A charge of negligence in the administration of the rice scheme?

A very odd charge!

Are they suggesting corruption ? If so, they should make that charge directly and prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

I guess this is all part of the price the ex PM pays for being a loyal and dutiful sister to the deposed former PM who now calls Dubai home!

I would have thought that he should come back home and help his poor little sister out for trying to help the impoverished rural voters of Thailand who have backed the Red Party Brigade!

She need more time to pack her bags? Or someone to take the fall for the scam?

I think that the Yingluck Lawyer asking for the case to be slowed down is a great big plus.

This will give the NACC more time to ensure, and produce a water tight case for submission to the courts.

Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - no matter who they are and whether rich or poor!

That fundamental right guarantees the freedom of us all.

The judicial process must take its course and the PM is entitled to a fair trial by an unbiased Court

It smell end for her; a lot evidence has been collect and she try to delay her trial or like her brother try to flies to other country

I am very surprised at some of the very uneducated comments made about the PM, full of bias and pure speculation.

She is innocent until proven guilty

Just how can we be sure that the audit can be conclusive when soldiers are implicated in stealing large amount of rice. Don't see the rationale to rush since the mission to get rid of her and the government has been accompished.

Large amount of rice? Lots of posters complained that it was just minimal. Till the soldiers involvement was made known that is. A private and a sergeant brought to the police station compliments of the Army.

So, why do some like to suggest a 'rush' when the NACC already warned begin of 2013 and Ms. Yingluck acknowledged the warnings and said to take them into account mid-2013 ? Maybe better the NACC wraps up so Ms. Yingluck and her legal team get the chance (of their lifetime) to defend her in a real court with all the witnesses they like to have called up.

Just how can we be sure that the audit can be conclusive when soldiers are implicated in stealing large amount of rice. Don't see the rationale to rush since the mission to get rid of her and the government has been accompished.

Large amount of rice? Lots of posters complained that it was just minimal. Till the soldiers involvement was made known that is. A private and a sergeant brought to the police station compliments of the Army.

So, why do some like to suggest a 'rush' when the NACC already warned begin of 2013 and Ms. Yingluck acknowledged the warnings and said to take them into account mid-2013 ? Maybe better the NACC wraps up so Ms. Yingluck and her legal team get the chance (of their lifetime) to defend her in a real court with all the witnesses they like to have called up.

I won't consider 90,000 sacks as minimal. Thats almost 1.8M tons. Bail was at 150,000B which does indicated the severity of the case. Could be higher but they did surrender.

The NACC press charges and initiate impeachment on 14 Feb. 2557 and Yingluck acknowledged the charge on Feb. 27. The OAG and NACC only warn her but it is the formal charge that counts. Only then are the details of the charges are provided by the prosecutors. Still a short period for the defense counsel to prepare for such a big legal case.

Just how can we be sure that the audit can be conclusive when soldiers are implicated in stealing large amount of rice. Don't see the rationale to rush since the mission to get rid of her and the government has been accompished.

Large amount of rice? Lots of posters complained that it was just minimal. Till the soldiers involvement was made known that is. A private and a sergeant brought to the police station compliments of the Army.

So, why do some like to suggest a 'rush' when the NACC already warned begin of 2013 and Ms. Yingluck acknowledged the warnings and said to take them into account mid-2013 ? Maybe better the NACC wraps up so Ms. Yingluck and her legal team get the chance (of their lifetime) to defend her in a real court with all the witnesses they like to have called up.

I won't consider 90,000 sacks as minimal. Thats almost 1.8M tons. Bail was at 150,000B which does indicated the severity of the case. Could be higher but they did surrender.

The NACC press charges and initiate impeachment on 14 Feb. 2557 and Yingluck acknowledged the charge on Feb. 27. The OAG and NACC only warn her but it is the formal charge that counts. Only then are the details of the charges are provided by the prosecutors. Still a short period for the defense counsel to prepare for such a big legal case.

Give her 1 or 10 years she will not be here anyway, pressure too much for her she hates it, reason she was on 50 trips away during her PM 3 years.

and in the north at O-TOP shops -etc. reasons for not attending vital meetings. pathetic running of a country.

Ms Yingluck is facing a charge of negligence of duty in overseeing the rice pledging schem causing heavy damages to the state.’

Seems as if the lady concerned has now begun to realize what a poisoned chalice her delightful brother passed to her in his failed attempt to retain and later consolidate the Shinwatra dynasty.

'Tis a trifle amusing to hear the ''slow down plea'' when one considers the undue haste on a large number of propositions and bills that were propounded by the last administration in their attempts to further their own causes , politically , business and family wise.

Comments regarding how the scales of justice appear to be balanced on this matter should be compared to the balance of the scales of justice when the then administration was hunting down its opponents.

No doubt about it, the fact is that the Yingluck P.T.P. mirror image is not so pleasant now the image making mirror has changed.

