Abhisit Ready For Political Debate With Yingluck

[hyperdimension]

why else the clamour to discredit a person before they have had chance to speak for themselves.....

Yes, Yingluck should be given the chance to speak with Abhisit. If the word "debate" sounds too intimidating to her, call it a "discussion".

Methinks they protest too much............

I agree that red shirts protest too much. PTP & red shirts should debate in a civilized manner instead of protest, as protests are one-sided. Since the red shirts are still intent on holding protests, maybe Abhisit could debate with Yingluck on stage at the protest. Though there would be safety and security concerns based on the past behavior of the protesters.

Edited May 16, 2011 by hyperdimension

[Markaew]

Which excuse will she come up with for declining?

.

Probably inform him if she is elected PM she will be more than happy to debate politics with him.........as the opposition leader.....

Purpose of the suggested debate is to help the electorate decide who is best suited to govern, so what use is it, having it after the election?

You are right, the excuse will be weak and make no sense.

If you look at this from a neutral point of view, Yingluck is in a stronger position and has nothing to gain from a debate. Typically, a weaker opponent wants to debate so they can attempt to raise themselves. In this case, I believe people already know how they are going to vote. You can have ten debates and it won't change anything. How she will avoid the debate? She will not reject a debate but delay and delay again, then there will be no time left. Yingluck will state the people have already made their choice.

[hyperdimension]

If she does accept it would be a first for a Thaksin or Thaksin-proxy candidate.

I do hope she bucks the trend of the past 11 years for the group, but I'm not holding my breath.

They are already bucking the trend by appointing a female, and one who has no experience in political life, for the highest political position in the country. So already, "this time it's different".

[WinnieTheKhwai]

welcome red newbie, back as a re-run? or a genuine newcomer who wanted to wave a red flag?

either way, i see you have dived straight in to the political fray and ignored the hundreds of other fascinating non political posts on Thaivisa

welcome anyway, you have made it clear, from your posts why you are here..............

That's a very nasty debating tactic, Timekeeper, especially in response to a perfectly polite and reasoned post. Just what exactly are you afraid of?

[gemini81]

Heh, I'd love a debate. It'd be a debate between two puppets, contesting an election to an institution that has been shown in 2006 to not hold real power when push comes to shove.

It'd be like watching Miss Piggy debate Kermit the Frog over who gets to run the muppet show.

And where the most pressing questions won't be asked nor answered, or all would be at risk of going to jail.

So.. bring it on, I guess. Or not. But if not, then I would hope some better reasons will be communicated, along the lines of the above.

I'd like to see you in a debat with Mr. Abhisit too. You'd get slayed by his experience and speaking ability.

How is he a puppet? He's the only Prime Minister with some a clean record. And the only one ever still in office after such events as last year. Easy to criticize him behind your computer there, keyboard warrior.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Thaksin of course abraces the old school dinosaurs and powerbrokers in EXACTLY the old school way that Thailand does not need.

I would agree. Sadly though, we don't get to vote or decide on what Thailand needs. At the core is what Thais feel they need, which is very different depending on their individual background.

[hyperdimension]

public speaking is a learnt skill and has no direct bearing on one's ability to formulate and execute policies. The debate is at the core of the British higher education system, hence Abhisit scores well against ordinary Thais who lack his background.

Oratory most certainly DOES have much to do with a Prime Minister job on both the local and international stages. To think otherwise is myopic at best, and foolhardy in most cases, and suicidal at worst.

I agree, the job at hand that we are talking about is not computer programmer, scientific researcher or accountant in which communication skills are not as an important factor as the technical skills being sought. A political or management job however is very much about communication. When you go to an interview for a senior management position and you have trouble articulating things, you'd be less likely to get the job than if you communicated your thoughts in a clear, coherent and structured way. So avoiding a debate may be an admission that she is not a good communicator and therefore is not an appropriate person for the position of Prime Minister.

However, when Abhisit is seen performing against British questioners, for example on "Hard talk", he comes across as mediocre.

