Thaksin Going For 'Psychological Impact': Abhisit

[bungalownights]

LOL by the sounds of it, quite a few of you might have a nervous breakdown after PT wins the election and reality kicks in

[mrtoad]

LOL by the sounds of it, quite a few of you might have a nervous breakdown after PT wins the election and reality kicks in

It would appear there's quite a few of you that need to change your underwear at the slightest mention of Yingluck.

[JurgenG]

The democrats never learned how to run a campaign. They have their captive electorate in Bangkok, then buy (literally speaking) the support of smaller factions to form a coalition.

Thaksin is the first, and so far the only one, to be able to unite a clear majority of voters, nation wide, around his name. One can argue that Thaksin is the first "modern" politician in Thailand and will probably remembered as the father of modern democracy in Thailand

You don't think Thaksin did any of his own buying of smaller parties? Particularly prior to the election that he got a majority.

The Thai Rak Thai Party was the first political party in Thailand to have been represented by more than half of the Members of the House of Representatives. In the 2005 legislative election, the party's candidates were elected to occupy 376 seats of the 500 seats in the House of Representatives, defeating the largest opposition party, the Democrat Party. It won 96 seats. After the election, Thailand's first single party government was successfully formed.

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

http://en.wikipedia....k_Thai#Factions

Various factions who joined the TRT between the 2001 and 2005 elections.

Wang Nam Yen - Sanoh - "Sanoh preferred to play the role of kingmaker by shifting his group from party to party."

Wang Phayanak - "This group is led by Deputy Prime Minister Phinij Jarusombat,[4] who was leader of the small Seritham Party before it merged with Thai Rak Thai after the 2001 elections."

Wang Lam Takong - "composed of the remnants of the old Chart Pattana Party, which merged into Thai Rak Thai before the 2005 elections."

Chonburi Faction - "split from the Chart Thai Party before the 2005 elections to join Thai Rak Thai."

Buri Ram Faction - "Like the Chonburi Faction, this group also defected from the Chart Thai Party before the 2005 elections."

Phor Mod Dam - "former New Aspiration Party, which merged with Thai Rak Thai after the 2001 elections."

See, I can cut and paste from Wiki too.

Cut and paste is basic skill in our computer age. But you still need to understand what you do ...

"Various factions who joined the TRT between the 2001 and 2005 elections" Yes, that's my point, they merged ( do you understand the meaning of the word ?). The factions stopped to exist so what was left was an unique party, TRT

Is it the same now with the democrats ? Definitively not. You have a collection of small parties that are permanently able to bargain their support to the coalition. And that they permanently do.

The democrats campaign in Bangkok. The small parties campaign in their stronghold, then they sell their support when comes the time to form the government.

One obvious weak point of this system is the democrats are not a national party (like the TRT was) but just a local one.

With the TRT it was different. If the party win (what happened) there was no need for bargain or negotiation. You can have a strong government, what happened. Actually Thaksin formed the only government that was able to finish its term, because it was a strong government.

Edited June 17, 2011 by JurgenG

[lannarebirth]

LOL by the sounds of it, quite a few of you might have a nervous breakdown after PT wins the election and reality kicks in

Thailand can certainly weather a PTP victory/coalition. Just so long as the clone doesn't adnminister the same as her older brother or try to rehabilitate him there shouldn't be too many problems that time won't erase.

[jdinasia]

The Thai Rak Thai Party was the first political party in Thailand to have been represented by more than half of the Members of the House of Representatives. In the 2005 legislative election, the party's candidates were elected to occupy 376 seats of the 500 seats in the House of Representatives, defeating the largest opposition party, the Democrat Party. It won 96 seats. After the election, Thailand's first single party government was successfully formed.

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

http://en.wikipedia....k_Thai#Factions

Various factions who joined the TRT between the 2001 and 2005 elections.

Wang Nam Yen - Sanoh - "Sanoh preferred to play the role of kingmaker by shifting his group from party to party."

Wang Phayanak - "This group is led by Deputy Prime Minister Phinij Jarusombat,[4] who was leader of the small Seritham Party before it merged with Thai Rak Thai after the 2001 elections."

Wang Lam Takong - "composed of the remnants of the old Chart Pattana Party, which merged into Thai Rak Thai before the 2005 elections."

