Large-scale protests, both yellow and red, have been commonplace in Thailand for the past several years. By now, it is quite easy to predict what kind of vocabulary our journalists will use to describe the mass red-shirt demonstration that begins this weekend. Below are many of the words you are sure to see in the English-language coverage of the upcoming red-shirt rally in Bangkok.

Go through the sections below slowly and carefully, learning the vocabulary you don't know. You will also find daily updates on the vocabulary at the bottom of this section. Then follow actual stories from the Bangkok Post each day. Many of these stories will be covered in our general news section, complete with vocabulary explanations.  For news in the Thai language, your first choice should be our own Post Today.

To download audio file, right click here

The case for the defence

This is likely to be one of the more important weeks in recent Thai history. All through the week we will be be looking at current stories relating to the Shinawatra assets case to be decided this Friday. Today, however, we'll begin with some background. Here you will find much of the key vocabulary used in stories on the case this week and next.

Below is the case against the Shinawatra family.

You will also want to see the case for their defence and the programme of their red-shirted supporters.

To download audio file, right click here

The case against the Shinawatras

This Friday, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions will announce its verdict on whether former minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his former wife Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra and their children will be able  to keep assets worth approximately 76 billion baht that Mr Thaksin and his family allegedly accumulated during his two terms in office from 2001 to 2006.

Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions – a trial court in a case where the Prime Minister, a minister, member of the House of Representatives, senator or other political official is accused of becoming unusually wealthy, committing crimes with in office, performing duties dishonestly, or being corrupted according to other laws.  ศาลฎีกา แผนกคดีอาญาของผู้ดำรงตำแหน่งทางการเมือง

The UDD’s fight against “double standards”

To download audio file, right click here

Just a month ago, many people expected the “ten dangerous days” before the Supreme Court verdict to be days of chaos, with perhaps a million red-shirted demonstrators attending rallies and marching through the streets of Bangkok.

That hasn’t happened – yet. Instead, leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) have been content to stage smaller rallies at various sites around the country to reinforce their key message that double standards exist in this country and that true democracy is still a long way away. The justice system and the political system, they say, all favour the old power elites, headed by the royalists and the military.

Perhaps that is why they have not mobilised their supporters for mass demonstrations before the verdict. To do so would make it seem that their movement exists mainly to support former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. That is not true, say UDD leaders. Their purpose is not to serve one man, but to bring the country to democracy.

Thus far, the tactics used by the UDD have been peaceful and reasonably effective. Their protests have been well targeted, each pointing to different examples of alleged double standards.

One easy target was privy councillor Surayud Chulanont who clearly had big problems with his land holdings without having been punished. But the UDD has been especially harsh on Privy Council president Prem Tinasulanda whom they believe played a key role in the 2006 coup which ousted Mr Thaksin.

Last month, about 200 red-shirts went to offices of the Privy Council to demand the resignation of both Gen. Prem and Gen Surayud. There they handed a petition and two batches of documents to two council staff in a peaceful rally watched over by 150 police. The documents dealt with alleged encroachment in forest reserve land by the two generals and their associates. The demonstrators then dispersed.

Other protest sites have included the Election Commission where red-shirt leaders demanded explanations for why pro-Thaksin parties had been dissolved but the Democrats have been allowed to escape despite equally serious allegations against them.

They rallied outside National Police headquarters to demand explanations for why People’s Alliance for Democracy leaders haven’t been punished for their occupation of Suvanabhumi airport and they also surrounded Army Headquarters to protest against deputy army commander Prayuth Chan-ocha, whom they accuse of planning to stage a coup.

Now it appears that the promised mass demonstrations will begin after Friday’s court verdict. If, as expected, the Shinawatra family assets are confiscated, the UDD supporters will see this as another glaring example of the unfairness of the current system.

Thailand bans GT200 ‘bomb’ detector – but it’s STILL being sold

(Try the English first. Then, for Thai version go here or here. For CNN report, go here.)

Presenter: Well, the Prime Minister of Thailand today ordered his government to stop buying a British bomb detector after tests proved it was ineffective. It follows an investigation by this programme last month after which the British government banned exports of such devices to as Iraq and Afghanistan. The Foreign Office is concerned they might pose a risk to UK or friendly forces.

The serious questions are now being raised about why the British government didn’t act sooner to stop them from being sold at all.

