jayboy

Some seriously off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. This is an on-going and developing story. It is NOT about Thaksin. Please stay on topic.

Scott

For some I'm afraid the story is always about Thaksin!

I strongly reckon the Thai critic of Thaksin's clone PM was talking about her skill in organizing thoughts well in the Thai language for effective political communication. Rather than fluency. Of course she is fluent in Thai. An example for US people, Obama and Perry both fluent in American English of course. Obama a master at organizing his thoughts effectively and thinking/speaking on his feet, Perry a horror comedy show.

Yes, I am guessing what he meant because I also doubt she has any Thai fluency problems.

In her answer in English at the press conference with Clinton about the secret cabinet Thaksin pardon gambit, the horribleness of it wasn't so much the poor English fluency, although that was obvious, it was much more about the atrocious CONTENT of her spoken thoughts.

Yes you're probably right, and I have no doubt it's a fair criticism.What puzzled me was the reference to her her poor Thai language skills - a criticism I have heard several times.If the issue is her lack of structured thought process (which it probably is), I wonder why it wasn't made clear.

"Before the Bali trip, Yingluck was fiercely criticised at home for her poor command of the English language. In fact, former senator Somkiat Onwimon, who is also a mass-communication guru, had said that Yingluck's command of the Thai language was pretty bad as well, and that she would do herself a favour if she kept her mouth shut".

Her intellect breaks the language barrier.

I have heard this criticism of Yingluck's poor command of the Thai language several times now and it has puzzled me.I recently asked a Thai friend (Stanford graduate) what the critics were getting at.He said that Yingluck certainly spoke with a Northern accent but that her Thai language capability, as would be expected, was faultless since she was native speaker.He also mentioned this criticism in his opinion was irrational and reflected the hate filled political prejudices of the urban social media crowd and more understandably the contrast with Abhisit who was so articulate.

As to the meeting in Jakarta I have little doubt that Yingluck spoke to her MFA brief, worked the leaders and was generally charming.Talleyrand she's not but whether the haters like it or not Thailand's reputation in the region has improved greatly on her brief watch.Remember the foreign policy incompetence of the last administration with constant squabbling with ASEAN neigbours, usually engineered by that motormouth creepy little terrorist, Kasit.

Unsurprisingly the case is now being used to target Supoj's boss under the previous government, the Bhumjai Thai minister and his boss Newin. It is not clear whether that was the intended target all along but I suspect it is just a target of opportunity seized on by red shirt scavengers. While both must have salted away hundreds of millions during their control of the ministry, Newin is a teflon man as far as corruption charges are concerned. They never stick to him. More likely the whole thing was set up by other corrupt ministry officials who felt Supoj was unfairly hogging the trough and thought it was time for him to move over. Perhaps he was also perceived to have got too cosy with Newin and his boy at the ministry, so PT gave the green light for him to be offed. A lot of senior Interior Ministry officials are also now paying for their closeness to the Buriram football enthusiast with inactive posts.

If you have any evidence for any of these "hogging the trough" thoughts, it would be interesting to see it.Otherwise it's just ill informed speculation.Somehow you have introduced "red scavengers" to the picture as well not to mention the PT giving the green light for Supoth to be "offed"!

Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the most likely, namely the likelihood that a corrupt official has been exposed, possibly quite inadvertently.Who knows what the full background is but it would seem sensible to defer complicated analyses until the picture is clearer.

Mainly doggie-style with the country.

Reduced now to crude boorish remarks.

Not so long ago this fellow was arguing that every half way respectable country was eager to extradite Thaksin for his crimes.

One can quibble with the detail but it seems to me that this report on Abhisit's criticisms is perfectly fair.An opposition's duty is to oppose and Abhisit's points (as reported) represent responsible opposition.It's silly to get steamed up about this.

Whether he would have done any better is another question.

FWIW, I made/make no claim/comment about anyone's innocence of corruption here, but I think it only fair to point out that the official concerned recently refused to blow holes in five major roads in Bangkok, when ordered verbally to do so by PM-Yingluck, and insisted that the order should be in-writing, an understandable request. No written-order was forthcoming, so no important-roads were damaged.

Then now one of the thieves, who I understand may hail from Chiang Rai (a centre of red-Shirt extremism), just happens to be part of a gang which robs his house, and allegedly finds a suspiciously-large sum of cash ? A cynic wouldn't dream of thinking, that PTP & their supporters decided to take retribution on someone who was reluctant to stick his neck out & do as he was told, now would they do a thing like that ?

Thank you very much for this insight.If I understood you correctly the official concerned bravely stood up to the Prime Minister who was irresponsibly demanding he should arrange for major roads to be blasted.This he refused to do and as revenge the PM arranged for redshirts from Chiangmai to deposit Bt 200 million in his house, (and allow themselves to be caught by the police) in order to exact a dastardly revenge.This is a very plausible explanation and thanks for providing it.

