User talk:Patiwat

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Patiwat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Thanks for the edits to Earthsea! Noelle De Guzman (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Editing

I made a slight eding in the Thaksin Shinawatra article. The following changes were made:

From - "A Bangkok poll taken 3 weeks after Thaksin's announcement found that Thaksin and TRT were still overwhelming popular in Bangkok, with 54% preferring TRT and 7% preferring the Democrats."

To - "A Bangkok poll taken 3 weeks after Thaksin's announcement found that TRT policies were still overwhelmingly popular in Bangkok, with 54.2% preferring TRT policies versus 7.5% for the Democrats."

You talk about being biased, but you instead write seemingly referenced articles laced with misinformation.

You also say that you support democracy. Thaksin's government, although a democratic one, is a democracy in its worst form, majoritarianism. Right now Thais are like lemmings. I, as a physician, believe in meritocracy. Majority could be wrong.

Please read the Discussion page for the Thaksin Shinawatra article where I give an explanation of why I wrote it that way. The way you edited the article doesn't make any sense. The data is cited to support the assertation that Thaksin, post-election, still retained high popularity, despite the PAD's attacks. The original data used to support it had issues, and I replaced it with the poll data which you edited. Admittedly, it is not perfect, but it is still better than the original. Patiwat 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume that since you think you are better educated, you are smarter and have better judgement than me, or the "lemming-like" majority of Thailand. The system of power you advocate was overthrown in 1932. And next time, please log your name. In a free society, people should not be ashamed to have political views. Patiwat 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have anything better to do other than vandalize articles (like you did for Panthongtae Shinawatra)? You claim to be a physician, so go heal somebody rather than trying to destroy other people's hard work. Patiwat 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? I believe we are talking about conflict of view. Moreover, what I wrote is not untrue. Also, this is a public webpage and any information written is viewed by others. Your own article is not as neutral as you think. How would you consider my calling Thaksin's recent visits to other head of states "unsolicited" vandalism, while the truth of the matter is:

1. He personally asked various ambassabors to arrange these visits for him, which clearly showed that he was not "invited".

From various friends who work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, let me assure you that even if a Thai leader is invited by the leaders of a foreign country, the embassy staff still has to arrange the details of the visit. Embassy staff always deals with visit details, even for personal visits. This is standard for every senior Thai civil servant, politician, and member of the royal family. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. His meetings with some of leaders were remarkably brief, showing its insignificance. 3. He stopped to meet Arroyo unannounced, resulting his request for an audience being turned down.

Fine, even if you never cited a source. But so what? Does this have political significance? I asked this in the Discussion page, and the only responder said it wasn't very relevant. I removed it with a note explaining why I had put it up in the first place. If you think the foreign trip should be mentioned, then go ahead and do it, cite sources, and explain yourself in the Discussion page. Be Bold! Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could you call my comment about Panthongthae vandalism, while the boy is notorious for his academic incompetence. The reason for this is for speculation about his cheating allegations. Shouldn't it also be noted that the officials who investigated this case are quickly promoted? Also, if you take offense in the article's edition, I wonder whether you have read the previous article prior to the current one that exits? Would the person who wrote it, later found that his article is written anew, consider this edition "vandalism"?

As I was saying, this is a public webpage. I wouldn't be doing what I am doing if that article, when read, show all sides to the story. Instead you give fleeting informations at face value and try to cover them up with selected references which you deemed convenient for your purpose. Sometime truths are only half-truths.

Wikipedia might be a public website, but it is not a political gossip board. It is an encyclopedia. It is only natural that individual editors have particular points of view. But what appears in the the encyclopedia must be verifiable from reputable sources. Your edits on Phanthongthae were personal attacks didn't cite any sources at all. Under Wikipedia policy, such edits should not only be reverted, but deleted from the edit history. If "The Nation" has an article saying that Phanthongthae is a dumb cheating drug-addict, then go ahead and note that in the article. But if this is something you discuss over coffee or in Phanthip.com then, it shouldn't be repeated in the encyclopedia. You cite many "facts", e.g., Phanthongthae's investigators were all promoted. Be bold and back it up. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, I'm not a fan of Phanthongthae either. My cousin studied with him in Triam and has some horrible stories to tell. But they do not belong on Wikipedia. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not arbitrarily alter articles and have been a contributor to wikipedia for many years (in different areas, mostly classical studies and history - I am not that much of a political person by any means). I did not say that the present articles are untrue. I am just saying that they do not tell the entire story.

