PM Yingluck warned by NACC she may lose an important opportunity

[zakk9]

Let's see. Suthep has refused to appear to acknowledge his murder indictment since last December -- he's too busy? What are the consequences for him? Absolutely nothing I would say. Whether a court or an administrative agency, as is the NACC, how are the proceedings prejudiced by having a lawyer acknowledge the charges on behalf of the accused when appearing in person could be a security issue? To threaten the accused with due process rights under the circumstances is beyond any type of logical reasoning.

Suthep has resigned from the National Assembly and is formally only an ordinary citizen. Yingluck is the democratically elected prime minister, which has been pointed out by her supporter repeatedly, and is responsible to the nation in every way thinkable.

So, it's ok for an ordinary citizen to skip out on a murder indictment? On the other hand, I am very encouraged that you acknowledge that Yingluck is the democratically elected PM. As such, it isn't ok for her to be represented at the NACC by an attorney without prejudicing her due process rights? Does the NACC realize what's happening in Bangkok?

You have to ask Suthep about that. I'm neither his mother nor his supporter, and it's irrelevant. If the prime minister or president of your home country refused to meet investigators during a corruption case, would you respect that?

[zakk9]

Fortunately we can be sure the NACC is the one institution that is squeaky clean !

There is an old saying

Quies custodiet ipsos custodes

Freely translated who shall ovesee these magistrates.

It was lovely to learn their spokesman say the would never be swayed,though I'm not sure the article siad never ever.

While the individual scandals bribes,nepotism reveal instances of corruption the elephnat in the room is that a tradition of impunity has created a society that condones and often admires corrupt people.This is not unique to Thailand.

I suggest that you present some evidence that NACC is corrupted.

[icommunity]

Bringing up the Amnesty Bill and the 'slashing budget' issues and linked them to the issues raised by caretaker PM only create more questions and that the NACC 'judges' have shown their double standard in the administration of the rule of law. They have no interest in independence, conducting investigation transparently and that they were guilty of conflict of interest.

And you know this precisely how? Have you met senior NACC civil servants, as I have?

Please show solid evidence of your assertions, not just your assumptions and prejudices that dance around inside your head ...

Have I met senior NACC civil servant? Why should I tell you like the way you claimed you had?

What assertions I made and that you wanted evidence for them?

The perception and the more questions surfaced that the NACC 'judges' have shown their double standard in the administration of the rule of law, that they have no interest in independence, that they don't conducting investigation transparently and that they were guilty of conflict of interest are of public interest and scrutiny now.

BTW, you quoted only part of my comment and it became completely out of context. Not smart at all.

In other words: You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You???? Another unintelligent comment and rubbish.

[Trembly]

Let's see. Suthep has refused to appear to acknowledge his murder indictment since last December -- he's too busy? What are the consequences for him? Absolutely nothing I would say. Whether a court or an administrative agency, as is the NACC, how are the proceedings prejudiced by having a lawyer acknowledge the charges on behalf of the accused when appearing in person could be a security issue? To threaten the accused with due process rights under the circumstances is beyond any type of logical reasoning.

She can assign anybody she wants to acknowledge the charges but she has to appear in person if she wants to copy the documents.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Edited February 26, 2014 by Trembly

[zakk9]

Have I met senior NACC civil servant? Why should I tell you like the way you claimed you had?

What assertions I made and that you wanted evidence for them?

The perception and the more questions surfaced that the NACC 'judges' have shown their double standard in the administration of the rule of law, that they have no interest in independence, that they don't conducting investigation transparently and that they were guilty of conflict of interest are of public interest and scrutiny now.

BTW, you quoted only part of my comment and it became completely out of context. Not smart at all.

In other words: You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You???? Another unintelligent comment and rubbish.

From you, I take that as a compliment.

There are as far as I know no judges at NACC btw. They only have the power to investigate and prosecute. It's a commission, not a court of law. It says so in their name: National Anti-Corruption Commission

[pookiki]

Let's see. Suthep has refused to appear to acknowledge his murder indictment since last December -- he's too busy? What are the consequences for him? Absolutely nothing I would say. Whether a court or an administrative agency, as is the NACC, how are the proceedings prejudiced by having a lawyer acknowledge the charges on behalf of the accused when appearing in person could be a security issue? To threaten the accused with due process rights under the circumstances is beyond any type of logical reasoning.

