Supa Piyajitti selected as new NACC member

[marcusd]

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

Yep.... chalk up another of the Suthep/Abhisit clan on the " independent...neutral" Commission...and then with the new Senator elect Jongchai Thiengtham who wants to be the upper house speaker... just a continuation of the dismantling of a fair and equitable body started in 2006... the never ending coup... and the beat goes on... more power too them... if your public allows you to stack the deck...som nom na... they get what they deserve...one day.. maybe not in this lifetime but when education is truly a desire... and history and information can be freely interpreted... the truth will be known and these cowboys all exposed 250-138= _____...

1. So what's actually your point?

2. How would you suggest appointing the commissioners of the NACC?

3. Who are the cowboys you mention?

4. Please share some suggested real names as possible NACC commissioners.

Let me put it to ya this way... lets deal with the cowboys...and you have to step back and look at this from a bigger perspective...follow the money... follow who finances the Democrat Party... Look at who sits on the boards of these companies...look at what leading Industrialists say about the unbelievable sway BOT, Privy Council..and the 10 or 20 wealthiest Thai Families have and their relationship to Thai Politics...takes a bit of reading and research ... a few months worth for me as I can't sit and ponder it daily but could prove quite revealing to you as well but is a good read...and then couple that with the archaic laws governing freedom of speech ..Those two tied together are what keeps the MO going... and the monied people from both colored sides understand this.... though one side weighs in quite a bit heavier than the other,,,if and when... you are not sued for defamation and truth can be spoken out loud and topics not intentionally suppressed.....only then can the playing field be a bit more level... for me the biggest inhibiting factor is truth and education...taking the Thai people out of the mythology of expertise and actually educating them and giving them the confidence to speak up...something they are currently taught not to do from Matayom 1 on... you know thew old adage... Money talks... has a couple of edges...bribes.. is the obvious ...but the subtler is the one where someone evaluates what a billionaire says and weighs that against what a pauper says... and normally thinks that the guy with the money must be right...he got the money so his MO must be the better choice...

Someone that sits on a Commission that decides on Corruption or Decides on Elections has to be as squeaky clean as possible and has to be vetted publicly otherwise it matters not what side you take there will always be those who claim corruption there as well... They should be vetted publicly and agreed on by a broad spectrum of the public in order to not be a repeat of the last 8 years...

not gonna take the time to give you as list now ....as what or who I think might be good has no bearing on any outcomes but... I think the Thai public should be provided a list to take a look at.. not arbitrary appointments by insiders stacking the deck in their interests... Education is the key... Thais are taught not to think independently...and frankly after 12 or more years of that hammered into your head in school you end up with people in the workforce with an attitude that does not embrace educating themselves in any way shape or form or even wanting to...after getting a degree..not all mind you ..but many...just don't want to study anymore because that takes work...and that has been intentional...that is where the whole thing functions from... it is how the cowboys keep control of the herd...

The MAJORITIES of the world are not always right and do not always know what is BEST for them or anything else.

The government with its massively CORRUPT schemes, and my stating this is based on what IMF and other world agencies have stated in the past and on what is happening now. If not so then no commissions of inquiry.

AND as much as many of you sprout that THE MAJORITY WANTS AND KNOWS, well this is absolute TRASH. That is why EMPLOYEES do not run the office - they have NO IDEA and that unfortunately is the case with MANY THAI PEOPLE who are ill advised, poorly educated and lack any interest in many things of Government and National interest. National interest is about BIG BUSINESS and unfortunately, whether we like it or not, if we work for someone, we are merely PAWNS in the big world game.

