There's Something About Yingluck

[termad]

No bile and no poison in my post. She did go to a crappy school .. and it is reasonable that she wouldn't have gotten any (upper management) job from anyone but family. I am able to ignore anything jayboy posts unless someone quotes it

Note: I don't believe the "redshirts murdered themselves" that is a strawman --- I do believe that those paid "ronin" did indeed murder redshirts to increase the body count to try and force the government from power.

On the very day His Majesty the King endorses Yingluck Shinawatra as Thailand's first female Prime Minister this abuse from a repeated offender represents a startling lack of magnanimity.THe member's own unpleasant words are all that one needs to see to understand.

The comment on Red murdering "Ronin" is par for the course with this member.

Fashion?

Again, there is no abuse to point out that Yngluck went to a crappy school (unless of course you are that school and feel your name sullied by the statement but the school rates over 3000 down on the list. Jayboy brought up the strawman regarding the reds. He brought the issue up in an attempt to deflect things away from Yingluck, who certainly has some educational liabilities It is off topic but he wants to make it a topic

Yingluck's education would certainly have precluded her from being named into an upper-level management position if it were not for nepotism. The Thai court which ruled on the assets forfeiture case stated clearly that her brother was still running the show. This is just a typical attack at the poster and not the contents of the post yet again. It is a lame tactic but one resorted to quite often.

(Just saw Hammered's remark) --- Nepotism and cronyism is a hallmark of Thaksin politics more than in most parties (and most parties do have it to some degree!) but looking at the leader (of a government) and their background is certainly valid.

I think that somebody who applied for a senior management position and stated that he had never held a salaried position wouldn't be taken very seriously. Abhisit never had one except for (if it counts) law lecturer at Thamasat.

I have always been quite amazed at your incredible loyalty to Abhisit but now that he's gone I'm even more amazed. Why cannot you now retract much of what you have argued. You talk about Nepotism and Cronyism in reference to Thaksin but you must have read/googled Wikileaks Thailand and Andrew Marshall Mcgregor so you know full well what kind of politician Abhisit is and we are talking right back before the post coup government was installed and right up through when Abhisit was installed by the elite/military (Anupong) through last year and to the present time..

Edited August 9, 2011 by termad

[Wallaby]

Not sure of the relevance of Yingluck's business acumen. One doesn't need to have been previously in business at all to run a country, they are completely different concepts.

[Buchholz]

Termad:

I'm happy to discuss Abhisit's medals in an appropriate thread. Suffice to say, he at least did something to earn them.... and something is more than nothing.

This thread is questioning Yingluck's medals that she seems to have accrued overnight. If you don't know what she was awarded them for, it's ok to say you don't know.

The same applies to the unprecedented (AFAIK) wearing of medals and civil service uniform by a 9 year-old boy.

.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Buchholz

[nikster]

Certainly better educated, more successful at work, and a better parent than a great many foreigners resident in Thailand.

And that makes her qualified to be the leader of a country of 60 million people?

Easy: Unlike most politicians, she is not a complete retard.

Forgot Samak? Or the other unspeakables of the "ugly" cabinet?

Honestly, unless she turns out to be a puppet for her big brother - which might very well happen - I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. Whether or not this country can be governed at all is another question. And whether you have to be the biggest gangster of them all to do it is another one. Abhisit was certainly unable to do anything, despite being PM.

[Methuselah]

In seeking parallels to Yingluck's election success,I am surprised that the name"Arnold Schwarzenegger" has not been introduced to the discussion.Similar to Yingluck he had never held public office until elected governor of California.

Lack of experience is no barrier to electoral success.We have to live with the fact that in a democracy it is charisma that attracts the majority of voters.

[Old Man River]

There is a lot of speculation that in about a year PTP will call an election when the 111 are back and go for a huge majority. Who knows but if that is a strategy it doesnt give their extra-parliamentary enemies much time to react. The Dems in reselecting Abhisit seem to accept that if such were to occur, they would lose anyway, which is almost a certainty.

