Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’

[SheungWan]

25 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

But IF the snap election would have netted enough seats in Parliament, this would have meant implicit voter approval. Democracy and all.

Mr Implicit.

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Mr Implicit.

We can't have those pesky Thai people have a say can't we. Much better to have a dodgy general running the show...

[SheungWan]

14 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Mr Implicit.

 

10 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

We can't have those pesky Thai people have a say can't we. Much better to have a dodgy general running the show...

Mr Implicit says Vote Lunchbox.

Edited October 20, 2017 by SheungWan

[MaxYakov]

On 10/19/2017 at 9:43 AM, quandow said:

I don't know the rules here - does this mean she's free to come back?

I would say absolutely free to return, providing her passport is valid to catch a flight (or Toyota Camry or whatever). I wouldn't be expecting her any time soon, however. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by MaxYakov

[Chris Lawrence]

Not worth getting worked up about. This is not about guilt or innocence. More about public shaming. But has it worked? The great Chairman Mao was good at this. He got some people that ashamed of themselves they committed suicide. People in China feared walking near high rise buildings in case a body fell on them. There have been a few cases of suicide in Thailand over the last few years. 

 

But the General is no Mao.

 

These people in Thailand are all from the same pod. They went to school together, then to military college. Mr T's mum used to car pool with the General's mum.

 

A lot of long winded diatribe. Its a race to get people to like the person in power. More so, look how important I am.

[Becker]

27 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Mr Implicit says Vote Lunchbox.

Not what the international community characterized the elections which led to several Shin governments but why let that fact get in the way of a little "but, but, but Thaksin" BS, right?

[djjamie]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:44 AM, webfact said:

Although the prosecutor had proved the rice-pledging scheme was plagued with corruption, there was no evidence that Yingluck had benefited from it

 

She was elected after promising it. It certainly benefited her. If a monkey offered 500 baht a ton more than yingluck the monkey would have been the next PM. 

 

Prayut would then be trying to get that monkey of his back!

[Dogmatix]

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

But IF the snap election would have netted enough seats in Parliament, this would have meant implicit voter approval. Democracy and all. 

 

 

I disagree that a win for PT in a snap election would have meant implicit voter approval of the Amnesty Bill that Yingluck chose to leave dormant, rather than kill it off once and for all.  She said explicitly that her government's intention was not to revive it,  even though she declined to kill off properly, giving an excuse about the possible impropriety of withdrawing a Bill that had already been sent for Royal approval, despite the fact that it had already been ditched by the Senate and could no longer be signed into law at that time. Thus voters who believed what she said might have been against the Bill and she would not necessarily have gained implicit voter approval to revive the Bill.  The fact that the red shirt leaders were vehemently against the Amnesty Bill makes clear that she would not have had an implicit mandate from a very large and important part of her support group.   

 

Anyway Thaksin's choice was to leave the Amnesty Bill as a time bomb ticking away but unfortunately he was blown up by his own bomb. 

 

[sjaak327]

34 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

I disagree that a win for PT in a snap election would have meant implicit voter approval of the Amnesty Bill that Yingluck chose to leave dormant, rather than kill it off once and for all.  She said explicitly that her government's intention was not to revive it,  even though she declined to kill off properly, giving an excuse about the possible impropriety of withdrawing a Bill that had already been sent for Royal approval, despite the fact that it had already been ditched by the Senate and could no longer be signed into law at that time. Thus voters who believed what she said might have been against the Bill and she would not necessarily have gained implicit voter approval to revive the Bill.  The fact that the red shirt leaders were vehemently against the Amnesty Bill makes clear that she would not have had an implicit mandate from a very large and important part of her support group.   

 

Anyway Thaksin's choice was to leave the Amnesty Bill as a time bomb ticking away but unfortunately he was blown up by his own bomb. 

 

Well, surely if someone strongly disagrees with the amnesty bill as such, that person would not vote again for the party that brought it to table, regardless whether the bill might or might not be re-introduced and regardless of any promises made by said party. But alas Suthep and Prayuth apparently didn't like the prospect of elections, as the latter illegally disrupted them and the former illegally prevented them.