Suthep has resigned from the National Assembly and is formally only an ordinary citizen. Yingluck is the democratically elected prime minister, which has been pointed out by her supporter repeatedly, and is responsible to the nation in every way thinkable.

So, it's ok for an ordinary citizen to skip out on a murder indictment? On the other hand, I am very encouraged that you acknowledge that Yingluck is the democratically elected PM. As such, it isn't ok for her to be represented at the NACC by an attorney without prejudicing her due process rights? Does the NACC realize what's happening in Bangkok?

You have to ask Suthep about that. I'm neither his mother nor his supporter, and it's irrelevant. If the prime minister or president of your home country refused to meet investigators during a corruption case, would you respect that?

If the trial or administrative was actually underway, that would be a different matter. But this is only a pro forma issue of acknowledging the charges. Sending an attorney has nothing to do with respect or disrespect, it has to do with a person's right to have an attorney act on their behalf. Under the circumstances, I see nothing wrong with it. Nor would I see anything wrong with Suthep having an attorney acknowledge the murder indictment. Both are pro forma issues.

[zakk9]

If the trial or administrative was actually underway, that would be a different matter. But this is only a pro forma issue of acknowledging the charges. Sending an attorney has nothing to do with respect or disrespect, it has to do with a person's right to have an attorney act on their behalf. Under the circumstances, I see nothing wrong with it. Nor would I see anything wrong with Suthep having an attorney acknowledge the murder indictment. Both are pro forma issues.

I prefer to leave the legal issue to the Thai lawyers, but if I was her, I would meet the investigators. That way, she would gain some respect. As long as she hides away, she will be looked upon as a coward by an increasing number of people. A prime minister needs respect to govern, but it might be too late for her anyway.

[pookiki]

The NACC spokesman disclosed that he was approached by former Pheu Thai MPs asking whether the commission could be lenient with her. He said he told the ex-MPs that the NACC would not be an independent organization if it did not do its job properly after having been intimidated.

Interesting how there are no comments about this!!!!!!!

Seems to me the PTP is trying to be a little heavy handed and possibly threatening the NACC? Just a thought. Now you can blast me all you want.

I think there is a significant difference in speaking to a 'spokesperson' than speaking to an individual who is a commission member. The spokesperson can play no role in the eventual outcome of the case. On the other had, if he feels that the former MPs acted improperly, he should file a complaint with the appropriate authorities, right?

[Mister Fixit]

Holy Jesus! Don't hit these red raggers with the truth front on, they won't be able to get back on their bar-stool after falling off.

Why? Too much Lao Khao?

[Mister Fixit]

Can they actually strip a defendants right to a copy of evidence and exhibits that are going to used against a person. Don't people hire lawyers to collect and examine these documents on their behalf?

He explains that under Thai law it seems only the accused as the right to physically copy documents to be used as evidence against them.

Bizarre - can you imagine YL standing in line with a fist full of 20 bahts waiting for her turn at the photo copier??

But there again, this ain't Kansas Toto.

I don't think photocopier machines take 20 baht NOTES here, maybe 5 and 10 baht coins, 2 or 1's if she's lucky ...

However, what would happen, I suspect, is that Yinglack would have to attend in person to acknowledge the charges and take delivery of the document bundle (or at least her lawyers would - and bring a sack truck too, cos I've seen some of these document bundles for other cases being trucked out and there's been a few guys and a few trucks ...)

She would then arrange through her lawyers to have that bundle copied or the NACC would copy them and charge her for it. That's what would happen in the UK anyway ... But as you say, this ain't Kansas, nor is it London

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mister Fixit

[Mister Fixit]

The NACC spokesman disclosed that he was approached by former Pheu Thai MPs asking whether the commission could be lenient with her. He said he told the ex-MPs that the NACC would not be an independent organization if it did not do its job properly after having been intimidated.

Interesting how there are no comments about this!!!!!!!