Caroline Hawley reports:

It’s used by the Thai army to search for bombs. 4,000 people have been killed in southern Thailand since the Muslim insurgency began in 2004. So lives depend on it.

After our investigation last month amid a growing clamour of concern, the Thai prime minister ordered tests on this so-called bomb detector know as the GT200.

Today, he announced the results. The device had performed so badly, he banned the purchase of any more. The authorities are reported to have spent over 20 million dollars on the device, at an average price of 30 thousand each.

For the man who sells the GT200 it’s been a winner. And it’s clearly helped Gary Bolton to a certain life style (that) he’s been keen to show off to his Internet friends.  He’s declined to speak to us and through his lawyers (?) has threatened to sue if we suggest his device has cost lives.

This is the GT200 in the hands of an expert. Sidney Alford is a leading authority on explosives and last month, he took one of the devices apart for us.

CH: “So there is nothing in there that could detect a bomb that could possible work.”

SA: “Speaking as a professional, I would say that was an empty plastic case.”

Newsnight learned that Gary Bolton tried to sell an almost identical, now discredited, device called the MOLE to the British authorities. In 2002 it was tested for use as a drug detector at Heathrow, but it failed to find a sample of cocaine from less than a metre away. The UK authorities decided against buying it.

“I’m going to try to keep it steady and I’m going to walk over here.”

The Professor who’s helped expose this devices was astonished.

Professor Brue Hood, Bristol University: “What I find remarkable about this whole episode is that this company tried to sell this piece of equipment to the authorities in this country almost 10 years ago.”

The MOLE was scientifically tested in 2002 in the USA and found not to work.

BH: “It was evaluated and shown to be nothing more than the dousing rod. Now what makes this unacceptable is that at that point someone should have stepped in and shut this operation down, but instead, this company was allowed to go to other countries and exploit the naivety of these people and sell pieces of basically plastic with a car aerial sticking out of it as legitimate scientific equipment which it clearly isn’t.”

So, when did the British authorities become aware of concerns about so-called bomb detectors like the GT200 and the similar ADE 651 widely sold to Iraq?

We’ve seen an internal e-mail from 2005 to customs which refers to the ADE 651 as “sounding like witchcraft” and it’s emerged that the chair of the Commons Defense Select Committee James Arbufnaut (sp?) wrote to the Defense Procurement Minister Quentin Davis in January 2009. He expressed concerns about the way the GT200 was being marketed with suggestions it was backed by the British military.

In May, Quentin Davis replied: “I am grateful to you for drawing this to my attention and enabling us to investigate this matter. I should first explain that GT200 is not in service with our armed forces, nor has it ever been. Whilst the MOD is aware of GT200 it has not been considered to satisfy any of the capabilities we need.”

We contacted the Ministry of Defense who told us it wasn’t for them to take action, that they passed the matter on to the Foreign Office.  Tonight the Foreign Office told us they started monitoring the sale and use of these types of device when they became aware of concerns in March 2009.

But it wasn’t until late last month that the government banned the export of the devices to Iraq and Afghanistan. And it was only 11 days ago that governments world-wide were advised of British concerns.

But the ADE 651 is still in use at checkpoints in Baghdad.

“They should be banned,” this man says. “It looks as though they’re giving the bombers a green light to pass. It makes it easy for them to go undetected. I think it’s wrong, but I also think that some of those who made the deal have benefitted from it.”

The man behind the ADE 651, Jim McCormick, was arrested on January 5 by Avon and Somerset police. A shipment of his devices was stopped at East Midlands airport late last year. But both the ADE 651 and the GT200 have been sold around the world, everywhere from China to Mexico, Kenya to Lebanon and Pakistan. They’ve been marketing as detecting everything from explosives to elephants and drugs and they’re still being used despite the risks that they pose.

Presenter: Carolyn Hawley. I’m joined now by the Liberal Democrat MP David Heath who has raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions.

David Heath, explain why there can be a ban on exports to Afghanistan and Iraq but nowhere else.

DH: Well, I’m not sure I understand it myself. I have to say that the pretext the government are using is because British forces might directly be at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan which I think begs the question of what in Earth is happen in the rest of the world where these devices are being sold.

P: Of course, it makes it exactly like that we only care about British and American lives.

