Jump to content

NACC warned it may face malfeasance charges


webfact

Recommended Posts

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

Note -

- Yingluk is not up on any Criminal Charges. lets all be clear of this. This is simply an issue of whether or not she did her job properly. No criminal charges.

- She is charged with failure to take action when told that there MAY be mismanagment of the Rice Scheme.

- She is charged with improper firing of an employee.

- The PDRC folks stands in the streets in honor of a man that is up on Insurrection charges.

- The Dem's Leader is up on Murder Charges.

I suppose you get the point.

NO, what's your point?

Are you suggesting that because other people are on charges then yingluck should just not be investigated?

What's your point?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission was warned today that they might face charge of malfeasance in office in accordance with Article 157 of the Criminal Code for their refusal to allow seven more witnesses to testify in the defence of the premier and their refusal to check rice stocks.

What might well be an interesting comparison would be for the public at large to see how many witnesses have vanished in cases against the Shinwatra clan.

How many witnesses have developed selective amnesia in Chalerm's sons case's.

How many cases of non appearances by witnesses have there been in cases involving politicians and state officials, military, police and civil bodies?

The truth must encompass all points of the legals systems compass

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Note -

- Yingluk is not up on any Criminal Charges. lets all be clear of this. This is simply an issue of whether or not she did her job properly. No criminal charges.

- She is charged with failure to take action when told that there MAY be mismanagment of the Rice Scheme.

- She is charged with improper firing of an employee.

- The PDRC folks stands in the streets in honor of a man that is up on Insurrection charges.

- The Dem's Leader is up on Murder Charges.

I suppose you get the point.

NO, what's your point?

Are you suggesting that because other people are on charges then yingluck should just not be investigated?

What's your point?

I didn't say she should not be investigated.

I was simply pointing out the difference between non criminal and criminal charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how everyone bitches about Yingluck wanting more witnesses, time, rice checks and call it intimidation. What about Suthep completely defying the court by not turning up because he is busy inciting insurrection?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Suthep is indicted already and waiting the courtcase.

The NACC is now considering if they will indict Yingluck or not .

Again, NACC is not investigating Yingluk for criminal acts. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be clear. The Rice Scheme Committee was a committed that organized and proposed the Rice Schedule to Congress.

Once the Goverment approved the Rice Scheme, the Commerce Dept. was assigned the responsibility to manage/administer the rice scheme.

Committees only prepare the bills. They do not approve or manage the programs.

This is the difference.

We'll see how the NCAA deals with this. Interesting situation actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Note -

- Yingluk is not up on any Criminal Charges. lets all be clear of this. This is simply an issue of whether or not she did her job properly. No criminal charges.

- She is charged with failure to take action when told that there MAY be mismanagment of the Rice Scheme.

- She is charged with improper firing of an employee.

- The PDRC folks stands in the streets in honor of a man that is up on Insurrection charges.

- The Dem's Leader is up on Murder Charges.

I suppose you get the point.

NO, what's your point?

Are you suggesting that because other people are on charges then yingluck should just not be investigated?

What's your point?

No, I agree that its fine that Yingluk is being investigated.

but investigations for mismanagement (Non Criminal) and investigations for Criminal acts are 2 very different situations.

For all the Nay sayers.. Yingluk has never been accused or investigated by any goverment authorities for criminal acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the NACC is going to take into account the complete barrage of threats and intimidation that are coming from PT boot lickers daily and tack those charges on to the rest. Every person involved in PT should be banned from politics for life, no questions, no ifs, ands or buts. BUlly boy tactics have no place in a real properly functioning 'democracy'. T%his is why we need reforms NOW ! PT = Detritus of the worst sort !

Yes, I suppose the Suthep / PDRC team has not intimidated any public citizen, any goverment office, any nation over the past 6 months?

Damn..that Yingluk is so terrible! Its almost comical when you have a person with arrest warrantes walking the streets, stopping traffic, shutting down commerce, costing the nations billions..and shutting down goverments. That Yingluk is sooo bad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read in the BP that the NACC said that the reason the extra witnesses for Yingluk were not allowed was because they ( the NACC ) had all the evidence they needed.

