Yingluck Praises Red Shirts For Protecting Democracy

[webfact]

BALI DEMOCRACY FORUM

Yingluck praises reds for 'protecting democracy'

THE NATION

BALI: -- Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra praised the red shirts for their struggle in 2010 to protect democracy, which she said had been overthrown by a military-backed coup d'etat in 2006, while speaking at the Bali Democracy Forum yesterday,

Thailand has experienced many coups against the will of the people, so when a government is created using democratic means, it needs to be made sustainable, she said.

The best way to preserve democracy would be to empower the people to value and participate in the process of democracy, which has made it possible for an election to take place.

"When people participate, they feel that they own democracy and can cherish the values. And when this democracy is overthrown or abused, people will rise up to defend it. This is what happened in Thailand in 2010," she said in a prepared speech at the forum.

"But this came with a cost. Families lost their loved ones, and there was suffering for the injured. I was just in a session with mothers and daughters of the people who participated in the 2010 protests and lost their lives. I was saddened and I am determined to make sure that this will not happen again."

Initiated by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2008, this annual forum is meant to promote cooperation and exchange views and experiences on politics and democracy among countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

The forum was attended by several heavyweights among world leaders, including Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Yingluck told the forum that though her party held the majority in Parliament, she would listen to all stakeholders.

"I understand fully that for a democracy to be resilient, freedom of speech and respect for diversity of opinions must exist," she said, adding that her government was committed to promoting equal opportunities for all people.

"Creating opportunities for people on an equal basis ensures that we all can take part in the country's economic progress and development," she said.

-- The Nation 2012-11-09

[yoshiwara]

Yingluck would be another one presumably who would have trouble acknowledging the existence of the Arisman video urging red supporters to burn down Bangkok.

Doesn't quite fit in with the reds for democracy story she is now peddling.

[jonclark]

What a load of cobblers!

[Roadman]

Speaking to democracy and actually applying it are two different scenario's. If Yingluck was serious about democracy she would stop prattling about it on the world stages and actually apply the first principles for it to take a hold - like all Thai's being held accountable to the law and corruption being dealt to. Democracy in Thailand was not even in place when the coup occurred. Her fugitive criminal brother had already dealt to that. All this is, is more bull crap propoganda peddling to the world media that the Pheu Thai criminals and their associated fugitive leaders and UDD and Red core thugs are holier than holy and it was all everyone else's fault.

I wonder what western leaders (as oppossed to the Asean assortment of dictators) with half a bit of intelligence think when they listen to this bull crap.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Roadman

[Rich teacher]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

[Siripon]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

Well if the red shirts believe in democracy they should hurry up and leave Pheua Thai because everything important there is decided by the Shinawat and Damapong families.

True autocracy.

[rheinwiese]

Already spilled my morning coffee over the keyboard

[Buchholz]

Yingluck told the forum that though her party held the majority in Parliament, she would listen to all stakeholders.

She should have a word with her party's MP's who don't want to listen to other stakeholders, but would rather prefer to eradicate them.... perhaps burn these stakeholders at the stake.

.

[LuckyLew]

When will the people of Thailand all learn that selling your vote for 500 THB

does not mean you live in a democracy.

[Moruya]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

Democracy or nepotism?

Democracy or cronyism?

Transparency or corruption?

[saltandpepper]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

The red protest was manipulated from day 1 and even long before....The goal was never to get election, the goal was to create chaos and to bring the boss back... It was disguised in a protest, which has not been peaceful, by the way!

[HeavyDrinker]

Speaking to democracy and actually applying it are two different scenario's. If Yingluck was serious about democracy she would stop prattling about it on the world stages and actually apply the first principles for it to take a hold - like all Thai's being held accountable to the law and corruption being dealt to. Democracy in Thailand was not even in place when the coup occurred. Her fugitive criminal brother had already dealt to that. All this is, is more bull crap propoganda peddling to the world media that the Pheu Thai criminals and their associated fugitive leaders and UDD and Red core thugs are holier than holy and it was all everyone else's fault.

I wonder what western leaders (as oppossed to the Asean assortment of dictators) with half a bit of intelligence think when they listen to this bull crap.

I must say this is one of the best posts I've read on this forum. Ever.

[jonclark]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

rightful elections - so why did their leaders decline Abhisits offer of elections in November 2009??

