Yingluck criticises draft charter

[tbthailand]

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

re; landslide,

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/07/03/idINIndia-58056720110703

http://thediplomat.com/2011/07/thailand-poll-yingluck-in-landslide/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/thai-exit-polls-redshirt-landslide

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-07/03/content_12825429.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/8614653/Red-shirt-party-wins-Thai-election-by-a-landslide.html

https://fr.news.yahoo.com/thaksin-party-wins-landslide-thai-election-victory-193908245.html

http://www.geo.tv/7-3-2011/83260.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/world/asia/04thailand.html?_r=0

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/479839-thaksin-allies-in-thai-election-landslide-exit-polls/

Hope all those links are permitted here

for sure there are a dozen more....

"I'm not a Shin apologist, but....................."

yes, and, ....

please do explain how that is in any way defending the PTP or the "shins"...

See - that is exactly the point - there are posters who are sooooo blind and sooo biased, that just correctlng their complete and total BS is seen (by some) as "defending the PTP/Thaksin/Yingluck/red-scum"...

I rest my case. ... And unlike the "shins" (or Suthep) I have no problem defending myself "in court", as it were...

(PS: are you a Landslide-denier?)

[waitforusalso]

Who cares what she has or hasnt done. That is totally irrelevant.

My view is that I completely agree with what she said.

So how about some posters get their head out of the comics and actually say something about why they disagree.

Just saying she is hopeless does not get to the subject and makes you look stupid.

I agree the Autobahns in Germany were a fantastic idea, but I don't like Hitler.

I agree everyone should be equal, in a meritocracy and all treated fairly, but I don't like Stalin.

Some people do things or say things which are commendable but their opposite traits far out way the good. Extreme examples.

Maybe you should read a little about democracy, what's necessary to support it, and how fragile it is; susceptible to manipulation and exploitation without robust checks, balances, judicial systems etc.

She has been caught lying many times, avoided all debate and parliamentary discussions whenever possible, and made ludicrous statements on occasion. When delivering the odd speech or being interviewed on TV she came across very poorly to say the least. Even in Thai, so language isn't the only issue.

Someone's past performance tends to reflect on their credibility. Here, her brother comes out strongly against the charter, followed by the acting leader of the PTP party, which is the party her family own, followed by her ghost writer on FB, She is simply jumping on the bandwagon. Who next, number 1 cousin the former FM or Chalerm or Mister White Lies finance?

The Shins preaching about democracy and serving the people is hypocrisy. They were never interested in either when in office, nor obeying the law, nor following any rules but their own.

Take your own head out where the sun don't shine and open your mind in the fresh air.

None of which means I agree with the new charter. But the Thai people will vote on that. The Shins don't want any change that doesn't favor themselves or their agenda. Nothing to do with democracy or serving the people.

And are the Dems any different, get real TIT.

But, But, the Dems............. this post is about Yingluck.

The Dems - different but same same. Understandable why so many don't want to vote for them either.

But unlike Yingluck they do turn up for parliament and committees.

just not elections!

[rubl]

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

re; landslide,

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/07/03/idINIndia-58056720110703

http://thediplomat.com/2011/07/thailand-poll-yingluck-in-landslide/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/thai-exit-polls-redshirt-landslide

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-07/03/content_12825429.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/8614653/Red-shirt-party-wins-Thai-election-by-a-landslide.html

https://fr.news.yahoo.com/thaksin-party-wins-landslide-thai-election-victory-193908245.html

http://www.geo.tv/7-3-2011/83260.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/world/asia/04thailand.html?_r=0

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/479839-thaksin-allies-in-thai-election-landslide-exit-polls/

Hope all those links are permitted here

for sure there are a dozen more....

"I'm not a Shin apologist, but....................."

yes, and, ....

please do explain how that is in any way defending the PTP or the "shins"...

See - that is exactly the point - there are posters who are sooooo blind and sooo biased, that just correctlng their complete and total BS is seen (by some) as "defending the PTP/Thaksin/Yingluck/red-scum"...

I rest my case. ... And unlike the "shins" (or Suthep) I have no problem defending myself "in court", as it were...

(PS: are you a Landslide-denier?)

Absolutely! A landslide, the "we will offer you goodies later and someone else will pay for it" paid off. Even the Greek government tried it.

