PM Yingluck Pleads With Reporters To Stop Posing Questions On Cabinet Reshuffle

[Skywalker69]

Just a wild guess it was one of many questions asked, instead of giving a smile and 1 or 2 minutes of her time she found a way out by picking this question to end the pressure. It is ironic that a very popular P.M( landslide )is not confident to answer questions that should be easy for her. it is nearly everytime she is confronted the brick wall goes up. What is up with the popular leader ???? she fears what ???

She fears that her incompetence will show.

[Mosha]

As one British interviewer said "That was a very good answer minister, unfortunately it was not the question I asked."

[pastitche]

Just a wild guess it was one of many questions asked, instead of giving a smile and 1 or 2 minutes of her time she found a way out by picking this question to end the pressure. It is ironic that a very popular P.M( landslide )is not confident to answer questions that should be easy for her. it is nearly everytime she is confronted the brick wall goes up. What is up with the popular leader ???? she fears what ???

"Just a wild guess" - a very worthwhile contribution, I'll have to give that some thought

[pastitche]

A few of the interviewers from the 70/80s in the UK would have had her a blubbering wreck.

Interviewers in the 70/80s UK would have been sufficiently intelligent and politically sophisticated not to expect a PM to answer questions about a cabinet re-shuffle before it happened.

You are right on this topic, but on any other one, she'd be fish bait.

But of course the topic is about journalists asking about an upcoming cabinet re-shuffle, so perhaps you are starying off topic.

[h90]

A few of the interviewers from the 70/80s in the UK would have had her a blubbering wreck.

Interviewers in the 70/80s UK would have been sufficiently intelligent and politically sophisticated not to expect a PM to answer questions about a cabinet re-shuffle before it happened.

And they wouldn't ask the poodle of the PM. They would ask the real PM. But if I remember right UK had never a PM that controlled the country from Dubai.

[pastitche]

As one British interviewer said "That was a very good answer minister, unfortunately it was not the question I asked."

A typical tactic by ministers, particularly under Thatcher but not the case here.

[kerryk]

As one British interviewer said "That was a very good answer minister, unfortunately it was not the question I asked."

What British interviewer, to whom and what does it have to do with Yingluck?

[pastitche]

A few of the interviewers from the 70/80s in the UK would have had her a blubbering wreck.

Interviewers in the 70/80s UK would have been sufficiently intelligent and politically sophisticated not to expect a PM to answer questions about a cabinet re-shuffle before it happened.

And they wouldn't ask the poodle of the PM. They would ask the real PM. But if I remember right UK had never a PM that controlled the country from Dubai.

The PM undoubtedly is a front for her brother but that is not the point of this thread - it is about whether it is acceptable for her to refuse to answer questions about changes to the cabinet. If the anti-government posters stuck to topic this thread would have died by now.

[pastitche]

As one British interviewer said "That was a very good answer minister, unfortunately it was not the question I asked."

What British interviewer, to whom and what does it have to do with Yingluck?

I believe it was Jeremy Paxman interviewing Michael Howard (who was described by one of his colleagues as having "something of the dark about him"). It has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic or Yingluck but ..........it's TV

[ginjag]

past itche, Lighten up, many posters are serious some are for a laugh, Many topics run into another, we can also assume there were other questions asked, although the topic is re cabinet reshuffle, the fact is she is ALWAYS dodging Questions, so that prompts other responses. Just sticking to the question all the time, shortens topics and gets then boring, as there wouldn't be enough other topics to SLAG  Ha Ha

[looping]

I have an idea; let's put the population of the Bangkok Hilton in charge of Thailand. Or maybe they're over qualified?

[kerryk]

Ask her about fashion!

What, do you think that is cute?

Do you think being the leader of Thailand is somehow funny and a person for you to mock?

Your goofy avatar is bad enough to have to look at but paired with your obnoxious sense of humor directed towards a person whom you have never met it's a little over the top and certainly not in keeping with the image cultivated by your government of enlightened and civil people.

Part of the definition of a flame and certainly encompasses your post, “clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful.

[phiphidon]

I have an idea; let's put the population of the Bangkok Hilton in charge of Thailand. Or maybe they're over qualified?

What gave you the idea that people who specialise in the Hospitality Industry would be over qualified to run a government?

[whybother]

Are you never going to accept the fact that a majority is a normal reference in a parliamentary democracy for the party that won the greatest share of seats?

Speculating about why people voted for PTP is is a fruitless task ; more fertile ground would be trying to find why they did not vote for the Democrats yet again.

I accept that the PTP won the election with a majority of seats and a near majority of votes.

That is a lot different than "the majority of voters want Thaksin back".