From what we read, this was an expensive election. If that is the case, it would make sense they don't have another election for several years, unless Thaksin gets amnesty and is eligible to be elected. Failing this, I highly doubt we will see another election anytime soon.

[bigbamboo]

To be fair here a political science MA will be a lot more useful to Ms Yingluck as PM than a fast track career in her brother's asset management business. In fact she will be better qualified for the job (academically) than her sibling predesessor.

[termad]

To be fair here a political science MA will be a lot more useful to Ms Yingluck as PM than a fast track career in her brother's asset management business. In fact she will be better qualified for the job (academically) than her sibling predesessor.

Prior to being a shood-in Democrat MP Abhisit never held a salaried job he was then chosen to be the installed PM by the Military/Amartaya, a job at which he was not too successful at as his peers are now stating. He has no experience in commerce or industry and because of his background is unable to relate to or communicate with ordinary working people - and that last point was made by the Govenor of Bangkok today (himself an Amataya who uses the MR in front of his surname) listing the reasons that the Democrats lost the election.

Check with anybody with knowledge of HR and ask them who would employ Abhisit and for what.

[termad]

There is a lot of speculation that in about a year PTP will call an election when the 111 are back and go for a huge majority. Who knows but if that is a strategy it doesnt give their extra-parliamentary enemies much time to react. The Dems in reselecting Abhisit seem to accept that if such were to occur, they would lose anyway, which is almost a certainty.

From what we read, this was an expensive election. If that is the case, it would make sense they don't have another election for several years, unless Thaksin gets amnesty and is eligible to be elected. Failing this, I highly doubt we will see another election anytime soon.

Thaksin Shinawatra was the first PM to serve a full four year term after winning a clear Parliamentry majority.I would be highly surprised if Madam Shinluck didn't also serve a full four years in office followed by a further full four years term. After 8 years the country will be changed forever.

[rixalex]

Thaksin Shinawatra was the first PM to serve a full four year term after winning a clear Parliamentry majority.

Just for accuracy, the term you are referring to was following the election in 2001, which was not won by a clear parliamentary majority.

I would be highly surprised if Madam Shinluck didn't also serve a full four years in office followed by a further full four years term. After 8 years the country will be changed forever.

Eight years to bring about change? And i thought the Dems were the slow ones.

[termad]

Termad:

I'm happy to discuss Abhisit's medals in an appropriate thread. Suffice to say, he at least did something to earn them.... and something is more than nothing.

This thread is questioning Yingluck's medals that she seems to have accrued overnight. If you don't know what she was awarded them for, it's ok to say you don't know.

The same applies to the unprecedented (AFAIK) wearing of medals and civil service uniform by a 9 year-old boy.

There are many Civil Medals awarded in Thailand from the Cubs/Sea Scouts/Boy Scouts/Girl Guides stage up to and including state awards, service to the community, awards for bravery etc. Look at the passengers on a bus or train wearing uniform and it's pretty sure whether they are teachers, civil servants, policemen or even busmen they will be wearing medal ribons because no matter what age the medal or award was won Thai culture dictates that the medal should be worn when in uniform. There is only one snag; if you haven't lived in Thailand all of your life you won't have any medals. So as you're obsessed with Thai dress uniforms (I make no comment about that) what did Abhisit get his medals for and when did he get them?

What you were doing in your post was making a gratuitous snide comment (as you often do) and (again as you often do) you are now resorting to bluster because you have been challenged.

Edited August 10, 2011 by termad

[termad]

3. They can control the rural feudal types

4. They will have a reshuffle or two of local civil servants

5. They will control local administration

These are the reasons the brought in this election and will the next and next, no-matter what they do while in power.

They would have to something outright, hysterically offensive to common man to not be re-elected as long as they control the rural feudal lords that have owned their constituencies one way or another for the last 30 years.

Could you name a few of the feudal lords that you say were bought in this election and say why there would have been any need to do so when the electorate, come hell or high water, were going to vote for Phue Thai Party anyway? It would be interesting if you gave your source as well.

