candide Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Interesting to analyse in term of positionning. With this invitation the junta is further trying to position itself as being able to conciliate the two main political sides. Abhisit may be aiming at another positionning: to be able to conciliate the anti and the pro-democracy sides (which only partially correspond to thé political sides). On the one hand he keeps collaborative relationships with the junta, and on the other he puplicly stresses democratic values (i.e. on the charter). Something like the promise of smooth transition to democracy after elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halloween Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension. Perhaps the fact she is the only politician with real legitimacy has something to do with it.She won a clear mandate from the people of Thailand in a democratic general election.She didn't come to power through corrupt back room deals or by force of arms. She remains the most popular politician in the country, and the zealots fear her (as evidenced by their bile and spite) Nevertheless as another member commented she may well prefer to just cultivate her mushrooms, and who could blame her? In her place I would nominate Suranand Vejjajiva. Abhisit's cousin. That would do wonders for the credibility of their claim that they are the alternative to the "elite". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I guess that all those who don't want Yingluck (the most wanted candidate for PM in the country) to be in the debate would gladly accept the arch corrupter Suthep take her place. Strange isn't it? "Meanwhile, former foreign minister and key Pheu Thai Party member Surapong Tovichakchaikul said that if he were Yingluck, he would certainly not join, as he thought no one would follow what she said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension. Perhaps the fact she is the only politician with real legitimacy has something to do with it.She won a clear mandate from the people of Thailand in a democratic general election.She didn't come to power through corrupt back room deals or by force of arms. She remains the most popular politician in the country, and the zealots fear her (as evidenced by their bile and spite) Nevertheless as another member commented she may well prefer to just cultivate her mushrooms, and who could blame her? In her place I would nominate Suranand Vejjajiva. Abhisit's cousin. 'real legitimacy' as in selected by her big brother and positioned as Thai pretty to head the sugar coated election promisses to ruin the country, like with the self-financing RPPS. BTW it's interesting that you talk about nominating? Don't you think Ms. Yingluck to be capable of either going herself and selecting someone to represent her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djjamie Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Keeping yingluck in the box again like a Barbie doll..Her electoral futility once democracy is restored (not just one principle of it) must really be frustrating Surapong now. Here we have a great opportunity to join a panel to discuss issues that will benefit the majority and all we have is excuses for why she cannot join. The sad thing is the excuses are not even from her reinforcing the point that showing her in public in an uncontrolled, unscripted environment will highlight her incompetence, ineptness and inability to engage reform in a constructive way. Democracy is about bringing parties together to engage and debate policy. To have the majorities wishes at the heart of all discussion. Unfortunately this is yet another part of democracy yingluck cannot grasp al because she will be seen for who she really is further destroying any electoral victory. Well done AV for again showing that Oxford has a better grasp of teaching democracy than the Thai language section of Kentucky State University does. You are a shining example of how a politician unselfishly should put the majority first. It is these actions as opposed to excuses that strengthen any future success at the polling booth. Edited July 11, 2015 by djjamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawadee1947 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 ...very brave !!!! But the soldier is a coward. He would not agree....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewy67 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why would anyone on the electoral side of Thai politics want to have anything to do with the anti election, criminal, bed mates Prayuth and Abhisit? Wait until an election is called, present yourself and your policies to the electorate and win the election - that's the only road the red - udd movement needs to go down. Don't touch or deal with coup makers and election non-starters like Prayuth and Abhisit......that road is far below you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindsayBKK Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension.Let me clarify that mystery.She would win a straight-up election in a landslide if it were held without Anti-democrats diddling the process.. That is why people think that Yingluck has a right to a say in how this country is run in the future. Compare her elect-ability to that of AV, and one gets the picture real fast. This is why she would win bit.ly/1gGbTBy ฿฿฿฿฿ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension. Perhaps the fact she is the only politician with real legitimacy has something to do with it.She won a clear mandate from the people of Thailand in a democratic general election.She didn't come to power through corrupt back room deals or by force of arms. She remains the most popular politician in the country, and the zealots fear her (as evidenced by their bile and spite) Nevertheless as another member commented she may well prefer to just cultivate her mushrooms, and who could blame her? In her place I would nominate Suranand Vejjajiva. Abhisit's cousin. 