Singha Beer Family Scion 'To Change Surname'

[monkeycountry]

People might not like her statement, but it is definately true. Virtually all rural thais, and most other Thais for that matter, would give a blank stare if asked what some of the ground pillars of a functioning democratic society are?

Many westerners would not know either btw.

The same Thais would also draw a blank if asked how many zero's are in a billion, and many even in a million, which is why it makes no sense to ask them their opinion on economic matters.

Edited December 23, 2013 by monkeycountry

[Thai at Heart]

She is not part of the democrat party?

She was a secretary or intern or some thing for the prime minister's office when abhisit was there.

She showed her new world modern view of the role of women by getting caught handing out company calendars.

She's a democrat. Maybe not an MP, but please let's not spilt hairs. She got an endorsement for her freedom to air her views from abhisit for gods sake. Why should he give a dam?

Edward Mosely was a member of both the Tory and Labour parties before he left to form his blackshirt british national union of fascists (or something like that). Fascists tend to be part of a party and when they find it does not allow for their more extreme views they leave and form another. Mussolini did the same thing. Suthep and his ilk may have been part of the Dems but they have left and are spouting a more vile type of nationalistic fascism. I agree the dems have been stupid in that they seem to be following the idiotic notion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but they are not the same type of authoritarian elitist bigots that PCAD are.

Well that's as maybe, but I don't hear too many statements from abhisit saying that he things the vitriol coming out of these idiots mouths is wrong.

Amazingly, when sondhi said something similar everyone ran like cockroaches from the light to disown his statement. Now, apparently it's ok since a rich bird said it.

I think they should ban anyone not born on Thai soil from standing as an MP? Nationalism and all that you know.....

I mean honestly, if they are going to key loonies make up discriminatory nonsense like this, who the hell becomes arbiters of what is reasonable or not. In fact what she proposes is completely unconstitutional.

Maybe someone should run her off to the court for her to explain. I hope the bench is made up with judges from Chiangmai and Korat.

[Bluespunk]

I agree, she's a fascist and a bigot. No argument with that, and yes the Dems are taking a cowardly backseat by not coming out to condemn her views, because it is better for their political strategy to let PT and suthep fight it out. A completely wrong and immoral thing to do. However, that doesn't make her views those of the Democrats as other posters (well at least one) have claimed.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Bluespunk

[JRSoul]

She is an arrogant elite who believes that poor Thais are uneducated and therefore don't understand democracy and therefore shouldn't be counted as one man one vote. Thailand loses both ways. On one hand they get folks who think like her. On the other, they get a huckster and puppet like Yingluck.

She represents the more extreme version of a line thought expressed by many respected people, that one of the weaknesses of democracy is that stupid/uneducated/ill-informed or combinations of the 3, are given equal voting rights. Churchill, FDR, and JFK have all expressed reservations/acknowledgements of this weakness.

That Thailand's current poor copy of democracy is harming the country is obvious.I give more respect to those willing to propose change than those willing to accept bad government.

[Thai at Heart]

She is an arrogant elite who believes that poor Thais are uneducated and therefore don't understand democracy and therefore shouldn't be counted as one man one vote. Thailand loses both ways. On one hand they get folks who think like her. On the other, they get a huckster and puppet like Yingluck.

She represents the more extreme version of a line thought expressed by many respected people, that one of the weaknesses of democracy is that stupid/uneducated/ill-informed or combinations of the 3, are given equal voting rights. Churchill, FDR, and JFK have all expressed reservations/acknowledgements of this weakness.

That Thailand's current poor copy of democracy is harming the country is obvious.I give more respect to those willing to propose change than those willing to accept bad government.

Problem is when the people making the comment are hardly genius level themselves and only have the luxury of making the statement due to nepotism and inherited position.

When academics debate the weaknesses of democracy and offer reasoned views it's possible to debate ways to improve the system.

When you hear nonsense like this who's only standing there because of her surname and grandads bank balance, what can you say. What has she ever sacrificed or contributed to the country to have the right to change, plan or effect anything?

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

[JRSoul]

Well that's as maybe, but I don't hear too many statements from abhisit saying that he things the vitriol coming out of these idiots mouths is wrong.

