NACC allows 3 witnesses of PM Yingluck to testify

[Thai at Heart]

Why are these statements not in the public domain? Public money, public servants, private testimony.

Thailand.

[rickirs]

Regardless of people's prejudgment of Yinluck's guilt or innocence, what is more fair than allowing the defendent to have all its witnesses testify? The Court basically says it allowed three witnesses to testify but anymore will upset its self-imposed deadline for a verdict. What's the rush? Such judicial control over Yingluck's ability to present her defense implies judicial bias at best and conflict of interest at worse. This Court is another throwback to the Democrat Government dictatorship and I doubt it can render any decision that would ever favor the PTP Government.

[dcutman]

Why would the lawyers of Yingluck call these witness for her defense?

Here we have the PM, two of her Deputy PM's, labor minister and former DPM, and a deputy minister of commerce all knowing and admitting corruption in this scheme. Note the dates of these admissions.

Posted 2012-08-10 17:08:03

Kittiratt admits corruptions found in rice-pledging scheme

BANGKOK, 10 August 2012 (NNT) – Finance Minister Kittiratt Na Ranong has admitted that there have been reports of corruption in the government’s rice-pledging scheme.

Mr Kittiratt said the arrest of the suspects alleged for corruption in the rice-pledging scheme in the Northeast is a good thing. He believed there are more corruption cases that have not been reported. He also stated that he had never promised that the program would totally be be free of corruption .

The minister said Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung has been assigned by the Premier to help eradicating corrupt practices in the scheme.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/576379-kittiratt-admits-corruptions-found-in-rice-pledging-scheme-thailand/

The Nation July 1, 2013 5:38 pm

New Commerce Minister Niwatthumrong Boonsongpaisarn and his deputy Yanyong Phuangrach vowed to reduce corruption in rice pledging and releasing and to increase transparency and flexibility in rice selling to rebuild the ministry and country's image. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Ministers-assure-transparency-and-speedy-stockpile-30209478.html

You didn't mention in that very article it states that they were informed of corruption - and they took action to arrest those involved and investigate any further incidents.

That sounds like they were doing their job in trying to stop corruption. Is that a negligent thing to do?

You would have a excellent point if any arrest were ever made. I certainly cannot find anything prior to or since this statement by Kittiratt of any arrest made in connection with this scheme. The only news I could find was a threat of arrest made in Feb this year.

Please do correct me if I am wrong.

Deputy Minister of Commerce Yanyong Puangrach said arrest warrants had already been issued against the four commerce civil servants and committees had been set up to investigate them. There were video clips showing that they gave speeches on the PDRC’s stage. The clips would be used as evidence, Mr Yanyong said.

It was not appropriate for civil servants to publicly take side in politics and it was definitely in violation of the Emergency Decree to take part in the protests, the deputy minister said.

As for the former civil servants who accused the ministry of widespread corruption, Mr Yanyong said the ministry was deciding whether it could sue them since they had no evidence to support their accusation.

http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/thailand-four-civil-servants-from-the-ministry-of-commerce-face-arrest-warrants/

[HUAHIN62]

Since when are an accused limited to the number of witnesses he or she can use to prove his/her case. When something smells like fish it's most of the times rotten fish.

Rametindallas has already provided the answer (two posts above yours)

This is not a trial, it is a preliminary hearing to decide if it is required to proceed with a trial.

Hearings are supposed to be very brief and concise. That is one of the reasons why it is not required to bring many witnesses.

If such a hearing by the NACC can lead to the impeachment of the PM by the senate, do you not think that she should be granted the opportunity to defend herself, to place the process above any question? Although it's called a hearing it's a trail, it's a trail of a democracy (with faults) against an elite cemented in the 19th century. Do you think the NACC is so busy that they can't listen to an extra 8 witnesses, will an extra day or 2 make a difference. Unfortunately the outcome, which will be guilty by both the NACC and the senate will only bring closer the end of Thailand as we know it today. Elites world wide tend to do the same thing over and over again, but it's 2014 not 2008.

