jayboy

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.

In the UK there is opposition to the institution of monarchy ...

A tiny minority of cranks.Polls have shown that time and time again.

The Minister's comments are absurd and counter productive.It is entirely normal in a democracy for its leaders to be criticised, teased and mocked.If there is libel, slander or defamation involved then the minister concerned has the right to take measures in accordance with the law.Normally however it is foolish to do so and politicians should have thick skins.Ludicrous assertions (eg the prostitute jibe) tend to rebound on the original source.The public isn't as gullible as some believe. It is disheartening also that this kind of stupidity gives ammunition to the reactionary element in Thailand (whose own record on allowing free speech is disgustingly bad) to say (as it were) - look at them, they're just as repressive as us.

It amaze me why someone who wants to move to Thailand for retirement reasons would not plan in advance for health insurance before even coming here. That should be one of the top things to consider at that age before making a move.

Such a smug attitude clearly written by someone who doesn't know how it feels to be UNINSURABLE.

It may seem a little heartless but it does draw attention to an important point.There is no official Thai policy to encourage low and middle income foreigners to retire here.Certainly there are many such expatriates falling into this category but the phenonomen is relatively recent - certainly not more than thirty years or so.Thai Immigration policy is very liberal in some ways and the current arrangements represent a pragmatic response to the very large numbers seeking to retire here.Over the last few decades Thailand has developed fast and there is no pressing economic need to encourage a large population of relatively poor Westerners.I don't believe that existing retirees will be adversely affected but equally it's unrealistic to expect the Thai authorities to extend privileges in health care to people who can't afford medical treatment or who don't have comprehensive health insurance.The cost of the latter is sometimes profoundly underestimated.For a 65 year male the premium cost for a first class cover could easily be Baht 200,000 per year with increases thereafter well over the inflation rate.

The painful conclusion is that there are many thousands of expatriates -if they are going to be careful about their health - who should not really be here at all.They simply can't afford it.Realistically the vast majority can't or won't go home, and in the case of those who have Thai partners and families one can entirely understand their reasoning.

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

Probably again forum rules if I just say "quit the BS", but the topic here is Ms. Yingluck having learned a lesson, allegedly that is. That has nothing to do with a Democracy like Thailand where the less education people can be manipulated into voting for a political party with a nice lady as visible postergirl and with said party owned by a criminal fugitive. If you could graciously consent, I only go back 200 years, but in the Netherlands we never had a political party owned by a single person. I do not know enough of UK history to say anything about the situation there. In Thailand village elders still tell their flock who to vote for and check that that's actually done. Democracy in it's infancy. A few facts PM Yingluck simple forgot to mention in her speech in Mongolia.

BTW 'mandate' doesn't mean can ignore the law or block the opposition from doing it's work. That's undemocratic, another item Ms. Yingluck failed to mention. One may be excused to wonder what lessons Ms. Yingluck refered to as having learned

I note the genial mask slips when confronted with unpalatable truths.

You repeat the stale and offensive canard of the less educated being manipulated into voting a particular way.All voters vote in their own interests and it is absurd to suggest that an educated urbanite is somehow less selfish with his vote than a rice farmer.You also confuse education with intelligence.

If you genuinely believe the current government is in power because "village elders" ordered people to vote in a particular way, you need to do more homework.

It's absolutely reasonable that the PM's speech should be criticised by her political opponents.However since their own record in nourishing Thai democracy is so appalling it's not surprising their protests are unconvincing (and in the case of many comments in the social media - completely unhinged).

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but 47% of the vote count does not alter criminality or the basic tenets of democracy.

Simply not an adequate response.In most democracies (actually almost by definition) the winning part doesn't have North Korean type landslides.The USA for example is almost always split done the middle.However close the margin the winners are the winners and all sides accept the rules of the game.

I agree democracy is about more than elections.In Thailand that is obviously work in progress, and political pressure on the courts was an issue long before Thaksin.The problem in Thailand in recent years is that the established elites find it difficult to accept the peoples verdict when it is in conflict with their wishes.

