PM will be given fair chance: NACC

[Dogmatix]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

Show me where he has accused her of corruption - she has been accused of negligence of duty because she was warned of the damage the rice scam would do and ignored those warnings. She also refused to stop it, when as head of the scam she should have been aware of the missing 400 billions of baht and 2 million tons of unaccounted for rice!!

To then say it is part of their mandate in the nullified Feb 2nd elections was irresponsible to the extreme and pretending that everything was hunky dory and that the lies were acceptable was madness on her part as boss of the scam. As per usual, she adopted her 'it will be OK' attitude when it was far from that - wishing problems will go away just doesn't work!!!

Exactly. The NACC only needs to show that there has been significant losses in the rice pledging scheme that either 1) are due to corruption, 2) can't be accounted for at all, including missing rice stocks, or 3) are as a result of sales below the purchase price. As chairman of the rice policy committee she is accused of failing to take any action to investigate or prevent these losses or to halt the scheme completely after receiving multiple warnings from various government agencies over a two year period.

There are 15 others who are being investigated for corruption over the scheme, including two of the three people who will appear as witnesses in Poo's defence next week. Even if no corruption is ever proved, Poo's failure to prevent losses on the sale of national assets is likely to be enough to convict her in the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Dogmatix

[rametindallas]

A little 'food for thought' for both sides:

'When Should Government Officials Be Criminally Liable for Failure to Prevent Corruption?Reflections on Thailand, and Beyond'

http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/03/11/when-should-government-officials-be-criminally-liable-for-failure-to-prevent-corruption-reflections-on-thailand-and-beyond/

Good article. She must have realized something was afoot when Arisman bought a fleet of widebody jets and her big brother boasted to Forbes that his wealth had increased 450% since the inception of his rice scam. Or is she a bit daft?

Good for Thaksin but bad for Thailand, Yingluck doesn't have a clue. Burburry on the mind. She'll know it's time to go when they tell her. Until then, she'll keep 'soldiering' on. Sad that her brother has destroyed her ability to live out her days in Thailand in his quest for wealth and political dominance.

[billd766]

Meanwhile in Lilliput Khun Suthep asked (and got) postponements for his trial stemming from his tenure of CRES: ordering the RTA to crackdown on the protesters that resulted in the death of journalists, nurses, innocent civilians in a Wat and hundreds of injured Thais including the assassination of Se Dang by a sniper on live TV.

How can Suthep have time to appear in court?

He is so busy leading a protest that hopefully will last 4 or 5 more months until he can become DPM again... or better. .

Let us not forget that Khun Suthep has the full faith, support and credit of the Bangkok Ammart.

Dysfunctional Thailand bent on returning to the feudal past. Red is not better that Yellow. Yellow is no better than Red.

Totally and completely as usual.

Poor attempt at changing the subject.

You DO know that Suthep is not the subject of the topic. It is all about PM Yingluck.

ps you missed the chance to slag off Abhisit at the same time.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

Show me where he has accused her of corruption - she has been accused of negligence of duty because she was warned of the damage the rice scam would do and ignored those warnings. She also refused to stop it, when as head of the scam she should have been aware of the missing 400 billions of baht and 2 million tons of unaccounted for rice!!

To then say it is part of their mandate in the nullified Feb 2nd elections was irresponsible to the extreme and pretending that everything was hunky dory and that the lies were acceptable was madness on her part as boss of the scam. As per usual, she adopted her 'it will be OK' attitude when it was far from that - wishing problems will go away just doesn't work!!!

Its not missing. It has presumably all been bought, paid for, invoiced and received.

Until someone gets hold of the figures to prove that the numbers have been deliberately corrupted, and that she knew about it and did nothing, its a hard case to prove.

She isn't going to get hung because someone claims to have bought 1000mt but only 800 is received. She isn't going to get hung because the border posts were letting Cambodian rice through.

If they set that as an precedent they will never get anyone to be chairman of any public organisation. Convict someone else first and get them to squeal. They need a squealer and if the corruption was on such a massive scale there should be many.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

Show me where he has accused her of corruption - she has been accused of negligence of duty because she was warned of the damage the rice scam would do and ignored those warnings. She also refused to stop it, when as head of the scam she should have been aware of the missing 400 billions of baht and 2 million tons of unaccounted for rice!!

To then say it is part of their mandate in the nullified Feb 2nd elections was irresponsible to the extreme and pretending that everything was hunky dory and that the lies were acceptable was madness on her part as boss of the scam. As per usual, she adopted her 'it will be OK' attitude when it was far from that - wishing problems will go away just doesn't work!!!