[thesetat2013]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

Whats wrong with you. This is not a court trial and the NACC is only trying to collect enough evidence to see if there needs to be a senate hearing. By any rights they dont need her to defend herself right now. The NACC is not the justice or prosecutor. They would be the attorney general who decides wether there is enough evidence to impeach and incriminate her. So there is NO denial of justice as you state.

So dont worry ok. If she is innocent and did her job she can bring a thousand witnesses to the senate hearing if it helps her

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[thesetat2013]

Regardless of people's prejudgment of Yinluck's guilt or innocence, what is more fair than allowing the defendent to have all its witnesses testify? The Court basically says it allowed three witnesses to testify but anymore will upset its self-imposed deadline for a verdict. What's the rush? Such judicial control over Yingluck's ability to present her defense implies judicial bias at best and conflict of interest at worse. This Court is another throwback to the Democrat Government dictatorship and I doubt it can render any decision that would ever favor the PTP Government.

ITS NOT A COURT. ITS A COMMISSION.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[airconsult]

Why would the lawyers of Yingluck call these witness for her defense?

Here we have the PM, two of her Deputy PM's, labor minister and former DPM, and a deputy minister of commerce all knowing and admitting corruption in this scheme. Note the dates of these admissions.

Posted 2012-08-10 17:08:03

Kittiratt admits corruptions found in rice-pledging scheme

BANGKOK, 10 August 2012 (NNT) – Finance Minister Kittiratt Na Ranong has admitted that there have been reports of corruption in the government’s rice-pledging scheme.

Mr Kittiratt said the arrest of the suspects alleged for corruption in the rice-pledging scheme in the Northeast is a good thing. He believed there are more corruption cases that have not been reported. He also stated that he had never promised that the program would totally be be free of corruption .

The minister said Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung has been assigned by the Premier to help eradicating corrupt practices in the scheme.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/576379-kittiratt-admits-corruptions-found-in-rice-pledging-scheme-thailand/

The Nation July 1, 2013 5:38 pm

New Commerce Minister Niwatthumrong Boonsongpaisarn and his deputy Yanyong Phuangrach vowed to reduce corruption in rice pledging and releasing and to increase transparency and flexibility in rice selling to rebuild the ministry and country's image. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Ministers-assure-transparency-and-speedy-stockpile-30209478.html

You didn't mention in that very article it states that they were informed of corruption - and they took action to arrest those involved and investigate any further incidents.

That sounds like they were doing their job in trying to stop corruption. Is that a negligent thing to do?

You would have a excellent point if any arrest were ever made. I certainly cannot find anything prior to or since this statement by Kittiratt of any arrest made in connection with this scheme. The only news I could find was a threat of arrest made in Feb this year.

Please do correct me if I am wrong.

Deputy Minister of Commerce Yanyong Puangrach said arrest warrants had already been issued against the four commerce civil servants and committees had been set up to investigate them. There were video clips showing that they gave speeches on the PDRC’s stage. The clips would be used as evidence, Mr Yanyong said.

It was not appropriate for civil servants to publicly take side in politics and it was definitely in violation of the Emergency Decree to take part in the protests, the deputy minister said.

As for the former civil servants who accused the ministry of widespread corruption, Mr Yanyong said the ministry was deciding whether it could sue them since they had no evidence to support their accusation.

http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/thailand-four-civil-servants-from-the-ministry-of-commerce-face-arrest-warrants/

And, of course, Thais newspapers always report on every arrest and follow it though to conviction and sentencing...

What! you mean they rarely follow though! I suggest going and searching Thai Rath or Pantip.

The point was that after corruption was reported, the Chairperson set up a committee to investigate and prosecute. That doesn't sound like negligence.