Seems to me the PTP is trying to be a little heavy handed and possibly threatening the NACC? Just a thought. Now you can blast me all you want.

I think there is a significant difference in speaking to a 'spokesperson' than speaking to an individual who is a commission member. The spokesperson can play no role in the eventual outcome of the case. On the other had, if he feels that the former MPs acted improperly, he should file a complaint with the appropriate authorities, right?

If I'm not mistaken, the spokesman in the article was also the chief investigating officer.

Edit - yes, he is both the spokesman and the head investigating honcho **, and I was also inaccurate in an earlier post so stand corrected.

Mr Vicha Mahakhun, NACC spokesman and head of the team ** investigating Ms Yingluck’s role in the fake rice deal with China, said today (Tuesday) that the right to copy the documents was exclusive to the accused, in this case the prime minister, and that she could not assign anybody or a lawyer to do on her behalf although she could assign someone to acknowledge the charge.

So she doesn't have to come and acknowledge the charge, but she DOES have to copy the documents herself and cannot assign someone else to do it. She WILL have to stand at a copier and stick in her 10 bahts - and that should cost a bit as I am sure the bundle is the size of a van.

Further, he said in the same article -

'The NACC spokesman ** disclosed that he was approached by former Pheu Thai MPs asking whether the commission could be lenient with her. He said he told the ex-MPs that the NACC would not be an independent organization if it did not do its job properly after having been intimidated.'

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mister Fixit

[pookiki]

The NACC spokesman disclosed that he was approached by former Pheu Thai MPs asking whether the commission could be lenient with her. He said he told the ex-MPs that the NACC would not be an independent organization if it did not do its job properly after having been intimidated.

Interesting how there are no comments about this!!!!!!!

Seems to me the PTP is trying to be a little heavy handed and possibly threatening the NACC? Just a thought. Now you can blast me all you want.

I think there is a significant difference in speaking to a 'spokesperson' than speaking to an individual who is a commission member. The spokesperson can play no role in the eventual outcome of the case. On the other had, if he feels that the former MPs acted improperly, he should file a complaint with the appropriate authorities, right?

If I'm not mistaken, the spokesman in the article was also the chief investigating officer.

Edit - yes, he is both the spokesman and the head investigating honcho **, and I was also inaccurate in an earlier post so stand corrected.

Mr Vicha Mahakhun, NACC spokesman and head of the team ** investigating Ms Yingluck’s role in the fake rice deal with China, said today (Tuesday) that the right to copy the documents was exclusive to the accused, in this case the prime minister, and that she could not assign anybody or a lawyer to do on her behalf although she could assign someone to acknowledge the charge.

So she doesn't have to come and acknowledge the charge, but she DOES have to copy the documents herself and cannot assign someone else to do it. She WILL have to stand at a copier and stick in her 10 bahts - and that should cost a bit as I am sure the bundle is the size of a van.

Further, he said in the same article -

'The NACC spokesman ** disclosed that he was approached by former Pheu Thai MPs asking whether the commission could be lenient with her. He said he told the ex-MPs that the NACC would not be an independent organization if it did not do its job properly after having been intimidated.'

Yes, you are right and he should file a complaint against those person(s) who attempted to influence him. But I have to say that I find it a bit strange that only a person accused has the right to copy documents. Usually, the prosecution (or the administrative body in this case) has a duty to turn over the evidence on which it relied to bring the charges to the accused and/or his/her attorney. On the other had, if the accused 'must' copy the evidence, is the only time this can be done is when the charges are acknowledged? Again, a bit strange -- but TIT.

[winstonc]

i say mrfixit take it easy on them i thought you were doing them a favour by not replying in joined up writing...

[Mister Fixit]

Who is 'them'? Being specific helps

But I assume you mean by 'them', the rather dim posters here who haven't had a cogent thought between their ears for many years ...

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mister Fixit

[Mister Fixit]

I think there is a significant difference in speaking to a 'spokesperson' than speaking to an individual who is a commission member. The spokesperson can play no role in the eventual outcome of the case. On the other had, if he feels that the former MPs acted improperly, he should file a complaint with the appropriate authorities, right?

If I'm not mistaken, the spokesman in the article was also the chief investigating officer.

