Government to release translated version of PM's Mongolia speech to the public

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Surapong Tovijakchaikul also gave his speech on the same issue that the government set up by a coup was not a democratic one and would not be welcomed in the world of democracy.

The Minister also expressed his wishes for Thailand to become a member of truly democratic countries, and to hold the group's annual meeting in the next couple of years.

According to Deputy Speaker attached to the Prime Minister's Office Pakdeehan Himathongkum, Ms. Yingluck's statement was nothing but the truth already known in the world community; adding that the Prime Minister was simply expressing her wishes for the nation to have constructive politics for the sake of the future generations.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Deputy Spokesperson First Lieutenant Sunisa Lertpakawat said the premier's speech reflected the current situation of the local politics, and telling the tales would indicate the nation's determination to further develop its democratic regime.

Moreover, the speech also showed the international scene Ms. Yingluck's intention to support democratic governing in both regional and international levels, adding that the cabinet has already approved of the release of the Thai version of the speech to the public.


-- NNT 2013-05-01

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

and telling the tales would indicate the nation's determination to further develop its democratic regime.

I think the antonym of regime is more befitting.

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

That's good to hear. I look forward to the English translation of her speech.

Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

That's good to hear. I look forward to the English translation of her speech.

Here you go.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

Edited May 1, 201313 yr by Pimay1

Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

That's good to hear. I look forward to the English translation of her speech.

Wish no more.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

Thank you.

It makes the speech understandable now.

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

Apart from those that understand Thai better than English I don't see that it will help much. If it were being translated from Thai to English I would agree with you. To be honest actions speak louder than words anyway.

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

That's good to hear. I look forward to the English translation of her speech.

Wish no more.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

Thank you.

It makes the speech understandable now.

My pleasure.

Seems fair, shouldn't only be the English speakers who can read just how stupid this speech was. Thais should know as well, if its properly translated that is.

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I agree. Thaksin has pulled out all the stops now. If anyone thinks he cares about Thai people they just have to review his actions for the past two years starting when his 46 billion was siezed. Two weeks later came the burn Bangkok campaign in the name of democracy. He sees a crack in the dam so to speak and will stop at nothing until he returns a free man or else.......

Regardless of the release , the Prime Ministers mouth piece should be well a where, that domestic issues stay at home, you don't air grievances in another country , it is rude protocol, the Government of Thailand should apologise to the people of Mongolia for unseamly remarks made by the Prime Minister regarding her Brother and Democracy ,this is disgraceful political behaviour at it's worse, Democracy I might add that both countries, haven't a clue about.

I'm slightly surprised that a Thai translation was not made public at the time given the content of the speech.

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I think that whatever would have been said in the speech you would have made your same 1) and 2) conclusions.

You must be really passionate by the political game in Thailand to say that this speech had the purpose to incite hatred.

There are several points she made in her speech that are worth listening too, mostly common sense, things that you would welcome in your own country, but it seems that your own hatred completely blocks your views. As well as the views of most people on this forum.

The speech should be taken for what it is.

These are her views (I already expect a passionate reply on this one) and the views of her government, explained to an international audience.

Complicated problems, difficult history and a vision for the country concentrated in just a few minutes... explained in a quite good English by a charming prime minister that the world seems to like quite much. Nothing much more than that.

Besides te speech, I personally think that it is quite smart from her to counter her opponents' attacks from outside Thailand...

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I think that whatever would have been said in the speech you would have made your same 1) and 2) conclusions.

You must be really passionate by the political game in Thailand to say that this speech had the purpose to incite hatred.

There are several points she made in her speech that are worth listening too, mostly common sense, things that you would welcome in your own country, but it seems that your own hatred completely blocks your views. As well as the views of most people on this forum.

The speech should be taken for what it is.

These are her views (I already expect a passionate reply on this one) and the views of her government, explained to an international audience.

Complicated problems, difficult history and a vision for the country concentrated in just a few minutes... explained in a quite good English by a charming prime minister that the world seems to like quite much. Nothing much more than that.

Besides te speech, I personally think that it is quite smart from her to counter her opponents' attacks from outside Thailand...

I try very hard to focus on the message, not the messenger - but, like us all, sometimes we let our own standards slip. However I don't think this is the case here.

Yinglak made a conscientious decision to attempt to distort history - a particularly highly-charged piece of recent history in Thailand - at an international conference between democratic countries. This decision, for me, is a decision to incite hatred amongst Thais, especially given the coincidental timing with her support of the UDD's intimidation of the judiciary, PTP's open support of this flagrant assault on democratic values, and a new amnesty push for her brother.