If you are complaining that their names were not splashed all over the papers, remember the libel laws here - many newspapers don't wish to report on court cases at all, as even if truthful, if the court deems it was not in the public interest you can still be guilty. Also in provincial areas the newspaper license is reviewed annually by the local police - beware of irritating their friends.

[Artisi]

What can those 3 witness testify? That she was just doing shopping while her subordinates were diverting 450 billion bath to their pockets, therefore she is innocent and pretty?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/715752-tdri-says-corruption-in-rice-scheme-exceeds-450-billion-baht/

...... innocent and pretty useless.

[rubl]

Since when are an accused limited to the number of witnesses he or she can use to prove his/her case. When something smells like fish it's most of the times rotten fish.

Rametindallas has already provided the answer (two posts above yours)

This is not a trial, it is a preliminary hearing to decide if it is required to proceed with a trial.

Hearings are supposed to be very brief and concise. That is one of the reasons why it is not required to bring many witnesses.

If such a hearing by the NACC can lead to the impeachment of the PM by the senate, do you not think that she should be granted the opportunity to defend herself, to place the process above any question? Although it's called a hearing it's a trail, it's a trail of a democracy (with faults) against an elite cemented in the 19th century. Do you think the NACC is so busy that they can't listen to an extra 8 witnesses, will an extra day or 2 make a difference. Unfortunately the outcome, which will be guilty by both the NACC and the senate will only bring closer the end of Thailand as we know it today. Elites world wide tend to do the same thing over and over again, but it's 2014 not 2008.

The NACC collects information and may or may not move the case to the Senate for them to decide. It's not a trial and the reference with idiological terms like 'elite', doesn't help.

Please also remenber that the NACC informed then PM Yingluck of the need to look into problems with the rice scheme and during the censure debate she said to react adequatly and have her government really take care of corruption. When finally the NACC invites Ms. Yingluck she's not available, wants a delay, is granted delay, ask some more delay and finally comes with a list of more witnesses. It would seem like a bit of obfuscation, maybe trying to drag things out till maybe one of these months we'll get a new general election?

BTW negligent or corrupt, why did the Yingluck government blanket amnesty bill have an increased coverage period, including the first two years of Yingluck government? Did they think they might need it?

[Artisi]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

Would 100 witnesses suit you, how about 1,000, how about all the rice farmers who haven't been paid or is that over the top?

[Scamper]

As prime minister, Yingluck assumed a hands-on responsibility. This business of other people having to clarify her role because she is unable to is without any legal justification, without any legal precedent, and it also looks ridiculous and oh so strange. The NACC said they would allow three witnesses. Nittiratt is doubtless both irritated and anxious that he's now been placed in the hot seat - and why not - he was right in the centre of it. Yingluck will have us believe she's only in the centre of her facebook postings. And yet here again, the disconnect of Pheu Thai is on display. The NACC have rendered a decision regarding the witnesses, but then Pheu Thai turns around and goes on to say they hope they'll hear all eleven witnesses, as if they didn't listen to what the NACC just ruled. The decision is go ahead with impeachment proceedings with Somsak is long-overdue. His behavior from the start has been obscene. The speaker of the house is supposed to be impartial. He was everything but, and parliamentary rules simply fell to pieces under his supervision. The famous video clip of him proceeding with a vote, while ignoring debate protocol from the opposition party was one of the most shameful spectacles. It was a clear breach of parliamentary rules.That is how Somsak respected parliament.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Scamper

[Artisi]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

NACC why even the 3 you know the verdict you have them hung before you hear from the defense. Thai justice at it greatest. Just ask the Saudis.

Thats because these 3 witnesses can only testify that she didn't know what was happening because she never looked at any documents before she signed them and never went to any meetings as head of this and left all the details to her underlings without checking what they were doing.

Unless someone else goes into the NACC and states they fed her false documents and lied to show her the scheme was not flailing do to corruption then she is guilty. Plain and simple.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Every Suthep poster has the answers but never any facts to back it up. The only thing they remember is 2010 and totally forgot about 2008.