[termad]

Thaksin Shinawatra was the first PM to serve a full four year term after winning a clear Parliamentry majority.

Just for accuracy, the term you are referring to was following the election in 2001, which was not won by a clear parliamentary majority.

I would be highly surprised if Madam Shinluck didn't also serve a full four years in office followed by a further full four years term. After 8 years the country will be changed forever.

Eight years to bring about change? And i thought the Dems were the slow ones.

Wilipedia

Party Platform and Electoral OutcomesThe Thai Rak Thai was registered on July 15, 1998, by telecommunications entrepreneur Thaksin Shinawatra and 22 other founding members, including Somkid Jatusripitak, Thanong Bidaya, Sudarat Keyuraphan, Purachai Piumsombun, Thammarak Isaragura na Ayuthaya, and Prommin Lertsuridej.

The Thai Rak Thai party had a populist platform, appealing to indebted farmers – which had become indebted as a result of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 – with promises of a strong economic recovery. The party also reached out to rural villages, and struggling businesses. Thai Rak Thai's policies have included a 30 Baht per hospital visit scheme, an extended debt moratorium for farmers, 1 million Baht microcredit development funds for all rural districts, and the One Tambon One Product project.

Thai Rak Thai won the legislative election of 2001 by a landslide margin over the ruling Democrat Party led by Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai. 40% of elected MPs were freshmen. Thai Rak Thai was also able to negotiate for a merger with the New Aspiration Party and a coalition with the Thai Nation Party, resulting in a majority of 325 out of 500 seats for the coalition government.[3]

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.

In the invalid elections of April 2006, it won 61.6% of the vote and 460 out of 500 seats, the rest remaining vacant due to boycotting by the opposition parties in the first past the post electoral system.

[edit] Factions

Work on your reading comprehension skills and then start to reply to posts.

Edited August 10, 2011 by termad

[rixalex]

Thaksin Shinawatra was the first PM to serve a full four year term after winning a clear Parliamentry majority.

Just for accuracy, the term you are referring to was following the election in 2001, which was not won by a clear parliamentary majority.

I would be highly surprised if Madam Shinluck didn't also serve a full four years in office followed by a further full four years term. After 8 years the country will be changed forever.

Eight years to bring about change? And i thought the Dems were the slow ones.

Work on your reading comprehension skills and then start to reply to posts.

I wouldn't call you a post.

Edited August 10, 2011 by rixalex

[TAWP]

3. They can control the rural feudal types

4. They will have a reshuffle or two of local civil servants

5. They will control local administration

These are the reasons the brought in this election and will the next and next, no-matter what they do while in power.

They would have to something outright, hysterically offensive to common man to not be re-elected as long as they control the rural feudal lords that have owned their constituencies one way or another for the last 30 years.

Could you name a few of the feudal lords that you say were bought in this election and say why there would have been any need to do so when the electorate, come hell or high water, were going to vote for Phue Thai Party anyway? It would be interesting if you gave your source as well.

This election?

Pro-tip: see every MP that was bought in 2000 to build TRT.

[rixalex]

Thaksin Shinawatra was the first PM to serve a full four year term after winning a clear Parliamentry majority.

Just for accuracy, the term you are referring to was following the election in 2001, which was not won by a clear parliamentary majority.

I would be highly surprised if Madam Shinluck didn't also serve a full four years in office followed by a further full four years term. After 8 years the country will be changed forever.

Eight years to bring about change? And i thought the Dems were the slow ones.

Wilipedia

Party Platform and Electoral OutcomesThe Thai Rak Thai was registered on July 15, 1998, by telecommunications entrepreneur Thaksin Shinawatra and 22 other founding members, including Somkid Jatusripitak, Thanong Bidaya, Sudarat Keyuraphan, Purachai Piumsombun, Thammarak Isaragura na Ayuthaya, and Prommin Lertsuridej.