Mind you a Ms. Yingluck critical of the new charter while trying to force an amnesty bill through which even Thammasat students condemned as distorting 'rule of law' tastes of hypocrisy. 'democracy died' when she was asked to take responsibility for her actions and with the blanket amnesty bill it was "please go home'.

BTW I've been told that people not really voted for Ms. Yingluck, but for her brother. A bit strange because the criminal fugitve wasn't on the ballot paper. Officially he doesn't get involved in the political party he owns, controls and orders around, democratically so. Almost a one-man junta

Edited August 18, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

Interesting a topic on charters and democracy and someone saying "she was Thaksin's choice" as if that's utterly democratic to have a criminal fugitive telling the party he owns who to put on #1 and who to 'elect' as PM.

Wasn't the current incumbent 'elected' by the NLA in a near similar fashion?

[Muirton]

Good to see her back and in top form..a breath of fresh air..

Yes, she is probably the most genuinely honest one amongst the lot of Thai politicians and Khun Suthep is at the other end of the spectrum, with Abishit dithering somewhere in the middle.

Yingluck - honest and genuine? How many times was the amply rich billionaire Yingluck caught out lying? Form the amusing "my helicopter can't fly at night through to the not so funny vowing to pay the farmers next week lie. A plethora of lies and acting throughout her time in office, and you think she's honest and genuine.

She's about as genuine as a Patpong Rolex, and less reliable.

And yet you fear her so much you incessantly post about how bad you think she is. Unfortunately for you the electorate dont share your view.

You use the best verb -- "fear". The expat fascists are terrified of the coming future, currently incarnated in the Shinawat family, hence their loony Comments.

[derator01]

Several posts violating forum rules have been removed from view. Please show respect to other members.

[scorecard]

Good to see her back and in top form..a breath of fresh air..

Yes, she is probably the most genuinely honest one amongst the lot of Thai politicians and Khun Suthep is at the other end of the spectrum, with Abishit dithering somewhere in the middle.

Yingluck - honest and genuine? How many times was the amply rich billionaire Yingluck caught out lying? Form the amusing "my helicopter can't fly at night through to the not so funny vowing to pay the farmers next week lie. A plethora of lies and acting throughout her time in office, and you think she's honest and genuine.

She's about as genuine as a Patpong Rolex, and less reliable.

Add:

- And she never attempted any rice stuff meetings.

- And when she occasionally did attend parliament she said close to zero, except for rote comments like 'I have to stay to protect the dictatorship democracy'.

- And when food etc., prices were rising very fast and proven by data, and experienced day by day by everybody in the country, she had the gall to say to the people, a large % of whom exist at survivor level day by day 'prices are not going up at all, it's all in your mind'.

- And when her finance minister was caught out telling lies about economic data she conveniently avoided all questions / made no comment.

- And she had the gall with no hesitation to try to trick / to fool the good Thai people that she was a real PM. She was a puppet and nothing more, her convicted absconded immoral brother even admitted she was his clone.

As already said very nicely above: 'She's about as genuine as a Patpong Rolex, and less reliable'.

Now stand by for the but abhisit, but suthep etc....

Edited August 19, 2015 by scorecard

[Baerboxer]

Good to see her back and in top form..a breath of fresh air..

Yes, she is probably the most genuinely honest one amongst the lot of Thai politicians and Khun Suthep is at the other end of the spectrum, with Abishit dithering somewhere in the middle.

Yingluck - honest and genuine? How many times was the amply rich billionaire Yingluck caught out lying? Form the amusing "my helicopter can't fly at night through to the not so funny vowing to pay the farmers next week lie. A plethora of lies and acting throughout her time in office, and you think she's honest and genuine.

She's about as genuine as a Patpong Rolex, and less reliable.

And yet you fear her so much you incessantly post about how bad you think she is. Unfortunately for you the electorate dont share your view.

Fear - not the least. Loath and despise - certainly. As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them.

How do you know what the electorate currently think? Remember when the UDD leadership and PTP lackeys were trying to stoke up support for her with their "beating the war drum" meeting and rallies? Piss poor attendance so embarrassing they had to end them days early.

[Baerboxer]

And yet you fear her so much you incessantly post about how bad you think she is. Unfortunately for you the electorate dont share your view.

You use the best verb -- "fear". The expat fascists are terrified of the coming future, currently incarnated in the Shinawat family, hence their loony Comments.

