halloween

12 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

No corruption here, just more baseless defamation,  move along   

You want corruption, why was Siam Indiga given an agency behind closed doors to sell G2G rice to Indonesia? The company was run by Apichart, an associate of Thaksin already given preferential treatment, whose earlier company President Agri went bust owing the commerce dept B6 billion. Where is the due diligence? In fact, why was an agent needed at all in a G2G deal?

That deal paid SI B900 million, of the B3.3 billion the government lost on it. Does that sound like corrupt to you?

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

PM's travel a lot and in two years Yingluck visited 42 countries  and 19 international conferences. Even she can't be in two places and THAT was her role whether YOU  like it or not. But you don't want to know the truth you prefer the 'shopping' lie to bolster your hate.

OK, how about you give me one newly appointed PM who decided to do a VIP world tour instead of attending parliament? she didn't have to be in 2 places. She had to DO HER JOB in parliament. Most PM restrict the majority of their travel to when parliament is out of session, because they have a job.

Just now, LannaGuy said:

Nonsense bias post as always.

If it is a biased post, give me another PM with a lower parliament attendance. Good luck with that, because those of major countries make a point of attending question time to defend their government's policies. And how could she do that?

23 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Doesn't answer my question of your evidence that the program was not intended to help rich and middle-income farmers. Certainly, Yingluck was focused on the poorest farmers. But your supposition is that her program deliberately intended to also benefit other farmers: "It was not supposed to help rich farmers, or even those with middle income..." To say otherwise suggests Yingluck was a victim of serendipity. That would not be a fault or crime.

Maybe you meant the program had an unintended consequence that it helped other framers than the poorest. That's possible as an oversight as her focus was on the poorest farmers. It's also possible she considered the spinoff benefits to the minority rich and middle-income farmers to be the political "price" paid to benefit the majority poorest farmers. I've not heard of rich and middle-income rice farmers protesting receipt of rice subsidies that they didn't deserve nor demanding that the government take their subsidies back.

 

Perhaps I should have been more specific and said 'stated intention'. But payment to the well off can hardly be called an 'unintended consequence' when no farm size or income level limitations were set. That, and the lack of rent and fertilizer price freeze makes the policy look like something drawn up on a beer coaster after a long drinking session - stupid, inept and full of wishful thinking.

33 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

I have not done any research about how many meetings PM's chair. She has claimed that all concerns were passed to the relevant departments and, yes, she was nominally 'Chair' of big committee's but it is standard to delegate such day-to-day stuff as she undertook the role of PM.  It is far too simplistic to say "she went shopping"  and just part of the yellow smear campaign. I think you need better arguments than repeating the Junta propaganda.  Anyway suspended sentence with large fine is my prediction - after that Appeal and in years to come a comeback.

Total BS. What was she so busy doing as PM, because it certainly wasn't attending parliament, something expected of an MP even if he/she is selected by their peers to be PM. She only went to parliament when he presence was mandatory, she never attended rice policy meetings, in an attempt to maintain her claim of ignorance. The trouble is deliberate ignorance is very close to negligence.

Thailand uses the Westminster system, Thaksin introduced the quasi-presidential concept of a PM not involved in the day to day workings of government.

I consider she deserves time, but would consider fair a sentence suspended AFTER she pays back at least half the B500 billion wasted.

30 minutes ago, Becker said:

Those are the question us democracy lovers avoid like the plague????

 

Why should a defendant's popularity be of concern to the court?

It shouldn't. The court should also be independent but it isn't. 

 

Why pander to those who support criminals demanding they escape prosecution in the name of "reconciliation"?

No one should be pandered to - not criminal politicians nor criminal generals. And pointing out that this case is not about prosecuting criminals but getting rid of political opponents is not pandering, it's just facts. 

 

What advance in Thai democracy is there if the ballot box over-rides the law?

None, but at least the ballot box is there if the over-riding takes place so whoever is in power can be removed. Not so with yet another junta that tears up constitutions, give themselves blanket amnesties and desperately rig the system so that they can maintain their place at the trough.

 

Is that the best you got? 

The court should be independent, that's why I am expecting a guilty verdict.

