Comparing Prayut and Thaksin ‘not appropriate’

[rooster59]

Comparing Prayut and Thaksin ‘not appropriate’

By The sunday Nation

 

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha

 

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha was not irritated by a recent survey showing the popularity and credibility of premiers over the past 15 years, but was concerned about the inclusion of a fugitive former prime minister, according to government spokesman Lt General Sansern Kaewkamnerd.

 

Sansern said including in the survey “an ex-prime minister who had been guilty of crimes and is now a fugitive might be inappropriate”.

 

“It could cause confusion to the people who might see that disrespecting the law and corruption are acceptable,” he said yesterday.

 

He was referring to a recently revealed survey by King Prajadhipok’s Institute which showed that the now-fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra was more popular during his premiership than Prayut is during his current time in office.

 

Sansern said: “The PM said that we have to be cautious in presenting some information that could cause conflict in society. And he said to tell everyone to read carefully, and that they cannot rely only on the headline to interpret the whole thing.”

 

However, the Institute had earlier explained that it had only presented the popularity and credibility ratings of each prime minister at the time they were in office.

 

The Institute said it was not valid to make comparisons, as many people had done, because the premierships occurred in different periods under different circumstances. It noted that the study also included prime ministers other than Prayut and Thaksin.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30326263

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-09-10

[Samui Bodoh]

4 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

Comparing Prayut and Thaksin ‘not appropriate’

 

Hmm... I disagree.

 

I see many similarities and only a few differences...

 

[darksidedog]

If it isn't valid to make comparisons, why have the survey in the first place? I suspect Prayuts approach to the whole thing would be somewhat different had he got a better popularity rating than Thaksin.

[JAG]

I suppose it is not appropriate.

One, for all his faults was twice elected by a significant proportion of the people.

He was removed by a coup whilst standing for election a third time. His proxies were elected, again convincingly, in two subsequent elections; before being removed (under remarkably similar circumstances during an election campaign).

Despite his mainy faults (and in the face of protests aimed at forcing his removal and paralysing the government, neither he, nor his proxies never felt.the need to remove the right of assembly, political action, protest or press freedom, let alone ban eating sandwiches in public!

The present incumbent however...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[johng]

There is no comparison or confusion
One was elected to form a government served a whole term and then was elected again.
The other disrespected the law by grabbing power then tearing up the constitution ,giving himself and minions total immunity from past present and future wrongdoings has article 44 so can
"do whatever he wants"

[worgeordie]

Now trying to change history,that Thaksin did not exist,,

they can be compared,both started out with good intentions,

then power went to their heads.

 

"It could cause confusion to the people who might see that disrespecting the law and corruption are acceptable,” he said yesterday. that happens everyday,by officials,businessmen,and other HiSo's who

think they are above the law,and the people on the whole,while maybe not finding  it acceptable,but say

little .

regards worgeordie

[klauskunkel]

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

“It could cause confusion to the people who might see that disrespecting the law and corruption are acceptable,”

"The People" are not at all confused by that, they know perfectly well that twisting the law and corruption are acceptable if done by a government and their families and friends, while selectively unacceptable if done by any one else.

"The People" might be more confused by who Prayuth is talking to, lately...

 

[yellowboat]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

“It could cause confusion to the people who might see that disrespecting the law and corruption are acceptable,” he said yesterday.

Like participating in a coup and curtailing rights ?    Sadly, this delusional sap cannot see where he has done wrong and cannot stand up to scrutiny.  The people are smarter than he thinks. 

[YetAnother]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

“It could cause confusion to the people who might see that disrespecting the law and corruption are acceptable,” he said yesterday.

they already do

[baboon]

24 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

"The People" are not at all confused by that, they know perfectly well that twisting the law and corruption are acceptable if done by a government and their families and friends, while selectively unacceptable if done by any one else.

"The People" might be more confused by who Prayuth is talking to, lately...

 

A picture paints a thousand words. The dutiful smiles from the entourage and the woman at the bottom right thinking 'Jesus Christ...'

[Reigntax]

Yes, one was elected and is still liked. The other self appointed and just believes he is liked because his cohorts are all weasels and 'yes' men.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Reigntax

[Dave67]

Something Missus said to me makes me think

[piersbeckett]

2 hours ago, YetAnother said:

they already do

 

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

“It could cause confusion to the people who might see that disrespecting the law and corruption are acceptable,” he said yesterday.

and they're still waiting to be shown otherwise

[Media1]

5 hours ago, johng said:

There is no comparison or confusion
One was elected to form a government served a whole term and then was elected again.
The other disrespected the law by grabbing power then tearing up the constitution ,giving himself and minions total immunity from past present and future wrongdoings has article 44 so can
"do whatever he wants"

Yes and a terrible human rights violator who never wants any form of democracy 

[Dap]

7 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

"The People" are not at all confused by that, they know perfectly well that twisting the law and corruption are acceptable if done by a government and their families and friends, while selectively unacceptable if done by any one else.

"The People" might be more confused by who Prayuth is talking to, lately...

 

Yeah, she's gottit' right.

[metisdead]

Troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[MyFriend You]

8 hours ago, baboon said:

A picture paints a thousand words. The dutiful smiles from the entourage and the woman at the bottom right thinking 'Jesus Christ...'