At least try and make some effort to understand things. No one fears the Shins. Many don't like the way they lie, repeatedly, break the law, refuse to accept court judgments they don't like, cheat parliamentary procedure and protocol, refuse to be transparent or accountable for anything and fail, seemingly, to keep and produce accounts to parliament.

Opposing a gang masquerading as some kind of social democrats, who a really amply rich billionaire hiso elites, who make considerable wealth increases for their family whilst in office, whilst many poor become poorer, does not make anyone a fascist. Supporting the Shins, as your good self does, does not make you a communist, socialist, democrat, fascist or supporter of a lawful fair society.

[LannaGuy]

Fear - not the least. Loath and despise - certainly. As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them.

How do you know what the electorate currently think? Remember when the UDD leadership and PTP lackeys were trying to stoke up support for her with their "beating the war drum" meeting and rallies? Piss poor attendance so embarrassing they had to end them days early.

"As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them"

but not a Military guy who says 'no coup' and 'elections in 2015' and 'ask my father about the 600m THB'?

you have indeterminable ethics and an unbounded 'self-righteousness' displayed in your constant posting. One after the other, you fire them off at us as if we may 'benefit' from the constant right-wing rhetoric

Edited August 19, 2015 by LannaGuy

[casualbiker]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

[tbthailand]

uh, that would have been the 3rd reading of the amnesty bill, not changes to the constitution, and everyone was invited, the opposition walked out of the vote... voluntarily...

At 4-0 am the only party invited was Yinglucks Party,everyone was not invited,the opposition could not have walked out because they were not there. Next you will be telling me that Parliamentary voting is quite normal at 4-0 am!

get the facts, guy... I gave them to you, but if you don't want to believe me, then get the facts ... yourself.

If you are talking about the Senate vote I thought it was very clear at the time. The PT Speaker (or whatever the supposedly neutral leader is called) told everyone that the session was closed, everyone went home, then they had a vote with only PT supporters as only they knew that the Senate wasn't really closing. That caused a big furor and I remember that it was a very underhanded trick.

Purely my recollection and perhaps flawed.

no, I was referring to the amnesty vote in reference to Majic confusing the vote on the constitution with the amnesty vote and then getting his facts all wrong.

Here is one of the reports on the amnesty vote.

At the very top, it states:

The controversial amnesty bill sailed through the third reading with 310 to 0 votes early Friday morning.

Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.

[JAG]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

If you consider that the statistics you quote establish an electoral mandate for Abhisit in any way comparable with that enjoyed by The PPP, then you are the one talking nonsense, and attempting to mislead.

In simple terms, the party which won the election was removed from office by the establishment/ elite/ traditional Bangkok power base (call it what you wish) because it threatened their grip on power, and the access to the nation's wealth which comes with that grip on power. Abhisit was their chosen substitute, the Army generals their agents. It happened before, has happened again since, and will probably happen again, until eventually the people get fed up and decide they have had enough, and insist that the government they select is allowed to run its term.

Edited August 19, 2015 by JAG

[Linky]

Good to see her back and in top form..a breath of fresh air..

Yes, she is probably the most genuinely honest one amongst the lot of Thai politicians and Khun Suthep is at the other end of the spectrum, with Abishit dithering somewhere in the middle.

Yingluck - honest and genuine? How many times was the amply rich billionaire Yingluck caught out lying? Form the amusing "my helicopter can't fly at night through to the not so funny vowing to pay the farmers next week lie. A plethora of lies and acting throughout her time in office, and you think she's honest and genuine.

She's about as genuine as a Patpong Rolex, and less reliable.

And yet you fear her so much you incessantly post about how bad you think she is. Unfortunately for you the electorate dont share your view.

Fear - not the least. Loath and despise - certainly. As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them.

How do you know what the electorate currently think? Remember when the UDD leadership and PTP lackeys were trying to stoke up support for her with their "beating the war drum" meeting and rallies? Piss poor attendance so embarrassing they had to end them days early.

Lied so callously to the people who had put their trust in them, yet those people keep voting for them. If they are so bad why didnt the opposition want an election. Its because they would lose lose lose yet again.

And that is the crux of it all. The yellows keep losing and dont like that the people vote for who they want.

The people should be allowed to vote as they want, no matter what farangs think.

