My Speech In Mongolia Summed Up Lessons Learnt, Yingluck Says

[whybother]

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.

Wasn't there a poll that showed that more people liked the Democrat policies? Are you suggesting that they need to come up with policies that people don't like??

Sent from my Phone.

[dominique355]

PM Yingluck clearly stated that there is democracy and freedom (of speech) in Thailand and if you don't agree I will sue you.

And if that still doesn't send the message across clearly enough, I will instruct my dear comrade Anudith at the ICT (Internet Censorship of Thailand) to monitor all opinions expressed in the Internet and prosecute those who don't agree with me.

The next phase will be to declare criticism of the PM as "un-Thai", which allows the Ministry of Culture to proceed against voiced opinions.

To paraphrase Henry Ford: You can express any opinion as long as you agree with me.

Some would call Thailand a "guided" democracy. The PM must guide people in their way of speaking and thinking. She knows so much better what is good for you.

[ginjag]

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.

You are entitled to your view (minority that is) I wonder why ??? is it because most posters are in love with Abhisit--OR most do not agree with the red regime and the family ownership of Thailand.

[Robby nz]

I just hope she has learnt some lessons from the speech and never tries to repeat it or anything like it again.

[Tomtomtom69]

"The premier said her Mongolian counterpart had also inquired about the possibility of establishing a direct air link between the two countries to facilitate trade and investment."

Sounds interesting in principle, but how many locals living in either country would have money to fly between Thailand and Mongolia? Relatively few Thais travel and so they wouldn't be on such a flight, a few Mongolians and a lot of westerners maybe? I think let's stick to the flights between Beijing and Ulan Bator where they have enough passengers to justify such a flight. I mean, linking two random countries like Thailand and Mongolia would be like offering a direct Sydney to Ougadougou, Mali service. Completely pointless, there'd be no passengers and the airline(s) flying between the two cities would lose so much money they'd probably have to suspend the route within a week.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Tomtomtom69

[jayboy]

I just hope she has learnt some lessons from the speech and never tries to repeat it or anything like it again.

Why? She was speaking no more than the truth.

[rubl]

The truth, the whole truth, all of the truth as I see it and others should see it. Any poor, otherwise thinking soul left I'll sue into oblivion.

Nothing personal of course, just profiling Thai democracy as other countries would love to have.

[yoshiwara]

I just hope she has learnt some lessons from the speech and never tries to repeat it or anything like it again.

Why? She was speaking no more than the truth.

And thereby hangs the position of a hardline Thaksin apologist who always comes back for more. Edited May 10, 2013 by yoshiwara

[whybother]

I just hope she has learnt some lessons from the speech and never tries to repeat it or anything like it again.

Why? She was speaking no more than the truth.

No. That's the problem. She wasn't.

Sent from my Phone.

[yoshiwara]

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

The biter bit.

[yoshiwara]

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.

And yours is usually the first on display.

[waza]

I just hope she has learnt some lessons from the speech and never tries to repeat it or anything like it again.

Why? She was speaking no more than the truth.

A truth she presented on the international stage in an obscure country hoping it wouldn't get much exposure. Then when that truth is challenged is willing to defend through foul means, such as litigation and media manipulation. Are these the actions of an honest person content in the knowledge that the truth will prevail or a liar trying to hide their deceit?

[AleG]

Why? She was speaking no more than the truth.

Really, did she? Let's have a little True or False, shall we?

"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. "

jayboy, was Thaksin Shinawatra the rightful PM at the time of the coup? True or False

"Thai means free, and the people of Thailand fought back for their freedom. In May 2010, a crackdown on the protestors, the Red Shirts Movement, led to 91 deaths in the heart of the commercial district of Bangkok. "

The crackdown was the only cause of death or weren't people killed by protesters and their associates too? True or False

"I was elected with an absolute majority"

Did Yingluck receive more that 50% of the total votes, from either the votes cast or the total electorate? True or False

Those are the most obvious, shall we say, untruths I found.