So much for being innocent until proven guilty. coffee1.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NACC has refused this time wasting tactician the grounds that the witnesses have nothing they could add to the evidence already presented. None of us are privvy to what the court knows or not.

No court will let you call hundreds of witnesses all giving the same evidence. To decide if there is bias or not requires much more information than any of us has or is likely to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurry up and lodge your complaint to the courts so it can be instantly thrown out and they can get on with the job of cutting this cancer out of the nation before any more damage is done.... Just ask where the 600 Bn baht is... not the rice.... THE MONEY!!!!!

The rice scheme is CORRUPT from end to end, so stop standing there threatening to sue the agencies and show us where the 600 Bn went.

You should be an NACC witness, u can make up numbers in your head and promote hysterical BS better than most!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how everyone bitches about Yingluck wanting more witnesses, time, rice checks and call it intimidation. What about Suthep completely defying the court by not turning up because he is busy inciting insurrection?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

off topic

this is about yingluck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note -

- Yingluk is not up on any Criminal Charges. lets all be clear of this. This is simply an issue of whether or not she did her job properly. No criminal charges.

- She is charged with failure to take action when told that there MAY be mismanagment of the Rice Scheme.

- She is charged with improper firing of an employee.

- The PDRC folks stands in the streets in honor of a man that is up on Insurrection charges.

- The Dem's Leader is up on Murder Charges.

I suppose you get the point.

the de facto leader of the government is a convicted criminal on the run

I suppose YOU get the point

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how everyone bitches about Yingluck wanting more witnesses, time, rice checks and call it intimidation. What about Suthep completely defying the court by not turning up because he is busy inciting insurrection?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

off topic

this is about yingluck

Your opinion. So I guess now you want me thrown out of Thailand as well. Or jailed as a minimum.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurry up and lodge your complaint to the courts so it can be instantly thrown out and they can get on with the job of cutting this cancer out of the nation before any more damage is done.... Just ask where the 600 Bn baht is... not the rice.... THE MONEY!!!!!

The rice scheme is CORRUPT from end to end, so stop standing there threatening to sue the agencies and show us where the 600 Bn went.

Sadly for you no it's not corrupt.

The money your Democrat MP claimed had been stolen to Hong Kong, total lie. NACC could find no evidence of stolen money and the MP didn't have any when they asked him, he was just telling porkies.

The smuggling claim (claims that large amounts of rice are smuggled across the border and sold to the rice pledge scheme) fails the basic maths test.

The rice you claimed was being resold many times to the rice pledge scheme, was not true, NACC first tried to prove missing stocks, and couldn't prove any missing stocks. It then switched to pretending that it's failure to do a full stock take to prove complete stocks constituted evidence of missing stock. Which is a reversed logic. Lack of proof of positive is not proof of negative.

"I can't prove the dog is white, hence the dog is black."

Is also true for a white dog, if you refuse to open your eyes and look at the color of the dog.

Likewise NACC is trying to substitute "we can't prove the G2G deal was authorised by the Chinese govt at the time" into "G2G was really G2B+corruption".

The negligence in not stopping corruption claim that NACC hasn't found and proved. Well if NACC can't find and prove corruption and its their job, how can she be more negligent than they?

Normally to make a logic mistake like this would be negligence, but to actually state this as the basis for a prosectution would raise that to malfeasance, since the mistake has been pointed out to them and they have declined to fix the mistake.

As I've mentioned before these problems with the independent agencies stem from the way they're chosen. The senate was made half unelected by the coup changes of 2006. The Senate chooses the Independent agencies commissioners and a committee of independent agencies chooses the appointed half of the senate!

Yingluk tried to reform this, by making the Senate fully elected, and the elected senate would wead out any apparachiks over time, while an appointed senate appointed by apparachiks would itself be stuffed full of apparachiks and in turn appoint yet more apparachiks to the independent agencies. The democrats blocked that reform.

And sadly, the initial seeding of these was chosen by a coup general, and he apparently kept control of the senate appointments in the background, making the whole process basically a front for the coup.

Edited by BlueNoseCodger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

In most democratic countries, a person is given a specific time frame in which to prepare their case. If they do not meet the deadline, then tough, they must proceed with what they have prepared on the appointed date.

