Thai PM set to give defence against negligence charges

[dutchisaan]

" no one knows her mind or thoughts about the issues ' and that includes YL herself.

But, her brother told her all about it.

He also instructed her to send her lawyers to represent her.

As evidence, a video of her crying will be presented to the court.

Good Luck Yingluck, we are all behind you, and we will send you some tissues.

Together with a food parcel ever week while you are prison, believe the foods not all that good.

Good idea, we can send her some of the rotten rice.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Morch]

The scheme, which paid farmers above market rates for their crop

Not really, it paid above the rice cartels price, but that price has always been held low by agreement between the rice middlemen.

They pay about 8000 baht a tonnes for the best quality paddy, which is equivalent to 11,111 baht per tonne of milled, which is then exported for 37770 (link to export prices) baht a tonne and it is then sold in Tesco UK for 80000+ baht a tonne equivalent (5kg = 8 quid).

The government replaced their cartel with a government agency, that pays 15000 baht a tonne paddy, equivalent to 20833 milled and exported at 37770 baht.

Abhisit's democrat price guarantee worked differently, it subsidied the rice cartel price to a minimum. It worked out to be 11500 baht per tonne of paddy (link) for the best grades. The big issue with the Democrats scheme was it let the cartel drive the buy price lower, and the government made up the difference so farmers still farmed.

The rice cartel loves the democrat scheme because it's more money in their pocket, they hate the government scheme because all that money that was theirs is handed to farmers and the government. The export agency the government set up, didn't get its exporting act together quickly enough, hence that gave them a chance to attack! Although we're back on track.

[anon467367354]

all politically motivated

can you imagine Obama taken to court over Obamacare? or Thatcher over Poll Tax?

it's a farce wrapped up in an absurdity

Actually I can and would like to as the POTUS has not authority to write or implement laws.

Nobody wanted Obamacare, so Obama had it written as a tax and even still he has no right

to pass a tax, that has to be done by congress.

[Wombat6]

The scheme, which paid farmers above market rates for their crop

Not really, it paid above the rice cartels price, but that price has always been held low by agreement between the rice middlemen.

They pay about 8000 baht a tonnes for the best quality paddy, which is equivalent to 11,111 baht per tonne of milled, which is then exported for 37770 (link to export prices) baht a tonne and it is then sold in Tesco UK for 80000+ baht a tonne equivalent (5kg = 8 quid).

The government replaced their cartel with a government agency, that pays 15000 baht a tonne paddy, equivalent to 20833 milled and exported at 37770 baht.

Abhisit's democrat price guarantee worked differently, it subsidied the rice cartel price to a minimum. It worked out to be 11500 baht per tonne of paddy (link) for the best grades. The big issue with the Democrats scheme was it let the cartel drive the buy price lower, and the government made up the difference so farmers still farmed.

The rice cartel loves the democrat scheme because it's more money in their pocket, they hate the government scheme because all that money that was theirs is handed to farmers and the government. The export agency the government set up, didn't get its exporting act together quickly enough, hence that gave them a chance to attack! Although we're back on track.

You forgot that in a lot of cases, the farmers haven't been paid anything.!!

[Wombat6]

all politically motivated

can you imagine Obama taken to court over Obamacare? or Thatcher over Poll Tax?

it's a farce wrapped up in an absurdity

Actually I can and would like to as the POTUS has not authority to write or implement laws.

Nobody wanted Obamacare, so Obama had it written as a tax and even still he has no right

to pass a tax, that has to be done by congress.

Why are we discussing American politics on this forum ?? Boring !!

[Stan7444]

yes but there is that process - not this bizarre jumping into Court every five minutes - that's not a justice system that's a 'playground' system of tit for tat

I do not for one minute believe Yingluck, personally, has sat down and thought out any corrupt strategy - has someone, below her, mis-managed? yes a high probability as Thai's are not known for their 'management' skills but any such mis-management should be challenged at election time (you know that strange process most countries use?)

To suggest Yingluck is corrupt is using a piledriver to smash a tomato

When will they grow up? reform the justice system number ONE

Actually their corruption strategy is to setup an agency that investigates and prosecutes corruption.... NACC, done and dusted!

They're claiming she is negligent in not stopping corruption, but that's their job, if there was negligence, it was theirs.

