Abhisit warns new govt of tough challenges ahead

[spidermike007]

Abhisit talking about reform. Is this stand up comedy? Not sure if Thailand has ever had a politician who engaged in LESS reform than Abhisit. He was a complete failure as PM. He accomplished a fabulously small amount during his tenure, and was responsible for overseeing one of the most divisive periods in recent history. He is in no position to speak now, and should just retire from politics. He has nothing to offer anyone.

Ummm ... Yingluck. Was there ANY reform while she was PM?

Two fabulously incompetent PM's and administrations in a row. Come to think of it, when was the last time Thailand had a wise, competent, compassionate, intelligent, visionary leader? From my point of view, there are not too many of those, anywhere. I think in the US, the last time was prior to the year 2000.

Edited September 3, 2014 by spidermike007

[whybother]

Abhisit is a divisive figure. Why don't they tell him to shut up, just like they told the red lot to shut up?

Seems he has been given a forum in the censored press to pontificate, but nobody else has been given that privilege.

They don't tell him to shut up because he's being constructive rather than just whining.

Regardless of what he says, isn't this supposed to be a time of reconciliation, where all political sides are told to shut up until the situation returns to "normal"? Reconciliation will be harder to achieve if one of the core supporters of leaders of the yellow shirts is allowed to have his say, repeatedly, while others are not.

As others have said here, he is a mere puppet of the military and has never been elected, so maybe this is just a sign of the military's true colours?

Not elected? Check out how parliamentary systems work.

What is wrong with what he said? In what way is it divisive? All he has said is that the current government are going to find the going tough because of the economy. There is nothing political in that.

[tbthailand]

Abhisit talking about reform. Is this stand up comedy? Not sure if Thailand has ever had a politician who engaged in LESS reform than Abhisit. He was a complete failure as PM. He accomplished a fabulously small amount during his tenure, and was responsible for overseeing one of the most divisive periods in recent history. He is in no position to speak now, and should just retire from politics. He has nothing to offer anyone.

he will be the face of a "legitimate government" as PM of the new Thai-style democracy in 2015 or beyond.

The junta will keep him on the plate warmer until they need him.

yes, it does resemble stand up comedy.

[whybother]

Abhisit talking about reform. Is this stand up comedy? Not sure if Thailand has ever had a politician who engaged in LESS reform than Abhisit. He was a complete failure as PM. He accomplished a fabulously small amount during his tenure, and was responsible for overseeing one of the most divisive periods in recent history. He is in no position to speak now, and should just retire from politics. He has nothing to offer anyone.

he will be the face of a "legitimate government" as PM of the new Thai-style democracy in 2015 or beyond.

The junta will keep him on the plate warmer until they need him.

yes, it does resemble stand up comedy.

That's what everyone said in 2007, isn't it?

[kimamey]

Abhisit is a divisive figure. Why don't they tell him to shut up, just like they told the red lot to shut up?

Seems he has been given a forum in the censored press to pontificate, but nobody else has been given that privilege.

They don't tell him to shut up because he's being constructive rather than just whining.

Regardless of what he says, isn't this supposed to be a time of reconciliation, where all political sides are told to shut up until the situation returns to "normal"? Reconciliation will be harder to achieve if one of the core supporters of leaders of the yellow shirts is allowed to have his say, repeatedly, while others are not.

As others have said here, he is a mere puppet of the military and has never been elected, so maybe this is just a sign of the military's true colours?

In what way is he any more of a puppet than the PM who allowed the army to avoid any investigation over the killings in 2010 whilst promising justice.

He's pointing out facts that my well be held by both sides.

Edited September 3, 2014 by kimamey

[Bob12345]

Some one better tell him he had the chance and he blow it

Actually, he didn't have much of a chance. Besides the protests that went on while he was PM, the world economies were in meltdown. Most economists believe that he and Korn actually managed the Thai economy very well considering how most other countries were faring.

Most economists believe ... ?

Did the bureau of happiness hold a poll again and found that 100% of the economists agreed with the statement when you hold a rifle to their head?

[Bob12345]

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

[whybother]

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

[Bob12345]

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

Yeah maybe.

They probably looked at their bank accounts and thought "we have enough, it is time to stop so others can also profit".

Next they looked at the power they had and though "power does not make us happy, lets share it with others".

Maybe, just maybe...

[whybother]

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

Yeah maybe.

They probably looked at their bank accounts and thought "we have enough, it is time to stop so others can also profit".

Next they looked at the power they had and though "power does not make us happy, lets share it with others".

Maybe, just maybe...

You make it sound like "the old elite" is one person.

[jayboy]

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

[AleG]

Once again the Pavlovian response to Abhisit, slobbering mindless repeating of cliches; "coward", "puppet", "yellow shirt", "unelected", etc, etc...