The NACC is aware that YL puts forward names of witnesses who suddenly find that they have to be at meetings elsewhere, thereby leading to a request for a further extension to prepare other witnesses.

Playing for time in such a way is not allowed in democratic countries, so it is clear that the NACC is trying to uphold real democratic principles in the face of PTP shenanigans...!!

Thailand is not a democracy. The majority wants democracy, but the few who ultimately rule Thailand do not want it because it would mean the dissolution of their power and favored positions.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

...one must therefore assume that you are totally in favor of the various organisations (NACC, Constitutional Court, etc.) proceeding against these corrupt individuals so that Thailand can one day enjoy true democracy(?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurry up and lodge your complaint to the courts so it can be instantly thrown out and they can get on with the job of cutting this cancer out of the nation before any more damage is done.... Just ask where the 600 Bn baht is... not the rice.... THE MONEY!!!!!

The rice scheme is CORRUPT from end to end, so stop standing there threatening to sue the agencies and show us where the 600 Bn went.

Sadly for you no it's not corrupt.

The money your Democrat MP claimed had been stolen to Hong Kong, total lie. NACC could find no evidence of stolen money and the MP didn't have any when they asked him, he was just telling porkies.

The smuggling claim (claims that large amounts of rice are smuggled across the border and sold to the rice pledge scheme) fails the basic maths test.

The rice you claimed was being resold many times to the rice pledge scheme, was not true, NACC first tried to prove missing stocks, and couldn't prove any missing stocks. It then switched to pretending that it's failure to do a full stock take to prove complete stocks constituted evidence of missing stock. Which is a reversed logic. Lack of proof of positive is not proof of negative.

"I can't prove the dog is white, hence the dog is black."

Is also true for a white dog, if you refuse to open your eyes and look at the color of the dog.

Likewise NACC is trying to substitute "we can't prove the G2G deal was authorised by the Chinese govt at the time" into "G2G was really G2B+corruption".

The negligence in not stopping corruption claim that NACC hasn't found and proved. Well if NACC can't find and prove corruption and its their job, how can she be more negligent than they?

Normally to make a logic mistake like this would be negligence, but to actually state this as the basis for a prosectution would raise that to malfeasance, since the mistake has been pointed out to them and they have declined to fix the mistake.

As I've mentioned before these problems with the independent agencies stem from the way they're chosen. The senate was made half unelected by the coup changes of 2006. The Senate chooses the Independent agencies commissioners and a committee of independent agencies chooses the appointed half of the senate!

Yingluk tried to reform this, by making the Senate fully elected, and the elected senate would wead out any apparachiks over time, while an appointed senate appointed by apparachiks would itself be stuff full of apparachiks and in turn appoint yet more apparachiks to the independent agencies. The democrats blocked that reform.

And sadly, the initial seeding of these was chosen by a coup general, and he apparently kept control of the senate appointments in the background, making the whole process basically a front for the coup.

A huge tome in response to Woopy Doo, but one which simply fails to answer the very basic question that he asked ... where's the money gone?

...and your assessment of the Shin attempt to take over control of the Senate is just mind-boggling...!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note -

- Yingluk is not up on any Criminal Charges. lets all be clear of this. This is simply an issue of whether or not she did her job properly. No criminal charges.

- She is charged with failure to take action when told that there MAY be mismanagment of the Rice Scheme.

- She is charged with improper firing of an employee.

- The PDRC folks stands in the streets in honor of a man that is up on Insurrection charges.

- The Dem's Leader is up on Murder Charges.

I suppose you get the point.

the de facto leader of the government is a convicted criminal on the run

I suppose YOU get the point

The defacto leader lives in Bangkok not Dubai. If Thaksin was so powerful why is he 'on the run' as you put it?

Edited by BlueNoseCodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PM doesn't even oversee the Rice Scheme. The GOVERMENT set it up so that the Commerce Dept. oversees the Rice Scheme Administration.

So why isn't the head of Commerce Dept. being removed?

This is all just politics. Let it be in Thailand.

She is the chairperson of the Rice scam so is responsible for the B600bt that has disappeared.

Just because she didn't attend most of the meetings doesn't mean she didn't know what was going on as her brother set the whole scam up so as to fleece Thailand.