[mikemac]

If you are talking about the Senate vote I thought it was very clear at the time. The PT Speaker (or whatever the supposedly neutral leader is called) told everyone that the session was closed, everyone went home, then they had a vote with only PT supporters as only they knew that the Senate wasn't really closing. That caused a big furor and I remember that it was a very underhanded trick.

Purely my recollection and perhaps flawed.

no, I was referring to the amnesty vote in reference to Majic confusing the vote on the constitution with the amnesty vote and then getting his facts all wrong.

Here is one of the reports on the amnesty vote.

At the very top, it states:

The controversial amnesty bill sailed through the third reading with 310 to 0 votes early Friday morning.

Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.

Oh yes, and how did they get on with that Amnesty Bill ? Must have been a huge success with a vote of 310-0 !

I am sure you will have nothing but good things to say about it, being the loyal and dedicated Shin supporter that you are. (oh no, too much sarcasm ! making me spin out.....................................)

"I'm not a Shin apologist, but....................."

I wonder if there will ever be another Constitution written that both sides can live with ? If there is I hope it does not contain the word "amnesty".

[Baerboxer]

Fear - not the least. Loath and despise - certainly. As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them.

How do you know what the electorate currently think? Remember when the UDD leadership and PTP lackeys were trying to stoke up support for her with their "beating the war drum" meeting and rallies? Piss poor attendance so embarrassing they had to end them days early.

"As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them"

but not a Military guy who says 'no coup' and 'elections in 2015' and 'ask my father about the 600m THB'?

you have indeterminable ethics and an unbounded 'self-righteousness' displayed in your constant posting. One after the other, you fire them off at us as if we may 'benefit' from the constant right-wing rhetoric

I try to respond to posters who wish to debate.

This post is about Yingluck. Try to focus on topic rather than change to a discussion you'd prefer. If you wish to discuss other politicians start a new thread and I'll comment if I feel I've something to contribute.

I'm not sure why you consider my posts right-wing rhetoric. Even if contextualizing things in Western terms helps your comprehensions Yingluck is hardly left wing. And her brother certainly isn't. They are just as self centered egotistical and dictatorially elitist as those they rival for control, power and the spoils.

Some share my views, as can be seen by those who hit "like" or post similar comments. Others have the complete opposite view. I find some posts to be a distortion of fact, truth and pure nonsense. I respond to those accordingly. You may feel differently about those posts - up to you.

[casualbiker]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

If you consider that the statistics you quote establish an electoral mandate for Abhisit in any way comparable with that enjoyed by The PPP, then you are the one talking nonsense, and attempting to mislead.

In simple terms, the party which won the election was removed from office by the establishment/ elite/ traditional Bangkok power base (call it what you wish) because it threatened their grip on power, and the access to the nation's wealth which comes with that grip on power. Abhisit was their chosen substitute, the Army generals their agents. It happened before, has happened again since, and will probably happen again, until eventually the people get fed up and decide they have had enough, and insist that the government they select is allowed to run its term.

We are talking about the rules of parliament. The same rules that elected Somchai into office after Samak refused to stop his cooking show.

The PM is voted for and elected by the parliament.

As long as you're a sitting MP you can be elected if you get enough votes from the other MP's in parliament. I'm not discussing WHY there had to be elections.

I'm stating that the parliament rules were applied in exactly the same way. And it was OK when it went in Thaksin's favour but not OK when it didn't.

[Baerboxer]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

If you consider that the statistics you quote establish an electoral mandate for Abhisit in any way comparable with that enjoyed by The PPP, then you are the one talking nonsense, and attempting to mislead.

In simple terms, the party which won the election was removed from office by the establishment/ elite/ traditional Bangkok power base (call it what you wish) because it threatened their grip on power, and the access to the nation's wealth which comes with that grip on power. Abhisit was their chosen substitute, the Army generals their agents. It happened before, has happened again since, and will probably happen again, until eventually the people get fed up and decide they have had enough, and insist that the government they select is allowed to run its term.

But, do you agree that the Shin governments were also interested in access to the nations wealth, and not for the benefit of the nation, too? Which is why they struggled so hard to keep their grip on power.

Any government should be allowed to run its term - providing they are abiding by the laws of the country and have not lost control or the support of the people. A government that cannot maintain law and order and keep the peace cannot continue.

