Since reading Thai is still difficult for me I don’t yet read Thai web-boards. One result is that I don’t know what’s actually being said that the wannabe-censors are calling anti-monarchist. Of course, thanks to the incredibly stupid overreaction of the ICT Ministry I know about the disgusting youtube video, but not the more common comments.
So I’m wondering, what is all the fuss about? Are there really a lot of people saying bad things about the royal institution? Or is it more a case of there are a few fanatics in high positions who see any reference that is less than adoring as an attack? I mean, given the severity of the lese majeste law and the certainly that it could be applied to the internet despite the ignorant doubts of the Democrats, doesn’t everyone know that anything you publish on the World Wide Web can be traced back to you if they want to badly enough? Even going through a series of anonymizers wouldn’t be enough to protect you if a government, even one as incompetent at IT as Thailand’s, from getting the log data. Are there really people out there who are advocating overthrowing the royal institution?
Thanks to Ralph for pointing this out. It’s not just interesting, it’s essential. Wassana offers up the proof that the last three years of politics at the top level of Thai society has not been about anything but the threat the palace perceives to its very existence. And that explains why themes argued here about government “legitimacy”, “democracy”, “equal treatment under law”, “capitalist rivalry”, and so on have had little real meaning or utility in understanding what happened and predicting what would happen. The palace saw Thaksin and all the people around him as a Republican threat that had to be squashed. The palace persuaded the people that mattered most that its existence was what was at stake. Whether he was such a threat or not, Thaksin failed to defend himself from that charge. While he fought at the level of politics, the palace fought at the higher level of national existence. The palace necessarily won. And now it is cleaning up.
“Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?”
I do want Abhisit to continue the programs for the poors, but the real issue here is that I don’t trust nor believe he can do so.
Democratic Party has been in Thai politic for so long, longer than any party. The only people they have helped are the riches. Look at the record.
Beside, Abhisit claimed that Thaksin’s populist policies were bad, then pledged that he is going to deliver the same policies Thaksin did, don’t you think that is everything but honorable? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Red Shirts is the group not only to bring change to modernize the country, it is the Allied forces inside Thailand. Its intentions make their political communication civil.
On the contrary, the Democrat Party & the PAD is serving the germany-japanese mainland Southeast Asia objectives. According to Matichon Newspaper (Jan 1st 2009), Mr.Kraisak Chunhawan, deputy head of the Democrat Party and Chairman of the House Social Development Committee, Mr. Suvit Khunkitti, Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Thira Salakpet, Minister of Culture, and Mr.Kasit Pirom, Minister of Foreign Affairs, are pushing the agenda to give lands to a minority group that resides on the island and coastal areas of the Andaman Sea. They are strongly against any tourist access to the area.
We need to know that Mr.Kraisak Chunhawan is grandson of Pin Chunhawan, who accompanied Plaek Phibunsongkram (Chief of the Axis Forces) in an attempt to arrest Dr.Pridi Banomyong (Chief of the Allied Forces) in 1947. The British and Americans managed to hijack Pridi out to Singapore in time.
Mr. Suvit Khunkitti, was in both Samak’s and Somchai’s cabinet. He had caused the collapse of both cabinets.
Mr. Kasit Pirom, one of the PAD, was the ambassador to Japan and Germany before.
What a waste of energy! Hero worship at its worst! Nothing constructive! PAD and UDD. What’s the difference. Just more brainwashed idiots in party party gear.
Jim, regarding Sanoh’s comments, “he would say that, wouldn’t he”(?) – as the saying goes.
Here’s a guy, who changes like the wind. This time, he changed in the wrong direction. So, he’s bound to be a bit angry. Just recall his dinner party a few weks back, where the spread looked delicious, but nobody came. He’s just not been able to take a trick, in this game
As for the other old stagers, as I indicated in my previous comments, both sides have a lot to answer for.
I also accepted, that how the policy speech was delivered, might not be legal. But, I also suggested, the best way to deal with this, was through the courts.
However, as you point out, there seems no longer to be any respect for these judgements. Which brings us to ask, “why is it so” ?
For this, I would go back to the years between 2000-2006, when the laws were conveniently changed to suit and the “people’s constitution” of 1997, was abused and circumvented, also to suit.
You should acknowledge these things and not be so selective with your criticism about abuses of the laws of the land.
