How Long Can Yingluck Hide From The Big Tough Issues?

[OzMick]

Typical Nation biased piece. She hasn't had a debate yet, but is doing wonderfully well in the polls. Why change things? Certainly not for the sake of her critics, who are the ones vociferously calling for it. Go Yingluck, you're doing just fine.

She is doing well in the polls and so why screw it up with a real debate focusing on real issues. Why change things? I agree not for the sake of her critics but for the sake of people voting on what a person stands for and what they hope to accomplish. I think a debate would not really hurt Yingluck it would however get her feet truly wet.

"......... it would however get her feet truly wet."

I know it's crass, but a mental image immediately generated of the lady pissing herself from fright. Spat coffee all over the keyboard!

[luckyman]

Thanks for the link, Koos, but there is just text, with mainly q&a with Thaksin, only 1 question for Yingluck........how do I get to see her interview?

You didn't see yingluck's interview with ABC. She didn't do wonderful well. Please read this report http://www.abc.net.a...11/s3235619.htm and give a not biased comment please.

[whybother]

Thanks for the link, Koos, but there is just text, with mainly q&a with Thaksin, only 1 question for Yingluck........how do I get to see her interview?

See post #55

[tlansford]

Let me say that from what I know of Thaskin, he is not a true friend of democracy, but he entered office on the shoulders of democracy and was thrown out of Thailand (twice) on the shoulders of political power-struggles. It clearly would have been better for Thai democracy if he had left power in an election rather than in a coup. But that is not what happened and this election is now part of the resulting events still having to deal with that coup.

Personally I disagree, as Thaksin spent around 3 years (2003-06) replacing democratic controls with autocratic ones. I think democracy in Thailand needed the catalyst of Thaksin's wrongdoings to evolve into something stronger... otherwise we'd just have had a coup further down the line instead and Thailand would be 20 (?) years further behind in democratic terms when Thaksin was eventually deposed - or democracy would have been "manoevered" into a system of autocracy. I suppose the fact that there has only been 80 years of democracy in this country is a big factor here.

He came to power democratically, he dragged out his 2nd term undemocratically, he was kicked out undemocratically but, at the time, the majority of the country was celebrating it. He came back when the courts were operating under PPP rule and they convicted his wife anyway (I suspect to his surprise, given Samak was PM) - so he ran away (he wasn't kicked out twice). He's still on the run.

Democracy isn't about making the most people happy, it's about not being unacceptable to the majority.

well, had he not been ousted in the coup, we don't know what would have happened in Thailand. But I still maintain that if he had been defeated in an election, that would have been better for Thai democracy than a coup. You're right, maybe it would not have happened. I don't know. He was/is very popular. On one hand he implemented programs very popular for the poor and he communicated that broadly. Of course, on the other hand, he lined his own pockets and that of his family in ways that showed that he has little integrity.

[yeeowww]

For those who missed her inspired, brilliant, thought provoking interview... here you go. No wonder they don't want her to debate, she'd be eaten alive.

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

Having watched the link that you kindly provided, I think she fared much better than I had anticipated. If I compare this with Abhisit's interview on the BBC "hardtalk" show. I see little to choose between them other than Abhisit's obviously better command of English. An advantage that would be lost in a Thai debate.

Really?! You thought she did well?!!! Speaks volumes of your sense of rationale. Her chain of thought is missing numerous links and completely evades answering with any specifics. Her mind is like a spiraling top going off in any given direction. Bottom line... she is not Commander In Chief material. And not even on a par of being the Sarah Palin of Thailand. May Buddha help the country if the blind and ignorant help her get a position of power.

[Pi Sek]

Let me say that from what I know of Thaskin, he is not a true friend of democracy, but he entered office on the shoulders of democracy and was thrown out of Thailand (twice) on the shoulders of political power-struggles. It clearly would have been better for Thai democracy if he had left power in an election rather than in a coup. But that is not what happened and this election is now part of the resulting events still having to deal with that coup.

