Graft buster rejects Yingluck's more witness request

[renaissanc]

I think that the Shins are trying to delay the case until next year with the hope that Pheu Thai will get back into power and then dismiss the case. If they have an additional 8 witnesses who keep getting sick, then they can delay the proceedings for over a year with no trouble. The NACC are not stupid. They can smell the rat.

If Yingluck gets put in prison before the elections, it will be bad for Pheu Thai's image. It will also make Thaksin look bad too. She might have to flee the country, and that will probably be the end of the Shin control of Thailand.

[BillyBobThai]

For me, if her brother was to come back to Thailand and stand trial, I would let her scott free. She is just not capable enough, to have committed all of this mess.

[waza]

Apart from the usual responses from those determined to see a Shinawatra punished, having been frustrated for 8 years now, can anyone of a less corrosive attitude explain how the request for additional witnesses would have a "potential impact on the political conflict".

One would have thought that as all political activities have been banned there is no political conflict to be impacted. If anything, this kind of action will only store up resentment which will surface at a later date.

In other words give her every witness she requires--delay as much as possible--deny as much as you can--if not later repercussions ??? it's all politically motivated--in Yinglucks words Quote " I never did any wrong" or very similar.

Pathetic post to try to play down her role in the scam. No one wants to see anyone punished, but if they are guilty Shins or not let the courts decide.

If the lady has done no wrong, then there is no problem.

Why is it a pathetic post - because it doesn't fit in with your mindset?

You didn't answer the question - why will the request for more witnesses have a potential impact on the political conflict when there is no political conflict? You can't answer that (as there is no sensible answer) so you resort to attacking the post.

To be perfectly honest your reply did not suprise me in the least. Same old, same old.

Its a pathetic post because, like usual its contains your usual fabrications.

Firstly a Shinawatra has been punished, but he ran away to escape his sentence and avoid being further judged.

No neither you or any of us can determine, "how the request for additional witnesses would have a "potential impact on the political conflict", because we don't have access to all the available information. However, those that do have made this informed decision in accordance with the Thai judicial system.

Lastly you are guilty of your own criticism, (You can't answer that (as there is no sensible answer) so you resort to attacking the post) by attacking not only the original posts but also the posters, but being hypocritical that's nothing new for you.

[Lupatria]

Looks like the lyrics to the tune slightly changed: "beat me Brother, eight seven to the bars"

[Baerboxer]

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

Is that the British legal system? Let a defendant parade an unlimited number of witnesses, regardless of relevancy, in front of the court, the sole purpose being to create confusion of issues and lengthen the entire trial?

I don't think so. A court is always within its power to limit the number of witnesses. In every trial I have been involved with, the judges try to pare down the witness lists, so that redundant, irrelevant, and undisputed testimony is not presented. Moreover, a party may only call one expert witness in each speciality area. It would be unfair to allow multiple experts in duplicative fields to testify, because it makes it appear that their opinions have more credibility than they should. The two witnesses in the article appear to be expert witnesses - one to testify in accounting and another to testify in the commodities market. How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas?

The Thai legal "system" is probably as far removed from the British Legal system as you could get.

"How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas"

How do you know otherwise? We don't know, and we're hardly likely to find out from the sources provided.

Not quite true. It's not as far removed as you would like us to believe. How it's enforced and the judicial application is very different indeed.

We, and that includes you, do not know what evidence there is and the relevance to that evidence of the witnesses called. This is an investigation not a trial. The NACC are within their rights to restrict the witnesses to those that are pertinent, and reduce the amount to duplication.

Should they decide there is enough evidence to indite Yingluck she will have the opportunity to call further witnesses when preparing her defense should it go to court. If it goes to court, and is fully reported then everyone will see.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Baerboxer

[fab4]

Its a pathetic post because, like usual its contains your usual fabrications.

Firstly a Shinawatra has been punished, but he ran away to escape his sentence and avoid being further judged.

No neither you or any of us can determine, "how the request for additional witnesses would have a "potential impact on the political conflict", because we don't have access to all the available information. However, those that do have made this informed decision in accordance with the Thai judicial system.

Lastly you are guilty of your own criticism, (You can't answer that (as there is no sensible answer) so you resort to attacking the post) by attacking not only the original posts but also the posters, but being hypocritical that's nothing new for you.

Oh my, it's come to this.

[Baerboxer]

For me, if her brother was to come back to Thailand and stand trial, I would let her scott free. She is just not capable enough, to have committed all of this mess.