Exactly. The NACC only needs to show that there has been significant losses in the rice pledging scheme that either 1) are due to corruption, 2) can't be accounted for at all, including missing rice stocks, or 3) are as a result of sales below the purchase price. As chairman of the rice policy committee she is accused of failing to take any action to investigate or prevent these losses or to halt the scheme completely after receiving multiple warnings from various government agencies over a two year period.

There are 15 others who are being investigated for corruption over the scheme, including two of the three people who will appear as witnesses in Poo's defence next week. Even if no corruption is ever proved, Poo's failure to prevent losses on the sale of national assets is likely to be enough to convict her in the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders.

A. Shoe how? No one is convicted yet

B. Who is going to count the stacks and run the audit in double quick time. 20mn tonnes of product will only take a trice I suppose

C. Possible to catch her here. The policy was.sold as self funding. The initial capital should have I their theory been possible. But she can blame market movements.

[SICHONSTEVE]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

Show me where he has accused her of corruption - she has been accused of negligence of duty because she was warned of the damage the rice scam would do and ignored those warnings. She also refused to stop it, when as head of the scam she should have been aware of the missing 400 billions of baht and 2 million tons of unaccounted for rice!!

To then say it is part of their mandate in the nullified Feb 2nd elections was irresponsible to the extreme and pretending that everything was hunky dory and that the lies were acceptable was madness on her part as boss of the scam. As per usual, she adopted her 'it will be OK' attitude when it was far from that - wishing problems will go away just doesn't work!!!

Its not missing. It has presumably all been bought, paid for, invoiced and received.

Until someone gets hold of the figures to prove that the numbers have been deliberately corrupted, and that she knew about it and did nothing, its a hard case to prove.

She isn't going to get hung because someone claims to have bought 1000mt but only 800 is received. She isn't going to get hung because the border posts were letting Cambodian rice through.

If they set that as an precedent they will never get anyone to be chairman of any public organisation. Convict someone else first and get them to squeal. They need a squealer and if the corruption was on such a massive scale there should be many.

Surely you can't be that naïve, can you????

[SICHONSTEVE]

_{You might not like the courts but I can assure you that the investigators and judges are not stupid people!!!!}

[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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

The fact that not even one person has been jailed in the face of huge evidence of corruption going on with the Program speaks volumes to Yingluck and her government's attempt and curbing corruption. In fact, when a civil servant in the Ministry of Commerce bought evidence directly to the Senate, via her testimony, the government condemned her for speaking out, had her transferred and had to reinstate her because the transfer was not allowed a' la Thawit. This government has given fair warning to all whistle-blowers who would expose their corruption. Last year there was a photo op with Yingluck and her cabinet and big banners proclaiming they were going to root out corruption in the Rice Support Program. As you say, who has gone to jail? The government has admitted there is corruption in the program. Every NGO and civic organization has spoken out against how the government arraigned the program to be susceptible to corruption. How can the chairperson of the Rice Support Program tackle corruption when she never attended a single meeting of the committee. Negligence the same as the Customs officer who looks the other way when smuggled high-end cars are illegally brought into the country. Negligence like the patrolman who sleeps his shift away instead of watching over the citizen of his beat. Negligence like a PM who travels more air miles than any other world leader including Obama. Give it up. I know she is likable. I think she is a nice person thrust into an untenable position and her brother is using her the same way he used the rice farmers and everyone else who might serve HIS needs. You're defending the puppet of a narcissist who can't stop himself on his destructive path.

[hcvc]

On a spectrum the “middle” would occupy a neutral position. Vicha occupies a place in the “middle” of crucial events to come - having been placed there. The politically polarized dilemma dividing

Thailand is not an environment partial to impartiality. No hues from which to choose – just pick a color. Red or yellow.

Regardless of the virtues of the man - an impression is created by his affiliation with a former government perceived to be “yellow.”

“Vicha, who was appointed to the position by the coup-makers in 2006 ...”

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Legal-system-needs-a-revamp-NACCs-Vicha-30230960.html

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

Show me where he has accused her of corruption - she has been accused of negligence of duty because she was warned of the damage the rice scam would do and ignored those warnings. She also refused to stop it, when as head of the scam she should have been aware of the missing 400 billions of baht and 2 million tons of unaccounted for rice!!

To then say it is part of their mandate in the nullified Feb 2nd elections was irresponsible to the extreme and pretending that everything was hunky dory and that the lies were acceptable was madness on her part as boss of the scam. As per usual, she adopted her 'it will be OK' attitude when it was far from that - wishing problems will go away just doesn't work!!!

Its not missing. It has presumably all been bought, paid for, invoiced and received.

Until someone gets hold of the figures to prove that the numbers have been deliberately corrupted, and that she knew about it and did nothing, its a hard case to prove.