DH: Precisely so, but I mean, even if that were the case, even if that was a reasonable position to take, I have to say that there are British tourists travelling through Thai airports on a daily basis or any of the other countries that these are being sold and they are at risk as long as this is the detection devise that is being used to detect explosives and counter terrorism.

P: We know, of course, that Thailand was alerted by our programme last month, but, as Carolyn Hawley said, Kenya, you know, China, Pakistan of all places, Lebanon, Mexico – Have you actually done anything beyond the government that is only now alerting these countries, but why was this not happening last year when Quentin Davis received that letter?

DH: Precisely so. I mean what has now emerged, and it answers one of my questions, my first question is weren’t the government even interested in this. And we now know that the Ministry of Defense actually knew from January 2009, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office knew from March 2009, it seems as though nobody told the business department who were actually responsible for licensing exports until your programme came out and they put in the export ban.

But it really does raise I think serious questions about why people were so incurious about a device which purportedly providing protection both for civilians in those countries but also for British forces, why nothing was done to try to stop this at the earliest opportunity and why other countries were not warned that these devices were, quite apparently, useless in protecting the public.

P: So what do you say to people who say actually all you’re doing is stifling British exports.

DH: Oh come on. I mean, yes, we want to promote British exports but we don’t want people to be given bomb detectors that don’t work. In the present climate around the world, this is outrageous, isn’t it?

P: So, what are you going to do about it?

DH: We’ll I’m going to keep on asking questions. I’m going to keep on asking questions until I get some answers. And, I have to say, I do not accept the argument that the present arrangements for export controls can only work as far as Iraq and Afghanistan is concern. You know, these are what I would term, “dual-use” exports – they have a military function as well as a civil function. I would have expected them to be within the export control operation already.

P:  So the export control, because the export control apparatus only exists for military …

DH: Military, or dual use

P: or dual use, so as long as it’s dual use, you say, actually there could be a complete export ban.

DH: I think there could be. That’s the question I want to ask and I want the government to explain why one department is not talking to another department and why none of them, apparently, saw that there was both a practical reason for warning other governments and a moral reason for doing so as well.

David Heath, thank you very much.

To download audio file, right click here

Japan votes for change, giving DPJ landslide win

Democratic Party of Japan leader Yukio Hatoyama displaying a leaflet of the party’s manifesto.

Burma's defenders

To download audio file, right click here

China backs court ruling on Suu Kyi

Burmese security guards sit inside a makeshift shelter outside the lakeside house of Burma opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, in Rangoon, yesterday. EPA

ruling – a decision by a court of law คำตัดสิน คำชี้ขาด
urge – to advise someone very strongly about what action or attitude they should take ผลักดัน, กระตุ้น
respect – to accept the importance of someone's rights or customs
makeshift – using whatever is available and therefore not very good ใช้ประทังไปก่อน ใช้ชั่วคราว
judicial sovereignty – the independence of a country’s court system อำนาจอธิปไตยของศาล
junta – a group of military officers that governs a country, usually without having been elected รัฐบาลทหาร
extend – to add more time ยืดออกไป
detention – forced officially to stay in a place การกักตัว
trigger – to cause กระตุ้น
outrage – to cause to become extremely angry  ทำให้โกรธแค้น
measured – careful and limited  อย่างไตร่ตรองและรอบคอบ
interfere – to deliberately become involved in a situation and try to influence the way that it develops, although you have no right to do this  แทรกแซง
affairs – events and activities relating to the government, politics, economy etc of a country, region, or the world  ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างประเทศ
sentence – (of a court of law) to give a punishment to someone who has been accused of committing a crime คำพิพากษา
violate – to do something that is against a law, agreement, principle, etc. ละเมิดกฎหมาย
avenue – a method or way of doing something; a possibility วิธีการ, ลู่ทาง
secure – to get or achieve something การได้มาซึ่ง
sharp – strong ที่รุนแรง
sanction – an official order, such as the stopping of trade, which is taken against a country in order to make it obey international law  การคว่ำบาตร
condemn – to criticise something or someone strongly, usually for moral reasons การประนาม
veto-wielding – having veto power  อำนาจในการยับยั้ง
accord with – to be the same as something, or to agree with something สอดคล้องกับ
beneficial – helpful or good  มีประโยชน์
appease – to say or do something in order to make someone feel less angry ปลอบใจ หรือทำให้เป็นที่พอใจ
prop up – to support, especially something that is weak สนับสนุน (ความคิด,บุคคล)
crippled – damaged and prevented from working properly ที่พัง ที่ใช้การไม่ได้
confinement – when a person or animal is kept somewhere, usually by force; detention การกักตัว
reiterate – to repeat something in order to emphasise it พูดซ้ำ ย้ำ
release – to allow someone to go free ปล่อยตัว
enable – to make someone able to do something, or to make something possible  ทำให้เป็นไปได้
stem from – to be caused by เกิดจาก
intruder – someone who enters a place without permission บุกรุก
breach – to fail to follow a law or rule ละเมิดกฎข้อบังคับ
terms – conditions; requirements  ข้อกำหนด
obsolete – not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better  ล้าสมัย หมดยุคไปแล้ว
assassinate – to kill a famous or important person, especially for political reasons การลอบฆ่า
parallel – of an event or situation that happens at the same time as and/or is similar to another one คล้ายกัน ขนานกัน
commentary – a discussion of something ความคิดเห็น  คำวิจารณ์
iron fist – very firm control การคุมเข้ม
decade – a period of ten years  ทศวรรษ
impervious – not influenced or affected by something  ไม่สะดุ้งสะเทือน
reluctant – not willing to do something  อย่างไม่เต็มใจ อย่างลังเลใจ
engage with – to make an effort to understand and deal with someone or something  ประสานกับ
insist – to keep saying very firmly that something is true ยืนกราน ยืนยัน
pave the way – to make something possible or easier to be done  ปูทางไว้สำหรับ
civilian – someone who does not belong to the armed forces or the police พลเรือน

