Another administrative/judicial styled coup. Excellent. Maybe Thais are evolving politically.

So she should be above the law, just because she's a politician?

Yep that'll work out just great.

What is the law? Can a PM be charged with negligence because people below her were corrupt even though she wasn't found to be directly involved? I'm not sure that she shouldn't be removed, but it sets a precedent and people will rightly be asking why previous PMs, including Abhisit, weren't investigated when ministers were found to be involved in corruption.

Wow. Good idea. They could remove Obama for healthcare, or Tony blair for minimum wage or or or.

Negligence in politics is judged at the ballot box. Of course you need a grown up media. Hmmmm.

Eventually thailand with grow up, until then sit back and watch the mess

Negligence in office is judged by ethics committees, courts of various designations and responsibilities, attorneys general, occasionally 'special prosecutors', and parliamentary impeachment trials.

It's the 8th case filled against Yingluck and non of those cases has been solved?

My friend asked me: How would there be corruption in the rice-pledging when the paddy is still in warehouses and not yet sold?

Had the payment been pocketed by some government officials that's why there's no more payment to go to the farmers?

It's the 8th case filled against Yingluck and non of those cases has been solved?

With the NACC dealing with 25,000 cases of corruption, it's not difficult to see that things take time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/us-thailand-protest-idUSBRE9A60DM20131107

Another administrative/judicial styled coup. Excellent. Maybe Thais are evolving politically.

So she should be above the law, just because she's a politician?

Yep that'll work out just great.

What is the law? Can a PM be charged with negligence because people below her were corrupt even though she wasn't found to be directly involved? I'm not sure that she shouldn't be removed, but it sets a precedent and people will rightly be asking why previous PMs, including Abhisit, weren't investigated when ministers were found to be involved in corruption.

Wow. Good idea. They could remove Obama for healthcare, or Tony blair for minimum wage or or or.

Negligence in politics is judged at the ballot box. Of course you need a grown up media. Hmmmm.

Eventually thailand with grow up, until then sit back and watch the mess

She was chairwoman and tasked to oversee. Then yes she is responsible and should be charged.

As a PM it would be harder but in this case she was directly involved and there are plenty of precedents in the world where cases like this have lead to convictions.

If she was not the chairwoman it would have been harder. She dug her own grave. Now not stop with her get some democrats that were corrupt too and then some PTP the winners would be the thai ppl.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Narrative (my brackets):

The government once announced that the sale of stockpiled rice would be done under a G2G (government to government) arrangement via a Chinese company called GSSG Import & Export Corporation, whose sole appointed agent in Thailand is Mr. Natthanit Sojirakul, a.k.a. 'Palm' who is the personal assistant of Udonthani MP Rapheephan Phongrueangrong, wife of red shirt leader Arisman Phongrueangrong.

Mr. Natthanit then in turn issued a letter formally appointing as his representative Mr. Nimol Rakdee, a.k.a. Joe, who is the right hand man of Sia Piang.

It was Mr. Nimol Rakdee's job to purchase rice from the government under the G2G scheme via the Department of Foreign Trade. Sia Piang then takes the rice which was sold at a price below market rates due to the fact that there was no public auction as per G2G regulations, and sells them to the rice mills at market rates.

The government loses money once because Sia Piang pockets the difference between the G2G price and the market rates. The rice mills then sell the rice back to the government, causing the government to lose money twice because the government is obliged to buy the rice at 40% above the market rate.

It is probably not negligence or coincidence that causes the government to lose money in this way. More likely because Sia Piang (circled) is a close associate of Thaksin.

Selling the rice under a G2G scheme (to avoid a public tender) is actually a scheme to sell the rice to corporations belonging to people close to Thaksin Shinawatra.

And don't forget, the money that was lost two-fold in this way is none other than our very own tax money.