Thailand government went to the meeting with the objective of giving a clean image to the US and head off any potential US interference in the process of bringing back Thaksin. So, the carrot is the PSI.

More enjoyably fruitcake stuff.Thailand to sign up to the Proliferation Security Initiative to head off any US objection to Thaksin's return! One couldn't make it up but in any event full marks for creativity.

At a more serious level it's not really good enough to join up two completely unrelated issues just because one is obsessed with Thaksin as Dark Lord.I thought the smiling shots of Yingluck and Obama would be catnip to the usual suspects, but I certainly didn't anticipate this level of craziness.

The background however is that Thaksin has not forgiven the US from tapping his calls to the red thugs during last year's events and warning him off. This will account for the rejection of support from the US aircraft carrier during the floods. Bad blood.

As mentioned earlier I had expected some silliness from the usual suspects following Obama's supportive words for Yingluck in Bali.

I had not however expected anything quite so barking mad as the above post.

Well look what Obama promised and what he did. She is a puppet of her brother, Obama is a puppet of the Banksters and weapon industry. No wonder they understand each other very well.

I thought the news from Bali would reduce the PAD tendency to incoherent spluttering, of which the above silly nonsense is a splendid example.

Not sure how much of the part of the US-Thailand deal is true, but I was rather surprised at the vehemence of the support Clinton showed for Shinawatra. I had expected more emphasis on support for Thailand in general rather than the regime in particular. So could be something to the theory.

I don't see her comments as specifically directed at support for Yingluck or Thaksin. She didn't come out and say, "We support the current administration"... she identified the American support in terms of the nation,

"We want our alliances to be nimble and adaptive so they can continue to deliver results," she said.

She's voicing support for whoever is in charge of Thailand so that the US can re-strengthen its presence in Asia.

I think you are partly right and I agree its ludicrous to suggest Clinton has shown support for Thaksin, but she was rather more specific in her support for the current government than you suggest..The US does not of course favour one democratically elected government in Thailand over another unless a particular administration is tainted.Surayud for example would not have been received in Washington at the highest levels for obvious reasons. Yingluck's government does have a clear democratic mandate, and that clearly is a plus point.I'm not suggesting that the last government was held in disfavour by the way, far from it.However it's quite clear from Clinton's remarks and the earlier State Department briefing that there's strong opposition to military coups, and a desire that the new government should be given its term without external interference.

The State Department briefing before Secretary Clinton's visit is interesting (second part:the first part deals with her Manila visit)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/11/177158.htm

Money quote

"SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Look, I mean, one of the messages that the Secretary will bring directly to the Thai people and the government is that we believe it is in the national security and political interest of the United States to have this government succeed, and we will do what we can to support that going forward. There are substantial tensions in Thailand, and those tensions will not be resolved after one or even a few elections."

No! you are being taken to task for being unjust and hypocritical!

For any law to work it has to be applied evenly!

Not just to the side you don't support!

I love it.More!More!

For Thakisin to shut up he has to of said something which he has not!

Which part of "draft" do you people not understand?

I see so much screaming and paranoia on this site with the vast majority supporting anti democratic measures!

It is surprising what being considered rich by poor people will do to someone's ego!

Wow I'm being taken to task for being unfriendly to Thaksin.That's a new though not unpleasant first.

I agree wholeheartedly. Still, whilst he may have condemned the coup as undemocratic, he could have gone further and refused to work with the Junta at all. But then that wouldn't have helped anyone really.

I suspect that he might have been more damning in his opposition to the coup had the army drawn up the laws needed to absolve the coup-makers before actually executing the coup, as Chalerm did in Yinglak's convenient absence.

It's difficult for Abhisit because his path to power was launched from the barracks.The Junta and the indolent and incompetent quisling government that followed had long gone when Abhisit came to power (quite legitimately I would stress under a parliamentary system).But this was the result the unelected elites had worked toward with the aid of directed judicial interventions, a rigged constitution and military heavy handedness.His problem is that each time the Thai people are asked to endorse the unelected elites' agenda, they just knock it out of the ball park.Someone as bright as Abhisit might hopefully have been expected to get the message.So what we want to know now do the old elites accept the position or not.

For the record I hope Thaksin doesn't get his pardon.If he had as much sensitivity and self awareness as the average bog roll, he should have realised that he has actually already won.Now he should just shut the .... up.

What disaster was brought to Thailand by the coup?

Please explain!

Yes I support what the PAD does, fighting for democracy and against corruption. What is wrong with that?

If it is true that PAD was fighting for democracy, I agree nothing but good arose from the coup.

I'm glad the New York Times ran a story that shows there's more to the Thai army than coups, and I'm really sick and tired of journalists and politicians pulling out another cheap shot about the coup. It was 5 years ago, we've had four govts, two elections and two different sides in power since. Get over it will ya!

You don't seem to have digested the article very carefully.

"But the military’s frequent interventions in politics have also been at the heart of the country’s political turmoil in recent years."

What Democracy?