And why did she do it if it was for her brother's personal gain? She harps on about "for the good of the country" and all, but then what's the problem with telling the truth???

I've always thought she was an airhead, but I never actually disliked her until she made this decision... I have been pulled up many times by Thais across the South (and many folks on here too) for my moderate opinion of Yinglak!

Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

That's good to hear. I look forward to the English translation of her speech.

Wish no more.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

Thank you.

It makes the speech understandable now.

Yes, much easier to read it than listen to it. It was a very interesting speech. I wonder who wrote it for her?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I think that whatever would have been said in the speech you would have made your same 1) and 2) conclusions.

You must be really passionate by the political game in Thailand to say that this speech had the purpose to incite hatred.

There are several points she made in her speech that are worth listening too, mostly common sense, things that you would welcome in your own country, but it seems that your own hatred completely blocks your views. As well as the views of most people on this forum.

The speech should be taken for what it is.

These are her views (I already expect a passionate reply on this one) and the views of her government, explained to an international audience.

Complicated problems, difficult history and a vision for the country concentrated in just a few minutes... explained in a quite good English by a charming prime minister that the world seems to like quite much. Nothing much more than that.

Besides te speech, I personally think that it is quite smart from her to counter her opponents' attacks from outside Thailand...

I try very hard to focus on the message, not the messenger - but, like us all, sometimes we let our own standards slip. However I don't think this is the case here.

Yinglak made a conscientious decision to attempt to distort history - a particularly highly-charged piece of recent history in Thailand - at an international conference between democratic countries. This decision, for me, is a decision to incite hatred amongst Thais, especially given the coincidental timing with her support of the UDD's intimidation of the judiciary, PTP's open support of this flagrant assault on democratic values, and a new amnesty push for her brother.

And why did she do it if it was for her brother's personal gain? She harps on about "for the good of the country" and all, but then what's the problem with telling the truth???

I've always thought she was an airhead, but I never actually disliked her until she made this decision... I have been pulled up many times by Thais across the South (and many folks on here too) for my moderate opinion of Yinglak!

The" history you say Yingluck intentionally distorted is the version of the history which you decided to believe is the truth. And I respect your choice.

A lot of people believe other versions, or the version of the present government, to be more truthful.

For what I can see, it seems that since a few years Yingluck's version is the one that the international community prefers to believe.

It is up to us to make our own opinion, which is also influenced by our environment (south vs north vs Bangkok vs those who live abroad). It is also influenced by our circle of friends and aquaintances, our own past, or even the number of years we have been in Thailand. I hear some people make comments about the past while they "live" here since only two or three years. In fact these ones just swallowed the version presented to them by The Nation without thinking further... Up to them, the way they think will not change anything anyway.

Whatever version of "the history" we want to believe, I notice that one side is trying to walk towards reconciliation, while the other side puts all his efforts in keeping reconciliation away.

I personally see much more hatred coming from the anti governement group, but you probably do not notice that one. One side is accomodating and patient, while the other side never loses time to come with the usual stories "Thaksin is bad" etc..., in order to block whatever idea is originating from their oponents, or rather ennemies.

While I am sure your are moderate person and that you can explain in detail why you have your own opinion, why you think the way you think, why you support the ones you support, why you believe this guy is good and that guy is bad, ... I think that, in this case, you have been really quick in writing that the speech had the purpose to incite hatred. This is not really moderate... I even find it quite extreme, and this is why I took a few minutes of my time to reply to your comments.

However, I do not want to go further into a - most probably heated - conversation. It would be useless.

I wish you all the best

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I think that whatever would have been said in the speech you would have made your same 1) and 2) conclusions.

You must be really passionate by the political game in Thailand to say that this speech had the purpose to incite hatred.

There are several points she made in her speech that are worth listening too, mostly common sense, things that you would welcome in your own country, but it seems that your own hatred completely blocks your views. As well as the views of most people on this forum.

The speech should be taken for what it is.

These are her views (I already expect a passionate reply on this one) and the views of her government, explained to an international audience.

Complicated problems, difficult history and a vision for the country concentrated in just a few minutes... explained in a quite good English by a charming prime minister that the world seems to like quite much. Nothing much more than that.

Besides te speech, I personally think that it is quite smart from her to counter her opponents' attacks from outside Thailand...

I try very hard to focus on the message, not the messenger - but, like us all, sometimes we let our own standards slip. However I don't think this is the case here.