Politicians who break laws, ignore the rules, lie and cheat shouldn't go unpunished or be allowed to be MP's. But, that should apply to all - regardless of party, family, connections, and wealth. But it seems very unlikely here. So the cycle will continue for the time being.

[tbthailand]

If you are talking about the Senate vote I thought it was very clear at the time. The PT Speaker (or whatever the supposedly neutral leader is called) told everyone that the session was closed, everyone went home, then they had a vote with only PT supporters as only they knew that the Senate wasn't really closing. That caused a big furor and I remember that it was a very underhanded trick.

Purely my recollection and perhaps flawed.

no, I was referring to the amnesty vote in reference to Majic confusing the vote on the constitution with the amnesty vote and then getting his facts all wrong.

Here is one of the reports on the amnesty vote.

At the very top, it states:

The controversial amnesty bill sailed through the third reading with 310 to 0 votes early Friday morning.

Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.

Oh yes, and how did they get on with that Amnesty Bill ? Must have been a huge success with a vote of 310-0 !

I am sure you will have nothing but good things to say about it, being the loyal and dedicated Shin supporter that you are. (oh no, too much sarcasm ! making me spin out.....................................)

"I'm not a Shin apologist, but....................."

I wonder if there will ever be another Constitution written that both sides can live with ? If there is I hope it does not contain the word "amnesty".

I don't personally favor amnesty at all. From a Thai perspective and given the imbalance in justice, I do understand how Thais (of both colors) supported the original amnesty which addressed only protesters and not the rest... and not Thaksin.

As you must certainly know, the final bill which passed the parliament was opposed by yellow shirts and by red shirts.

But again, a post which clarifies events is not being an apologist for anyone. As you certainly saw MAJICs original post, you would not agree with it, would you?

BTW, I may not have seen it yet, but are you a "Landslide-denier"?

(ps; to add, there is no way that there will ever be a democratic constitution which both sides can live with because one side doesn't believe in, nor do they want, democracy. It will have to be imposed by the people.)

Edited August 19, 2015 by tbthailand

[JAG]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

If you consider that the statistics you quote establish an electoral mandate for Abhisit in any way comparable with that enjoyed by The PPP, then you are the one talking nonsense, and attempting to mislead.

In simple terms, the party which won the election was removed from office by the establishment/ elite/ traditional Bangkok power base (call it what you wish) because it threatened their grip on power, and the access to the nation's wealth which comes with that grip on power. Abhisit was their chosen substitute, the Army generals their agents. It happened before, has happened again since, and will probably happen again, until eventually the people get fed up and decide they have had enough, and insist that the government they select is allowed to run its term.

We are talking about the rules of parliament. The same rules that elected Somchai into office after Samak refused to stop his cooking show.

The PM is voted for and elected by the parliament.

As long as you're a sitting MP you can be elected if you get enough votes from the other MP's in parliament. I'm not discussing WHY there had to be elections.

I'm stating that the parliament rules were applied in exactly the same way. And it was OK when it went in Thaksin's favour but not OK when it didn't.

That is not my point. My point is that PPP had an electoral mandate. Abhisit did not.

[JAG]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

If you consider that the statistics you quote establish an electoral mandate for Abhisit in any way comparable with that enjoyed by The PPP, then you are the one talking nonsense, and attempting to mislead.

In simple terms, the party which won the election was removed from office by the establishment/ elite/ traditional Bangkok power base (call it what you wish) because it threatened their grip on power, and the access to the nation's wealth which comes with that grip on power. Abhisit was their chosen substitute, the Army generals their agents. It happened before, has happened again since, and will probably happen again, until eventually the people get fed up and decide they have had enough, and insist that the government they select is allowed to run its term.

But, do you agree that the Shin governments were also interested in access to the nations wealth, and not for the benefit of the nation, too? Which is why they struggled so hard to keep their grip on power.

Any government should be allowed to run its term - providing they are abiding by the laws of the country and have not lost control or the support of the people. A government that cannot maintain law and order and keep the peace cannot continue.

Politicians who break laws, ignore the rules, lie and cheat shouldn't go unpunished or be allowed to be MP's. But, that should apply to all - regardless of party, family, connections, and wealth. But it seems very unlikely here. So the cycle will continue for the time being.

You hold an election and put it to the people as a whole to decide if the government stands or falls, rather than having a small group of people decide, and then engineer the removal of the government.

