Samak was a controversial political figure who was legally removed from the top post last year when the Court ruled that he violated the law for hosting a cooking TV show while holding a public position.

Bangkok Pundit highlights the obituaries published by major newspapers. Thaizer describes Samak as a keen chef who popularized Thai food:

A keen chef, Samak’s passion for Thai food made him a regular at the fresh food markets of Bangkok and his gruff, no-nonsense approach made him a popular host of a cookery show on Thai television. Ironically, it was the television show which would eventually see him ousted from the position of prime minister.

Samak is fondly remembered as a true culinary enthusiast

After his election victory the first thing he did was invite reporters from all over Thailand to his home to sample his homemade noodles. Samak is a true culinary enthusiast, and we think he'll be a great contributor to the reputation and enjoyment of delicious Thai food all over the world.

A youtube video clip shows Samak’s well-attended funeral bathing rite:

Bangkok twitterers react to the news of Samak’s death

zaz_zy: RIP Khun Samak the cooking world will miss u. Truth Be Told … That is absolutely right.
TAN_Network: Red shirt supporters to protest against presence of Democrat MP's at Samak's funeral
Tongteng: @suthichai Although I aint like Khun Samak, I would say that I'm quite perplexed seeing many negative comments 'bout him online today. RIP.
praditpi: Samak Sundaravej, 25th prime minister of Thailand, passed away today. With all his goodness, I wish him rest in peace
anirutpichedpan: Death of K Samak proves many people forget the good notion of 4giveness in its entirety!Only hate remains!Forget about conciliation,I say
wisekwai: RIP Samak. Thai politics has lost a bit of color.
ChadapornLin: it's sad upon Samak's death that I try to think of good things to remember him by out of courtesy but I just can't

During a royally-sponsored funeral rite, the anti-government Red Shirts (most of them were Samak supporters) outside the temple booed government officials who attended the ritual.

Samak had many critics. After his death, some bloggers have chosen to highlight his negative legacy. Harrison George points out the anti-democratic record of Samak

Samak has established the right of all Thai political leaders to spend a career justifying murder, jailing opponents, shutting down the media and foul-mouthing anyone with the temerity to question them, and still be described, as his successor as PM Somchai described him, as ‘devoting his life to democracy’.

Bangkok Dazed describes Samak as a “creepy political character”

He may have been colorful but he was also a nasty character who embodied the worst traits of Thai politics. I only wish he would take a few hundred other current politicians to the grave with him.

Political Prisoners in Thailand writes that Samak is a political dinosaur:

Samak was one of Thailand’s old guard who was able to stay on the scene and politically relevant because many basic features of Thai politics remained unchanged. In other words, because the political environment changed relatively slowly, the political dinosaurs have been able to adapt and even thrive

To attract attention and to inform voters about their candidacy, presidential candidates need to produce and pay for the airing of TV ads. Several videos of candidates have been airing on TV already in the past few months. All of these TV ads were also uploaded on YouTube.

Pinoy Picks! provides an initial list of presidential candidates in the country. Shalapog's Blog is not satisfied with the present crop of candidates:

As you wake up in the morning you can start to smell that the season is fast approaching. You can see it in all corners of the street, the music on the radio, the busy people checking their list and including TV commercials. And here comes…the PRESIDENTIABLES!

This 2010 election, I am not that excited about it because I am not satisfied with the candidates and their portfolios. I do not know much about politics, even though I took Political Science as my collegiate course, However I do care about how the country would do with the next president.

Here are the TV ads of presidential candidates:

Senator Manny Villar wants to emphasize his humble beginnings:

The young Senator Chiz Escudero plays a superhero

Defense Secretary and administration candidate Gilbert Teodoro insists that intelligence and competence are needed in government

Senator Noynoy Aquino, and son of a former president, has the most star-studded political TV ad- music video

Former President Joseph Estrada is literally running again through a commercial for an anti-arthritis capsule

Scholar Danny Arao reviews these ads:

They are strong in form but lacking in substance. Even if they stress the need for genuine change there is no attempt to categorically express their stand on burning issues of the day.

One can argue that they are just trying to introduce themselves to the public, but isn't it more endearing to the public if they immediately talk about specific problems like human rights violations and the failure of agrarian reform?

Barrio Siete dislikes political advertisements

I hate political advertisements. To me it’s just a waste of money that should be spent elsewhere. I would like the candidates to spend their election funds on projects that would be beneficial to people in need.

