PM Yingluck Denies Meeting Thaksin In Singapore

[sysardman]

The whole point being if she met him why does she deny it ???????????????? something to hide ? guilty feeling ? must be something wrong with it or why not a clean open book. posters that must have read about-the promises, the helicopter excuse, the illness to avoid a meeting, and a host of other lies. why do posters think that the sun shines out of ]]] ]]]] when all this charade is taking place----truthful about this government some posters feel they shouldn't be.

So where is your proof (or that of the OP come to that) that she did meet him? She denied she met him because she was asked whether she met him according to "reports" and she hadn't. End of, no conspiracy here. Most of these stories coming out from the Nation, and its ilk, of denials are because they ask questions about things she didn't say/do/imply etc so she replies in the negative, what is so suprising? They might as well have asked did she meet Elvis in Singapore and when she denied it make a story out of it. Though some on here would probably still say she was lying.

Ginjag doesn't need proof because he/she was making no claim one way or the other. You should have known that when he/she started with The whole point being if she met him....Notice the "if"?

Nobody seems to know how much truth there is to the speculation. The discussion is therefore one of a hypothetical nature - as follows: if she, PM of Thailand, met him, her brother, a criminal on the run, would you be ok with that, and would you also be ok with her lying about it so as to avoid legal difficulties. My feeling is that no, whatever obvious loyalty she has to family, she should put the country first, and let authorities deal with her brother's case, just as they would deal with any other case, and that she should in no way interfere - that includes meeting him. If she is going to do so, she should at least have the courage of her convictions, and honesty to the public, to not lie about it. Prime Ministers shouldn't be lying about anything for that matter, whatever the reason. OK, dodge questions you don't want to answer, say when asked if you contacted your brother via Skype that you have no comment, but don't flat out lie.

My feeling on Prime Ministers lying as being unacceptable is obviously however not one shared by some people here, Mr Bowskill for one. No doubt he will say that since in his opinion they all lie, that makes it ok and we shouldn't waste time condemning them when they get found out. With this attitude, how will standards ever get raised, when the public ceases caring or demanding?

Have we got photos of this alleged meeting?? who has clear evidence that she is lying?? I sort of get the feeling of a wild west lynch mob mentality in some of these comments. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

Edited December 10, 2011 by sysardman

[rixalex]

Ginjag doesn't need proof because he/she was making no claim one way or the other. You should have known that when he/she started with The whole point being if she met him....Notice the "if"?

Nobody seems to know how much truth there is to the speculation. The discussion is therefore one of a hypothetical nature - as follows: if she, PM of Thailand, met him, her brother, a criminal on the run, would you be ok with that, and would you also be ok with her lying about it so as to avoid legal difficulties. My feeling is that no, whatever obvious loyalty she has to family, she should put the country first, and let authorities deal with her brother's case, just as they would deal with any other case, and that she should in no way interfere - that includes meeting him. If she is going to do so, she should at least have the courage of her convictions, and honesty to the public, to not lie about it. Prime Ministers shouldn't be lying about anything for that matter, whatever the reason. OK, dodge questions you don't want to answer, say when asked if you contacted your brother via Skype that you have no comment, but don't flat out lie.

My feeling on Prime Ministers lying as being unacceptable is obviously however not one shared by some people here, Mr Bowskill for one. No doubt he will say that since in his opinion they all lie, that makes it ok and we shouldn't waste time condemning them when they get found out. With this attitude, how will standards ever get raised, when the public ceases caring or demanding?

Have we got photos of this alleged meeting?? who has clear evidence that she is lying?? I sort of get the feeling of a wild west lynch mob mentality in some of these comments. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

Deary me. Are you hard of reading? The story is based on speculation. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be speculation now would it; it would be fact. Who here has claimed it as fact?

[DLock]

Are the bars closed today?

Why so many clearly drunk posters?

Let's recap how she got here.