She isn't going to get hung because someone claims to have bought 1000mt but only 800 is received. She isn't going to get hung because the border posts were letting Cambodian rice through.

If they set that as an precedent they will never get anyone to be chairman of any public organisation. Convict someone else first and get them to squeal. They need a squealer and if the corruption was on such a massive scale there should be many.

Surely you can't be that naïve, can you????

What do you mean.

I worked in a company that bought, processed and exported a fraction of the volumes mentioned here. We uncovered a massaging of the numbers that was a small.percentage of value which equated to 10s of millions.

No one up country in the company admitted ANYTHING. no one knew anything. Everyone looked at the numbers and eventually the local accountant was quietly pushed out.

Head office general.manager looked at it and said, how was I suppose to know. The bangkok accountant and up country general manager never noticed anything. How was I supposed to know.

There must have been 100s of people who would have known what was going on.

So what are u supposed to do, sack the Bangkok boss because he didn't continually fly around the countryside to count stacks of product to find out if someone is lying?,

She will take this line. If the corruption was so massive why aren't there thousands of witnesses?

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

The fact that not even one person has been jailed in the face of huge evidence of corruption going on with the Program speaks volumes to Yingluck and her government's attempt and curbing corruption. In fact, when a civil servant in the Ministry of Commerce bought evidence directly to the Senate, via her testimony, the government condemned her for speaking out, had her transferred and had to reinstate her because the transfer was not allowed a' la Thawit. This government has given fair warning to all whistle-blowers who would expose their corruption. Last year there was a photo op with Yingluck and her cabinet and big banners proclaiming they were going to root out corruption in the Rice Support Program. As you say, who has gone to jail? The government has admitted there is corruption in the program. Every NGO and civic organization has spoken out against how the government arraigned the program to be susceptible to corruption. How can the chairperson of the Rice Support Program tackle corruption when she never attended a single meeting of the committee. Negligence the same as the Customs officer who looks the other way when smuggled high-end cars are illegally brought into the country. Negligence like the patrolman who sleeps his shift away instead of watching over the citizen of his beat. Negligence like a PM who travels more air miles than any other world leader including Obama. Give it up. I know she is likable. I think she is a nice person thrust into an untenable position and her brother is using her the same way he used the rice farmers and everyone else who might serve HIS needs. You're defending the puppet of a narcissist who can't stop himself on his destructive path.

I am trying to help people understand that by going after her like this, she will be turned into a.martyr and her supporters will claim that the process is corrupt.

I want the country to eventually reach a peaceful stable conclusion. A judgement like this won't achieve it. They need more evidence than people "saying", there is a lot of corruption in the system.

Go and investigate people who own warehouses up country and see how many bought supercars in the last few years. They know what has gone on.

[SICHONSTEVE]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

Show me where he has accused her of corruption - she has been accused of negligence of duty because she was warned of the damage the rice scam would do and ignored those warnings. She also refused to stop it, when as head of the scam she should have been aware of the missing 400 billions of baht and 2 million tons of unaccounted for rice!!

To then say it is part of their mandate in the nullified Feb 2nd elections was irresponsible to the extreme and pretending that everything was hunky dory and that the lies were acceptable was madness on her part as boss of the scam. As per usual, she adopted her 'it will be OK' attitude when it was far from that - wishing problems will go away just doesn't work!!!

Its not missing. It has presumably all been bought, paid for, invoiced and received.

Until someone gets hold of the figures to prove that the numbers have been deliberately corrupted, and that she knew about it and did nothing, its a hard case to prove.

She isn't going to get hung because someone claims to have bought 1000mt but only 800 is received. She isn't going to get hung because the border posts were letting Cambodian rice through.

If they set that as an precedent they will never get anyone to be chairman of any public organisation. Convict someone else first and get them to squeal. They need a squealer and if the corruption was on such a massive scale there should be many.

Surely you can't be that naïve, can you????

What do you mean.

I worked in a company that bought, processed and exported a fraction of the volumes mentioned here. We uncovered a massaging of the numbers that was a small.percentage of value which equated to 10s of millions.

No one up country in the company admitted ANYTHING. no one knew anything. Everyone looked at the numbers and eventually the local accountant was quietly pushed out.

Head office general.manager looked at it and said, how was I suppose to know. The bangkok accountant and up country general manager never noticed anything. How was I supposed to know.

There must have been 100s of people who would have known what was going on.

So what are u supposed to do, sack the Bangkok boss because he didn't continually fly around the countryside to count stacks of product to find out if someone is lying?,

She will take this line. If the corruption was so massive why aren't there thousands of witnesses?

Let her take this line and see how she gets on - they might say "OK, fair enough, case dismissed" or reality might enter the fray and..........!!!!