Or she is a very very good actress indeed.

Remember the video that ran on after she shed those crocodile tears? And the beaming grin that followed?

Many have got away with things by playing dumb when it suits.

[HUAHIN62]

She's already found guilty by most on TV and the NACC, so more witnesses won't help. But I would like to ask the NACC to explain again how the evidence against the Dems rice scam was lost in the flood, while no other evidence regarding any other case was lost in the flood. Selective flooding as a new concept in the fight against corruption by the graft busters.

[gemini81]

The Thai legal "system" is probably as far removed from the British Legal system as you could get.

"How do you know Yingluck doesn't already have other expert witnesses to testify in these areas"

How do you know otherwise? We don't know, and we're hardly likely to find out from the sources provided.

Are you suggesting that none of the witnesses she has provided so far knew what they were talking about?

Where did I suggest that? I didn't. Next.

You can still fancy her on your waterbed; but the show is over for her, and the consequences are here in bucket loads, no escaping it this time!

[Gomyway]

The judgment from the NACC:

[แม้ในชั้นนี้พยานหลักฐานยังไม่ปรากฏชัดเจนว่าผู้ถูกกล่าวหามีส่วนร่วม ในการทุจริตหรือสมยอมให้เกิดการทุจริตหรือไม่ก็ตาม แต่การที่ผู้ถูกกล่าวหาไม่บริหารราชการแผ่นดินให้เป็นไปตามนโยบายที่แถลงไว้ ต่อสภาฯ ว่าจะป้องกันและปราบปรามการทุจริตและประพฤติมิชอบในภาครัฐอย่างจริงจัง โดยยึดหลักความโปร่งใสและมีธรรมาภิบาลของการบริหารกิจการบ้านเมืองที่ดี ทั้งไม่พิจารณาระงับยับยั้งโครงการตั้งแต่เริ่มรับทราบความเสียหายอันร้าย แรงที่สุดของประเทศจากการดำเนินโครงการ จึงมีมติ 7 ต่อ 0 ว่าพฤติการณ์ของผู้ถูกกล่าวหาเป็นการส่อว่าจงใจใช้อำนาจหน้าที่ขัดต่อบท บัญญัติแห่งรัฐธรรมนูญ มาตรา 178 และส่อว่าจงใจใช้อำนาจหน้าที่ขัดต่อบทบัญญัติแห่งกฎหมายตาม พ.ร.บ.ระเบียบบริหารราชการแผ่นดิน มาตรา 11 (1) อันเป็นเหตุแห่งการถอดถอนผู้ถูกกล่าวหาออกจากตำแหน่งตามรัฐธรรมนูญ มาตรา 270 จึงให้แยกสำนวนการถอดถอนส่งไปยังวุฒิสภา เพื่อดำเนินการตามอำนาจหน้าที่ต่อไป ส่วนคดีอาญานั้น ที่ประชุมมีมติให้ดำเนินการไต่สวนข้อเท็จจริงต่อไปจนกว่าจะสิ้นกระแสความ ทั้งนี้โดยไม่ตัดพยานที่ผู้ถูกกล่าวหาอ้างมาในคำร้องขอนำสืบแก้ข้อกล่าวหา หลังสุด โดยให้นำไปพิจารณาในสำนวนคดีอาญาต่อไป]

English:

Although up to the present situation there is still no clear evidence that the accused has been involved in corruption or in the toleration of corruption, the fact is that the accused has not ruled the country according to the government statement to Parliament, stating that a serious prevention has to take care of and fight against corruption in the public sector on the basis of transparent and good governance. Furthermore, she has failed to draw a completion of the project into consideration, as it was set from the damage of the project, which are the worst that have befallen the country so far, after receiving knowledge about. On this basis, the Commission has found with 7 votes to 0, the behavior of the accused as a deliberate exercising the function of Article 178 of the Constitution and § 11 (1) of the Act on the national administration. This is due to be carried out even impeachment of the accused under Article 270 of the Constitution. An application is made to the Senate, so it decides removal from office because of a dismissal of the accused. As for a criminal case of the ordinary courts, the Commission decided that such a procedure is carried out until the last instance. The witnesses, who in their last statement already been called by the accused, are considered in such criminal proceedings.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Gomyway

[outsider]

Hello Poo. Nice to see your pic again. Was beginning to suffer withdrawal symptoms.

[coma]

Why ban these witnesses from testifying ? We don't want any excuses coming back saying she was not given a fair go.