The good thing is that Abhisit is not afraid to be interviewed or debated against. Yingluck should also be interviewed on the 'Hard Talk' show. Do you think she'd also appear "mediocre"?

[animatic]

i see that people in this forum are very eager to emit their opinions and speculations, is true that thaksin's sister apparently don't has a lot of experience in politics,but she has not answered yet, we all should wait to hear if she's gonne accept the challenge or not and then we can debate here, people should nout understimate her

Oh despite the words they are not under estimating the threat.......why else the clamour to discredit a person before they have had chance to speak for themselves.....

Methinks they protest too much............

They is:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Don't confusing wanting to discredit Thaksins machinations with wanting to personally discredit Yingluck.

But in the interests of public discourse and national safety, she SHOULD be given chance to speak; on her feet, extemporaneously, and in relation to her opponent, on issues of the day, so that the Thai People may see if she comes across qualified to go one on one with international leaders and national power brokers and vested interests, that will not hesitate a fraction of a second to go for the jugular on any slip up and pursue their interests at her and Thailands expense.

Either she is capable of the challenge or not,

but finding out AFTERWARDS is a illogica and poor choice.

[animatic]

Thaksin of course abraces the old school dinosaurs and powerbrokers in EXACTLY the old school way that Thailand does not need.

I would agree. Sadly though, we don't get to vote or decide on what Thailand needs. At the core is what Thais feel they need, which is very different depending on their individual background.

I note you say "feel they need" as opposed to understand they need.

Does a thinking person want his childrens and grandchildrens futures set into stone by a beauty contest or a meeting of minds?

Edited May 16, 2011 by animatic

[Buchholz]

Probably inform him if she is elected PM she will be more than happy to debate politics with him.........as the opposition leader.....

Purpose of the suggested debate is to help the electorate decide who is best suited to govern, so what use is it, having it after the election?

You are right, the excuse will be weak and make no sense.

If you look at this from a neutral point of view, Yingluck is in a stronger position and has nothing to gain from a debate.

She could gather her first crumbs of credibility.

Typically, a weaker opponent wants to debate so they can attempt to raise themselves. In this case, I believe people already know how they are going to vote. You can have ten debates and it won't change anything. How she will avoid the debate? She will not reject a debate but delay and delay again, then there will be no time left. Yingluck will state the people have already made their choice.

So, it is as rixalex indicated, the excuse will be weak and make no sense.

There are hordes of undecided voters. Some polls indicate that it is the single largest bloc of voters.

Lastly, it's typically the challenger for an elected office that wants to debate and not the incumbent who makes the challenge. The challenger is the one who has something to prove usually. For instance, like when Abhisit challenged Thaksin to a debate... and was relentlessly refused.

.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Buchholz

[animatic]

public speaking is a learnt skill and has no direct bearing on one's ability to formulate and execute policies. The debate is at the core of the British higher education system, hence Abhisit scores well against ordinary Thais who lack his background.

Oratory most certainly DOES have much to do with a Prime Minister job on both the local and international stages. To think otherwise is myopic at best, and foolhardy in most cases, and suicidal at worst.

I agree, the job at hand that we are talking about is not computer programmer, scientific researcher or accountant in which communication skills are not as an important factor as the technical skills being sought. A political or management job however is very much about communication. When you go to an interview for a senior management position and you have trouble articulating things, you'd be less likely to get the job than if you communicated your thoughts in a clear, coherent and structured way. So avoiding a debate may be an admission that she is not a good communicator and therefore is not an appropriate person for the position of Prime Minister.

However, when Abhisit is seen performing against British questioners, for example on "Hard talk", he comes across as mediocre.

The good thing is that Abhisit is not afraid to be interviewed or debated against. Yingluck should also be interviewed on the 'Hard Talk' show. Do you think she'd also appear "mediocre"?

What may come across as occasionally halting in interviews, is Abhisit deciding to be sure he uses the right words, and not being like Samak all bluster and in you face ranting. Yes Thais must know how well she can speak in English and Thai to people who won't cut her a mm of slack for a screw up. Oh sorry Kuhn Hun Sen, I misspoke.