Those two sentences are pathetic!!!

1 - The facts about the corruption on the Rice Scheme are there. They are even corroborated by some perpetrators and collaborators themselves, and denounced by the FAO and the IMF. It's not required to be a "Suthep Poster" to know that facts.

2 - Whatever happened in 2008, does it invalidate the corruption on the Rice Pledge Scheme, and the negligence of the person in charge of the scheme, and her failure to prevent or denounce the corruption? Why are you mixing those events with this issue??

WHY? think the post in itself says it all - just as you have pointed out.

[Artisi]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

This is not the trial; this is a hearing to see if a trial is warranted. There are different standards for a hearing and for a trial. If she gets a trial, she can drag it out for months with hundreds of witness; she just won't be PM when she does.

.... and probably not even in the country, Dubai is looking good this time of year and all the sales are on.

[Artisi]

The thing that is really weird, is that instead of finding those that cheated the rice scheme and taking back the money, there is much more effort in trying to remove another ELECTED PM so, the yellows can steal government again, also the NACC dictates that only three of eleven witnesses are allowed to testify, why not allow all witnesses to testify?

Why not finish the 4 year court case against mark? if there is enough evidence then finish it, if no then throw it out...

Why is there not the same effort in bringing Suthep to face court? sauce for the goose,,,

You know what is weird? That you do the out most to come up with something to support this corrupt government. In not one of your post have I read anything that you take a stand against corruption, or that you support reforms.

So in your opinion it is ok that the rice farmers didn't get paid and the money went in the pockets of some political ********* that you call a democratic government.

Yes you areright, she was a elected pm, but is she is proven guilty than she has to face the music.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Correction guys -- not elected by the people but elected by the party members at the direction of a camel herding fugitive - a great recommendation to oversee and run a country.

[dcutman]

Why would the lawyers of Yingluck call these witness for her defense?

Here we have the PM, two of her Deputy PM's, labor minister and former DPM, and a deputy minister of commerce all knowing and admitting corruption in this scheme. Note the dates of these admissions.

Posted 2012-08-10 17:08:03

Kittiratt admits corruptions found in rice-pledging scheme

BANGKOK, 10 August 2012 (NNT) – Finance Minister Kittiratt Na Ranong has admitted that there have been reports of corruption in the government’s rice-pledging scheme.

Mr Kittiratt said the arrest of the suspects alleged for corruption in the rice-pledging scheme in the Northeast is a good thing. He believed there are more corruption cases that have not been reported. He also stated that he had never promised that the program would totally be be free of corruption .

The minister said Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung has been assigned by the Premier to help eradicating corrupt practices in the scheme.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/576379-kittiratt-admits-corruptions-found-in-rice-pledging-scheme-thailand/

The Nation July 1, 2013 5:38 pm

New Commerce Minister Niwatthumrong Boonsongpaisarn and his deputy Yanyong Phuangrach vowed to reduce corruption in rice pledging and releasing and to increase transparency and flexibility in rice selling to rebuild the ministry and country's image. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Ministers-assure-transparency-and-speedy-stockpile-30209478.html

You didn't mention in that very article it states that they were informed of corruption - and they took action to arrest those involved and investigate any further incidents.

That sounds like they were doing their job in trying to stop corruption. Is that a negligent thing to do?

You would have a excellent point if any arrest were ever made. I certainly cannot find anything prior to or since this statement by Kittiratt of any arrest made in connection with this scheme. The only news I could find was a threat of arrest made in Feb this year.

Please do correct me if I am wrong.

Deputy Minister of Commerce Yanyong Puangrach said arrest warrants had already been issued against the four commerce civil servants and committees had been set up to investigate them. There were video clips showing that they gave speeches on the PDRC’s stage. The clips would be used as evidence, Mr Yanyong said.