They've made some allegations of corruption against others, but haven't proved them in court, so if the court says the claims are false, and it was not corruption, then how can she prove she was not negligent in not stopping things that didn't happen?

Surely they have to prove there was corruption first, before they can remove her from power for failing to stop it.

Also the timing is an issue, January 16th 2014, they decide to investigate her, and 31st March they're ready to indict her. Man that's fast. Even giving her a whole 3 days to read 280 pages of claims against her.

Of course they have to move fast, if they're to submit the claim to the Senate while the appointed part is the only part in power. That senate can then suspend her, while the prosecution proceeds, and they can put their neutral middle man in power.

AFP really have a good grasp of what's going on.

I have said it in other forums and will say it again that this is a total farce and set up. I reviewed the law establishing the NACC and they are chartered to ONLY investigate CORRUPTION charges and NOT Negligence of Duty, which there have been no corruption charges personally brought against Yingluck. If there are corruption charges in the rice pledging program, then who are the person(s) being charged? What proof does the NACC or anyone else have to show Yingluck was personally knowledgeable as to any potential corruption? You mean to tell me if a rice warehouse owner was making money under the table off of the rice program, the PM is now personally responsible for every such warehouse owner? That is like saying that someone in the US gov't was smuggling guns to the Mexicans and that guy sitting in the White House who knew about it is to be blamed, or maybe there might be a case there, which is called “plausible deniability” and will never be pursued.

In a fair legal system everyone has the right to a proper defense and not have to face a "Kangaroo Court" with haste judgments that only support a certain faction in society. Fair is fair in a proper judicial system and if the courts and independent agencies (which is very questionable as to how "independent" they really are) cannot handle such matters in a fair and appropriate manner, then they should also be reformed as part of the electoral process. Why is the Criminal Court now relying upon the NACC witness testimonies in order to make their decisions about the Abhisit case?

I attended an NACC high level briefing 2 years ago in which the speaker mentioned Yingluck was already on their radar screen to be investigated, indicating this has been going on for some time now.

Please provide a link to "law establishing the NACC and they are chartered to ONLY investigate CORRUPTION charges and NOT Negligence of Duty". So we can verify this information for ourselves.

Ask and thou shalt receive. Only takes one 15 mins to research, so here you go.

Here is the stated vision and mission of the NACC (http://www.thailandlaw.org/anti-corruption-legislation.html):

Vision

A society founded on discipline, integrity, and ethics with all sectors participating in prevention and suppression of corruption.

Missions

1. Promote and inculcate awareness of a society founded on discipline, integrity and ethics.

2. Create sustainable, integrated anti-corruption networks

3. Develop systems and mechanisms for the inspection, control, decentralization and check and balance of authority.

4. Promote and support anti-corruption knowledge-management.

Additionally, according to another legal website (http://www.iaaca.org/AntiCorruptionAuthorities/ByCountriesandRegions/Thailand/201202/t20120215_805343.shtml):

Function

In accordance with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2550, NACC shall have the following powers and duties:

·To inquire into the facts, summarize the case, and prepare a verdict to be submitted to the Senate according to Section 272 and Section 279 Para three；

·To inquire into the facts, summarize the case, and prepare a verdict to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions in accordance with Section 275；

·To investigate and decide whether a state official who holds an executive post or a Government official who holds a position from the Director level upwards or the equivalent has become unusually wealthy or has committed an offence of corruption, malfeasance in office or malfeasance in judicial office, including any state official or Government official at lower level who has colluded with the said state official or Government official to commit a wrongful offence or other offences that the National Counter Corruption Commission deems appropriate to investigate and decide the case in accordance with the Organic Act pertaining to the National Counter Corruption Commission.

·To inspect the accuracy, actual existence, as well as change of assets and liabilities of persons holding positions under Section 259 and Section 264 as stated in the account and supporting documents submitted；

·To supervise and observe the ethics of persons holding political positions；

·To submit an inspection report and a report on the performance of duties together with remarks to the Council of Ministers, the House of Representatives, and the Senate annually and to publish that report in the Government Gazette and disseminate it to the public.

If this is not sufficient, please see the attached PDF file on the Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Strategy, National Anti-Corruption Commission of Thailand

in Collaboration with Stakeholders from All Sectors

- English Version -. I have also conducted a word-search for anything related to "dereliction" of duty and there were zero hits. If you can find anything related to dereliction of duty, I will gladly stand corrected.

