jayboy

So, Democrat party discusses reforms. No overal agreement on reforms, but still talking.

Obviously that just shows the Democrats are just talk, no good, military puppets, etc., etc. If only they had the courage to be populistic and autocratic like the Thaksin party with the executive commitee only needing to endorse anything the boss comes up with. Now that would be a change for the better. At least some here seem to imply it.

You seem to misunderstand.The populist and autocratic characteristics of the current government should work in the Democrats favour, that is by providing an opportunity to differentiate.

The failure of the Democrats is as much to do with their lack of political talent. as anything else.

1.Ditch failed and discredited leadership.

2.Rely more on convincing Thai people and less on unelected elites, military intervention and directed court decisions.

.

They might do better convincing Thai people if the red shirts actually let them have their rallies.

They might do better also if people didn't listen to red shirt propaganda.

Very funny. You are genuinely saying they have no way at all to reach out to anyone? It's like the media doesn't exist at all in Thailand.

To reach out to the designated target base you need feet on the ground. Many Thais do not read newspapers. They do not watch the news on TV (and if they do they have favorite channels)

So it's get out there and be heard. PPT know this that's why EVERY Democrat rally gets the Red mob treatment.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

The level of newspaper readership is in fact very high in Thailand.

Generally the press favours the Democrats and the old order.

TV channels , some owned by the army, generally take a line which doesn't favour the current government.

Even the constitution was rigged to favour the old elites favoured political party.

Your contention that every Democrat rally is disrupted by a Red mob is a lie.

Instead of grasping at feeble excuses the Democrats need to detoxify themselves.Their appalling performance is mainly the fault of its discredited leadership.They should have done better.With the baleful influence of Thaksin and a lacklustre record it's not as though there is any difficulty in finding weaknesses in the current government's record

Where does he say "major reforms are needed"? He talks about management reform. And the reporter talks about major reform for more efficiency and readiness.

I said they weren't in need of MUCH reform. A third of the country votes for them. Many of the ones that don't, won't regardless of how much they reform.

555 Not in need of much reform.Priceless.

What reform do you think will make a difference?

1.Ditch failed and discredited leadership.

2.Rely more on convincing Thai people and less on unelected elites, military intervention and directed court decisions.

Unless they change their name and get all brand new members, reform won't make much difference. They're still going to be the Democrat Party.

But, they got 1/3 of the vote in the last election, and a survey showed that most people preferred their policies, so IMO they don't need much reform. They just need some patience. They're not going to win the next election the way things are going, although I don't think PTP will get as many votes as 2011.

I don't often laugh out loud at posts on Thai Visa, but I did on this occasion.

Nice constructive comment from you jayboy, as usual!

It wasn't meant to be constructive, simply a reaction to a comically off key post - in which it was suggested the Democrat Party wasn't in need of reform.Even Abhisit in today's other paper was very clear that major reforms were needed.It's just an example of how detached from reality some can become - and I thought very funny.

OK so everyone has had their rants about why PTP can be justifiably seen as a poor government and a tool of the Antichrist in Dubai. However the thread is supposed to be about the Democrat Party improving its performance; any ideas on that front?

Personally I think that they have to make an effort to make themselves acceptable to a wider constituency than the middle classes in BKK and elsewhere; they need to capture those voters who have not previously considered them in touch with their lives.

A difficult task indeed in Thailand but the only way in which they will defeat the faux-proletarian PTP is to demonstrate that they represent the aspirations of all Thais

... the middle classes in Bangkok, and everyone south of Bangkok, and people in a couple of places north of Bangkok.

What the Democrats need is the chance to talk to people in the North East without the fear of being beaten up (both the people talking and the people listening).

There are very large numbers of educated middle class people who vote PTP in Bangkok and elsewhere,still a minority but a growing one.

Unless they change their name and get all brand new members, reform won't make much difference. They're still going to be the Democrat Party.

But, they got 1/3 of the vote in the last election, and a survey showed that most people preferred their policies, so IMO they don't need much reform. They just need some patience. They're not going to win the next election the way things are going, although I don't think PTP will get as many votes as 2011.

I don't often laugh out loud at posts on Thai Visa, but I did on this occasion.

Thaksin has nothing to do with the efforts of some to foster closer military relationships with China. The US has laws that make bribery on military procurement contracts difficult. China and the military industrial complex are one entity and bribery for the Chinese is a way of life. Arms sales to a country like Thailand must be approved by the US Congress and the issue of human rights and military coups would arise. The Chinese do not care about such things. Some would forget that Thaksin went to plead his case to the west, before he went to the Chinese and Thaksin still uses the military coup and all it entailed to curry sympathy with western governments. As such, I hardly think Thaksin has much of a role to play. Rather, it is the Thai military looking for its usual spoils.