I do acknowledge that your writings have merits. But the present article, when read, can be perceived as biased. People who are involved in certain things are subconsciouly opined one way or the other. To achieve the best, I believe that an article deserves various contributions whether it may or may not be to one's liking.

Also, the fact that I am saying I am a physician is to state what I was taught. If a patient comes for a visit, it doesn't matter what the public consensus of the diagnosis is. You could be in a minority, buy you still could be correct.

I really wish this Thaksin thing would never be an issue, for it already creates too much conflict in the society. I think I will refrain from editing the articles pertaining to him and his family, since it seems to trouble you. I also appreciate your deletion of some of the contested parts of article.

Sigh, I will repeat it again. This Thaksin ordeal has already created too much conflict.

I do apologize for your troubles and wish it never have come to this. I harbor you no ill will and wish you the very best.

P.S.

1. Also, misgivings on my parts. I have never noticed the discussion page until you point it out. I am totally at fault here and if I have any comments in future I would be inclined to use that page.

2. I have retired my older computer and, with it, lost logins and passwords I have saved. You are certainly right about not loggin in.

I take your suggestions in good faith and do not harbor any ill will either. I have suggested an alternative edit regarding the post-election poll in the Discussion page. Please give your input. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refrain from making edits! I value your point of view, and it increases the value and credibility of Wikipedia. Just make sure the edits are factual and referenced with reputable sources. It is tricky to do this on such a controversial topic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put four tildes (the curly sign on the left of the "1" button on the keyboard) after your edits to automatically sign your name and date on your edits.

As a rule, I don't discuss politics with friends - there is too much potential for having arguments! :-) I have a feeling that if we met outside of Wikipedia, and didn't discuss politics, we would become friends as well. I'm a history buff as well, especially in Thai art history and European political history. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thai election

Dear Patiwat, althugh we seem to have some differences of opinion, I am actually very pleased to find someone here who is bilingual in English and Thai and in interested in politics. As well as editing at Wikipedia, I maintain the world's most extensive online database of election statistics, Adam Carr's Election Archive. I have had a lot of difficulty getting decent election stats for Thailand, partly because I don't speak or read Thai, but partly also because the ECT have been completely unresponsive to my efforts to get information from them. When I was last in Bkk I tried to get them to show me their maps of the election districts, which I offered to copy or photograph myself, but they seemed to think these were state secrets and wouldn't let me see them. Their website is impossible to navigate and so far as I can tell they have never produced detailed stats of the 2005 election. I have had to rely on the partial stats published at the Nation website. For this election they are starting to put some figures at their website, but again no maps, and also no enrolment figures so that I can see what proportion of the enrolled voters are voting for the TRT candidates. I wonder if you could tell me if you know of any source for

detailed stats from the 2005 election
constituency maps for either 2005 or 2006 (I gather the boundaries have changed)
electoral enrolment stats by constituency for 2006

Regards, Adam 12:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may agree with you about that, but my current interest is psephological rather than political. Could I ask you to look at the ECT website and tell me what is written on the large purple panel which is now blocking access to their partial election statistics? Could you also clarify for me that TRT have won all 400 constituency seats, apart from the 38 seats in the south where they failed to get 20%, and Nonthaburi 3 where all candidates were disqualified? Adam 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That big purple thing says "New candidates can apply in the following 39 constituencies (including 1 and 3 in Nonthaburi)". From which I'd conclude that TRT has at least 361 constituency seats and about 90 party list seats, which would give them the largest parliamentary majority in Thai history. Unless if the Democrats play dirty again and boycott the by-elections too, in which case the elections and the parliament are a total waste. Might as well let the Constitutional Court pick the next PM.

