My Speech In Mongolia Summed Up Lessons Learnt, Yingluck Says

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[Pimay1]

Right on Yingluck!! Excellent speech Of course the right-wing and royalists hate to hear the truth. They could not care less about Democracy for Thailand as the status quo suits them just fine. They've been hard at work erasing Thailand's 1932 revolution from the people's memory and rewriting history ever since.

An excellent speech if the audience was her party or their militia (red shirts).

What Ms Y (& you) fail to understand is that when a PM goes abroad she (or he) represents the whole country. Not just her party, her family, her supporters &, especially, not her brother.

She has done a disservice to the country ('they have to bring their petty politics abroad') and deliberately chosen a venue where no questions can be asked. So it was cowardly too.

Methinks Yingluck's long political honeymoon is over.

This is the first time I have ever heard of a PM or President of a country on an official visit to a foreign country and during a diplomatic speech air the dirty laundry of their home country. This just shows how ill equiped Yingluck is to be the PM.

Well of course she didn't do anything of the sort as anyone ( with an ounce of intelligence and not blinded by hatred) who read her comments would be able to verify.

However moving on to the general point you are mistaken if you believe this kind of criticism is anything new.In the US for example it is quite common for the scummier kind of right wing bigot to make the same kind of criticisms of Obama in reacting to his overseas statements.Pretty much the same here.

You must be reading a different speach than the one she gave. Of course she aired the dirty laundry of her country.

As for Obama even with his good points and bad points he has never gone to a foreign country and trashed the opposition and saying his family was mistreated. At least I have never seen it. Your comment scummier kind of right wing bigot speaks volumes. Talk about blinded by hatred.........

[rubl]

I learned my lesson. When I give a speech in English outside Thailand I'll have another one prepared in Thai for local distribution.

Next our PM will start wearing shirts with an image of Ghandi to emphasize democracy and peacefulness while belaboring the harm done to her family.

[ginjag]

I hope the very few posters who agree with Y S, realise that if they had the country at heart, they really should be frowning on this kind of prop/speach.

This surely is NOT the way forward to promote Thailand.

[mikemac]

Seriously, are there actually people out there who support this moron ?

[brd199]

Seriously, are there actually people out there who support this moron ?

It would seem people making Posts #15 and #29 do.

[jayboy]

Yingluk and all red shirts should think why did the coup happen and why did so many who opposed the military in 1992 welcome them in 2006.

The insane autocracy and arrogance of her brother is the answer

It seems she has learnt nothing.

Agreed Thaksin was and is a meglomaniac.But it doesn't alter the fact that the unelected elites and the army have been criminally incompetent, to the point that the objective they profess to be of the highest importance is now theatened and in danger.This was nothing to do with Thaksin.

[rubl]

Interesting. Now pray tell, it's Thaksin one of those unelected elite? With the PM lamenting her brothers victimizing in a lesson not learned yet?

[khaowong1]

"How can we enable everyone to move forward and co-exist and see peace and reconciliation for the nation?

The first step lady might be to call off your thugs who are sitting in front of the court house and accept the authority of the courts.

The second would be to denounce the crim on the run who is running you and the country and withdraw his passport.

Then you could allow free speech, particularly from your political opponents (see other story on Yasathon).

Then you could apologise for the speech you are now defending.

And then..........the list goes on.

This was my thoughts exactly right down the list. thank you..

[jayboy]

Interesting. Now pray tell, it's Thaksin one of those unelected elite? With the PM lamenting her brothers victimizing in a lesson not learned yet?

No Thaksin despite his shortcomings was not one of the unelected elite.In case you hadn't noticed the people of Thailand have endorsed political parties associated with him again and again.

[rametindallas]

Seriously, are there actually people out there who support this moron ?

For a fee. Generally Bt. 500

[rametindallas]

Yingluk and all red shirts should think why did the coup happen and why did so many who opposed the military in 1992 welcome them in 2006.

The insane autocracy and arrogance of her brother is the answer

It seems she has learnt nothing.

Agreed Thaksin was and is a meglomaniac.But it doesn't alter the fact that the unelected elites and the army have been criminally incompetent, to the point that the objective they profess to be of the highest importance is now theatened and in danger.This was nothing to do with Thaksin.