There are other lies and obfuscation by omission and be spinning and simple BS, like"

-"Also important is closing gaps between rich and poor.", one of the very first things her government did was slashing corporate taxes by a third.

-" This is the challenge of Thai democracy. I would like to see reconciliation and democracy gaining strength. This can only be achieved through strengthening of the rule of law and due process." Haw haw, a Shinawatra talking about the rule of law.

At the same time as she was saying this words her party was declaring they wouldn't recognize the authority of the Constitutional Court

Besides that the reconcilliation they are aiming for is simply whitewashing crimes, and not only those of a political nature.

-"...the so called independent agencies have abused the power that should belong to the people, for the benefit of the few rather than to the Thai society at large."

As in the office of the ombudsman requesting the illegally issued passport given to her brother, by his cousin, by rescinded? That's abuse of power to benefit the few, Ms.

And so on and so forth...

Edited May 11, 2013 by AleG

[jayboy]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

[waza]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

Typical closed mind of a Thaksin lickspittle

[AleG]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

[Robby nz]

If indeed J boy you do know the background why do you refuse to accept the truth?

Possibly the background you think you know is only that of the red propaganda which as we have seen on many occasions differs somewhat from what actually happened.

I wonder what she thinks the "lessons learnt" are?

One she has obviously not learnt is that you can only push so far before the people start waking up.

Big sister won her seat in a safe electorate with a reduced majority, the 2 previous by elections were won by the Dems, the power pole lost in BKK, right now a group of farmers and other poor are outside Govt house, the reds failed miserably with their 100,000, the old people in Phitsanulok have been given rotten rice, I see on Tele news groups all over the country protesting over one thing or another.

Very soon people will learn that they will be forced off their land by water and rail projects the details of which at this point are undisclosed.

There is no need for a coup PT only need to carry on as they are.

The next General Election will indeed be interesting.

And hay J boy do you really need to start most of your posts with an insult.

[whybother]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

Please explain to me how Thaksin was the elected PM at the time of the coup.

Are you suggesting that he didn't disband government and call an election?

Maybe you're suggesting that after the election, there were sufficient MPs to form government again?

Being from the UK, I thought you understood how a parliamentary system worked.

If he disbanded parliament, and then couldn't form government following the election, exactly how could he have been the elected PM?

[OzMick]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

Ah, so now I understand what you mean by an "unpalatable fact". In your world, how long does someone retain their position after their resignation is accepted?

[jayboy]

The question of Thaksin's ousting by the military in a coup is not questioned by any serious source.

The fact that three of the usual suspects trot out the same tired and discredited " not prime minister at the time" spin simply underlines their detachment from reality.Even Thaksin's worst political enemies don't resort to this kind of silliness.

[whybother]

jayboy, on 11 May 2013 - 21:07, said:

The question of Thaksin's ousting by the military in a coup is not questioned by any serious source.

The fact that three of the usual suspects trot out the same tired and discredited " not prime minister at the time" spin simply underlines their detachment from reality.Even Thaksin's worst political enemies don't resort to this kind of silliness.

Then why is it so hard for you to explain how he was the elected PM at the time of the coup? When was he elected PM after he called for elections in early 2006?

Edited May 11, 2013 by whybother

[jayboy]

Then why is it so hard for you to explain how he was the elected PM at the time of the coup? When was he elected PM after he called for elections in early 2006?

Simply repeating silliness doesn't make it less silly.At some level you may even understand that.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Thaksin.I don't really see the point of constructing some kind of bizarro world in which the last military coup did not have the aim of removing Thaksin.

[whybother]

Then why is it so hard for you to explain how he was the elected PM at the time of the coup? When was he elected PM after he called for elections in early 2006?

Simply repeating silliness doesn't make it less silly.At some level you may even understand that.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Thaksin.I don't really see the point of constructing some kind of bizarro world in which the last military coup did not have the aim of removing Thaksin.

You keep on avoiding the point. Yingluck said that Thaksin was the elected PM when he was ousted. He wasn't.

[jayboy]

Then why is it so hard for you to explain how he was the elected PM at the time of the coup? When was he elected PM after he called for elections in early 2006?