[DirtFarmer]

Let me put it to ya this way... lets deal with the cowboys...and you have to step back and look at this from a bigger perspective...follow the money... follow who finances the Democrat Party... Look at who sits on the boards of these companies...look at what leading Industrialists say about the unbelievable sway BOT, Privy Council..and the 10 or 20 wealthiest Thai Families have and their relationship to Thai Politics...takes a bit of reading and research ... a few months worth for me as I can't sit and ponder it daily but could prove quite revealing to you as well but is a good read...and then couple that with the archaic laws governing freedom of speech ..Those two tied together are what keeps the MO going... and the monied people from both colored sides understand this.... though one side weighs in quite a bit heavier than the other,,,if and when... you are not sued for defamation and truth can be spoken out loud and topics not intentionally suppressed.....only then can the playing field be a bit more level... for me the biggest inhibiting factor is truth and education...taking the Thai people out of the mythology of expertise and actually educating them and giving them the confidence to speak up...something they are currently taught not to do from Matayom 1 on... you know thew old adage... Money talks... has a couple of edges...bribes.. is the obvious ...but the subtler is the one where someone evaluates what a billionaire says and weighs that against what a pauper says... and normally thinks that the guy with the money must be right...he got the money so his MO must be the better choice...

Someone that sits on a Commission that decides on Corruption or Decides on Elections has to be as squeaky clean as possible and has to be vetted publicly otherwise it matters not what side you take there will always be those who claim corruption there as well... They should be vetted publicly and agreed on by a broad spectrum of the public in order to not be a repeat of the last 8 years...

not gonna take the time to give you as list now ....as what or who I think might be good has no bearing on any outcomes but... I think the Thai public should be provided a list to take a look at.. not arbitrary appointments by insiders stacking the deck in their interests... Education is the key... Thais are taught not to think independently...and frankly after 12 or more years of that hammered into your head in school you end up with people in the workforce with an attitude that does not embrace educating themselves in any way shape or form or even wanting to...after getting a degree..not all mind you ..but many...just don't want to study anymore because that takes work...and that has been intentional...that is where the whole thing functions from... it is how the cowboys keep control of the herd...

The MAJORITIES of the world are not always right and do not always know what is BEST for them or anything else.

The government with its massively CORRUPT schemes, and my stating this is based on what IMF and other world agencies have stated in the past and on what is happening now. If not so then no commissions of inquiry.

AND as much as many of you sprout that THE MAJORITY WANTS AND KNOWS, well this is absolute TRASH. That is why EMPLOYEES do not run the office - they have NO IDEA and that unfortunately is the case with MANY THAI PEOPLE who are ill advised, poorly educated and lack any interest in many things of Government and National interest. National interest is about BIG BUSINESS and unfortunately, whether we like it or not, if we work for someone, we are merely PAWNS in the big world game.

Agree whole heartedly...it is a much bigger picture than just votes or majority ( his signature not mine) but what the majority wants here is not what the controlling minority wants... and if you look at my first paragraph above you will see I referred to exactly what you said chorused here... the employees never run the office...

[rickirs]

So Ms Supa was known for her "audacious" move in uncovering evidence of corruption in the rice pledging scheme. Curious to understand what was audacious about it . But she will no doubt be biased and maybe even vendictive in her role as a NACC member. NACC doesn't need this person if it wants to portray itself as independent and unpolitical.

[scorecard]

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

So Ms Supa was known for her "audacious" move in uncovering evidence of corruption in the rice pledging scheme. Curious to understand what was audacious about it . But she will no doubt be biased and maybe even vendictive in her role as a NACC member. NACC doesn't need this person if it wants to portray itself as independent and unpolitical.

Well you can play with that point.

It's also true the NACC needs people who are expert in finding appropriate and specific evidence.

[gabruce]

Seriously? They select their own members? Sounds like the recipe for corruption.

They have to be approved by the Senate and the King both, so reasonable blockage for corruption.

[wolf5370]

So Ms Supa was known for her "audacious" move in uncovering evidence of corruption in the rice pledging scheme. Curious to understand what was audacious about it . But she will no doubt be biased and maybe even vendictive in her role as a NACC member. NACC doesn't need this person if it wants to portray itself as independent and unpolitical.