If you want me to admit both sides are “guilty” – I will.
Will you ?
It is encouraging to see the Red Shirts beginning to write their banners in English. And many thanks to NM for publishing them. This is important because foreign correspondents can spread UDD message visually across the world. As for incorrect grammar/spelling, I don’t see any problem as we all remember that native speakers like former US vice president Dan Quayle also made mistakes in English. I am not a native speaker so I don’t worry much if people criticize my English.
For the upcoming ASEAN summit in February, the Red Shirts should write something in their banners like: “OUR FOREIGN MINISTER IS A TERRORIST WHO TAKES PART IN THE SEIZURE OF OUR OWN AIRPORT” and let the ASEAN guests and visitors understand the real situation. The Red Shirts can certainly adapt creative and peaceful ways to express their views unlike the PAD thugs who broke laws without fear or shame due to their invisible backers.
General Prayuth Chan-ocha is reported to have said that all of this anti-monarchy agitation is concerted and all supportive of Thaksin
There is little doubt that anti-monarchists are supporting Thaksin, but how much reciprocal support is provided?
This might provide the opponents of Thaksin with a ‘wedge’ issue, by simply asking Thaksin publicly whether he accepts or rejects the obvious support from anti-monarchists.
btw, for those who think I’m still Thaksin obsessed – you are right!
(as soon as the ‘reds’ take Thaksin off the pedestal, I will become a supporter).
Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?
Jim T & David B can add that question to the other questions they have failed to answer.
2009 will be terrible for thailand unless all sides except no one power can triumph over the will of the pepole
most votes should always win power but when greed destroy.s thailand from within and i feel that day is comeing
the likes of vietnam and cambodia will profit from the tourist.s
of tomorrow while thailand kicks her heels
I will admit I don’t know the inner workings of Thailand’s Parliament.
But I was under the impression that these policy statements were just that, statements. Are they up for Parliamentary debate? If a quorum of the Paliamentarians were present for the reading of the statements then isn’t that what matters, not the physical location? Isn’t that common sense? You could create all sorts of scenarios under which the Parliament House itself was inaccessible (like, maybe it was blocked by protesters) so the policy statements couldn’t be read. Then what? If they must be done within 15 days what happens after 15 days expire?
Perhaps the previous government didn’t think creatively enough or were too bound by tradition.
I am just a farang tourist, but I do have friends in Thailand. They are all tired of PAD and UDD. They just want to get back to normal life.
Both mobs are just two sides of the same coin. Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?
I think I prefer the informed views of the “other” David; but to “Another David” here is more information: Veteran politician Sanoh Thianthong (Head of Pracharaj Party) said that this was the worst behaviour he ever knew of a government trying to get its policy declared…Prior to this it was clear that this declaration had to held in Parliament. Participants were sent text message to notify of changing forum for the parliamentary meeting one hour beforehand…many considered not important including opposition who wanted to attend did not receive this and turned up at Parliament on the 30 December. Sanoh did not receive this SMS text message. A minibus was arranged to pick up a select group of Democrat devotees and members from the House of Representatives to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This incidence of declaring the Government policy is 100% null and void said Sanoh. The blames also lies with double standard in Newin’s father, the Parliamentary Chairperson, Chai Chid-chob who said the last Somchai government had to hold the declaration in Parliament only. Anyone, seemingly, can do anything without informing anyone if it is in their interests. This is too much. Sanoh also said “how are we going to be seen by the public?” The Democrats have a number of legal experts (including Chuan) and these people should know that this is against formal legal procedures. Behaving like this the law is worthless. The courts have to interpret these rules- but the courts as we know (since “ground zero” [thanks david] 19 September 2006) are for the Democrats. Sanoh further noted that even though we know who are the “thieves” – the courts still take their side and robbery is justified. There is no need to use the law any more.
Interesting, never came across this post.
I do appreciate Chinese tea since nearly 20 years. Storage in Bangkok and Malaysia indeed does speed up the fermentation process. Wild Arbor Pu Erh tea i have bought nearly ten years ago is much more aged than comparable ten year old tea that was stored in much dryer Kunming.
Care though has to be given that mold does not develop, and that the tea is stored in a place of good air exchange.
I am very doubtful of artificial wet storage, to many things can go wrong. It is better to drink a lesser aged sheng of good quality. Tea with too much wet storage does taste like foul old socks.