Chonburi Faction - "split from the Chart Thai Party before the 2005 elections to join Thai Rak Thai."

Buri Ram Faction - "Like the Chonburi Faction, this group also defected from the Chart Thai Party before the 2005 elections."

Phor Mod Dam - "former New Aspiration Party, which merged with Thai Rak Thai after the 2001 elections."

See, I can cut and paste from Wiki too.

It says nothing about "buying of smaller parties".

It need not, it was common knowledge at the time.

Jurgen is showing an absolute lack of understanding about what Thaksin did and how. Thaksin did indeed do something new. It was not uniting the electorate as in many places they vote the way they are told to by the local political machines (S'noh's, Newin's, Suthep's etc etc etc ...) What he did that was new is to get these regional, 'warlords' would be a good word, but leaders of the local political machines is more accurate, power brokers together under one umbrella. It worked quite well. It has since failed. 2007 showed the failure and 2011 will likely have similar results.

When someone suggests that it was the will of the electorate that was thwarted when, after PPP was dissolved, that former TRT/PPP factions went their own way again need only look at the by-election results. The seats that were held by PPP (under the Friends of Newin faction) did not go to the newly formed PTP Thaksin replacement party for PPP .... They went to BJT. In other words they were never Thaksin voters .... they were Newin voters that did as they were told each time.

[ballpoint]

Cut and paste is basic skill in our computer age. But you still need to understand what you do ...

"Various factions who joined the TRT between the 2001 and 2005 elections" Yes, that's my point, they merged ( do you understand the meaning of the word ?). The factions stopped to exist so what was left was an unique party, TRT

Is it the same now with the democrats ? Definitively not. You have a collection of small parties that are permanently able to bargain their support to the coalition. And that they permanently do.

The democrats campaign in Bangkok. The small parties campaign in their stronghold, then they sell their support when comes the time to form the government.

One obvious weak point of this system is the democrats are not a national party (like the TRT was) but just a local one.

With the TRT it was different. If the party win (what happened) there was no need for bargain or negotiation. You can have a strong government, what happened. Actually Thaksin formed the only government that was able to finish its term, because it was a strong government.

You told us in an earler thread that you didn't know, and didn't care, about what went on when Thaksin was PM. Now you expect us to believe that you do know what you are talking about? Sorry, but you'll have to do better. Contrary to what you say, the government that did manage to finish its term was the first TRT one, which was a coalition government. The second, majority TRT government only lasted a year. Rather shoots down your argument there. Secondly, many of the coalition parties "joined" the TRT for the second election, but effectively remained as semi independant factions within it. Their bickering and political manoeuvering within the TRT was well known to anyone who actually did know and did care about what was going on, rather than just making a buck for himself out of the crumbs dropped from the ill gotten gains stolen from others.

[JurgenG]

Jurgen is showing an absolute lack of understanding about what Thaksin did and how. Thaksin did indeed do something new. It was not uniting the electorate as in many places they vote the way they are told to by the local political machines (S'noh's, Newin's, Suthep's etc etc etc ...) What he did that was new is to get these regional, 'warlords' would be a good word, but leaders of the local political machines is more accurate, power brokers together under one umbrella. It worked quite well. It has since failed. 2007 showed the failure and 2011 will likely have similar results.

When someone suggests that it was the will of the electorate that was thwarted when, after PPP was dissolved, that former TRT/PPP factions went their own way again need only look at the by-election results. The seats that were held by PPP (under the Friends of Newin faction) did not go to the newly formed PTP Thaksin replacement party for PPP .... They went to BJT. In other words they were never Thaksin voters .... they were Newin voters that did as they were told each time.

It has since failed. 2007 showed the failure

So what happened between 2005 and 2007 ? A military coup, a rigged election ... Actually nothing much, nothing unusual in a healthy democracy

Thaksin united the country, created a great national party.

All the democrats had to do was to build the opposite party on the same model.

But "they" didn't like it, "they" decided it was the best interest of the nation to destroy everything

What we have now ? Half of the country who hates the other half. And it's not Thaksin that is responsible for this hate campaign.

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

Actually, the real question is, do you really know who really benefits from your blind hate to Thaksin they have so smartly engineered ?