That is a catch-22. Do we want the NACC filled with people willing to stand up against corruption in if that means loosing their job and painting a target on their back? Yes, of course. However, as you say, that automatically makes them potentially biased, have tainted views and/or bitter and likely vindictive. So the alternative is to have what?

[gabruce]

So Ms Supa was known for her "audacious" move in uncovering evidence of corruption in the rice pledging scheme. Curious to understand what was audacious about it . But she will no doubt be biased and maybe even vendictive in her role as a NACC member. NACC doesn't need this person if it wants to portray itself as independent and unpolitical.

I think the issue was that she spoke out when the government told not to say anything.

Either she followed her conscience and exposed the corruption, or she had another motive for speaking out.

Either way she I am sure she knew she wouldn't keep her job.

Assuming she followed her conscience I think she's a good choice.

[Lupatria]

My first thought was: maybe she will not be a member of the club of over aged people in LOS.

[wolf5370]

I think personally it had been badly handled. She looks like a good candidate in the future - but will also be seen as an inflammatory choice to the supporters of the government and YS herself. Really they should just have held open the post (i.e. kept the serving incumbent 70 year old until the current publicised debacle is over one way or another) and then voted her in after the fact when she can not be accused of bias and of being a political plant.

Although this is basically what is happening - she will not be appointed until after the Rice Scheme case is finished (and the potential impeachment for that), it does not come across that way and therefore is open to attack. It would also have then been more ethical to call her as a special witness where she does not have the pressures of being questioned by her future colleagues (to her knowledge).

Usual, not thinking it through before speaking IMO.

[issanaus]

So Ms Supa was known for her "audacious" move in uncovering evidence of corruption in the rice pledging scheme. Curious to understand what was audacious about it . But she will no doubt be biased and maybe even vendictive in her role as a NACC member. NACC doesn't need this person if it wants to portray itself as independent and unpolitical.

I think the issue was that she spoke out when the government told not to say anything.

Either she followed her conscience and exposed the corruption, or she had another motive for speaking out.

Either way she I am sure she knew she wouldn't keep her job.

Assuming she followed her conscience I think she's a good choice.

I think there will be a few people on both side of political divide who may not like that appointment - love it.

[Prbkk]

Beyond farcical. She is a witness in these matters, how can anybody suggest she can be impartial now. What a joke. Of course given the chance to present information about wrongdoing last July, she chose to do it through the media. Also a Director of Siam Commercial Bank. Where does that money trail lead?

[SICHONSTEVE]

So Ms Supa was known for her "audacious" move in uncovering evidence of corruption in the rice pledging scheme. Curious to understand what was audacious about it . But she will no doubt be biased and maybe even vendictive in her role as a NACC member. NACC doesn't need this person if it wants to portray itself as independent and unpolitical.

But she qualifies for the job as she has shown herself to be honest (to the point of drawing intolerable and unjust persecution from the PTP) as she was telling what the government didn't want people to know about the failings of and corruption in the rice scheme.

They so much wanted to silence her and transfer her to a different department - they couldn't because there was such an outcry about it.

They tried in vain to dig the dirt on her but found nothing - so she is squeaky clean. She is hard working and diligent so what more can you ask for???

Are Surapong and Yingluck qualified for their jobs??

[Melyn]

Beyond farcical. She is a witness in these matters, how can anybody suggest she can be impartial now. What a joke. Of course given the chance to present information about wrongdoing last July, she chose to do it through the media. Also a Director of Siam Commercial Bank. Where does that money trail lead?

Who says she has anything to do with the rice case?

Its your implications that are farcical

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[bigbamboo]

Beyond farcical. She is a witness in these matters, how can anybody suggest she can be impartial now. What a joke. Of course given the chance to present information about wrongdoing last July, she chose to do it through the media. Also a Director of Siam Commercial Bank. Where does that money trail lead?

You say she went through the media by which I take it you mean the mass media......... TV, press, etc ?

OMG! What's the matter with the woman? Hasn't she heard of Facebook?