Yeah, she ain't buying it..............pbly thinking "This guy is an idiot"

[Eric Loh]

9 hours ago, baboon said:

A picture paints a thousand words. The dutiful smiles from the entourage and the woman at the bottom right thinking 'Jesus Christ...'

Allow me to continue your sentence "Jesus Christ, they stage a coup and replace Yingluck for him????"

[chowny77]

He needs his EGO stroked or he has a hiss-fit!

[Oziex1]

9 hours ago, baboon said:

A picture paints a thousand words. The dutiful smiles from the entourage and the woman at the bottom right thinking 'Jesus Christ...'

Maybe she thinks that, or maybe give the frog a go at running the country, couldn't be any worse than you.

[Baerboxer]

14 hours ago, JAG said:

I suppose it is not appropriate.

One, for all his faults was twice elected by a significant proportion of the people.

He was removed by a coup whilst standing for election a third time. His proxies were elected, again convincingly, in two subsequent elections; before being removed (under remarkably similar circumstances during an election campaign).

Despite his mainy faults (and in the face of protests aimed at forcing his removal and paralysing the government, neither he, nor his proxies never felt.the need to remove the right of assembly, political action, protest or press freedom, let alone ban eating sandwiches in public!

The present incumbent however...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of your post is correct. But for accuracy, Thaksin wasn't removed by a coup. He has dissolved parliament and then resigned from the caretaker PM role. Several weeks later he ousted the replacement caretaker PM and put himself back into the role, without having the authority to do so. He was also drag his feet on that election, not exactly standing. 

 

No he didn't remove those rights of assembly, political action. However, you can easily read what happens to Shin opposition party members who dare campaign on Shin turf.

 

As for freedom of the press - come on now. We all remember his defamation law suits against journalists and his infamous red card for questions he didn't like. He used other methods, dare I suggest learned from Mr. Lee, but his desired result was the same. Suppress all criticism and deny opposition a platform.

[Chris Lawrence]

27 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Most of your post is correct. But for accuracy, Thaksin wasn't removed by a coup. He has dissolved parliament and then resigned from the caretaker PM role. Several weeks later he ousted the replacement caretaker PM and put himself back into the role, without having the authority to do so. He was also drag his feet on that election, not exactly standing. 

 

No he didn't remove those rights of assembly, political action. However, you can easily read what happens to Shin opposition party members who dare campaign on Shin turf.

 

As for freedom of the press - come on now. We all remember his defamation law suits against journalists and his infamous red card for questions he didn't like. He used other methods, dare I suggest learned from Mr. Lee, but his desired result was the same. Suppress all criticism and deny opposition a platform.

I think its called they are both a little bit pregnant.

 

The popular Prime Minister appears to be Thaksin. He did more for the country folk than most before and after.

 

This must be an irritation for the General as he didn't want MR T brought up again.

[wakeupplease]

Seriously guys I wonder how some of you would spend your day if you did not have the Shins to natter about.

 

I woke up the other day with other things on my mind but still have to read about this story of the shins which by now we all should have moved on from as boring me to death. Where is the dam Beano lets see if that has moved on over the years. tired of the same old same old.

 

Someone please do something on Fishing or even chess if you have to please

[khounteen]

One is worshipped by the people, look at the scene when he returned to Thailand. The other thinks he is god, if the earth to opens up and take him I bet there would be dancing in the streets.

[newcomer71]

Both of them are the ruin of Thailand, why cannot compare them?

[mania]

11 minutes ago, newcomer71 said:

Both of them are the ruin of Thailand, why cannot compare them?

Because one was legally chosen by the Thai People

The other took the country hostage with the military

[onthesoi]

9 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

The popular Prime Minister appears to be Thaksin. He did more for the country folk than most before and after.

 

Apart from murdering thousands of people and running scams which cost the treasury half a trillion baht... What else did he do?

[JAG]

 
Most of your post is correct. But for accuracy, Thaksin wasn't removed by a coup. He has dissolved parliament and then resigned from the caretaker PM role. Several weeks later he ousted the replacement caretaker PM and put himself back into the role, without having the authority to do so. He was also drag his feet on that election, not exactly standing. 
 
No he didn't remove those rights of assembly, political action. However, you can easily read what happens to Shin opposition party members who dare campaign on Shin turf.
 
As for freedom of the press - come on now. We all remember his defamation law suits against journalists and his infamous red card for questions he didn't like. He used other methods, dare I suggest learned from Mr. Lee, but his desired result was the same. Suppress all criticism and deny opposition a platform.

Both coups had the effect of ending an electoral process in which Thaksin or his sister, and by extension the political movement he created and heads, were standing for government, and were likely to win.
Elections which( in both cases) had been called with the approval of the highest constitutional authority in the land
Opposition candidates not allowed to campaign on "Shin turf"? I'm sorry but they campaigned in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, they even won seats in the North.
Despite the red cards and defamation notices the press and political opposition were free to criticise under Thaksin. Emphatically not the case now, and steps are being taken to entrenched those controls.

There is no comparison. One, although by no means a model democrat, came to power through an election, and was ousted whilst presenting himself for re-election, (The same is true of his sister). The other heads a junta he set up after he led a coup. No comparison can be valid.

[newcomer71]

2 hours ago, mania said:

Because one was legally chosen by the Thai People

The other took the country hostage with the military

Mine was quite the rhetorical question, so we agree on this.