[Dogmatix]

A little 'food for thought' for both sides:

'When Should Government Officials Be Criminally Liable for Failure to Prevent Corruption?Reflections on Thailand, and Beyond'

http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/03/11/when-should-government-officials-be-criminally-liable-for-failure-to-prevent-corruption-reflections-on-thailand-and-beyond/

The author of that blog doesn't seem to understand three important points:

1) The charges relate not only to the egregious corruption found in the scheme (e.g. fake rice sales to China), but also to losses caused to the state in the sale of state assets. The whole scheme was based on speculation by Thaksin that by hoarding Thailand's rice production and forming a rice cartel with neighbouring countries,. he would be able to create a spike in the rice price (and widespread starvation in African countries), so that the government would book huge profits from the rice mountain and that, his family and political cronies would, of course, be the prime beneficiaries. Thus, quite apart from the corruption, YL had the obligation to halt the scheme when it was obvious that the speculative theory was actually an idiotic miscalculation by her brother and that Thailand was going to have sell a lot of rice at a huge loss. She could have, at least, halted the program and avoided buying any more rice that would have to be later sold at a loss.

2) The NACC is not a court of law. YL will have the opportunity to use many of the points he proposes in her defence when she appears at her criminal trial in the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders.

3) The 'Bill Gates Defence' he talks of may be possible for NGOs who determine that corruption in the implementation of their charitable programs is acceptable, as long as they are happy with the results net of corruption. However, it is not an acceptable defence for a politician who may face criminal prosecution to claim that they were happy with an acceptable level of corruption and losses, which in this case has already hit 3% of GDP and is still rising. There is no way in Thai law for government officials to claim any justification for accepting corruption of any size. Therefore the blogger's main argument is ludicrous.

[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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

The fact that not even one person has been jailed in the face of huge evidence of corruption going on with the Program speaks volumes to Yingluck and her government's attempt and curbing corruption. In fact, when a civil servant in the Ministry of Commerce bought evidence directly to the Senate, via her testimony, the government condemned her for speaking out, had her transferred and had to reinstate her because the transfer was not allowed a' la Thawit. This government has given fair warning to all whistle-blowers who would expose their corruption. Last year there was a photo op with Yingluck and her cabinet and big banners proclaiming they were going to root out corruption in the Rice Support Program. As you say, who has gone to jail? The government has admitted there is corruption in the program. Every NGO and civic organization has spoken out against how the government arraigned the program to be susceptible to corruption. How can the chairperson of the Rice Support Program tackle corruption when she never attended a single meeting of the committee. Negligence the same as the Customs officer who looks the other way when smuggled high-end cars are illegally brought into the country. Negligence like the patrolman who sleeps his shift away instead of watching over the citizen of his beat. Negligence like a PM who travels more air miles than any other world leader including Obama. Give it up. I know she is likable. I think she is a nice person thrust into an untenable position and her brother is using her the same way he used the rice farmers and everyone else who might serve HIS needs. You're defending the puppet of a narcissist who can't stop himself on his destructive path.

I am trying to help people understand that by going after her like this, she will be turned into a.martyr and her supporters will claim that the process is corrupt.

I want the country to eventually reach a peaceful stable conclusion. A judgement like this won't achieve it. They need more evidence than people "saying", there is a lot of corruption in the system.

Go and investigate people who own warehouses up country and see how many bought supercars in the last few years. They know what has gone on.

I know what you are saying but, on this forum, we don't have to be pragmatic. We can take the moral high-ground; especially if it doesn't cost us financially. Ms Yingluck was doing just fine as a human being and mom before Dr. Thaksin plucked her from relative obscurity and put her in the center of his massively corrupt mafia AKA PTP. She will be better off being a martyr (and a mom), and so will Thailand, than to continue the farce of her actually being the PM and responsible for anything. Thaksin had his day and his time at the public trough. Time for others to have a turn. Corruption is not going to end in Thailand but Thaksin wanted a monopoly on it. I'm against that; not that it matters to anyone but a few on this forum.

[lostinsurin]

A little 'food for thought' for both sides:

'When Should Government Officials Be Criminally Liable for Failure to Prevent Corruption?Reflections on Thailand, and Beyond'

http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/03/11/when-should-government-officials-be-criminally-liable-for-failure-to-prevent-corruption-reflections-on-thailand-and-beyond/

This is a brilliant post,

but I'm afraid it is wasted on many TV posters.

Keep posts like this coming.

[lostinsurin]

A little 'food for thought' for both sides:

'When Should Government Officials Be Criminally Liable for Failure to Prevent Corruption?Reflections on Thailand, and Beyond'

http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/03/11/when-should-government-officials-be-criminally-liable-for-failure-to-prevent-corruption-reflections-on-thailand-and-beyond/

Good article. She must have realized something was afoot when Arisman bought a fleet of widebody jets and her big brother boasted to Forbes that his wealth had increased 450% since the inception of his rice scam. Or is she a bit daft?