Edited April 10, 2014 by bigbamboo

[geriatrickid]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

[bigbamboo]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

You mean she knows the truth!

[GAZZPA]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Too true, with you 100%. Its very sad to hear she was sacked from her post soon afterwards, lets hope she can do her job now. The Thai people need someone like her and more of her.

One thing I don't get,, she got 2 votes which was MORE then 2 thirds of the total? how is that possible? Unless 2 and a half people were voting? Anyway, made me chuckle a bit.

[rubl]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

So, perceived grudge against the current government, an idea well exploited by Pheu Thai. If we would elaborate a bit more, we'd conclude that no one can be selected/elected to become a new member of the NACC as anyone can be accused of having a perceived grudge against this or former government, or even any possibly new government.

I agree that in case of the 'rice price pledging scheme' whether on negligence or downright mismanagement k. Supa can only act as possible witness if asked. I'm sure she will not be put in a position to 'judge' the case.

[geriatrickid]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

You mean she knows the truth!

That is not the issue. The integrity of the NACC and the process is at stake. If she knows the "truth", then she can testify as a witness for the prosecution.

[geriatrickid]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

So, perceived grudge against the current government, an idea well exploited by Pheu Thai. If we would elaborate a bit more, we'd conclude that no one can be selected/elected to become a new member of the NACC as anyone can be accused of having a perceived grudge against this or former government, or even any possibly new government.

I agree that in case of the 'rice price pledging scheme' whether on negligence or downright mismanagement k. Supa can only act as possible witness if asked. I'm sure she will not be put in a position to 'judge' the case.

You have ignored the principal issue of impartiality and the integrity of the process. There are many qualified people who are impartial with no affiliation to any political party. Continued appointment of people associated with grievances against the government undermines confidence in the impartiality of the NACC.

[rubl]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

So, perceived grudge against the current government, an idea well exploited by Pheu Thai. If we would elaborate a bit more, we'd conclude that no one can be selected/elected to become a new member of the NACC as anyone can be accused of having a perceived grudge against this or former government, or even any possibly new government.

I agree that in case of the 'rice price pledging scheme' whether on negligence or downright mismanagement k. Supa can only act as possible witness if asked. I'm sure she will not be put in a position to 'judge' the case.

You have ignored the principal issue of impartiality and the integrity of the process. There are many qualified people who are impartial with no affiliation to any political party. Continued appointment of people associated with grievances against the government undermines confidence in the impartiality of the NACC.

you dropped the 'perceived' I see. Now it's 'associated with grievances'.

Now that type of behavior would exclude you, even from a body like the NACC.

BTW would you care to name some of those people who are qualified, impartial, without affiliation to any political party, etc.?

[rubl]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

You mean she knows the truth!

That is not the issue. The integrity of the NACC and the process is at stake. If she knows the "truth", then she can testify as a witness for the prosecution.

Did she provide information to the NACC, or maybe more correctly formulated was she asked to provide information to the NACC before she was nominated to join?

Edited April 10, 2014 by rubl

[dinooz]

Off topic How do you Pm someone?

[SICHONSTEVE]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Too true, with you 100%. Its very sad to hear she was sacked from her post soon afterwards, lets hope she can do her job now. The Thai people need someone like her and more of her.

One thing I don't get,, she got 2 votes which was MORE then 2 thirds of the total? how is that possible? Unless 2 and a half people were voting? Anyway, made me chuckle a bit.

It is possible in Thailand!!

[kimamey]

If two votes were more than two-thirds of the total then this means that this comittee actually consists of two people.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Wouldn't that make it 100% as well? Either someone's maths is worse than mine or it's a typo.

Edited April 10, 2014 by kimamey

[rubl]

Off topic How do you Pm someone?

