it's been said were so competent that it was a travesty that Noppadom subsequently sacked their leader) thought they could bluff it out for a larger site, and their bluff was called. Once that happened, the Noppadom deal was a lot better than the one Thailand's been forced into now.
The best thing Tej can do now is try to get the Noppadom plan (or a close imitation of it) put back into play - with cross-party support this time. His perceived political independence goes a long way to help this happen.
-
In my experience the biggest single thing that you can do to speed up your torrents (in Vuze anyway) is to let it take control of your bandwidth using Auto-speed feature - remember that good d/l speeds are dependent upon you offering good u/l ones. I was getting 360 kB/s this morning whilst the average swarm speed was only around 45 (True BKK suburbs). If average swarm speeds are low anyway there's not much you can do, but even getting 20kB/s is great if the average swarm speed is only 5.
The algorithms used to determine who gets what speed are complicated - I'd recommend reading the Good Settings guide and start tweaking (the great thing about Auto-speed is that it does most of the tweaking for you dynamically).
-
This is not true. The PAD has much support in the provinces and doesn't require paid attendees.
I have no idea whether they are paid or not, but seeing as the TRT/PPP has much support (probably even more) in the provinces, and nobody is afraid to spout how they have had paid attendees, I'm not sure how your logic fits.
Also - don't believe what the governor says about there being no fatality. This is another untruth. Damage limitation - I guess.Thailand - the hub of cover-ups.
As far as I'm aware there's only been one source saying there was a fatality, Veera Somkwamkid, quoted in the press as being a "PAD ally", and even Sondhi's own TOC seems to have taken the report off its website. Seeing as the victim was supposed to be a PAD guard, I seriously doubt anyone could stop Sondhi's media empire from reporting it if it turns out to be the truth.
I hope for the guard's sake you are wrong.
-
No worries Plus - just looks like it's my day to be misunderstood on the forum.
-
And how exactly are they supposed to arrange this given as I've read on another thread that the police are both outnumbered and unarmed?
-
Plus, it only matters in trying to understand the bigger picture of what's behind the riots and thus what might happen going forward - something hammered I think gave a plausible answer to for which I thanked him. Your post almost makes me feel as though it's wrong to enquire about the political ramifications for the country. It's not.
I have no doubt that members of either this or the former government are involved somehow - to what extent I don't know. Personally I'd like it properly investigated so we can all find out, and those found guilty brought to justice, rather than have to rely on crappy press reports. Clear enough for you?
=================================
^ _ ^ - no problem.
-
^ _ ^ You've obviously misunderstood me. I meant the intent of the mob was clear, regardless of whether they'd actually killed anyone or not. I'm not sure how it could have really been read any other way.
-
Left field or not, I can see some sense with that theory hammered, thank you. I hadn't considered an S of E (and don't know enough about how it would work in practice).
-
Good news if true about no death, but the intent still seems pretty clear.
Regarding the government's incitement to riot, what do they really gain from it? Quite apart from exposing themselves to even more litigation, wouldn't it just strengthen the PAD's resolve and broaden its reach to more sections of the population that currently want to stay out of the debate (on the streets)? The threat of such clashes was also a major reason (initially) given by the military for exercising the coup last time around. Not something that plays to his (or Thaksin's) advantage IMO - in fact totally the opposite. Thaksin didn't think the army would step in last time, but the precedent has now been set. I know we've all joked about Samak's mental capabilities...
-
A despicable episode. Surely it's time for the police to use stronger measures than just barricades which we know are totally ineffective (and in fact can do more damage in the hands of a concerted mob). Water cannon, tear gas - maybe they should take some lessons from their South Korean brethren as they're doing a piss-poor job of protecting people at the moment.
-
What the original articles actually state was that the Thai government was told on March 3/4 that the site would be reduced to just the Temple
Yet in the next paragraph Pridiyathorn says that Thais still thought that they could bring down unilateral bid by refusing to participate in the meeting held three weeks after above mentioned announcement.
Two little things that went against them - they were initially told by Unesco that once the bid was submitted, terms could not be changed. Unesco, however, allowed Cambodians to reduce the site and supply new set of maps.
Agreed that UNESCO seemed to show bias towards Cambodia's sole bid, but remember that UNESCO is only interested in preserving the site, not getting involved in diplomatic squabbles. Perhaps they believed that protecting only the temple was better than nothing, having witnessed Thailand's delaying tactics.
Another point is that Thais failed to formally register their objections so the committee had no record of them when considering the final bid. To that I can say that they had three months before the final decision, plenty of time to formalise their objections.Most importantly, however, is that evidence of Thai "active support" was a necessary part of the application, and that wasn't forthcoming. Without it the bid would have been incomplete, not to mention if they had managed to formally register their opposition with World Heritage Commitee.
If Thais were consistent they would have most certainly delayed the listing.
Direct quote from the second article, "Cambodia could file its bid to have Preah Vihear Temple registered as a World Heritage site on its own. Moreover, the World Heritage Committee could approve such a nomination without breaking any rules."
And from the third article, "By nominating only the Preah Vihear Temple as a new World Heritage site, Cambodia had the right to file the nomination alone.
If Cambodia had stuck to the nomination of the "Sacred Site of Preah Vihear", it would not have been able to file the nomination unilaterally, as proven by the 31st meeting of the World Heritage Committee."
That reads to me that Pridiyathorn admits that Thailand wouldn't be able to stop the listing (given that the site is now solely on Cambodian soil). The 'Active Support" was only needed if the listing was to include the larger area (as stated in the 31st committee meeting). So how can you say that they could most certainly delay the listing when Pridiyathorn states that they couldn't?