The Sister of a convicted felon

With zero political experience

Who worked for her family or Brothers companies

Who was elected purely because of her name and perhaps her looks

On a raft of populist policies that will never happen

Who completely mismanaged the flood crisis

And tried to sneak in a pardon for her Brother when everyone was distracted

And when she got caught said "I don't know, I wasn't there"

Who may or may not have met a convicted felon wanted by Thai authorities in Singapore

And all this in 5 months

Defending the undefendable is an admiral position to take.

Lets not confuse the truth with fanciful thoughts. Yingluck was groomed and marketed purely to be PM to extend the Shinawatra dynasty and ultimately allow her Brother to come back. Arguing over her "experience" or lack off is irrelevant.

She is being manipulated and directed by dark influences. She does not make decisions and to think otherwise is foolish. She has stage handlers and advisors every where she goes.

She is, for all intentions purposes a puppet with "fist for brains".

[sysardman]

Ginjag doesn't need proof because he/she was making no claim one way or the other. You should have known that when he/she started with The whole point being if she met him....Notice the "if"?

Nobody seems to know how much truth there is to the speculation. The discussion is therefore one of a hypothetical nature - as follows: if she, PM of Thailand, met him, her brother, a criminal on the run, would you be ok with that, and would you also be ok with her lying about it so as to avoid legal difficulties. My feeling is that no, whatever obvious loyalty she has to family, she should put the country first, and let authorities deal with her brother's case, just as they would deal with any other case, and that she should in no way interfere - that includes meeting him. If she is going to do so, she should at least have the courage of her convictions, and honesty to the public, to not lie about it. Prime Ministers shouldn't be lying about anything for that matter, whatever the reason. OK, dodge questions you don't want to answer, say when asked if you contacted your brother via Skype that you have no comment, but don't flat out lie.

My feeling on Prime Ministers lying as being unacceptable is obviously however not one shared by some people here, Mr Bowskill for one. No doubt he will say that since in his opinion they all lie, that makes it ok and we shouldn't waste time condemning them when they get found out. With this attitude, how will standards ever get raised, when the public ceases caring or demanding?

Have we got photos of this alleged meeting?? who has clear evidence that she is lying?? I sort of get the feeling of a wild west lynch mob mentality in some of these comments. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

Deary me. Are you hard of reading? The story is based on speculation. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be speculation now would it; it would be fact. Who here has claimed it as fact?

Only as much as you are hard of thinking - if people are accusing Yingluck of lying then that doesn't sound like speculation to me. If you speculate you would say she is 'probably' lying.

[billd766]

I can't fathom this stupid hatred for the PM. What is this "experience" that she has supposedly not had??

Experience in what, for fksks?

If you look around you at all the "experienced" world leaders what do we fkn find? That Putin was head of the KGB (Ok, I grant that was some experience), or the PM of Italy is a stooge of Goldman Sachs (ditto the new PM of Greece)....not a single moment's "experience" among them. Or the Republicans were about to push forward a guy, Herman Cain, whose only experience appeared to be in taking his trousers off three times a day after meals. Very able guy.

Shall we go on?

What experience of actual government did Tony Bliar have before he got into a position to ruin the UK? (Ditto G. Brown).

So, why this stupid sneering at a woman who has had at least as much "experience" in business as some of these a**h*les the world so admires. Leave her alone. It's so boring. Predictable. Have another beer.

Would the present PM be PM if not for her name ? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

But she was elected by the people of Thailand

Sorry to correct you but she was NOT elected by the people of Thailand.

She is a party list MP and as such does not have a constituency to work for the same as Abhisit is a party list MP.

Both are on the party list and the more seats a party wins the more party MPs they are allowed.

Then depending on the position you either get an MP slot or you don't.

Obviously as they were both no1 in the party list the were elected.

A different number or not enough seats then you are not an MP.

To be prime minster you HAVE to be an MP but you can be an ordinary minister and not be an MP.

Perhaps this was the reason that Thaksin told the minister to resign as MP and then more can be promoted from the party list.

[chuang]

Was Thaksin in Singpore?

Any photo prove by the opposition will be great.

I saw him in Chiangmai...

[blazes]

Are the bars closed today?

Why so many clearly drunk posters?