 

Such a shame, maybe just maybe this time, it would actually have worked, and Abhisit might have been able to form a government. But alas, the long time goal was the constitution as it now has been 'approved', all the rest is just a smoke screen. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by sjaak327

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

 

Mr Implicit says Vote Lunchbox.

Mr Explicit brought out the tanks and rolled over the voters and earned himself, family and his cronies unrestrained feedings at the trough.

[SheungWan]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Mr Explicit brought out the tanks and rolled over the voters and earned himself, family and his cronies unrestrained feedings at the trough.

Exclusive rights to the trough are reserved for Mr Thaksin.

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The one thing consistent in the Yingluck government was that it never pretended to be anything other than a cipher for Thaksin. No coup if she played it straight but that was never going to happen. Thaksin was going to mess it up as he always does. From Day 1.

Right, and... apparently the Thai electorate agreed. Thaksin could only mess it up IF the electorate allows him and his proxies to run the country. But I know democracy and how it is supposed to work, is so much worse than a dodgy general that grabs power and tells everyone "I can do whatever".

 

Hillarious. 

[chainarong]

Hmm eight judges could meet the fate like  many others before them , just disapeared or wake up dead in the morning, like Bill the park ranger or the human rights lawyer, the Australian accountant and dozens of others through the years..................................................  

Edited October 20, 2017 by chainarong

[Dogmatix]

16 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Well, surely if someone strongly disagrees with the amnesty bill as such, that person would not vote again for the party that brought it to table, regardless whether the bill might or might not be re-introduced and regardless of any promises made by said party. But alas Suthep and Prayuth apparently didn't like the prospect of elections, as the latter illegally disrupted them and the former illegally prevented them.

 

Such a shame, maybe just maybe this time, it would actually have worked, and Abhisit might have been able to form a government. But alas, the long time goal was the constitution as it now has been 'approved', all the rest is just a smoke screen. 

 

No, you missed the point.  Her traditional support base would probably have voted for her party anyway but many would have hoped that she would abide by her word not to revive the Bill.  In that respect a electoral win would not necessarily have been an  implicit mandate to revive it at all.  It would have been clearer to have killed the Bill in line with her stated intentions not to revive it while she had the chance.   

 

I don't disagree there were forces working against democracy but my point is that PT was so beholden to Thaksin and his narrow personal interests, rather than the interests of its broad membership that it more or less fell on its own sword.  I am not saying the coup could absolutely been avoided but it might have been or at least could have been made a lot more difficult. 

 

Just think back to those days in 2011, 2012 and 2013 when Yingluck seemed unassailable and Prayuth was happy to pose for photo opportunities with her as the loyal army chief.  She even got through the chaos of the 2011 floods without too much damage.  Its tempting to only remember the Yingluck government in terms of the last 4-5 months after the Amnesty Bill bomb exploded. 

[Dogmatix]

I liken Thaksin to racing driver who has a great car and team but always wants to push the car and the team beyond their limits.  The cars get destroyed and people in his team get badly hurt but he and his family are always safe.  

 

Since he was already wealthy when he came to power, he could have done a lot of good and introduced major reforms to ensure clean, transparent government for the benefit of the Thai people in general. It is a great shame that he chose to run dirty governments instead and promote its own narrow personal interests instead. If he had not run dirty governments which in turn encouraged him to dismantle the checks and balances in the 1997 Constitution and act like a dictator, he might have stayed in power for as long as he liked. Absent the disturbances caused by his divisiveness and corruption, the military would have left him alone, as long as he left it alone to indulge in its own brand of corruption.     

[tomta]

58 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

Just think back to those days in 2011, 2012 and 2013 when Yingluck seemed unassailable

Just not true. Please read my earlier post

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, Dogmatix said:

 

No, you missed the point.  Her traditional support base would probably have voted for her party anyway but many would have hoped that she would abide by her word not to revive the Bill.  In that respect a electoral win would not necessarily have been an  implicit mandate to revive it at all.  It would have been clearer to have killed the Bill in line with her stated intentions not to revive it while she had the chance.   

 

I don't disagree there were forces working against democracy but my point is that PT was so beholden to Thaksin and his narrow personal interests, rather than the interests of its broad membership that it more or less fell on its own sword.  I am not saying the coup could absolutely been avoided but it might have been or at least could have been made a lot more difficult. 