Some people spend too much effort on storage. The most important factor is the quality of the tea itself. A lousy tea will never make a good drink, regardless how long it has been stored. Recently i spent way too much money, cheap for its age though, on a brick of undefined 20 year old Yiwu tea. I don’t drink it – it is a stale and completely uneventful experience. My own self stored teas are leagues better.
10 years patience has paid off. And there are kilos of teas in my store that will be ready to drink over the next years.
I hate to be too activist in this, but I firmly believe that unless a committee gets together and goes the legal route – to the courts – to get the law repealed and modified, not much will be done. It will have to be an aggressive but highly professional effort with Thais and foreigners involved, as well as perhaps an international organization. We need some legal comments on this.
The way I read Jim Taylor’s jottings on what is going on in Thailand, is that, “ground zero” started in 2006 and continues to this day – with a brief interlude during the some of the PPP period.
I get the impression, he believes what happened before the coup of 2006, has little, or nothing to do with where we are now- except to say, the “elites”, royalists, PAD and fellow travelers, are the cause of all the problems.
I certainly believe, many on “that side”, are far from perfect.
If they (if you believe “they” is a monlithic grouping) had taken the welfare of the “common man” a little more seriously, and helped democracy take a more solid footing, it would have been much harder for a Thaksin like figure, to emerge.
They didn’t. If they had, history could have been quite different.
Jim makes almost no mention, of what Thaksin/TRT/PPP did to circumvent parliament, during their time(s) in power.
I do accept, this does not justify in a legal sense, some of the things being done by the current government – such as, the policy speech reading in another place. Is it illegal ? Let the courts decide.
How much leglislation during Thaksin’s time, was scruitinzed by more than a small coatary of policitans, to avoid the public spotlight ?
The courts of the day were not prone to investigating such matters, too closely.
How many times was the “Letter of the Law” abused by the TRT/PPP, and aided and abetted, by the judiciary of the day(admittedly, during TRT times and perhaps the reverse, during the PPP reign), to serve a certain someone?
The courts might have “changed sides” during the PPP time, but what about little matters such as, the dimplomatic passport and other items beyond the control of the courts?
How many times was the media put under pressure?
I don’t mean Sondhi’s empire, or the Nation?
How many Human Rights abuses were there ?
And, before you say to me, “prove it”…..I can’t – of course.
But, please stop writing as if the “non-elites” and anti-PAD people, such as your beloved Red Shirts/UDD, are the true saviours of Thailand; whereas, the other lot (if there are such people) are incarnates, of the devil himself.
There are many, many wrongs – on both sides – take off your rose (red) coloured glasses.
I see this is an old post, but the storage question seems to be a perennial one.
The arguments for wet stored tea are interesting. Nobody I know here wet stores tea, not because they don’t know how to, but becuase they don’t like it. For most people here, cang wei puer is not their favoured drink!
Efforts to try to establish a historical basis for wet storage are, it seems, sketchy; nobody I know knows of any evidence (anthropological/archeological ) that people in ‘banna systematically stored Puer in caves, underground etc.
Maybe in other, dryer areas that has happened, but in Jinghong, if one really wanted to speed up the oxidation process, one might consider hauling one’s tea down to Mengla (considerably more humid). To people here that would seem a little ‘over-the -top’.
Maybe one develops a taste for whatever is locally available. Every area or bio-region has it’s own suitable diet, like Eskimos eating rotten meat. What works in one place doesn’t neccessarily work in another!
Who is to repeal them? The trouble with lese majeste is that any Thai that tries to repeal it within the law will be inevitably charged with lese majeste.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Defending the taboo – the royal response
Since reading Thai is still difficult for me I don’t yet read Thai web-boards. One result is that I don’t know what’s actually being said that the wannabe-censors are calling anti-monarchist. Of course, thanks to the incredibly stupid overreaction of the ICT Ministry I know about the disgusting youtube video, but not the more common comments.
So I’m wondering, what is all the fuss about? Are there really a lot of people saying bad things about the royal institution? Or is it more a case of there are a few fanatics in high positions who see any reference that is less than adoring as an attack? I mean, given the severity of the lese majeste law and the certainly that it could be applied to the internet despite the ignorant doubts of the Democrats, doesn’t everyone know that anything you publish on the World Wide Web can be traced back to you if they want to badly enough? Even going through a series of anonymizers wouldn’t be enough to protect you if a government, even one as incompetent at IT as Thailand’s, from getting the log data. Are there really people out there who are advocating overthrowing the royal institution?
