Wanderlust wrote:Care to enlighten us as to what negligence you've seen, SJ? There might be some on the forum who would like a few tips. However, if it is the sort of 'negligence' I have heard them speak about, it is leaving TV's and hi-fi in the house, or even other bits of property like mobile phones. I don't regard that as negligence as long as they have locked the house up; if someone breaks in then it is a crime and the police should investigate, regardless of whether they think it is the farangs fault. I do know some people who leave their doors open or unlocked, windows open and if that was the case then I could understand the police though, but i don't think it is that common - the ones I have spoken to said that they would rather if someone were to break in that they didn't damage the house!
Mostly people not closing/locking their metal security doors, that protect the normal wooden doors, leaving windows open when they go out at night, leaving laptops, cameras, wallets, mobiles etc on dinner tables that can be seen clearly through a window.
if someone breaks in then it is a crime and the police should investigate, regardless of whether they think it is the farangs fault
I agree, but look at it from the perspective of knowing what won't happen in reality here. I'm just relaying that the police feel their time is being wasted and have a verbal go at my missus on one of our projects for the customers wasting their time. They ask why no security guard, wife says customers do not want to pay 500 Baht per month, copper gets even angrier at her. He may have trouble with this 500 Baht issue as he walks around looking at their pools, 4x4's, 50k laptops, LCD tv's, flash kitchens etc.
We can moan about the police until we turn blue or we can take action to protect ourselves, a security guard (even a sleeping one) works as a deterrent, home alarm systems work as a deterrent. This is only evidence of what I've seen in 5-6 projects in one particular area. Not saying it's relevant to whole town.
Also the police may have less sympathy for farang developments as they held a seminar a good while back when it became a big problem, they gave advice on precautions we could take that will help prevent burglaries. I believe on the whole it was ignored by farangs, now they walk round a project and see their suggestions have not been implicated and I bet they are well impressed!!
SJ
PS: Friend has started home alarm systems for just 25k, bet if you have a external siren/red flashing box on outside your house they will pass you by.
Link: http://huahinmedia.com/huahin-security.php
Last edited by Super Joe on Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SJ, I completely agree with you. We have to take personal responsibility and exercise due caution when we are considered rich farangs in a relatively poor country.
I have a high security wall, with an active alarm on both the wall and the house. I leave yard lights on all night so that no one would feel safe sneaking in my yard. I also have two loud dogs. I leave one locked in the back yard at night and another in the front. We always keep all doors, windows, and two cars locked even when we are home.
Several homes around us have been robbed, one three times, but we haven't had a problem so far.
Reasonable precautions are necessary in any country, yes, even the good ole' U.S. of A.
Back in the '50s, when I was a kid, my Dad used to leave his keys in the car unlocked in the driveway and we slept nights with only a small hook keeping the screen door secure. Those times are long gone and now you have to take responsibility to protect yourself.
In the states I had a 9mm semi auto pistol handy at all times from the mid 80's until I moved to Thailand. I'm happy I never had to use it and sad that I felt necessary to have it close by.
The world is a different place in the last 25 or 30 years and one has to do whatever is necessary to protect one's self and family.
I've had several customers request lower wattage lamps be changed in the project street lighting as they are bright at night when sitting outside on patio. They want this even though it results in a darker development to live in
The other thing I've never got is buying those smallest, cheapst safe's going, like in hotel rooms. You then put everything valuable in it, burglar kicks it of wall and tucks it under his arm.
Golf clubs are left on view a lot when people return to Europe/US, I like that particular one.
Don't know of any customers who put light on timers to come on and off now and then, sure some do though hopefully.
super joe,
just a thought. why not buy the cheapest wall safe and leave it locked but empty. hide your valuables in a secret place. love to see the faces when they open the safe.
off topic, please play your youth team tonight and give us half a chance.
miked
This was in the Guardian this morning. may deserve a new thread
Shuffling towards fascism.
Thailand has in a sense been colonised by its own middle class, many of whom live like colonial settlers
Mithran Somasundrum
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday December 3 2008 12.30 GMT
Thailand's main airport is now re-opening, having been blocked by the PAD (People's Alliance for Democracy, or People Against Democracy, to put it more accurately), at an estimated cost of 1 billion baht ($28m) a day to the Thai tourist industry. Airports are supposed to be high security areas, but not here, not if you have enough people, enough weapons and the right backing (which is the army and, to a greater or lesser extent, the conservative forces behind the army). Sunday's attempt to send in the police ended up with the cops getting beaten back and having their tyres slashed.