Yinglak made a conscientious decision to attempt to distort history - a particularly highly-charged piece of recent history in Thailand - at an international conference between democratic countries. This decision, for me, is a decision to incite hatred amongst Thais, especially given the coincidental timing with her support of the UDD's intimidation of the judiciary, PTP's open support of this flagrant assault on democratic values, and a new amnesty push for her brother.

And why did she do it if it was for her brother's personal gain? She harps on about "for the good of the country" and all, but then what's the problem with telling the truth???

I've always thought she was an airhead, but I never actually disliked her until she made this decision... I have been pulled up many times by Thais across the South (and many folks on here too) for my moderate opinion of Yinglak!

The" history you say Yingluck intentionally distorted is the version of the history which you decided to believe is the truth. And I respect your choice.

A lot of people believe other versions, or the version of the present government, to be more truthful.

For what I can see, it seems that since a few years Yingluck's version is the one that the international community prefers to believe.

It is up to us to make our own opinion, which is also influenced by our environment (south vs north vs Bangkok vs those who live abroad). It is also influenced by our circle of friends and aquaintances, our own past, or even the number of years we have been in Thailand. I hear some people make comments about the past while they "live" here since only two or three years. In fact these ones just swallowed the version presented to them by The Nation without thinking further... Up to them, the way they think will not change anything anyway.

Whatever version of "the history" we want to believe, I notice that one side is trying to walk towards reconciliation, while the other side puts all his efforts in keeping reconciliation away.

I personally see much more hatred coming from the anti governement group, but you probably do not notice that one. One side is accomodating and patient, while the other side never loses time to come with the usual stories "Thaksin is bad" etc..., in order to block whatever idea is originating from their oponents, or rather ennemies.

While I am sure your are moderate person and that you can explain in detail why you have your own opinion, why you think the way you think, why you support the ones you support, why you believe this guy is good and that guy is bad, ... I think that, in this case, you have been really quick in writing that the speech had the purpose to incite hatred. This is not really moderate... I even find it quite extreme, and this is why I took a few minutes of my time to reply to your comments.

However, I do not want to go further into a - most probably heated - conversation. It would be useless.

I wish you all the best

Khrap

Just one thing - the distorted history is that her brother was PM when he was ousted. Regardless of my opinions/beliefs/whatever, that is not true. As for the rest, I agree that we can agree to differ and return your goodwill.

Is this the first time PM Yingluck mentions her brother explicitly in a formal speech made to an international community?

"It was not to be. An elected government which won two elections with a majority was overthrown in 2006. Thailand lost track and the people spent almost a decade to regain their democratic freedom.
Many of you here know that the government I am talking about was the one with my brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, as the rightfully elected Prime Minister."

It would seem we have taken yet another small step in getting big brother back home.

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I think that should read

2) to incite hatred among SOME Thais.

Looking at comments on the other paper it looks like on Facebook they (DP supporters) are calling for class war, for a bloodbath.

Give us our feudalism everyday and lead us not into temptation (democracy.)

It just got weirder

yes we can see it now, all the reds will believe very word she has said, they are just hoping to cause more conflict by inciting the reds to put down the true democratic rights of the country, as I have said before, pathetic.

Perhaps it would be prudent to read the speech before suggesting there is a conspiracy?

From the looks of his post, he already has. Have you? If so, did you also notice the falsehoods which she laboured to doctrine as history?

Personally I think that the speech itself had 2 purposes: 1) to whitewash Thaksin; 2) to incite hatred amongst Thais. Therefore translating it and circulating it is a big mistake, but not necessarily made in error (if that makes sense).

I think that whatever would have been said in the speech you would have made your same 1) and 2) conclusions.

You must be really passionate by the political game in Thailand to say that this speech had the purpose to incite hatred.

There are several points she made in her speech that are worth listening too, mostly common sense, things that you would welcome in your own country, but it seems that your own hatred completely blocks your views. As well as the views of most people on this forum.

The speech should be taken for what it is.

These are her views (I already expect a passionate reply on this one) and the views of her government, explained to an international audience.

Complicated problems, difficult history and a vision for the country concentrated in just a few minutes... explained in a quite good English by a charming prime minister that the world seems to like quite much. Nothing much more than that.

Besides te speech, I personally think that it is quite smart from her to counter her opponents' attacks from outside Thailand...

I try very hard to focus on the message, not the messenger - but, like us all, sometimes we let our own standards slip. However I don't think this is the case here.