Will vs Would

Simple present

Simple past

No escape  Here is an exciting story that we can tell using the past.

Progressive

Slowing "slap" down  Progressive verb forms indicate an action or situation takes time. That is why we normally don't use them with actions that happen very quickly, like "hit" or "slap". It is possible to use such verbs in the progressive, however. Here is an example.

An elephant teaches the progressive  Here is another excellent of how progressive verb forms talk about actions with duration, i.e., taking time. Great for little kids and adults.

Perfect

Future

Will it blend? What will happen if you put an iPhone into a blender? This short video will show you.

Modal auxilliaries

Should have/shouldn't have Here are a series of very short videos. In each something when wrong. Your job is to explain how each mistake could have been prevented.




Bad mistake In this drama from Sri Pathum University, a young man made a bad mistake. He only realised it when it was too late.

Passive Voice

What happened to him? In this clip, it is not what he did that is important. It is what someone or something else did to him. 





Watch that bench  Using the active or passive voice depends on what we are focusing on.




Watch the tomato Here is another example of how our focus determines whether we use active or passive voice.

Conditionals

What would you do? Here, four students from Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University answer an question about an imaginary situation, one that is fun to thing about.




What's for sale? Here is a very easy example of a simple "if" question. Find out what is for sale in this video. Is it something that you might want to buy?.






Land without agriculture Southern Minnesota in the United States is largely agricultural land. But what would the land be like if it were left in its natural condition. Watch the video and find out.





Will vs Would  This six-minute segment for a pilot for a TV program clearly illustrates the difference between "will" and "would" when talking about future events or possibilities.





World without people   What would our world be like without people?





What would have happened...? Past unreal conditionals look very complicated but the ideas they express are not. Here is an exciting example.

Direct and indirect speech

What did she say?  Myley Cyrus wants to do three things. What are they?





Step over here mam  It is lucky the woman in this story did what she was told.

Mixing verb forms

A day at the track   Kevin goes go-karting





I've been....   In this video, I describe one of my activities on my last day at home in the US. Notice, that I begin in the present perfect before moving to the simple past.




Making Swedish-style hamburger patties   Here is a long conversation I had with my mother as she made pannbiffar, a Swedish form of hamburger patties. Since we were talking about how to cook them, we used mainly present forms of the verbs.




Before, during, after Here is an eight-minute pilot of a TV show that illustrates how verb forms change as the situation changes. The subject is cooking noodles.




Amazing survivor  Here is a television news report about a man who is very very lucky to be alive. The video is so exciting, the news anchors have to use a lot of the simple present.