The Thai Rak Thai party had a populist platform, appealing to indebted farmers – which had become indebted as a result of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 – with promises of a strong economic recovery. The party also reached out to rural villages, and struggling businesses. Thai Rak Thai's policies have included a 30 Baht per hospital visit scheme, an extended debt moratorium for farmers, 1 million Baht microcredit development funds for all rural districts, and the One Tambon One Product project.

Thai Rak Thai won the legislative election of 2001 by a landslide margin over the ruling Democrat Party led by Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai. 40% of elected MPs were freshmen. Thai Rak Thai was also able to negotiate for a merger with the New Aspiration Party and a coalition with the Thai Nation Party, resulting in a majority of 325 out of 500 seats for the coalition government.[3]

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.

In the invalid elections of April 2006, it won 61.6% of the vote and 460 out of 500 seats, the rest remaining vacant due to boycotting by the opposition parties in the first past the post electoral system.

[edit] Factions

Work on your reading comprehension skills and then start to reply to posts.

Thanks for all that unrelated wiki info.

In 2001 TRT won 248 seats out of 500. This is not a clear parliamentary majority.

[termad]

3. They can control the rural feudal types

4. They will have a reshuffle or two of local civil servants

5. They will control local administration

These are the reasons the brought in this election and will the next and next, no-matter what they do while in power.

They would have to something outright, hysterically offensive to common man to not be re-elected as long as they control the rural feudal lords that have owned their constituencies one way or another for the last 30 years.

Could you name a few of the feudal lords that you say were bought in this election and say why there would have been any need to do so when the electorate, come hell or high water, were going to vote for Phue Thai Party anyway? It would be interesting if you gave your source as well.

This election?

Pro-tip: see every MP that was bought in 2000 to build TRT.

Why not just answer the question and name the feudal lords. If you can't just say so.

[TAWP]

Pro-tip: see every MP that was bought in 2000 to build TRT.

Why not just answer the question and name the feudal lords. If you can't just say so.

Why not say that you are too lazy to look up the MPs (and their connections) that was bought in 2000 and before then?

[termad]

Pro-tip: see every MP that was bought in 2000 to build TRT.

Why not just answer the question and name the feudal lords. If you can't just say so.

Why not say that you are too lazy to look up the MPs (and their connections) that was bought in 2000 and before then?

The only MPs that I have ever said were bought were the forty "Friends of Newin" who were bought in a deal negotiated by General Anupong in Abhisit's presence on an Army Base- this was filmed on TV. Senior politicians have admitted in the run up to this current election that huge sums of money were paid to install Abhisit as PM.

You on the other hand have stated that this election (July 2011) was won because Thaksin(?) bought Feudal Lords that control constituencies. I have asked you for the source for your statement and you haven't/can't give one.

I have asked you to name a few of these feudal lords and you haven't/can't name a single one.

I have asked you what possible reason there would have been to buy any Feudal Lords (if in fact they exist and aren't a figment of your imagination) when there was never any doubt that Jingluck Shinawatra was going to win the election anyway. You can't give any such reason.

I believe your whole post was just a work of fiction dreamed up by you and all that you're doing now is waffling to save face. Which is why you're trying to go back to 2000 in a rather stupid attempt to justify your comments on the election of July 2011 which all observers (Thai and foreign) say was a fair and well run honest election.

Edited August 10, 2011 by termad

[drronnie]

Pro-tip: see every MP that was bought in 2000 to build TRT.

Why not just answer the question and name the feudal lords. If you can't just say so.

Why not say that you are too lazy to look up the MPs (and their connections) that was bought in 2000 and before then?

The only MPs that I have ever said were bought were the forty "Friends of Newin" who were bought in a deal negotiated by General Anupong in Abhisit's presence on an Army Base- this was filmed on TV. Senior politicians have admitted in the run up to this current election that huge sums of money were paid to install Abhisit as PM.

You on the other hand have stated that this election was won because Thaksin(?) bought Feudal Lords that control constituencies. I have asked you for the source for your statement and you haven't/can't give one.