Edited August 19, 2015 by JAG

[LannaGuy]

Fear - not the least. Loath and despise - certainly. As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them.

How do you know what the electorate currently think? Remember when the UDD leadership and PTP lackeys were trying to stoke up support for her with their "beating the war drum" meeting and rallies? Piss poor attendance so embarrassing they had to end them days early.

"As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them"

but not a Military guy who says 'no coup' and 'elections in 2015' and 'ask my father about the 600m THB'?

you have indeterminable ethics and an unbounded 'self-righteousness' displayed in your constant posting. One after the other, you fire them off at us as if we may 'benefit' from the constant right-wing rhetoric

I try to respond to posters who wish to debate.

This post is about Yingluck. Try to focus on topic rather than change to a discussion you'd prefer. If you wish to discuss other politicians start a new thread and I'll comment if I feel I've something to contribute.

I'm not sure why you consider my posts right-wing rhetoric. Even if contextualizing things in Western terms helps your comprehensions Yingluck is hardly left wing. And her brother certainly isn't. They are just as self centered egotistical and dictatorially elitist as those they rival for control, power and the spoils.

Some share my views, as can be seen by those who hit "like" or post similar comments. Others have the complete opposite view. I find some posts to be a distortion of fact, truth and pure nonsense. I respond to those accordingly. You may feel differently about those posts - up to you.

you don't 'respond' you preach

if you feel comfortable being a hypocrite then 'good for you' but I, personally, could not rest easy about such a 'convenient' view that slams Thailand's first elected female Premier yet heralds Thailands 22nd censored

[Muirton]

Good to see her back and in top form..a breath of fresh air..

Yes, she is probably the most genuinely honest one amongst the lot of Thai politicians and Khun Suthep is at the other end of the spectrum, with Abishit dithering somewhere in the middle.

I think Abhisit should be moved over close to the current administration. He is responsible for the current situation in a large way.

Why?

Abhisit fooled many journos because he speaks English well and softly. But there's nothing well or soft about his fascist politics. A lickspittle for the BKK parasites.

[Muirton]

And yet you fear her so much you incessantly post about how bad you think she is. Unfortunately for you the electorate dont share your view.

You use the best verb -- "fear". The expat fascists are terrified of the coming future, currently incarnated in the Shinawat family, hence their loony Comments.

At least try and make some effort to understand things. No one fears the Shins. Many don't like the way they lie, repeatedly, break the law, refuse to accept court judgments they don't like, cheat parliamentary procedure and protocol, refuse to be transparent or accountable for anything and fail, seemingly, to keep and produce accounts to parliament.

Opposing a gang masquerading as some kind of social democrats, who a really amply rich billionaire hiso elites, who make considerable wealth increases for their family whilst in office, whilst many poor become poorer, does not make anyone a fascist. Supporting the Shins, as your good self does, does not make you a communist, socialist, democrat, fascist or supporter of a lawful fair society.

Why don't you dump your condescension and focus on the OP?

[rubl]

Yes, she is probably the most genuinely honest one amongst the lot of Thai politicians and Khun Suthep is at the other end of the spectrum, with Abishit dithering somewhere in the middle.

I think Abhisit should be moved over close to the current administration. He is responsible for the current situation in a large way.

Why?

Abhisit fooled many journos because he speaks English well and softly. But there's nothing well or soft about his fascist politics. A lickspittle for the BKK parasites.

Such insults tend to try to hide lack of real arguments.

[rubl]

If you are talking about the Senate vote I thought it was very clear at the time. The PT Speaker (or whatever the supposedly neutral leader is called) told everyone that the session was closed, everyone went home, then they had a vote with only PT supporters as only they knew that the Senate wasn't really closing. That caused a big furor and I remember that it was a very underhanded trick.

Purely my recollection and perhaps flawed.

no, I was referring to the amnesty vote in reference to Majic confusing the vote on the constitution with the amnesty vote and then getting his facts all wrong.

Here is one of the reports on the amnesty vote.

At the very top, it states:

The controversial amnesty bill sailed through the third reading with 310 to 0 votes early Friday morning.

Democrat MPs staged a walkout so no one voted against the bill.

Oh yes, and how did they get on with that Amnesty Bill ? Must have been a huge success with a vote of 310-0 !