Amazingly, when sondhi said something similar everyone ran like cockroaches from the light to disown his statement. Now, apparently it's ok since a rich bird said it.

I think they should ban anyone not born on Thai soil from standing as an MP? Nationalism and all that you know.....

I mean honestly, if they are going to key loonies make up discriminatory nonsense like this, who the hell becomes arbiters of what is reasonable or not. In fact what she proposes is completely unconstitutional.

Maybe someone should run her off to the court for her to explain. I hope the bench is made up with judges from Chiangmai and Korat.

Could you explain why your version of unequal citizenship is better than hers?

[Thai at Heart]

Well that's as maybe, but I don't hear too many statements from abhisit saying that he things the vitriol coming out of these idiots mouths is wrong.

Amazingly, when sondhi said something similar everyone ran like cockroaches from the light to disown his statement. Now, apparently it's ok since a rich bird said it.

I think they should ban anyone not born on Thai soil from standing as an MP? Nationalism and all that you know.....

I mean honestly, if they are going to key loonies make up discriminatory nonsense like this, who the hell becomes arbiters of what is reasonable or not. In fact what she proposes is completely unconstitutional.

Maybe someone should run her off to the court for her to explain. I hope the bench is made up with judges from Chiangmai and Korat.

Could you explain why your version of unequal citizenship is better than hers?

I'm just throwing it out there.

If the poor can't vote why can't it be arbitrarily decided that a thai not born in thailand cant be prime minister. The USA has that rule for president.

Her view is abhorrent and should be pointed out as so.

And you wait until Thailand gets its first luuk kreung MP born outside Thailand. And wait to hear the howls of derision. And don't believe these numpties won't say that these people aren't less Thai than they are.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[JRSoul]

Problem is when the people making the comment are hardly genius level themselves and only have the luxury of making the statement due to nepotism and inherited position.

When academics debate the weaknesses of democracy and offer reasoned views it's possible to debate ways to improve the system.

When you hear nonsense like this who's only standing there because of her surname and grandads bank balance, what can you say. What has she ever sacrificed or contributed to the country to have the right to change, plan or effect anything?

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

I referred to Churchill, FDR and JFK who became respected despite nepotism and grandad's bank balance, which certainly played part in their obtaining the positions they held. Just because you don't like the views expressed is no reason to be selectively blind in your criticism.

[JRSoul]

Well that's as maybe, but I don't hear too many statements from abhisit saying that he things the vitriol coming out of these idiots mouths is wrong.

Amazingly, when sondhi said something similar everyone ran like cockroaches from the light to disown his statement. Now, apparently it's ok since a rich bird said it.

I think they should ban anyone not born on Thai soil from standing as an MP? Nationalism and all that you know.....

I mean honestly, if they are going to key loonies make up discriminatory nonsense like this, who the hell becomes arbiters of what is reasonable or not. In fact what she proposes is completely unconstitutional.

Maybe someone should run her off to the court for her to explain. I hope the bench is made up with judges from Chiangmai and Korat.

Could you explain why your version of unequal citizenship is better than hers?

I'm just throwing it out there.

If the poor can't vote why can't it be arbitrarily decided that a thai not born in thailand cant be prime minister. The USA has that rule for president.

Her view is abhorrent and should be pointed out as so.

And you wait until Thailand gets its first luuk kreung MP born outside Thailand. And wait to hear the howls of derision. And don't believe these numpties won't say that these people aren't less Thai than they are.

More democratic countries than the USA do not have that rule. Your point is a US-centric view, hers is an acceptance of a valid weakness, though to one extreme of how to overcome it.

BTW I see no reason why a Thai citizen with one non-Thai parent can't become an MP, wherever they are born. I suspect there may even be one or two, but can see no reason why they would highlight their heritage.

[Thai at Heart]

Problem is when the people making the comment are hardly genius level themselves and only have the luxury of making the statement due to nepotism and inherited position.

When academics debate the weaknesses of democracy and offer reasoned views it's possible to debate ways to improve the system.

When you hear nonsense like this who's only standing there because of her surname and grandads bank balance, what can you say. What has she ever sacrificed or contributed to the country to have the right to change, plan or effect anything?

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

I referred to Churchill, FDR and JFK who became respected despite nepotism and grandad's bank balance, which certainly played part in their obtaining the positions they held. Just because you don't like the views expressed is no reason to be selectively blind in your criticism.