I never suggested that the majority of voters or even the majority of PTP voters want Thaksin back. I have no evidence to support or reject that proposition and to be honest, it does not concern me either way, although it appears to be a doomsday scenario to many posters on here. Thaksin is a corrupt politician , politicians everywhere are corrupt. His return or continued absence will not, I believe, affect my life significantly.

You didn't. Kerry did.

[SomTumTiger]

When is the Yingluck sex tape going to be "stolen"? Her popularity needs a boost!

[hellodolly]

Agree stupid off topic questions will always be asked, BUT the repeated avoidance and walk away arrogant attitude does not go down very well. As a P.M. you can satisfy most by having a reporters question time and answer all subjects. NOT to do shows weakness/or arrogance.

Why does the P.M. avoid all straight legitimate questions, and refuse debate and interviews, as I posted earlier. The answer now we all know after 8 months of government.

She is perfectly willing to debate any one any time any where

She just has to figure out how to get her smiling picture to talk.

[FOODLOVER]

Ask her about fashion!

What, do you think that is cute?

Do you think being the leader of Thailand is somehow funny and a person for you to mock?

Your goofy avatar is bad enough to have to look at but paired with your obnoxious sense of humor directed towards a person whom you have never met it's a little over the top and certainly not in keeping with the image cultivated by your government of enlightened and civil people.

Part of the definition of a flame and certainly encompasses your post, “clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful.

I think you misunderstood. I was simply pointing out to the press that a question that would be more in line with something she may know is clothing and fashion. Although her choices sometimes are not appropriate for the conditions she does look cute. Much better than asking her about pesky political stuff. Way over her head as has been proven time and time again. Now to the meat of the matter.The fact that you have now stated that my avatar is goofy deeply saddens and offends me.(Eyes swelling with tears as if told for the first time prices have in fact increased.) I will look further to find an avatar that does not disturb you. I hope in the country that you are from people are allowed to use the Avatars of their choosing without public ridicule, especially from someone i have not met.

[kerryk]

Ask her about fashion!

What, do you think that is cute?

Do you think being the leader of Thailand is somehow funny and a person for you to mock?

Your goofy avatar is bad enough to have to look at but paired with your obnoxious sense of humor directed towards a person whom you have never met it's a little over the top and certainly not in keeping with the image cultivated by your government of enlightened and civil people.

Part of the definition of a flame and certainly encompasses your post, “clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful.

I think you misunderstood. I was simply pointing out to the press that a question that would be more in line with something she may know is clothing and fashion. Although her choices sometimes are not appropriate for the conditions she does look cute. Much better than asking her about pesky political stuff. Way over her head as has been proven time and time again. Now to the meat of the matter.The fact that you have now stated that my avatar is goofy deeply saddens and offends me.(Eyes swelling with tears as if told for the first time prices have in fact increased.) I will look further to find an avatar that does not disturb you. I hope in the country that you are from people are allowed to use the Avatars of their choosing without public ridicule, especially from someone i have not met.

Me too. I'm from Canada.

[pastitche]

Are you never going to accept the fact that a majority is a normal reference in a parliamentary democracy for the party that won the greatest share of seats?

Speculating about why people voted for PTP is is a fruitless task ; more fertile ground would be trying to find why they did not vote for the Democrats yet again.

I accept that the PTP won the election with a majority of seats and a near majority of votes.

That is a lot different than "the majority of voters want Thaksin back".

I never suggested that the majority of voters or even the majority of PTP voters want Thaksin back. I have no evidence to support or reject that proposition and to be honest, it does not concern me either way, although it appears to be a doomsday scenario to many posters on here. Thaksin is a corrupt politician , politicians everywhere are corrupt. His return or continued absence will not, I believe, affect my life significantly.

You didn't. Kerry did.

But you quoted me; if you want to argue with him about Thaksin's popularity feel free to respond to him.

[whybother]

But you quoted me; if you want to argue with him about Thaksin's popularity feel free to respond to him.

You picked the argument. You quoted my response to Kerry.

[kerryk]

I think you are better to argue with.

[khaowong1]

Yingluck said her priority was to tackle rising prices, wryly adding that reporters tried to distract her attention by questioning her about the ministerial line-up while she was checking prices at Pak Kret Market.

Isnt there another thread on here where she says prices are not rising?

You beat me too it. Yes, she had repeately stated that prices are not rising.

[pastitche]

past itche, Lighten up, many posters are serious some are for a laugh, Many topics run into another, we can also assume there were other questions asked, although the topic is re cabinet reshuffle, the fact is she is ALWAYS dodging Questions, so that prompts other responses. Just sticking to the question all the time, shortens topics and gets then boring, as there wouldn't be enough other topics to SLAG Ha Ha

An interesting suggestion from someone who rarely if ever posts anything lighthearted.