I am sure you will have nothing but good things to say about it, being the loyal and dedicated Shin supporter that you are. (oh no, too much sarcasm ! making me spin out.....................................)

"I'm not a Shin apologist, but....................."

I wonder if there will ever be another Constitution written that both sides can live with ? If there is I hope it does not contain the word "amnesty".

I don't personally favor amnesty at all. From a Thai perspective and given the imbalance in justice, I do understand how Thais (of both colors) supported the original amnesty which addressed only protesters and not the rest... and not Thaksin.

As you must certainly know, the final bill which passed the parliament was opposed by yellow shirts and by red shirts.

But again, a post which clarifies events is not being an apologist for anyone. As you certainly saw MAJICs original post, you would not agree with it, would you?

BTW, I may not have seen it yet, but are you a "Landslide-denier"?

(ps; to add, there is no way that there will ever be a democratic constitution which both sides can live with because one side doesn't believe in, nor do they want, democracy. It will have to be imposed by the people.)

PS Yingluck critisizes the draft charter not available yet. Probably she doesn't feel she needs one. Her brother knows all anyway and once he returns all will be well.

Edited August 19, 2015 by rubl

[mikemac]

I don't personally favor amnesty at all. From a Thai perspective and given the imbalance in justice, I do understand how Thais (of both colors) supported the original amnesty which addressed only protesters and not the rest... and not Thaksin.

As you must certainly know, the final bill which passed the parliament was opposed by yellow shirts and by red shirts.

But again, a post which clarifies events is not being an apologist for anyone. As you certainly saw MAJICs original post, you would not agree with it, would you?

BTW, I may not have seen it yet, but are you a "Landslide-denier"?

(ps; to add, there is no way that there will ever be a democratic constitution which both sides can live with because one side doesn't believe in, nor do they want, democracy. It will have to be imposed by the people.)

................"BTW, I may not have seen it yet, but are you a "Landslide-denier"?".........................

Nice try, trying to find something else to use when you attack me. Fail ! I have never once commented on any "Landslide" nor do I care about it. So don't bother labeling me a "Landslide-denier", as you falsely labeled me a junta supporter.

Posting "porkies" will get you nowhere, and a bad rep.

As far as Yingluck criticizing the draft charter goes, anyone who believes they were her words has the mentality of a watermelon.

[Baerboxer]

Fear - not the least. Loath and despise - certainly. As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them.

How do you know what the electorate currently think? Remember when the UDD leadership and PTP lackeys were trying to stoke up support for her with their "beating the war drum" meeting and rallies? Piss poor attendance so embarrassing they had to end them days early.

"As I would any politician, pretend or otherwise, who lied so callously to the people who has put their trust in them"

but not a Military guy who says 'no coup' and 'elections in 2015' and 'ask my father about the 600m THB'?

you have indeterminable ethics and an unbounded 'self-righteousness' displayed in your constant posting. One after the other, you fire them off at us as if we may 'benefit' from the constant right-wing rhetoric

I try to respond to posters who wish to debate.

This post is about Yingluck. Try to focus on topic rather than change to a discussion you'd prefer. If you wish to discuss other politicians start a new thread and I'll comment if I feel I've something to contribute.

I'm not sure why you consider my posts right-wing rhetoric. Even if contextualizing things in Western terms helps your comprehensions Yingluck is hardly left wing. And her brother certainly isn't. They are just as self centered egotistical and dictatorially elitist as those they rival for control, power and the spoils.

Some share my views, as can be seen by those who hit "like" or post similar comments. Others have the complete opposite view. I find some posts to be a distortion of fact, truth and pure nonsense. I respond to those accordingly. You may feel differently about those posts - up to you.

you don't 'respond' you preach

if you feel comfortable being a hypocrite then 'good for you' but I, personally, could not rest easy about such a 'convenient' view that slams Thailand's first elected female Premier yet heralds Thailands 22nd censored

That's your opinion, to which your're perfectly entitled as am I.

Nothing hypocritical. I express my thoughts about Yingluck as you do yours. First elected female PM and first female PM to be removed by a court for abuse of power. If your're comfortable to only want to discuss her positives rather than look at the whole up to you. Ironic you call others hypocrites when you do so nicely yourself.