 

Just think back to those days in 2011, 2012 and 2013 when Yingluck seemed unassailable and Prayuth was happy to pose for photo opportunities with her as the loyal army chief.  She even got through the chaos of the 2011 floods without too much damage.  Its tempting to only remember the Yingluck government in terms of the last 4-5 months after the Amnesty Bill bomb exploded. 

I understood your point, but don't agree with it. And just remember that the ability to let the law linger has been offered by the coup mongers of 2006, it was their constitution after all.

 

It is very clear there were forces that wanted Thaksin (Yingluck, Samak) out. The fact is, that it was not his corruption or dodgy way of governing that brought the sword down, it is the fact that he found a way to appeal to enough voters to actually make a difference, the people behind the latest two coups simply don't like this, as it interferes with their grab on power they traditionally had. 

 

The first tried with a partially appointed senate and crazy checks and balances, so the latest one has now taken the bar quite a bit further, and made elections really inconsequential. Or as Abhisit said (remember he traditionally supported the other side) "a retreat from democracy". 

 

Personally I believe they would have probably tried the same things, even IF Thaksin would be less corrupt. 

[Ruffian Dick]

On 10/18/2017 at 6:21 PM, ezzra said:

Maybe so, but being a PM you need a whole host of other qualities about you

other than intention, responsibility and accountability immediatly comes to minds

 followed by duty of care and need to exhibit fair disclosure of

actions just to keep one honest...

So glad you didn't say "president".

[The Deerhunter]

18 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Did you negligently omitted the rest of what he said? 

 

The act of negligence alone did not count as an offence in the laws cited by the Attorney-General, Pison pointed out.

I did not neglect it Eric.  But I disagree with it like all the other judges apparently did.  If I neglect to follow the speed limits and I am caught speeding being negligent is not an excuse.  It is part if not the whole of the offence.  Are you saying we can all selectively neglect our legal and lawwful responsibilities and expect to get off Scott free? RUBBISH.

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to Bangkok Post as well as links to other disallowed sites has been removed as well as the replies.  

 

Some other off topic posts were removed as well. 

[LannaGuy]

19 hours ago, robblok said:

No 

 

You don't get it they are still civil. Just in your mind they are all military. Because they rule not in your favor. It must hurt to be constantly reminded that your views are not the right views in the eyes of the law. That she is just a common criminal nothing more. 

 

Then you really have not the ability to understand nuanced debate and so no point continuing. You never went to Uni right?

[barefootbangkok]

22 hours ago, robblok said:

No the Thai junta should resign if it is proven that they willingly allowed corruption to take place and were informed about said corruption. Don't twist it keep the facts clear.

And possibly if they explain how one of their leaders has $1 billion in foreign accounts, the Thai treasury has shrunk from 770 billion to 70 billion baht and the Thai navy has strangely obtained several "badly needed" submarines to sit along it's lonely aircraft carrier that has no aircraft.

Wait for it, wait for it!  How about buying some new jets for the aircraft carrier??? Nah that wouldn't make sense. LOL

Edited October 21, 2017 by barefootbangkok
Added word

[LannaGuy]

I see today:

 

Gen Anupong, who signed a controversial procurement proposal for handheld speed guns worth almost B600m, says he was not aware of the pricing of the devices.

 

"not aware of the pricing" so off to court then?  5 years?   you few Juntas lovers who slam Yingluck for "not knowing" should be all over this one.

[binjalin]

34 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

I did not neglect it Eric.  But I disagree with it like all the other judges apparently did.  If I neglect to follow the speed limits and I am caught speeding being negligent is not an excuse.  It is part if not the whole of the offence.  Are you saying we can all selectively neglect our legal and lawwful responsibilities and expect to get off Scott free? RUBBISH.

"parliamentary privilege" passed you buy then?  that say's "if you speed whilst in elected office it shall not be an offence" (not literal)  

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Then you really have not the ability to understand nuanced debate and so no point continuing. You never went to Uni right?