Edit - yes, he is both the spokesman and the head investigating honcho **, and I was also inaccurate in an earlier post so stand corrected.

Mr Vicha Mahakhun, NACC spokesman and head of the team ** investigating Ms Yingluck’s role in the fake rice deal with China, said today (Tuesday) that the right to copy the documents was exclusive to the accused, in this case the prime minister, and that she could not assign anybody or a lawyer to do on her behalf although she could assign someone to acknowledge the charge.

So she doesn't have to come and acknowledge the charge, but she DOES have to copy the documents herself and cannot assign someone else to do it. She WILL have to stand at a copier and stick in her 10 bahts - and that should cost a bit as I am sure the bundle is the size of a van.

Further, he said in the same article -

'The NACC spokesman ** disclosed that he was approached by former Pheu Thai MPs asking whether the commission could be lenient with her. He said he told the ex-MPs that the NACC would not be an independent organization if it did not do its job properly after having been intimidated.'

Yes, you are right and he should file a complaint against those person(s) who attempted to influence him. But I have to say that I find it a bit strange that only a person accused has the right to copy documents. Usually, the prosecution (or the administrative body in this case) has a duty to turn over the evidence on which it relied to bring the charges to the accused and/or his/her attorney. On the other had, if the accused 'must' copy the evidence, is the only time this can be done is when the charges are acknowledged? Again, a bit strange -- but TIT.

Sorry, run out of 'likes'.

I agree with you that he should file a complaint, in principle, even make the person's name public if he could, but I think that would only inflame the situation. They need to be seen to be completely neutral.

To me, he should file the complaint AFTER Yinglack's case is over and done with. Then he can name names. Otherwise, the chief investigator might mysteriously 'disappear' of names were bandied about in public. As it is, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder and under my car more often than usual for a few months ...

I suspect the 'whisperer in the ears' name will already be on file with a big black mark against it and future steps will be taken in ways only the Thais know ... You know, bank accounts can be audited or frozen, businesses can lose orders, be investigated, schools can dismiss children. Lots of ways to make someone's life hell. The FBI are past masters at that.

I agree that it seems strange that only the accused can accept the paperwork, but this is Thailand and they work in mysterious ways, alien to the Western world. There may be a good reason for it, chiefly so that they can actually SEE that the person has taken delivery of the bundle, and someone on his/her behalf can't say they 'lost' it somewhere.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mister Fixit

[trogers]

Can they actually strip a defendants right to a copy of evidence and exhibits that are going to used against a person. Don't people hire lawyers to collect and examine these documents on their behalf?

He explains that under Thai law it seems only the accused as the right to physically copy documents to be used as evidence against them.

Bizarre - can you imagine YL standing in line with a fist full of 20 bahts waiting for her turn at the photo copier??

But there again, this ain't Kansas Toto.

I don't think photocopier machines take 20 baht NOTES here, maybe 5 and 10 baht coins, 2 or 1's if she's lucky ...

However, what would happen, I suspect, is that Yinglack would have to attend in person to acknowledge the charges and take delivery of the document bundle (or at least her lawyers would - and bring a sack truck too, cos I've seen some of these document bundles for other cases being trucked out and there's been a few guys and a few trucks ...)

She would then arrange through her lawyers to have that bundle copied or the NACC would copy them and charge her for it. That's what would happen in the UK anyway ... But as you say, this ain't Kansas, nor is it London

Copies have to be paid due recent sever cut in budget...lol Edited February 26, 2014 by trogers

[AleG]

Posted in the wrong topic...

Edited February 26, 2014 by AleG

[zakk9]

From the "War Drum" UDD resolutions:

10. The government should consider if necessary, to move their operation base to the North and the Northeast during the time of crisis

11. If worst case scenario, government should continue to exile in the North and Northeast

How can a government be in exile while being inside Thailand?

They will restart the Chiang Mai Kingdom

[AleG]

Oops... wrong thread

[Mister Fixit]

Me? Frightened of YOU?

Having an intelligent discussion with you is the biggest oxymoron I have read on here in ages.

What kind of intelligent discussion is this? You are off to my rubbish bin automatically from now.

Good, and long may I stay there.