'real legitimacy' as in selected by her big brother and positioned as Thai pretty to head the sugar coated election promisses to ruin the country, like with the self-financing RPPS. BTW it's interesting that you talk about nominating? Don't you think Ms. Yingluck to be capable of either going herself and selecting someone to represent her? You embarrass yourself.She was given an undeniable mandate by the people of Thailand in a free and fair election.She continues to enjoy more legitimacy than any current player and remains the most popular politician in the country. Having said that she isn't a professional politician and my earlier comment simply expressed a personal view that it would be understandable if she left the fray. It's my view that she has no political future.Perhaps your energies would be better directed in ending the slanderous bile and spite against a decent if limited person, and concentrating on the very real wickedness that we see in front of us. I won't be holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srikcir Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension. Let me clarify that mystery. She would win a straight-up election in a landslide if it were held without Anti-democrats diddling the process.. That is why people think that Yingluck has a right to a say in how this country is run in the future. Compare her elect-ability to that of AV, and one gets the picture real fast. Ah yes, electability. Not to be confused with ability to run the country of course. "Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." - Frank Dane "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time." - E. B. White That is based on the assumption of an educated and informed populace. TIT ... Democracy is not about of being right or wrong. It's about the right to be an equal part of the decision-making process regardless of the outcome being right or wrong. Only in that way can the majority be held accountable for the policies it supports. "Even despots accept the excellence of liberty. The simple truth is that they wish to keep it for themselves and promote the idea that no one else is at all worthy of it. Thus, our opinion of liberty does not reveal our differences but the relative value which we place on our fellow man. We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country." Alexis de Tocqueville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildragon Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITftNrMZ2OE I love all this AV love in like he is some sort of Pariah. Yingluck is what she is but lets not pretend this guy is some sort of amazing statesmen. Here is bumbling through an interview with the BBC during the protests. Avoiding answering questions directly and going off on different tangents just like his Eaton and Oxford colleagues do in the UK. The man is a wet blanket and a puppet. He will never legitimately be elected as PM/ I bet the BBC get accused of being bank rolled by Thaksin Edited July 12, 2015 by lildragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Why the hell anyone should think that Yingluck has any right to a say in how this country is run in the future is beyond comprehension. Perhaps the fact she is the only politician with real legitimacy has something to do with it.She won a clear mandate from the people of Thailand in a democratic general election.She didn't come to power through corrupt back room deals or by force of arms. She remains the most popular politician in the country, and the zealots fear her (as evidenced by their bile and spite) Nevertheless as another member commented she may well prefer to just cultivate her mushrooms, and who could blame her? In her place I would nominate Suranand Vejjajiva. Abhisit's cousin. 'real legitimacy' as in selected by her big brother and positioned as Thai pretty to head the sugar coated election promisses to ruin the country, like with the self-financing RPPS. BTW it's interesting that you talk about nominating? Don't you think Ms. Yingluck to be capable of either going herself and selecting someone to represent her? You embarrass yourself.She was given an undeniable mandate by the people of Thailand in a free and fair election.She continues to enjoy more legitimacy than any current player and remains the most popular politician in the country. Having said that she isn't a professional politician and my earlier comment simply expressed a personal view that it would be understandable if she left the fray. It's my view that she has no political future.Perhaps your energies would be better directed in ending the slanderous bile and spite against a decent if limited person, and concentrating on the very real wickedness that we see in front of us. I won't be holding my breath. 'bile and spite' indeed and also legitimate no political future, but then that's your opinion. A mandate, "thank you for voting, please go home, there's work to do". Doesn't include debates though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. correction : one elected, one elected by their party but not by the people and one unelected, but i think you knew that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. correction : one elected, one elected by their party but not by the people and one unelected, but i think you knew that correction: two elected as party list MP's, two elected as PM by fellow MP's, and a non-elected PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orac Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Yawn.... Yet again Abhisit pushing for a debate as it is what he is good at and well trained in doing at Oxford. The bottom line is, apart from the theatre and drumming up