Have you ever considered that the political opponents being got rid of are also criminals? But when they are criminals who were elected, it becomes political, at least in the opinion of those who elected them. Which is irrelevant.

None, but then you give reasons why it should, because you expect democracy to reform itself while in the hands of criminals. I have no such expectation after witnessing laws being changed, even their definition, to protect the guilty.

11 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

Only the 4th Russian ambassador to have died under suspicious circumstances this year.  I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

When your ambassadors are mostly fat old men it almost becomes a statistical certainty.

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

Try to read what was said one more time:

 

I'm waiting for the questions we "democracy loving" posters avoid like the plague. Where are they?

Doh! You jump into a series of replies and you can't even backtrack to the original? Or don't you bother to read the thread, just go looking for somebody to launch a personal attack? 

Try post #10.

Just now, Becker said:

 

Still waiting......

So am I. You offered, I accepted, away you go.

5 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

I see you have no experience in management or governance. I have.

 

I was chair of many meetings and did not attend most, delegating it to my team. SOP (Standard Operating Practice).

 

PM's and presidents do not 'Chair' all their committee's and meetings and your failure to understand this very basic concept is frightening.  As for posts all over the place... 

Did you have a lot of shopping too?

In your wide experience did you come across a PM/chair with a lower attendance at parliament/meetings? Would that be possible?

45 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Avoidance doesn't mean that anyone can ignore the fact that there are 2 organizations that have been around since 1932 and they take turn in milking the country and fattening their bank accounts and helping their cronies get rich.

 

The oldest political party has been a establishment party that has only benefit their rich supporters and has done nothing for the poor. The military is on a class of their own with full immunity to rape the country. Both organizations that you support. Strange and sad. 

You are hilarious old son. Why don't you the 3rd organisation, not been around so long, but also highly successful in enriching themselves?

As you raised the subject, just how much do you think Thaksin has stolen from the Thai people, starting with his corrupt RTP computer contract, his monopoly on mobile phones, Myanmar loans, KTB fraud, President Agri, Siam Indiga, and everything else up until now?

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

In short, the Democrats benefited from the coup? Before the coup they had no chance, after the coup they were in power.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Before the coup they had a small chance, after the coup they LOST. Is that a benefit? They got into office because TRT was caught cheating during the election. How did the coup cause THAT?

37 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

So Democrats getting into power after a coup when otherwise they would have no chance, is not benefiting them?

Completely illogical thinking making a false assumption of cause and result. TRT were disbanded for breaking electoral law, SOP for shin parties, being caught at bribery, and suffering the consequences. A faction got a better offer and changed sides. Yes a benefit for the Democrats of the Shins total disregard of the law, particularly electoral law. But the coup was over, an election had been held.

Just now, smutcakes said:

You dont think previous coups have benefited political parties? Namely the Democrats who cannot win and election, and even more so Bhujumthai.

 

Obviously I don't, which doesn't explain why you do. Can you explain how being side-lined is a benefit?

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Have to agree with you that the Dem have a different funding method. These wealthy individuals and companies don't take seats but they benefit from having their party in the government. You forgot the big Sor Phor Kor land projects and land rights distribution in Phuket that went to their cronies and brought down Chuan's tenure. How convenient. 

Stick to the subject, Eric. Ancient democrat history hardly rates as relevant to Shinawatra influence. Strange that you support a party being removed for corruption while brown nosing the Shins.

2 hours ago, smutcakes said:

If they wanted i am sure they could get access to the cabinet meeting if they were bored. Or have their proxy sit in... Have you ever been to Thailand... do you know how much power these large corporations have?

 

Last time i checked coups were illegal, so yes they do have corrupt and illegal acts taken for their benefit.

How does a coup benefit a political party?   What you're sure of without proof is irrelevant, when you have some let us know.

10 minutes ago, Becker said:

Well, as one of the "democracy loving" bad boys on this forum i tell you: Bring it on! Ask the questions we apparently avoid like the plague and I will answer them.

In return you will then answer some questions I have asked you junta fanboys for the last 3+ years, questions which you all run away from like little girls.

Deal?

 

done

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Stick to Thailand Halloween. It is what it is and not against the law and the people still get the majority vote. 