[wolfmanjack]

2) And the world economic downturn which is the only real effect that is giving PTP any kind of edge, because they spin repeatedly that the economy is bad ONLY because of Abhisit, and not because it is bad world wide. When the reality it would be much more harsh here if not for Abhisits choice of Korn.

.

My wife and her family are redshirt supporters and according to her they are blaming Abhisit for the increase in food costs. When i try to explain to her that food prices have increased in every country her reply is that Thailand has plenty of food so the price should not be going up. they have been brainwashed to believe that all of thailands ills are because of Abhisit and Thaksin will make food cheap again. If they put his pet poodle as PM my wife's family and most redshirts wold vote for it.

[barryofthailand]

2) And the world economic downturn which is the only real effect that is giving PTP any kind of edge, because they spin repeatedly that the economy is bad ONLY because of Abhisit, and not because it is bad world wide. When the reality it would be much more harsh here if not for Abhisits choice of Korn.

.

My wife and her family are redshirt supporters and according to her they are blaming Abhisit for the increase in food costs. When i try to explain to her that food prices have increased in every country her reply is that Thailand has plenty of food so the price should not be going up. they have been brainwashed to believe that all of thailands ills are because of Abhisit and Thaksin will make food cheap again. If they put his pet poodle as PM my wife's family and most redshirts wold vote for it.

I got the same answer from a Thai business man. I asked him what he attributed the increase of pork too, and he replied it's the Prime ministers fault. Really surprised me with that reply. Lets see what happens if anything on the 19Th of this month.

Barry

Edited May 16, 2011 by barryofthailand

[Gonzo the Face]

Don't know for sure, but i tink ise gots dat dejaview again......

Another pretty face running for the top job, but are there any brains?????

I wonder if she can see Russia from her house

If no one has mentioned it , there seem to be similarities

[jdinasia]

Don't know for sure, but i tink ise gots dat dejaview again......

Another pretty face running for the top job, but are there any brains?????

I wonder if she can see Russia from her house

If no one has mentioned it , there seem to be similarities

Scroll up in the thread ----- I did link in a David Letterman Youtube about the Palin/Biden debate ... made relevant by a direct question from another poster

[theanimaster]

I'm no red supporter, but I vote for Yingluck. She's hot. That's all this country needs -- a good image. How can you people think that good-looking things are NOT good?? Tch. Farang thinking. You and this stupid thing you call 'logic'. Everyone knows that rich people are always good and are rich because they've done good things in their past life. Who cares if they're corrupt "now"? Theyve been good in their past life!! Don't you silly farangs understand this??

Edited May 16, 2011 by theanimaster

[anterian]

public speaking is a learnt skill and has no direct bearing on one's ability to formulate and execute policies. The debate is at the core of the British higher education system, hence Abhisit scores well against ordinary Thais who lack his background. However, when Abhisit is seen performing against British questioners, for example on "Hard talk", he comes across as mediocre.

For Abhisit to challenge Yingluck is like a middle ranking chess master challenging a novice. There is no kudos in a win. But then being a chess master does not mean you can mend a fuse, or even be an able politician.

Oratory most certainly DOES have much to do with a Prime Minister job on both the local and international stages. To think otherwise is myopic at best, and foolhardy in most cases, and suicidal at worst.

A rather predictable response from an ardent Abhisit supporter. So let me put it this way to you. in a Court of Law, it is not often the elegant and erudite witness that influences the jury, far more often it is the sincere but less able speaker who is listened to.

In Thailand the people are the jury, I do not think Abhisit's debating skills will be that important, partly because rhetoric and oratory float like a lead balloon with the Thai style of discussion Rather I think the two will be judged by their sincerity and emotions. Abhisit is a cold fish at best, he lacks passion.