Of course i went there mate, I guess the standard in the UK is low that you have such warped visions. If you don't even know the difference between a military court and a civil court something is wrong with your education. The fact that a junta is in place does not magically change a civilian court to a military court. The judges were already working as judges under a democratic government. 

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Of course i went there mate, I guess the standard in the UK is low that you have such warped visions. If you don't even know the difference between a military court and a civil court something is wrong with your education. The fact that a junta is in place does not magically change a civilian court to a military court. The judges were already working as judges under a democratic government. 

 

You have misunderstood my argument through stubbornness or ignorance and you continue to do so.

 

Any "justice" system that works in a military dictatorship has no credibility.

 

YOU cherry pick which cases you "like" and which you don't for political reasons. You don't like Red Bull, Kho Tao, Mushroom pickers, Facebook and the rest but you like this case. Hypocrisy at it's worse.

 

You read about your hero Gen Anupong today?  "didn't know"  about 600m price of speed guns?  what you got to say about that?

[robblok]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

 

You have misunderstood my argument through stubbornness or ignorance and you continue to do so.

 

Any "justice" system that works in a military dictatorship has no credibility.

 

YOU cherry pick which cases you "like" and which you don't for political reasons. You don't like Red Bull, Kho Tao, Mushroom pickers, Facebook and the rest but you like this case. Hypocrisy at it's worse.

 

You read about your hero Gen Anupong today?  "didn't know"  about 600m price of speed guns?  what you got to say about that?

If someone is a hypocrite its you.

 

I have often commented on Red Bull (for instance when they made it so that Thaksin cases could go on without him something i like i said should apply to red bull too, and many other times did i comment about it), the musroom pickers, Kho Tao i stay away from as I am not sure about the case. So again your lying. Guess they teach that at red indoctrination school. 

 

Ah the old remark.. any justice system that works in a military dictatorship has no credability.. prove to me the judges where threatened and so on.. if so why did one vote different. It looks a lot like all is in order. You just cant accept YL and her minions lost.

 

As for Anupong, i havent read it I don't know the guy don't like him. Told you countless times I like the junta a bit more then the Shins but don't like either of them while you clearly love the Shins at least YL. 

 

If they can make a case against Anupong then do so, in the past we have seen this countless times under all governments buying stuff at inflated prices.  I can only say its disgusting because it costs the Thai taxpayer money that could be used better. I seen this during YL and now a few times under the junta. (other junta fails include not checking nephew of Prayut and his brother). I have condemned those too but you keep saying YL is innocent.. while she is not. Your so blinded you can't accept your side is corrupt and gets punished for it. I accept but hate there is corruption under the junta. Your so blind as not to accept the misdeeds of your side. 

 

 

[binjalin]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

Of course i went there mate, I guess the standard in the UK is low that you have such warped visions. If you don't even know the difference between a military court and a civil court something is wrong with your education. The fact that a junta is in place does not magically change a civilian court to a military court. The judges were already working as judges under a democratic government. 

Robblok he is arguing that, although some were same judges, thing have changed and the system has always been considered very establishment and very yellow. There is no jury system in Thailand nor any 'precedent' in law courts. It is very much a failed system even without the Junta in control (again). You might reject this argument but you might find it more fruitful to do that on the specifics not "you don't know the difference between a civil and military court'.  I think he does.

 

My opinion is that any system (Police, Law, Education) is bound to CHANGE under a Junta (same as many judges were the same before the rise of Hitler and continued when he was in power - as did the Police etc.). The argument that they were 'there before' is weak. There have been many, many cases recently where 'friends' have been allowed to go free or even 'nothing to prosecute' like the amulet seller's 20m 'commission' for what?  or Abhisit not held to account for killings? or Suthep for disrupting elections?  your considerations are 'convenient' at best and disingenuous at worst. I like many of your posts but you seem blinded by this issue.

[Dogmatix]

The facts of the case are clear. Yingluck could have taken proper steps to investigate the credible allegations of corruption from officials in government agencies who  bravely doing their jobs to protect the public interest. Instead she chose to make a mockery of their work by allowing the guilty to investigate and whitewash themselves.  That is proven and is a clear violation of Section 157 of the Penal Code, regardless of whether Judge Pison chose to argue the semantics of the wording used by the OAG in citing the relevant laws in the indictment.  That is mere sophistry which was set aside and ignored by the other 8 judges.  It is important for the judges to refer back to the Penal Code itself.