Personally I disagree, as Thaksin spent around 3 years (2003-06) replacing democratic controls with autocratic ones. I think democracy in Thailand needed the catalyst of Thaksin's wrongdoings to evolve into something stronger... otherwise we'd just have had a coup further down the line instead and Thailand would be 20 (?) years further behind in democratic terms when Thaksin was eventually deposed - or democracy would have been "manoevered" into a system of autocracy. I suppose the fact that there has only been 80 years of democracy in this country is a big factor here.

He came to power democratically, he dragged out his 2nd term undemocratically, he was kicked out undemocratically but, at the time, the majority of the country was celebrating it. He came back when the courts were operating under PPP rule and they convicted his wife anyway (I suspect to his surprise, given Samak was PM) - so he ran away (he wasn't kicked out twice). He's still on the run.

Democracy isn't about making the most people happy, it's about not being unacceptable to the majority.

well, had he not been ousted in the coup, we don't know what would have happened in Thailand. But I still maintain that if he had been defeated in an election, that would have been better for Thai democracy than a coup. You're right, maybe it would not have happened. I don't know. He was/is very popular. On one hand he implemented programs very popular for the poor and he communicated that broadly. Of course, on the other hand, he lined his own pockets and that of his family in ways that showed that he has little integrity.

The reason for the Democrats' boycott of the 2006 election was that the conditions were independently observed to not be free and fair. I agree that a democratic election would have been more democratic than a military coup, but the person calling the election was not prepared to have a free and fair one - free and fair elections (as well as education) are more central to democracy than the army's role in politics.

"He implemented programs very popular for the poor and he communicated that broadly", yes that's true. But the real genius of it was that he was actually making the poor poorer with these programs, and they were (still are in many cases) thanking him for it.

[anterian]

For those who missed her inspired, brilliant, thought provoking interview... here you go. No wonder they don't want her to debate, she'd be eaten alive.

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

Having watched the link that you kindly provided, I think she fared much better than I had anticipated. If I compare this with Abhisit's interview on the BBC "hardtalk" show. I see little to choose between them other than Abhisit's obviously better command of English. An advantage that would be lost in a Thai debate.

Really?! You thought she did well?!!! Speaks volumes of your sense of rationale. Her chain of thought is missing numerous links and completely evades answering with any specifics. Her mind is like a spiraling top going off in any given direction. Bottom line... she is not Commander In Chief material. And not even on a par of being the Sarah Palin of Thailand. May Buddha help the country if the blind and ignorant help her get a position of power.

Last time I checked my sense of rationale was surviving well, in spite of living in Thailand perhaps one day someone will explain to me why so many TV members are so confrontationally rude :jap: Did I say she did well? I think not! I said quote, "she did much better than I anticipated". Note that "better" is a comparative not a superlative. It seems to me that ignorance is fairly evenly divided on both side of the political fence

[Pi Sek]

Sorry to quote my own question, but in the absence of a response from any Peua Thai sympathiser, supporter, politician or patriarch, could it be that there is no answer? I really am interested in and concerned about the answer, so an answer would be very nice.

<heavily snipped>

I know it's an uncomfortable question, but it's a really important one that needs to be addressed:

If you are Thai, I urge you to use your obvious intelligence in deciding whether Thaksin or Peua Thai have any practical solutions and a plan of execution in the upcoming election because, for me, only a fool would cast their vote based on unsubstantiated claims from a politician. If you are a Peua Thai member or supporter, please do your own party representatives a favour and ask them to prepare information to their constituencies of how they plan to perform all these magical acts. Frankly, I do not believe they can.

what would PTP offer to improve things and, most importantly, what is their plan of execution? Where are the funds coming from? Where are cuts going to be made? These are important questions that any PTP member or supporter should be able to answer in an instant... but it seems none of them can.

Also, the same question again: any idea of PTP's executable plan to improve things where they say Abhisit fails? It's an important question because I have put it to everyone sympathetic to Peua Thai and I have not received a single answer. Even the PTP MPs themselves seem to dodge the question!

Maybe they have a plan... I just haven't seen or heard any evidence that they do have one.