Looking up the definition of “Dereliction of Duty” this appears to be historically applied to the US military code of conduct when an individual must have willingly be negligent in following a command or order from their superiors. Don’t know if there is any other basis in law in another country.

Thailand National Anti-Corruption Strategy Thailand.pdf

[Wombat6]

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

No one wants to argue against these very fair points? non-political???

No one wants to argue with a redshirt Fanatic who can't see the truth...... waste of time.

[almafudd]

Actually their corruption strategy is to setup an agency that investigates and prosecutes corruption.... NACC, done and dusted!

They're claiming she is negligent in not stopping corruption, but that's their job, if there was negligence, it was theirs.

They've made some allegations of corruption against others, but haven't proved them in court, so if the court says the claims are false, and it was not corruption, then how can she prove she was not negligent in not stopping things that didn't happen?

Surely they have to prove there was corruption first, before they can remove her from power for failing to stop it.

Also the timing is an issue, January 16th 2014, they decide to investigate her, and 31st March they're ready to indict her. Man that's fast. Even giving her a whole 3 days to read 280 pages of claims against her.

Of course they have to move fast, if they're to submit the claim to the Senate while the appointed part is the only part in power. That senate can then suspend her, while the prosecution proceeds, and they can put their neutral middle man in power.

AFP really have a good grasp of what's going on.

I have said it in other forums and will say it again that this is a total farce and set up. I reviewed the law establishing the NACC and they are chartered to ONLY investigate CORRUPTION charges and NOT Negligence of Duty, which there have been no corruption charges personally brought against Yingluck. If there are corruption charges in the rice pledging program, then who are the person(s) being charged? What proof does the NACC or anyone else have to show Yingluck was personally knowledgeable as to any potential corruption? You mean to tell me if a rice warehouse owner was making money under the table off of the rice program, the PM is now personally responsible for every such warehouse owner? That is like saying that someone in the US gov't was smuggling guns to the Mexicans and that guy sitting in the White House who knew about it is to be blamed, or maybe there might be a case there, which is called “plausible deniability” and will never be pursued.

In a fair legal system everyone has the right to a proper defense and not have to face a "Kangaroo Court" with haste judgments that only support a certain faction in society. Fair is fair in a proper judicial system and if the courts and independent agencies (which is very questionable as to how "independent" they really are) cannot handle such matters in a fair and appropriate manner, then they should also be reformed as part of the electoral process. Why is the Criminal Court now relying upon the NACC witness testimonies in order to make their decisions about the Abhisit case?

I attended an NACC high level briefing 2 years ago in which the speaker mentioned Yingluck was already on their radar screen to be investigated, indicating this has been going on for some time now.

Please provide a link to "law establishing the NACC and they are chartered to ONLY investigate CORRUPTION charges and NOT Negligence of Duty". So we can verify this information for ourselves.

Ask and thou shalt receive. Only takes one 15 mins to research, so here you go.

Here is the stated vision and mission of the NACC (http://www.thailandlaw.org/anti-corruption-legislation.html):

Vision

A society founded on discipline, integrity, and ethics with all sectors participating in prevention and suppression of corruption.

Missions

1. Promote and inculcate awareness of a society founded on discipline, integrity and ethics.

2. Create sustainable, integrated anti-corruption networks

3. Develop systems and mechanisms for the inspection, control, decentralization and check and balance of authority.

4. Promote and support anti-corruption knowledge-management.

Additionally, according to another legal website (http://www.iaaca.org/AntiCorruptionAuthorities/ByCountriesandRegions/Thailand/201202/t20120215_805343.shtml):

Function

In accordance with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E.2550, NACC shall have the following powers and duties:

·To inquire into the facts, summarize the case, and prepare a verdict to be submitted to the Senate according to Section 272 and Section 279 Para three；

·To inquire into the facts, summarize the case, and prepare a verdict to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions in accordance with Section 275；

·To investigate and decide whether a state official who holds an executive post or a Government official who holds a position from the Director level upwards or the equivalent has become unusually wealthy or has committed an offence of corruption, malfeasance in office or malfeasance in judicial office, including any state official or Government official at lower level who has colluded with the said state official or Government official to commit a wrongful offence or other offences that the National Counter Corruption Commission deems appropriate to investigate and decide the case in accordance with the Organic Act pertaining to the National Counter Corruption Commission.