The unofficial results are at http://www.ect.go.th/thai/report_mp49.htm I'm too lazy to click on the button for every province - I wish they'd just publish the consolidated results as an Excel file or a something. If you're good with perl, you could probably do it with a short script. Or an OSX Automator script. Or Teleport Pro. The format is http://www.ect.go.th/thai/report_mp49/PROVINCENAMEX.htm when X is the sub-page (in cases where there are many sub-districts. Let me know what you find out.Patiwat 13:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The problem with the ECT figures is that they give only the TRT vote and not the "No votes" or the total number of registered voters in each constituency. The Nation is giving better figures, but they are not as complete. The one good thing about the ECT website is their collection of newscutting pdfs in the box at the right-hand side of the page. Trawling through that gives me these figures. Probably tomorrow's papers will have better ones. Adam 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results again

I have now located a better source of results here, and have summarised them here. Could I ask you to look at the mcot website, and tell what the third table down on the left (the one above the photo of the unhappy looking man), represents? Kopkhunkrap. Adam 06:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table with the drop-down box summarizes unofficial voting results for people who did NOT vote. The choices in the drop-down box are 1) Bangkok 2) North 3) Northeast 4) South. The columns in the table are 1) order - not district 2) District 3) Did not vote 4) Abstained 5) Invalid 6) Total. But 6-3-4-5!=TRT because of votes for other parties. If you want to see the breakdown by party, look at the 2nd table. The map chart might be useful - it shows the distribution of votes by party by region/province in percentage to the 1st decimal. However, it isn't so clear whether the denominator is.Patiwat 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I still have a problem. If I use the drop-down box to look at the South, for example, I see in the first column 1, 2, 3 and 4. What do these refer to? In the next column I see Songkhla districts 3, 1, 5 and 6. How do I see all the other districts in the South? Is the little blue triangle in the top right meant to be a scroll-down button? If so it not working for me. Adam 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The results are incomplete. Only 4 districts are shown. I don't know why. The triangle doesn't work for me either. Patiwat 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps you could contact MCOT and ask them to fix it. Alternatively you could contact the ECT and ask them to post some decent statistics at their site instead of all the fancy graphics - it is their job after all. Cheers, Adam 06:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the use... Nobody cares about the election results or what the majority of Thai people think. The boycot was a spike in the tires of democracy.Patiwat 07:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I care, but then I'm an eccentric falang psepholgist, not a Thai.
- You're spinning your wheels. Just wait for the 30 day deadline, when the EC will be legally required to declare final official results.Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Thaksin is a crook and a demagogue, but I agree that it is a bad day for democracy when a government polls 61% of the vote and is then forced to resign by an unelected king and the Bangkok mob.Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument. [rant mode] Thaksin, for all his serious faults, was the first Thai populist Prime Minister. If you look at what passes for Democrat policy, it seems as if he will be the only populist Prime Minister. He was the first politician who ran with a clear agenda and campaign promises, and measured his success by his ability to deliver those promises. He made some difficult political compromises in his career - effectiveness vs. cleanliness in drugs, reform vs. patronage in school decentralization, national champ vs. hypercompetition in electricity - but he was vindicated the ballot box. For these "innovations", he deserves better than the slander that the hypocrite Sondhi is throwing at him and the dirty-tricks that the Democrats are using to bring him down[/rant mode].Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very noticeable at both Nation and the Post that Bangkok public opinion is the only opinion that matters. The assumption seems to be that the North and N-East voted for Thaksin because they're peasants, so that doesn't count. Even in Bangkok though, there are 10 million people and only a few hundred thousand actually attended the anti-Thaksin rallies. Adam 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they know very well who their readers are. Thais are like that, they give a lot of weight to education and social class. Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you are right. I will cultivate an attitude of patience and serenity for the next 30 days. Adam 08:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb your serene bubble, but if the Democrats sue the EC and boycott the by-elections, then we might not final results in 30 days, either :-) Patiwat 09:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections again

