zaphodbeeblebrox Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 March 20 interview from Frost Over the World. Abhisit seems a little rattled, as he isn't as articulate as he usually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry9999 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I don't think he looked rattled at all, but he does look very tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections. It shows how restrained he is (maybe too restrained) that he didn't make a point to correct that subtle slur. I think he did well but I agree not one of his better interviews. I don't know how he comes off in Thai, but I imagine similarly reasoned and diplomatic. I think some of this Thaksin love is about style. There is a strong faction in this and many countries that will always favor the emotional and irrational Big Strong Man leader over a professorial type. The most tragic leaders in history have been of this Big Strong Man type, but sometimes that type does a lot of good also, its a double edged sword. Edited March 21, 2010 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry9999 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections. He and his party lost the last election, PPP won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections. He and his party lost the last election, PPP won. Not that again! Thaksin puppet party got more votes. It was rather close. There are MANY parties in Thailand, which has a PARLIAMENTARY system. The smaller parties formed a coalition with Abhisit's democrats, 100 percent LEGITIMATE and common in many countries, and Abhisit became PM that way. He almost didn't. It was up to the smaller parties. Even in the US, more votes doesn't always mean you win. Look at Bush in 2000. Now tell me this, if the Thaksin puppet party had gotten fewer votes and formed a coalition the same way as Abhisit, would the redheads not accept the Thaksin puppet PM as legit? OF COURSE they would think he is legit. Case closed. Next ... Edited March 21, 2010 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry9999 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections. He and his party lost the last election, PPP won. Not that again! Thaksin puppet party got more votes. There are MANY parties in Thailand, which has a PARLIAMENTARY system. The smaller parties formed a coalition with Abhisit's democrats, 100 percent LEGITIMATE and common in many countries, and Abhisit became PM that way. He almost didn't. It was up to the smaller parties. For Abhisit to become PM, it took, one military coup, the removal of three PMs and a complete reversal by Newin. Interesting PARLIAMENTARY system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) Abhisit benefited by previous events, but he did not engineer them. Was Abhisit a coup general? Was Abhisit at the airport? Did Abhisit wear yellow? Did Abhisit force Newin to side with his party? NO NO NO NO NO. He is as legitimate as ANY PM would be right now in Thailand. That is not the same as saying Thailand has a perfect democracy. Of course it doesn't. It didn't under Thaksin when he was moving with force to become a dictator for life. Those who are fooled into thinking the Thaksin puppet party is pro democracy just aren't paying attention. They indeed are using the RHETORIC of pro democracy in their current revolutionary efforts, but that is not the same thing as actually being pro democracy. They are pro Thaksin, and being pro Thaksin is the opposite of being pro democracy. Benefited may be too strong a word. Being PM right now in Thailand is a nightmare. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. However, I do admire Abhisit for standing firm to try to resist a takeover by Thaksin. He may be soft spoken, but he is a brave man. Edited March 21, 2010 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkfish Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 He is open to talks regarding calling new elections? Looks like the protests will be over soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 He is open to talks regarding calling new elections?Looks like the protests will be over soon! Thaksin doesn't want those talks, so not so fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I thought PM-Abhisit came over as calm and in control, with the interviewer asking some tough questions, but failing to break his composure. Can you imagine how Thaksin might have appeared, in a similar interview, there is simply no comparison ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beejoir Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 He would have been a good Leader if he'd only done it through election, now some military puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphem Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections. He and his party lost the last election, PPP won. Not that again! Thaksin puppet party got more votes. There are MANY parties in Thailand, which has a PARLIAMENTARY system. The smaller parties formed a coalition with Abhisit's democrats, 100 percent LEGITIMATE and common in many countries, and Abhisit became PM that way. He almost didn't. It was up to the smaller parties. For Abhisit to become PM, it took, one military coup, the removal of three PMs and a complete reversal by Newin. Interesting PARLIAMENTARY system. yeah no wonder the thais want their true democracy back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherpeter Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 He would have been a good Leader if he'd only done it through election, now some military puppet. As opposed to the two previous Thaksin puppets, who got there by the same election process as Abhisit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrytheyoung Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 The past is the past... and is of small interest today when we are in the middle of action. What is important: how the Leader reacts and guides? has he a vision of the events? Has he control of the situation or does he appear submerged? Legitimacy is an old issue fully overpassed by the situation and of no interest for facing the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I think the most worrying thing of all is that he needed a sleaze like Newin to allow become PM. Hardly the stuff of dreams is it. He is extremely articulate, but for a bloke educated at Eton and Oxford, I wouldn't expect anything less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshiwara Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 yeah no wonder the thais want their true democracy back But what you want back is Thaksin and his corruption and money laundering and anti-gay bashing. That is the true red apologist objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickynomatesbkk Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 The word weak came to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 The word weak came to mind. I think squidgy is better. He really is the mother in laws dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) As per Gary, the PM is tired. Considering the strain he's been under, he is still looking upbeat. Ahhh Jingthing, you are the living bible. And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? Abhisit benefited by previous events, but he did not engineer them Let us consider what you wrote dearest Jingles. The PM benefited from the illegal PAD rallies and seizure of the airport and the subsequent military coup. I agree. Unfortunately, all of these acts including the military coup were illegal acts intended to change the government. Sorry, but they were. A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power. It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise. There was no court order, nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration. The army had no legal mandate to intervene. Most developed counries have laws that govern the proceeds of crime.The position is that there is a forfeiture of the proceeds of crime It is a reverse onus process, whereby the alleged guilty parties must demonstrate no profit. This allows seizure before judgement. As such, I wish to stress to you that the process of obtaining power was the result of the military coup, an illegal act. Therefore, the current regime is not legitimate and must surrender the proceeds of the crime - the coup