Red shirts and civil disobedience
Great reporting!
Defending the taboo – the royal response
Thanks to Ralph for pointing this out. It’s not just interesting, it’s essential. Wassana offers up the proof that the last three years of politics at the top level of Thai society has not been about anything but the threat the palace perceives to its very existence. And that explains why themes argued here about government “legitimacy”, “democracy”, “equal treatment under law”, “capitalist rivalry”, and so on have had little real meaning or utility in understanding what happened and predicting what would happen. The palace saw Thaksin and all the people around him as a Republican threat that had to be squashed. The palace persuaded the people that mattered most that its existence was what was at stake. Whether he was such a threat or not, Thaksin failed to defend himself from that charge. While he fought at the level of politics, the palace fought at the higher level of national existence. The palace necessarily won. And now it is cleaning up.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Glenn & nganadeeleg
“Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?”
I do want Abhisit to continue the programs for the poors, but the real issue here is that I don’t trust nor believe he can do so.
Democratic Party has been in Thai politic for so long, longer than any party. The only people they have helped are the riches. Look at the record.
Beside, Abhisit claimed that Thaksin’s populist policies were bad, then pledged that he is going to deliver the same policies Thaksin did, don’t you think that is everything but honorable? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Red shirts and civil disobedience
Thanks a lot, Nick! Waited for this one…
Red shirts and civil disobedience
Red Shirts is the group not only to bring change to modernize the country, it is the Allied forces inside Thailand. Its intentions make their political communication civil.
On the contrary, the Democrat Party & the PAD is serving the germany-japanese mainland Southeast Asia objectives. According to Matichon Newspaper (Jan 1st 2009), Mr.Kraisak Chunhawan, deputy head of the Democrat Party and Chairman of the House Social Development Committee, Mr. Suvit Khunkitti, Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Thira Salakpet, Minister of Culture, and Mr.Kasit Pirom, Minister of Foreign Affairs, are pushing the agenda to give lands to a minority group that resides on the island and coastal areas of the Andaman Sea. They are strongly against any tourist access to the area.
We need to know that Mr.Kraisak Chunhawan is grandson of Pin Chunhawan, who accompanied Plaek Phibunsongkram (Chief of the Axis Forces) in an attempt to arrest Dr.Pridi Banomyong (Chief of the Allied Forces) in 1947. The British and Americans managed to hijack Pridi out to Singapore in time.
Mr. Suvit Khunkitti, was in both Samak’s and Somchai’s cabinet. He had caused the collapse of both cabinets.
Mr. Kasit Pirom, one of the PAD, was the ambassador to Japan and Germany before.
Red shirts and civil disobedience
What a waste of energy! Hero worship at its worst! Nothing constructive! PAD and UDD. What’s the difference. Just more brainwashed idiots in party party gear.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Jim, regarding Sanoh’s comments, “he would say that, wouldn’t he”(?) – as the saying goes.
Here’s a guy, who changes like the wind. This time, he changed in the wrong direction. So, he’s bound to be a bit angry. Just recall his dinner party a few weks back, where the spread looked delicious, but nobody came. He’s just not been able to take a trick, in this game
As for the other old stagers, as I indicated in my previous comments, both sides have a lot to answer for.
I also accepted, that how the policy speech was delivered, might not be legal. But, I also suggested, the best way to deal with this, was through the courts.
However, as you point out, there seems no longer to be any respect for these judgements. Which brings us to ask, “why is it so” ?
For this, I would go back to the years between 2000-2006, when the laws were conveniently changed to suit and the “people’s constitution” of 1997, was abused and circumvented, also to suit.
You should acknowledge these things and not be so selective with your criticism about abuses of the laws of the land.
If you want me to admit both sides are “guilty” – I will.
Will you ?
The red army at the gates of parliament
It is encouraging to see the Red Shirts beginning to write their banners in English. And many thanks to NM for publishing them. This is important because foreign correspondents can spread UDD message visually across the world. As for incorrect grammar/spelling, I don’t see any problem as we all remember that native speakers like former US vice president Dan Quayle also made mistakes in English. I am not a native speaker so I don’t worry much if people criticize my English.