No. They got democratically elected. Very very different from an unelected person who's some position is derived from inherited position making political statements.

Massive difference. Good luck to her. Go find a constituency bring the money and see if you can get voted in by telling half the constituency they are too stupid to vote.

How can she claim to represent the country when by definition she discounts half the country. If she inherently believes she is better than her compatriots, she should run for parliament and prove it.

I am not being selectively blind in my criticism of her. She deserves it both both barrels and I hope her daddy sends her back to school to finish her education. She obviously didn't pay much attention in those highly paid English schools.

I wonder where she went. Anyone know? The school must be so proud to hand turned out such a dangerous person.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[JRSoul]

Problem is when the people making the comment are hardly genius level themselves and only have the luxury of making the statement due to nepotism and inherited position.

When academics debate the weaknesses of democracy and offer reasoned views it's possible to debate ways to improve the system.

When you hear nonsense like this who's only standing there because of her surname and grandads bank balance, what can you say. What has she ever sacrificed or contributed to the country to have the right to change, plan or effect anything?

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

I referred to Churchill, FDR and JFK who became respected despite nepotism and grandad's bank balance, which certainly played part in their obtaining the positions they held. Just because you don't like the views expressed is no reason to be selectively blind in your criticism.

No. They got democratically elected. Very very different from an unelected person who's some position is derived from inherited position making political statements.

Massive difference. Good luck to her. Go find a constituency bring the money and see if you can get voted in by telling half the constituency they are too stupid to vote.

How can she claim to represent the country when by definition she discounts half the country. If she inherently believes she is better than her compatriots, she should run for parliament and prove it.

I am not being selectively blind in my criticism of her. She deserves it both both barrels and I hope her daddy sends her back to school to finish her education. She obviously didn't pay much attention in those highly paid English schools.

I wonder where she went. Anyone know? The school must be so proud to hand turned out such a dangerous person.

Why do elected officials have more rights than ordinary citizens? Isn't that view one of the major problems with this country? And what position does she hold except for some social status, which should hardly affect her right to express her views?

And why would she need to have a constituency? She could join the Shinawatras, who bought their position,and their criminal scum as party list MPs.

One man- one vote is both a basis of democracy and a recognised weakness, especially when the majority lack critical analysis and the education to understand it. Strict adherence to religious dogma held science back for centuries, nothing should be above critical thought and freedom of expression.

I find your version of a cup of hemlock more abhorrent.

[JoeThePoster]

I knew it - Beer is thicker than blood !

[whybother]

What was that about freedom of speech? Something the red shirts having been fighting for ... unless it's about them.

Now the red shirts are threatening up country breweries unless they shut her up.

[smutcakes]

Maybe they should disown her from her inherited cash, and maybe she can learn what it is to fend for oneself.

She is an airhead with a name. She really believes she has smarts big enough to debate the morality of democracy? My 9 year olds could debate her into knots.

She is an aberration.

This, i am sure she will come vaulting off her soap box should they threaten to cut her free financially from the family.

I just still cannot get my head around these protesters gathering around Suthep, a lifetime politician who has had and his family continue to be linked to corruption etc. Surely they could find a more appropriate and less tainted leader to front up the movement. It is the definition of irony really.

[Thai at Heart]

Problem is when the people making the comment are hardly genius level themselves and only have the luxury of making the statement due to nepotism and inherited position.

When academics debate the weaknesses of democracy and offer reasoned views it's possible to debate ways to improve the system.

When you hear nonsense like this who's only standing there because of her surname and grandads bank balance, what can you say. What has she ever sacrificed or contributed to the country to have the right to change, plan or effect anything?

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

I referred to Churchill, FDR and JFK who became respected despite nepotism and grandad's bank balance, which certainly played part in their obtaining the positions they held. Just because you don't like the views expressed is no reason to be selectively blind in your criticism.

No. They got democratically elected. Very very different from an unelected person who's some position is derived from inherited position making political statements.

Massive difference. Good luck to her. Go find a constituency bring the money and see if you can get voted in by telling half the constituency they are too stupid to vote.