Well done, here, have a Scooby Snack.

[whybother]

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

You just make up "points" so that you can spout crap, don't you?

[jayboy]

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Right.

"The old elite are setting it up so that Abhisit becomes PM".

If Abhisit gets elected: "See, the old elite set it up so that Abhisit would become PM."

If someone else gets elected. "The old elite failed in getting Abhisit elected PM".

Maybe "the old elite" are just trying to set up a system that stops one person from controlling everything.

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

You just make up "points" so that you can spout crap, don't you?

Translation: you have no coherent response.

[whybother]

As usual you completely miss the point, in this case spectacularly.The price of flawed judgement that often affects rigid ideologues.

Abhisit was guided towards power but thereafter became damaged goods (hopeless in elections, tainted by bloodshed, weird unsympathetic image), and was put on one side.He may seem irreversibly sidelined but it's possible he could have some kind of zombie existence if the old elites see the need to resuscitate him.

In my view he is a tragic Shakespearian figure.The brightest and most talented Thai politician around, brought down by his own character defects and cowardice.He KNEW what was right but did nothing.

You just make up "points" so that you can spout crap, don't you?

Translation: you have no coherent response.

Response to what? We weren't discussing whether Abhisit was damaged goods or not.

[Bob12345]

Once again the Pavlovian response to Abhisit, slobbering mindless repeating of cliches; "coward", "puppet", "yellow shirt", "unelected", etc, etc...

Well done, here, have a Scooby Snack.

Same as when someone mentions Taksin:

evil, rogue killings, threatening political opponents, men in black, red shirt army, terrorist.

Or Yingluck:

dumb, puppet, shopping, didnt do anything.

Maybe you should scroll, just for fun, through the post you have made lately and see how often you have had this response.

[rickirs]

Politician Abhisit sounds like he's positioning himself for a future run at the PM with a "I told you so" style of campaign should the economy not see significant improvement in 2015 by the hands of the Junta. Distancing himself from NLA and NRC membership may be part of that strategy as well.

[AleG]

Once again the Pavlovian response to Abhisit, slobbering mindless repeating of cliches; "coward", "puppet", "yellow shirt", "unelected", etc, etc...

Well done, here, have a Scooby Snack.

Same as when someone mentions Taksin:

evil, rogue killings, threatening political opponents, men in black, red shirt army, terrorist.

Or Yingluck:

dumb, puppet, shopping, didnt do anything.

Maybe you should scroll, just for fun, through the post you have made lately and see how often you have had this response.

Aww, touch a nerve there Bob?

The difference is that the threats to political opponents by Thaksin and his political machinery, the men in black, the killings, Red Shirts and pro-Thaksin terrorists are real, and Yingluck was a puppet, not very bright one based on what I've seen and didn't do anything meaningful (being a puppet and all that).

It's like you don't understand the difference between facts and propaganda.

I understand it is hard for a man's mental state to support a group like that, but projecting the sins of your team into others is just unbecoming. Some of us like to show some intellectual discipline and judge things on the facts using logic and reasoning, others, like you, can't be bothered with that and just spout nonsense like this to reinforce your own prejudices and secure your feeling of belonging to the right gang:

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Now tell us Bob, how did you reach that wonderful conclusion from the OP? You know, with facts, logic and reasoning?

Because to all intents and purposes it sounds like you hear the dog whistle of "Abhisit" and just made up something, anything, to try and discredit him, Prayuth and the "elites".

[Paulzed]

Really Ahbisit has nothing constructive to say and rarely has, he should shuffle of gracefully in to the night.

Its risible for him to bemoan populist policies damaging the economy when he and his party handed out 2000 baht (cost 18 billion in total) cash payments during his gerrymandered tenure.

I fail to see how this failed politician has any relevance in the current climate....

You didn't actually read what he said, did you? What is not constructive about it?

He must have had his red goggles on when he read it

[hiller]

Abhisit talking about reform. Is this stand up comedy? Not sure if Thailand has ever had a politician who engaged in LESS reform than Abhisit. He was a complete failure as PM. He accomplished a fabulously small amount during his tenure, and was responsible for overseeing one of the most divisive periods in recent history. He is in no position to speak now, and should just retire from politics. He has nothing to offer anyone.

Abhisit was the best ribbon cutter Bangkok ever had.

[Bob12345]

Aww, touch a nerve there Bob?

The difference is that the threats to political opponents by Thaksin and his political machinery, the men in black, the killings, Red Shirts and pro-Thaksin terrorists are real, and Yingluck was a puppet, not very bright one based on what I've seen and didn't do anything meaningful (being a puppet and all that).