When Dr. Thaksin first became PM he had an opportunity to really change Thailand from a feudal state to a true democratic state. The man is an organizational genius. Unfortunately, he came down will a severe case of GREED. Instead of getting rid of the feudal system, he used it (Village Fund) to control the rural voters, he used Populist policies to glorify himself and turn himself into a cult figure, he talked a great talk about reforming education, etc. while at the same time using the instrument of the State to gain contracts for his personal businesses (think Thaicom satellite and taxpayer money to Burma to buy his mobile phone service) and on and on. This man, who has such talents, who had many lifetimes of wealth, had the opportunity to serve Thailand but the power corrupted him and he became selfish, ego-driven, and greedy for money and power. Think 'Gollum' as Dr. Thaksin and Thailand as the 'Ring'.

[hellodolly]

Right on Yingluck!! Excellent speech Of course the right-wing and royalists hate to hear the truth. They could not care less about Democracy for Thailand as the status quo suits them just fine. They've been hard at work erasing Thailand's 1932 revolution from the people's memory and rewriting history ever since.

Might I suggest that if you are interested in the truth you read post #4.

It will be very enlightening for you.

But I do thank you for posting. I was beginning to wonder where the Thaksin/Clone spin doctors were.

Even this speech was so bad they ran for cover. I am sure now that you have broken the ice that more will follow.

[Democracy4Thais]

Right on Yingluck!! Excellent speech Of course the right-wing and royalists hate to hear the truth. They could not care less about Democracy for Thailand as the status quo suits them just fine. They've been hard at work erasing Thailand's 1932 revolution from the people's memory and rewriting history ever since.

An excellent speech if the audience was her party or their militia (red shirts).

What Ms Y (& you) fail to understand is that when a PM goes abroad she (or he) represents the whole country. Not just her party, her family, her supporters &, especially, not her brother.

She has done a disservice to the country ('they have to bring their petty politics abroad') and deliberately chosen a venue where no questions can be asked. So it was cowardly too.

Methinks Yingluck's long political honeymoon is over.

This is the first time I have ever heard of a PM or President of a country on an official visit to a foreign country and during a diplomatic speech air the dirty laundry of their home country. This just shows how ill equiped Yingluck is to be the PM.

It did seem like a huge whinge and was more in keeping with the Robert Amsterdam style of preaching to the converted. It certainly showed a lack of class, let alone protocol.

And BTW, Radkiter.......... I thought that most Thais, save a few wannabe republicans, were royalists.

As evidenced by election after election, most Thais want democracy. Are most Thais royalists? Polls show that the majority (that's over 50%) of Thais currently have an unfavorable view of the monarchy.

[hellodolly]

jayboy, on 05 May 2013 - 17:52, said:

Pimay1, on 05 May 2013 - 15:44, said:

khunken, on 05 May 2013 - 15:33, said:

RadKiter, on 05 May 2013 - 12:00, said:

Right on Yingluck!! Excellent speech Of course the right-wing and royalists hate to hear the truth. They could not care less about Democracy for Thailand as the status quo suits them just fine. They've been hard at work erasing Thailand's 1932 revolution from the people's memory and rewriting history ever since.

An excellent speech if the audience was her party or their militia (red shirts).

What Ms Y (& you) fail to understand is that when a PM goes abroad she (or he) represents the whole country. Not just her party, her family, her supporters &, especially, not her brother.

She has done a disservice to the country ('they have to bring their petty politics abroad') and deliberately chosen a venue where no questions can be asked. So it was cowardly too.

Methinks Yingluck's long political honeymoon is over.

This is the first time I have ever heard of a PM or President of a country on an official visit to a foreign country and during a diplomatic speech air the dirty laundry of their home country. This just shows how ill equiped Yingluck is to be the PM.

Well of course she didn't do anything of the sort as anyone ( with an ounce of intelligence and not blinded by hatred) who read her comments would be able to verify.

However moving on to the general point you are mistaken if you believe this kind of criticism is anything new.In the US for example it is quite common for the scummier kind of right wing bigot to make the same kind of criticisms of Obama in reacting to his overseas statements.Pretty much the same here.

Now what are you on about. What happens in the states happens in every country.

Reread it and you will find out that Yingluck was not in Thailand she was in Mongolia talking about democracy in Thailand. for some reason she had to drag her dirty laundry into it. Those people were not a bunch of uneducated lie to me as long as I think I will get some thing out of it air heads. They know the history better than Yingluck.

She literally stood up there and lied to all the foreign dignitaries that were present. Talking about reconciliation when her government does nothing to promote it. They spend all their time and money trying to absolve Thaksin and his hired thugs of all there crimes.

Well not all their money they do put some (30%) in their pocket first.

Edit

Forgot to mention Obama does not make speeches in international gatherings in foreign countries and talk about the right wing fanatics failings. He does it all at home.

Some times he is right some times he is wrong.

Edited May 5, 2013 by hellodolly

[hellodolly]

I learned my lesson. When I give a speech in English outside Thailand I'll have another one prepared in Thai for local distribution.