[tlansford]

Let me say that from what I know of Thaskin, he is not a true friend of democracy, but he entered office on the shoulders of democracy and was thrown out of Thailand (twice) on the shoulders of political power-struggles. It clearly would have been better for Thai democracy if he had left power in an election rather than in a coup. But that is not what happened and this election is now part of the resulting events still having to deal with that coup.

Personally I disagree, as Thaksin spent around 3 years (2003-06) replacing democratic controls with autocratic ones. I think democracy in Thailand needed the catalyst of Thaksin's wrongdoings to evolve into something stronger... otherwise we'd just have had a coup further down the line instead and Thailand would be 20 (?) years further behind in democratic terms when Thaksin was eventually deposed - or democracy would have been "manoevered" into a system of autocracy. I suppose the fact that there has only been 80 years of democracy in this country is a big factor here.

He came to power democratically, he dragged out his 2nd term undemocratically, he was kicked out undemocratically but, at the time, the majority of the country was celebrating it. He came back when the courts were operating under PPP rule and they convicted his wife anyway (I suspect to his surprise, given Samak was PM) - so he ran away (he wasn't kicked out twice). He's still on the run.

Democracy isn't about making the most people happy, it's about not being unacceptable to the majority.

well, had he not been ousted in the coup, we don't know what would have happened in Thailand. But I still maintain that if he had been defeated in an election, that would have been better for Thai democracy than a coup. You're right, maybe it would not have happened. I don't know. He was/is very popular. On one hand he implemented programs very popular for the poor and he communicated that broadly. Of course, on the other hand, he lined his own pockets and that of his family in ways that showed that he has little integrity.

The reason for the Democrats' boycott of the 2006 election was that the conditions were independently observed to not be free and fair. I agree that a democratic election would have been more democratic than a military coup, but the person calling the election was not prepared to have a free and fair one - free and fair elections (as well as education) are more central to democracy than the army's role in politics.

"He implemented programs very popular for the poor and he communicated that broadly", yes that's true. But the real genius of it was that he was actually making the poor poorer with these programs, and they were (still are in many cases) thanking him for it.

Well, I think that making health care available to everyone did not make the poor poorer. As for the military and elections, certainly honest elections are central to democracy - as is civilian control of the military. A military coup is not "democracy". But I suspect you would say the same.

It's all speculation at this point.

As far as seeing the outcome - I'm looking forward to arriving in BKK 3 weeks after the elections. ;-)

Tom

[Pi Sek]

Well, I think that making health care available to everyone did not make the poor poorer. As for the military and elections, certainly honest elections are central to democracy - as is civilian control of the military. A military coup is not "democracy". But I suspect you would say the same.

It's all speculation at this point.

As far as seeing the outcome - I'm looking forward to arriving in BKK 3 weeks after the elections. ;-)

Tom

A fair point, although making health care available to everyone did stop the health service from delivering sufficient healthcare, as the business model still had known problems - but these were ignored as the state of the health service was of less concern to Thaksin than the perception that he was helping provide healthcare for the masses. I seem to remember a gentleman from Ranong going to take care of his broken leg. It was amputated; his wife asked a reporter, "What do you expect for 30 Baht".

I would indeed state that civilian control of the military is a central aspect to democracy - but the military's oath doesn't put a priority on this, they pledge allegiance to His Majesty. I suppose that's why a lot of them think they are beyond civilian measures - I don't like that, but I also don't have any questions about the suitability of their allegiance.

You're right, lots of speculation, and it will get quite fierce over the next month I imagine. There are people on all sides (I've heard from Democrat voters, Peua Thai candidates, UDD supporters, PAD supporters...) with threats of further street protests depending on the outcome, so I don't think the divide will quite be healed whatever happens. Three weeks after the elections might be an interesting time!

[whybother]

...

Three weeks after the elections might be an interesting time!

It might take three weeks for the horse trading to be done and for a coalition government to be formed. That's when the red shirts will hit the streets if PTP didn't get enough support.

[Buchholz]

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

Having watched the link that you kindly provided, I think she fared much better than I had anticipated.

Can you elucidate what exactly in the interview did you find her faring "much better"?