It's like you don't understand the difference between facts and propaganda.

I understand it is hard for a man's mental state to support a group like that, but projecting the sins of your team into others is just unbecoming. Some of us like to show some intellectual discipline and judge things on the facts using logic and reasoning, others, like you, can't be bothered with that and just spout nonsense like this to reinforce your own prejudices and secure your feeling of belonging to the right gang:

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Now tell us Bob, how did you reach that wonderful conclusion from the OP? You know, with facts, logic and reasoning?

Because to all intents and purposes it sounds like you hear the dog whistle of "Abhisit" and just made up something, anything, to try and discredit him, Prayuth and the "elites".

You don't seem to understand the difference between facts and propaganda yourself.

The things you mention are all influenced by propaganda.

One party calls armed red-shirt supporters terrorists, the other party calls them people standing up for their right to vote.

One party calls Yingluck a puppet, the other party claims she is merely influenced by her brother.

One party claims Yingluck accomplished nothing, the other party is able to find some positive things she did.

And the truth is somewhere between those two extremes. Whoever holds on to one of the extremes is producing propaganda himself.

My wonderful conclusion was based on a feeling I have; thats why I started the sentence with "To me it reads like ..." instead of "Clear evidence proves that...". You do the same by making statements about Yinglucks intelligence with the remark "on what i've seen". You do that because you don't have evidence, like an IQ test or other tests to measure intelligence, to prove your claim.

You also falsely claim I support the previous government ( ...projecting the sins of your team ...). Is that another example of your wonderful skill to detect facts, use intellectual discipline, and judge things on facts and logic and reasoning?

[Boxclever]

@AleG

Why on earth do you feel the need to vilify @ berate ANYONE who has a slightly or different politic view than yourself on this forum?

You sound like one of those rabid ultra royalists that attack anyone who has a different slant on the situation.

Do you ever tier of being a cyber bully?

[AleG]

Aww, touch a nerve there Bob?

The difference is that the threats to political opponents by Thaksin and his political machinery, the men in black, the killings, Red Shirts and pro-Thaksin terrorists are real, and Yingluck was a puppet, not very bright one based on what I've seen and didn't do anything meaningful (being a puppet and all that).

It's like you don't understand the difference between facts and propaganda.

I understand it is hard for a man's mental state to support a group like that, but projecting the sins of your team into others is just unbecoming. Some of us like to show some intellectual discipline and judge things on the facts using logic and reasoning, others, like you, can't be bothered with that and just spout nonsense like this to reinforce your own prejudices and secure your feeling of belonging to the right gang:

To me it reads like the old elite is hedging its bets.

Prayuth controls the country as a dictator, but when democracy comes back in fashion the old elite has their person ready by letting him make some remarks now which some people classify as courageous. Either dictatorship or democracy, the old elite will be in power.

Now tell us Bob, how did you reach that wonderful conclusion from the OP? You know, with facts, logic and reasoning?

Because to all intents and purposes it sounds like you hear the dog whistle of "Abhisit" and just made up something, anything, to try and discredit him, Prayuth and the "elites".

You don't seem to understand the difference between facts and propaganda yourself.

The things you mention are all influenced by propaganda.

One party calls armed red-shirt supporters terrorists, the other party calls them people standing up for their right to vote.

One party calls Yingluck a puppet, the other party claims she is merely influenced by her brother.

One party claims Yingluck accomplished nothing, the other party is able to find some positive things she did.

And the truth is somewhere between those two extremes. Whoever holds on to one of the extremes is producing propaganda himself.

My wonderful conclusion was based on a feeling I have; thats why I started the sentence with "To me it reads like ..." instead of "Clear evidence proves that...". You do the same by making statements about Yinglucks intelligence with the remark "on what i've seen". You do that because you don't have evidence, like an IQ test or other tests to measure intelligence, to prove your claim.

You also falsely claim I support the previous government ( ...projecting the sins of your team ...). Is that another example of your wonderful skill to detect facts, use intellectual discipline, and judge things on facts and logic and reasoning?

Sorry, after this:

One party calls armed red-shirt supporters terrorists, the other party calls them people standing up for their right to vote.

Not interested in what you have to say; they murdered people, including children, fighting for their right to vote.

Disgusting, amoral spin, you have no moral standing to lecture me about anything.

[Bob12345]

Sorry, after this:

One party calls armed red-shirt supporters terrorists, the other party calls them people standing up for their right to vote.

Not interested in what you have to say; they murdered people, including children, fighting for their right to vote.

Disgusting, amoral spin, you have no moral standing to lecture me about anything.

Sad way to try to save face by finding an excuse to not have to go into the content of my post.