I have asked you to name a few of these feudal lords and you haven't/can't name a single one.

I have asked you what possible reason there would have been to buy any Feudal Lords (if in fact they exist and aren't a figment of your imagination) when there was never any doubt that Jingluck Shinawatra was going to win the election anyway. You can't give any such reason.

I believe your whole post was just a work of fiction dreamed up by you and all that you're doing now is waffling to save face. Which is why you're trying to go back to 2000 in a rather stupid attempt to justify your comments on the election of July 2011 which all observers (Thai and foreign) say was a fair and well run honest election.

OH Thaksin is it you? Did no tknow you were posting on Thaivisa. LOL!

[Imkah]

How does one gauge "successful at work"? or "better educated" when she worked for family only ..... and graduated from a really poorly rated school?

Me wonders: How many of you out there are like me: after hours, finally at home with a glass near at hand and a feeling that if I, ME had a say in this country, and the inhabitants would only listen for a second, things would have been a lot better here. For I, ME, WE come from democracies, right? No money politics, no wheelings and dealings in our back yard, and all from really highly rated seats of education. As our leaders always are. Like the Shin family dinasty or not (I did not appreciate square face) a lot of the comments on this thread are sexist, some are bordering on racist as in the way European/American democracy is compared to the Thai way. Blair? Bush? Berlusconi? And finally a lot of posts are pure boorish. To sum it all up: Thank God all farts like y'all and ME are not allowed to vote here. :jap:

[TAWP]

The only MPs that I have ever said were bought were the forty "Friends of Newin" who were bought in a deal negotiated by General Anupong in Abhisit's presence on an Army Base- this was filmed on TV. Senior politicians have admitted in the run up to this current election that huge sums of money were paid to install Abhisit as PM.

You on the other hand have stated that this election (July 2011) was won because Thaksin(?) bought Feudal Lords that control constituencies. I have asked you for the source for your statement and you haven't/can't give one.

I have asked you to name a few of these feudal lords and you haven't/can't name a single one.

I have asked you what possible reason there would have been to buy any Feudal Lords (if in fact they exist and aren't a figment of your imagination) when there was never any doubt that Jingluck Shinawatra was going to win the election anyway. You can't give any such reason.

I believe your whole post was just a work of fiction dreamed up by you and all that you're doing now is waffling to save face. Which is why you're trying to go back to 2000 in a rather stupid attempt to justify your comments on the election of July 2011 which all observers (Thai and foreign) say was a fair and well run honest election.

Termad, you fail. Again.

You say that the only MP to have been bought is Newins 40. Well, besides from being false, doesn't change the fact that Newin was indeed bought. Earlier than that however. But since Thaksin bought them and added them to the TRT-pile, I guess you don't count that.

Which really explains why you again and again fail to understand that TRT was built upon the shoulders of existing networks, already repeat-elected MPs and some new emerging local lords.

The recent election merely built upon that, as even thought the 111 is banned they still manage to, in large, field sons, daughters, wives, siblings or friends - aka individuals part of the same power-base.

If you need to take a moment to read the previous posts you will notice that they didn't say the feudal lords was bought these recent weeks - they were bought much earlier than that. Again, look at how TRT was built from the start.

And nice strawman, ofcourse one cannot explain why there would be any need to buy (new) local feudal lords since that was never said, written or implied - we all knew that Yingluck surely would be the new PM. Much in thanks to the existing power-base of local feudal lords. See above.

And that the election was deemed fair or clean by all observers is false, and lie infact, as even the EC have stated that is had issues. But that is besides the point, just more of your attempted spin to try to paint everything rosy.

[Buchholz]

Termad:

I'm happy to discuss Abhisit's medals in an appropriate thread. Suffice to say, he at least did something to earn them.... and something is more than nothing.

This thread is questioning Yingluck's medals that she seems to have accrued overnight. If you don't know what she was awarded them for, it's ok to say you don't know.