I just PM-ed you details. Hope you know have to check 'messenger' on this forum software

[kimamey]

Yep.... chalk up another of the Suthep/Abhisit clan on the " independent...neutral" Commission...and then with the new Senator elect Jongchai Thiengtham who wants to be the upper house speaker... just a continuation of the dismantling of a fair and equitable body started in 2006... the never ending coup... and the beat goes on... more power too them... if your public allows you to stack the deck...som nom na... they get what they deserve...one day.. maybe not in this lifetime but when education is truly a desire... and history and information can be freely interpreted... the truth will be known and these cowboys all exposed 250-138= _____...

Are you suggesting she's corrupt? If so on what evidence? Was there something incorrect about her disclosure regarding the rice scheme? Could it be that they've chosen someone who's prepared to speak the truth and isn't corrupt. Did the government come up with any explanation why she was removed from her post.

I think she looks like an ideal replacement but what will really show how good she is will be if they can get things moving on the accusations of corruption against Abhisit and Suthep. That really needs dealing with quickly. Of course if they find there's no evidence of corruption you'll be on here telling us that's just them being biased.

Edited April 10, 2014 by kimamey

[khunken]

sounds like a great nomination, she is honest and prepared to do the hard yards to get to the truth but you can bet the ptp/reds will chuck a wobbly over her nomination, they dont like people that are honest...... especially when you consider she was the only one that was prepared to tell the truth about the rice scheme and the results, the ptp tried everything to silence her, couldnt ask for anyone better to be in the NACC.

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"?

In the interest of judicial impartiality and fairness, she would have to recuse herself from anything to do with the rice program for the same reason a judge cannot adjudicate on a case he/she was involved in and for the same reason a police officer is not allowed to work a case he or she has an interest in.

It is an incredibly poor choice because she is a career bureaucrat with a perceived grudge against the current government. In the interest of impartiality and transparency, a neutral non implicated professional should have been nominated.

Apparently, you have no consideration for some basic elements of justice.

You mean she knows the truth!

That is not the issue. The integrity of the NACC and the process is at stake. If she knows the "truth", then she can testify as a witness for the prosecution.

Laughable - according to PTP, red shirt 'leaders' & some supporters on this forum, the NACC is already biased because they are investigating Yingluck.

How do you know that she hasn't already testified to the NACC in Yingluck's case? She is a (real) whistle blower and any previous bias she may have had would be cemented by her treatment by PTP.

She is some way off being appointed as the Senate has to ratify her appointment and then be approved by HM. I know it's hard for government supporters to actually accept a potentially non-corrupt appointment. IMO she is a perfect fit for the NACC. Better that she is able to use her experience for the benefit of the country rather than sit in an inactive post.

[djjamie]

Might do you well as well to believe in your own signature...

"Time to listen to the will of the majority even if you don't like it accept it."

Um,,,we were on the subject of Supa and her selection and your explanation of it. So your best response is completely ignore my post and instead change the subject to my signature which has absolutely nothing to do with Supa's selection.

WOW.

Anyway like I said very complicated explanation for a very simple selection.

I might get a cup of tea now. Please don't explain how I will do this. Maybe write back and change the subject again and mention the coup this time or some other illigocial subject change that will allow you not to address the post at hand.

Yes it may have been a complicated explanation and yes perhaps brevity is your forte,,, but I would suggest that doing more research... looking at alternative sources of information...stepping back from bias... read some books on corruption and Democracy in Thailand as well as longer term history and building a foundation on longer term sources instead of knee jerk responses to very limited sources of info...may serve one better...rather than thrust "Occam's razor"? The fewer the assumptions that are made the better..." out... but then you make my point...less assumptions= fewer mistakes...? hardly... Take a good look at the patronage -client custom...sin nam jai... and the history of Thai Politic without the color blinders on...This is hardly a coincidence that she has been brought on board...whether she has any sway on this particular ruling or not... she is a future player/ally of some very shrewd manipulators.. hope you enjoyed your tea and wish you and your family a Happy Songkran.

Nope not a coincidence at all. She proved she stands against corruption and the NACC is a great fit for someone that despises corruption and despite intimidation, transfers and investigations will still stick to the moral ground and call a spade a spade.