It was not appropriate for civil servants to publicly take side in politics and it was definitely in violation of the Emergency Decree to take part in the protests, the deputy minister said.

As for the former civil servants who accused the ministry of widespread corruption, Mr Yanyong said the ministry was deciding whether it could sue them since they had no evidence to support their accusation.

http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/thailand-four-civil-servants-from-the-ministry-of-commerce-face-arrest-warrants/

And, of course, Thais newspapers always report on every arrest and follow it though to conviction and sentencing...

What! you mean they rarely follow though! I suggest going and searching Thai Rath or Pantip.

The point was that after corruption was reported, the Chairperson set up a committee to investigate and prosecute. That doesn't sound like negligence.

If you are complaining that their names were not splashed all over the papers, remember the libel laws here - many newspapers don't wish to report on court cases at all, as even if truthful, if the court deems it was not in the public interest you can still be guilty. Also in provincial areas the newspaper license is reviewed annually by the local police - beware of irritating their friends.

From day 1 the rice scheme was implemented, there have been constant howls of corruption and non transparency. Are you trying to tell me that even if one arrest was made in connection with this scheme Yingluck, Chalerm, Kittiratt, or any other official would not be riding that glory of how they are preventing fraud and fulfilling their pledge to stop corruption.

Sorry Air there is a big hole in your bucket, its not holding water.

[Bluespunk]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

Perhaps the witnesses rejected had nothing to do with the scheme.

[smedly]

3 witnesses - statement

Yingluc the Prime Minister cannot be held responsible as she's been shopping for almost 3 years

Judges question - So who was in charge and were did almost 800 billion baht go ? our offices were raided PDRC and Suthep took it

[boomerangutang]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

Perhaps because the 3 allowed witnesses are the only ones in position to have any facts pertinent to the case. Similarly, the other 8 witnesses which the defense wants, may line up like Chaleum, and simply make vacuous and politically expedient speeches. Things like: "I observed the defendant, Ms Yingluck, doing everything properly."

They're all underlings of Yingluck and Thaksin, so you would expect them to toe the prescribed line. Not an independent thinker in the lot.

Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts. That's still their motto, and still their guiding principle. Thaksin will dictate to every player on his side, exactly what to say and what not to say.

Like that line from Bob Dylan's song 'Jack of Hearts'; "The only person on the scene missing - was the Jack of Hearts."

[bigbamboo]

Are Yingluck's lawyers completely mad?

Kittirat as a witness?

This man lies for fun. Nobody trusts him, not even his dog.

[Thait Spot]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

This isn't a trial.

It's purely a hearing to see if the case progresses to the next level

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. A post with messed up quotes was removed as well.

[rreddin]

tic toc tic toc.....boom!

Quite so, but maybe not the way you think.

The NACC is politicized. It brought the charges, and have decided who the accused may or may not call as a witness in their defence. I do not call that a fair legal system. Do you? I would remind you of the words of Francis Bacon. He said that no matter how heinous was the crime alleged against a man, he was entitled to have is case advocated.

This decisiopn by the NACC is another nail in the coffin of the Thai judicial system.

[rubl]

tic toc tic toc.....boom!

Quite so, but maybe not the way you think.

The NACC is politicized. It brought the charges, and have decided who the accused may or may not call as a witness in their defence. I do not call that a fair legal system. Do you? I would remind you of the words of Francis Bacon. He said that no matter how heinous was the crime alleged against a man, he was entitled to have is case advocated.

This decisiopn by the NACC is another nail in the coffin of the Thai judicial system.

Maybe the NACC decided that three was enough and having selected the most likely ones who can testify in favour of Ms. Yingluck, being

Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong, Commerce Minister Nivatthamrong Boonsongpaisal and Deputy Commerce Minister Yanyong.

Phuangrach.