Next our PM will start wearing shirts with an image of Ghandi to emphasize democracy and peacefulness while belaboring the harm done to her family.

The worst part of it is she will believe She is reconciliating Thailand with her rhetoric.

[hellodolly]

No Thaksin despite his shortcomings was not one of the unelected elite.In case you hadn't noticed the people of Thailand have endorsed

Yingluk and all red shirts should think why did the coup happen and why did so many who opposed the military in 1992 welcome them in 2006.

The insane autocracy and arrogance of her brother is the answer

It seems she has learnt nothing.

Agreed Thaksin was and is a meglomaniac.But it doesn't alter the fact that the unelected elites and the army have been criminally incompetent, to the point that the objective they profess to be of the highest importance is now theatened and in danger.This was nothing to do with Thaksin.

When Dr. Thaksin first became PM he had an opportunity to really change Thailand from a feudal state to a true democratic state. The man is an organizational genius. Unfortunately, he came down will a severe case of GREED. Instead of getting rid of the feudal system, he used it (Village Fund) to control the rural voters, he used Populist policies to glorify himself and turn himself into a cult figure, he talked a great talk about reforming education, etc. while at the same time using the instrument of the State to gain contracts for his personal businesses (think Thaicom satellite and taxpayer money to Burma to buy his mobile phone service) and on and on. This man, who has such talents, who had many lifetimes of wealth, had the opportunity to serve Thailand but the power corrupted him and he became selfish, ego-driven, and greedy for money and power. Think 'Gollum' as Dr. Thaksin and Thailand as the 'Ring'.

Excellent post.

I might add he still has the people under his thumb that could do a lot for Thailand.

Unfortunately he has not figured out a way to make any money off of enriching the lives of the poor so it is still a pass with him.

[rubl]

My knowledge of the English language needs to be improved. I always thought that 'elected' and 'endorsed' had different meanings.

So, the not placed, non-candidate Thaksin was not not-elected, but his party was endorsed. Next we'll hear that PM Yingluck did not not-complain about the damage to her family and how her non-candidate brother Thaksin was somehow 'elected' as his party was 'endorsed'. I'm sure the congress on democracy would have really loved to have that construction explained.

[waza]

"My speech in Mongolia summed up lessons learnt, Yingluck says"

The lesson is, don't drag your feet or ignore Thaksin's orders, if he say jump ask how high. If he wants you to vocalise his perverted view of the world then just do it, or you loose your job to your sister.

Edited May 5, 2013 by waza

[sbk]

Posts have been deleted. Please note the forum rules,

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

In using Thai Visa I agree:

2) Not to express disrespect of the King of Thailand or anyone else in
the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the
monarchy as an institution. Speculation, comments and discussion of
either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM
The King or the Royal family. Discussion of the lese majeste law or
lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or
speculation is made referencing the royal family. To breach this rule
will result in immediate ban.

[jayboy]

My knowledge of the English language needs to be improved. I always thought that 'elected' and 'endorsed' had different meanings.

So, the not placed, non-candidate Thaksin was not not-elected, but his party was endorsed. Next we'll hear that PM Yingluck did not not-complain about the damage to her family and how her non-candidate brother Thaksin was somehow 'elected' as his party was 'endorsed'. I'm sure the congress on democracy would have really loved to have that construction explained.

Your English language skills are adequate if not very polished.It's your analytical intelligence that needs working on.Political parties endorsed by and closely assoviated with Thaksin have in recent years consistently won general elections in Thailand and show every sign of doing so in the future.Not so hard to grasp.The last government headed by Abhisit came to power through dubious back door deals, again not so hard to grasp.After the criminality of the military coup and a series of ludicrous decisions by directed courts yielded nothing but electoral humiliation, the old elites realised they had to work within the rules of democracy.In a parliamentary democracy this type of back door activity is permitted but as time goes by it's morally and politically necessary to face the electorate directly.When this finally took place, Abhisit and his Democrat party were very clearly rejected by the Thai people.What Yingluck had to say in Mongolia brought the reactioonary bigots out from the sewers but we shall see how she is regarded in the next general election, assuming the criminal unelectred elites don't find some way of defying the Thai people once again.Again not so very hard to grasp.

Personally, since there are major arguments against Thaksin's baleful influence, I would in the DEmocrats' position be working on making our policies more acceptable to the Thai people.Simply ranting about Thaksin doesn't improve anything and indeedserves to underline the distance between the greedy old unelected elites (and their mainly Sino Thai middle class hangers on) and the Thai majority.Again not that hard to grasp.