 

What is not proven but is extremely probable is that Yingluck actually knew all about this scam. It is extremely likely that her brother engineered it with his close associate in crime Sia Piang, who drew a 48 year sentence for his role and is currently on the lam.  Of the various corruption schemes engineered by Thaksin during his sister's premiership, this one would have netted nearly US$200 million and must have been one of the largest, if not the largest.  Boonsong only got commission of US$5-6 million from it and Phum and the other signers obviously less than him,  So only about US$10 million was paid to the signers, leaving about US$190 million for Sia Piang and whoever masterminded it with him.  Even Sia Piang was only a functionary, albeit an important one, who provided the logistics and the fake representatives (Thai drivers) of the Chinese state enterprises and organised the Thai cashier cheques instead of the normal letters of credit  If we assume that Sia Piang's share was US$50-70 million, there is still a huge amount of money with the mastermind whoever that was.  It would have been quite difficult for her not to have noticed such a large sum of money moving around, although that is not proven.

 

In a Western democracy, Yingluck would have been forced to resign by her own party when the scandal first emerged and the government would probably have collapsed.  But PT is not a Western style political party.  It is more like a business personally owned and controlled by her brother.  So there was no need to resign.  There is no point in trying to use Western standards to judge Thailand concluding that anyone elected by the people can steal whatever they like or allow their relatives' friends to steal whatever they like.

 

Thailand doesn't have Western standards of political ethics.  It has Section 157 and the military instead. Like it or lump it. I don't know how many generations it will take to develop a Western style democracy, probably never, but until that happens, there is no point in saying it should comply with Western standards for electing leaders but those leaders don't need to comply with Western standards when they get power.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dogmatix

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

The facts of the case are clear. Yingluck could have taken proper steps to investigate the credible allegations of corruption from officials in government agencies who  bravely doing their jobs to protect the public interest. Instead she chose to make a mockery of their work by allowing the guilty to investigate and whitewash themselves.  That is proven and is a clear violation of Section 157 of the Penal Code, regardless of whether Judge Pison chose to argue the semantics of the wording used by the OAG in citing the relevant laws in the indictment.  That is mere sophistry which was set aside and ignored by the other 8 judges.  It is important for the judges to refer back to the Penal Code itself.

 

What is not proven but is extremely probable is that Yingluck actually knew all about this scam. It is extremely likely that her brother engineered it with his close associate in crime Sia Piang, who drew a 48 year sentence for his role and is currently on the lam.  Of the various corruption schemes engineered by Thaksin during his sister's premiership, this one would have netted nearly US$200 million for the masterminds and must have been one of the largest, if not the largest.  Boonsong only got commission of US$5-6 million from it and Phum and the other signers obviously less than him,  So about US$10 million was paid to the signers, leaving about US$190 million for Sia Piang and whoever masterminded it with him.  Even Sia Piang was only a functionary, albeit an important one, who provided the logistics and the fake representatives (Thai drivers) of the Chinese state enterprises and organised the Thai cashier cheques instead of the normal letters of credit  If we assume that Sia Piang's share was US$50-70 million, there is still a huge amount of money with the mastermind whoever that was.  It would have been quite difficult for her not to have noticed such a large sum of money moving around, although that is not proven.

 

In a Western democracy, Yingluck would have been forced to resign by her own party when the scandal first emerged and the government would probably have collapsed.  But PT is not a Western style political party.  It is more like a business personally owned and controlled by her brother.  So there was no need to resign.  There is no point in trying to use Western standards to judge Thailand concluding that anyone elected by the people can steal whatever they like or allow their relatives' friends to steal whatever they like.

 

Thailand doesn't have Western standards of political ethics.  It has Section 157 and the military instead. Like it or lump it. I don't know how many generations it will take to develop a Western style democracy, probably never, but until that happens, there is no point in saying it should comply with Western standards for electing leaders but those leaders don't need to comply with Western standards when they get power.

 

 

 

 

 

Like x 10.000

 

To bad the red supporters here won't agree with it. The case was clear and she has been convicted for it.