jamesbrock

40 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Had it been a public project, budgeted as a subsidy, and not deliberately kept off the books and presented as a self financing scheme then you would have a point. Had she tried hard to manage the scheme, diligently chaired the meetings she appointed herself too instead of never attending, diligently investigated all the warnings of corruptions and scams in the scheme; not lied about G2G deals, or vowed to pay farmers and then ignored them, and actually presented real management accounts then you would have a point.

 

Only a banana republic would allow a fugitive criminal to own a political party, install his totally inexperienced sister as PM with numerous relatives and cronies put into key positions and then implement such a scheme and do nothing to stop the obvious rampant corruption that became more and more apparent.

 

Let crooks get in a position to thieve - then don't be surprised they do.

So we agree it's a banana republic. 

8 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

I could have sworn this happened this time last year........and the year before......and the year...............................!

Shhh... These things take time to get right. Like stormwater drainage. And road building. And traffic enforcement. Policing in general. Justice. Education. Government. You can't expect perfection overnight!

Bulldust. It won't happen. The NCPO will not hold a general election in 2017.

43 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

Aa cursory glance at the photo looks as if they have failed to clear the river of water hyacinths and this in turn may be causing clogging of the flow which has backed up.

 

I increasingly get the impression that those managing water in Thailand did not get their jobs by merit or knowledge of water management but by some other possibly nefarious means.

Yet, many were in the same jobs in 2011...

Can't really fault them though, I mean they've only had dams for 50 years - combine that with the rains have only been coming annually for, oh I don't know, forever - is it any wonder they still can't get it right?

This is not about the protection from exploitation, or the wellbeing of elephants.If no trade sanctions were threatened, he couldn't care less. 

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

I did not take it as a bad comment, mainly i think we see things quite similar. Yes.. the elite (everyone in power is elite) does not care for the little people.. they are just pawns to get them in power. Give them enough scraps to keep them happy and when needed fire them up and let them kill or get killed. Then let them rot in jail while they bail out the people a bit higher on the food chain. 

You forgot: "and god forbid anyone speak out about our perfect (for us) system, so we'll enforce some of the most draconian laws in the developing world."

Lucky gai hit by unlucky guy.

2 hours ago, robblok said:

 

I never said that changing of governments is perfect (its wrong actually if done by a coup) but its the only thing that helps at this point (your solution is better but a goverment change happens easier here). I doubt that things will change fast.. everyone in power wants to make money and that is what creates the violence. They are willing to let people die to get in power. I don't see this change anytime soon.. so i just go for the easiest solution one that at least works (just a bit)

Yes, I understood that - I wasn't meaning to admonish you. It's sadly true what you say about the feudal elite being willing to let people die to get into, or cling onto power. That is the tragedy of Thailand.

1 minute ago, robblok said:

 

Would have been great if the junta had gone after preechai his son too.. that would have been the best news ever and would have made them a 100x better government than the PTP. Unfortunately they show that they are bad too. Still.. at least they go after corruption its  better than doing nothing or excusing 26.000 graft cases with an amnesty. But the junta really disappointed me. 

 

Seems I am right that governments must change often as its the only way to punish corrupt officials that were previously protected. Its far from perfect but beats the alternative that they all get off without any problems (really hope someone does something about preechai his son later on) 

Yes, it would certainly have made their anti-corruption stance much stronger; however, this being just another of many corruption charge against them (Rajabhakti Park anyone?) means that it is pretty much same stuff different day.

The main difference here is the closeness to Prayuth himself.

The only problem, well, the main problem with changing governments is that leaves the deeper structures of the Thai culture and society unchanged. What needs to change is that the country must cease being run by the bureaucracy and a small but powerful feudal elite, with the military as its strong arm. That is, of course, easier said than done, and won't happen without a lot of pain.

11 minutes ago, Sharp said:

Holding the  people involved personally liable financially or other even a custodial penalty seems correct to me (All parties be it red, yellow or other! 

Yes, it is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start!

As Atiya Achakulwisut wrote in an unnamed editorial a few days ago, no one can deny that the rice-pledging scheme was ill-conceived and recklessly implemented. As far as public policy goes, it was an outright disaster. But what this junta fails to realise is that the rice-pledging policy was, quite literally, a farm subsidy - and all subsidies by their very definition as a form of public investment run at a loss. The country has spent billions on subsidies, development schemes, and other social welfare policies for decades—all countries do—and the overwhelming majority of public investment projects in Thailand lose money to corruption. So why is only Yingluck being held personally accountable?

Public investment projects need not be profitable as losses to, or spending by, the state are gains for the economy as a whole. While I agree that it is reasonable to pursue cases against Yingluck and others involved for alleged corruption or dereliction of duty regarding the scheme, trying to seize her personal assets to pay for alleged losses is simply ridiculous.

Even DPM Wissanu is on record as stating that "the guilt wasn't caused by corruption, but by dereliction of duty."