Again, this is NOT a court case, it is only an investigation to decide whether there should be a court case. Having multiple witnesses all saying the same thing is not good for this case. The investigators of this case are well within their agenda to cut out all the bullshit.

Show me WHERE I referred to it being a "court case".

Testifying ???

Nope. Fail ! You can testify at a Senate hearing. Is that a court ? NO.

[ginjag]

Show me WHERE I referred to it being a "court case".

Testifying ???

Nope. Fail ! You can testify at a Senate hearing. Is that a court ? NO.

Testifying is a question not an answer look at my post again.

[GarryP]

"Request by ex-Premier Yingluck Shinawatra for eight more witnesses to defend her in the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) against alleged malfeasance and corruption involving the rice-pledging scheme was rejected.
........

The NACC has considered the request at its meeting on Thursday and disapproved it, citing concerns over the potential impact on the political conflict."

This is not a valid excuse for denying the testimony of witnesses. While her seeking to present additional witnesses may indeed be a delaying tactic (I have no way of knowing but believe it likely), you do not deny the request for political reasons. You deny the request due to already having interviewed witnesses on the same subject matter and the additional witnesses being viewed/determined to have no new evidence to add to the case.

By not hearing the additional witnesses or giving a valid reasons for not hearing them, you are not seen to be impartial and serving justice.

[StefanBBK]

Witnesses should never be barred...regardless of the type of court case. Wrong on so many levels.

I agree. However the witnesses should have witnessed something.

I am sure anybody could bring by many Character witnesses who could testify how nice of a person is.

But again if somebody has something to say about a case on hand, he must be allowed to do so.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Eric Loh]

If we know Thailand, we can expect this case to be a non event. In a normal situation when the 2 houses exist, the NACC verdict will lead to senate impeachment and currently there is no upper house and Yingluck is no longer PM. The NACC can also opined that Yingluck is prima farcie and send case to Supreme Court Criminal Division For Person holding Political Position but I doubt they will find evidence of purposefully commiting an dishonest act and moreover she already out of office and not a threat to the junta. I believe that the NACC will hear the case, go through the motion and let her off on technicalities.

[gamini]

The NACC are as corrupt as the rest of them. There own agenda like every public body in Thailand has.

I thought we had finished hearing this kind of childish rubbish from red shirt supporters on this forum.

[citizen33]

However you dress this up it will not play well with international observers - this makes it look like Yingluck is being denied due process.

[rebelplatoon]

Wouldn't mind to see a clearer reason for not hearing the witnesses. I guess she IS stalling for time but relevancy needs to be considered.

[scorecard]

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

If we know Thailand, we can expect this case to be a non event. In a normal situation when the 2 houses exist, the NACC verdict will lead to senate impeachment and currently there is no upper house and Yingluck is no longer PM. The NACC can also opined that Yingluck is prima farcie and send case to Supreme Court Criminal Division For Person holding Political Position but I doubt they will find evidence of purposefully commiting an dishonest act and moreover she already out of office and not a threat to the junta. I believe that the NACC will hear the case, go through the motion and let her off on technicalities.

You confuse the issue. Deliberately?

The current investigation is not about 'dishonest', it's about 'dereliction of duty'.

[ginjag]

Wouldn't mind to see a clearer reason for not hearing the witnesses. I guess she IS stalling for time but relevancy needs to be considered.

Look at this matter when it first came about, how many times did she want it delaying?---how many time did she ask for additional witnesses? the department here gave her so much time before and even now she wants more.

She is stalling--boring--what a super Pm she made, she was that good she ended up here. and not all over Thailand crowds cheering, flowers everywhere, loved by all. Disgraced along with her trough party.

[tingtongteesood]

However you dress this up it will not play well with international observers - this makes it look like Yingluck is being denied due process.

Actually, the majority of people including many of the red sheeple who are staying quiet know that this is not the case....

[ginjag]

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

If we know Thailand, we can expect this case to be a non event. In a normal situation when the 2 houses exist, the NACC verdict will lead to senate impeachment and currently there is no upper house and Yingluck is no longer PM. The NACC can also opined that Yingluck is prima farcie and send case to Supreme Court Criminal Division For Person holding Political Position but I doubt they will find evidence of purposefully commiting an dishonest act and moreover she already out of office and not a threat to the junta. I believe that the NACC will hear the case, go through the motion and let her off on technicalities.

You confuse the issue. Deliberately?

The current investigation is not about 'dishonest', it's about 'dereliction of duty'.