Simply repeating silliness doesn't make it less silly.At some level you may even understand that.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Thaksin.I don't really see the point of constructing some kind of bizarro world in which the last military coup did not have the aim of removing Thaksin.

You keep on avoiding the point. Yingluck said that Thaksin was the elected PM when he was ousted. He wasn't.

It's only "the point" in a very odd perception which wont recognise reality.Whichever way you look at the 2006 coup its aim was to remove Thaksin who had been elected by the Thai people.

[whybother]

It's only "the point" in a very odd perception which wont recognise reality.Whichever way you look at the 2006 coup its aim was to remove Thaksin who had been elected by the Thai people.

He HAD been elected by the Thai people in a previous election. He WASN'T the elected PM when the coup occurred. You must have a really odd perception if you think that he was.

[yoshiwara]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

This coming from the guy who had trouble acknowledging the existence of the Arisman video.

Now it appears he has another blindspot, namely that Thaksin was the caretaker PM at the time of the coup and was not the elected PM. When push comes to shove he follows the Thaksin/red line whatever the occasional other airy-fairy nonsense disseminated.

[jayboy]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

This coming from the guy who had trouble acknowledging the existence of the Arisman video.

Now it appears he has another blindspot, namely that Thaksin was the caretaker PM at the time of the coup and was not the elected PM. When push comes to shove he follows the Thaksin/red line whatever the occasional other airy-fairy nonsense disseminated.

I am probably as well aware of the constitutional niceties in 2006 as anyone.

However the military coup's aim was to remove Thaksin and to deny this is absurd.Nobody - whether the military officers involved, the Democrat leadership or any serious commentator denies this.

This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with whether the coup was justified or not.

[whybother]

I stopped reading AleG's post after the opening para suggesting Thaksin was not PM at the time of the coup.

I know the background as well as anyone and am familiar with the tired lame argument that has been dragged out over several years on this forum.It illustrates an attitude of mind that is not open to reason.

This coming from the guy who had trouble acknowledging the existence of the Arisman video.

Now it appears he has another blindspot, namely that Thaksin was the caretaker PM at the time of the coup and was not the elected PM. When push comes to shove he follows the Thaksin/red line whatever the occasional other airy-fairy nonsense disseminated.

 

 

 

 

I am probably as well aware of the constitutional niceties in 2006 as anyone.

 

However the military coup's aim was to remove Thaksin and to deny this is absurd.Nobody - whether the military officers involved, the Democrat leadership or any serious commentator denies this.

 

This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with whether the coup was justified or not.

What does the justification or the aim have to do with the fact that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup?

Why can't you admit that he wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred and that Yingluck lied about it?

Sent from my Phone.

[jayboy]

What does the justification or the aim have to do with the fact that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup?

Why can't you admit that he wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred and that Yingluck lied about it?

Sent from my Phone.

Whether the coup was justified or not has I agree nothing to do with the subject.Didn't I make that rather clear?

The aim of those who carried out the coup has everything to do with the subject.It was to remove Thaksin who had been elected by the Thai people.Yingluck's comments were entirely legitimate.

I am very well aware of the constitutional position but it's not particularly relevant to the central truth I have detailed above.If you genuinely believe the coup was not to remove Thaksin, why did the participating generals all maintain that was indeed the objective ( along with every serious commentator and news medium).

[whybother]

What does the justification or the aim have to do with the fact that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup?

Why can't you admit that he wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred and that Yingluck lied about it?

Sent from my Phone.

Whether the coup was justified or not has I agree nothing to do with the subject.Didn't I make that rather clear?

The aim of those who carried out the coup has everything to do with the subject.It was to remove Thaksin who had been elected by the Thai people.Yingluck's comments were entirely legitimate.

I am very well aware of the constitutional position but it's not particularly relevant to the central truth I have detailed above.If you genuinely believe the coup was not to remove Thaksin, why did the participating generals all maintain that was indeed the objective ( along with every serious commentator and news medium).

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.