I agree. You 'hardly think'. To suggest that Thaksin is able to curry sympathy on the back of the coup is pure fantasy from the land of 'King Taksin'. In the immediate term China wishes to neutralise ASEAN in its territorial battles with Philippines, Japan etc. Currently it has Cambodia in its back pocket. Name of advisor to Cambodia anyone? China mood music towards Thailand part of that strategic initiative.

I'm not sure that China needs Thaksin for the mood music as you suggest:it might be marginally helpful but it's not a big factor.On no side of Thailand's political divide is there any wish to confront China and the establishment's deferential approach is very evident.As you correctly point out Cambodia is already a vassal state (or as near to that status as makes no difference.) Look at the huge Chinese development near Sihanoukville which will become a deep water port with naval facilities.Look at the 2012 ASEAN meeting in Phnom Penh where Chinese pressure on Cambodia managed to veto a joint statement (for the first time ever).China is already pushing its weight around in ASEAN and rather successfully, without being a member.In the longer term China's bullying in ASEAN will have to take account of countries like Vietnam and Indonesia who - unlike Thailand - are no pushover.Also in those countries China's Sudetenland approach doesn't work because the diaspora is too small.China's attitude to Thaksin is based on its own interests.There would be no particular sympathy with him because its overt expression would be divisive and thus against China's interests.If against the odds Thaksin managed to patch up a workable deal with those that hate him, the Chinese would be happy to work with him.All power groups however are friendly to China so why go out on a limb if not necessary?

No doubt about this mob of spiffs, at all costs, don't let the world know what is happening in Thailand, well , sorry , lots know what's happening in Thailand , through social media, this gang of bandits are like China , do as we say , not as we do .USA Today have their hands tied, but fancy telling a news group that if they do an interview with the opposition they would be banned from Thailand, that sure will do the rounds in the western media , the PTP have not made any friends here.

If what you say is true we shall certainly know for sure after evidence has been produced.As you say, if this is any more than a pile of steaming crap, Western media reports will shortly report on th alleged disgraceful behaviour by the Thai government.On the other hand if the story fades away, no evidence is produced, the Western media remains silent - then we will know the story is gobblededook.We know that the Democrats retain a special hate for Suranand because he is highly capable, smart and above all in their eyes a "traitor to his class", the ultimate betrayal among the Thai patrician class.

Postscript: I forgot of course that if this turns out to be a damp squib, the usual suspects will resort to the normal posture when made fools of - Ah but Thaksin paid them all off to keep silent.

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

OMFG. What is this thread about? It's not about justification for the the coup. Ofcourse the coup was to remove Thaksin. Where have I said it wasn't.

This thread is about Yingluck lying in her speech, and this discussion is about Thaksin's position at the time of the coup.

You're going to so much effort to change the subject because it seems you're too weak to actually admit that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred.

Why should I be circumspect about calling Yingluck a liar. It is on record that she is a liar. She lied in court. And, the topic of this discussion, she lied when she said that Thaksin was the elected PM at the time of the coup.

Now, can you answer the question I asked in my previous post, or are you going to avoid it again?

Sent from my Phone.

The thread is about Khun Yingluck's speech in Mongolia, not your personal take on it.

Repetition of some tangential point is a classic device to avoid the substance of an issue.In your case the diversionary factor seized on is Thaksin's constitutional position at the time of the coup, slightly foolish because nobody disputes it.

You have already conceded the coup's objective was to remove Thaksin, the last elected leader of Thailand at the time.This fully justifies Yingluck's comments on the subject.Naturally the Thailand tea party equivalent rages and squirms.They will however have their chance at the next election to express therir opinion (although really want they want is some miltary or judicial intervention to prevent a popular verdict).

I count two big fat lies. And these are just 3 sentences of her speech.

But the most despicable aspect is that she was on an official mission as the PM of Thailand and spoke like a propaganda loudmouth of a radical red shirt faction. And I think this is more deplorable than her clumsy attempt of rewriting the history of the Shinawatra clan.

The comments made by the PM are agreed by millions of Thais and indeed most intelligent people - not just radical redshirts.As to "the most despicable aspect" similar comments were made by the reactionary right in the US about President Obama traducing his country abroad.He had the last laugh when the American people saw through this meretricious nonsense at the last election.I expect the Thai people will deliver a similar rebuff to similar nonsensical and politically partisan bile.

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

So what label would be appropriate for a lying PM? History Rewriter, History Updater, Fact Corrector?

The first step would be to be entirely certain any accusation is correct.If as in this case it is not, the consequences could be severe.These days it is prudent not to make accusations in a forum like this which are slanderous.It is a maxim I follow myself and would commend to others.