Let's recap how she got here.

The Sister of a convicted felon

With zero political experience

Who worked for her family or Brothers companies

Who was elected purely because of her name and perhaps her looks

On a raft of populist policies that will never happen

Who completely mismanaged the flood crisis

And tried to sneak in a pardon for her Brother when everyone was distracted

And when she got caught said "I don't know, I wasn't there"

Who may or may not have met a convicted felon wanted by Thai authorities in Singapore

And all this in 5 months

Defending the undefendable is an admiral position to take.

Lets not confuse the truth with fanciful thoughts. Yingluck was groomed and marketed purely to be PM to extend the Shinawatra dynasty and ultimately allow her Brother to come back. Arguing over her "experience" or lack off is irrelevant.

She is being manipulated and directed by dark influences. She does not make decisions and to think otherwise is foolish. She has stage handlers and advisors every where she goes.

She is, for all intentions purposes a puppet with "fist for brains".

What planet are you living on? There is not a single politician anywhere who is not, to a greater or lesser degree, a puppet of those in the background who really call the shots (like the CEOs of the global corporations and Wall St scumbags generally - "I am so sorry, I lost a billion dollars as CEO of ...and I don't know where it's gone")

No, really...look at Obama...he had a mandate (the largest in a generation or more) to go out and DO something...and what did he do? Carry on exactly where Dubya left off....(apart from his silly handling of healthcare). Any American president is, by definition, cos of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction at his fingertip, the "most powerful man in the world." But NO American president has been able to counteract the Real Power behind the throne (the military/industrial complex). None.

Why should you apply a higher standard to Yingluck, who has been in "power" for all of five months?

[blazes]

IMHO, a "working lifetime in Politics" is not worth a rat's arse when it comes to making decisions. Why not ask the families of dead soldiers in Iraq what they think of Bliar's great experience in throwing sand in people's eyes? (Weapons of Mass Destruction, in UK in 45 minutes!!!!!!) Lies, lies, lies.

Or ask the 2 million unemployed (and rising) in UK what they think of good ol' Gordon's love affair with the banks and the City of London all those years. Socialist? Give me a sodding break.

Yingluck is no better, no worse, than any other politician who comes into office without obvious qualifications for the job. What ARE the qualifications a politician needs? Just to lie as smoothly as possible while robbing the till. (Maybe have some nooky on the side?) And if you want to see what Americans think about "political experience" just watch sweet Newt Gingrich being trounced by the current pres next year.

You are more scathing on the likes of Blair than i would be, as i see the good things that he did whilst in office as well as the bad, but i understand why you feel the way you do about him, and i would not think of stepping in and telling you to give him a break, or to have a go at someone else who i think is worse. I have no interest in protecting politicians from criticism, providing of course there are reasonably grounds.

I have been without a home and without a business now for almost two months. I don't blame Yingluck or the government entirely, certainly not with regards preventing the flood, but in terms of managing the crisis, she and they have been completely hopeless. I feel i have a right to be angry, as you have a right to your anger, and i don't get why it is you think i should give her or they a break, just because you have stronger feelings about other things; why it is you think she needs protecting from criticism. The criticism is with reasonable grounds, and if you think otherwise, you are either not living here or are blind.

I am sorry to hear about your personal difficulties.

I would be the last to assert that ANY politician should be free from criticism. I am not particularly "angry"...it just frustrates me to see knee-jerk reactions when it comes to Yingluck. I think, she and all politicians need a honeymoon period of maybe one year before judgements can be called with confidence.

[chuang]

Why should you apply a higher standard to Yingluck, who has been in "power" for all of five months?

Simply because all these people are anti Thaksin, and anyone or party associated with him is to be condemmed whether it;s right or wrong...

[sysardman]

Was Thaksin in Singpore?

Any photo prove by the opposition will be great.

I saw him in Chiangmai...

I saw him too - he was driving a tuk-tuk and I'm sure that Elvis was in the back!!!

[rixalex]

Deary me. Are you hard of reading? The story is based on speculation. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be speculation now would it; it would be fact. Who here has claimed it as fact?