Good for Thaksin but bad for Thailand, Yingluck doesn't have a clue. Burburry on the mind. She'll know it's time to go when they tell her. Until then, she'll keep 'soldiering' on. Sad that her brother has destroyed her ability to live out her days in Thailand in his quest for wealth and political dominance.

Just when I thought you had a bit more brains than most on here, you go and ruin it!

[lostinsurin]

A little 'food for thought' for both sides:

'When Should Government Officials Be Criminally Liable for Failure to Prevent Corruption?Reflections on Thailand, and Beyond'

http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/03/11/when-should-government-officials-be-criminally-liable-for-failure-to-prevent-corruption-reflections-on-thailand-and-beyond/

The author of that blog doesn't seem to understand three important points:

1) The charges relate not only to the egregious corruption found in the scheme (e.g. fake rice sales to China), but also to losses caused to the state in the sale of state assets. The whole scheme was based on speculation by Thaksin that by hoarding Thailand's rice production and forming a rice cartel with neighbouring countries,. he would be able to create a spike in the rice price (and widespread starvation in African countries), so that the government would book huge profits from the rice mountain and that, his family and political cronies would, of course, be the prime beneficiaries. Thus, quite apart from the corruption, YL had the obligation to halt the scheme when it was obvious that the speculative theory was actually an idiotic miscalculation by her brother and that Thailand was going to have sell a lot of rice at a huge loss. She could have, at least, halted the program and avoided buying any more rice that would have to be later sold at a loss.

2) The NACC is not a court of law. YL will have the opportunity to use many of the points he proposes in her defence when she appears at her criminal trial in the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders.

3) The 'Bill Gates Defence' he talks of may be possible for NGOs who determine that corruption in the implementation of their charitable programs is acceptable, as long as they are happy with the results net of corruption. However, it is not an acceptable defence for a politician who may face criminal prosecution to claim that they were happy with an acceptable level of corruption and losses, which in this case has already hit 3% of GDP and is still rising. There is no way in Thai law for government officials to claim any justification for accepting corruption of any size. Therefore the blogger's main argument is ludicrous.

So dogmatrix you think "the blogger's main argument is ludicrous."

And the blogger is Mathew Stephenson

Professor of Law, Harvard Law School you are hilarious!

[rametindallas]

A little 'food for thought' for both sides:

'When Should Government Officials Be Criminally Liable for Failure to Prevent Corruption?Reflections on Thailand, and Beyond'

http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/03/11/when-should-government-officials-be-criminally-liable-for-failure-to-prevent-corruption-reflections-on-thailand-and-beyond/

Good article. She must have realized something was afoot when Arisman bought a fleet of widebody jets and her big brother boasted to Forbes that his wealth had increased 450% since the inception of his rice scam. Or is she a bit daft?

Good for Thaksin but bad for Thailand, Yingluck doesn't have a clue. Burburry on the mind. She'll know it's time to go when they tell her. Until then, she'll keep 'soldiering' on. Sad that her brother has destroyed her ability to live out her days in Thailand in his quest for wealth and political dominance.

Just when I thought you had a bit more brains than most on here, you go and ruin it!

Not that I write to please you, but since I haven't read any of your posts, I can't guess what makes you think I have less brains than earlier? Because I have chosen a side? In Thailand, everyone chooses a side. Still, I'd like to know what bothers you about my post. I like Yingluck (as a person/not a politician; she's a terrible politician) and think Thaksin is the worst plague that could befall any country or people. BTW, my best, best friends are Thaksinistas but I have Royalists friends, also. All of them know my politics but that doesn't make them lose respect for me.

[ramrod711]

alleged failure to stop losses

Huh? Its a subsidy program. Of course it is going to lose money.

Oh, well then, if it was SUPPOSED to lose 700 billion baht then that's ok. Yingluck you can return to p-ssing away every baht in the treasury if that was the intention. Don't worry about the farmers you didn't pay or the first car people waiting for their refund, and as for the children waiting for their tablets, don't worry your little head, now that it has been explained that you intended to lose 700 billion baht, I understand. I'm not sure the NACC will understand, but hey, it's good enough for me and Thai at Heart.