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained. If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result. None of this is ideal or heathy. However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large. And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash. That's exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round. Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

My knowledge of the English language needs to be improved. I always thought that 'elected' and 'endorsed' had different meanings.

So, the not placed, non-candidate Thaksin was not not-elected, but his party was endorsed. Next we'll hear that PM Yingluck did not not-complain about the damage to her family and how her non-candidate brother Thaksin was somehow 'elected' as his party was 'endorsed'. I'm sure the congress on democracy would have really loved to have that construction explained.

Your English language skills are adequate if not very polished.It's your analytical intelligence that needs working on.Political parties endorsed by and closely assoviated with Thaksin have in recent years consistently won general elections in Thailand and show every sign of doing so in the future.Not so hard to grasp.The last government headed by Abhisit came to power through dubious back door deals, again not so hard to grasp.After the criminality of the military coup and a series of ludicrous decisions by directed courts yielded nothing but electoral humiliation, the old elites realised they had to work within the rules of democracy.In a parliamentary democracy this type of back door activity is permitted but as time goes by it's morally and politically necessary to face the electorate directly.When this finally took place, Abhisit and his Democrat party were very clearly rejected by the Thai people.What Yingluck had to say in Mongolia brought the reactioonary bigots out from the sewers but we shall see how she is regarded in the next general election, assuming the criminal unelectred elites don't find some way of defying the Thai people once again.Again not so very hard to grasp.

Personally, since there are major arguments against Thaksin's baleful influence, I would in the DEmocrats' position be working on making our policies more acceptable to the Thai people.Simply ranting about Thaksin doesn't improve anything and indeedserves to underline the distance between the greedy old unelected elites (and their mainly Sino Thai middle class hangers on) and the Thai majority.Again not that hard to grasp.

Interesting. Now pray tell, it's Thaksin one of those unelected elite? With the PM lamenting her brothers victimizing in a lesson not learned yet?

No Thaksin despite his shortcomings was not one of the unelected elite.In case you hadn't noticed the people of Thailand have endorsed political parties associated with him again and again.

Yingluk and all red shirts should think why did the coup happen and why did so many who opposed the military in 1992 welcome them in 2006.

The insane autocracy and arrogance of her brother is the answer

It seems she has learnt nothing.

Agreed Thaksin was and is a meglomaniac.But it doesn't alter the fact that the unelected elites and the army have been criminally incompetent, to the point that the objective they profess to be of the highest importance is now theatened and in danger.This was nothing to do with Thaksin.

I'd agree with the PM that democracy went off-track about a decade ago, that was halfway through her brother's rule, when he began to talk about his party staying-in-power for 20 more years, and when the corruption by his government & its supporters began to emerge.

That's when I began to suspect that he wasn't, as many had hoped, the great looked-for improvement in Thai politics, but just one more normal grubby politician. Pity about the missed opportunity, but that's life.

Yingluck is also very careful not to blame the minor parties, who supported the Democrats during the two-and-a-half years they were in-power, might that perhaps be because both PPP and now PTP are quite happy to have them on their coalitions, do you think ?

Hold your nose dearie, they may smell but they follow the money, which makes them useful to your big brother, as he attempts to dismantle the rule-of-law and return to take back the power which he sees as rightfully his !

The last time it went of course was when Thaksins thugs did exactly what was being done now by putting pressure on the courts to get them to fold in his 2002 trial. Same piece of scum back doing the same thuggery now. Nothing has changed. We are heading down the same path to more bloodshed again now.

As for Yingluck. Have held off on her till now, but with her latest stupidity in Mongolia she now sits just as equally blame full for the events that are about to unfold on Thailand as the rest of her greedy thieving Dictatorial Shinawatra clan. The Isaanites in their uneducated millions deserve better than the pond scum Shinawatras.

Care to enlighten us on the events that are about to unfold?

The fact that you cannot find evidence doesn't really signify much.The coup leaders didnt appoint Abhisit but he was certainly the old order's candidate whose path to power was steered and guided.Frankly this is hardly a matter of much controversy and certainly not confined to red propaganda.