The policy was announced and approved by parliament. She undertook it in her capacity as prime minister so she should take responsibility for it politically, not as a private citizen. If they succeed in forcing Yingluck to personally pay for state losses for an unprofitable policy, what of other losses caused by dereliction of duty? The Bangkok Mass Transit Authority and State Railway of Thailand continue to amass losses of hundreds of billion baht. Who personally reimburses the state for those?

Will Prayut compensate the state out of his own pocket if the junta's high-speed train projects fail? How about the billions of baht that have been spent failing to bring peace to the far South? Have those policies become failures yet? Who should take personal responsibility for these losses?

The whole issue is so obviously a witch hunt.

8 minutes ago, colinneil said:

No more stimulus measures and collect taxes more efficiently.

If more government contracts were awarded on merit and not corruption there would be a lot more money in the pot.

If 30-40% of all government projects didn't go into the pockets of individuals, there would be a lot more money in the pot.

22 minutes ago, webfact said:

Rice fraud case being expedited to bring wrongdoers to justice

Meanwhile, nepotism and malfeasance at the very heart of the junta is being downplayed to protect wrongdoers from justice.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

One more revolution of the wheel and he would have been dead.

Was the van reversing?

27 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

They will have find some more redshirts to burn at the stake so they can prove that they are still serious about fighting corruption.

Remember what the apologists say. It doesn't matter that they are one sided. As long some corruption is being dealt with it's all good

Ooh, ow, how bitingly accurate!

9 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Plagiarising is not nitpicking its a fact. Best to acknowledge where your material comes from. So what do you think Halloween?

Plagiarising??

• I introduced the passage with "This brief reminder is courtesy of a petition to World Policy Institute by Network of Thais Overseas on Change.org"
• I enclosed the entire passage in quotation marks.
• I included a link to the source.

What, didn't I use the appropriate Harvard Referencing style?

This is the same guy, who in 2011, defended the slowing down of water discharges in April, which led to the dams filling up later in the year.

Now he's done the same so farmers can harvest their rice...

A very apt editorial from the Nation a few months ago is worth revisiting:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Judging-the-reformers-by-their-actions-30284286.html

6 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

James, so he gets the passports? what comes next. Apart from all the "charges" his presence would be a game changer.

I really don't know what his play is, why he needs his passports back. Surely whatever he wants to do can be done with one of the six passports he purportedly carries?

His return/presence would certainly be a game changer, but for that to happen the game would already have had changed.

Only a banana republic would even contemplate seizing the personal assets of an ex-official as compensation for losses incurred on a public project.

I have worked on several large projects, and never has the lead PM been made to personally pay for cost overruns - even though he is ultimately personally responsible. The very thought is ludicrous.

2 hours ago, colinneil said:

The PMsays he will use section 44 against the previous administration for corruption in the rice pledging scheme.

OK that would be good, will he also use section 44 against those involved in corruption in his own administration?????

Short answer: no, never.

Long answer:

Quote

All acts which have been done in relation to the seizure and control of the administration of State affairs on the 22nd Day of May B.E. 2557 (2014) of the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order and the National Council for Peace and Order, including all acts which have been done by any person in connection with the aforesaid acts, or by the person who has been entrusted or ordered by the Head of the National Council for Peace and Order or the National Council for Peace and Order, for the fulfilment of such purposes, regardless of their legislative, executive or judicial force, as well as any punishment and other acts performed in relation to the administration of State affairs and whether the actors of those act are principals, accessories, persons who employ another to commit those acts or the employed persons and whether those acts done before or after the date mentioned above, if the aforesaid acts were illegal, all related person shall be exempted from being offenders and shall be exempted from all liabilities. 

Justice... 

Mustn't admit the bleeding obvious. Mustn't scare the tourists. Must look like <censored>.

39 minutes ago, AlQaholic said:

I assumed, because everyone was milling around the car constantly for a long time and taking pictures here and there, that was a part of a process of inspection, but looking at the video again nobody actually bends down and peruses anything up close, so admittedly I may be wrong. 

You see time and time again taxi cars pulling out from the curb without even looking back and without signaling, I thought this was what happened. A car that is by the curb is not in the traffic, so have to give way and wait for cars to pass.

Yes, but the taxi was not at the curb, it is in the inside, presumably right turn, lane. There is an oncoming lane on its right, so it couldn't have been pulling from that curb.

The black car swings around it and pulls up in front of it in typical road rage style.

9 minutes ago, silent said:

Do you have a death wish?

31 minutes ago, AlQaholic said:

There is a collision right at the start of the video where the taxi sidescrapes the black car. And the cops and drivers, according the video anyhow, closely inspected both cars carefully over and over again, and took numerous pictures. 

The white cars driver was possibly talking on the phone and also the police was right in the blind spot of where the support frame is between the front windshield and the side window, of course that is in no circumstance an excuse, but securing the site better would surely have reduced the risk.

I initially thought there may have been contact then, too, but I don't believe there was. I also believe the black car cut off the taxi.

At which point in the video did anyone closely inspect either car? Even when the three women are standing next to the drivers side rear panel, not one of them even looked at it, let alone closely inspected it.

I agree with you, however, that the A pillar might have hidden the cop for a moment, but that is, as you say, no excuse.