How can she claim to represent the country when by definition she discounts half the country. If she inherently believes she is better than her compatriots, she should run for parliament and prove it.

I am not being selectively blind in my criticism of her. She deserves it both both barrels and I hope her daddy sends her back to school to finish her education. She obviously didn't pay much attention in those highly paid English schools.

I wonder where she went. Anyone know? The school must be so proud to hand turned out such a dangerous person.

Why do elected officials have more rights than ordinary citizens? Isn't that view one of the major problems with this country? And what position does she hold except for some social status, which should hardly affect her right to express her views?

And why would she need to have a constituency? She could join the Shinawatras, who bought their position,and their criminal scum as party list MPs.

One man- one vote is both a basis of democracy and a recognised weakness, especially when the majority lack critical analysis and the education to understand it. Strict adherence to religious dogma held science back for centuries, nothing should be above critical thought and freedom of expression.

I find your version of a cup of hemlock more abhorrent.

If you are going to compare her views to JFK or Churchill who had wealth but entered politics it is valid to compare.

Where did I say she was remarkably worse than yingluck? I didn't. The point was not to compare her and yingluck but her and other wealthy people who had entered politics.

I generally have a large distrust of people who try to convince anyone that the way forward is for them to give up their right to choice in the short term. It's a dangerous path. She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued. I reserve the right to question that view and state that that has largely been proven to be a fascist view point through history.

Express your view that's fine, but if essentially discriminatory, don't be surprised if you get flack. Propose taking away peoples right to choose but don't be surprised when you get flack. Make your statements but don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience. Her minor experience would I think be outweighed by the accumulated global political experience of the outcome of the implementation of such views.

What she is saying is probably breaking the law anyway because it would remove a right of a thai enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a woman, many of whom fought for the right to vote so long and hard to be espousing these views is truly bizarre. In some countries she would be in a burka such at home in silence. Do you not see the contradiction in what she says. She is using the very freedom granted to her to talk of removing the freedom of others.

She's the daughter of a beer maker. And so what? Get elected, make your points, serve your country and serve the people, represent your people and compatriots. Surely she couldn't be less capable than yingluck?

Could she?

Edited December 24, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

What was that about freedom of speech? Something the red shirts having been fighting for ... unless it's about them.

Now the red shirts are threatening up country breweries unless they shut her up.

I would think they would love her to keep going. It's the family that wants her to shut up.

At this rate no one will be intelligent enough to drink their beer.

[whybother]

What was that about freedom of speech? Something the red shirts having been fighting for ... unless it's about them.

Now the red shirts are threatening up country breweries unless they shut her up.

I would think they would love her to keep going. It's the family that wants her to shut up.

At this rate no one will be intelligent enough to drink their beer.

According to the BP, they want her to shut up. They surrounded a brewery in Khon Kaen and demanded the company "warn" her.

[GreenSnapper]

Ms. Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, you are insane. So high so in stupidity and hate. Your comments would be condemned by law in a civilized country. Hope the REAL people will show you how "uneducated" they are.

Civilized countries don't condemn stupid comments by law. That happens only in PC countries.

The pic reminds me of Hillary Clinton, by the way.

[Thai at Heart]

What was that about freedom of speech? Something the red shirts having been fighting for ... unless it's about them.

Now the red shirts are threatening up country breweries unless they shut her up.

I would think they would love her to keep going. It's the family that wants her to shut up.

At this rate no one will be intelligent enough to drink their beer.

According to the BP, they want her to shut up. They surrounded a brewery in Khon Kaen and demanded the company "warn" her.

They did already I think. It's nuts. You would think singha was LVMH the way this girl talks. It's beer. It's the drink of the people.

This could make Gerald ratner gaffe seem small. No more singha products for me. Never.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

Ms. Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, you are insane. So high so in stupidity and hate. Your comments would be condemned by law in a civilized country. Hope the REAL people will show you how "uneducated" they are.

Civilized countries don't condemn stupid comments by law. That happens only in PC countries.

The pic reminds me of Hillary Clinton, by the way.

Deliberately discriminatory or inflammatory speech is covered in many parts of the world.

[blaze]

The prospect of a true nutocracy becomes more vivid by the hour.

[JRSoul]

If you are going to compare her views to JFK or Churchill who had wealth but entered politics it is valid to compare.