For the upcoming ASEAN summit in February, the Red Shirts should write something in their banners like: “OUR FOREIGN MINISTER IS A TERRORIST WHO TAKES PART IN THE SEIZURE OF OUR OWN AIRPORT” and let the ASEAN guests and visitors understand the real situation. The Red Shirts can certainly adapt creative and peaceful ways to express their views unlike the PAD thugs who broke laws without fear or shame due to their invisible backers.
Burma’s draft 2008 constitution
The 2008 constitution is drafted by 45 “”SELECTED”” 45 members and NOT from elected candidates of public.
The ROAD MAP of 2003 was drafted by General Khin Nyunt and Gen Khin Nyunt delived the speech was-
1. The Election in 1990 was sincered and clean according to 100th. Press Conference on 13th. August 1990.
2. The 104th. Press Conference with all media of in and out side of Burma also deleivered as same the election was cleaned on 11th. July 1990.
So, SLORC and SPDC is never keep their promise and how to trust of
that Army Junta G or Gun Government.
Thin Thin
Defending the taboo – the royal response
General Prayuth Chan-ocha is reported to have said that all of this anti-monarchy agitation is concerted and all supportive of Thaksin
There is little doubt that anti-monarchists are supporting Thaksin, but how much reciprocal support is provided?
This might provide the opponents of Thaksin with a ‘wedge’ issue, by simply asking Thaksin publicly whether he accepts or rejects the obvious support from anti-monarchists.
btw, for those who think I’m still Thaksin obsessed – you are right!
(as soon as the ‘reds’ take Thaksin off the pedestal, I will become a supporter).
The red army at the gates of parliament
Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?
Jim T & David B can add that question to the other questions they have failed to answer.
Light at the end of the tunnel? Red or yellow?
2009 will be terrible for thailand unless all sides except no one power can triumph over the will of the pepole
most votes should always win power but when greed destroy.s thailand from within and i feel that day is comeing
the likes of vietnam and cambodia will profit from the tourist.s
of tomorrow while thailand kicks her heels
The red army at the gates of parliament
I will admit I don’t know the inner workings of Thailand’s Parliament.
But I was under the impression that these policy statements were just that, statements. Are they up for Parliamentary debate? If a quorum of the Paliamentarians were present for the reading of the statements then isn’t that what matters, not the physical location? Isn’t that common sense? You could create all sorts of scenarios under which the Parliament House itself was inaccessible (like, maybe it was blocked by protesters) so the policy statements couldn’t be read. Then what? If they must be done within 15 days what happens after 15 days expire?
Perhaps the previous government didn’t think creatively enough or were too bound by tradition.
I am just a farang tourist, but I do have friends in Thailand. They are all tired of PAD and UDD. They just want to get back to normal life.
Both mobs are just two sides of the same coin. Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?
The red army at the gates of parliament
I think I prefer the informed views of the “other” David; but to “Another David” here is more information: Veteran politician Sanoh Thianthong (Head of Pracharaj Party) said that this was the worst behaviour he ever knew of a government trying to get its policy declared…Prior to this it was clear that this declaration had to held in Parliament. Participants were sent text message to notify of changing forum for the parliamentary meeting one hour beforehand…many considered not important including opposition who wanted to attend did not receive this and turned up at Parliament on the 30 December. Sanoh did not receive this SMS text message. A minibus was arranged to pick up a select group of Democrat devotees and members from the House of Representatives to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This incidence of declaring the Government policy is 100% null and void said Sanoh. The blames also lies with double standard in Newin’s father, the Parliamentary Chairperson, Chai Chid-chob who said the last Somchai government had to hold the declaration in Parliament only. Anyone, seemingly, can do anything without informing anyone if it is in their interests. This is too much. Sanoh also said “how are we going to be seen by the public?” The Democrats have a number of legal experts (including Chuan) and these people should know that this is against formal legal procedures. Behaving like this the law is worthless. The courts have to interpret these rules- but the courts as we know (since “ground zero” [thanks david] 19 September 2006) are for the Democrats. Sanoh further noted that even though we know who are the “thieves” – the courts still take their side and robbery is justified. There is no need to use the law any more.