Remember that those two departments have had many interesting figures on the huge success of the rice scheme and are therefore most likely to be of help to Ms. Yingluck. On the other hand what would Pol. Captain and MoL know about the rice scheme?

[dutchisaan]

tic toc tic toc.....boom!

Quite so, but maybe not the way you think.

The NACC is politicized. It brought the charges, and have decided who the accused may or may not call as a witness in their defence. I do not call that a fair legal system. Do you? I would remind you of the words of Francis Bacon. He said that no matter how heinous was the crime alleged against a man, he was entitled to have is case advocated.

This decisiopn by the NACC is another nail in the coffin of the Thai judicial system.

Sorry rreddin you made a spelling mistake, but let me help you.

It is not: the decision by the NACC is another nail in the coffin of the Thai judical system, but: the decision by the NACC is another nail in the couffin of this corrupt government.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Baerboxer]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

First you need to return to the country you are talking about

This is Thailand

if you want to live her except their ways

you are only here on invite

there are many of us who do not agree with Thai logic and laws

but we have learn to bend like a willow in a storm

Save you comments for where you came from

and if you want to live in Thailand, then adjust your thinking

right or wrong

He seems to think any court should allow an infinite number of defense witnesses all saying the same thing.

He hasn't seen the witness statements or understands what information they will add. Just wants to accept the usual PTP delaying tactics coupled with the let's be silly with our demands and then scream foul tactic,

He thinks YL is innocent and in the face of conflicting evidence relies on attacking the process.

Sad really.

[aussieinthailand]

The thing that is really weird, is that instead of finding those that cheated the rice scheme and taking back the money, there is much more effort in trying to remove another ELECTED PM so, the yellows can steal government again, also the NACC dictates that only three of eleven witnesses are allowed to testify, why not allow all witnesses to testify?

Why not finish the 4 year court case against mark? if there is enough evidence then finish it, if no then throw it out...

Why is there not the same effort in bringing Suthep to face court? sauce for the goose,,,

Duh, Suthep is not the PM who is responsible for running the country and all it involves, like the rice scheme in which a leader never even bothered to attend a meeting. All he is really is a reminder how the inept PM can't manage demonstrations; or even an ant farm for that matter.

Duh, Where in my post did I say Suthep is the PM who is responsible, Blah, Blah, blah, puffsit,,,! I'll say it (wright) it again slowly just for you Popit ok,,,

"Why is there not the same effort in bringing Suthep to face court? Just in case you forgot, he is supposed to face a court FACT. And he say's No'p I'm just to busy for court, would that be putting himself above the law's?? Try that in another 1st world country and see how far you get, but hey you support him and his lack of morals and ethics huh,

[maxme]

How can this be a fair hearing when the accused is not allowed to defend herself? Limiting the number of witnesses a defendant is allowed to call in the defense is a denial of justice. How can this inquisition expect people to respect the verdict when there is interference in the defense process? Apparently, some people do not appreciate the concept of an accused being given the right to a defense. Nice.

First you need to return to the country you are talking about

This is Thailand

if you want to live her except their ways

you are only here on invite

there are many of us who do not agree with Thai logic and laws

but we have learn to bend like a willow in a storm

Save you comments for where you came from

and if you want to live in Thailand, then adjust your thinking

right or wrong

He seems to think any court should allow an infinite number of defense witnesses all saying the same thing.

He hasn't seen the witness statements or understands what information they will add. Just wants to accept the usual PTP delaying tactics coupled with the let's be silly with our demands and then scream foul tactic,

He thinks YL is innocent and in the face of conflicting evidence relies on attacking the process.

Sad really.

Perhaps he is not defending her but pointing out how absurd Thai version of justice is. No matter if she is guilty or not, she deserves a fair hearing and a fair trial. Yet it is what it always has been... A farce. What is sad or rather pathetic, is you and your kind, trying to justify a banal hearing on the sole basis that you hate the woman.