[rametindallas]

A little 'food for thought' for both sides:

'When Should Government Officials Be Criminally Liable for Failure to Prevent Corruption?Reflections on Thailand, and Beyond'

http://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/03/11/when-should-government-officials-be-criminally-liable-for-failure-to-prevent-corruption-reflections-on-thailand-and-beyond/

The author of that blog doesn't seem to understand three important points:

1) The charges relate not only to the egregious corruption found in the scheme (e.g. fake rice sales to China), but also to losses caused to the state in the sale of state assets. The whole scheme was based on speculation by Thaksin that by hoarding Thailand's rice production and forming a rice cartel with neighbouring countries,. he would be able to create a spike in the rice price (and widespread starvation in African countries), so that the government would book huge profits from the rice mountain and that, his family and political cronies would, of course, be the prime beneficiaries. Thus, quite apart from the corruption, YL had the obligation to halt the scheme when it was obvious that the speculative theory was actually an idiotic miscalculation by her brother and that Thailand was going to have sell a lot of rice at a huge loss. She could have, at least, halted the program and avoided buying any more rice that would have to be later sold at a loss.

2) The NACC is not a court of law. YL will have the opportunity to use many of the points he proposes in her defence when she appears at her criminal trial in the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders.

3) The 'Bill Gates Defence' he talks of may be possible for NGOs who determine that corruption in the implementation of their charitable programs is acceptable, as long as they are happy with the results net of corruption. However, it is not an acceptable defence for a politician who may face criminal prosecution to claim that they were happy with an acceptable level of corruption and losses, which in this case has already hit 3% of GDP and is still rising. There is no way in Thai law for government officials to claim any justification for accepting corruption of any size. Therefore the blogger's main argument is ludicrous.

Unlike many members of this forum, the writer has chosen to remain 'fair and balanced' by making good points and then giving good counterpoints. As a law professor, he should. The piece is a good outline of the situation and a good place to begin a more serious, in depth debate which is exactly what you have done. I would like both sides of this argument to use a framework such as this piece to discuss various points raised in the article. I'm so tired of Suthep this or 'the Red Shirts' that, without really debating anything or even giving answers to questions directed at them. I would love to comment on your post but I have to go. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

[rreddin]

Oh no she won't and how do I know, because PTP and the reds are lining up to tell me.

Listen to Jatuporn on the BBC today saying the public are ready to fight because the Bangkok elite are cheating them.

Simple question K. Jatuporn, what are you now ? You've done quite well out of things thanks to Mr. T and sit at the top table but of course you are not one of the elite and can relax knowing your sheep will believe everything you say.

The reason why the PM's older brother can travel the World at will is because his conviction following the coup was seen around the globe as being political motivated and as such scant notice is paid to it. NACC are heading down the same path with his sister. The shortcomings in NACC's procedures have been exposed - they investigate (the investigator is on record as being an oponent of Thaksin - so is not going to be impartial), they decide what witnesses may be called by the accused, they determine the case and it is they that set the penalty. That is not how a fair judicial system works.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.

[lostinsurin]

To Rametindallas,

It was the handbag comment, it just lowered the tone to the usual level.

[catinthehat]

Oh no she won't and how do I know, because PTP and the reds are lining up to tell me.

Listen to Jatuporn on the BBC today saying the public are ready to fight because the Bangkok elite are cheating them.

Simple question K. Jatuporn, what are you now ? You've done quite well out of things thanks to Mr. T and sit at the top table but of course you are not one of the elite and can relax knowing your sheep will believe everything you say.

Did the BBC, in the interests of fairness and unbiased full reporting, discuss Japtuporn's impending court appearance for breaching his bail conditions on his terrorist charges resulting from his part in the 2010 insurrection riots? Did the question him on exactly how he got "appointed" red leader? Did they probe any unusual increases in wealth? Was their any attempt to push for answers on why farmers hadn't been paid or transparency of accounting to show where the money went?

I didn't catch this on the BBC - but I can probably guess the answer to the above! Who did the interview?

I believe it was that worthless twit Jonathan Head. I saw the interview and as usual there was no mention of the real story of what's going on. Only the usual "poor us" whnings of a red that is hell bent on (once again) using violent means (while wating for the impending decision on revokation or not of his current bail) for inciting violence in the past. Nothing at all mentioned about all of the current PTP gvernmant (issues) such as all of the impending results of current cases invoving YL. And the article once again statred that the poor reds are suffering from persecution by the Thai elite. Wasn't this the same reporter that was banned from the Foreign Correspondent club for the very poor reporintg of the riots of 2012 from behind the sandbags up Rama 4 from the intersection at Lumpini Park? Or was that CNN? Most of the global news agencies for the past few months have reported the demonstrators as the problem. And very few mentin that the same poor folks that elected YL have been totally screwed by her by not being paid, not meeting with their reps, and many false promises of payment that have STILL NOT Happened. The worst recent interview and article was done by Christianne Amanpour with YL. Atrocious interview. Totally scripted and never touched on any of PTP's minuses/failures. A total correspondent's sham!!!!!

[Prbkk]

This is a complete farce. One can accept the idea that rice pledging was not great policy, fine. Little different, in policy terms from schemes operating in the USA, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and many other countries. When a policy becomes unpopular, it is reasoanble for the govt responsible for it to be voted out of office. That can still happen here. But that isn't the agenda: the old guard want back in and will do ANYTHING to make that happen. Their behaviour is scandalous

[whybother]

Meanwhile in Lilliput Khun Suthep asked (and got) postponements for his trial stemming from his tenure of CRES: ordering the RTA to crackdown on the protesters that resulted in the death of journalists, nurses, innocent civilians in a Wat and hundreds of injured Thais including the assassination of Se Dang by a sniper on live TV.

How can Suthep have time to appear in court?

He is so busy leading a protest that hopefully will last 4 or 5 more months until he can become DPM again... or better. .

Let us not forget that Khun Suthep has the full faith, support and credit of the Bangkok Ammart.

Dysfunctional Thailand bent on returning to the feudal past. Red is not better that Yellow. Yellow is no better than Red.

He didn't ask. He just didn't turn up. Then arrest warrants were issued.

[whybother]

This is a complete farce. One can accept the idea that rice pledging was not great policy, fine. Little different, in policy terms from schemes operating in the USA, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and many other countries. When a policy becomes unpopular, it is reasoanble for the govt responsible for it to be voted out of office. That can still happen here. But that isn't the agenda: the old guard want back in and will do ANYTHING to make that happen. Their behaviour is scandalous

The investigation isn't about whether the policy was good or not. It's related to the corruption of the policy.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

The fact that not even one person has been jailed in the face of huge evidence of corruption going on with the Program speaks volumes to Yingluck and her government's attempt and curbing corruption. In fact, when a civil servant in the Ministry of Commerce bought evidence directly to the Senate, via her testimony, the government condemned her for speaking out, had her transferred and had to reinstate her because the transfer was not allowed a' la Thawit. This government has given fair warning to all whistle-blowers who would expose their corruption. Last year there was a photo op with Yingluck and her cabinet and big banners proclaiming they were going to root out corruption in the Rice Support Program. As you say, who has gone to jail? The government has admitted there is corruption in the program. Every NGO and civic organization has spoken out against how the government arraigned the program to be susceptible to corruption. How can the chairperson of the Rice Support Program tackle corruption when she never attended a single meeting of the committee. Negligence the same as the Customs officer who looks the other way when smuggled high-end cars are illegally brought into the country. Negligence like the patrolman who sleeps his shift away instead of watching over the citizen of his beat. Negligence like a PM who travels more air miles than any other world leader including Obama. Give it up. I know she is likable. I think she is a nice person thrust into an untenable position and her brother is using her the same way he used the rice farmers and everyone else who might serve HIS needs. You're defending the puppet of a narcissist who can't stop himself on his destructive path.

I am trying to help people understand that by going after her like this, she will be turned into a.martyr and her supporters will claim that the process is corrupt.

I want the country to eventually reach a peaceful stable conclusion. A judgement like this won't achieve it. They need more evidence than people "saying", there is a lot of corruption in the system.

Go and investigate people who own warehouses up country and see how many bought supercars in the last few years. They know what has gone on.

I know what you are saying but, on this forum, we don't have to be pragmatic. We can take the moral high-ground; especially if it doesn't cost us financially. Ms Yingluck was doing just fine as a human being and mom before Dr. Thaksin plucked her from relative obscurity and put her in the center of his massively corrupt mafia AKA PTP. She will be better off being a martyr (and a mom), and so will Thailand, than to continue the farce of her actually being the PM and responsible for anything. Thaksin had his day and his time at the public trough. Time for others to have a turn. Corruption is not going to end in Thailand but Thaksin wanted a monopoly on it. I'm against that; not that it matters to anyone but a few on this forum.

I disagree. Unless the accusation is clearly proven, it will simply throw more fuel on the fire to say that the system is unfairly jigged against the PTP/ TRT .