I prefer discussions that are not all one-sided, don't understand the issues, are incapable of comprehending simple concepts and are in decent understandable, clear English, coherently thought out.

[Mister Fixit]

Looks like Yinglack won't be at the NACC tomorrow at all - she's run away to skulk in Chiang Rai and says she won't be back to answer to the charges.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/397116/chiang-mai-reds-promise-huge-welcome-for-yingluck

Ostrich with her head in the sand ... 'If I stay here long enough, maybe those bad men will go away, bruv'

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mister Fixit

[Baerboxer]

Can they actually strip a defendants right to a copy of evidence and exhibits that are going to used against a person. Don't people hire lawyers to collect and examine these documents on their behalf?

He explains that under Thai law it seems only the accused as the right to physically copy documents to be used as evidence against them.

Bizarre - can you imagine YL standing in line with a fist full of 20 bahts waiting for her turn at the photo copier??

But there again, this ain't Kansas Toto.

I don't think photocopier machines take 20 baht NOTES here, maybe 5 and 10 baht coins, 2 or 1's if she's lucky ...

However, what would happen, I suspect, is that Yinglack would have to attend in person to acknowledge the charges and take delivery of the document bundle (or at least her lawyers would - and bring a sack truck too, cos I've seen some of these document bundles for other cases being trucked out and there's been a few guys and a few trucks ...)

She would then arrange through her lawyers to have that bundle copied or the NACC would copy them and charge her for it. That's what would happen in the UK anyway ... But as you say, this ain't Kansas, nor is it London

I've never personally seen any photocopiers here that take coins. They all seem to be operated by nice old ladies who eagerly take your cash and have plenty of change available.

Would = might ?

Whatever the process might be, Yingluck seems keen to ignore it. Having her legal team trawl through the evidence to be presented might be a good idea. Or perhaps she thinks she already has details of all that might be used against her.

I suspect she just isn't that interested. Her team will lean on the AG to stop it going to court, and similarly with the senate regarding any dismissal from office. She is more concerned about finding excuses to stay in power next week when the election hasn't been completed and the farmers realize her personal vow to pay them this week means SFA.

[chooka]

Can they actually strip a defendants right to a copy of evidence and exhibits that are going to used against a person. Don't people hire lawyers to collect and examine these documents on their behalf?

He explains that under Thai law it seems only the accused as the right to physically copy documents to be used as evidence against them.

Bizarre - can you imagine YL standing in line with a fist full of 20 bahts waiting for her turn at the photo copier??

But there again, this ain't Kansas Toto.

I don't think photocopier machines take 20 baht NOTES here, maybe 5 and 10 baht coins, 2 or 1's if she's lucky ...

However, what would happen, I suspect, is that Yinglack would have to attend in person to acknowledge the charges and take delivery of the document bundle (or at least her lawyers would - and bring a sack truck too, cos I've seen some of these document bundles for other cases being trucked out and there's been a few guys and a few trucks ...)

She would then arrange through her lawyers to have that bundle copied or the NACC would copy them and charge her for it. That's what would happen in the UK anyway ... But as you say, this ain't Kansas, nor is it London

I've never personally seen any photocopiers here that take coins. They all seem to be operated by nice old ladies who eagerly take your cash and have plenty of change available.

Would = might ?

Whatever the process might be, Yingluck seems keen to ignore it. Having her legal team trawl through the evidence to be presented might be a good idea. Or perhaps she thinks she already has details of all that might be used against her.

I suspect she just isn't that interested. Her team will lean on the AG to stop it going to court, and similarly with the senate regarding any dismissal from office. She is more concerned about finding excuses to stay in power next week when the election hasn't been completed and the farmers realize her personal vow to pay them this week means SFA.

Actually she hasn't ignored it as today is Wednesday.

[AleG]

I've never personally seen any photocopiers here that take coins. They all seem to be operated by nice old ladies who eagerly take your cash and have plenty of change available.

Would = might ?

Whatever the process might be, Yingluck seems keen to ignore it. Having her legal team trawl through the evidence to be presented might be a good idea. Or perhaps she thinks she already has details of all that might be used against her.