d'etat. The past election was tainted by the involvement of the military. Hence the need for new elections with international observers to allow PM Abhisit to obtain a clean mandate. As Mr. Abhisi is apparently very popular, he should have no problem winning the election and then he can do as he sees fit within the terms of his legitimate mandate. edit: Corrected embarrassing grammar. Edited March 21, 2010 by geriatrickid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traderjm Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Let us consider what you wrote dearest Jingles. The PM benefited from the illegal PAD rallies and seizure of the airport and the subsequent military coup. I agree. Unfortunately, all of these acts including the military coup were illegal acts intended to change the government. Sorry, but they were. A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power. It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise. There was no court order, nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration. The army had no legal mandate to intervene. So the two previous Puppets were also NOT legit? Odd how the red shirts did not seem to want their democracy then??? Oh right, nobody told them it was missing.. or paid them to go find it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connel707 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections. He and his party lost the last election, PPP won. Only won by buying votes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connel707 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I thought PM-Abhisit came over as calm and in control, with the interviewer asking some tough questions, but failing to break his composure. Can you imagine how Thaksin might have appeared, in a similar interview, there is simply no comparison ? And very hard to understand that awful Aussie accent from the interviewer...looked more like he was going to throw a cricket ball than talk.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I'm trying to work out why the OP thought the PM look rattled. Job well done in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I thought PM-Abhisit came over as calm and in control, with the interviewer asking some tough questions, but failing to break his composure. Can you imagine how Thaksin might have appeared, in a similar interview, there is simply no comparison ? And very hard to understand that awful Aussie accent from the interviewer...looked more like he was going to throw a cricket ball than talk.... Back off Pal! At least if he did throw a cricket ball, it was going to hit the mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkfish Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 He should get the blinking thing under control though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherpeter Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 As per Gary, the PM is tired. Considering the strain he's been under, he is still looking upbeat.Ahhh Jingthing, you are the living bible. And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? Abhisit benefited by previous events, but he did not engineer them Let us consider what you wrote dearest Jingles. The PM benefited from the illegal PAD rallies and seizure of the airport and the subsequent military coup. I agree. Unfortunately, all of these acts including the military coup were illegal acts intended to change the government. Sorry, but they were. A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power. It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise. There was no court order, nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration. The army had no legal mandate to intervene. Most developed counries have laws that govern the proceeds of crime.The position is that there is a forfeiture of the proceeds of crime It is a reverse onus process, whereby the alleged guilty parties must demonstrate no profit. This allows seizure before judgement. As such, I wish to stress to you that the process of obtaining power was the result of the military coup, an illegal act. Therefore, the current regime is not legitimate and must surrender the proceeds of the crime - the coup d'etat. The past election was tainted by the involvement of the military. Hence the need for new elections with international observers to allow PM Abhisit to obtain a clean mandate. As Mr. Abhisi is apparently very popular, he should have no problem winning the election and then he can do as he sees fit within the terms of his legitimate mandate. edit: Corrected embarrassing grammar. I think you got your timings wrong. - There was a coup (totally illegal - but IMO required given what Thaksin was trying to do while caretaker), - then there were elections (which seemed legitimate to Thaksin supporters while the PPP was in coalition government), - then there were the PAD protests (which the PPP didn't handle well at all compared to how Abhisit is handling the current protests) - then the courts disbanded the PPP and banned PPP and Democrat MPs - then the Democrats were able to get a coalition together to form government (part of the previously legitimate elections). The 2007 election was tainted by vote buying. Until that is controlled, every election in Thailand will be tainted. If there were elections now, do you think the reds would allow free and fair campaigning in the North/North East electorates? Or is democracy only a requirement when it suits you? And something that never seems to get answered by red supporters - How the h3ll is Thaksin going to fix what is wrong in Thailand? All he has ever done is whatever he can to make more money for HIMSELF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
way2muchcoffee Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power. Sorry. The Thaksin government was a caretaker government at the time of the coup. This caretaker government had been in place longer than the constitution allowed for. It was itself illegal. The coup ended that. It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise. The judiciary of the time was in the pocket of Thaksin. They would not rule otherwise, nor was there a case in front of them to rule on because there was no legitimate government at the time of the coup. nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration. The was no legilature to dissolve the government administration. Thaksin had already dissolved parliament. The army had no legal mandate to intervene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
way2muchcoffee Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power. Sorry. The Thaksin government was a caretaker government at the time of the coup. This caretaker government had been in place longer than the constitution allowed for. It was itself illegal. The coup ended that. It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise. There was not a case in front of them to rule on because there was no legislature to submit a case. Don't be disingenuous. nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration. The was no legislature to dissolve the government administration. Thaksin had already dissolved parliament. Edited March 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
way2muchcoffee Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 The army had no legal mandate to intervene. The first true thing you've written. The army had no legal mandate, except for the fact the the Thaksin caretaker government had exceeded the constitutional time allowed for it's existence. They most certainly had a moral mandate. The past election was tainted by the involvement of the military. Of course this wasn't a problem for the Samak and Somchai governments, nor was it a problem for any pro-red posters here. As Mr. Abhisit is apparently very popular, he should have no problem winning the election and then he can do as he sees fit within the terms of his legitimate mandate. He already holds a legitimate mandate. He was voted in by parliament who were in turn elected by the people. Do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katasyd Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 The reason he seems rattled is the delay in the satellite link up. You can tell by the pause. The PM being in Thailand the interviewer guy in Hong Hong or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts