Thai PM Yingluck Slams 'Nonsense' Attacks, Sues Rivals

[sparebox2]

Sex always sell.

Maybe it be Sam Fox, Palin or Yingluck.

[whybother]

If there was nothing untoward about this meeting all Yingluck had to do was truthfully answer the first reporter that asked her about it instead of just smiling and walking away. Had she done this it would be a non issue. The result of her stonewalling is what we see now.

The alleged journalist did not ask a forthright question. it was a cheap attempt at gotchya politics.

There was no stonewalling. Her agenda was known. It was no secret as to who was at the meeting. The media did indeed ask staff from the hotel about the meeting. The media chose not to publish all the facts and insted tried to create a scandal. All this while some Democrats were attempting to besmirch the PM.

Know what this has accomplished? It's created a groundswell of sympathy and support for the PM. The Nation and others have shot themselves in the foot as they tried to make a non event into a scandal.

BS. "There was no meeting". That's stonewalling.

[moe666]

The big T bunch take over and it is WE DO WHAT WE WANT we are not accountable to anyone even the citizens of Thailand. This bunch have a attitude of total indifference to the Thai People.

[Sing_Sling]

Personally I think she's brought the house into further disrepute by her actions and inactions.

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

The big T bunch take over and it is WE DO WHAT WE WANT we are not accountable to anyone even the citizens of Thailand. This bunch have a attitude of total indifference to the Thai People.

I repeat myself . . .

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

A bunch of over-privileged urbanites who didn't even win an election ruling a country . . .

Oh, and just in case you missed it . . . the TT bunch was voted in time after time.

Democracy 101 . . . as failed as it may be in Thailand. One party gets elected by the majority of the votes/seats

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and posts containing inappropriate innuendos have been removed.

[thaicbr]

Personally I think she's brought the house into further disrepute by her actions and inactions.

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

The big T bunch take over and it is WE DO WHAT WE WANT we are not accountable to anyone even the citizens of Thailand. This bunch have a attitude of total indifference to the Thai People.

I repeat myself . . .

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

A bunch of over-privileged urbanites who didn't even win an election ruling a country . . .

Oh, and just in case you missed it . . . the TT bunch was voted in time after time.

Democracy 101 . . . as failed as it may be in Thailand. One party gets elected by the majority of the votes/seats

so that makes it alright then does it.

[Reasonableman]

The party that gets elected is responsible for the welfare of the WHOLE country/population, not only the select parts that backed it in the election. That's democracy and responsible government. I hope to live long enough to see it happen in LOS

Edited February 24, 2012 by Reasonableman

[rixalex]

Personally I think she's brought the house into further disrepute by her actions and inactions.

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

The big T bunch take over and it is WE DO WHAT WE WANT we are not accountable to anyone even the citizens of Thailand. This bunch have a attitude of total indifference to the Thai People.

I repeat myself . . .

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

A bunch of over-privileged urbanites who didn't even win an election ruling a country . . .

Oh, and just in case you missed it . . . the TT bunch was voted in time after time.

Democracy 101 . . . as failed as it may be in Thailand. One party gets elected by the majority of the votes/seats

so that makes it alright then does it.

No of course it does not. This line of argument is the same line of argument we hear over and over again from the red / Thaksin sympathisers. For any wrong doing, their defence is to point at the wrong doing of others. The PAD airport protest is usually their favourite one.

[metisdead]

A post containing derogatory comments regarding Thai women has been removed.

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

8) Not to post extremely negative views of Thailand or derogatory comments directed towards all Thais.

[Moruya]

Personally I think she's brought the house into further disrepute by her actions and inactions.

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

The big T bunch take over and it is WE DO WHAT WE WANT we are not accountable to anyone even the citizens of Thailand. This bunch have a attitude of total indifference to the Thai People.

I repeat myself . . .

As opposed to it being the bastion of morality it was before?

A bunch of over-privileged urbanites who didn't even win an election ruling a country . . .

Oh, and just in case you missed it . . . the TT bunch was voted in time after time.

Democracy 101 . . . as failed as it may be in Thailand. One party gets elected by the majority of the votes/seats

and that makes everything OK?

[Buchholz]

It was no secret as to who was at the meeting.

It absolutely was kept secret. That's what a fair amount of this hullabaloo is all about. The public wasn't informed until days later that even another Cabinet Minister (Kittirat) also attended the secret meeting. The government still haven't acknowledge who was at the meeting or at least I haven't seen it anywhere.

Could you tell us all who was at the meeting?

For example, it was leaked later that there was someone who represented the Shinawatra company, SC Asset, at the meeting with Prime Minister Shinawatra.

Could you identify this person?

.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Buchholz

[Reasonableman]

It was no secret as to who was at the meeting.

It absolutely was kept secret. That's what a fair amount of this hullabaloo is all about. The public wasn't informed until days later that even another Cabinet Minister (Kittirat) also attended the secret meeting. The government still haven't acknowledge who was at the meeting or at least I haven't seen it anywhere.

Could you tell us all who was at the meeting?

For example, it was leaked later that there was someone who represented the Shinawatra company, SC Asset, at the meeting with Prime Minister Shinawatra.

Could you identify this person?

Must be sworn to secrecy.

[Sing_Sling]

so that makes it alright then does it.

and that makes everything OK?

Are you two one and the same poster using a different nic?

Hmm, let me see how I can answer that question without being too condescending and pointing out that simply reading my alluded-to post would give you an answer to your question.

No.

Hmm, I wonder if that is clear enough.

[Moruya]

so that makes it alright then does it.

and that makes everything OK?

Are you two one and the same poster using a different nic?

Hmm, let me see how I can answer that question without being too condescending and pointing out that simply reading my alluded-to post would give you an answer to your question.

No.

Hmm, I wonder if that is clear enough.

2 people, same logical question.

Now show this dimwit where your post answered the question we raised.

[Bakseedaa]

PM slams 'nonsense' attacks, with a 'nonsense' lawsuit. so much for "Thai PM Yingluck Vows To Cooperate Over Hotel Meeting"

Yes, come on... where are the hotel security tapes and why were they wiped clean..? Begs the question..!

[TheGhostWithin]

Why are Government officials meeting on any level discussing anything related to financial, legal, or equity during working hours without official mandate, acting without prior knowledge and consent of the cabinet? If they knew, they could have rescheduled the house sitting - they did not know.

Does the PM of Thailand hold the authority to make decisions without entering debate with the house? Can s/he represent the Government without prior consultation? Just a general question.

[WackySomchai]

She lied the Thai people straight in the face and smiled, it goes in the family ...

[tlansford]

So the PM did deny that there was a meeting when first confronted with it. Given that she was also immediately accused of sexual misconduct (which has been denied here, but reading the public reports makes it clear that indeed this was the case) is a plausible (albeit IMO still not a good) reason for the initial denial. Call it stonewalling if you want. The accusations were absurd from the first moment. The denial is understandable, if not the best choice.

There could have been an inquiry into conflict of interest without the personal attacks, but that did not seem to suit either the opposition nor the opposition media outlets. But a straight-forward query regarding conflict of interest would have been in the public interest.

As for suing, it seems to be the weapon of choice in Thai politics. Politicians might actually get work done if they weren't so busy trying to unseat each other via lawsuits.

Which makes me regret not keeping count of the number of times the opposition has threatened to sue or impeach the PM and those in her cabinet during the last 6 months. Somehow it would not surprise me if that number were 20-30 times or more...

To be perfectly clear for critics on TVF, yes, the above is a defense of the PM. The sexual misconduct accusations were absurd from the first moment, and this non-issue circus (excepting an honest look into potential conflict of interest) has gone on for 2 weeks. The PM should sue the hell out of those trying to defame her just because she is female. And the Democrats involved should shut up and get back to work. Good luck to her.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed as well as the replies.

[Sing_Sling]

2 people, same logical question.

Now show this dimwit where your post answered the question we raised.

Just because there are two of you that jumped to the same conclusion doesn't mean that there is any logic behind it. Taken as an abstract I could argue that you two (who may be one and the same poster double-niccing, who knows) are the only ones who came to that conclusion and everyone else saw it for what it was.

Yes, Logic 101.

I never called you a dimwit, so no need to bring the discussion to that level.

Read my post again, it simply states:

A bunch of over-privileged urbanites who didn't even win an election ruling a country . . .

Oh, and just in case you missed it . . . the TT bunch was voted in time after time.

. . . as a response to:

The big T bunch take over and it is WE DO WHAT WE WANT we are not accountable to anyone even the citizens of Thailand. This bunch have a attitude of total indifference to the Thai People.

Ok, I'll explain. There was whining that TT and his bunch feel themselves above the people and do what they want.

I replied that the Democrats did exactly the same . . . while not having been voted into power by these 'Thai People' on numerous occasions.

There is a wonderful saying attributed to Alexis de Toqueville:

People get the government they deserve

Still not clear?

[rubl]

So the PM did deny that there was a meeting when first confronted with it. Given that she was also immediately accused of sexual misconduct (which has been denied here, but reading the public reports makes it clear that indeed this was the case) is a plausible (albeit IMO still not a good) reason for the initial denial. Call it stonewalling if you want. The accusations were absurd from the first moment. The denial is understandable, if not the best choice.

There could have been an inquiry into conflict of interest without the personal attacks, but that did not seem to suit either the opposition nor the opposition media outlets. But a straight-forward query regarding conflict of interest would have been in the public interest.

As for suing, it seems to be the weapon of choice in Thai politics. Politicians might actually get work done if they weren't so busy trying to unseat each other via lawsuits.

Which makes me regret not keeping count of the number of times the opposition has threatened to sue or impeach the PM and those in her cabinet during the last 6 months. Somehow it would not surprise me if that number were 20-30 times or more...

To be perfectly clear for critics on TVF, yes, the above is a defense of the PM. The sexual misconduct accusations were absurd from the first moment, and this non-issue circus (excepting an honest look into potential conflict of interest) has gone on for 2 weeks. The PM should sue the hell out of those trying to defame her just because she is female. And the Democrats involved should shut up and get back to work. Good luck to her.

Did you see my post #23? Even worse is the 2011-11-06 Prachatai article on k. Akeyuth calling Ms Yingluck <names> (can't write here, not sure if can quote article).

Somehow PM Yingluck has tried to bluster her way through this minor detail of a non-meeting while lots of people try to obfuscate by being supposedly appalled by a nice woman being caught out on lies. The possible sexual misconduct accusations should be ignored for sure, but the actual proceeding of the meeting with her Dept. PM Kittarat and high-level businessmen from the real-estate sector should be investigated. So get back to work and tell the parliament what happened in the meeting

[Moruya]

Sing_Sling

If I wish to refer to myslef as a dimwit, I am perfectly entitled to do so.

Please read what I wrote and your reply to it without bringing in heaps of unrelated garbage that were not in either post.

[Siripon]

So the PM did deny that there was a meeting when first confronted with it. Given that she was also immediately accused of sexual misconduct (which has been denied here, but reading the public reports makes it clear that indeed this was the case) is a plausible (albeit IMO still not a good) reason for the initial denial. Call it stonewalling if you want. The accusations were absurd from the first moment. The denial is understandable, if not the best choice.

There could have been an inquiry into conflict of interest without the personal attacks, but that did not seem to suit either the opposition nor the opposition media outlets. But a straight-forward query regarding conflict of interest would have been in the public interest.

As for suing, it seems to be the weapon of choice in Thai politics. Politicians might actually get work done if they weren't so busy trying to unseat each other via lawsuits.

Which makes me regret not keeping count of the number of times the opposition has threatened to sue or impeach the PM and those in her cabinet during the last 6 months. Somehow it would not surprise me if that number were 20-30 times or more...

To be perfectly clear for critics on TVF, yes, the above is a defense of the PM. The sexual misconduct accusations were absurd from the first moment, and this non-issue circus (excepting an honest look into potential conflict of interest) has gone on for 2 weeks. The PM should sue the hell out of those trying to defame her just because she is female. And the Democrats involved should shut up and get back to work. Good luck to her.

You will find the Opposition very rarely sue, that is a tactic of the Shinawat family, if we could check the records I would think Thaksin holds the record for the greatest number of litigation cases in Thailand's history.

The allegations of sexual misconduct could have arisen due to the fact the PM has never married the father of their son, and the father himself is never seen in public with Yingluk.. In addition Mr Chetta is a very handsome man.

Until now she hasn't clearly explained why she had to go to the hotel to exchange opinions with property developers.

[KeyserSoze01]

Irregardless of the underlying subject matter, it is a sad state of affairs when the PM of a nation chooses to communicate with the general public via their Facebook page. Miracle Thailand!

[geriatrickid]

Unfortunately, now that the matter is subject to an investigation by the Ombudsman, it is inappropriate for the PM to comment further.

[rubl]

Unfortunately, now that the matter is subject to an investigation by the Ombudsman, it is inappropriate for the PM to comment further.

That's incorrect, but what she tells / writes to the Ombudsman better be in line which what she tell to others, like parliament, etc.

[Sing_Sling]

Sing_Sling

If I wish to refer to myslef as a dimwit, I am perfectly entitled to do so.

Please read what I wrote and your reply to it without bringing in heaps of unrelated garbage that were not in either post.

No wonder you missed the point. By the way, it is hardly good argumentation asking me to do what you are seemingly incapable of doing in the first place.

I'll try again:

No, it doesn't make it right.

The Democrats have exactly the same disdain for the general Thai populace as the Big Ts . . . but the Big Ts were voted into office several times - meaning the people prefer getting screwed by the Big T than the urban slicksters, the Dems.

Is quoting a very well known saying too highbrow for you?

Edited February 24, 2012 by Sing_Sling

[tlansford]

So the PM did deny that there was a meeting when first confronted with it. Given that she was also immediately accused of sexual misconduct (which has been denied here, but reading the public reports makes it clear that indeed this was the case) is a plausible (albeit IMO still not a good) reason for the initial denial. Call it stonewalling if you want. The accusations were absurd from the first moment. The denial is understandable, if not the best choice.

There could have been an inquiry into conflict of interest without the personal attacks, but that did not seem to suit either the opposition nor the opposition media outlets. But a straight-forward query regarding conflict of interest would have been in the public interest.

As for suing, it seems to be the weapon of choice in Thai politics. Politicians might actually get work done if they weren't so busy trying to unseat each other via lawsuits.

Which makes me regret not keeping count of the number of times the opposition has threatened to sue or impeach the PM and those in her cabinet during the last 6 months. Somehow it would not surprise me if that number were 20-30 times or more...

To be perfectly clear for critics on TVF, yes, the above is a defense of the PM. The sexual misconduct accusations were absurd from the first moment, and this non-issue circus (excepting an honest look into potential conflict of interest) has gone on for 2 weeks. The PM should sue the hell out of those trying to defame her just because she is female. And the Democrats involved should shut up and get back to work. Good luck to her.

Did you see my post #23? Even worse is the 2011-11-06 Prachatai article on k. Akeyuth calling Ms Yingluck <names> (can't write here, not sure if can quote article).

Somehow PM Yingluck has tried to bluster her way through this minor detail of a non-meeting while lots of people try to obfuscate by being supposedly appalled by a nice woman being caught out on lies. The possible sexual misconduct accusations should be ignored for sure, but the actual proceeding of the meeting with her Dept. PM Kittarat and high-level businessmen from the real-estate sector should be investigated. So get back to work and tell the parliament what happened in the meeting

yes, I did. And I believe you can quite / link the article. Quote in fair use, 3 sentences + link.

10/2/12 : 2 weeks ago, and given what has happened in the last while, I understand this reaction.

Agree with you about investigating the meeting content. That would be a normal course to follow.

[whybother]

Unfortunately, now that the matter is subject to an investigation by the Ombudsman, it is inappropriate for the PM to comment further.

She submitting a statement to the ombudsman. I assume this is so that he can't ask any clarification questions.

[blows]

So the PM did deny that there was a meeting when first confronted with it. Given that she was also immediately accused of sexual misconduct (which has been denied here, but reading the public reports makes it clear that indeed this was the case) is a plausible (albeit IMO still not a good) reason for the initial denial. Call it stonewalling if you want. The accusations were absurd from the first moment. The denial is understandable, if not the best choice.

There could have been an inquiry into conflict of interest without the personal attacks, but that did not seem to suit either the opposition nor the opposition media outlets. But a straight-forward query regarding conflict of interest would have been in the public interest.

As for suing, it seems to be the weapon of choice in Thai politics. Politicians might actually get work done if they weren't so busy trying to unseat each other via lawsuits.

Which makes me regret not keeping count of the number of times the opposition has threatened to sue or impeach the PM and those in her cabinet during the last 6 months. Somehow it would not surprise me if that number were 20-30 times or more...

To be perfectly clear for critics on TVF, yes, the above is a defense of the PM. The sexual misconduct accusations were absurd from the first moment, and this non-issue circus (excepting an honest look into potential conflict of interest) has gone on for 2 weeks. The PM should sue the hell out of those trying to defame her just because she is female. And the Democrats involved should shut up and get back to work. Good luck to her.

You will find the Opposition very rarely sue, that is a tactic of the Shinawat family, if we could check the records I would think Thaksin holds the record for the greatest number of litigation cases in Thailand's history.

The allegations of sexual misconduct could have arisen due to the fact the PM has never married the father of their son, and the father himself is never seen in public with Yingluk.. In addition Mr Chetta is a very handsome man.

Until now she hasn't clearly explained why she had to go to the hotel to exchange opinions with property developers.

Did they swap some personal property?