Better a coup than these criminals in power

Even supporters at the time of the last coup now recognise it brought nothing but disaster for Thailand.I wonder why you think it would be different this time.

Your reference to the government's "criminality" is probably defamation so I should be a little more careful in your language

Incidentally probably best in the interests of full disclosure to admit you were an open supporter of PAD and attended their rallies.

After launching nearly 20 "successful" coups d'etat, the Army has established a firm presence in Thai politics, arguably becoming almost a state within a state. Now, the flood crisis and the Army's role in assisting flood-affected residents has, whether intentionally or not, reinforced this view

Isn't that a "link"?

"The army's role in assisting flood-affected residents has reinforced the view that the army has established a firm presence in Thai politics and is becoming a state within a state."

How do you read that?

Fair enough, but it's really just a link in to the more general problems associated with army interference in politics.But point taken.

A slight difference is him explaining the mistake and taking full responsibility, rather than talking about "good intentions" as another leader did.

So slight as to be almost invisible.In any event a cock up is a cock up whatever the excuses given.The point is that from the shrill critics of the government there is almost complete silence on Sukhumbhand's error.I'm not particularly critical because I know it's almost impossible to get every decision right in a crisis like this.It's not credible however to believe the government's obsessive critics aren't practising double standards.I'm not incidentally talking about normal constructive criticsm or even outright complaining.It's a hard time for many people and the government's communication effort has been shoddy.

I am not suggesting that the army are not involved in politics, or that some people think that they should kick Yingluck out, but linking their efforts in the floods to "No Hope for Democracy" is pretty cheap.

But no such link has been suggested.So indignation doesn't seem appropriate unless, to quote Khun Pravit,one is a "supporter and cheerleader for military rule".

So are we going to see the Governor and BMA being sued or even criticised for incompetence? Didn't think so.

My own view is that this kind of incident is almost inevitable but it does show the double standards being applied by the Government's critics.

The army have got out there and done their job helping people. They've barely said a word about anything.

How is that "reinforcing the view that they are a state within a state" or "establishing a firm role in politics"?

I'm sure you (Pravit) would have preferred they stayed in their barracks just so you could write an article complaining about how they don't want to help the people.

Surely the answer to your question is addressed directly in the article by Pravit.The journalist quoted, Wassana Nanuam, is incidentally an expert on army politics and her sources are first class.

However if one operates on the level that the army is doing a good job in the flooding crisis and we can therefore forget all the troubling issues associated with the military's past and present political ambitions, so be it.

I note 'some' try and equate her to Churchill, which is definitely a stretch.

And even if a few tears escaped, he tried to hold them back, control them, and show strength as the leader. If anyone knew what I am speaking of it is Churchill himself.

Since it was I that referred to Churchill's capacity for tears, I will respond.Only the most obtuse would believe I was ranking Yingluck with Churchill in any way.The point I was making was that tears are not incompatible with leadership.I hope forum members will indulge me if I quote a relevant passage.

From William Manchester, The Last Lion - Winston Spencer Churchill.Visions of Glory

"But probably the trashiest movie he ever watched was a sentimental pastiche based on a novel by Paul Gallico.Entitled "Never Take No For An Answer", its chief character was a little Italian orphan whose donkey,named Violetta, helped him run a grocery stand.Violetta sickened.She could be healed, the boy believed,if he could take her to that hub of miracles, The Shrine of St Francis.So the orphan embarked on a journey, appealing in vain to a series of clerics, priests, archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, cardinals.Each time the boy was turned down the camera would flash back to Violetta, sprawled in her stable, ready for the last rites.Churchill wept inconsolably."Oh the donkey's dead" he would sob.The others would reassure him:"No, no Prime Minister, she's still alive".Churchill would recover and declare firmly:"If the donkey dies, I shan't stay.I shall go out".Finally the boy, in his finest hour, was granted an audience with the Pope.The pontiff reversed the lower rulings and made an appointment at the shrine for Violetta.In the last scene a blazing cone of light, slanting down from heaven, revealed the donkey, bursting with health, beside her loyal, trudging little friend.The prime minister arose slowly from his chair, his eyes luminous and his cheeks streaming".

You seem to think it's only farang on this forum that are criticizing Yingluck.

I would venture a guess that more than a few Thais from the 70% who think she's doing poorly might also criticize the capabilities of the woman, identified as a clone by her own brother.

It's not criticism that's the issue.That is completely legitimate and I would say should be encouraged if it's constructive.

The issue is the almost psychotic hatred and bile from a small number, exemplified by the appalling recent statement slandering the PM and Northern women by the deranged Thaksin obsessed Akeyuth Anchanbutr.On a lesser scale on this forum there has been, again from a small minority, a stream of sexist abuse which thankfully is now restricted due to excellent moderation.

The construct you put on the poll incidentally makes no sense (70% think she's doing poorly?) but I'm sure it is correct many Thais are unhappy with the authorities performance - not just the government but the other agencies involved including the BMA.There's little evidence however that in a general election there would be a different result from the last one.