[ballpoint]

Jurgen is showing an absolute lack of understanding about what Thaksin did and how. Thaksin did indeed do something new. It was not uniting the electorate as in many places they vote the way they are told to by the local political machines (S'noh's, Newin's, Suthep's etc etc etc ...) What he did that was new is to get these regional, 'warlords' would be a good word, but leaders of the local political machines is more accurate, power brokers together under one umbrella. It worked quite well. It has since failed. 2007 showed the failure and 2011 will likely have similar results.

When someone suggests that it was the will of the electorate that was thwarted when, after PPP was dissolved, that former TRT/PPP factions went their own way again need only look at the by-election results. The seats that were held by PPP (under the Friends of Newin faction) did not go to the newly formed PTP Thaksin replacement party for PPP .... They went to BJT. In other words they were never Thaksin voters .... they were Newin voters that did as they were told each time.

Precisely. Where were the massed protests when the elected members of parliament got together and voted Abhisit as PM? There were none. When did the protests start? "Black Songkran" in April 2009 began with Thaksin calling for revolution. "Even Blacker Songkran", last year, began with the courts confiscating much of his stolen money, and making the evidence against his criminal activities freely available, (although some here would have us believe that prior to this it was legal to rob the Thai people blind, as "the law was only changed for this court case". Forget the doctor, go see a chiropterologist guys and get your belfry seen to). But I digress. Let's see, that gives us bloody protests due to the people being upset about "the will of the electorate being thwarted", Nil. Bloody protests due to one man's greed and ego, Two.

[bungalownights]

Jurgen is showing an absolute lack of understanding about what Thaksin did and how. Thaksin did indeed do something new. It was not uniting the electorate as in many places they vote the way they are told to by the local political machines (S'noh's, Newin's, Suthep's etc etc etc ...) What he did that was new is to get these regional, 'warlords' would be a good word, but leaders of the local political machines is more accurate, power brokers together under one umbrella. It worked quite well. It has since failed. 2007 showed the failure and 2011 will likely have similar results.

When someone suggests that it was the will of the electorate that was thwarted when, after PPP was dissolved, that former TRT/PPP factions went their own way again need only look at the by-election results. The seats that were held by PPP (under the Friends of Newin faction) did not go to the newly formed PTP Thaksin replacement party for PPP .... They went to BJT. In other words they were never Thaksin voters .... they were Newin voters that did as they were told each time.

It has since failed. 2007 showed the failure

So what happened between 2005 and 2007 ? A military coup, a rigged election ... Actually nothing much, nothing unusual in a healthy democracy

Thaksin united the country, created a great national party.

All the democrats had to do was to build the opposite party on the same model.

But "they" didn't like it, "they" decided it was the best interest of the nation to destroy everything

What we have now ? Half of the country who hates the other half. And it's not Thaksin that is responsible for this hate campaign.

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

Actually, the real question is, do you really know who really benefits from your blind hate to Thaksin they have so smartly engineered ?

Mate, good post, but its impossible to get through to these people. Their combination of naivety and ignorance fuelled by blind hatred leaves absolutely no room for common sense.

[ballpoint]

...

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

...

Again this boasting by the Thaksin supporters about how he openly supported the extra judicial murder of thousands. About how he openly stole billions of baht from the Thai people. About how he openly attempted to cheat in elections. About how he openly silenced critics. What is there to be so proud about supporting a man like that? (Prepare for a flood of fabricated Abhisit accusations from the usual direction).

[JurgenG]

...

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

...

Again this boasting by the Thaksin supporters about how he openly supported the extra judicial murder of thousands. About how he openly stole billions of baht from the Thai people. About how he openly attempted to cheat in elections. About how he openly silenced critics. What is there to be so proud about supporting a man like that? (Prepare for a flood of fabricated Abhisit accusations from the usual direction).

All this points have been answered before

Sometime I feel like Fat Freddy's cat in his war agains the cockroaches ....

[ballpoint]

...

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

...

Again this boasting by the Thaksin supporters about how he openly supported the extra judicial murder of thousands. About how he openly stole billions of baht from the Thai people. About how he openly attempted to cheat in elections. About how he openly silenced critics. What is there to be so proud about supporting a man like that? (Prepare for a flood of fabricated Abhisit accusations from the usual direction).

All this points have been answered before

Sometime I feel like Fat Freddy's cat in his war agains the cockroaches ....