[bigbamboo]

By all stakeholders is she referring to all the key members of the PTP or just those in her immediate family?

Edited November 9, 2012 by bigbamboo

[bendejo]

Did she get her American degree in applied bullshit?

It was known as public administration back then.

[Thaddeus]

Good doggies, good doggies, here, have a bone.

[OzMick]

The red leaders were protecting democracy, so they shouldn't go to jail, so we are undermining the courts which say they should, which means democracy is...............

Hang on, let me think about that.

[HeavyDrinker]

The snag is that I have such a crush on Yingluck that I believe everything she says.....

[waza]

Who writes this rubbish for her? It should have been entitled Yingluck pats the mad dogs.

The best way to preserve democracy would be to empower the people to value and participate in the process of democracy, which has made it possible for an election to take place.

"When people participate, they feel that they own democracy and can cherish the values. And when this democracy is overthrown or abused, people will rise up to defend it. This is what happened in Thailand in 2010," she said in a prepared speech at the forum.

Anti dictatorship and pro denocracy is what happened in 2006 and 2007 but what happen in 2009 and 2010 was violent, bloody rioting

Edited November 9, 2012 by waza

[jonclark]

Who writes this rubbish for her? It should have been entitled Yingluck pats the mad dogs.

The best way to preserve democracy would be to empower the people to value and participate in the process of democracy, which has made it possible for an election to take place.

"When people participate, they feel that they own democracy and can cherish the values. And when this democracy is overthrown or abused, people will rise up to defend it. This is what happened in Thailand in 2010," she said in a prepared speech at the forum.

Anti dictatorship and pro denocracy is what happened in 2006 and 2007 but what happen in 2009 and 2010 was violent, bloody rioting

Good point Waza - One of the actions Yingluck could take to promote participation in Democracy is to abolish the law which states (and i'm paraphrasing) that MPs must have a university degree. That law automatically excludes millions (especially the rural poor) from the right to stand for election. All voices are equal right? History shows that some of the best politicians have been those with extensive life experience as opposed to academic qualifications. And given the fact most degrees can effectively be bought in Thailand it becomes a moot point as to whether degree actually improve ones intellect and knowledge. That law only separates the poor and under privileged from the right to let their peers decide if they are worthy and elect them to parliament (or not).

So MPS continue to come from selected backgrounds.

[hellodolly]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

The red protest was manipulated from day 1 and even long before....The goal was never to get election, the goal was to create chaos and to bring the boss back... It was disguised in a protest, which has not been peaceful, by the way!

The entire red shirt movement was created when there was a Democratically elected Government in power. It had one goal and one goal only. That Goal was to return Thaksin to the seat of power.

The Government of the time was elected the same way the two previous governments and the current one had been elected. Parliamentary style. They were OK with the process their problem is they only got their small minded self serving way two out of three times.

Rich teacher knows that and is just trying to rewrite history. My guess is he played a part in the illegal seizure of down town Bangkok by armed protesters and is trying to get people to say it was OK to provoke armed conflict, hospital invasions, seizure of public property, closing down of small business and attempt to burn Bangkok down.

I wonder what his last poster name was.

Edited November 9, 2012 by hellodolly

[Nickymaster]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

"The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections"

Don't force me to remind people how peacefull the Reds were (are)!! I have a nice list with events. Remember?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Nickymaster]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

Democracy or nepotism?

Democracy or cronyism?

Transparency or corruption?

Don't make it too difficult for PPD.

[waza]

The red protests were to overthrow a government that included coalition members that were coerced by Anupong, the army commander. In no way was it a democratic alliance, formed through the usual workings of parliament as is suggested by some on this forum. The red shirt movement was overwhelmingly a peaceful protest calling for rightful elections. Some extreme fringes of the group wanted to take things further & push for a civil war, to finally end the elites' influence on democracy and to stop the chance of people like Boonlert trying to steal their electoral mandate in the future.

The red protest was manipulated from day 1 and even long before....The goal was never to get election, the goal was to create chaos and to bring the boss back... It was disguised in a protest, which has not been peaceful, by the way!

The entire red shirt movement was created when there was a Democratically elected Government in power. It had one goal and one goal only. That Goal was to return Thaksin to the seat of power.