·To inspect the accuracy, actual existence, as well as change of assets and liabilities of persons holding positions under Section 259 and Section 264 as stated in the account and supporting documents submitted；

·To supervise and observe the ethics of persons holding political positions；

·To submit an inspection report and a report on the performance of duties together with remarks to the Council of Ministers, the House of Representatives, and the Senate annually and to publish that report in the Government Gazette and disseminate it to the public.

If this is not sufficient, please see the attached PDF file on the Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Strategy, National Anti-Corruption Commission of Thailand

in Collaboration with Stakeholders from All Sectors

- English Version -. I have also conducted a word-search for anything related to "dereliction" of duty and there were zero hits. If you can find anything related to dereliction of duty, I will gladly stand corrected.

Looking up the definition of “Dereliction of Duty” this appears to be historically applied to the US military code of conduct when an individual must have willingly be negligent in following a command or order from their superiors. Don’t know if there is any other basis in law in another country.

Are you for real???

The "Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Strategy (PDF file)" is just a Strategy for anti-corruption. Has it been enforced, enshrined into law, been before any sitting Government for action / discussion? If not then it is just one persons view on a subject (the NACC's). It even states it's a DRAFT!

The website link is just an unsigned author writing about anti-corruption legislation. Who is the author? What qualifications do they have?

That's the problem with you people - you see something written, printed or on the interwb and, if it suits your cause, you believe it 100%.

Please provide credible information to back up your statement.

But if you would like to use the interweb article as a point, what does the quoted statement below mean? I can be bothered to read the draft anti corruption strategy.

"The Constitution of Thailand mandates that there be an efficient and transparent public service in the country. It directs not only the officials of the government but as well as the employees to be accountable to the people and must maintain an honest public service. "

Would that mean they can investigate people being accountable for their job? And what is Yinluck in trouble for.... hmmm.... I rest my case.

God give me a brick wall - please........

[almafudd]

all politically motivated

can you imagine Obama taken to court over Obamacare? or Thatcher over Poll Tax?

it's a farce wrapped up in an absurdity

Actually I can and would like to as the POTUS has not authority to write or implement laws.

Nobody wanted Obamacare, so Obama had it written as a tax and even still he has no right

to pass a tax, that has to be done by congress.

Why are we discussing American politics on this forum ?? Boring !!

Didn't you know you can compare American politics to Thai politics...

[almafudd]

I don't think you know how the law works.

Each case brought before a court is judged on it's own merits.

Judges can use precedence if they want to - they don't have to.

It is their court room and they can do as they like so long as it is legal.

It could well turn out that Yinluck is guilty of being negligent and no one is ever charge with corruption!

Courts can take as long as they like to decide a case (or as little time as they like).

This is how the law works.

Where does it say this is against Thai law???

One reason why the NACC may have moved so quick (over two years!) maybe due to the large amounts of money involved in this case and the impact it is having on the Thai economy!

So stop your ranting incorrect posts and get over it!!

Not at all. The court doesn't come into it.

NACC's job it to prevent corruption, It takes them 1.25 years to find some, and maybe 2 year to prove it happened in a court (if it really did happen). Which they haven't yet done.

They then go and say "well why didn't you stop this a year ago, you must be negligent", yet that's not her job, it's their job, and they're claiming she should have been faster than them at their own job! A job which they haven't yet even finished!

The court doesn't come into it, because the Senate can suspend the PM on an allegation alone from the NACC. The case never needs to come to court, they remove her and as the only body in power, they can appoint one of Suthep own to run the country.

Yes it's about money, 500 billion baht's worth of rice can be sold for 821 billion baht at export. So 300 billion profit will ultimately go either to the government, or the the rice cartel. If Suthep sells it off at rice cartel market price and they export it, then he can blame PT for the loss and they become very very rich. If he leaves the scheme unchanged, he can't claim he 'reformed the scheme'.

You really don't get it do you?

How does the NACC prevent corruption? What powers do they have to achieve this??

THEY INVESTIGATE and then it's up to the senate to decide!!!

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT DH

So you're case is a play on the word 'prevent'?

It's disingenous to claim NACC isn't to prevent corruption. Catching them is the deterrent that prevents corruption and their role isn't limited to investigating only after corruption is suspected, they must be looking for corruption to find suspected corruption!

Sort of like:

NACC "Why did you not stop cars speeding"

GOVT "What speeding?"