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

What does the justification or the aim have to do with the fact that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup?

Why can't you admit that he wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred and that Yingluck lied about it?

Sent from my Phone.

Whether the coup was justified or not has I agree nothing to do with the subject.Didn't I make that rather clear?

The aim of those who carried out the coup has everything to do with the subject.It was to remove Thaksin who had been elected by the Thai people.Yingluck's comments were entirely legitimate.

I am very well aware of the constitutional position but it's not particularly relevant to the central truth I have detailed above.If you genuinely believe the coup was not to remove Thaksin, why did the participating generals all maintain that was indeed the objective ( along with every serious commentator and news medium).

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

This coming from the guy who had trouble acknowledging the existence of the Arisman video.

Now it appears he has another blindspot, namely that Thaksin was the caretaker PM at the time of the coup and was not the elected PM. When push comes to shove he follows the Thaksin/red line whatever the occasional other airy-fairy nonsense disseminated.

I am probably as well aware of the constitutional niceties in 2006 as anyone.

However the military coup's aim was to remove Thaksin and to deny this is absurd.Nobody - whether the military officers involved, the Democrat leadership or any serious commentator denies this.

This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with whether the coup was justified or not.

Then why is it so hard for you to explain how he was the elected PM at the time of the coup? When was he elected PM after he called for elections in early 2006?

Simply repeating silliness doesn't make it less silly.At some level you may even understand that.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Thaksin.I don't really see the point of constructing some kind of bizarro world in which the last military coup did not have the aim of removing Thaksin.

You keep on avoiding the point. Yingluck said that Thaksin was the elected PM when he was ousted. He wasn't.

It's only "the point" in a very odd perception which wont recognise reality.Whichever way you look at the 2006 coup its aim was to remove Thaksin who had been elected by the Thai people.

Then why is it so hard for you to explain how he was the elected PM at the time of the coup? When was he elected PM after he called for elections in early 2006?

Simply repeating silliness doesn't make it less silly.At some level you may even understand that.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Thaksin.I don't really see the point of constructing some kind of bizarro world in which the last military coup did not have the aim of removing Thaksin.

The question of Thaksin's ousting by the military in a coup is not questioned by any serious source.

The fact that three of the usual suspects trot out the same tired and discredited " not prime minister at the time" spin simply underlines their detachment from reality.Even Thaksin's worst political enemies don't resort to this kind of silliness.

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

This story doesn't make any sense.US Today can interview anyone it likes in Thailand.If the PM's Office told the newspaper it would not offer co-operation if the newspaper spoke to the opposition, that would be very discreditable - but there is no evidence to show for this.

Maybe a threat of not having access to interview anyone in the government, or maybe even threats to make it difficult to be in Thailand, could make it hard to "interview anyone it likes".

If that's correct (which I doubt - it doesn't ring true at all) but hypothetically let's accept it - any decent newspaper would make a story out of it.So far nothing from US Today - just unsupported and lame tittle tattle from the zanier wing of the Democrats.Let's see if this can be properly documented and then there might be something to talk about.

If they (supposedly) cancelled an interview with Abhisit because they were told to by someone in the government, why would they then report on it? Wouldn't they interview Abhisit and also report that the government told them not to?

On your first point I have assumed US Today as a reputable newspaper would not accept such an instruction from the government (in the unlikely event such an instruction was issued).On your second point I agree that is what a decent newspaper would do in such hypothetical circumstances.

All in all a murky situation.Let's wait until some hard fascts emerge.But I agee somebody is going to come out of this badly.I'm just not certain whether it will be the government, the newspaper or the Democrat spokesperson.

This story doesn't make any sense.US Today can interview anyone it likes in Thailand.If the PM's Office told the newspaper it would not offer co-operation if the newspaper spoke to the opposition, that would be very discreditable - but there is no evidence to show for this.

Maybe a threat of not having access to interview anyone in the government, or maybe even threats to make it difficult to be in Thailand, could make it hard to "interview anyone it likes".

If that's correct (which I doubt - it doesn't ring true at all) but hypothetically let's accept it - any decent newspaper would make a story out of it.So far nothing from US Today - just unsupported and lame tittle tattle from the zanier wing of the Democrats.Let's see if this can be properly documented and then there might be something to talk about.

This story doesn't make any sense.US Today can interview anyone it likes in Thailand.If the PM's Office told the newspaper it would not offer co-operation if the newspaper spoke to the opposition, that would be very discreditable - but there is no evidence to show for this.

I just hope she has learnt some lessons from the speech and never tries to repeat it or anything like it again.

Why? She was speaking no more than the truth.