more partisanship, what is the point in Abhisit, Yingluck and Prayuth proving who can win a verbal debate when all three of them have had a go at running the country and all three have failed abysmally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. Yingluck headed a party which won a clear democratic mandate from the Thai people.Abhisit was a legitimate PM but only after a series of back room deals and had no personal mandate from the Thai people in the way Yingluck did.Prayuth grabbed power by force of arms.But I think you knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Yawn.... Yet again Abhisit pushing for a debate as it is what he is good at and well trained in doing at Oxford. The bottom line is, apart from the theatre and drumming up more partisanship, what is the point in Abhisit, Yingluck and Prayuth proving who can win a verbal debate when all three of them have had a go at running the country and all three have failed abysmally. Fair point.I suppose everybody plays to their strengths.Abhisit hopes his intelligence and fluency will prevail.Yingluck hopes her popularity and appeal to ordinary Thais will prevail.Prayuth hopes brute strength and intimidation will prevail.Perhaps all three need the Thai equivalent of the Roman slave that whispered in the Emperor's ear - "you are nothing and all will come to dust" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. No - only one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. Yingluck headed a party which won a clear democratic mandate from the Thai people.Abhisit was a legitimate PM but only after a series of back room deals and had no personal mandate from the Thai people in the way Yingluck did.Prayuth grabbed power by force of arms.But I think you knew that. Yingluck was the Thai pretty figurehead of a party led by her criminal fugitive brother and a Thai pretty has no need to participate in debate, but just smile pretty and wave. Even now the idea to ask her to participate in a debate seems to scare not only her but also her still loyal followers. Abhisit on the other hand has no problem with debates, even when Ms. Yingluck was still 'in power', but he never succeeded in getting her to agree. Always too busy, always a need to suggest replacements. None really new to any of us, only some still don't want to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. No - only one http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/839591-abhisit-backs-multi-party-television-debate-on-reform/page-2#entry9613785 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildragon Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 That's all true rubl but AV was NOT elected by the Thai people. You can try and beat around the bush as much as you want but that is a fact. Also watch that video I posted, he got all stuttery, umhing and arhing his way through that interview, his facial expressions when some difficult questions were put to him about his hypocritical views on democracy and questions on Suthep were priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Abhisit was elected to opposition in a parliament that was dissolved after the coup. He was appointed PM by the junta or rather by the politicians they appointed - no election involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. Yingluck headed a party which won a clear democratic mandate from the Thai people.Abhisit was a legitimate PM but only after a series of back room deals and had no personal mandate from the Thai people in the way Yingluck did.Prayuth grabbed power by force of arms.But I think you knew that. Yingluck was the Thai pretty figurehead of a party led by her criminal fugitive brother and a Thai pretty has no need to participate in debate, but just smile pretty and wave. Even now the idea to ask her to participate in a debate seems to scare not only her but also her still loyal followers. Abhisit on the other hand has no problem with debates, even when Ms. Yingluck was still 'in power', but he never succeeded in getting her to agree. Always too busy, always a need to suggest replacements. None really new to any of us, only some still don't want to admit it. A poor attempt at deflection with the usual irrelevant bile about "pretty" Yingluck. The point you wish to bury is of course that Yingluck has the legitimacy the other two lack.Awkward for you but inescapable.Incidentally endless references to her "criminal fugitive brother" don't get you automatically off the hook when you are at the losing end of an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting...... A debate between Abhisit, Prayuth and Yingluck....1 elected PM and 2 unelected who still believe they have a right to run the country... What right would that be? Might? Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. correction : one elected, one elected by their party but not by the people and one unelected, but i think you knew that correction: two elected as party list MP's, two elected as PM by fellow MP's, and a non-elected PM. one elected - abhisit was not elected the parliament was dissolved - he was appointed by a group in turn appointed by the junta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that.Yingluck headed a party which won a clear democratic mandate from the Thai people.Abhisit was a legitimate PM but only after a series of back room deals and had no personal mandate from the Thai people in the way Yingluck did.Prayuth grabbed power by force of arms.But I think you knew that. Yingluck was the Thai pretty figurehead of a party led by her criminal fugitive brother and a Thai pretty has no need to participate in debate, but just smile pretty and wave. Even now the idea to ask her to participate in a debate seems to scare not only her but also her still loyal followers. Abhisit on the other hand has no problem