Jump to content

Yingluck appointed head of South China port


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Hitler had loyal followers too.

Charles Manson has plenty of followers too.

The list goes on...

 

That doesn't automatically mean these people are honest and reliable and sincere or have contributed solidly to building a better society with no gain to themselves or desire to have personal gain.

 

You could include Trump in that assertion. He has very loyal followers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Oziex1 said:

Ah ah, so the Shinawatras to arrive back in Thailand in sea containers. And junta shipped out in same. 

and all visa rules/options rolled back to pre August-2014 when laid-back Thailand went military 2-step.

Edited by freedomnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HHTel said:

Interpol do not enforce anything.  They don't have that power.  They can only assist in locating and arrest of a suspect.

In this case, Interpol turned down an application for an Interpol notice.

 

Assisting in locating and arresting a suspect is not enforcing a warrant?  Then what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, meinphuket said:

If she runs it like she did this country, then the 'ship' will inevitably sink burdened by massive debts. 

And malfeasance, dirty fake deals, and co......... 

 

Just wondering if she will assign any big positions to UDD / Red shirt folks?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

None, zero, zilch, but he did have a head for being a puppet and a clone.

Don't agree, she had solid management experience, and being a PM is being a manager.

 

Puppet, clone? perhaps, Chanocha is better as a PM?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, meinphuket said:

If she runs it like she did this country, then the 'ship' will inevitably sink burdened by massive debts. 

 

She won't suffer the same intervention that she did as PM, so actually there is no reason to assume that whatsoever, you don't actually think that things would have gone as they did without other people messing up her early deals and then preventing any more from taking place and then crying foul when the rice they prevented from being sold had not been sold, do you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HalfLight said:

Don't agree, she had solid management experience, and being a PM is being a manager.

 

Puppet, clone? perhaps, Chanocha is better as a PM?

 

 

 

 'she had solid management experience' how can that be when she avoided the majority of meetings?

 

So what did she manage very well or even manage a little when she was the clone PM?

 

Edited by scorecard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

So what did she manage very well or even manage a little when she was the clone PM?

 

Pretty much everything until the amnesty nonsense, where she was assumed to be a puppet, perhaps rightly.

 

The art of being a manager is to keep an even keel. No spectacular victories, no spectacular defeats. Were it not for the amnesty bill, we would not have had Chanocha.

 

 

Edited by HalfLight
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HalfLight said:

Pretty much everything until the amnesty nonsense, where she was assumed to be a puppet, perhaps rightly.

 

The art of being a manager is to keep an even keel. No spectacular victories, no spectacular defeats. Were it not for the amnesty bill, we would not have had Chanocha.

 

 

So why do you ignore management of the rice scheme, which failed horribly and cannot ever be seen as an example of good management.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scorecard said:

So why do you ignore management of the rice scheme, which failed horribly and cannot ever be seen as an example of good management.

I didn't ignore it, at least that was not my intention. At best it was not a sparkling example of management but I am and have always been very, very suspicious that it is much more off a beat-up by Chanocha than a serious 'ultra viries' loss to the country. It was a subsidy. If corruption existed, punish it, put people in the slammer, but it was a subsidy portrayed as a government boondoggle. Yingluck's mistake was to underestimate Prem and his determination to find or manufacture grounds for yet another military coup on behalf of his sponsors. Perhaps for and on behalf of someone else, who's to say? Thankfully, his reward will not be long in coming but that's my personal opinion. State occasion be damned, I go with Eric Idle and Monty Python - 'Burned buried or dumped?'.

Edited by HalfLight
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HalfLight said:

Pretty much everything until the amnesty nonsense, where she was assumed to be a puppet, perhaps rightly.

 

The art of being a manager is to keep an even keel. No spectacular victories, no spectacular defeats. Were it not for the amnesty bill, we would not have had Chanocha.

 

 

Amnesty nonsense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Amnesty nonsense...

Yes, nonsense, on the basis that it was a nonsense to even propose it. Bad Yingluck. Huuuuge mistake, whioch she should have known. Silly to have trusted Thaksin where matters of his face were concerned (with all the benefit of hindsight).

 

 

 

Edited by HalfLight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HalfLight said:

Yes, nonsense, on the basis that it was a nonsense to even propose it. Bad Yingluck. Huuuuge mistake, whioch she should have known. Silly to have trusted Thaksin where matters of his face were concerned (with all the benefit of hindsight).

 

 

 

Agree, all involved; thaksin and yingluck, the red / udd folks who tried, even with serious faults in their strategy, to push it through while thailand was asleep, a stupid idea, driven by deceit, poor judgement, immoral, severely lacking of ethics and total lack of respect for the thai people / thai nation and ultimately massive greed.

 

'Silly to have trusted Thaksin where matters of his face were concerned (with all the benefit of hindsight).'

 

Seems to me hindsight is irrelevant, all of them should have known from the first moment, 'this is totally wrong' and moved quickly away from the idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

Agree, all involved; thaksin and yingluck, the red / udd folks who tried, even with serious faults in their strategy, to push it through while thailand was asleep, a stupid idea, driven by deceit, poor judgement, immoral, severely lacking of ethics and total lack of respect for the thai people / thai nation and ultimately massive greed.

 

'Silly to have trusted Thaksin where matters of his face were concerned (with all the benefit of hindsight).'

 

Seems to me hindsight is irrelevant, all of them should have known from the first moment, 'this is totally wrong' and moved quickly away from the idea.

 

I think we can agree on that.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HalfLight said:

I didn't ignore it, at least that was not my intention. At best it was not a sparkling example of management but I am and have always been very, very suspicious that it is much more off a beat-up by Chanocha than a serious 'ultra viries' loss to the country. It was a subsidy. If corruption existed, punish it, put people in the slammer, but it was a subsidy portrayed as a government boondoggle. Yingluck's mistake was to underestimate Prem and his determination to find or manufacture grounds for yet another military coup on behalf of his sponsors. Perhaps for and on behalf of someone else, who's to say? Thankfully, his reward will not be long in coming but that's my personal opinion. State occasion be damned, I go with Eric Idle and Monty Python - 'Burned buried or dumped?'.

Perhaps you views were being influenced by the entity that investigated her and brought charges in a rather short period and was needed to legitimize the coup. The fact that NACC is not really a independent agency and staffed by junta appointed members and a president that worked for Prawit may have clouded your judgement. The manner they ruled his innocence must be your last straw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Perhaps you views were being influenced by the entity that investigated her and brought charges in a rather short period and was needed to legitimize the coup. The fact that NACC is not really a independent agency and staffed by junta appointed members and a president that worked for Prawit may have clouded your judgement. The manner they ruled his innocence must be your last straw. 

 

Perhaps all of the things you mention were a part of the overall picture Eric.

 

 

 

Edited by HalfLight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...
""