The fact that she didn't attend many of the meeting is proof of her incompetence and therefore she will be found guilty

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurry up and lodge your complaint to the courts so it can be instantly thrown out and they can get on with the job of cutting this cancer out of the nation before any more damage is done.... Just ask where the 600 Bn baht is... not the rice.... THE MONEY!!!!!

The rice scheme is CORRUPT from end to end, so stop standing there threatening to sue the agencies and show us where the 600 Bn went.

Sadly for you no it's not corrupt.

The money your Democrat MP claimed had been stolen to Hong Kong, total lie. NACC could find no evidence of stolen money and the MP didn't have any when they asked him, he was just telling porkies.

The smuggling claim (claims that large amounts of rice are smuggled across the border and sold to the rice pledge scheme) fails the basic maths test.

The rice you claimed was being resold many times to the rice pledge scheme, was not true, NACC first tried to prove missing stocks, and couldn't prove any missing stocks. It then switched to pretending that it's failure to do a full stock take to prove complete stocks constituted evidence of missing stock. Which is a reversed logic. Lack of proof of positive is not proof of negative.

"I can't prove the dog is white, hence the dog is black."

Is also true for a white dog, if you refuse to open your eyes and look at the color of the dog.

Likewise NACC is trying to substitute "we can't prove the G2G deal was authorised by the Chinese govt at the time" into "G2G was really G2B+corruption".

The negligence in not stopping corruption claim that NACC hasn't found and proved. Well if NACC can't find and prove corruption and its their job, how can she be more negligent than they?

Normally to make a logic mistake like this would be negligence, but to actually state this as the basis for a prosectution would raise that to malfeasance, since the mistake has been pointed out to them and they have declined to fix the mistake.

As I've mentioned before these problems with the independent agencies stem from the way they're chosen. The senate was made half unelected by the coup changes of 2006. The Senate chooses the Independent agencies commissioners and a committee of independent agencies chooses the appointed half of the senate!

Yingluk tried to reform this, by making the Senate fully elected, and the elected senate would wead out any apparachiks over time, while an appointed senate appointed by apparachiks would itself be stuff full of apparachiks and in turn appoint yet more apparachiks to the independent agencies. The democrats blocked that reform.

And sadly, the initial seeding of these was chosen by a coup general, and he apparently kept control of the senate appointments in the background, making the whole process basically a front for the coup.

A huge tome in response to Woopy Doo, but one which simply fails to answer the very basic question that he asked ... where's the money gone?

...and your assessment of the Shin attempt to take over control of the Senate is just mind-boggling...!!

You walk into Tesco, buy rice, you come out with rice. "where's the money gone!" Perhaps you can answer your own question?

And reforming the Senate to make it elected, is not a Shin take over of the Senate. It's a democratic peoples senate, as was the case before the coup general interfered with it.

Edited by BlueNoseCodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read in the BP that the NACC said that the reason the extra witnesses for Yingluk were not allowed was because they ( the NACC ) had all the evidence they needed.

So much for being innocent until proven guilty. coffee1.gif

...where did it say that the evidence that they have was damning evidence against Yingluck and the PTP?

If there was important evidence in Yingluck's favour, would her lawyers not have ensured that this was the first of all the evidence to be presented to the NACC? If they have evidence which can supposedly undermine the case against her, and they haven't yet presented it, well, whose fault is that?!

Perhaps a better explanation is that they now have all the evidence that can possibly be presented to them, both for and against Yingluck and the PTP, and they now feel that it's now time to put an end to all of these delaying tactics and consider all of the evidence that they have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PM doesn't even oversee the Rice Scheme. The GOVERMENT set it up so that the Commerce Dept. oversees the Rice Scheme Administration.

So why isn't the head of Commerce Dept. being removed?

This is all just politics. Let it be in Thailand.

She is the chairperson of the Rice scam so is responsible for the B600bt that has disappeared.

Just because she didn't attend most of the meetings doesn't mean she didn't know what was going on as her brother set the whole scam up so as to fleece Thailand.

The fact that she didn't attend many of the meeting is proof of her incompetence and therefore she will be found guilty

B600bt that has disappeared. Not true, money has not 'disappeared' and your number is just some exaggerated propganda.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lawyer is quite correct as the NACC, Constitutional Court etc regularly defy PTP law.