Dear Patiwat, nice to see you online here again. When you have a movement, could you have a look at the new material on the ECT website, and tell me what this and this represent? I am hoping it is lists of provinces showing enrolment, turnout, invalid voting, abstention voting and voting for parties - perhaps you can confirm this. Kopkhunkrap, Adam 07:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.ect.go.th/thai/score1.html, the columns are

No.
Province
No. eligible voters
Valid ballots
%
Invalid ballots
%
Abstain
%
Total
% of eligible voters

Same thing for http://www.ect.go.th/thai/list_con.html Patiwat 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Now what I need is the same sets of figures for each constituency. I will wait and see what they post next, maintaining my serentity as I wait. Meantime, it is cold and wet here and I am looking forward to being in steamy Bkk again. Adam 08:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to take a peak at http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/log, who also looks at the election results, but from a political perspective that I don't think you'll agree with. Meantime, it is 45 degrees F here in cold, rainy, windy San Francisco. This sucks. Patiwat 08:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is helpful too, thanks. Please advise me of anything else you find. I am keen to find a list of candidate names in English, otherwise I am going to have to pay someone to translate them all for me. What are you doing in San Francisco? (I meant to ask you, by the way, how you can be a native speaker of both Thai and English. Are you a Thai-American or vice versa?) Adam 09:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother paying. 1) It will not be correct, since pronunciation of Thai names can be tricky even for native speakers. 2) Whatever latin transliteration you use will almost certainly be inconsistent with that which the MP prefers. Just wait until Parliament convenes (if ever) and the names of the MPs are officially published. Patiwat 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in Thailand but moved to the US when my parents fled the persecution of the military dictatorship. Returned back to Thailand to finish college, worked here for many years, and went to graduate school in the US. Now deciding where to continue my career. Patiwat 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want all the candidates, not just those elected. Last year the Nation published the full results in English, but this time (understandably) they are not bothering. I don't mind putting a few k baht in the way of a needy Thai student to do some translating for me. Adam 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that message. I am doing Hungarian elections at present to I will wait and see what happens in Thailand. But even if there are new elections, I will still want to have full stats for 2 April eventually. Is there likely to be a deal involving departure of Thaksin (and presumably demise of TRT without him), fresh elections and a return to politics as normal? Adam 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "deal" was that if Thaksin left, the PAD would stop protesting. Well, Thaksin announced he was not going to accept the Premiership, which can be interpretted both ways. The PAD decided not to stop, the King stepped in, and we have the current mess. Patiwat 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Leonowens

Hi, just caught your comment about Leonowens. Thanks for seconding my motion. I can see that you are engaged in Thai issues. Leonowens was a controversial person, but the article is nothing but a vanity piece, and that's being charitable. Its days are numbered. — J M Rice 02:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to the original article is outrageous. The person doing this clearly has no concept of NPOV. I've restored my edits and posted a warning on Talk. I hope this doesn't turn into a revert war. — J M Rice 12:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to tell you that I commented on your latest post, and made a suggstion, on my talk page. — J M Rice 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is reverted again, but compared to the original it's far imrpoved, don't you think? At least it's something you can work with. Remember, though, one person's "debunking" is another's polemic. Cheers! J M Rice 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