I suspect she just isn't that interested. Her team will lean on the AG to stop it going to court, and similarly with the senate regarding any dismissal from office. She is more concerned about finding excuses to stay in power next week when the election hasn't been completed and the farmers realize her personal vow to pay them this week means SFA.

Actually she hasn't ignored it as today is Wednesday.

I hope they find her a helicopter that can fly on Thursdays...

[3NUMBAS]

more petty FlimFlam designed to complicate matters and get her unseated

[Thai at Heart]

Can they actually strip a defendants right to a copy of evidence and exhibits that are going to used against a person. Don't people hire lawyers to collect and examine these documents on their behalf?

It is like something out of the dark ages.

Indeed. But it wouldn't surprise me if this was a wonderfully subtle and Thai way of telling Yingluck that if she does turn up, they're not going to 'throw the book' at her. Why otherwise make it clear that any question of indictment would have to be handled by the Senate?

After all, everyone recognises that although she is legally responsible, as a puppet PM it would hardly be fair to insist that she is actually responsible for her brother's hare-brained rice scam.

She isn't legally responsible for anything. She instituted a subsidy scheme that lost some money. That's what politicians do. Its a nice concept. I mean in comparison Gordon Brown and Tony Blair would have been on the hook for hundreds of billions if they were classed as "legally" responsible for the damage they caused.

[chooka]

I've never personally seen any photocopiers here that take coins. They all seem to be operated by nice old ladies who eagerly take your cash and have plenty of change available.

Would = might ?

Whatever the process might be, Yingluck seems keen to ignore it. Having her legal team trawl through the evidence to be presented might be a good idea. Or perhaps she thinks she already has details of all that might be used against her.

I suspect she just isn't that interested. Her team will lean on the AG to stop it going to court, and similarly with the senate regarding any dismissal from office. She is more concerned about finding excuses to stay in power next week when the election hasn't been completed and the farmers realize her personal vow to pay them this week means SFA.

Actually she hasn't ignored it as today is Wednesday.

I hope they find her a helicopter that can fly on Thursdays...

True or she may be moulded into the same as Suthep who refused to appear at an inquiry/court

[JesseFrank]

I've never personally seen any photocopiers here that take coins. They all seem to be operated by nice old ladies who eagerly take your cash and have plenty of change available.

Would = might ?

Whatever the process might be, Yingluck seems keen to ignore it. Having her legal team trawl through the evidence to be presented might be a good idea. Or perhaps she thinks she already has details of all that might be used against her.

I suspect she just isn't that interested. Her team will lean on the AG to stop it going to court, and similarly with the senate regarding any dismissal from office. She is more concerned about finding excuses to stay in power next week when the election hasn't been completed and the farmers realize her personal vow to pay them this week means SFA.

Actually she hasn't ignored it as today is Wednesday.

I hope they find her a helicopter that can fly on Thursdays...

True or she may be moulded into the same as Suthep who refused to appear at an inquiry/court

Suthep is busy overthrowing a corrupt government, Yingluck has never been busy with anything remotely related to a government.

[ShannonT]

Well, looks like the NACC is closed at the moment.

[chooka]

Can they actually strip a defendants right to a copy of evidence and exhibits that are going to used against a person. Don't people hire lawyers to collect and examine these documents on their behalf?

It is like something out of the dark ages.

Indeed. But it wouldn't surprise me if this was a wonderfully subtle and Thai way of telling Yingluck that if she does turn up, they're not going to 'throw the book' at her. Why otherwise make it clear that any question of indictment would have to be handled by the Senate?

After all, everyone recognises that although she is legally responsible, as a puppet PM it would hardly be fair to insist that she is actually responsible for her brother's hare-brained rice scam.

She isn't legally responsible for anything. She instituted a subsidy scheme that lost some money. That's what politicians do. Its a nice concept. I mean in comparison Gordon Brown and Tony Blair would have been on the hook for hundreds of billions if they were classed as "legally" responsible for the damage they caused.

You might be right, the Australian labor government did the same thing with the National Broadband Network, promise to put broadband into every home in Australia. That blew out by billions of AUD but they got the votes and people never got what was promised, no corruption or criminal charges against the then government.