Only as much as you are hard of thinking - if people are accusing Yingluck of lying then that doesn't sound like speculation to me. If you speculate you would say she is 'probably' lying.

Again, people are speculating on the possibility of her having lied - yes, i know, who would have thought - a politician lying - but nobody has accused her, at least not with regards this story.

[rixalex]

I am sorry to hear about your personal difficulties.

Thank you.

I would be the last to assert that ANY politician should be free from criticism. I am not particularly "angry"...it just frustrates me to see knee-jerk reactions when it comes to Yingluck. I think, she and all politicians need a honeymoon period of maybe one year before judgements can be called with confidence.

I have made no judgements or conclusions on her entire time in office, and i shan't until it ends. I'm just commenting and criticising, where i see fit, on a decision by decision basis. Does this honeymoon period you believe in giving politicians (a belief i can't say i share, but there you go) require that one refrain from criticising anything until that period has elapsed? Because that seems to be what you are asking me to do.

[rixalex]

Why should you apply a higher standard to Yingluck, who has been in "power" for all of five months?

Simply because all these people are anti Thaksin, and anyone or party associated with him is to be condemmed whether it;s right or wrong...

Just as easily turned around to: because all these people are anti pro Thaksin, and anyone or party associated with him is to be condemmed praised and defended whether it;s right or wrong...

[blazes]

I am sorry to hear about your personal difficulties.

Thank you.

I would be the last to assert that ANY politician should be free from criticism. I am not particularly "angry"...it just frustrates me to see knee-jerk reactions when it comes to Yingluck. I think, she and all politicians need a honeymoon period of maybe one year before judgements can be called with confidence.

I have made no judgements or conclusions on her entire time in office, and i shan't until it ends. I'm just commenting and criticising, where i see fit, on a decision by decision basis. Does this honeymoon period you believe in giving politicians (a belief i can't say i share, but there you go) require that one refrain from criticising anything until that period has elapsed? Because that seems to be what you are asking me to do.

No no...that is what, in Western democracy at least, an Opposition is supposed to do....to criticise constructively and maybe offer a different way of doing things. "Judgement" is a different thing, and comes down the line after some time has passed. And of course Judgement will change as history changes and produces new generations and new ways of seeing reality. There can be no "stable' judgement of any person in History. For ex, many see Churchill as a great hero...others see him as a lackey of the upper classes etc etc.

[sysardman]

Deary me. Are you hard of reading? The story is based on speculation. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be speculation now would it; it would be fact. Who here has claimed it as fact?

Only as much as you are hard of thinking - if people are accusing Yingluck of lying then that doesn't sound like speculation to me. If you speculate you would say she is 'probably' lying.

Again, people are speculating on the possibility of her having lied - yes, i know, who would have thought - a politician lying - but nobody has accused her, at least not with regards this story.

My feeling is that no, whatever obvious loyalty she has to family, she should put the country first, and let authorities deal with her brother's case, just as they would deal with any other case, and that she should in no way interfere - that includes meeting him. If she is going to do so, she should at least have the courage of her convictions, and honesty to the public, to not lie about it. Prime Ministers shouldn't be lying about anything for that matter, whatever the reason. OK, dodge questions you don't want to answer, say when asked if you contacted your brother via Skype that you have no comment, but don't flat out lie.

OK what part of that statement is not accusing her of lying - she said she didn't meet him and nobody has any evidence of a meeting so it should be case closed, not speculations about lies.

[rixalex]

OK what part of that statement is not accusing her of lying - she said she didn't meet him and nobody has any evidence of a meeting so it should be case closed, not speculations about lies.

Case closed because of a politician's word?!

It's the way you tell 'em.

[rixalex]

No no...that is what, in Western democracy at least, an Opposition is supposed to do....to criticise constructively and maybe offer a different way of doing things. "Judgement" is a different thing, and comes down the line after some time has passed. And of course Judgement will change as history changes and produces new generations and new ways of seeing reality. There can be no "stable' judgement of any person in History. For ex, many see Churchill as a great hero...others see him as a lackey of the upper classes etc etc.

I'm sorry, but from that reply i still don't understand why you acted (are acting) so defensively about criticism of Yingluck. I think she is deserving. If you don't, fine. But please don't tell me how i should feel about her. I don't tell you how you should feel about Blair, do i?

[ginjag]

OK what part of that statement is not accusing her of lying - she said she didn't meet him and nobody has any evidence of a meeting so it should be case closed, not speculations about lies.

Case closed because of a politician's word?!

It's the way you tell 'em.

The laughing symbol reminds me of our Frank Carson.

[sysardman]

No no...that is what, in Western democracy at least, an Opposition is supposed to do....to criticise constructively and maybe offer a different way of doing things. "Judgement" is a different thing, and comes down the line after some time has passed. And of course Judgement will change as history changes and produces new generations and new ways of seeing reality. There can be no "stable' judgement of any person in History. For ex, many see Churchill as a great hero...others see him as a lackey of the upper classes etc etc.

I'm sorry, but from that reply i still don't understand why you acted (are acting) so defensively about criticism of Yingluck. I think she is deserving. If you don't, fine. But please don't tell me how i should feel about her. I don't tell you how you should feel about Blair, do i?

This is an open forum and if you feel it's OK to criticise Yingluck then it is Blazes right to defend her. And just to put the record straight I am not actually supporting Yingluck but making a statement about the lynch mob mentality where no proof exists of a persons guilt but many are saying 'hang her anyway, she's Thaksin's sister.

[sysardman]

OK what part of that statement is not accusing her of lying - she said she didn't meet him and nobody has any evidence of a meeting so it should be case closed, not speculations about lies.

Case closed because of a politician's word?!

It's the way you tell 'em.

Well I seem to be in the company of a bunch of jokers

[waza]

No no...that is what, in Western democracy at least, an Opposition is supposed to do....to criticise constructively and maybe offer a different way of doing things. "Judgement" is a different thing, and comes down the line after some time has passed. And of course Judgement will change as history changes and produces new generations and new ways of seeing reality. There can be no "stable' judgement of any person in History. For ex, many see Churchill as a great hero...others see him as a lackey of the upper classes etc etc.

I'm sorry, but from that reply i still don't understand why you acted (are acting) so defensively about criticism of Yingluck. I think she is deserving. If you don't, fine. But please don't tell me how i should feel about her. I don't tell you how you should feel about Blair, do i?

This is an open forum and if you feel it's OK to criticise Yingluck then it is Blazes right to defend her. And just to put the record straight I am not actually supporting Yingluck but making a statement about the lynch mob mentality where no proof exists of a persons guilt but many are saying 'hang her anyway, she's Thaksin's sister.

So your saying that everyone has a right to their opinion and state it, except those posters who, in your opinion, are of "lynch mob mentality".

[rixalex]

This is an open forum and if you feel it's OK to criticise Yingluck then it is Blazes right to defend her.

Yes, he can defend her, but not with why single her out, why not attack someone like Blair. That's not a defence. I single her out because i have been up to my neck in water and my home and business is ruined -- and she is partly responsible for that. Blair isn't. If he wants to defend her, he should tell me why he thinks she has done a good job with flood management / relief. He doesn't because i don't think he can.

And just to put the record straight I am not actually supporting Yingluck but making a statement about the lynch mob mentality where no proof exists of a persons guilt but many are saying 'hang her anyway, she's Thaksin's sister.

Lynch mob mentality? Don't be such a drama queen. She took on the job of PM, and when she makes mistakes, people will mention them, inconvenient though that may be. Perhaps she'll have to start doing what her brother did: threaten million baht law-suits to whomever dare criticise.

[sysardman]

No no...that is what, in Western democracy at least, an Opposition is supposed to do....to criticise constructively and maybe offer a different way of doing things. "Judgement" is a different thing, and comes down the line after some time has passed. And of course Judgement will change as history changes and produces new generations and new ways of seeing reality. There can be no "stable' judgement of any person in History. For ex, many see Churchill as a great hero...others see him as a lackey of the upper classes etc etc.

I'm sorry, but from that reply i still don't understand why you acted (are acting) so defensively about criticism of Yingluck. I think she is deserving. If you don't, fine. But please don't tell me how i should feel about her. I don't tell you how you should feel about Blair, do i?

This is an open forum and if you feel it's OK to criticise Yingluck then it is Blazes right to defend her. And just to put the record straight I am not actually supporting Yingluck but making a statement about the lynch mob mentality where no proof exists of a persons guilt but many are saying 'hang her anyway, she's Thaksin's sister.

So your saying that everyone has a right to their opinion and state it, except those posters who, in your opinion, are of "lynch mob mentality".

No I'm not telling anybody to stop posting - did I say that????? I'm just expressing my opinion about making criticisms based on unfounded rumours and how disappointed I am that people cannot find more justified targets for their acid tongues.

[DLock]

Are the bars closed today?

Why so many clearly drunk posters?

Let's recap how she got here.

The Sister of a convicted felon

With zero political experience

Who worked for her family or Brothers companies

Who was elected purely because of her name and perhaps her looks

On a raft of populist policies that will never happen

Who completely mismanaged the flood crisis

And tried to sneak in a pardon for her Brother when everyone was distracted

And when she got caught said "I don't know, I wasn't there"

Who may or may not have met a convicted felon wanted by Thai authorities in Singapore

And all this in 5 months

Defending the undefendable is an admiral position to take.

Lets not confuse the truth with fanciful thoughts. Yingluck was groomed and marketed purely to be PM to extend the Shinawatra dynasty and ultimately allow her Brother to come back. Arguing over her "experience" or lack off is irrelevant.

She is being manipulated and directed by dark influences. She does not make decisions and to think otherwise is foolish. She has stage handlers and advisors every where she goes.

She is, for all intentions purposes a puppet with "fist for brains".

What planet are you living on? There is not a single politician anywhere who is not, to a greater or lesser degree, a puppet of those in the background who really call the shots (like the CEOs of the global corporations and Wall St scumbags generally - "I am so sorry, I lost a billion dollars as CEO of ...and I don't know where it's gone")

No, really...look at Obama...he had a mandate (the largest in a generation or more) to go out and DO something...and what did he do? Carry on exactly where Dubya left off....(apart from his silly handling of healthcare). Any American president is, by definition, cos of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction at his fingertip, the "most powerful man in the world." But NO American president has been able to counteract the Real Power behind the throne (the military/industrial complex). None.

Why should you apply a higher standard to Yingluck, who has been in "power" for all of five months?

Sir, your comprehension skills fail you.

If Obama had zero experience at politics, and was the Brother of a convicted felon who had absconded, I doubt he would be in the position he is in. Obama is another argument - start another thread.

You seem to want to look past the hiring process, her qualifications and experience and cut her some slack for only being in power 5 months? No, really....

She has no right to be in the position she is in and she has failed miserably in the 5 months...and it will get worse.

That Sir, is my point.

[waza]

Are the bars closed today?

Why so many clearly drunk posters?

Let's recap how she got here.

The Sister of a convicted felon

With zero political experience

Who worked for her family or Brothers companies

Who was elected purely because of her name and perhaps her looks

On a raft of populist policies that will never happen

Who completely mismanaged the flood crisis

And tried to sneak in a pardon for her Brother when everyone was distracted

And when she got caught said "I don't know, I wasn't there"

Who may or may not have met a convicted felon wanted by Thai authorities in Singapore

And all this in 5 months

Defending the undefendable is an admiral position to take.

Lets not confuse the truth with fanciful thoughts. Yingluck was groomed and marketed purely to be PM to extend the Shinawatra dynasty and ultimately allow her Brother to come back. Arguing over her "experience" or lack off is irrelevant.

She is being manipulated and directed by dark influences. She does not make decisions and to think otherwise is foolish. She has stage handlers and advisor's every where she goes.

She is, for all intentions purposes a puppet with "fist for brains".

What planet are you living on? There is not a single politician anywhere who is not, to a greater or lesser degree, a puppet of those in the background who really call the shots (like the CE Os of the global corporations and Wall St scumbags generally - "I am so sorry, I lost a billion dollars as CEO of ...and I don't know where it's gone")

No, really...look at Obama...he had a mandate (the largest in a generation or more) to go out and DO something...and what did he do? Carry on exactly where Dubya left off....(apart from his silly handling of healthcare). Any American president is, by definition, cos of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction at his fingertip, the "most powerful man in the world." But NO American president has been able to counteract the Real Power behind the throne (the military/industrial complex). None.

Why should you apply a higher standard to Yingluck, who has been in "power" for all of five months?

Sir, your comprehension skills fail you.

If Obama had zero experience at politics, and was the Brother of a convicted felon who had absconded, I doubt he would be in the position he is in. Obama is another argument - start another thread.

You seem to want to look past the hiring process, her qualifications and experience and cut her some slack for only being in power 5 months? No, really....

She has no right to be in the position she is in and she has failed miserably in the 5 months...and it will get worse.

That Sir, is my point.

Good comments, except Yingluck has every right to be in the position, as she is the democratically elected Prime Minister of Thailand. The fact that she is incompetent is irreverent

as has been clearly demonstrated in the last 5 months

[DLock]

Are the bars closed today?

Why so many clearly drunk posters?

Let's recap how she got here.

The Sister of a convicted felon

With zero political experience

Who worked for her family or Brothers companies

Who was elected purely because of her name and perhaps her looks

On a raft of populist policies that will never happen

Who completely mismanaged the flood crisis

And tried to sneak in a pardon for her Brother when everyone was distracted

And when she got caught said "I don't know, I wasn't there"

Who may or may not have met a convicted felon wanted by Thai authorities in Singapore

And all this in 5 months

Defending the undefendable is an admiral position to take.

Lets not confuse the truth with fanciful thoughts. Yingluck was groomed and marketed purely to be PM to extend the Shinawatra dynasty and ultimately allow her Brother to come back. Arguing over her "experience" or lack off is irrelevant.

She is being manipulated and directed by dark influences. She does not make decisions and to think otherwise is foolish. She has stage handlers and advisor's every where she goes.

She is, for all intentions purposes a puppet with "fist for brains".

What planet are you living on? There is not a single politician anywhere who is not, to a greater or lesser degree, a puppet of those in the background who really call the shots (like the CE Os of the global corporations and Wall St scumbags generally - "I am so sorry, I lost a billion dollars as CEO of ...and I don't know where it's gone")

No, really...look at Obama...he had a mandate (the largest in a generation or more) to go out and DO something...and what did he do? Carry on exactly where Dubya left off....(apart from his silly handling of healthcare). Any American president is, by definition, cos of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction at his fingertip, the "most powerful man in the world." But NO American president has been able to counteract the Real Power behind the throne (the military/industrial complex). None.

Why should you apply a higher standard to Yingluck, who has been in "power" for all of five months?

Sir, your comprehension skills fail you.

If Obama had zero experience at politics, and was the Brother of a convicted felon who had absconded, I doubt he would be in the position he is in. Obama is another argument - start another thread.

You seem to want to look past the hiring process, her qualifications and experience and cut her some slack for only being in power 5 months? No, really....

She has no right to be in the position she is in and she has failed miserably in the 5 months...and it will get worse.

That Sir, is my point.

Good comments, except Yingluck has every right to be in the position, as she is the democratically elected Prime Minister of Thailand. The fact that she is incompetent is irreverent

as has been clearly demonstrated in the last 5 months

You are correct on both points - she was democratically elected...and she is incompetent.

Had she the pedigree, experience and wasn't named Shinawatra...I'd be focused on the disaster of the last 5 months rather than her right to be PM.

Unfortunately, to focus on the 5 disastrous months as PM, somehow gives her the credibility to be there in the first place.