No they haven't. He fled the country to avoid answering them.

Does Fat Freddy know how you feel about his cat?

[jdinasia]

...

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

...

Again this boasting by the Thaksin supporters about how he openly supported the extra judicial murder of thousands. About how he openly stole billions of baht from the Thai people. About how he openly attempted to cheat in elections. About how he openly silenced critics. What is there to be so proud about supporting a man like that? (Prepare for a flood of fabricated Abhisit accusations from the usual direction).

All this points have been answered before

Sometime I feel like Fat Freddy's cat in his war agains the cockroaches ....

Blind hate? Nope ---

Do I know what Abhisit has done? Yes. Do I know what the Dem led government has done? Yes. Why didn't they repeat Thaksin's model of buying up feudal/regional power blocs? I am only guessing .. but Ethics?

Supporting someone like Thaksin isn't something I would do (after 2003). Remember --- the cheating in elections by Thaksin came BEFORE the coup

[JurgenG]

...

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

...

Again this boasting by the Thaksin supporters about how he openly supported the extra judicial murder of thousands. About how he openly stole billions of baht from the Thai people. About how he openly attempted to cheat in elections. About how he openly silenced critics. What is there to be so proud about supporting a man like that? (Prepare for a flood of fabricated Abhisit accusations from the usual direction).

All this points have been answered before

Sometime I feel like Fat Freddy's cat in his war agains the cockroaches ....

No they haven't. He fled the country to avoid answering them.

Does Fat Freddy know how you feel about his cat?

You really don't know Fat Freddy

[animatic]

...

I know what Thaksin did. Can you say the same about the people you support ?

...

Again this boasting by the Thaksin supporters about how he openly supported the extra judicial murder of thousands. About how he openly stole billions of baht from the Thai people. About how he openly attempted to cheat in elections. About how he openly silenced critics. What is there to be so proud about supporting a man like that? (Prepare for a flood of fabricated Abhisit accusations from the usual direction).

All this points have been answered before

Sometime I feel like Fat Freddy's cat in his war agains the cockroaches ....

Blind hate? Nope ---

Do I know what Abhisit has done? Yes. Do I know what the Dem led government has done? Yes. Why didn't they repeat Thaksin's model of buying up feudal/regional power blocs? I am only guessing .. but Ethics?

Supporting someone like Thaksin isn't something I would do (after 2003). Remember --- the cheating in elections by Thaksin came BEFORE the coup

Why would most Thai politicians care about ethics...?

They just get in the way all the time

[SkyHigh]

Yingluck it's only a name and a face, there's nothing on her that says she is PM material.

so... grad from good school is enough ?

I wish I could agree. lol.

[rubl]

...

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

Real democrats don't dream about 'one man, one party, no compromise'. That's more like the realm of dictators.

A new era in Thai politics indeed

[landofthefree]

C'mon now, give credit where it is due. Mme. Yingluck has run a solid campaign so far. No major gaffes, no panic, no running off at the mouth, no remarks in desparation. She's been able to hold it together and get her message out.

The Democrats have run a lacklustre campaign. The Abhisit adminstration has introduced some interesting ideas and it has tried to implement some policies to benefit the people. Yet, one wouldn't know about this aspect of the Abhisit administration because the Democrats have gone off message and been distracted by Mr. Thaksin. If Abhisit wants to keep some of the voters he needs to get back on message and stick with that message.

I want him to do some more negative campaigning like talking about the bad red shirt boys in the past where as Khun Yingluck is looking to the future and reconciliation it shows he knows he is going to lose and is desperate. 2 weeks to go. Time to start packing your bags Khun Abhisit!

[JurgenG]

...

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

Real democrats don't dream about 'one man, one party, no compromise'. That's more like the realm of dictators.

A new era in Thai politics indeed

How many party in the USA ? The democrats, the G.O.P. and ....?

Get real, the only way Thailand can have a functioning government is when there will be only two big national parties.

Democrats / G.O.P., Liberals / tories ... That's the way to go.

The problem is then the power will belong to the elected PM and nobody else.

It's time people face the real problem

Edited June 17, 2011 by JurgenG

[jdinasia]

Jurgen --- MANY (and almost all of the most highly rated) democracies use Parliamentary democracy -- with multiple parties. (Making that another fallacious argument)

[jdinasia]

...