Edited May 16, 2011 by anterian

[Insight]

I'm no red supporter, but I vote for Yingluck. She's hot. That's all this country needs -- a good image. How can you people think that good-looking things are NOT good?? Tch. Farang thinking. You and this stupid thing you call 'logic'. Everyone knows that rich people are always good and are rich because they've done good things in their past life. Who cares if they're corrupt "now"? Theyve been good in their past life!! Don't you silly farangs understand this??

Love it. See you on stage on the 19th at Ratchaprasong

[jdinasia]

A rather predictable response from an ardent Abhisit supporter. So let me put it this way to you. in a Court of Law, it is not often the elegant and erudite witness that influences the jury, far more often it is the sincere but less able speaker who is listened to.

In Thailand the people are the jury, I do not think Abhisit's debating skills will be that important, partly because rhetoric and oratory float like a lead balloon with the Thai style of discussion Rather I think the two will be judged by their sincerity and emotions. Abhisit is a cold fish at best, he lacks passion.

I don't know which courts of law you are talking about ..... In most courts the witness that can stay calm and respond with the truth or facts, and that doesn't "trip up" when challenged by the opposing lawyer (or even their own lawyer in some cases) tends to be given more weight. Thus the ability to speak with composure and poise is certainly an important factor. The exception to this is when making an argument from emotion .... like Yingluck crying for the court in the past ... and we all know how much good that did her

[animatic]

public speaking is a learnt skill and has no direct bearing on one's ability to formulate and execute policies. The debate is at the core of the British higher education system, hence Abhisit scores well against ordinary Thais who lack his background. However, when Abhisit is seen performing against British questioners, for example on "Hard talk", he comes across as mediocre.

For Abhisit to challenge Yingluck is like a middle ranking chess master challenging a novice. There is no kudos in a win. But then being a chess master does not mean you can mend a fuse, or even be an able politician.

Oratory most certainly DOES have much to do with a Prime Minister job on both the local and international stages. To think otherwise is myopic at best, and foolhardy in most cases, and suicidal at worst.

A rather predictable response from an ardent Abhisit supporter. So let me put it this way to you. in a Court of Law, it is not often the elegant and erudite witness that influences the jury, far more often it is the sincere but less able speaker who is listened to.

In Thailand the people are the jury, I do not think Abhisit's debating skills will be that important, partly because rhetoric and oratory float like a lead balloon with the Thai style of discussion Rather I think the two will be judged by their sincerity and emotions. Abhisit is a cold fish at best, he lacks passion.

Predictable is good in this sense,

because logic DOES make sense, and is often predictable.

Ah, but Abhisit is noted for clear speaking not high faluting oratory.

He communicates quite clearly in english, and better in Thai.

Of course national leaders must be versed in rhetoric and direct communications. One to present long term goals and philosophical ideas, plus deliver speeches at gatherings to win over minds for future improvements, and the other to make sure concepts and plans are completely understood by the most people.

If the candidate were not Abhisit, but the ideas and forward thinking remained, and the opposition remained the same, I would very, very likely still hold the same positions. I am not so much pro-Abhisit as only choice, than anti-Thaksin power plays as a viable choice.

Between the two there IS only one choice; The 100% rational man.

Edited May 16, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

I'm no red supporter, but I vote for Yingluck. She's hot. That's all this country needs -- a good image. How can you people think that good-looking things are NOT good?? Tch. Farang thinking. You and this stupid thing you call 'logic'. Everyone knows that rich people are always good and are rich because they've done good things in their past life. Who cares if they're corrupt "now"? Theyve been good in their past life!! Don't you silly farangs understand this??

Love it. See you on stage on the 19th at Ratchaprasong

I don't think they understand irony on the stage at Ratchaprasong

[anterian]

A rather predictable response from an ardent Abhisit supporter. So let me put it this way to you. in a Court of Law, it is not often the elegant and erudite witness that influences the jury, far more often it is the sincere but less able speaker who is listened to.

In Thailand the people are the jury, I do not think Abhisit's debating skills will be that important, partly because rhetoric and oratory float like a lead balloon with the Thai style of discussion Rather I think the two will be judged by their sincerity and emotions. Abhisit is a cold fish at best, he lacks passion.