Puer tea – store with care!
Interesting, never came across this post.
I do appreciate Chinese tea since nearly 20 years. Storage in Bangkok and Malaysia indeed does speed up the fermentation process. Wild Arbor Pu Erh tea i have bought nearly ten years ago is much more aged than comparable ten year old tea that was stored in much dryer Kunming.
Care though has to be given that mold does not develop, and that the tea is stored in a place of good air exchange.
I am very doubtful of artificial wet storage, to many things can go wrong. It is better to drink a lesser aged sheng of good quality. Tea with too much wet storage does taste like foul old socks.
Some people spend too much effort on storage. The most important factor is the quality of the tea itself. A lousy tea will never make a good drink, regardless how long it has been stored. Recently i spent way too much money, cheap for its age though, on a brick of undefined 20 year old Yiwu tea. I don’t drink it – it is a stale and completely uneventful experience. My own self stored teas are leagues better.
10 years patience has paid off. And there are kilos of teas in my store that will be ready to drink over the next years.
An op-ed on Harry Nicolaides
I hate to be too activist in this, but I firmly believe that unless a committee gets together and goes the legal route – to the courts – to get the law repealed and modified, not much will be done. It will have to be an aggressive but highly professional effort with Thais and foreigners involved, as well as perhaps an international organization. We need some legal comments on this.
The red army at the gates of parliament
The way I read Jim Taylor’s jottings on what is going on in Thailand, is that, “ground zero” started in 2006 and continues to this day – with a brief interlude during the some of the PPP period.
I get the impression, he believes what happened before the coup of 2006, has little, or nothing to do with where we are now- except to say, the “elites”, royalists, PAD and fellow travelers, are the cause of all the problems.
I certainly believe, many on “that side”, are far from perfect.
If they (if you believe “they” is a monlithic grouping) had taken the welfare of the “common man” a little more seriously, and helped democracy take a more solid footing, it would have been much harder for a Thaksin like figure, to emerge.
They didn’t. If they had, history could have been quite different.
Jim makes almost no mention, of what Thaksin/TRT/PPP did to circumvent parliament, during their time(s) in power.
I do accept, this does not justify in a legal sense, some of the things being done by the current government – such as, the policy speech reading in another place. Is it illegal ? Let the courts decide.
How much leglislation during Thaksin’s time, was scruitinzed by more than a small coatary of policitans, to avoid the public spotlight ?
The courts of the day were not prone to investigating such matters, too closely.
How many times was the “Letter of the Law” abused by the TRT/PPP, and aided and abetted, by the judiciary of the day(admittedly, during TRT times and perhaps the reverse, during the PPP reign), to serve a certain someone?
The courts might have “changed sides” during the PPP time, but what about little matters such as, the dimplomatic passport and other items beyond the control of the courts?
How many times was the media put under pressure?
I don’t mean Sondhi’s empire, or the Nation?
How many Human Rights abuses were there ?
And, before you say to me, “prove it”…..I can’t – of course.
But, please stop writing as if the “non-elites” and anti-PAD people, such as your beloved Red Shirts/UDD, are the true saviours of Thailand; whereas, the other lot (if there are such people) are incarnates, of the devil himself.
There are many, many wrongs – on both sides – take off your rose (red) coloured glasses.
Puer tea – store with care!
I see this is an old post, but the storage question seems to be a perennial one.
The arguments for wet stored tea are interesting. Nobody I know here wet stores tea, not because they don’t know how to, but becuase they don’t like it. For most people here, cang wei puer is not their favoured drink!
Efforts to try to establish a historical basis for wet storage are, it seems, sketchy; nobody I know knows of any evidence (anthropological/archeological ) that people in ‘banna systematically stored Puer in caves, underground etc.
Maybe in other, dryer areas that has happened, but in Jinghong, if one really wanted to speed up the oxidation process, one might consider hauling one’s tea down to Mengla (considerably more humid). To people here that would seem a little ‘over-the -top’.
Maybe one develops a taste for whatever is locally available. Every area or bio-region has it’s own suitable diet, like Eskimos eating rotten meat. What works in one place doesn’t neccessarily work in another!
An op-ed on Harry Nicolaides
Who is to repeal them? The trouble with lese majeste is that any Thai that tries to repeal it within the law will be inevitably charged with lese majeste.