There is no need in pointing out that this debacle has been going on for oh 70 years and is unlikely to stop until men and women here, especially men start taking some responsibilities.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[huanga]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

tic toc tic toc.....boom!

Quite so, but maybe not the way you think.

The NACC is politicized. It brought the charges, and have decided who the accused may or may not call as a witness in their defence. I do not call that a fair legal system. Do you? I would remind you of the words of Francis Bacon. He said that no matter how heinous was the crime alleged against a man, he was entitled to have is case advocated.

This decisiopn by the NACC is another nail in the coffin of the Thai judicial system.

Let fair be fair. You think NACC should allow YL have unlimited witnesse as she sees fit (so she can buy herself as much time as she likes). I don't see the same treatment when PTP was trying to shove the Amnesty bill down the Parliament's throat without giving every minister to voice their opinion (you should know Somsak, the house speaker, is in trouble for this matter as we speak). Then, let's get to the rice scam. Did PTP also offer fair and equal consideration before installing this failed policy? Because PTP thinks majority rule is Democracy. And now things are not going their way, so they cry foul? (NACC will rule by majority as how PTP ruled)

[aussieinthailand]

The thing that is really weird, is that instead of finding those that cheated the rice scheme and taking back the money, there is much more effort in trying to remove another ELECTED PM so, the yellows can steal government again, also the NACC dictates that only three of eleven witnesses are allowed to testify, why not allow all witnesses to testify?

Why not finish the 4 year court case against mark? if there is enough evidence then finish it, if no then throw it out...

Why is there not the same effort in bringing Suthep to face court? sauce for the goose,,,

You know what is weird? That you do the out most to come up with something to support this corrupt government. In not one of your post have I read anything that you take a stand against corruption, or that you support reforms.

So in your opinion it is ok that the rice farmers didn't get paid and the money went in the pockets of some political ********* that you call a democratic government.

Yes you areright, she was a elected pm, but is she is proven guilty than she has to face the music.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Really, "In not in one of your post's have I read anything that you take a stand against corruption, or support reforms."

Think you might want to try a little harder if you wish to try to discredit me, get your facts right first mate then make comment.

[rubl]

He seems to think any court should allow an infinite number of defense witnesses all saying the same thing.

He hasn't seen the witness statements or understands what information they will add. Just wants to accept the usual PTP delaying tactics coupled with the let's be silly with our demands and then scream foul tactic,

He thinks YL is innocent and in the face of conflicting evidence relies on attacking the process.

Sad really.

Perhaps he is not defending her but pointing out how absurd Thai version of justice is. No matter if she is guilty or not, she deserves a fair hearing and a fair trial. Yet it is what it always has been... A farce. What is sad or rather pathetic, is you and your kind, trying to justify a banal hearing on the sole basis that you hate the woman.

There is no need in pointing out that this debacle has been going on for oh 70 years and is unlikely to stop until men and women here, especially men start taking some responsibilities.

Ms. Yingluck was invited, but sent her legal team which started the delaying actions. We're not even at a trial yet, and with Ms. Yingluck obviously being innocent we will never get to that stage.

So to complain about the unfairness of it all, the 'absurd' Thai version of justice (your words, not mine) seems a bit overdone at this stage. The fact remains that the Yingluck government managed to leave 700++ billion guaranteed and no money to pay it. That may just be negligent only, but needs some answers. If the answers provided indicate sufficient reason to believe that 'negligence' the NACC will drop all with the Senate. Even then Ms. Yingluck is not on trial. Only when even the Senate concludes the evidence brought before them (and the lack of clear answers by the person under investigation) is sufficient to force not-so-caretaking PM Yingluck to resign, only then a court case may be filed against her. If it gets that far, her legal team can register as many witness as they can find and the court will in principle accept them.

In the mean time it would seem that the Yingluck government knew what they were doing when the pushed for the blanket amnesty bill, they knew the extended coverage period including the first two years of Yingluck would come in handy.