The issue will be made bigger. Expediency will not solve the problem.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

The fact that not even one person has been jailed in the face of huge evidence of corruption going on with the Program speaks volumes to Yingluck and her government's attempt and curbing corruption. In fact, when a civil servant in the Ministry of Commerce bought evidence directly to the Senate, via her testimony, the government condemned her for speaking out, had her transferred and had to reinstate her because the transfer was not allowed a' la Thawit. This government has given fair warning to all whistle-blowers who would expose their corruption. Last year there was a photo op with Yingluck and her cabinet and big banners proclaiming they were going to root out corruption in the Rice Support Program. As you say, who has gone to jail? The government has admitted there is corruption in the program. Every NGO and civic organization has spoken out against how the government arraigned the program to be susceptible to corruption. How can the chairperson of the Rice Support Program tackle corruption when she never attended a single meeting of the committee. Negligence the same as the Customs officer who looks the other way when smuggled high-end cars are illegally brought into the country. Negligence like the patrolman who sleeps his shift away instead of watching over the citizen of his beat. Negligence like a PM who travels more air miles than any other world leader including Obama. Give it up. I know she is likable. I think she is a nice person thrust into an untenable position and her brother is using her the same way he used the rice farmers and everyone else who might serve HIS needs. You're defending the puppet of a narcissist who can't stop himself on his destructive path.

I am trying to help people understand that by going after her like this, she will be turned into a.martyr and her supporters will claim that the process is corrupt.

I want the country to eventually reach a peaceful stable conclusion. A judgement like this won't achieve it. They need more evidence than people "saying", there is a lot of corruption in the system.

Go and investigate people who own warehouses up country and see how many bought supercars in the last few years. They know what has gone on.

I know what you are saying but, on this forum, we don't have to be pragmatic. We can take the moral high-ground; especially if it doesn't cost us financially. Ms Yingluck was doing just fine as a human being and mom before Dr. Thaksin plucked her from relative obscurity and put her in the center of his massively corrupt mafia AKA PTP. She will be better off being a martyr (and a mom), and so will Thailand, than to continue the farce of her actually being the PM and responsible for anything. Thaksin had his day and his time at the public trough. Time for others to have a turn. Corruption is not going to end in Thailand but Thaksin wanted a monopoly on it. I'm against that; not that it matters to anyone but a few on this forum.

I disagree. Unless the accusation is clearly proven, it will simply throw more fuel on the fire to say that the system is unfairly jigged against the PTP/ TRT .

The issue will be made bigger. Expediency will not solve the problem.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Has anyone been jailed for corruption pertaining to the rice policy yet? If not, what corruption would you like her to be convicted of.

I am not defending her of anything, but the system can't convict her on the back of newspaper headlines. Its a little like the woman at the news of the world.

They can't convict her of managing illegal phone hacking until they convict an underling of committing phone hacking.

The fact that not even one person has been jailed in the face of huge evidence of corruption going on with the Program speaks volumes to Yingluck and her government's attempt and curbing corruption. In fact, when a civil servant in the Ministry of Commerce bought evidence directly to the Senate, via her testimony, the government condemned her for speaking out, had her transferred and had to reinstate her because the transfer was not allowed a' la Thawit. This government has given fair warning to all whistle-blowers who would expose their corruption. Last year there was a photo op with Yingluck and her cabinet and big banners proclaiming they were going to root out corruption in the Rice Support Program. As you say, who has gone to jail? The government has admitted there is corruption in the program. Every NGO and civic organization has spoken out against how the government arraigned the program to be susceptible to corruption. How can the chairperson of the Rice Support Program tackle corruption when she never attended a single meeting of the committee. Negligence the same as the Customs officer who looks the other way when smuggled high-end cars are illegally brought into the country. Negligence like the patrolman who sleeps his shift away instead of watching over the citizen of his beat. Negligence like a PM who travels more air miles than any other world leader including Obama. Give it up. I know she is likable. I think she is a nice person thrust into an untenable position and her brother is using her the same way he used the rice farmers and everyone else who might serve HIS needs. You're defending the puppet of a narcissist who can't stop himself on his destructive path.

I am trying to help people understand that by going after her like this, she will be turned into a.martyr and her supporters will claim that the process is corrupt.

I want the country to eventually reach a peaceful stable conclusion. A judgement like this won't achieve it. They need more evidence than people "saying", there is a lot of corruption in the system.

Go and investigate people who own warehouses up country and see how many bought supercars in the last few years. They know what has gone on.

I know what you are saying but, on this forum, we don't have to be pragmatic. We can take the moral high-ground; especially if it doesn't cost us financially. Ms Yingluck was doing just fine as a human being and mom before Dr. Thaksin plucked her from relative obscurity and put her in the center of his massively corrupt mafia AKA PTP. She will be better off being a martyr (and a mom), and so will Thailand, than to continue the farce of her actually being the PM and responsible for anything. Thaksin had his day and his time at the public trough. Time for others to have a turn. Corruption is not going to end in Thailand but Thaksin wanted a monopoly on it. I'm against that; not that it matters to anyone but a few on this forum.

I disagree. Unless the accusation is clearly proven, it will simply throw more fuel on the fire to say that the system is unfairly jigged against the PTP/ TRT .

The issue will be made bigger. Expediency will not solve the problem.