NACC "Here at this corner"

GOVT "You caught them and prosecuted them, that's how"

NACC "Yes but you didn't prevent them speeding"

NACC "...also we didn't prosecute them yet"

GOVT "then how do we know they were actually speeding and you didn't simply make it up?"

GOVT "... and how can we justify spending money to stop you making stuff up?"

NACC "Never mind that, how did you *prevent* the speeding"

GOVT "We'll put a speed camera there"

NACC "I'm sorry that wouldn't *prevent* speeding, only catch it, I'm removing you for neglience"

And then the Senate puts Speedy McRacer in as PM, a man known for speeding.

GOD!!!

Tell me what is the job of the NACC??

Are you like this:

Normal Person: It's a nice day today

BNC: No it isn't - it's raining in Spain

Normal Person: The courts in Thailand are good

BNC: Yes they are they issued arrest warrants for xxxxx (fill in the blank)

Normal Person: The courts in Thailand are good

BNC: No they aren't, they want YL to explain herself

Normal Person: The rice scheme is going well

BNC: Yes it is all the farmers are better off

Normal Person: The rice scheme is going well

BNC: No it's not everyone (except for the ptp) is stopping the farmers from being paid

Normal Person: It's raining in Spain today

BNC: The weather is really nice in Thailand

[fab4]

With all the back and forth on this thread the main argument has been ignored. Can anybody who finds the rice subsidy scheme so corrupt and wants to see Yingluck impeached please explain to me why they regard the NACC's approach as not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?

They're so obvious, it's embarrassing. NACC = AEC, different era, same objectives, same bosses.

Tarit said it was ok for YL to commit perjury as she was only giving evidence, not the one being tried. A rather novel and unique interpretation that implies it's o k to swear an oath to tell the truth to a court, and then lie, providing your only the witness. He made this proclamation just after she took office. No political motivation there?

The past AG rules Thaksin should not be charges for his involvement in the 2010 insurrection as "he was out of the country" at the time, despite all the video, YouTube and evidence showing he was very involved. No political motivation there?

Abhisit and Suthep"s murder charges. No political motivation there? That will be demonstrated on how the charges filed against YL, Chalerm, Tharit and cousin number 1 progress.

All charges against PTP politically motivated - they are clean as the driven snow. YL has stated that there is no corruption in the rice scheme, no corruption in her caretaker administration and that there was bona fide deals for rice sales to the Chinese government. All these are easily verified once the books are opened and audited. She should have no worries then eh?

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

[dickyknee]

With all the back and forth on this thread the main argument has been ignored. Can anybody who finds the rice subsidy scheme so corrupt and wants to see Yingluck impeached please explain to me why they regard the NACC's approach as not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?

They're so obvious, it's embarrassing. NACC = AEC, different era, same objectives, same bosses.

Tarit said it was ok for YL to commit perjury as she was only giving evidence, not the one being tried. A rather novel and unique interpretation that implies it's o k to swear an oath to tell the truth to a court, and then lie, providing your only the witness. He made this proclamation just after she took office. No political motivation there?

The past AG rules Thaksin should not be charges for his involvement in the 2010 insurrection as "he was out of the country" at the time, despite all the video, YouTube and evidence showing he was very involved. No political motivation there?

Abhisit and Suthep"s murder charges. No political motivation there? That will be demonstrated on how the charges filed against YL, Chalerm, Tharit and cousin number 1 progress.

All charges against PTP politically motivated - they are clean as the driven snow. YL has stated that there is no corruption in the rice scheme, no corruption in her caretaker administration and that there was bona fide deals for rice sales to the Chinese government. All these are easily verified once the books are opened and audited. She should have no worries then eh?

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

I'm guessing, the current scheme is in progress now, if they hasten there is a chance that any corruption in progress could be curtailed.

If the NACC fail to act, they too are negligent.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[fab4]

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

I'm guessing, the current scheme is in progress now, if they hasten there is a chance that any corruption in progress could be curtailed.

If the NACC fail to act, they too are negligent.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Nice try, no cigar. The same could be said of abhisits case. There was obviously corruption of some sort going on otherwise why would the NACC be investigating him. But they've dragged, and still are dragging, that case out for 5 years - sorry your answer doesn't fly. Just admit it, this coupled with the Senator election is all part of the plan to get Yingluck impeached. This will be followed by the ridiculous attempt to impeach the PTP NP's and Senators involved in trying to amend the constitution wrt the election of Senators.