Again, this topic is Yingluck. And you can pretend she was a wonderful, honest, highly competent breath of fresh air as a PM if you want to.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

And yet you fear her so much you incessantly post about how bad you think she is. Unfortunately for you the electorate dont share your view.

You use the best verb -- "fear". The expat fascists are terrified of the coming future, currently incarnated in the Shinawat family, hence their loony Comments.

At least try and make some effort to understand things. No one fears the Shins. Many don't like the way they lie, repeatedly, break the law, refuse to accept court judgments they don't like, cheat parliamentary procedure and protocol, refuse to be transparent or accountable for anything and fail, seemingly, to keep and produce accounts to parliament.

Opposing a gang masquerading as some kind of social democrats, who a really amply rich billionaire hiso elites, who make considerable wealth increases for their family whilst in office, whilst many poor become poorer, does not make anyone a fascist. Supporting the Shins, as your good self does, does not make you a communist, socialist, democrat, fascist or supporter of a lawful fair society.

Why don't you dump your condescension and focus on the OP?

Why don't you focus on the OP and add some constructive comment instead of the usual hyperbole that all who oppose the wannabee dictator fugitive must be raving fascist Junta fan boys?

[Baerboxer]

Well the junta junkies on the forum are too embarrassed by the joke draft charter to say anything other than to attack YL. Thailand deserves better than the rubbish being served up on this draft and the people will not accept it ...regardless of what Thaksin or YL say or do not Y

You talk utter commonsense, but i doubt the junta junkies will understand, apart from trashing the last popularly elected Thai PM they cannot see or think further than their noses.

Popularly elected!!

She was elected by MP's from the government.

Her name was number one on party list BUT it Doesn't mean that is automatically the PM.

MAYBE the PM should be elected by the people. What do you think?

Oh dear - that old chestnut again. Once more then...

Just about every sentient being who voted for Pheu-Thai in the election did so in the full knowledge that Yingluck was the party candidate for PM, and indeed that she was Thaksin's choice. The party won a clear victory ( we won't call it a landslide because that annoys).

Therefore Yingluck became PM, she was elected under the rules which then pertained, which is rather more than can be said about the current incumbent is it not?

So she was voted in under the rules that also voted in Abhisit.. But the Red shirts said he was undemocratic.... Strange No?

The circumstances were somewhat different. Put simply she was endorsed by the electorate, he was rejected by the electorate.

What absolute rubbish!

Abhisit had been a directly elected MP. After the previous PM Somchai was dismissed for " The Thai constitution bars parliament members from holding shares in companies that do business with state enterprises" there was a vote for the new PM. Abhisit won the vote! His party the Democrats had also garnered 14,084,265 in the 2007 election 39.63% of the proportional vote. That was against PPP's 14,071,799 and 39.60%.

Obviously the constituency vote was higher for PPP at 26,293,456 against Democrats 21,745,696 .

So to say that he was rejected by the electorate is just plain misleading!

If you consider that the statistics you quote establish an electoral mandate for Abhisit in any way comparable with that enjoyed by The PPP, then you are the one talking nonsense, and attempting to mislead.

In simple terms, the party which won the election was removed from office by the establishment/ elite/ traditional Bangkok power base (call it what you wish) because it threatened their grip on power, and the access to the nation's wealth which comes with that grip on power. Abhisit was their chosen substitute, the Army generals their agents. It happened before, has happened again since, and will probably happen again, until eventually the people get fed up and decide they have had enough, and insist that the government they select is allowed to run its term.

But, do you agree that the Shin governments were also interested in access to the nations wealth, and not for the benefit of the nation, too? Which is why they struggled so hard to keep their grip on power.

Any government should be allowed to run its term - providing they are abiding by the laws of the country and have not lost control or the support of the people. A government that cannot maintain law and order and keep the peace cannot continue.

Politicians who break laws, ignore the rules, lie and cheat shouldn't go unpunished or be allowed to be MP's. But, that should apply to all - regardless of party, family, connections, and wealth. But it seems very unlikely here. So the cycle will continue for the time being.

You hold an election and put it to the people as a whole to decide if the government stands or falls, rather than having a small group of people decide, and then engineer the removal of the government.

Please answer my question - "But, do you agree that the Shin governments were also interested in access to the nations wealth, and not for the benefit of the nation, too?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Are you really advocating putting governments above the law? That once in office they can be voted out at an election but not brought to justice for breaking the law when they want to?