[rubl]

Dear jayboy, my profound thanks for judging my English language skills adequate if unpolished. I'm aware I seldomly use those (meaningless) ivory tower expressions and terms which you so seem to favour.

So to conclude, PM Yingluck is defending her criminal fugitive brother who is not elected, but only owns a party which endorses their owner, and she did this defending at a conference about democracy. Could be a case of "I learned that this is not the way to go"

[OzMick]

My knowledge of the English language needs to be improved. I always thought that 'elected' and 'endorsed' had different meanings.

So, the not placed, non-candidate Thaksin was not not-elected, but his party was endorsed. Next we'll hear that PM Yingluck did not not-complain about the damage to her family and how her non-candidate brother Thaksin was somehow 'elected' as his party was 'endorsed'. I'm sure the congress on democracy would have really loved to have that construction explained.

Your English language skills are adequate if not very polished.It's your analytical intelligence that needs working on.Political parties endorsed by and closely assoviated with Thaksin have in recent years consistently won general elections in Thailand and show every sign of doing so in the future.Not so hard to grasp.The last government headed by Abhisit came to power through dubious back door deals, again not so hard to grasp.After the criminality of the military coup and a series of ludicrous decisions by directed courts yielded nothing but electoral humiliation, the old elites realised they had to work within the rules of democracy.In a parliamentary democracy this type of back door activity is permitted but as time goes by it's morally and politically necessary to face the electorate directly.When this finally took place, Abhisit and his Democrat party were very clearly rejected by the Thai people.What Yingluck had to say in Mongolia brought the reactioonary bigots out from the sewers but we shall see how she is regarded in the next general election, assuming the criminal unelectred elites don't find some way of defying the Thai people once again.Again not so very hard to grasp.

Personally, since there are major arguments against Thaksin's baleful influence, I would in the DEmocrats' position be working on making our policies more acceptable to the Thai people.Simply ranting about Thaksin doesn't improve anything and indeedserves to underline the distance between the greedy old unelected elites (and their mainly Sino Thai middle class hangers on) and the Thai majority.Again not that hard to grasp.

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

Edited May 6, 2013 by OzMick

[jayboy]

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained. If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result. None of this is ideal or heathy. However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large. And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash. That's exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round. Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

[OzMick]

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but 47% of the vote count does not alter criminality or the basic tenets of democracy.

[rubl]

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

Probably again forum rules if I just say "quit the BS", but the topic here is Ms. Yingluck having learned a lesson, allegedly that is. That has nothing to do with a Democracy like Thailand where the less education people can be manipulated into voting for a political party with a nice lady as visible postergirl and with said party owned by a criminal fugitive. If you could graciously consent, I only go back 200 years, but in the Netherlands we never had a political party owned by a single person. I do not know enough of UK history to say anything about the situation there. In Thailand village elders still tell their flock who to vote for and check that that's actually done. Democracy in it's infancy. A few facts PM Yingluck simple forgot to mention in her speech in Mongolia.

BTW 'mandate' doesn't mean can ignore the law or block the opposition from doing it's work. That's undemocratic, another item Ms. Yingluck failed to mention. One may be excused to wonder what lessons Ms. Yingluck refered to as having learned

Edited May 6, 2013 by rubl

[jayboy]

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but 47% of the vote count does not alter criminality or the basic tenets of democracy.

Simply not an adequate response.In most democracies (actually almost by definition) the winning part doesn't have North Korean type landslides.The USA for example is almost always split done the middle.However close the margin the winners are the winners and all sides accept the rules of the game.

I agree democracy is about more than elections.In Thailand that is obviously work in progress, and political pressure on the courts was an issue long before Thaksin.The problem in Thailand in recent years is that the established elites find it difficult to accept the peoples verdict when it is in conflict with their wishes.

[jayboy]

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

Probably again forum rules if I just say "quit the BS", but the topic here is Ms. Yingluck having learned a lesson, allegedly that is. That has nothing to do with a Democracy like Thailand where the less education people can be manipulated into voting for a political party with a nice lady as visible postergirl and with said party owned by a criminal fugitive. If you could graciously consent, I only go back 200 years, but in the Netherlands we never had a political party owned by a single person. I do not know enough of UK history to say anything about the situation there. In Thailand village elders still tell their flock who to vote for and check that that's actually done. Democracy in it's infancy. A few facts PM Yingluck simple forgot to mention in her speech in Mongolia.

BTW 'mandate' doesn't mean can ignore the law or block the opposition from doing it's work. That's undemocratic, another item Ms. Yingluck failed to mention. One may be excused to wonder what lessons Ms. Yingluck refered to as having learned

I note the genial mask slips when confronted with unpalatable truths.