The police were largely resistant to using force, after their previous attempt to clear Government House with tear gas led to the death of a protester (highly explosive Chinese teargas canisters were to apparently to blame). Meanwhile, the Thai Chamber of Commerce suggested businesses refuse to pay their taxes until the government got the airport open. So for the police were basically dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't.
Politics in Thailand has in the past functioned via relatively weak coalition governments deferring to the holy trinity of the army, the bureaucracy and the monarchy. This changed with Thaksin, who became popular enough with the rural poor to achieve a large majority for his party (TRT). Able to push through any law he wanted, he deferred to no one, and by putting his people into all of the top positions within reach (the army, the legislature, etc), set about turning himself into a Thai version of Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew. He was the self-styled "CEO of the Nation". (Note the implication of that title – the Thai citizens are his employees?) He ran a war on drugs that reduced the amount of amphetamine use in the country at the cost, it has been alleged, of very many police executions, often of the innocent, to achieve the quotas the police had been set.
He attacked press freedom, built Suvanaphumi Airport, the Skytrain, the underground, introduced cheap healthcare for the poor, and made sure all of his businesses did very well. (When he visited heads of state it sometimes wasn't clear whether he was doing the country's business or Shincorp's).
Against a background of unease (largely middle-class) over the way Thaksin had centralised power, the protests of PAD began. From the start they tried to ally themselves with the monarchy in the eyes of the people, eg wearing yellow, the king's colour. It is not clear how much this support was actually reciprocated. When the PAD protester was killed by the teargas canister, the queen paid for her funeral, attended, and described the woman as a "defender of the monarchy".
Thaksin's reply to PAD's initial protests was to hold an election, which he inevitably won. There was some vote-buying by the TRT, and by everyone else, as there always is, but overall the election underlined his safety.
However, appointing his people to the top jobs in the army was a step too far. Hence the coup.
When the post-coup elections were eventually held (with Thaksin holed up in England), they were won by a new party (the PPP) consisting mostly of ex-TRT MPs. The leader, Samak, was accused of taking his orders from Thaksin. Samak has now gone, having been found guilty of a conflict of interest (the conflict being the fact that he was paid for presenting a TV cookery show – count on a Thai court to keep a sense of perspective) to be replaced by Somchai who, just for good measure, is Thaksin's brother-in-law. Somchai has now stepped down after the PPP was disolved by the Thai courts. Meanwhile, the PPP MPs left eligible by the courts have formed the Peuea Thai Party and are expected to form the same coalitions PPP did. This coalition will chose the next prime minister, and therefore leaves open the possibility of the protests starting all over again.
It's fairly clear that to win an election you have to be allied to Thaksin in the mind of the people, whether or not you are following the man's actual instructions. The party of the holy trinity – the Democrats – led by Oxford-educated Abhisit is seen as an urban elite, out of touch with the concerns of the rural poor. Plus, over the last months it has been fatally compromised by its closeness to PAD.
Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, one of PAD's core leaders, responded to this electoral lock-out by proposing a "new politics", in which only 30% of the house is elected and the other 70% appointed by the great and good. The rationale is that the uneducated poor need to be protected from themselves. It will no longer matter if they vote for corrupt politicians: they will take what they are given.
Meanwhile, just to add another element into the mix, the leader of PAD, a media mogul called Sondhi Limthongkul, is gradually starting to believe in his own culthood. Having convinced himself Taksin was using Cambodian black magic from his mansion in Surrey, Sondhi performed a protecting ceremony involving placing used tampons around a statue of King Chulalongkorn. This is the man who shut down Thailand.
One of the first things you are sure to be told in this least nationalistic of countries, is that Thailand has never been colonised. But look closer. Thailand has in a sense been colonised by its own middle-class, many of whom live in this country like colonial settlers. As with all colonisers, they see the true centres of culture and education as being elsewhere (the US, Britain, etc). They send their children to school abroad, they try to look as western as possible (white = attractive, brown = unattractive). They have the coloniser's exasperation and disdain for the natives, who are treated with paternal benevolence provided they know their place. Poverty in this setting is an ongoing problem; it is not to be solved but is to remain ongoing, since good works provide the middle-classes with their validation: moments of upcountry genuine "Thai-ness", before air-conditioned cars return them to their shopping malls.
To read the English-language Thai press is to appreciate the full depths of this disdain. From an article in The Nation (October 14 2008, before the airport takeover), written by Thanong Khantong, The Nation's editor, in favour of PAD's protests: "I don't see Thailand backtracking against the democratic process ... It is a joke to believe that the rural voters love or have a better understanding of democracy than the Bangkok middle class ... The foreign media and foreign experts must stop distorting Thai politics with their convenient definition of democracy." From earlier in the article: "A country can survive without democracy but it can't survive without law" ... "The politicians are the main problem and a liability in our democracy."