It's so transparent, it's obvious, they're not even pretending to be independent now.

[fab4]

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

No one wants to argue against these very fair points? non-political???

No one wants to argue with a redshirt Fanatic who can't see the truth...... waste of time.

aka You can't defend the NACC against these questions, so you'll flame the poster instead.

[Siripon]

With all the back and forth on this thread the main argument has been ignored. Can anybody who finds the rice subsidy scheme so corrupt and wants to see Yingluck impeached please explain to me why they regard the NACC's approach as not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?

They're so obvious, it's embarrassing. NACC = AEC, different era, same objectives, same bosses.

Fab 4, I heard there was insufficient evidence to charge Apisit, a lack of documents proving corruption.

Tarit said it was ok for YL to commit perjury as she was only giving evidence, not the one being tried. A rather novel and unique interpretation that implies it's o k to swear an oath to tell the truth to a court, and then lie, providing your only the witness. He made this proclamation just after she took office. No political motivation there?

The past AG rules Thaksin should not be charges for his involvement in the 2010 insurrection as "he was out of the country" at the time, despite all the video, YouTube and evidence showing he was very involved. No political motivation there?

Abhisit and Suthep"s murder charges. No political motivation there? That will be demonstrated on how the charges filed against YL, Chalerm, Tharit and cousin number 1 progress.

All charges against PTP politically motivated - they are clean as the driven snow. YL has stated that there is no corruption in the rice scheme, no corruption in her caretaker administration and that there was bona fide deals for rice sales to the Chinese government. All these are easily verified once the books are opened and audited. She should have no worries then eh?

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

I heard there is insufficient evidence to charge Apisit with corruption. We should remember the schemes were very different, in Apisit's scheme the farmer was paid based on how much land he owned, the farmers were guranteed a sum per rai, I think the limit was 50 rai to prevent rich farmers expoliting the scheme,whilst with Yingluck's the farmer just had to turn up at the rice mill with 'his' rice, it could have come from Cambodia, Laos or Myanmar.And never mind the quality, all plain white rice was guaranteed 15,000 baht ea tonne,( world price 8,000 baht a tonne).

[dcutman]

With all the back and forth on this thread the main argument has been ignored. Can anybody who finds the rice subsidy scheme so corrupt and wants to see Yingluck impeached please explain to me why they regard the NACC's approach as not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?

They're so obvious, it's embarrassing. NACC = AEC, different era, same objectives, same bosses.

Tarit said it was ok for YL to commit perjury as she was only giving evidence, not the one being tried. A rather novel and unique interpretation that implies it's o k to swear an oath to tell the truth to a court, and then lie, providing your only the witness. He made this proclamation just after she took office. No political motivation there?

The past AG rules Thaksin should not be charges for his involvement in the 2010 insurrection as "he was out of the country" at the time, despite all the video, YouTube and evidence showing he was very involved. No political motivation there?

Abhisit and Suthep"s murder charges. No political motivation there? That will be demonstrated on how the charges filed against YL, Chalerm, Tharit and cousin number 1 progress.

All charges against PTP politically motivated - they are clean as the driven snow. YL has stated that there is no corruption in the rice scheme, no corruption in her caretaker administration and that there was bona fide deals for rice sales to the Chinese government. All these are easily verified once the books are opened and audited. She should have no worries then eh?

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

Well Fab

It really is quite simple, could be the NACC just simply does not have any or enough evidence to charge Mark. In fact it seems by the article below, its been the PTP government holding up the investigation.

He said the NACC’s investigation of the Abhisit government’s rice guarantee has been delayed due to insufficient evidence despite the NACC’s repeated requests for documents from related government agencies.

The NACC was always told by government agencies that the required documents on the government’s rice stocks in 2009 and 2010 (in the Abhisit government) were damaged and lost in the massive 2011 floods, said Mr Vicha. http://www.pattayamail.com/news/nacc-member-rules-out-double-standard-in-rice-graft-probe-35351

[khunken]

1. Why did the agency take more than five years to probe the case against Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva over the corruption allegation involving rice distribution and make no progress, while pressing charges against Yingluck after only 21 days?

2. Does the NACC want to bring about a swift prosecution against Yingluck by having a full NACC panel investigating the case instead of appointing a sub panel to do the job, as it normally does with other cases?