.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Buchholz

[Pi Sek]

<snipped image of Yinglak looking very unattractive>

Video News - ABC News interview

http://www.abc.net.a.../01/3233091.htm

Having watched the link that you kindly provided, I think she fared much better than I had anticipated.

Can you elucidate what exactly in the interview did you find her faring "much better"?

Not really a relevant question, Mr. B - it would be more useful to know how well anterian initially anticipated Yinglak would fare.

If he thought she would say what Samak said before his election victory (i.e. "I have no policies - PPP will do whatever Thaksin tells us to do") - then she did fare better than anterian would have anticipated.

Still, she wasn't very convincing, really, was she - which brings me to my next point. Can anybody please give me any informed response to the questions posed in Post #68 (and elsewhere on numerous occasions previously)? It's getting on a month now since I posted it first on Thaivisa and months since I started asking it to PT supporters... not a peep, not from those supposedly intending to implement the policies and not from those who support them. I would love it to be otherwise, but my opinion (and that of a daily-growing proportion of the Thai electorate) is that the PT promises are not real - given their lack of answers and their need to obfuscate when asked the question. I do hope (for PT voters and for the immediate future of this country) that they're not 100% full of shit as it appears.

I did notice someone saying that Abhisit wasn't very convincing on Hard Talk last year - but then he was being thrown questions based on false assumptions and the only answer he had to give was, "No, you have your facts wrong - this is how it transpired" and then went on to explain. To be quite honest Zeinab Badawi was throwing some fairly ridiculous questions in a fairly aggressive way - she was fortunate she was not interviewing Chuwit!

[bungalownights]

One thing is for sure, she comes across far better than Abhisit in everything except English skills.

Abhisit is a nervous wreck during interviews, stiff as a board.

Edited June 7, 2011 by bungalownights

[Pi Sek]

One thing is for sure, she comes across far better than Abhisit in everything except English skills.

Abhisit is a nervous wreck during interviews, stiff as a board, with a strange habit of blinking every 2 seconds.

She came across to me as a shyster with no idea what she's doing... hence the deflected answers.

So, how about answering #68? Maybe you can answer the questions for her, since she didn't do it during the interview...!

Really, if you want people to take you seriously when commenting on politics, maybe it's best not to have a photo of the person for whom you are intentionally or unintentionally spreading propaganda as your profile pic.

[whybother]

One thing is for sure, she comes across far better than Abhisit in everything except English skills.

Abhisit is a nervous wreck during interviews, stiff as a board.

One area where she didn't come across better was actually saying anything that meant anything.

[rubl]

Well, one thing's for sure. We still need to get some clear answers from Ms. Yingluck. Till now we only have some 'to be specified later', 'waiting for the right time', and smiles which seem to lack a certain lustre. The shine is off after two weeks campaigning, I'd say. Almost four weeks to go, the fun of it all

[bungalownights]

So, how about answering #68? Maybe you can answer the questions for her, since she didn't do it during the interview...!

Who could be bothered answering those worthless, baiting questions ? I mean, its obvious you have already made your mind up anyway.

Really, if you want people to take you seriously when commenting on politics, maybe it's best not to have a photo of the person for whom you are intentionally or unintentionally spreading propaganda as your profile pic.

You dont think she is cute ?

[noahvail]

So, how about answering #68? Maybe you can answer the questions for her, since she didn't do it during the interview...!

Who could be bothered answering those worthless, baiting questions ? I mean, its obvious you have already made your mind up anyway.

I for one find those questions, posed in post #68, neither worthless or baiting. Indeed, I would like to find the answers to those questions. If you can assist, there are more than a few who would be grateful.

[noahvail]

I've seen those answers. Both appear to be worthless and baiting, unlike the questions.

[anterian]

Buchholz,

too many nested comment and I can't be bothered to sort them out, but Pi Sek was right in that respect, it was not a relevant question.