If she ignored the corruption she would no doubt be promoted within the PTP and hold a similar position as Kittirat who lied and was defended by yingluck for lying.

So answer me this?

Did Kittirat lie to the voters? Did yingluck defend that lie?

Did Supa lie to the voters? Did Yinglick demonize Supa for telling the truth?

Now don't tell me the quint story that the rice scheme is the only scheme in Thai history that has never been tainted with corruption. That only shows ones ignorance and politically blinded agenda.

Not a good example to set for the kiddies heay.

[kimamey]

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

Yep.... chalk up another of the Suthep/Abhisit clan on the " independent...neutral" Commission...and then with the new Senator elect Jongchai Thiengtham who wants to be the upper house speaker... just a continuation of the dismantling of a fair and equitable body started in 2006... the never ending coup... and the beat goes on... more power too them... if your public allows you to stack the deck...som nom na... they get what they deserve...one day.. maybe not in this lifetime but when education is truly a desire... and history and information can be freely interpreted... the truth will be known and these cowboys all exposed 250-138= _____...

1. So what's actually your point?

2. How would you suggest appointing the commissioners of the NACC?

3. Who are the cowboys you mention?

4. Please share some suggested real names as possible NACC commissioners.

Let me put it to ya this way... lets deal with the cowboys...and you have to step back and look at this from a bigger perspective...follow the money... follow who finances the Democrat Party... Look at who sits on the boards of these companies...look at what leading Industrialists say about the unbelievable sway BOT, Privy Council..and the 10 or 20 wealthiest Thai Families have and their relationship to Thai Politics...takes a bit of reading and research ... a few months worth for me as I can't sit and ponder it daily but could prove quite revealing to you as well but is a good read...and then couple that with the archaic laws governing freedom of speech ..Those two tied together are what keeps the MO going... and the monied people from both colored sides understand this.... though one side weighs in quite a bit heavier than the other,,,if and when... you are not sued for defamation and truth can be spoken out loud and topics not intentionally suppressed.....only then can the playing field be a bit more level... for me the biggest inhibiting factor is truth and education...taking the Thai people out of the mythology of expertise and actually educating them and giving them the confidence to speak up...something they are currently taught not to do from Matayom 1 on... you know thew old adage... Money talks... has a couple of edges...bribes.. is the obvious ...but the subtler is the one where someone evaluates what a billionaire says and weighs that against what a pauper says... and normally thinks that the guy with the money must be right...he got the money so his MO must be the better choice...

Someone that sits on a Commission that decides on Corruption or Decides on Elections has to be as squeaky clean as possible and has to be vetted publicly otherwise it matters not what side you take there will always be those who claim corruption there as well... They should be vetted publicly and agreed on by a broad spectrum of the public in order to not be a repeat of the last 8 years...

not gonna take the time to give you as list now ....as what or who I think might be good has no bearing on any outcomes but... I think the Thai public should be provided a list to take a look at.. not arbitrary appointments by insiders stacking the deck in their interests... Education is the key... Thais are taught not to think independently...and frankly after 12 or more years of that hammered into your head in school you end up with people in the workforce with an attitude that does not embrace educating themselves in any way shape or form or even wanting to...after getting a degree..not all mind you ..but many...just don't want to study anymore because that takes work...and that has been intentional...that is where the whole thing functions from... it is how the cowboys keep control of the herd...

Well for a change there's a bit more substance to your post and although I haven't researched it myself I don't doubt what you've said. The trouble is if a list was put before the public would many of them do any more than agree with the ones their party wanted? I doubt it and it comes back to your remarks about education. I think there also needs to be some non biased media that can inform the public so they know the truth. As far as I know that doesn't exist right now.

In the meantime is there anything wrong with this woman credentials which make her a wrong choice and is there any evidence to support your earlier claim?

Yep.... chalk up another of the Suthep/Abhisit clan on the " independent...neutral" Commission

I also agree with your comments on freedom of speech but then look at what happened to her when she spoke out.