You repeat the stale and offensive canard of the less educated being manipulated into voting a particular way.All voters vote in their own interests and it is absurd to suggest that an educated urbanite is somehow less selfish with his vote than a rice farmer.You also confuse education with intelligence.

If you genuinely believe the current government is in power because "village elders" ordered people to vote in a particular way, you need to do more homework.

It's absolutely reasonable that the PM's speech should be criticised by her political opponents.However since their own record in nourishing Thai democracy is so appalling it's not surprising their protests are unconvincing (and in the case of many comments in the social media - completely unhinged).

Edited May 6, 2013 by jayboy

[OzMick]

Ah yes, it's always the elites at fault, and never a criminal trying to absolve himself through his popularity - most of which is based on ignorance and propaganda. Still, buying votes is illegal, both of voters and MPs, and attempting to pass laws and change the constitution for the benefit of one person is both morally reprehensible and legally wrong.

And Thaksin is still a criminal under Thai law, with no right to be participating in cabinet meetings, and even less to be issuing commands to MPs to pass law to his personal benefit, or to be issued a passport while a fugitive. His popularity, nor that of his proxy government changes that, and if they fail to recognise that these things remain true and continue on the current path, their will be intervention again, most likely violence and bloodshed. What's a few lives to a sociopath compared to his demands.

[rubl]

None of which explains why PTP MPs feel it necessary for them to accept the orders of a fugitive criminal who is not a member of their political party. Your but, but, but, fails to address the issue that a MP selling his/her vote for monetary or influence reward is a criminal offence.

The PTP gained power in a general election where the Thai people was fully aware of the background and the nature of Thaksin's influence if victory was attained.If the Thai people objected to this arrangement the election would have has a different result.None of this is ideal or heathy.However instead of ranting on to an almost insane degree about Thaksin's influence, his critics would be better advised to make their political representatives more appealing and campaign on policies good for the Thai people and the country at large.And don't preach about MPs selling their votes for influence/cash.That';s exactly what Abhisit and his army cronies organised to ease the Democrats into power last term round.Yingluck didn't stoop to that kind of sleaze not so much because she is morally superior to Abhisit (though in my view she is) but because she didn't need to - given the popular mandate given to her by the Thai people and which was denied to the Democrats.

Probably again forum rules if I just say "quit the BS", but the topic here is Ms. Yingluck having learned a lesson, allegedly that is. That has nothing to do with a Democracy like Thailand where the less education people can be manipulated into voting for a political party with a nice lady as visible postergirl and with said party owned by a criminal fugitive. If you could graciously consent, I only go back 200 years, but in the Netherlands we never had a political party owned by a single person. I do not know enough of UK history to say anything about the situation there. In Thailand village elders still tell their flock who to vote for and check that that's actually done. Democracy in it's infancy. A few facts PM Yingluck simple forgot to mention in her speech in Mongolia.

BTW 'mandate' doesn't mean can ignore the law or block the opposition from doing it's work. That's undemocratic, another item Ms. Yingluck failed to mention. One may be excused to wonder what lessons Ms. Yingluck refered to as having learned

I note the genial mask slips when confronted with unpalatable truths.

You repeat the stale and offensive canard of the less educated being manipulated into voting a particular way.All voters vote in their own interests and it is absurd to suggest that an educated urbanite is somehow less selfish with his vote than a rice farmer.You also confuse education with intelligence.

If you genuinely believe the current government is in power because "village elders" ordered people to vote in a particular way, you need to do more homework.

It's absolutely reasonable that the PM's speech should be criticised by her political opponents.However since their own record in nourishing Thai democracy is so appalling it's not surprising their protests are unconvincing (and in the case of many comments in the social media - completely unhinged).

Jayboy, the 'village elders' are the puu yai, the traditional non-elected elite who always took care of their serfs and when those were freed in 1885 or so, their employees. Like a few hundred years ago in (most of) Europe.

The part on unconvincing opponents and the need for those to change to be more like the ruling party in promising 'heaven on earth' and 'rich in six months' needs another topic. Keep it out of here.

Here we talk about PM Yingluck allegedly having learn lessons, but unclear whether she really meant democracy as she seems to have called a criminal fugitive victimized, her family harmed and forgot about various other nice aspects like her poor brother 'not having democracy as goal', 'drugswar to be taken literally', trying to sue critics out of existance, etc., etc.. Now that's democracy, almost like in your home country, isn't it?

EDIT: add: Confuse education and intelligence? I say 'less educated', why should that be 'less intelligent' ?

Edited May 6, 2013 by rubl