Where did I say she was remarkably worse than yingluck? I didn't. The point was not to compare her and yingluck but her and other wealthy people who had entered politics.

I generally have a large distrust of people who try to convince anyone that the way forward is for them to give up their right to choice in the short term. It's a dangerous path. She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued. I reserve the right to question that view and state that that has largely been proven to be a fascist view point through history.

Express your view that's fine, but if essentially discriminatory, don't be surprised if you get flack. Propose taking away peoples right to choose but don't be surprised when you get flack. Make your statements but don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience. Her minor experience would I think be outweighed by the accumulated global political experience of the outcome of the implementation of such views.

What she is saying is probably breaking the law anyway because it would remove a right of a thai enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a woman, many of whom fought for the right to vote so long and hard to be espousing these views is truly bizarre. In some countries she would be in a burka such at home in silence. Do you not see the contradiction in what she says. She is using the very freedom granted to her to talk of removing the freedom of others.

She's the daughter of a beer maker. And so what? Get elected, make your points, serve your country and serve the people, represent your people and compatriots. Surely she couldn't be less capable than yingluck?

Could she?

"She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued."

"... don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience."

Can you not see the conflict in those 2 statements?

BTW I made no mention of Yingluk, only that there are more ways to parliament than through a constituency.

[Thai at Heart]

Well that's as maybe, but I don't hear too many statements from abhisit saying that he things the vitriol coming out of these idiots mouths is wrong.

Amazingly, when sondhi said something similar everyone ran like cockroaches from the light to disown his statement. Now, apparently it's ok since a rich bird said it.

I think they should ban anyone not born on Thai soil from standing as an MP? Nationalism and all that you know.....

I mean honestly, if they are going to key loonies make up discriminatory nonsense like this, who the hell becomes arbiters of what is reasonable or not. In fact what she proposes is completely unconstitutional.

Maybe someone should run her off to the court for her to explain. I hope the bench is made up with judges from Chiangmai and Korat.

Could you explain why your version of unequal citizenship is better than hers?

I'm just throwing it out there.

If the poor can't vote why can't it be arbitrarily decided that a thai not born in thailand cant be prime minister. The USA has that rule for president.

Her view is abhorrent and should be pointed out as so.

And you wait until Thailand gets its first luuk kreung MP born outside Thailand. And wait to hear the howls of derision. And don't believe these numpties won't say that these people aren't less Thai than they are.

More democratic countries than the USA do not have that rule. Your point is a US-centric view, hers is an acceptance of a valid weakness, though to one extreme of how to overcome it.

BTW I see no reason why a Thai citizen with one non-Thai parent can't become an MP, wherever they are born. I suspect there may even be one or two, but can see no reason why they would highlight their heritage.

I don't think there has been a luuk kreung politician yet.

These people live in a stylised world where their word is to be heard and respected. Unfortunately, democracy isn't like that. They had their chances over many years to remove corruption, to reform less majeste and to reform the libel law.

They didn't do it because they need these things to keep everything the way it is. They at the top dictating the way it will be.

Those days are gone and they cannot find a way back because basically many of then do not see the poor as their fellow citizens with issues to be solved. They like the separation of classes.

It's one thing to admit that not everyone can be as wealthy as each other, it's another thing to not try to improve the lot if your fellow man.

A valid weakness of democracy is not unintelligent voting. It is a system that is corruptible, where laws and institutions can be swayed by politics of the day.

It is not the fault of the people that the system does not deliver. She should talk of jailing corrupt politicians, judges and police before she talks of taking away votes.

Oh I forgot who she's on stage with.....

Edited December 24, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

If you are going to compare her views to JFK or Churchill who had wealth but entered politics it is valid to compare.

Where did I say she was remarkably worse than yingluck? I didn't. The point was not to compare her and yingluck but her and other wealthy people who had entered politics.

I generally have a large distrust of people who try to convince anyone that the way forward is for them to give up their right to choice in the short term. It's a dangerous path. She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued. I reserve the right to question that view and state that that has largely been proven to be a fascist view point through history.

Express your view that's fine, but if essentially discriminatory, don't be surprised if you get flack. Propose taking away peoples right to choose but don't be surprised when you get flack. Make your statements but don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience. Her minor experience would I think be outweighed by the accumulated global political experience of the outcome of the implementation of such views.