However I will explain, I much prefer explaining to elucidating, making things lucid is difficult to a closed mind

After having read all the scornful comments about Yingluk and her debating skills, from yourself and others, I expected her to be hesitant, stumbling, nervous and incoherent, in fact she was none of them. Thus she was better than I expected. As to her evading questions, it seems she is already learning the tricks of the politician's trade.

Now i know you are a rabidly fanatical Thaksin family hater, but you are really wasting your time attacking my comments, you see I don't like them either, I'm just not blindly in love with Abhisit and his crew of corrupt misfits.

If I had voting rights, I would not use them, I can't even decide which is the lesser of two evils, but as been said many times, people get the government they deserve. :jap:

[ginjag]

Buchholz,

too many nested comment and I can't be bothered to sort them out, but Pi Sek was right in that respect, it was not a relevant question.

However I will explain, I much prefer explaining to elucidating, making things lucid is difficult to a closed mind

After having read all the scornful comments about Yingluk and her debating skills, from yourself and others, I expected her to be hesitant, stumbling, nervous and incoherent, in fact she was none of them. Thus she was better than I expected. As to her evading questions, it seems she is already learning the tricks of the politician's trade.

Now i know you are a rabidly fanatical Thaksin family hater, but you are really wasting your time attacking my comments, you see I don't like them either, I'm just not blindly in love with Abhisit and his crew of corrupt misfits.

If I had voting rights, I would not use them, I can't even decide which is the lesser of two evils, but as been said many times, people get the government they deserve. :jap:

Lets be fair then please, you are impartial ?? Quote 2 evils>> Abhisit evil ?? Not charged with any offence( admitted corruption cannot be controlled==and we all know why),, The ex P.M. has been convicted and on the run. You already stated your not a Thaksin lover maybe for the said reasons, but WHY would you label Abhisit and put them on par ??

The big powers here control NOT the P.M. we ALL know that. Until it is officially announced that Abhisit has wronged-and has (sticky) fingers don't even try to compare the man with the man on the run.

[ginjag]

I've seen far far better gals in Pattaya and with a better command of English, It seems to me that there are some posters that want her to be P.M. because they think she is nice looking and sexy. GET REAL.

[anterian]

Buchholz,

too many nested comment and I can't be bothered to sort them out, but Pi Sek was right in that respect, it was not a relevant question.

However I will explain, I much prefer explaining to elucidating, making things lucid is difficult to a closed mind

After having read all the scornful comments about Yingluk and her debating skills, from yourself and others, I expected her to be hesitant, stumbling, nervous and incoherent, in fact she was none of them. Thus she was better than I expected. As to her evading questions, it seems she is already learning the tricks of the politician's trade.

Now i know you are a rabidly fanatical Thaksin family hater, but you are really wasting your time attacking my comments, you see I don't like them either, I'm just not blindly in love with Abhisit and his crew of corrupt misfits.

If I had voting rights, I would not use them, I can't even decide which is the lesser of two evils, but as been said many times, people get the government they deserve. :jap:

Lets be fair then please, you are impartial ?? Quote 2 evils>> Abhisit evil ?? Not charged with any offence( admitted corruption cannot be controlled==and we all know why),, The ex P.M. has been convicted and on the run. You already stated your not a Thaksin lover maybe for the said reasons, but WHY would you label Abhisit and put them on par ??

The big powers here control NOT the P.M. we ALL know that. Until it is officially announced that Abhisit has wronged-and has (sticky) fingers don't even try to compare the man with the man on the run.

Ah, you talk about fairness, well I cannot reply in an open forum, you see in Thailand it is an offence to criticise the courts and judiciary. So it a null contest as a discussion However, "on the run" I can discuss, if being given an honorary police escort whilst departing with dozens of suitcases is being "on the run" then I think we need to redefine this term. Equally the posturing to have him returned are just that, posturing. Equally in law there is the concept of collusion and being an accessory to the fact. Abhisit's fingers may not be that sticky, but he has, and is aware of, some very sticky fingered members of his crew.

To accept, nay condone corruption, is to me no different from being corrupt, it's that simple. Thaksin got kicked out by the big powers that you suggest, Abhisit is simply a servant to those powers. Thaksin is evil because he tried to be too strong, Abhisit is evil because he is too weak.