Discussion on this forum is frequently ill-tempered, insulting and ill-disciplined. Having no personal allegiance to either of the sides in this conflict, my contributions are normally intended to ridicule the use of irrelevant soundbites

[pastitche]

But you quoted me; if you want to argue with him about Thaksin's popularity feel free to respond to him.

You picked the argument. You quoted my response to Kerry.

But you quoted me; if you want to argue with him about Thaksin's popularity feel free to respond to him.

You picked the argument. You quoted my response to Kerry.

I was pointing out your continued obsession with the term majority. I am happy that you appear to accept now that the government has been legitimately elected, so we can live happily ever after

[whybother]

But you quoted me; if you want to argue with him about Thaksin's popularity feel free to respond to him.

You picked the argument. You quoted my response to Kerry.

I was pointing out your continued obsession with the term majority. I am happy that you appear to accept now that the government has been legitimately elected, so we can live happily ever after

You point out something, then question why I respond?

When have I said they weren't legitimately elected?

[pastitche]

But you quoted me; if you want to argue with him about Thaksin's popularity feel free to respond to him.

You picked the argument. You quoted my response to Kerry.

I was pointing out your continued obsession with the term majority. I am happy that you appear to accept now that the government has been legitimately elected, so we can live happily ever after

You point out something, then question why I respond?

When have I said they weren't legitimately elected?

I questioned why you responded to me about Thaksin's popularity

To have had such a difficulty with accepting the term majority that you for months had a signature defining plurality led me to beleve you felt that they did not represent the Thai electorate's wishes. We can argue forever about what constitutes electoral legitimacy and dictaorship of the minority but we have to live with the fact that this government is in power, under the Constitution of Thailand so what's the point?

[whybother]

I questioned why you responded to me about Thaksin's popularity

He hasn't got a majority vote in every election he's run in, and in the last election people would have voted for PTP for plenty of other reasons than bringing him back.

Are you never going to accept the fact that a majority is a normal reference in a parliamentary democracy for the party that won the greatest share of seats?

Speculating about why people voted for PTP is is a fruitless task ; more fertile ground would be trying to find why they did not vote for the Democrats yet again.

OMG ... YOU quoted MY response to Kerry! I responded to that!

To have had such a difficulty with accepting the term majority that you for months had a signature defining plurality led me to beleve you felt that they did not represent the Thai electorate's wishes. We can argue forever about what constitutes electoral legitimacy and dictaorship of the minority but we have to live with the fact that this government is in power, under the Constitution of Thailand so what's the point?

The Thai electoral system would allow a party to get 20% of the votes and still get a majority of the seats ... even 100% of the seats.

That party may be in government, but they do not represent the majority of the voters.

At 48% of the eligible votes, the PTP got close to representing the majority of the voters. (The ones that didn't vote can't complain).

BUT, the election wasn't on a single issue ("bring back Thaksin") so even IF the PTP got over 50% of the vote, that doesn't mean that the majority of voters want Thaksin back.

So when someone spouts that "the majority of the people/voters want Thaksin back. Just look at the last election", I will point out that it's BS.

[TeddyFlyfisherDavis]

Just give me the money...Then I will answer your questions...Honestly...Really.

[bigbamboo]

Ask her about fashion!

What, do you think that is cute?

Do you think being the leader of Thailand is somehow funny and a person for you to mock?

Your goofy avatar is bad enough to have to look at but paired with your obnoxious sense of humor directed towards a person whom you have never met it's a little over the top and certainly not in keeping with the image cultivated by your government of enlightened and civil people.

Part of the definition of a flame and certainly encompasses your post, “clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful.

Oh dear, obviously not a potential Private Eye subcriber although I'm sure Canada embraces satirical comment.

Kerry old chap, in most societies once you put yourself up for political office with the intent to impart your idealology on the people then you are fair game to be shot down.

All politicians worth their salt know that and accept it. Those who don't are usually dicatators or shams.

[Buchholz]

Ask her about fashion!

What, do you think that is cute?

Do you think being the leader of Thailand is somehow funny and a person for you to mock?

Your goofy avatar is bad enough to have to look at but paired with your obnoxious sense of humor directed towards a person whom you have never met it's a little over the top and certainly not in keeping with the image cultivated by your government of enlightened and civil people.

Part of the definition of a flame and certainly encompasses your post, “clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful.

You're completely skipping the preface to the forum rule you cite, which completely negates your points :

4) Not to flame fellow members

AFAIK, although some members have used her photo for an avatar, Yingluck is not a fellow member and is, instead, a public official AKA fair game.

You are, however, certainly not alone in failing to recognize this very distinct difference between flaming officials and flaming fellow members.

p.s.

Your use of

in your post above is also addressed in the forum rules:

Posting in all capitals or in all bold, and using large or unusual fonts and colors is bad netiquette.

.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Buchholz