I don't know which courts of law you are talking about ..... In most courts the witness that can stay calm and respond with the truth or facts, and that doesn't "trip up" when challenged by the opposing lawyer (or even their own lawyer in some cases) tends to be given more weight. Thus the ability to speak with composure and poise is certainly an important factor. The exception to this is when making an argument from emotion .... like Yingluck crying for the court in the past ... and we all know how much good that did her

thank you for the selective comment, I said sincerity and emotions (note the order), your reply singled out "emotion" and conveniently overlooked "sincerity", it's an old trick but I'm even older

[jdinasia]

Nothing more selective in my comment than in your response. This is for the position of PM and being seen as a capable orator who can actually get his/her points across and convince people is of vital importance particularly internationally. .... sincerity when not based upon facts/truth just doesn't go far ... and the emotional appeal has obviously failed Yingluck in court in the past.

I just don't see Yingluck sitting at an ASEAN meeting waiting on the SMS from her surrogate dad (her older brother that she described that way) telling her how to reply being very good for the image of Thailand

[anterian]

Animatic, no quotes, too many nested

I know nothing of Yingluck's abilities, positive or negative, but I do have a fair knowledge of Abhisit's abilities. I think you are attaching too much import to his speaking skills, just a few hours watching Thai TV makes it clear that sophisticated dialogue is not the Thai way.

Whilst a debate between the two might seem a victory for Abhisit to a farang observer, I would hesitate to assume that Thais would think the same. No matter how long we live in Thailand we still fall into the trap of using logic rather than Thainess.

[anterian]

Nothing more selective in my comment than in your response. This is for the position of PM and being seen as a capable orator who can actually get his/her points across and convince people is of vital importance particularly internationally. .... sincerity when not based upon facts/truth just doesn't go far ... and the emotional appeal has obviously failed Yingluck in court in the past.

I just don't see Yingluck sitting at an ASEAN meeting waiting on the SMS from her surrogate dad (her older brother that she described that way) telling her how to reply being very good for the image of Thailand

Thais are an insular people, often to the extent of being Xenophobic. When they vote they will not be thinking how the outside world views their elected, whether it be ASEAN, UN or the G20. Thailand patently is not concerned by its global image, if you claim otherwise then read the hundreds of posts on this theme in this forum. Incidentally I am not supporting Yingluck, I know nothing of her, but I feel that you write her off too easily and without taking into account the fact that TIT

[jdinasia]

Nothing more selective in my comment than in your response. This is for the position of PM and being seen as a capable orator who can actually get his/her points across and convince people is of vital importance particularly internationally. .... sincerity when not based upon facts/truth just doesn't go far ... and the emotional appeal has obviously failed Yingluck in court in the past.

I just don't see Yingluck sitting at an ASEAN meeting waiting on the SMS from her surrogate dad (her older brother that she described that way) telling her how to reply being very good for the image of Thailand

Thais are an insular people, often to the extent of being Xenophobic. When they vote they will not be thinking how the outside world views their elected, whether it be ASEAN, UN or the G20. Thailand patently is not concerned by its global image, if you claim otherwise then read the hundreds of posts on this theme in this forum. Incidentally I am not supporting Yingluck, I know nothing of her, but I feel that you write her off too easily and without taking into account the fact that TIT

I was replying to your point of a "court of law" ----

If you think that in the "court of public opinion" that she can hold her own in Thailand, then that argues for her "handlers" having her debate Abhisit. If you know nothing of her, you might want to look up her past activities and her exposure in the Asset Forfeiture Case.

[anterian]

Nothing more selective in my comment than in your response. This is for the position of PM and being seen as a capable orator who can actually get his/her points across and convince people is of vital importance particularly internationally. .... sincerity when not based upon facts/truth just doesn't go far ... and the emotional appeal has obviously failed Yingluck in court in the past.