[Buchholz]

I've seen those answers. Both appear to be worthless and baiting, unlike the questions.

I'm afraid that's the best they can do. Hardly worth the effort to discuss anything with them, isn't it?

[anterian]

Buchholz,

However I will explain, I much prefer explaining to elucidating

After having read all the scornful comments about Yingluk and her debating skills, from yourself and others

Please point out where I previously made "scornful comments about her debating skills? Prior to this interview, I, and I imagine most others, had never even heard her speak. I've not made comments, scornful or otherwise, about the interview before now.

I expected her to be hesitant, stumbling, nervous and incoherent, in fact she was none of them.

Thus she was better than I expected.

Thank you. I guess I found her to be quite hesitant and frequently stumbled at the questions asked, but I thank you for your input nonetheless.

you are really wasting your time attacking my comments

I've snipped your flames, but if my simply asking you to elucidate on your earlier comment is "attacking", then you should read some of jayboy's comments to various posters for some perspective on what is "attacking."

I see so my comments are flames? Note I said , "from yourself and others", no need to carry it all on your own shoulders.

I believe your scornful comments accompanied the link you provided of her interview.

As to attacking, it's all relative, I cut my teeth on unmoderated forums many years ago, this forum is mild by comparison, indeed I have already been suspended once for a comment judged unseemly by a moderator. Yet it seems others here have a free hand, does it depend on the number of stars you have, or the colour of your shirt?

Never mind, I don't take these political debates seriously, it's not as if we have any say in what happens. We only have one vote in Thailand and that is with our feet

[ginjag]

Buchholz,

too many nested comment and I can't be bothered to sort them out, but Pi Sek was right in that respect, it was not a relevant question.

However I will explain, I much prefer explaining to elucidating, making things lucid is difficult to a closed mind

After having read all the scornful comments about Yingluk and her debating skills, from yourself and others, I expected her to be hesitant, stumbling, nervous and incoherent, in fact she was none of them. Thus she was better than I expected. As to her evading questions, it seems she is already learning the tricks of the politician's trade.

Now i know you are a rabidly fanatical Thaksin family hater, but you are really wasting your time attacking my comments, you see I don't like them either, I'm just not blindly in love with Abhisit and his crew of corrupt misfits.

If I had voting rights, I would not use them, I can't even decide which is the lesser of two evils, but as been said many times, people get the government they deserve. :jap:

Lets be fair then please, you are impartial ?? Quote 2 evils>> Abhisit evil ?? Not charged with any offence( admitted corruption cannot be controlled==and we all know why),, The ex P.M. has been convicted and on the run. You already stated your not a Thaksin lover maybe for the said reasons, but WHY would you label Abhisit and put them on par ??

The big powers here control NOT the P.M. we ALL know that. Until it is officially announced that Abhisit has wronged-and has (sticky) fingers don't even try to compare the man with the man on the run.

Ah, you talk about fairness, well I cannot reply in an open forum, you see in Thailand it is an offence to criticise the courts and judiciary. So it a null contest as a discussion However, "on the run" I can discuss, if being given an honorary police escort whilst departing with dozens of suitcases is being "on the run" then I think we need to redefine this term. Equally the posturing to have him returned are just that, posturing. Equally in law there is the concept of collusion and being an accessory to the fact. Abhisit's fingers may not be that sticky, but he has, and is aware of, some very sticky fingered members of his crew.

To accept, nay condone corruption, is to me no different from being corrupt, it's that simple. Thaksin got kicked out by the big powers that you suggest, Abhisit is simply a servant to those powers. Thaksin is evil because he tried to be too strong, Abhisit is evil because he is too weak.

Being weak thus makes one EVIL.. and you are neutral ??

QUOTE ((( "on the run" I can discuss, if being given an honorary police escort whilst departing with dozens of suitcases is being "on the run" then I think we need to redefine this term.)) But you maybe do not know== Thai will escort anyone for the right price. If you want to neutral BE NEUTRAL.----If the P.M. was doing the same as Thaksin He would have already been out the door . Abhisit was voted by the MPs to be P.M. if he loses this election so be it, Although he is unable to stamp out corruption, he will walk away-but not disgraced. He will not have to swap around countries who don't mind having some of his money.