What she is saying is probably breaking the law anyway because it would remove a right of a thai enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a woman, many of whom fought for the right to vote so long and hard to be espousing these views is truly bizarre. In some countries she would be in a burka such at home in silence. Do you not see the contradiction in what she says. She is using the very freedom granted to her to talk of removing the freedom of others.

She's the daughter of a beer maker. And so what? Get elected, make your points, serve your country and serve the people, represent your people and compatriots. Surely she couldn't be less capable than yingluck?

Could she?

"She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued."

"... don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience."

Can you not see the conflict in those 2 statements?

BTW I made no mention of Yingluk, only that there are more ways to parliament than through a constituency.

I question why she thinks the right path to solving the problem of democracy is to remove peoples votes.

Why should anyone trust her that she knows better than anyone else to decide. What reforms does she intend to enact before returning the vote to the people.

Why can the reform not happen without removing the right to vote. Why can't the system deliver the correct outcome from get point?

Why wasn't the democrat party busy enacting these reforms if they were so vital.

She is offering me a filling with no anaethsetic when what I needed 20 years ago was a tooth brush. All of these supposed failures were there but now that this lot are on the outside, the solution is to remove voting rights?????

My God. She is standing on stage with some of the most infamous corrupt politicians who have brought down governments due to their scandals, and you think these people are worth listening to?

If she had any principles she wouldn't be anywhere near them.

So, before she takes away anyone's vote, could she at least let us know what she would like to reform.

I go for

A. Land taxes

B. Defamation

C. Parliamentary immunity

D. Non precedent law

E. Non standard sentencing

F. Inheritance tax

G. Elected governors

I. Police corruption

J. Local sales and company taxation

Is that enough to be going on with? Or does e she stop at taking away votes and then working out what to do?

So much to do and so little time.

[JRSoul]

These people live in a stylised world where their word is to be heard and respected. Unfortunately, democracy isn't like that. They had their chances over many years to remove corruption, to reform less majeste and to reform the libel law.

They didn't do it because they need these things to keep everything the way it is. They at the top dictating the way it will be.

Those days are gone and they cannot find a way back because basically many of then do not see the poor as their fellow citizens with issues to be solved. They like the separation of classes.

It's one thing to admit that not everyone can be as wealthy as each other, it's another thing to not try to improve the lot if your fellow man.

A valid weakness of democracy is not unintelligent voting. It is a system that is corruptible, where laws and institutions can be swayed by politics of the day.

It is not the fault of the people that the system does not deliver. She should talk of jailing corrupt politicians, judges and police before she talks of taking away votes.

Oh I forgot who she's on stage with.....

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.

John F. Kennedy

It seems some people feel that unintelligent voting is a valid concern.

[harada]

Judging by the hand gesture there must be a few uneducated Thais and TV Forum members seated to her right.

[Thai at Heart]

If you are going to compare her views to JFK or Churchill who had wealth but entered politics it is valid to compare.

Where did I say she was remarkably worse than yingluck? I didn't. The point was not to compare her and yingluck but her and other wealthy people who had entered politics.

I generally have a large distrust of people who try to convince anyone that the way forward is for them to give up their right to choice in the short term. It's a dangerous path. She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued. I reserve the right to question that view and state that that has largely been proven to be a fascist view point through history.

Express your view that's fine, but if essentially discriminatory, don't be surprised if you get flack. Propose taking away peoples right to choose but don't be surprised when you get flack. Make your statements but don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience. Her minor experience would I think be outweighed by the accumulated global political experience of the outcome of the implementation of such views.

What she is saying is probably breaking the law anyway because it would remove a right of a thai enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a woman, many of whom fought for the right to vote so long and hard to be espousing these views is truly bizarre. In some countries she would be in a burka such at home in silence. Do you not see the contradiction in what she says. She is using the very freedom granted to her to talk of removing the freedom of others.

She's the daughter of a beer maker. And so what? Get elected, make your points, serve your country and serve the people, represent your people and compatriots. Surely she couldn't be less capable than yingluck?

Could she?

"She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued."

"... don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience."

Can you not see the conflict in those 2 statements?