The same applies to the unprecedented (AFAIK) wearing of medals and civil service uniform by a 9 year-old boy.

There are many Civil Medals awarded in Thailand

So ok, so you don't know what her or her son's medals are specifically for.

As said, it's alright if you don't know the answer to the question posed. There's no need to blather on regarding someone else that is not the subject of the topic nor personally attack the presenter of the question.

Thanks, anyway.

.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Buchholz

[rametindallas]

Certainly better educated, more successful at work, and a better parent than a great many foreigners resident in Thailand.

And that makes her qualified to be the leader of a country of 60 million people?

In the USA we elected George Bush ... twice, and he was certainly less educated, less successful at work, and not as good a parent as a great many foreigners resident in Thailand.

Give Yingluck a break - this piece by the Nation isn't worth the pixels it's published on...

Why are you comparing G. Bush to "a great many foreigners resident in Thailand" instead of to Ms. Yingluck? If you want to make comparisons, compare G. Bush, the first two-term governor of Texas (executive experience) to the Community Organiser (sealed university transcripts and NO executive experience). How about we both don't bring US politics to this forum, huh? I do agree with you that everyone should withhold judgement of the new Thai PM and her government until we see some action. Very few predictions made on this forum have come true.

[rametindallas]

Does anyone know how someone who has never before today served even a minute's worth of time with the government, governmental agency, government-backed program, etc.

.... can now don a civil service uniform, especially one complete with two rows of ribbons/medals?

What has she done in the 24 hours of her premiership to garner at least 6 citations/ribbons/medals?

Even more curious is her husband also wearing a civil service uniform with no prior service as well as her 9 year-old son who was bizarrely attired in the same white crisp uniform. His also had 2 rows of medals. What does a 9 year old do to earn such recognition?

btw, the other paper has the additional photos of Yingluck's husband and son in uniform at her appointment ceremony after endorsement.

I'll see if it is elsewhere to post here.

.

Very perceptive and, yes, inquiring minds want to know.

[rametindallas]

Does anyone know how someone who has never before today served even a minute's worth of time with the government, governmental agency, government-backed program, etc.

.... can now don a civil service uniform, especially one complete with two rows of ribbons/medals?

What has she done in the 24 hours of her premiership to garner at least 6 citations/ribbons/medals?

Even more curious is her husband also wearing a civil service uniform with no prior service as well as her 9 year-old son who was bizarrely attired in the same white crisp uniform. His also had 2 rows of medals. What does a 9 year old do to earn such recognition?

btw, the other paper has the additional photos of Yingluck's husband and son in uniform at her appointment ceremony after endorsement.

I'll see if it is elsewhere to post here.

Abhisit attended the top private school in UK because of the wealth of the family he was born into. Even though he was born and raised in UK he applied for entrance into Oxford University as a foreign student and (because of that) it is worth reflecting that while many UK students fail the Oxford and Cambridge entrance exams 'cash paying' foreign students get an easy ride and are welcomed with open arms by cash strapped UK universities. He then spent longer at Oxford than most students (or their) families could afford before returning to Thailand to lecture in law at Thamasat University. During this time he gave a series of pro bono law lectures to Army Officers on the condition that this would excuse him military service - which it did. Because of that illustrious service to his country he won the two rows of medals that he now proudly wears on his white uniform.

After becoming bored with Thamasat University he decided to enter politics and so, as with many wastrel or totally inexperienced sons of rich Thai families, at the age of 27 he was shooed into a safe Democrat seat. At the time Democrat MPs described him as a pretty face but totally inexperienced. He has been described as somebody with a very cold personality and few interests e.g. when asked what his favourite book was he gave the name of a book on economics. He is also someone who does not like to multi task and who takes a long time to come to a decision.

Comparing Abhisit's c.v. with Jingluck's c.v. and taking into account the fact that Abhisit has never won an election I think that I would go for Jingluck as the most suitable for PM.

Ms Yingluck is not PM. Dr. Thaksin is!