The sooner it is made illegal for MPs to accept outside payment/gifts, the sooner we will have something approaching a real democracy. I don't expect you to support the move.

2 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

No, but don't pretend there is a big difference. In most cases Companies, individuals finance political parties as they feel the policies are beneficial for them or they can influence future policies to be beneficial to them. I presume in most cases these doners want to remain behind the scenes and have no wish to be the face of the party or be involved on a day to day level. I don't really see what a big difference it makes. Both are being funded with the aim of having influence and benefit in the future.

 

I am sure many of the big doners have a say in who will lead the party, and if the threat of funding being stopped was raised i am equally sure they could have a say in a change of leadership.

The difference is in degree. Donor influence is one thing, but no donor would have the final say as here. They would not expect or get access to cabinet meetings or blatantly corrupt and illegal laws to be passed for their benefit.

Just now, smutcakes said:

Wow big difference. One openly being front a center of the party for everyone to see, the others hiding in the shadows. Yeah great example lol

Is that how they do it in your country?  the biggest donor gets to be PM and dictate policy.

13 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Whats the difference between various businesses and private individuals funding a party, i presume for future benefits for themselves, than another private individual funding a party?

Do you have trouble with reading or comprehension? The difference was right there in front of you.

"..... none of whom insist on taking the top seat and dictating policy, or even be allowed illegal access to cabinet meetings."

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

By what evidence do you have that Yingluck's rice pledge program was intended NOT to help rich and middle-income farmers? The program was based solely on the amount of rice pledged that seems to be equality-based. In fact politically, it may be smart to "help" rich and middle-income farmers who can more likely provide financial support for election campaigns!

 

On the other hand, the rice farming cash subsidies provided by the Abhisit and Prayut regimes were/are farm size-based. The larger the farm, the larger the subsidy albeit limitation on land size. With these cash subsidies NO rice need to be produced! Subsidies are also paid in effect for idle or alternate crop fields.

 

But I have been critical of all regimes creating a "hodge-podge" of specific-timed crop subsidies to improve farmer's sustainability - most of which seem to fall short according to the small farmers. When instead there should be a national agricultural welfare program with graduated assistance based on operational annual income (EBIT) from farming.

What evidence? Innumerable campaign speeches by Yingluk et al alleging that the pledging scheme was to help the 'poorest' farmers. Later this was modified to 'poor' farmers, and in her defence both terms were dropped, probably because it is obvious it did no such thing.

A policy to estimated to cost a huge amount of state money could be politically acceptable if it was to help the poor/poorest. Giving state funds to the well off and wealthy to buy their votes and elicit campaign contributions is not, and many would consider it corrupt.

The limitation on farm size is the key factor, why belittle it? Do you think there are wealthy farmers working a few rai?

You could give farmers the shirt off your back and they would still moan it's not enough. They bury farmers two feet down so they can still stick their hand out.

1 minute ago, Denim said:

 

Democracy in Thailand will never advance while the military repeatedly stage coups and the rich continue to evade justice.

 

Yingluk will be found guilty and given a suspended sentence and her finances will take a big hit.

Very poor attempt at answering basic questions, really just a diversion. OTOH at least you made some attempt, your democracy loving mates will avoid them like the plague.

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Who funds the Democrat party? Who funded Suthep and his mob?

 

They seem to have plenty of money to buy votes, hold rallies, etc. If you try to tell me that they survive on donations from grannies in Nakon Nowhere, I won't believe it.

 

The only difference between political parties in Thailand is that we know where the money comes from in one case, but not any others.

 

For starters, Democrat MPs pay a regular levy of their salary to the party. You may remember Tarit tried to prosecute them for doing so by auto payment. Different to accepting what in most democracies would be considered illegal and a bribe. Then, I would assume they are supported by various businesses and private individuals, none of whom insist on taking the top seat and dictating policy, or even be allowed illegal access to cabinet meetings.

It appears that you can't see the Democrats follow a familiar funding model, or just won't see the problems with buying a political party.

Why should a defendant's popularity be of concern to the court?

Why pander to those who support criminals demanding they escape prosecution in the name of "reconciliation"?

What advance in Thai democracy is there if the ballot box over-rides the law?