3. The NACC pressing charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against Yingluck shows that Yingluck had nothing to do with the corruption, so why is the agency pressing charges in the broad spectrum against her?

4. The NACC produced a 280-page document covering the charges against Yingluck and only three days before she is forced to make her defence statement. Is the time given to her too short?

5. Does the NACC carry out its duties fairly?

6. Why doesn't the NACC give Yingluck additional time to submit her defence statement, even though the NACC's decision in this case could result in her being suspended from duty?

No one wants to argue against these very fair points? non-political???

No one wants to argue with a redshirt Fanatic who can't see the truth...... waste of time.

aka You can't defend the NACC against these questions, so you'll flame the poster instead.

Actually he'd be wasting his time as the questions were fully answered by Baerboxer in a previous post (47) in this thread. Did you miss it?

BTW 'redshirt fanatic' is hardly a flame - but maybe the truth hurts.

[Baerboxer]

With all the back and forth on this thread the main argument has been ignored. Can anybody who finds the rice subsidy scheme so corrupt and wants to see Yingluck impeached please explain to me why they regard the NACC's approach as not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?

They're so obvious, it's embarrassing. NACC = AEC, different era, same objectives, same bosses.

Tarit said it was ok for YL to commit perjury as she was only giving evidence, not the one being tried. A rather novel and unique interpretation that implies it's o k to swear an oath to tell the truth to a court, and then lie, providing your only the witness. He made this proclamation just after she took office. No political motivation there?

The past AG rules Thaksin should not be charges for his involvement in the 2010 insurrection as "he was out of the country" at the time, despite all the video, YouTube and evidence showing he was very involved. No political motivation there?

Abhisit and Suthep"s murder charges. No political motivation there? That will be demonstrated on how the charges filed against YL, Chalerm, Tharit and cousin number 1 progress.

All charges against PTP politically motivated - they are clean as the driven snow. YL has stated that there is no corruption in the rice scheme, no corruption in her caretaker administration and that there was bona fide deals for rice sales to the Chinese government. All these are easily verified once the books are opened and audited. She should have no worries then eh?

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

Indeed Fabby, this thread is about Yingluck and the NACC. So you try to change it to being about Abhisit!

It would be very difficult to defend a PM who rarely attends parliament, rarely attends committee meetings even when she is the chair, never debates and answers few questions from being negligent. Much easier to cry foul and blame it all on being politically motivated.

Read post 47 as Khunken suggests, where I offer my answer to one of your colleagues asking similar. You won't like the comments I make regardless of the reality.

[fab4]

Well Fab

It really is quite simple, could be the NACC just simply does not have any or enough evidence to charge Mark. In fact it seems by the article below, its been the PTP government holding up the investigation.

He said the NACC’s investigation of the Abhisit government’s rice guarantee has been delayed due to insufficient evidence despite the NACC’s repeated requests for documents from related government agencies.

The NACC was always told by government agencies that the required documents on the government’s rice stocks in 2009 and 2010 (in the Abhisit government) were damaged and lost in the massive 2011 floods, said Mr Vicha. http://www.pattayamail.com/news/nacc-member-rules-out-double-standard-in-rice-graft-probe-35351

He said the NACC’s investigation of the Abhisit government’s rice guarantee has been delayed due to insufficient evidence despite the NACC’s repeated requests for documents from related government agencies.

So you accept this arrangement is OK but insist that Yingluck having a minimal amount of time to prepare her defence, no leeway given is fair play.

The NACC was always told by government agencies that the required documents on the government’s rice stocks in 2009 and 2010 (in the Abhisit government) were damaged and lost in the massive 2011 floods, said Mr Vicha.

Well how jolly convenient.

Was that link seriously your attempt to justify the double standards applied by the NACC? You're having a laugh.

[fab4]

With all the back and forth on this thread the main argument has been ignored. Can anybody who finds the rice subsidy scheme so corrupt and wants to see Yingluck impeached please explain to me why they regard the NACC's approach as not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?

They're so obvious, it's embarrassing. NACC = AEC, different era, same objectives, same bosses.

Tarit said it was ok for YL to commit perjury as she was only giving evidence, not the one being tried. A rather novel and unique interpretation that implies it's o k to swear an oath to tell the truth to a court, and then lie, providing your only the witness. He made this proclamation just after she took office. No political motivation there?