The last two quotes are what I mean by fascism, since I don't know what else you'd call it.
It is not possible to have contempt for democracy without first having contempt for people, since democracy is after all meant to deliver the people's will. Likewise, contempt for people, or at least for a significant section of a country's population, will eventually lead to a corroding of democracy. That corrosion is occuring now, and, here, at this moment in time, is what contempt gets you – a ring of used tampons around a statue and a shuttered-up economy. And a feeling, growing among many – the poor, the dismissed, the un-noticed – that rights taken from them will never be returned.
Interesting article, but I suspect it has been heavily edited to tone down the anti PAD slant which it still has some of. I didn't perceive the dislike of Thaksin being because of a centralising of power, but simply because of the overt corruption. The forming of the PAD may well have been to try and reestablish the elite's control of the country but it just seems more like a group formed to oppose Thaksin and his cronies. I asked the question on another thread about the 'good' Thaksin had done, and this article lists his 'achievements' as
He attacked press freedom, built Suvanaphumi Airport, the Skytrain, the underground, introduced cheap healthcare for the poor, and made sure all of his businesses did very well.
. As far as I know the three infrastructure projects were all underway before he came to power, and the airport had been planned for years - did Thaksin do something to push these through or was it just a happy coincidence for him?
Generally this piece is way too superficial though; he criticises both sides but the tone is without question against the middle class and the PAD, while he glosses over the clear continued involvement of Thaksin despite his conviction and absence from the country. Calling the extracts from the editorial in the Nation fascist is a joke too - I wonder if the journalist got turned down by them?
The last paragraph is the clincher though to the fact that this writer must be a Thaksin supporter. I am quite surprised the Guardian have printed it to be honest.
I read the whole article as being from someone who largely sympathises with the change to the status quo that Thaksin managed (for how much longer being the crux of the tale).
He virtually ignores corruption as being a reason to depose Thaksin, placing the emphasis clearly on that change to the status quo. Certainly makes more sense to me, irrespective of the Courts judgements.
I happen to agree with the gist of the first two sentences in the last paragraph, which I think true of wherever.
I didn't see this article, but is the first I have seen by a Thai writing in a UK national paper period. And it certainly goes beyond the glib headlines and cliches reported by others. I genuinely can't see why anyone should express surprise at the article being published, especially in the Guardian!
Why does it take so long? If he's the bad man everyone says he is why is there just this? Why didn't they take him down while he was still in office? Now that's lame....
The judges found that Shinawatra had ultimate oversight over the Financial Institutions Development Fund, a government-run agency that bought up bank collateral and mortgages. Shinawatra's wife won a competitive auction for a piece of land owned by the FIDF in 2003, and the judges found that his wife's purchase of the land was done on his behalf, thus constituting a conflict of interest.
As an observer (excuse the pun) rather than a supporter, I thought the Guardian article was excellent and I also think WL's critique of it interesting and enjoyable to read. As suggested, the article probably does deserve a thread on its own. I find myself sympathising with the anti-corruption slant on the PADs reasons for taking action, but I agree with the Guardians observation they seem to have complete contempt for the poor people living in the rural areas.
This proposed 30% appointed 70% elected rule. Could that be on similar lines to the UKs unelected House Of Lords?
In the murky world of Thai politics is difficult to know what it really going on. I think most seasoned observers take the stuff about corruption with a pinch of salt. The generals always use corruption to justify coups in Thailand and in other third world countries too.
Surayut who was the general installed by the junta as Prime Minister has several houses in Bangkok including one near the racetrack, a fine collection of classic cars, a collection of Patek Philippe watches and a palatial house in a forest reserve for which he has no title deeds - all on a general's salary.
Chamlong has made a career out of fighting corruption and claims to have foresaken all worldly goods and yet manages to live in a massive house in Bangkok with an army of servants.
The PAD has been protesting for 192 days and paying their guards somewhere between 1000-5000 baht a day and the handclappers 500 baht a day. Where does that money come from? According to to Thai Rath among the donors are big shareholders of Bangkok Bank and Kasikorn Banks. Why would they be donating the money? Check out the share prices of these companies if the PAD ever gets to appoint a government or better still buy a few shares in those companies. Its a nobrainer, like buying oil company shares when Bush was elected.
Was Thaksin really more corrupt than other politicians? According to Wikipedia:" Transparency International reported that Thailand's reputation for transparency among business executives improved during the years of the Thaksin government. In 2001, Thailand's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) was 3.2 (ranked 61), whereas in 2005, the CPI was 3.8 (ranked 59)."