In fact his articles seem to show a huge incompetence on the part of the original Thai negotiators:
They didn't forsee Cambodia's switching policy and carried on acting in an obstructive manner (effectively forcing Cambodia's hand).
Even when Cambodia switched policy, they still thought they could block the application (they were still using the old map).
They refused to attend the March conference, which may have allowed them to protest the listing (but very unlikely to block it as Pridiyathorn states that the smaller site wouldn't need Thai support).
Until Noppadom took over as head of the team, Thailand was going to get nothing out of Cambodia's listing. Is it any wonder he sacked the guy?
Now, pause to consider WHY they opposed Cambodians in the first place. It's not about losing territory - it's about blatant distorition of truth and historical evidence as Thailand sees it. Come to think of it, I haven't met one single opinion that differs from Thai position - the temple belonged to the people who lived in present day Thailand, people who built it and worshipped there.Cambodian bid completely devalues historical significance of the area. According to them the temple was build and used by people who lived under 500m cliff.
This was, is, and always will be completely unacceptable to Thailand.
I've said before that I find the ICJ ruling bizarre, but that's just tough. It's done and there's no appeal. That the Thais haven't come to grips with this uncomfortable truth is hardly the sole fault of the present administration. I agree that the more limited area doesn't do the entire complex justice, but the Noppadom plan at least gave Thailand some co-management rights, which have now been taken away.
-
Prior to Noppadon's sacking of Thai negotiator the listing was for "Sacred site", not just the temple, and supplied maps covered disputed territories.
I'm going to revisit this post because it's important now that I've finally found the original articles online. Your post here and the synopsis you gave on the last page are both wrong. It would have helped had you posted links.
What the original articles actually state was that the Thai government was told on March 3/4 that the site would be reduced to just the Temple, just over a month after getting into power and more than a month before Noppadom took over. Even Pridiyathorn admits that they were caught offside with that one. That's a pretty unforgiveable mistake on behalf of the Thai negotiators, especially as they had taken such a hard line against the larger listing. It was their petulance that forced Cambodia to switch tactics and as Pridiyathorn also states, it would then allow the WHC to list the site without breaking any rules (ie without Thai endorsement). That actually makes Noppadom's sacking of the lead negotiator make much more sense. At that point Thailand had effectively lost the opportunity to force Cambodia into a joint-listing so it was time to scramble to get something out of the deal.
-
Meerkat, you obviously ignored facts presented by Pridiyathorn.
Could you please scroll up the page and read it?
Prior to Noppadon's sacking of Thai negotiator the listing was for "Sacred site", not just the temple, and supplied maps covered disputed territories.
There's no way Cambodians would have succeded in listing on those terms without Thailand's approval.
But that's the whole point. Thailand storms out of the joint meetings (having publicly stated last year that they'd support a Cambodian listing this month) so Cambodia turns round and says sod you lot then we're going to list a smaller site that you cannot stop because it's on our soil. That's what I mean about Thailand trying to make the most of a bad situation. That's why I keep on saying it was that change in policy that was instrumental in allowing a single listing, but it was a change in Cambodian policy, not Thai. Thailand does not, nor had then, a say in what Cambodia does with Cambodian territory.
-
Meerkat, did you post the link explaining the May 22nd signing of the joint communique on this thread? I have gone back through every page and can't find it. I would very much like to see it. Please either give me the # of your post or resend it. Thanks.
Different thread, sorry. Original article was in The Nation.
Security Tightens At Government House To Block Anti-govt Protesters
in Thailand News
Posted
First of all it looks like the government has quietly dropped the idea, so perhaps the whole point is now moot anyway. One of Samak's many faults is the ease with which he gets goaded into coming up with ill thought-out notions like these IMO.
However, whilst freedoms of speech and assembly are central tenets of any aspiring democratic form of government, these rights should not come without certain responsibilities - essentially that the exercising of such freedoms should not impinge upon the freedoms of others. Pretty common sense really.
Pundit has done a fairly comprehensive breakdown of how other countries - countries with more mature systems of democracy from where many of us here originate - deal with managing the freedom of assembly. The US, the EU and others all put some restrictions on public gatherings; many countries also demand that notice (6 weeks in Australia's case) be given before public roads are closed for protests. Where's the outrage at these "limits" on our freedoms at home? Limited to the fringes, because as any reasonable person well knows, none of these states are trying to censor debate and limit free speech as PAD supporters would have you believe they are here, just to make sure that the rights of the protestors are balanced by the rights of the public at large. I don't see why Thailand should be any different - indeed I think that's what the constitution's framers had in mind as you can read below.
The bizarre thing about Samak's wanting to change the clause in question is that there are already provisions in the very same section of the constitution to limit such gatherings:
A person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms.
The restriction on such liberty under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of public assembling and for securing public convenience in the use of public places or for the maintenance of public order during the time when the country is in a state of war, or when a state of emergency or martial law is declared.
The second paragraph seemingly provides grounds to limit protests in public places even without a State of Emergency - I guess that's the sub-section that was in the minds of the judges in the school's case against the PAD.
I've read that some of what's said on stage is also slanderous - there are already laws in place to sue for such slander (another example of freedom of speech coming with responsibilities). Rather than attempt to change the constitution, there seems ample grounds for the PAD's adversaries to take some form of action against them within the existing confines of the constitution.
One thing I am surprised about is that the PAD are allowed to publicly urge the military and police to overthrow an elected government. That counts as sedition in my book and I'd have expected there to be a provision in law to prevent that, as there is in many other countries including the US.
Editing to add in light of the preceding few posts: Personally I'm not a fan of roping off protesters to some forgotten corner, but it's not just the Chinese who do it; just this week in the US a court has ruled that protesters at the DNC conference in Denver must be fenced in because "security needs outweighed curbs on their rights." Funny old world...