The past AG rules Thaksin should not be charges for his involvement in the 2010 insurrection as "he was out of the country" at the time, despite all the video, YouTube and evidence showing he was very involved. No political motivation there?

Abhisit and Suthep"s murder charges. No political motivation there? That will be demonstrated on how the charges filed against YL, Chalerm, Tharit and cousin number 1 progress.

All charges against PTP politically motivated - they are clean as the driven snow. YL has stated that there is no corruption in the rice scheme, no corruption in her caretaker administration and that there was bona fide deals for rice sales to the Chinese government. All these are easily verified once the books are opened and audited. She should have no worries then eh?

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

Indeed Fabby, this thread is about Yingluck and the NACC. So you try to change it to being about Abhisit!

It would be very difficult to defend a PM who rarely attends parliament, rarely attends committee meetings even when she is the chair, never debates and answers few questions from being negligent. Much easier to cry foul and blame it all on being politically motivated.

Read post 47 as Khunken suggests, where I offer my answer to one of your colleagues asking similar. You won't like the comments I make regardless of the reality.

I'm not trying to change it to be about abhisit. He is very much part of it. His case was the one quoted by Yingluck when asking for fair treatment and not double standards. Too right I'll mention his 5 year dragged out case.

I read your post 47, and I didn't see answers, just excuses and fact bending

Edited March 31, 2014 by fab4

[PaullyW]

Easy to figure out what will happen. If PM is convicted, REDS will go crazy and there will be blood.

If she is not YELLOWS or ANTI-REDS will continue to use their considerable economic and political might to bring to bear on the REDS and economy.

Can't be fixed the way they are going about it, and it will be interesting to watch all these sociopaths ruin the country's economy for a couple years. Be a good time to snatch up some cheap real estate.

ruin the countries economy? It goes since 2005 and the economy is more healthy than everywhere in Europe with stable politics.

Let us see what the future holds for Thailand, my friend.

[dutchisaan]

With all the back and forth on this thread the main argument has been ignored. Can anybody who finds the rice subsidy scheme so corrupt and wants to see Yingluck impeached please explain to me why they regard the NACC's approach as not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?

They're so obvious, it's embarrassing. NACC = AEC, different era, same objectives, same bosses.

Tarit said it was ok for YL to commit perjury as she was only giving evidence, not the one being tried. A rather novel and unique interpretation that implies it's o k to swear an oath to tell the truth to a court, and then lie, providing your only the witness. He made this proclamation just after she took office. No political motivation there?

The past AG rules Thaksin should not be charges for his involvement in the 2010 insurrection as "he was out of the country" at the time, despite all the video, YouTube and evidence showing he was very involved. No political motivation there?

Abhisit and Suthep"s murder charges. No political motivation there? That will be demonstrated on how the charges filed against YL, Chalerm, Tharit and cousin number 1 progress.

All charges against PTP politically motivated - they are clean as the driven snow. YL has stated that there is no corruption in the rice scheme, no corruption in her caretaker administration and that there was bona fide deals for rice sales to the Chinese government. All these are easily verified once the books are opened and audited. She should have no worries then eh?

Excuse me I thought this thread was about Yingluck and the NACC. So I'll ask again, perhaps you can explain why "the NACC's approach is not politically motivated particularly in light of their handling of abhisits case that's more than 5 years old?" abhisits "case" is referring to his rice subsidy scheme investigation, not his murder charges.

I've not had a decent answer yet and your polemic above is totally irrelevant.

If the charges are not politically motivated tell me how they are not. It should be simple for you judging by your confidence, you must have the answer at your fingertips, surely?

Indeed Fabby, this thread is about Yingluck and the NACC. So you try to change it to being about Abhisit!

It would be very difficult to defend a PM who rarely attends parliament, rarely attends committee meetings even when she is the chair, never debates and answers few questions from being negligent. Much easier to cry foul and blame it all on being politically motivated.

Read post 47 as Khunken suggests, where I offer my answer to one of your colleagues asking similar. You won't like the comments I make regardless of the reality.

I'm not trying to change it to be about abhisit. He is very much part of it. His case was the one quoted by Yingluck when asking for fair treatment and not double standards. Too right I'll mention his 5 year dragged out case.

I read your post 47, and I didn't see answers, just excuses and fact bending

Please Fab we talk about post 47, not about what you post.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited March 31, 2014 by dutchisaan