PM Yingluck admits tough rice testimony ahead

[mikemac]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

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?

Hate to be the one to disappoint you but it is you who is out of touch, not GAZZPA. And going by his posts I don't think he is mad either.

People like myself have been predicting this for years, the past is catching up with the PTP and yet another Shinawatra is about to "bite the dust".

Trouble is that unless they are complete cowards and flee the country into "self exile" they just seem to dust themselves off and keep on going, politically that is.

Where have you been the last couple of years ? Reading the trash talk over at Political Prisoners Thailand ? You certainly have not been keeping up with the events that are actually happening.

And making a nice list of "injustices" as you have does not give them any more credence, especially when they come from one of the politically inept and corrupt regimes on the planet.

Instead of insulting the intelligence of members like GAZZPA perhaps you should try to keep up and stop making a fool of yourself.

[darren84310]

She wants time for what?.... If the Rice Pledging Scheme had been run properly, then they would have all the facts and figures to hand instantly!!!!!!!

[GAZZPA]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

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?

Did your key get stuck when pressing the question mark?

I have not read any of this to be truthful but it shouldn't matter. If the NACC feel the need to investigate the allegations then they should be able to do it. It may or may not be true that they did not deal with issues correctly in the past, I don't know. But if it is true that they didn't then is a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

Sooner or later people have to let things take their course and forget about any past issues. Yingluck can afford the very best lawyers so she will have her defense in place I am sure.

In summary my point is the NACC do not need to justify their actions whilst investigating allegations of fraud, it is their sole purpose, and questioning their motivation is irrelevant because they would simply say "we are doing our job".

Sooner or later people have to let things take their course and forget about any past issues

glad you think Thaksin's 'issues' should be forgotten as part of the past - refreshing because you would not advocate double standards right?

That's not what I said, your twist of words is immature at best, you will have to do much better then that to convince me to change my mind.

I will try and explain it to as simply as I can… The NACC has a job to do and "sooner or later" people must forget about any past criticisms of their actions and let them do their job. There is no mention from me regarding Thaksin.

My point is consistent,, let the departments perform their duties. If there are questions over the departments previous performance then it should be dealt with separately.

[Baerboxer]

Why are her legal team questioning the motives of the NACC?

There are no hidden agendas and there is no additional motive other then simply for the NACC to perform their duty and investigate the corruption charges against Yingluck.

To me this tells me more about yingluck and her legal team then anything else. clearly they are used to looking for the hidden agenda or beneficiary for any activity.

Perhaps in this case the NACC are just doing their job and investigating the allegations.

why????????????? are you MAD? have you read the letter from PTP to the NACC pointing out the injustices? point by point? go read the thread (on TVF) and try not to look so 'out of touch' jeeze...

here it is:

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?

And you take everything the criminal caretakers say at face value without even questioning it ? Says a lot about you doesn't it. I could explain all the falsehoods here to you but you are a lost cause so I won't waste my time.

go read something that is not red biased and educate yourself about the truth and try not to look so 'brainwashed' jeeze...

great maybe you could go through point-by-point and give me the benefit of your obvious "education" and wisdom? start anytime you like

I did just that. Point by point on the previous thread where you copied and pasted these same 6 sentences from.

I won't waste my time again as you simply repeat PTP propaganda, deflections and out and out lies.

Like PTP, their supporters that post on here aren't really interested in facts, reality and the truth.

Maybe it's karma - she got away with perjury once, thanks to Tarit and is unique application of the law. Too many lies, too much arrogance gonna catch up sooner or later.

[Baerboxer]

She wants time for what?.... If the Rice Pledging Scheme had been run properly, then they would have all the facts and figures to hand instantly!!!!!!!

They have all the facts and figures to hand - they just don't want everyone else to see them

[Baerboxer]

Not that I care one bit, but how can the enquiry decline testimony from a desired witness. Have they given a reason because it could be that the statements ate irrelevant, but refusing to hear them does seem a little absurd.

The witnesses they declined to hear, include Chalerm and the head of the Thai accounting federation. All irrelevant because they had nothing directly to do with the rice pledging. They accepted the finance minister, the former commerce minister and the deputy commerce minister because they were involved with the rice pledging. Seems quite fair in the face of a legal challenge that is obviously design to stall and derail their case, rather than provide relevant testimony.

Her lawyers can call Chalerm and the others to testify in court later on, if they really think they can help.

................................"Her lawyers can call Chalerm".....................................

But would you really want that bumbling oaf in your corner ? He would probably get 2-3 years added to your sentence and get himself locked up for being drunk and disorderly while in public.

He would probably be the only person associated with the Shinawatra regime that even the most ardent red flag waving supporters won't stick up for, even the trolls won't mention him <deleted>.

They want Chalerm there to eyeball the judges. His presence would be a constant reminder of what might happen to anyone who has the nerve to dare question a Shin or one of their clan.

[GentlemanJim]

Can you imagine if you were as vague as this Government and Yingluck has been over what has happened to the rice pledging money with your personal or company tax returns? The IRS would have had you in the slammer 12 months ago and the UK wouldn't be far off. Even the Thai Government would be screaming at you and revoking visa's if you found it 'too difficult' to find the figures two years down the line. I think legal patience has rightly reached its elastic limit.

[Crushdepth]

Trying to defend the rice scheme...GOOD LUCK WITH THAT

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rametindallas]

If the NACC asks these three questions, it is an open and shut case and there is no possible or even theoretical defense.:

1. As Prime Minister, was it your responsibility to appoint a serious person to chair the Rice Support Program? (yes)

2. As Prime Minister, did you appoint yourself to the position of chair of the Rice Support Program? (yes)

3. Did you, personally, chair any meetings of the Rice Support Program? (no)

Guilty of negligence of duty; we will be recommending a formal indictment to the court and impeachment by the Senate.

No other questions need be asked and there is no defense.

[bulekee]

If the NACC asks these three questions, it is an open and shut case and there is no possible or even theoretical defense.:

1. As Prime Minister, was it your responsibility to appoint a serious person to chair the Rice Support Program? (yes)

2. As Prime Minister, did you appoint yourself to the position of chair of the Rice Support Program? (yes)

3. Did you, personally, chair any meetings of the Rice Support Program? (no)

Guilty of negligence of duty; we will be recommending a formal indictment to the court and impeachment by the Senate.

No other questions need be asked and there is no defense.

Sorry to disagree,but I would imagine that her defence would be."these questions are unfair as you are using words with more than one syllable"