This may interest you. What is the explanation for everything south of Bangkok, both east and west, being anti-Thaksin? It is interesting to see that the Muslim "deep south" is actually less anti-Thaksin than areas further north - the highest abstention was in Chumphon. Adam 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat strongholds. The South has been a Democrat power base for decades. Except for the border provinces, which loyalties have been somewhat more dynamic. Gen. Chavalit's New Aspiration Party courted lots of local Muslim politicians and was quite strong there for a time, and things have been quite in flux recently. So if Muslims hate Thaksin, then why aren't they abstaining more? Well, the Democrats are great at complaining, but they don't really have a strategy for how to solve the problems of the border provinces either... Short-term rubber prices (natural rubber is a key economic crop in South Thailand) might also be a contributing factor, but I haven't been keeping track. Patiwat 06:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but why is the south a Democrat stronghold?
- Sorry - I don't know. Has been that way since the 70's at least, and has been completely dominant since the 90's (when a Southern Democrat became PM twice). Patiwat 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I detest "trivia". If matters are of importance, they should be included in the article. If they are not, they should be deleted. I don't care about trivia on trivial topics, like movie stars, but I delete it on sight on serious articles. Adam 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another question I have been trying to get an answer to ever since I first visited Bangkok: What is the etymological or historical connection between the aristocratic title Chao Phraya and the name of the Chao Phraya River? Was it named for a particularly person with the rank of Chao Phraya? Was that always the river's name or has it been renamed since Bangkok became the capital? Does the name suggest that it is the "prince of rivers" or some such attribute? Several people have assured me that there is no connection, but I don't believe this. Adam 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but I don't have a definite answer. The river has been an economic artery for hundreds of years though, since the Ayuthaya-era. I'm not sure what it was called back then, although no other alternative name comes to mind. The name Chao Phraya doesn't really sound right to me. Rivers have been critical to Thailand's agriculture civilization for millenia, and the names of the rivers tend to be simple and "Thai", e.g., Khwae, Nan, Yom, Ping, Khong. Chao Phraya sounds too fancy to have been a local name. I'm not in Thailand right now, and can't ask anybody conveniently. When I get back I'll try asking. Patiwat 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections again

Can you tell which election this map pertains to, and whether these are still the current constituency boundaries? Adam 06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a map of election constituencies, but I don't know if it is up to date or official. Why don't you try emailing the authoer (his email is at the bottom). Patiwat 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check this article

Patiwat, some time ago I wrote this article: Sang Phathanothai. To my surprise nobody has made any edits yet. I would like someone to check it. You seem to be well aware about Thailand's history. If you can make any factual corrections you know about, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Anagnorisis 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have sources at hand right now, so I hesitate to make any major edits. I would note, however, that point of view of the 4th paragraph is, in my opinion, too forgiving of Pibulsonggram, who handed over Thailand to the Japanese. The topic remains controversial today. Patiwat 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Yes, about being forgiving of Pibulsonggram, I am sure you will able to gauge that better than me. Please edit the language in any manner you deem appropriate. The main source I used (the book written by Sang's daughter) was probably (and obviously) biased positively towards him. Anagnorisis 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patiwat, I am in Norway at present but I am following what is going on in Muang Thai. Have not the judges been very clever? As I understand it, they have not actually annulled the 2 April elections, which would have amounted to a constitutional coup, but they have annulled each of the individual elections on technical grounds, so that the whole election can be run again (after the King's jubilee), technically as a series of by-elections. Very shrewd, and also a good outcome, in my view. The constitution is preserved, the Opposition saves face, the people get to choose a new legislature, the King is spared embarrassment. Questions: will Thaksin come back? Will TRT fall apart without him? Adam 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers I've read haven't actually gone into the details, which is frustrating. For instance, was the blame on the EC, or on Thaksin? And does this practically set a minimum time limit for opposition parties to prepare for the election (one of the controversial facts was that the election came too close to the dissolving of parliament)? And practically, how can camera-phone vote buying be prevented without turning the voting tables around?

As for the Opposition saving face, my personal view is that their hypocracy is absurd. They boycott the original election claiming that the dissolution of Parliament was illegitimate. But after the election results in a verification of Thaksin's weakened state, they decide to contest? Even though it is still illegitimate? Bull$hit!

As for Thaksin, I'm not a fan of him. But the opposition/PAD has no legit right to ban him from politics. As long as the TRT has populist policies, and as long as the Democrats don't have a clear policy of their own, I'll still prefer TRT.

But the most troublesome thing though, is that the fundamental constitutional issue remains: whether Parliament can or can not reconvene without a full house. Lets say that a particular party, powerful in only 1 province, decides to boycott the election. Nobody gets 20% of the vote. That province effectively does not have an MP, and has to do multiple rounds of by-elections. But with only 499 seats, Parliament can not reconvene. Basically, what is to prevent some other party from repeating what the Democrats did in this election, thus stalling the democratic process indefinitely? Patiwat 07:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the new elections will not happen till after the Jubilee, the Opposition should have plenty of time to campaign.
I think the decision of the Opposition to contest the new polls should be welcomed and not too much made of their hypocrisy. The important thing is to get normal politics and legality re-established as soon as possible.
I agree that a constitutional provision which gives the voters in one constituency the power to sabotage the entire political process is dangerous and absurd and must be changed.
You didn't answer either of my questions: Will Thaksin come back? If not, will TRT still win?