Sworn in to do after the election--on oath.

[jope]

The judgment from the NACC:

[แม้ในชั้นนี้พยานหลักฐานยังไม่ปรากฏชัดเจนว่าผู้ถูกกล่าวหามีส่วนร่วม ในการทุจริตหรือสมยอมให้เกิดการทุจริตหรือไม่ก็ตาม แต่การที่ผู้ถูกกล่าวหาไม่บริหารราชการแผ่นดินให้เป็นไปตามนโยบายที่แถลงไว้ ต่อสภาฯ ว่าจะป้องกันและปราบปรามการทุจริตและประพฤติมิชอบในภาครัฐอย่างจริงจัง โดยยึดหลักความโปร่งใสและมีธรรมาภิบาลของการบริหารกิจการบ้านเมืองที่ดี ทั้งไม่พิจารณาระงับยับยั้งโครงการตั้งแต่เริ่มรับทราบความเสียหายอันร้าย แรงที่สุดของประเทศจากการดำเนินโครงการ จึงมีมติ 7 ต่อ 0 ว่าพฤติการณ์ของผู้ถูกกล่าวหาเป็นการส่อว่าจงใจใช้อำนาจหน้าที่ขัดต่อบท บัญญัติแห่งรัฐธรรมนูญ มาตรา 178 และส่อว่าจงใจใช้อำนาจหน้าที่ขัดต่อบทบัญญัติแห่งกฎหมายตาม พ.ร.บ.ระเบียบบริหารราชการแผ่นดิน มาตรา 11 (1) อันเป็นเหตุแห่งการถอดถอนผู้ถูกกล่าวหาออกจากตำแหน่งตามรัฐธรรมนูญ มาตรา 270 จึงให้แยกสำนวนการถอดถอนส่งไปยังวุฒิสภา เพื่อดำเนินการตามอำนาจหน้าที่ต่อไป ส่วนคดีอาญานั้น ที่ประชุมมีมติให้ดำเนินการไต่สวนข้อเท็จจริงต่อไปจนกว่าจะสิ้นกระแสความ ทั้งนี้โดยไม่ตัดพยานที่ผู้ถูกกล่าวหาอ้างมาในคำร้องขอนำสืบแก้ข้อกล่าวหา หลังสุด โดยให้นำไปพิจารณาในสำนวนคดีอาญาต่อไป]

English:

Although up to the present situation there is still no clear evidence that the accused has been involved in corruption or in the toleration of corruption, the fact is that the accused has not ruled the country according to the government statement to Parliament, stating that a serious prevention has to take care of and fight against corruption in the public sector on the basis of transparent and good governance. Furthermore, she has failed to draw a completion of the project into consideration, as it was set from the damage of the project, which are the worst that have befallen the country so far, after receiving knowledge about. On this basis, the Commission has found with 7 votes to 0, the behavior of the accused as a deliberate exercising the function of Article 178 of the Constitution and § 11 (1) of the Act on the national administration. This is due to be carried out even impeachment of the accused under Article 270 of the Constitution. An application is made to the Senate, so it decides removal from office because of a dismissal of the accused. As for a criminal case of the ordinary courts, the Commission decided that such a procedure is carried out until the last instance. The witnesses, who in their last statement already been called by the accused, are considered in such criminal proceedings.

Thanks for sharing and translating!

I think it is rather weak and would not be enough to proceed in western countries (to general, no evidence stated, could therefore apply to anybody) ,unless they actually listed the points, why they think it is enough for a trial, in another part of the document. Did you see the whole thing or is that it?

Thanks anyway!!

[jope]

If we know Thailand, we can expect this case to be a non event. In a normal situation when the 2 houses exist, the NACC verdict will lead to senate impeachment and currently there is no upper house and Yingluck is no longer PM. The NACC can also opined that Yingluck is prima farcie and send case to Supreme Court Criminal Division For Person holding Political Position but I doubt they will find evidence of purposefully commiting an dishonest act and moreover she already out of office and not a threat to the junta. I believe that the NACC will hear the case, go through the motion and let her off on technicalities.

Do you realize, that you just described a worst case scenario for some people?

I think the "political reasons" that were mentioned in the public statement point exactly into this direction. That she will run free or will get a serious "Don't do that again".

My explanation: nobody wants to stir up unrest (in the north and the northeast she continues to be rather popular) and nobody wants to have other names than those of the usual suspects being "dragged" into this.