And yes, it is a spin giving by the people who did it and their hard-core supporters. And that is exactly what I am trying to show you: there is propaganda on both sides and the truth will be someone in between those two extremes (note: i do not say in the middle; i say somewhere in between the extremes). Whoever claims to not just reproduce propaganda but still finds himself agreeing with either one side does not understand the difference between facts and propaganda.

And why would I have no moral standing to lecture you about anything?

It weren't my words, nor do i support representing what happened that way. (hint: i said "one party claims ... , the other party claims ..."

So now that i explained to you how to read my post, lets get to the content of it please...

Edited September 3, 2014 by Bob12345

[AleG]

@AleG Why on earth do you feel the need to vilify @ berate ANYONE who has a slightly or different politic view than yourself on this forum? You sound like one of those rabid ultra royalists that attack anyone who has a different slant on the situation. Do you ever tier of being a cyber bully?

Ah, you don't like when people vilify and berate someone for having a different political view. That's why in this thread you like this posts about Abhisit:

"So where has that coward been hiding???"

"Abhisit is a divisive figure. Why don't they tell him to shut up, just like they told the red lot to shut up?

"Seems he has been given a forum in the censored press to pontificate, but nobody else has been given that privilege."

Really Ahbisit has nothing constructive to say and rarely has, he should shuffle of gracefully in to the night.

Its risible for him to bemoan populist policies damaging the economy when he and his party handed out 2000 baht (cost 18 billion in total) cash payments during his gerrymandered tenure.

I fail to see how this failed politician has any relevance in the current climate...."

"Abhisit talking about reform. Is this stand up comedy? Not sure if Thailand has ever had a politician who engaged in LESS reform than Abhisit. He was a complete failure as PM. He accomplished a fabulously small amount during his tenure, and was responsible for overseeing one of the most divisive periods in recent history. He is in no position to speak now, and should just retire from politics. He has nothing to offer anyone."

So much for not liking the vilification and berating of people with different political views.

[metisdead]

A post in which the quoted content had been altered has been removed:

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[AleG]

Sorry, after this:

One party calls armed red-shirt supporters terrorists, the other party calls them people standing up for their right to vote.

Not interested in what you have to say; they murdered people, including children, fighting for their right to vote.

Disgusting, amoral spin, you have no moral standing to lecture me about anything.

Sad way to try to save face by finding an excuse to not have to go into the content of my post.

And yes, it is a spin giving by the people who did it and their hard-core supporters. And that is exactly what I am trying to show you: there is propaganda on both sides and the truth will be someone in between those two extremes (note: i do not say in the middle; i say somewhere in between the extremes). Whoever claims to not just reproduce propaganda but still finds himself agreeing with either one side does not understand the difference between facts and propaganda.

And why would I have no moral standing to lecture you about anything?

It weren't my words, nor do i support representing what happened that way. (hint: i said "one party claims ... , the other party claims ..."

So now that i explained to you how to read my post, lets get to the content of it please...

Gee, why would I get the idea that you picked up sides on this issue? Maybe because you systematically approved of posts mindlessly attacking Abhisit, and added your own to the mix?

When you both approve of and create your own propaganda you don't have a leg to stand on to tell other people were the truth lies, you've shown little interest on it to begin with.

[wave]

Really Ahbisit has nothing constructive to say and rarely has, he should shuffle of gracefully in to the night.

Its risible for him to bemoan populist policies damaging the economy when he and his party handed out 2000 baht (cost 18 billion in total) cash payments during his gerrymandered tenure.

I fail to see how this failed politician has any relevance in the current climate....

You didn't actually read what he said, did you? What is not constructive about it?

What is constructive about pointing out the obvious.

It would appear that he is only try to position himself for some play in the future.....

[Bakseeda]

Abhisit is a divisive figure. Why don't they tell him to shut up, just like they told the red lot to shut up?

Seems he has been given a forum in the censored press to pontificate, but nobody else has been given that privilege.

They don't tell him to shut up because he's being constructive rather than just whining.

Regardless of what he says, isn't this supposed to be a time of reconciliation, where all political sides are told to shut up until the situation returns to "normal"? Reconciliation will be harder to achieve if one of the core supporters of leaders of the yellow shirts is allowed to have his say, repeatedly, while others are not.

As others have said here, he is a mere puppet of the military and has never been elected, so maybe this is just a sign of the military's true colours?

Thanet, are you a complete fool or did you just get out of bed too early today ? Abhisit was elected twice... First he was an elected MP for his constituency . Then he was elected a second time as the Prime Minister by all the sitting MPS. You should get your facts right before spouting of like some deranged ass-ho.

[metisdead]

A post containing inflammatory comments has been removed. If you cannot post in a civil manner, don't bother posting.