Adam 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Re Thaksin, in the medium term, he will definitely be back. My guess is that in the short-term (Round 2) he will both contest as well as be ready for the premiership. That way, he can fully claims a mandate when he wins. Maybe less of a majority than before, but I'd be shocked if TRT got less than half the seats. As for the, EC, let them commit seppuku and let the Courts embarrass themselves by trying to run the election, which is blatantly unconstitutional. Patiwat 09:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was the alternative? Allow the 2 April results to stand and have a one-party parliament for the next four years? Not a good outcome. Adam 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, that would be horrible, but TRT had promised constitutional reform and a new election within a year. Notice right now that constitutional reform seems to be lacking in the Democrat campaign agenda? Patiwat 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't say I am following the debate that closely at present. I will get back up to speed when I get home. Do you know of Vitit Muntarbhorn? A most impressive man, I met him yesterday. I will write an article about him when I get home. Adam 04:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a fine man. I almost worked with him a long long time ago. Hasn't been in the news much this past decade. Patiwat 07:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's about. Adam 09:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish him luck. Those North Koreans are a bit crazy. Last year, when I was working for the UN World Food Program, they kicked the WFP out - while their people were still starving! Not even due to any political mistake on anybody's part or anything. Weird... Patiwat 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was pure politics on their part. After the famine in which maybe a million people died (another triumph of socialist agriculture), the DPRK was forced to beg for international aid, which involved allowing international agencies such as WFP into the country. They really hated that, because it threatened to expose the DPRK people to outside influence and the truth about the horrors of the DPRK's real situation. So as soon as the food situation was even slightly improved, they tried to turn the clock back, kick out the agencies and go back to the state procurements and rationing system they had before the famine. They were greatly helped in this by the current weak and selfish administration in South Korea, which has agreed to give them huge amounts of unmonitored food aid, thus undermining any possibility using the famine as a lever to get some political reform. So Khun Vitit's chances of success are greatly reduced. Adam 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal note

Patiwat, re your comment on mine on succession, I'd prefer just to make some comments and let someone else decide whether they should be edited into the main text pages. Perhaps that's not in the full participatory spirit of wikipedia, but that's what I prefer. You and others have done a pretty good job already keeping the Bhumibol and other articles straight. 158.50.77.1 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I have suggested a rewording in the Discussion page. As I based the rewording on your explanation, I would greatly appreciate any comments you might have. Patiwat 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Appreciate your handling the succession stuff. I didn't get into the 1925 law because there is some mystery which the reference to Gothom suggests. The law, designed by King Vajiravudh, originally specifically said women cannot succeed. That suggests why the constitution had to be amended to allow the king to unilaterally change the 1925 law. But I could not find out whether in fact it has been changed to allow for a woman successor -- so that it doesn't contradict the constitution. It is an interesting legal question: which is the final word the constitution or the succession law predating it? But if they have been harmonized already then there is no problem. Phand 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

I will be in Bkk July 1 to 9. Any chance you will be there then? Adam 12:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Will let you know though - we should grab some beers! Patiwat 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages - you are a fount of useful information. I see the ECT has given up on posting new results from the April election, now that it has been annulled, so I guess I will never get complete results. I am hoping when I am in Bkk next month I will be able to get a set of current constituency maps from them, although I had no success last time. Adam 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Thaksin Shinawatra

Dear Patiwat, no hard feelings! I never intended to attack you personally. And ideological convictions most certainly never played a role in my arguments.

My criticism was always directed against the article's quality alone. In case of any offence taken, please accept my apologies.

If you want to discuss the issue in person, feel free to contact me via Email or on my User Talk page. Best regards, Herrk 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk[reply]