with debates, even when Ms. Yingluck was still 'in power', but he never succeeded in getting her to agree. Always too busy, always a need to suggest replacements. None really new to any of us, only some still don't want to admit it. A poor attempt at deflection with the usual irrelevant bile about "pretty" Yingluck. The point you wish to bury is of course that Yingluck has the legitimacy the other two lack.Awkward for you but inescapable.Incidentally endless references to her "criminal fugitive brother" don't get you automatically off the hook when you are at the losing end of an argument. Deflection? Pray tell, did I miss the news item with Ms. Yingluck stating to support a multi-party debate and to be more than ready to give all a piece of her mind? BTW as far as Thailand is concerned all three PMs were legitimate, although finer legal minds in the West could argue none of them actually were 'de jure', maybe only 'de facto'. Seems legal minds are puzzling over the effect the control of a criminal fugitive brother has (who also skypes-in into herhis cabinet meetings) on a legal position. Of course the position of the Greek PM who promised the voters billions of other peoples money gives an interesting analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that. correction : one elected, one elected by their party but not by the people and one unelected, but i think you knew that correction: two elected as party list MP's, two elected as PM by fellow MP's, and a non-elected PM. one elected - abhisit was not elected the parliament was dissolved - he was appointed by a group in turn appointed by the junta. But there you are wrong, my dear chap. PM Somchai did not dissolve the House. Abhisit was elected by MPs, still forming a quorum, a bit more than the legal minimum number of MPs to be able to vote and make the vote valid. PS "Thailand's powerful army chief Gen. Anupong Paochinda has urged Somchai to dissolve parliament, call fresh elections -- and also asked the protesters to disperse. But both sides have ignored his comments." http://www.thaiembassy.sg/press_media/news-highlights/thai-court-orders-ruling-party-dissolved Edited July 13, 2015 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Minor correction, 2 elected PMs and 1 unelected, but I think you knew that.Yingluck headed a party which won a clear democratic mandate from the Thai people.Abhisit was a legitimate PM but only after a series of back room deals and had no personal mandate from the Thai people in the way Yingluck did.Prayuth grabbed power by force of arms.But I think you knew that. Yingluck was the Thai pretty figurehead of a party led by her criminal fugitive brother and a Thai pretty has no need to participate in debate, but just smile pretty and wave. Even now the idea to ask her to participate in a debate seems to scare not only her but also her still loyal followers. Abhisit on the other hand has no problem with debates, even when Ms. Yingluck was still 'in power', but he never succeeded in getting her to agree. Always too busy, always a need to suggest replacements. None really new to any of us, only some still don't want to admit it. A poor attempt at deflection with the usual irrelevant bile about "pretty" Yingluck. The point you wish to bury is of course that Yingluck has the legitimacy the other two lack.Awkward for you but inescapable.Incidentally endless references to her "criminal fugitive brother" don't get you automatically off the hook when you are at the losing end of an argument. Deflection? Pray tell, did I miss the news item with Ms. Yingluck stating to support a multi-party debate and to be more than ready to give all a piece of her mind? BTW as far as Thailand is concerned all three PMs were legitimate, although finer legal minds in the West could argue none of them actually were 'de jure', maybe only 'de facto'. Seems legal minds are puzzling over the effect the control of a criminal fugitive brother has (who also skypes-in into herhis cabinet meetings) on a legal position. Of course the position of the Greek PM who promised the voters billions of other peoples money gives an interesting analogy. You don't understand the de jure/de facto distinction.All the three under discussion were PM both de facto and de jure.The question, though it's not really up for debate,is which one has the greatest legitimacy. I note you have resorted again to the "criminal fugitive" device which suggests you are well aware of your errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Deflection? Pray tell, did I miss the news item with Ms. Yingluck stating to support a multi-party debate and to be more than ready to give all a piece of her mind? BTW as far as Thailand is concerned all three PMs were legitimate, although finer legal minds in the West could argue none of them actually were 'de jure', maybe only 'de facto'. Seems legal minds are puzzling over the effect the control of a criminal fugitive brother has (who also skypes-in into herhis cabinet meetings) on a legal position. Of course the position of the Greek PM who promised the voters billions of other peoples money gives an interesting analogy. You don't understand the de jure/de facto distinction.All the three under discussion were PM both de facto and de jure.The question, though it's not really up for debate,is which one has the greatest legitimacy. I note you have resorted again to the "criminal fugitive" device which suggests you are well aware of your errors. Both de jure and de facto PM, but one had greater "legitimacy"? I would assume that legally there is no such thing as greater 'legitimacy' when one is already legal. Of course, you may refer to some being more legal than others? The criminal fugitive device is not of my doing, Ms. Yingluck went for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now