Yinglak made a conscientious decision to attempt to distort history - a particularly highly-charged piece of recent history in Thailand - at an international conference between democratic countries. This decision, for me, is a decision to incite hatred amongst Thais, especially given the coincidental timing with her support of the UDD's intimidation of the judiciary, PTP's open support of this flagrant assault on democratic values, and a new amnesty push for her brother.

And why did she do it if it was for her brother's personal gain? She harps on about "for the good of the country" and all, but then what's the problem with telling the truth???

I've always thought she was an airhead, but I never actually disliked her until she made this decision... I have been pulled up many times by Thais across the South (and many folks on here too) for my moderate opinion of Yinglak!

Yingluk didn't distort anything.

The distortion is as ever only coming from her opponents.

Cac-handed they are too.

The" history you say Yingluck intentionally distorted is the version of the history which you decided to believe is the truth. And I respect your choice.

A lot of people believe other versions, or the version of the present government, to be more truthful.

For what I can see, it seems that since a few years Yingluck's version is the one that the international community prefers to believe.

It is up to us to make our own opinion, which is also influenced by our environment (south vs north vs Bangkok vs those who live abroad). It is also influenced by our circle of friends and aquaintances, our own past, or even the number of years we have been in Thailand. I hear some people make comments about the past while they "live" here since only two or three years. In fact these ones just swallowed the version presented to them by The Nation without thinking further... Up to them, the way they think will not change anything anyway.

Whatever version of "the history" we want to believe, I notice that one side is trying to walk towards reconciliation, while the other side puts all his efforts in keeping reconciliation away.

I personally see much more hatred coming from the anti governement group, but you probably do not notice that one. One side is accomodating and patient, while the other side never loses time to come with the usual stories "Thaksin is bad" etc..., in order to block whatever idea is originating from their oponents, or rather ennemies.

While I am sure your are moderate person and that you can explain in detail why you have your own opinion, why you think the way you think, why you support the ones you support, why you believe this guy is good and that guy is bad, ... I think that, in this case, you have been really quick in writing that the speech had the purpose to incite hatred. This is not really moderate... I even find it quite extreme, and this is why I took a few minutes of my time to reply to your comments.

However, I do not want to go further into a - most probably heated - conversation. It would be useless.

I wish you all the best

Khrap

Just one thing - the distorted history is that her brother was PM when he was ousted. Regardless of my opinions/beliefs/whatever, that is not true. As for the rest, I agree that we can agree to differ and return your goodwill.

Sorry to come again... I don't get that one.

Yingluck's brother was not PM when he was outsted?

Not sure I understand your phrase (because of my average English maybe...)

Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

That's good to hear. I look forward to the English translation of her speech.

Wish no more.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

Thank you.

It makes the speech understandable now.

Yes, much easier to read it than listen to it. It was a very interesting speech. I wonder who wrote it for her?

+1

Prime Minister's Office Speaker Dr. Todsaporn Seriluck has announced that the cabinet has decided to publish a translated version of the Prime Minister's speech made during her recent official visit to Mongolia.

That's good to hear. I look forward to the English translation of her speech.

Wish no more.

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

Thank you.

It makes the speech understandable now.

Yes, much easier to read it than listen to it. It was a very interesting speech. I wonder who wrote it for her?

Especially with her reading it. Abhisit's cousin apparently wrote most of it.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/636322-thailands-p-m-yingluck-denies-trying-to-whitewash-brother-thaksin-in-mongolia/?view=findpost&p=6355481

That's right!

The international community are on-side

I haven't seen any international community siding with her desire to dissolve the Constitution Court, her support of red shirts intimidating judges, nor her calls for her brother's amnesty.

Do you have links for any of those?

Appearing at an international conference proclaiming democracy being the thing that makes us all equal, whilst simultaneously pushing for an amnesty to free all law-breakers (especially those in positions of power) is a kick, slap and gun in the face for those who have to serve time behind bars for much less.

/Quite simply a bullxxxx form of democracy in any language.

Edited May 1, 201313 yr by metisdead

Appearing at an international conference proclaiming democracy being the thing that makes us all equal, whilst simultaneously pushing for an amnesty to free all law-breakers (especially those in positions of power) is a kick, slap and gun in the face for those who have to serve time behind bars for much less.

/Quite simply a bullshit form of democracy in any language.

This is Thai democracy, have a word with with those who created it over the pat 50 years.

Abhisit sounded a lot better to an international audience. She sounds like the birds that takes my beer order.

[quote

That's right!

The international community are on-side

And Yingluk is off-side, but being a woman, she doesn't understand the off-side rule.