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

Real democrats don't dream about 'one man, one party, no compromise'. That's more like the realm of dictators.

A new era in Thai politics indeed

Obviously true ---- the man has a plan ... and I don't think the title PM is in it.

[rubl]

...

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

Real democrats don't dream about 'one man, one party, no compromise'. That's more like the realm of dictators.

A new era in Thai politics indeed

How many party in the USA ? The democrats, the G.O.P. and ....?

Get real, the only way Thailand can have a functioning government is when there will be only two big national parties.

Democrats / G.O.P., Liberals / tories ... That's the way to go.

The problem is then the power will belong to the elected PM and nobody else.

It's time people face the real problem

K. Thaksin has gone on record recently saying "that a single-party government has proved to be an unsuccessful format for Thailand, referring to his own experience during his premiership."

Personally I also do not believe it works that well in the USA. Britain is a bit different, many more checks & balances, but also there complaints about the (almost) two party system. I'm from the Netherlands, we mostly have a coalition of about three/four parties, any combination possible (left/middle, middle, right/middle, left/right no middle). That's democracy

[JurgenG]

Yingluck it's only a name and a face, there's nothing on her that says she is PM material.

so... grad from good school is enough ?

I wish I could agree. lol.

Not like Korn, his father was Commissioner of the Customs Department, Commissioner of the Revenue Department, and Director of the Fiscal Policy Office.

What a pedigree.

What do I think about him ?

Have you ever deal with the customs in Thailand ? Then you know what I think.

PS : For those who don't know, Korn is the guy who's going to replace Abhisit as the head of the opposition after the coming election

[MrChangers]

What a comedian. Welcome to the real world of politics Mr Abhisit it's all about Psychology not some sad debate in an English University. Go to the library and get a book from the masters in the subject, look under the names Brown, Blair and Bush for the latest players.

[MrChangers]

C'mon now, give credit where it is due. Mme. Yingluck has run a solid campaign so far. No major gaffes, no panic, no running off at the mouth, no remarks in desparation. She's been able to hold it together and get her message out.

The Democrats have run a lacklustre campaign. The Abhisit adminstration has introduced some interesting ideas and it has tried to implement some policies to benefit the people. Yet, one wouldn't know about this aspect of the Abhisit administration because the Democrats have gone off message and been distracted by Mr. Thaksin. If Abhisit wants to keep some of the voters he needs to get back on message and stick with that message.

Personally I think her brother and other advisors have run a solid campaign so far, perfectly orchestrated, must have cost some solid money

Common sense, and a calm demeanor are a character trait. It is not a quality that can be purchased.

It's rather facile to dismiss the discipline Mme. Yingluck has shown as being the product of campaign donations. PM Abhisit benefits from the support of some very wealthy people that include some of the largest land owners and corporate bosses in Thailand. He too has had the benefit of money. Yet, he has not managed to stay on message and to focus. Mr. Abhisit is described as a man of intellect and superior education, while Mme. Yingluck has been dismissed as a dumb uneducated stooge. He should have been able to knock her off message and put her on the defensive. Instead she stayed cool while PM Abhisit is providing the public a display of worried despair.

I have to agree with this. It does seem to me that Mr Abhisit is showing the signs of panic.

[MrChangers]

...

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

Real democrats don't dream about 'one man, one party, no compromise'. That's more like the realm of dictators.

A new era in Thai politics indeed

How many party in the USA ? The democrats, the G.O.P. and ....?

Get real, the only way Thailand can have a functioning government is when there will be only two big national parties.

Democrats / G.O.P., Liberals / tories ... That's the way to go.

The problem is then the power will belong to the elected PM and nobody else.

It's time people face the real problem

K. Thaksin has gone on record recently saying "that a single-party government has proved to be an unsuccessful format for Thailand, referring to his own experience during his premiership."

Personally I also do not believe it works that well in the USA. Britain is a bit different, many more checks & balances, but also there complaints about the (almost) two party system. I'm from the Netherlands, we mostly have a coalition of about three/four parties, any combination possible (left/middle, middle, right/middle, left/right no middle). That's democracy

No it's a fudge. It is a committee and achieves nothing due to swapping allegiances at every political bump in the road. For strong government you need clear cut policies and direction from one party (Be they right or wrong). Thailand needs a strong government but it will only happen if the Army allows it.