I particularly like this quote from her wiki page

"The ultimate decision was made by Thaksin. "Some said she is my nominee. That's not true. But it can be said that Yingluck is my clone... Another important thing is that Ms Yingluck is my sister and she can make decisions for me. She can say 'yes' or 'no' on my behalf," Thaksin noted in an interview."

Those that defend her may want to reconsider who they are defending and what is to come.

[MAJIC]

I can't fathom this stupid hatred for the PM. What is this "experience" that she has supposedly not had??

Experience in what, for fksks?

If you look around you at all the "experienced" world leaders what do we fkn find? That Putin was head of the KGB (Ok, I grant that was some experience), or the PM of Italy is a stooge of Goldman Sachs (ditto the new PM of Greece)....not a single moment's "experience" among them. Or the Republicans were about to push forward a guy, Herman Cain, whose only experience appeared to be in taking his trousers off three times a day after meals. Very able guy.

Shall we go on?

What experience of actual government did Tony Bliar have before he got into a position to ruin the UK? (Ditto G. Brown).

So, why this stupid sneering at a woman who has had at least as much "experience" in business as some of these a**h*les the world so admires. Leave her alone. It's so boring. Predictable. Have another beer.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have both had almost a working lifetime in Politics,and were both longstanding MPs before they both became Prime Ministers of the UK. So no comparison with Yinglucks experience then!

Your comment about ruining the UK is also a debatable point of view.

IMHO, a "working lifetime in Politics" is not worth a rat's arse when it comes to making decisions. Why not ask the families of dead soldiers in Iraq what they think of Bliar's great experience in throwing sand in people's eyes? (Weapons of Mass Destruction, in UK in 45 minutes!!!!!!) Lies, lies, lies.

Or ask the 2 million unemployed (and rising) in UK what they think of good ol' Gordon's love affair with the banks and the City of London all those years. Socialist? Give me a sodding break.

Yingluck is no better, no worse, than any other politician who comes into office without obvious qualifications for the job. What ARE the qualifications a politician needs? Just to lie as smoothly as possible while robbing the till. (Maybe have some nooky on the side?) And if you want to see what Americans think about "political experience" just watch sweet Newt Gingrich being trounced by the current pres next year.

A nice attempt at going off on several Rambling Tangents,which doesn't negate your original statement,concerning several other world leaders having no previous experience in Politics.Discussing the quality of their leadership,would take up several very long new Topics.

Fact: Yingluck came into Politics without a shred of experience...... And in my opinion, now shows up her lack of leadership abilities, very badly.

Fact: Blair and Brown were very experienced Politicians and long standing MPs,before they became Prime Ministers,

and it is highly unlikely Yingluck will be around as long, as the inexperienced???? previous and current world leaders, that you quoted.Believe it or not Experience does count for a lot!

Whether she met her Brother in Hong Kong or not, remains to be seen!

Edited December 10, 2011 by MAJIC

[yoshiwara]

I can't fathom this stupid hatred for the PM. What is this "experience" that she has supposedly not had??

Experience in what, for fksks?

If you look around you at all the "experienced" world leaders what do we fkn find? That Putin was head of the KGB (Ok, I grant that was some experience), or the PM of Italy is a stooge of Goldman Sachs (ditto the new PM of Greece)....not a single moment's "experience" among them. Or the Republicans were about to push forward a guy, Herman Cain, whose only experience appeared to be in taking his trousers off three times a day after meals. Very able guy.

Shall we go on?

What experience of actual government did Tony Bliar have before he got into a position to ruin the UK? (Ditto G. Brown).

So, why this stupid sneering at a woman who has had at least as much "experience" in business as some of these a**h*les the world so admires. Leave her alone. It's so boring. Predictable. Have another beer.

...except for the fact that she didn't run for office on the basis of her business experience either, so the huffing and puffing of the above has as much substance as a deflated pastry.

[yoshiwara]

Although Thaksin may be 'guiding' his sister he will not want want her to become too successful.

[DLock]

Although Thaksin may be 'guiding' his sister he will not want want her to become too successful.

Somehow, I don't think that is going to be a problem.