BTW I made no mention of Yingluk, only that there are more ways to parliament than through a constituency.

I question why she thinks the right path to solving the problem of democracy is to remove peoples votes.

Why should anyone trust her that she knows better than anyone else to decide. What reforms does she intend to enact before returning the vote to the people.

Why can the reform not happen without removing the right to vote. Why can't the system deliver the correct outcome from get point?

Why wasn't the democrat party busy enacting these reforms if they were so vital.

She is offering me a filling with no anaethsetic when what I needed 20 years ago was a tooth brush. All of these supposed failures were there but now that this lot are on the outside, the solution is to remove voting rights?????

My God. She is standing on stage with some of the most infamous corrupt politicians who have brought down governments due to their scandals, and you think these people are worth listening to?

If she had any principles she wouldn't be anywhere near them.

So, before she takes away anyone's vote, could she at least let us know what she would like to reform.

I go for

A. Land taxes

B. Defamation

C. Parliamentary immunity

D. Non precedent law

E. Non standard sentencing

F. Inheritance tax

G. Elected governors

I. Police corruption

J. Local sales and company taxation

Is that enough to be going on with? Or does e she stop at taking away votes and then working out what to do?

So much to do and so little time. If you think the system in thailand needs just a little tweak and a removal of thaksin so that it's all sweetness and light, you are very naive. I mean before thaksin, parliaments lasted, farmers were rich, there was no corruption and Thailand was the land of milk and honey.

You said shinawatras, I took that to mean yingluck. Apologies. She is the only current MP named shinawatra.

[Thai at Heart]

These people live in a stylised world where their word is to be heard and respected. Unfortunately, democracy isn't like that. They had their chances over many years to remove corruption, to reform less majeste and to reform the libel law.

They didn't do it because they need these things to keep everything the way it is. They at the top dictating the way it will be.

Those days are gone and they cannot find a way back because basically many of then do not see the poor as their fellow citizens with issues to be solved. They like the separation of classes.

It's one thing to admit that not everyone can be as wealthy as each other, it's another thing to not try to improve the lot if your fellow man.

A valid weakness of democracy is not unintelligent voting. It is a system that is corruptible, where laws and institutions can be swayed by politics of the day.

It is not the fault of the people that the system does not deliver. She should talk of jailing corrupt politicians, judges and police before she talks of taking away votes.

Oh I forgot who she's on stage with.....

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.

John F. Kennedy

It seems some people feel that unintelligent voting is a valid concern.

She'd better start educating then. Elections are coming soon.

[JRSoul]

If you are going to compare her views to JFK or Churchill who had wealth but entered politics it is valid to compare.

Where did I say she was remarkably worse than yingluck? I didn't. The point was not to compare her and yingluck but her and other wealthy people who had entered politics.

I generally have a large distrust of people who try to convince anyone that the way forward is for them to give up their right to choice in the short term. It's a dangerous path. She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued. I reserve the right to question that view and state that that has largely been proven to be a fascist view point through history.

Express your view that's fine, but if essentially discriminatory, don't be surprised if you get flack. Propose taking away peoples right to choose but don't be surprised when you get flack. Make your statements but don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience. Her minor experience would I think be outweighed by the accumulated global political experience of the outcome of the implementation of such views.

What she is saying is probably breaking the law anyway because it would remove a right of a thai enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a woman, many of whom fought for the right to vote so long and hard to be espousing these views is truly bizarre. In some countries she would be in a burka such at home in silence. Do you not see the contradiction in what she says. She is using the very freedom granted to her to talk of removing the freedom of others.

She's the daughter of a beer maker. And so what? Get elected, make your points, serve your country and serve the people, represent your people and compatriots. Surely she couldn't be less capable than yingluck?

Could she?

"She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued."

"... don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience."

Can you not see the conflict in those 2 statements?

BTW I made no mention of Yingluk, only that there are more ways to parliament than through a constituency.

I question why she thinks the right path to solving the problem of democracy is to remove peoples votes.

Why should anyone trust her that she knows better than anyone else to decide. What reforms does she intend to enact before returning the vote to the people.

Why can the reform not happen without removing the right to vote. Why can't the system deliver the correct outcome from get point?