[anterian]

Buchholz,

too many nested comment and I can't be bothered to sort them out, but Pi Sek was right in that respect, it was not a relevant question.

However I will explain, I much prefer explaining to elucidating, making things lucid is difficult to a closed mind

After having read all the scornful comments about Yingluk and her debating skills, from yourself and others, I expected her to be hesitant, stumbling, nervous and incoherent, in fact she was none of them. Thus she was better than I expected. As to her evading questions, it seems she is already learning the tricks of the politician's trade.

Now i know you are a rabidly fanatical Thaksin family hater, but you are really wasting your time attacking my comments, you see I don't like them either, I'm just not blindly in love with Abhisit and his crew of corrupt misfits.

If I had voting rights, I would not use them, I can't even decide which is the lesser of two evils, but as been said many times, people get the government they deserve. :jap:

Lets be fair then please, you are impartial ?? Quote 2 evils>> Abhisit evil ?? Not charged with any offence( admitted corruption cannot be controlled==and we all know why),, The ex P.M. has been convicted and on the run. You already stated your not a Thaksin lover maybe for the said reasons, but WHY would you label Abhisit and put them on par ??

The big powers here control NOT the P.M. we ALL know that. Until it is officially announced that Abhisit has wronged-and has (sticky) fingers don't even try to compare the man with the man on the run.

Ah, you talk about fairness, well I cannot reply in an open forum, you see in Thailand it is an offence to criticise the courts and judiciary. So it a null contest as a discussion However, "on the run" I can discuss, if being given an honorary police escort whilst departing with dozens of suitcases is being "on the run" then I think we need to redefine this term. Equally the posturing to have him returned are just that, posturing. Equally in law there is the concept of collusion and being an accessory to the fact. Abhisit's fingers may not be that sticky, but he has, and is aware of, some very sticky fingered members of his crew.

To accept, nay condone corruption, is to me no different from being corrupt, it's that simple. Thaksin got kicked out by the big powers that you suggest, Abhisit is simply a servant to those powers. Thaksin is evil because he tried to be too strong, Abhisit is evil because he is too weak.

Being weak thus makes one EVIL.. and you are neutral ??

QUOTE ((( "on the run" I can discuss, if being given an honorary police escort whilst departing with dozens of suitcases is being "on the run" then I think we need to redefine this term.)) But you maybe do not know== Thai will escort anyone for the right price. If you want to neutral BE NEUTRAL.----If the P.M. was doing the same as Thaksin He would have already been out the door . Abhisit was voted by the MPs to be P.M. if he loses this election so be it, Although he is unable to stamp out corruption, he will walk away-but not disgraced. He will not have to swap around countries who don't mind having some of his money.

To accept, nay condone corruption, is to me no different from being corrupt ..... to be weak in the face of evil is itself evil.

Sorry, just my viewpoint on morality, your is obviously different.

Being NEUTRAL (why are we shouting? ) does not mean being blind.

[Buchholz]

I see so my comments are flames?

Some. For some reason, I don't find "rabidly fanatical" as a compliment.

Note I said , "from yourself and others", no need to carry it all on your own shoulders.

Yet, somehow, in the absence of any comment by me, you still state that I made "scornful comments".

I believe your scornful comments accompanied the link you provided of her interview.

You'd be wrong then, unless you somehow consider the non-judgmental phrase, "judge for yourself" to be amazingly construed as "scornful."

As to attacking, it's all relative, I cut my teeth on unmoderated forums many years ago, this forum is mild by comparison, indeed I have already been suspended once for a comment judged unseemly by a moderator. Yet it seems others here have a free hand, does it depend on the number of stars you have, or the colour of your shirt?

I've been on many forums, too, but I've never seen the question posed, "could you elucidate", interpreted as "attacking"

[Buchholz]

Never mind, I don't take these political debates seriously

I gather that now.