The Government of the time was elected the same way the two previous governments and the current one had been elected. Parliamentary style. They were OK with the process their problem is they only got their small minded self serving way two out of three times.

Rich teacher knows that and is just trying to rewrite history. My guess is he played a part in the illegal seizure of down town Bangkok by armed protesters and is trying to get people to say it was OK to provoke armed conflict, hospital invasions, seizure of public property, closing down of small business and attempt to burn Bangkok down.

I wonder what his last poster name was.

I was there moving amongst the redshirts I saw first hand what happened. The first thing the democratic redshirts did was to take away other Thais freedoms and basic right, The right to assemble was taken with M79 granades, the right to move freely was taken by bamboo and tyre barricades, Red check points performing search and harrassment. The right to free trade by closing retail, all for a criminal and his stolen money.

Edited November 9, 2012 by waza

[theslime]

You Boar,s. All thailands woe,s are down to the Red,s. Why in hell do you think they were formed in the first place.

[Thai at Heart]

This is just a game to rest control from one group to another.

It has very little to do with democracy as anyone understands it, other than people occasionally get to put a piece of paper in a box.

once that is fixed, it's just winner takes all after that, be it the army, or any of the political parties. Politicians basically pay for access to state funds and the judge of how much they can take is the army and a few other select people.

Of course, this judgment can be changed by keeping those above at the trough so they can fill their pockets too. Problem is the trough isn't big enough to have them all at the trough at the same time and so something always has to give.

[OzMick]

Who writes this rubbish for her? It should have been entitled Yingluck pats the mad dogs.

The best way to preserve democracy would be to empower the people to value and participate in the process of democracy, which has made it possible for an election to take place.

"When people participate, they feel that they own democracy and can cherish the values. And when this democracy is overthrown or abused, people will rise up to defend it. This is what happened in Thailand in 2010," she said in a prepared speech at the forum.

Anti dictatorship and pro denocracy is what happened in 2006 and 2007 but what happen in 2009 and 2010 was violent, bloody rioting

Good point Waza - One of the actions Yingluck could take to promote participation in Democracy is to abolish the law which states (and i'm paraphrasing) that MPs must have a university degree. That law automatically excludes millions (especially the rural poor) from the right to stand for election. All voices are equal right? History shows that some of the best politicians have been those with extensive life experience as opposed to academic qualifications. And given the fact most degrees can effectively be bought in Thailand it becomes a moot point as to whether degree actually improve ones intellect and knowledge. That law only separates the poor and under privileged from the right to let their peers decide if they are worthy and elect them to parliament (or not).

So MPS continue to come from selected backgrounds.

I believe from previous threads that the requirement for a degree was removed from the present constitution by the "evil military junta."

[theslime]

Who writes this rubbish for her? It should have been entitled Yingluck pats the mad dogs.

The best way to preserve democracy would be to empower the people to value and participate in the process of democracy, which has made it possible for an election to take place.

"When people participate, they feel that they own democracy and can cherish the values. And when this democracy is overthrown or abused, people will rise up to defend it. This is what happened in Thailand in 2010," she said in a prepared speech at the forum.

Anti dictatorship and pro denocracy is what happened in 2006 and 2007 but what happen in 2009 and 2010 was violent, bloody rioting

Good point Waza - One of the actions Yingluck could take to promote participation in Democracy is to abolish the law which states (and i'm paraphrasing) that MPs must have a university degree. That law automatically excludes millions (especially the rural poor) from the right to stand for election. All voices are equal right? History shows that some of the best politicians have been those with extensive life experience as opposed to academic qualifications. And given the fact most degrees can effectively be bought in Thailand it becomes a moot point as to whether degree actually improve ones intellect and knowledge. That law only separates the poor and under privileged from the right to let their peers decide if they are worthy and elect them to parliament (or not).

So MPS continue to come from selected backgrounds.

I believe from previous threads that the requirement for a degree was removed from the present constitution by the "evil military junta."

No I think you will find that they are discussing it now as the poster above opined

[Nickymaster]

In the beginning Yingluck tried to act as if she was "neutral". Now she (just like thaksin) needs the Reds for her own survival.

[theslime]

In the beginning Yingluck tried to act as if she was "neutral". Now she (just like thaksin) needs the Reds for her own survival.

The Reds are rising so why would you not tie yourself to them.