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

FYI the NACC is NOT a court but a Commission. They investigate and make a recommendation which does go to a court.

Please do some research and present the correct FACTS before you post otherwise you come across as biased and un informed.

In most democratic coutries the PM would have resigned before now but that is NOT the PTP democratic way.

PS this is a thread about the NACC and NOT your super hero Thaksin so in that you are as usual offtopic.gif.pagespeed.ce.ifZtFTWxj3.pngofftopic2.gif.pagespeed.ce.kcjFR6YG46.gi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PM doesn't even oversee the Rice Scheme. The GOVERMENT set it up so that the Commerce Dept. oversees the Rice Scheme Administration.

So why isn't the head of Commerce Dept. being removed?

This is all just politics. Let it be in Thailand.

She is the chairperson of the Rice scam so is responsible for the B600bt that has disappeared.

Just because she didn't attend most of the meetings doesn't mean she didn't know what was going on as her brother set the whole scam up so as to fleece Thailand.

The fact that she didn't attend many of the meeting is proof of her incompetence and therefore she will be found guilty

Again, She nor the Rice committee administered the program. So I guess if someone wants solar power program and they pitch it to the goverment.

If the Goverment approved it, administers it, and loses the money, then the person that pitched the program is responsible? No. The Goverment agency is responsible for mis management, IF there was mismanagement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PM doesn't even oversee the Rice Scheme. The GOVERMENT set it up so that the Commerce Dept. oversees the Rice Scheme Administration.

So why isn't the head of Commerce Dept. being removed?

This is all just politics. Let it be in Thailand.

She is the chairperson of the Rice scam so is responsible for the B600bt that has disappeared.

Just because she didn't attend most of the meetings doesn't mean she didn't know what was going on as her brother set the whole scam up so as to fleece Thailand.

The fact that she didn't attend many of the meeting is proof of her incompetence and therefore she will be found guilty

B600bt that has disappeared. Not true, money has not 'disappeared' and your number is just some exaggerated propganda.

The entire program was budgeted and designed to lose money! And, again, the Commerce Dept. administered the program.

There was never a day that this program was funded to be positive cashflow. It was always funded to lose money. Its just a fact.

Of coures much rice is waiting to be sold, so for this year, there is an excess of cash being used to supplement temporarily..but negative cashflow for the program is part of the design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how everyone bitches about Yingluck wanting more witnesses, time, rice checks and call it intimidation. What about Suthep completely defying the court by not turning up because he is busy inciting insurrection?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

offtopic.gif.pagespeed.ce.ifZtFTWxj3.pngofftopic2.gif.pagespeed.ce.kcjFR6YG46.gi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note -

- Yingluk is not up on any Criminal Charges. lets all be clear of this. This is simply an issue of whether or not she did her job properly. No criminal charges.

- She is charged with failure to take action when told that there MAY be mismanagment of the Rice Scheme.

- She is charged with improper firing of an employee.

- The PDRC folks stands in the streets in honor of a man that is up on Insurrection charges.

- The Dem's Leader is up on Murder Charges.

I suppose you get the point.

NO, what's your point?

Are you suggesting that because other people are on charges then yingluck should just not be investigated?

What's your point?

I didn't say she should not be investigated.

I was simply pointing out the difference between non criminal and criminal charges.

You don't think that Yingluck is also charged with murder and that these offences, if proven, are criminal?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the laws in most democratic countries would allow the defendant to call any witness they need. By denying Yinluck the chance to call witnesses to prove her lack of guilt, the NACC are showing themselves to be biased.

In Taksin's trial there were prosicution witnesses called who gave evidence when Taksin's lawyer was not allowed to be present.

The courts in Thailand need reform.

FYI the NACC is NOT a court but a Commission. They investigate and make a recommendation which does go to a court.

Please do some research and present the correct FACTS before you post otherwise you come across as biased and un informed.

In most democratic coutries the PM would have resigned before now but that is NOT the PTP democratic way.

Actually the recommendation would go to the senate, not a court.

Please do some research and present the correct FACTS before you post otherwise you come across as biased and un informed.

Oh, the irony.

Edited by fab4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...