Apart from that, is there any doubt that either a verdict or a release note (if that is the right English term) is already prepared and ready to be printed and published?

Edited June 20, 2014 by jope

[jope]

Oh, and while we are at it and perfectly fits in (into this emotional environment) I repost something that I read some time ago on TV:

-Quote-

MobileContent, on 16 Apr 2014 - 12:31, said:

10 years after his conviction he will be a free men (Statue of limitation). Same as the bother from Chuan Lekpai that took over 200 million Baht from former Thai Farmers Bank (now Kasikorn) and who went off to Taiwan and came back after 10 years.

-Unquote-

But do not worry, all you brave brownsorryyellow shirt supporters. Somebody will think of something. My favorite: a "Lex Thaksin". Something like "No statue of limitation will apply to people who were Prime Minister and lived abroad for longer than three months". They liked to say Thaksins name but laws have to be general (Rule of Law and all) so they must describe whom they mean.

I think I will repost MobileContent more often in the future.

Edited June 20, 2014 by jope

[smutcakes]

If we know Thailand, we can expect this case to be a non event. In a normal situation when the 2 houses exist, the NACC verdict will lead to senate impeachment and currently there is no upper house and Yingluck is no longer PM. The NACC can also opined that Yingluck is prima farcie and send case to Supreme Court Criminal Division For Person holding Political Position but I doubt they will find evidence of purposefully commiting an dishonest act and moreover she already out of office and not a threat to the junta. I believe that the NACC will hear the case, go through the motion and let her off on technicalities.

Do you realize, that you just described a worst case scenario for some people?

I think the "political reasons" that were mentioned in the public statement point exactly into this direction. That she will run free or will get a serious "Don't do that again".

My explanation: nobody wants to stir up unrest (in the north and the northeast she continues to be rather popular) and nobody wants to have other names than those of the usual suspects being "dragged" into this.

Apart from that, is there any doubt that either a verdict or a release note (if that is the right English term) is already prepared and ready to be printed and published?

No, the reason is that they are all at it from all the parties, and no doubt many powerful land owners, corporations etc etc could have been involved. The last thing future Govts want is a harsh sentence which would set a precedent which may come home to roost close to home in the future.

A firm slap on the wrist will look fine, and they can all go about there business as per normal.

[jope]

If we know Thailand, we can expect this case to be a non event. In a normal situation when the 2 houses exist, the NACC verdict will lead to senate impeachment and currently there is no upper house and Yingluck is no longer PM. The NACC can also opined that Yingluck is prima farcie and send case to Supreme Court Criminal Division For Person holding Political Position but I doubt they will find evidence of purposefully commiting an dishonest act and moreover she already out of office and not a threat to the junta. I believe that the NACC will hear the case, go through the motion and let her off on technicalities.

Do you realize, that you just described a worst case scenario for some people?

I think the "political reasons" that were mentioned in the public statement point exactly into this direction. That she will run free or will get a serious "Don't do that again".

My explanation: nobody wants to stir up unrest (in the north and the northeast she continues to be rather popular) and nobody wants to have other names than those of the usual suspects being "dragged" into this.

Apart from that, is there any doubt that either a verdict or a release note (if that is the right English term) is already prepared and ready to be printed and published?

No, the reason is that they are all at it from all the parties, and no doubt many powerful land owners, corporations etc etc could have been involved. The last thing future Govts want is a harsh sentence which would set a precedent which may come home to roost close to home in the future.

A firm slap on the wrist will look fine, and they can all go about there business as per normal.

No contradiction. That is exactly what I meant!

[Chris Lawrence]

Kangaroo comes to mind

[Eric Loh]

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

If we know Thailand, we can expect this case to be a non event. In a normal situation when the 2 houses exist, the NACC verdict will lead to senate impeachment and currently there is no upper house and Yingluck is no longer PM. The NACC can also opined that Yingluck is prima farcie and send case to Supreme Court Criminal Division For Person holding Political Position but I doubt they will find evidence of purposefully commiting an dishonest act and moreover she already out of office and not a threat to the junta. I believe that the NACC will hear the case, go through the motion and let her off on technicalities.

You confuse the issue. Deliberately?

The current investigation is not about 'dishonest', it's about 'dereliction of duty'.

Matter of speaking, you are right. It's indeed dereliction of duty which will not be a case for the Supreme Court as the NACC must prove malfeasance and this is not about anything dishonest or illegal act. More so the case will end at the NACC and a slap on the wrist as some here opine.