I just don't see Yingluck sitting at an ASEAN meeting waiting on the SMS from her surrogate dad (her older brother that she described that way) telling her how to reply being very good for the image of Thailand

Thais are an insular people, often to the extent of being Xenophobic. When they vote they will not be thinking how the outside world views their elected, whether it be ASEAN, UN or the G20. Thailand patently is not concerned by its global image, if you claim otherwise then read the hundreds of posts on this theme in this forum. Incidentally I am not supporting Yingluck, I know nothing of her, but I feel that you write her off too easily and without taking into account the fact that TIT

I was replying to your point of a "court of law" ----

If you think that in the "court of public opinion" that she can hold her own in Thailand, then that argues for her "handlers" having her debate Abhisit. If you know nothing of her, you might want to look up her past activities and her exposure in the Asset Forfeiture Case.

i have some knowledge of the matter to which you refer

[animatic]

A rather predictable response from an ardent Abhisit supporter. So let me put it this way to you. in a Court of Law, it is not often the elegant and erudite witness that influences the jury, far more often it is the sincere but less able speaker who is listened to.

In Thailand the people are the jury, I do not think Abhisit's debating skills will be that important, partly because rhetoric and oratory float like a lead balloon with the Thai style of discussion

Rather I think the two will be judged by their sincerity and emotions. Abhisit is a cold fish at best, he lacks passion.

I don't know which courts of law you are talking about ..... In most courts the witness that can stay calm and respond with the truth or facts, and that doesn't "trip up" when challenged by the opposing lawyer (or even their own lawyer in some cases) tends to be given more weight. Thus the ability to speak with composure and poise is certainly an important factor. The exception to this is when making an argument from emotion .... like Yingluck crying for the court in the past ... and we all know how much good that did her

thank you for the selective comment, I said sincerity and emotions (note the order), your reply singled out "emotion" and conveniently overlooked "sincerity", it's an old trick but I'm even older

You are putting lawyers and sincerity in the same sentence and context. You lost the argument already.

Court cases are won on facts, technicalities or emotionally swaying an jury or sometimes a judge. Sincerity is a rare and elusive commodity in most court rooms, and most typically on the stand, not from the lawyers, it's not in their brief...

Edited May 16, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Nothing more selective in my comment than in your response. This is for the position of PM and being seen as a capable orator who can actually get his/her points across and convince people is of vital importance particularly internationally. .... sincerity when not based upon facts/truth just doesn't go far ... and the emotional appeal has obviously failed Yingluck in court in the past.

I just don't see Yingluck sitting at an ASEAN meeting waiting on the SMS from her surrogate dad (her older brother that she described that way) telling her how to reply being very good for the image of Thailand

Not to mention that sincerity based on lies, is prima facia insincere.

[anterian]

Nothing more selective in my comment than in your response. This is for the position of PM and being seen as a capable orator who can actually get his/her points across and convince people is of vital importance particularly internationally. .... sincerity when not based upon facts/truth just doesn't go far ... and the emotional appeal has obviously failed Yingluck in court in the past.

I just don't see Yingluck sitting at an ASEAN meeting waiting on the SMS from her surrogate dad (her older brother that she described that way) telling her how to reply being very good for the image of Thailand

Thais are an insular people, often to the extent of being Xenophobic. When they vote they will not be thinking how the outside world views their elected, whether it be ASEAN, UN or the G20. Thailand patently is not concerned by its global image, if you claim otherwise then read the hundreds of posts on this theme in this forum. Incidentally I am not supporting Yingluck, I know nothing of her, but I feel that you write her off too easily and without taking into account the fact that TIT

I was replying to your point of a "court of law" ----

If you think that in the "court of public opinion" that she can hold her own in Thailand, then that argues for her "handlers" having her debate Abhisit. If you know nothing of her, you might want to look up her past activities and her exposure in the Asset Forfeiture Case.

i have some knowledge of the matter to which you refer

I posted a long comment yet only the first line appeared, is this to be blamed in True or some tactic by the mods?

I'll be damned if I write it again.