Officially, I have no candidates yet. I’m still busy looking through candidates with my personal magnifying glass. There are the political ads, with their shots at informing the electorate of their platform, if there ever was one, but mostly their faces and their attempt of projecting themselves as candidates, pathetic as it may be.

The 1961 agreement provides for the selling of 350 million gallons of raw water daily at 3 Malaysian cents per thousand gallons. Singapore also agreed to provide Johor (a Malaysian state near Singapore) with a daily supply of treated water at a price of 50 cents per 1,000 gallons. This agreement will end on 2011.

The 1962 agreement gave Singapore the right to draw water from Johor River. In return, Johor was entitled to a daily supply of treated water from Singapore. The agreement is valid for 99 years.

Since the first water agreement will end on 2011, former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad asks through his popular blog if the current government is thinking of renegotiating the agreement in order to come up with a better deal:

2011 is not too far away. Have we thought about extending the 2011 treaty or not extending it or negotiating a new water supply agreement? Are we going to be charitable again and sell raw water at 3 sen per thousand gallons to our rich neighbour?

Being charitable and not raising prickly issues is a good way to make friends. But what is the cost to the people of Malaysia.

Blogger Kent Moo notes that the former leader “unleashes a tidal wave of sarcasm over the issue of selling water to Singapore, and in the process drowns his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.”

Mahathir’s blog entry, as always, elicited many comments. Abang Din supports a renegotiated water deal:

It is really unreasonable to continue supplying raw water to Singapore if the return profit is totally unacceptable. We are doing business here, let it be a real business. Of course we must consider our friendship with Singapore, but to continue with the ridiculous deal is not an option.

I hope the Malaysia government will see this problem very seriously so as not to give bad reputations to the peoples of Malaysia. Raw water is owned by all Malaysian, so make sure that the decisions are fair and reasonable.

Ifanonline also thinks that water prices to be discussed in the deal should reflect the current market prices

It is a simple common sense. Any layman would know that if there is any new agreement to sell water to Singapore, there should be new prices according to the current market. Malaysia and Singapore can discuss diplomatically on the water issue and come to an agreement about the new water prices. It's easy actually, if Singapore don't like the price, then Malaysia should not be a goody-goody and sell the water at such a horrible low price.

Weesg believes it is still a win-win solution if the first water agreement is not renewed since Singapore can learn to be more self-sufficient

I question why this is being brought up now. Singapore has said that they would let the 1st water agreement lapse in 2011. Since Malaysia feel that the water price is unfair, and Singapore is happy to let the agreement lapse, isn't this win-win? If Singapore does not have enough NEWater after 2011, that is Singapore's own doing, right? Seems like someone is trying to flog a dead horse, yet again.
Anyway, I am glad that Malaysia has refused to extend the 2011 agreement. It is good for both countries. Singapore can also learn to be self-sufficient.

It is important to remind people that an agreement is an agreement (is an agreement). Learn to accept it. Chose your leaders wisely.

Singapore’s Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts published a primer in 2003 to clarify the issues surrounding the Malaysia-Singapore water agreements. In this primer, Singapore insists that it has been fair in dealing with Malaysia regarding the water deals

The water dispute is not about money but Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation. The Water Agreements are part of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore's existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreements can be changed by Malaysia at will, then Singapore's independence too could be called into question. This is the root dispute.

The issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. The Water Agreements contain specific provisions on when the price can be revised and how the revisions should be computed. Price revision cannot be at the whim and fancy of a particular party. If Malaysia can change the terms of agreements solemnly entered into at will, where is the sanctity of agreements? Any future agreement we enter into with Malaysia will have no value.

Rajan Rishyakaran blames Malaysia’s Mahathir for the stalled negotiations between Singapore and Malaysia

Why should Singapore agree to pay significantly more on water when they get absolutely nothing in return?

Certainly, even under Mahathir’s price of raw water, Malaysian raw water will still be cheaper than self-sufficiency: but capitulating to Mahathir’s demand sets a negative precedent on Singapore. Because of Mahathir’s inability to compromise, unreasonableness and impatience with Singapore, Singapore and Malaysia is stuck in a lose-lose situation.

Singapore’s dependence on imported water has forced it to maximize new technologies in order to produce its own water supply. It has developed NEWater (reclaimed water) and it recently constructed the biggest desalination plant in Asia.