Why wasn't the democrat party busy enacting these reforms if they were so vital.

She is offering me a filling with no anaethsetic when what I needed 20 years ago was a tooth brush. All of these supposed failures were there but now that this lot are on the outside, the solution is to remove voting rights?????

My God. She is standing on stage with some of the most infamous corrupt politicians who have brought down governments due to their scandals, and you think these people are worth listening to?

If she had any principles she wouldn't be anywhere near them.

So, before she takes away anyone's vote, could she at least let us know what she would like to reform.

I go for

A. Land taxes

B. Defamation

C. Parliamentary immunity

D. Non precedent law

E. Non standard sentencing

F. Inheritance tax

G. Elected governors

I. Police corruption

J. Local sales and company taxation

Is that enough to be going on with? Or does e she stop at taking away votes and then working out what to do?

So much to do and so little time.

Twist as much as you like, Your post agreed with her that not every view should be valued the same, but that she has no right to that view (but you have).

BTW the last answer I heard for the Universal Question of Everything was 42. You don't have the solutions to ALL the problems to have a view about one of them

[Thai at Heart]

If you are going to compare her views to JFK or Churchill who had wealth but entered politics it is valid to compare.

Where did I say she was remarkably worse than yingluck? I didn't. The point was not to compare her and yingluck but her and other wealthy people who had entered politics.

I generally have a large distrust of people who try to convince anyone that the way forward is for them to give up their right to choice in the short term. It's a dangerous path. She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued. I reserve the right to question that view and state that that has largely been proven to be a fascist view point through history.

Express your view that's fine, but if essentially discriminatory, don't be surprised if you get flack. Propose taking away peoples right to choose but don't be surprised when you get flack. Make your statements but don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience. Her minor experience would I think be outweighed by the accumulated global political experience of the outcome of the implementation of such views.

What she is saying is probably breaking the law anyway because it would remove a right of a thai enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a woman, many of whom fought for the right to vote so long and hard to be espousing these views is truly bizarre. In some countries she would be in a burka such at home in silence. Do you not see the contradiction in what she says. She is using the very freedom granted to her to talk of removing the freedom of others.

She's the daughter of a beer maker. And so what? Get elected, make your points, serve your country and serve the people, represent your people and compatriots. Surely she couldn't be less capable than yingluck?

Could she?

"She expresses the point of view that not everyone's view should be equally valued."

"... don't be surprised when people question your validity or the weight of your opinion based on your knowledge and experience."

Can you not see the conflict in those 2 statements?

BTW I made no mention of Yingluk, only that there are more ways to parliament than through a constituency.

I question why she thinks the right path to solving the problem of democracy is to remove peoples votes.

Why should anyone trust her that she knows better than anyone else to decide. What reforms does she intend to enact before returning the vote to the people.

Why can the reform not happen without removing the right to vote. Why can't the system deliver the correct outcome from get point?

Why wasn't the democrat party busy enacting these reforms if they were so vital.

She is offering me a filling with no anaethsetic when what I needed 20 years ago was a tooth brush. All of these supposed failures were there but now that this lot are on the outside, the solution is to remove voting rights?????

My God. She is standing on stage with some of the most infamous corrupt politicians who have brought down governments due to their scandals, and you think these people are worth listening to?

If she had any principles she wouldn't be anywhere near them.

So, before she takes away anyone's vote, could she at least let us know what she would like to reform.

I go for

A. Land taxes

B. Defamation

C. Parliamentary immunity

D. Non precedent law

E. Non standard sentencing

F. Inheritance tax

G. Elected governors

I. Police corruption

J. Local sales and company taxation

Is that enough to be going on with? Or does e she stop at taking away votes and then working out what to do?

So much to do and so little time.

Twist as much as you like, Your post agreed with her that not every view should be valued the same, but that she has no right to that view (but you have).

BTW the last answer I heard for the Universal Question of Everything was 42. You don't have the solutions to ALL the problems to have a view about one of them

They should not go down the path of removing votes. She can have a view if she wants, but it's arbitrary and discriminatory. I think it's a wrong concept and idea.

I would doubt very much that democracy would return to thailand for a very long time after that type of reform and that there could be an uprising in the countryside if it was enacted.

The poor will not be patronised into submission.