[Buchholz]

...

One man, one party, no compromise.

The Democrats can't even dream of coming close to that.

A new area in Thai politic, that why his opponents were so scared of him.

Real democrats don't dream about 'one man, one party, no compromise'. That's more like the realm of dictators.

A new era in Thai politics indeed

One man, one party, no compromise.

I believe that was Ferdinand Marcos's campaign slogan when he ran unopposed.

.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[MAJIC]

It seems to me that Yingluck is behaving like a good politician and candidate, no personal attacks on her opposition, and a simple message that ordinary people understand.

Abhisit in contrast is running scared, making wild accusations. He is so busy seeing Thaksin as his enemy that he is ignoring Yingluck, a big mistake.

In football terms, Yingluck has the ball and Thaksin is running interference, Abhisit is too foolish to see this.

And what message would that be?

please tell us,in Yinglucks own words???

[Gonsalviz]

C'mon now, give credit where it is due. Mme. Yingluck has run a solid campaign so far. No major gaffes, no panic, no running off at the mouth, no remarks in desparation. She's been able to hold it together and get her message out.

The Democrats have run a lacklustre campaign. The Abhisit adminstration has introduced some interesting ideas and it has tried to implement some policies to benefit the people. Yet, one wouldn't know about this aspect of the Abhisit administration because the Democrats have gone off message and been distracted by Mr. Thaksin. If Abhisit wants to keep some of the voters he needs to get back on message and stick with that message.

Personally I think her brother and other advisors have run a solid campaign so far, perfectly orchestrated, must have cost some solid money

Common sense, and a calm demeanor are a character trait. It is not a quality that can be purchased.

It's rather facile to dismiss the discipline Mme. Yingluck has shown as being the product of campaign donations. PM Abhisit benefits from the support of some very wealthy people that include some of the largest land owners and corporate bosses in Thailand. He too has had the benefit of money. Yet, he has not managed to stay on message and to focus. Mr. Abhisit is described as a man of intellect and superior education, while Mme. Yingluck has been dismissed as a dumb uneducated stooge. He should have been able to knock her off message and put her on the defensive. Instead she stayed cool while PM Abhisit is providing the public a display of worried despair.

"

Yingluck has been dismissed as a dumb uneducated stooge"

She has a Masters degree in Business Admin. I doubt anyone considers her uneducated. Lacking experience yes, but unecucated, no way

unecucated?

[Gonsalviz]

"Yingluck has been dismissed as a dumb uneducated stooge"

She has a Masters degree in Business Admin. I doubt anyone considers her uneducated. Lacking experience yes, but unecucated, no way

Though ti's easy to wonder how she got that, even at a marginal USA Uni, with the marginal english language skills she has shown during the Reuters interview.... just saying, US unis expect solid language skills.

Sadly, the nature of people is to attack the person rather than the political policies. The comment in respect to language skills indicates a profound ignorance and belies a condescending position.

It is indeed true that Mme. Yngluck has an accent when she speaks in English and does not demonstrate the same fluency as PM Abhisit. This does not demonstrate incompetence nor ignorance. On the contrary, it highlights the discipline and tenacity that the non-english language speaker had as a student. Universities, particularly those that admit foreign students, do test for language skill proficiency. Hence the requirement of passing a TOEFL type of exam (e..g. CAEL, MELB, IELTS etc.) as a condition of admission.

How many of those ridiculing Mme. Yingluck's education would be capable of gaining enterance to an MBA program and of doing it in a very foreign language?

U.S. universities may indeed expect solid english language skills, but the typical student today is often incapable of writing a comprehensible paper. Some of my classes were chock full of asians that had a hard time speaking english, yet they managed to achieve excellent grades. One should not denigrate a person because his or her english language speaking skills are poor.

It is what one does with an education that counts. For every person that graduates at the top of the class, there is someone that graduates at the bottom. The bottom ranked person can achieve greatness if he or she is possessed of a work ethic, determination and drive.

A.S., B.S., M.S., PhD. All <deleted>, Bull <deleted>, More <deleted>, Piled higher an Deeper. A degree is not much in my book. Look at all the Thai women running around with degrees. Secretaries and clerks.