Perhaps now Yinglucks brother will change her name to ''Patsy'' so as to honour her services to him and the Shinwatra clan and the coming sacrifice she may have to make.

Joan of Arc gave her all and look at her fate

A good post, but I believe Eva Braun would have been a better parallel on several levels. Maybe even better is Bonnie of Bonnie and Clyde? I certainly would not YS into martyr territory.

Edited July 17, 201412 yr by MaxYakov

Please mr. Judge, don't rush i am not ready yet, please !

Just how can we be sure that the audit can be conclusive when soldiers are implicated in stealing large amount of rice. Don't see the rationale to rush since the mission to get rid of her and the government has been accompished.

Do you have any links to prove what you have said? Perhaps evidence with pictures or anything at all?

Please do a show and tell for us poor deluded farangs.

Just how can we be sure that the audit can be conclusive when soldiers are implicated in stealing large amount of rice. Don't see the rationale to rush since the mission to get rid of her and the government has been accompished.

Large amount of rice? Lots of posters complained that it was just minimal. Till the soldiers involvement was made known that is. A private and a sergeant brought to the police station compliments of the Army.

So, why do some like to suggest a 'rush' when the NACC already warned begin of 2013 and Ms. Yingluck acknowledged the warnings and said to take them into account mid-2013 ? Maybe better the NACC wraps up so Ms. Yingluck and her legal team get the chance (of their lifetime) to defend her in a real court with all the witnesses they like to have called up.

I won't consider 90,000 sacks as minimal. Thats almost 1.8M tons. Bail was at 150,000B which does indicated the severity of the case. Could be higher but they did surrender.

The NACC press charges and initiate impeachment on 14 Feb. 2557 and Yingluck acknowledged the charge on Feb. 27. The OAG and NACC only warn her but it is the formal charge that counts. Only then are the details of the charges are provided by the prosecutors. Still a short period for the defense counsel to prepare for such a big legal case.

Give her 1 or 10 years she will not be here anyway, pressure too much for her she hates it, reason she was on 50 trips away during her PM 3 years.

and in the north at O-TOP shops -etc. reasons for not attending vital meetings. pathetic running of a country.

Doubt very much that she intend to be in politics for the long haul. If she intended a long tenure in politics, she will be cultivating her power base years back. When she was chosen as leader of PT, not many heard of her and most will do a wiki search on her background. We know Taksin chose her for strategic reasons and must said, he was right.

Without a power base, unfortunately she has to rely on Taksin for all decisions which is seen as a weakness and exploited by oppositions. Must say, she grew on her job and was more confident and assured and especially on the international stage. The international travelling must be paying off as seen by many western leaders that condemned the coup.

If you judged by the failed policies like rice and amnesty bill, she has failed but on a macro level, she is not doing too bad. Our international relationship improved, financial and fiscal management was sound and the economy was moving nicely after the disastrous flood.

I am sure you have your opinion and not here to change your view but just expressing mine.

He said that both the Public Warehouse Organisation and the Marketing Organisation for Farmers have challenged the subcommittee’s claim of substantial amount of rice has gone missing from the stockpiles.

​And this is why reform is needed. thaksin ensured that he had friends and relatives in strategically high places. It is only ever the 'thaksin friendly" organizations that ever defend the regime that has been removed. The PWO is run by Chalerms son's mate, Sarawut Sakulmeerit, that was with him the night of the fatal nightclub shooting. The MOF is chaired by Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, a PTP member that is loyal to thaksin and was a minister in one of his governments. All the other witnesses are also loyal to thaksin, not the truth, thaksin. They all have an agenda and that is why they were put into the positions there were put in. For instances like this. The NACC is right not to accept them. If they all came to this court case the list of people would look more like a thaksin birthday party invite list than a court hearing.

Supa. No agenda, unless holding the voters in high regard can be classified as one. A women with no connetions to anyone that is just doing her job and highlighted to yingluck that there is corruption in the scheme.

​Had yingluck investigated the scheme instead of "investigating" the scheme then we would not be here today.

Terminal cancer in a gold fish that refuses to give up is what comes to mind.

Edited July 17, 201412 yr by djjamie

LMAO! 1 thing I never get used too is the around the bush talk. They never RUSH!!

"He said that both the Public Warehouse Organisation and the Marketing Organisation for Farmers have challenged the subcommittee’s claim of substantial amount of rice has gone missing from the stockpiles."

No way, those who are responsible for storing the rice challenge the claim that they have lost the rice. Now who would have thought that :-D

Anyway, I like the Thai way of handling legal cases.

"Can I have 8 more witnesses?"

"No"

"Ok, then can I have 8 more witnesses?"

"No"

"Ok, then can I have 8 more witnesses?"

"No"

"Ok, then can I have 8 more witnesses?"

"No"

"Ok, then can I have 8 more witnesses?"

"No"

"Ok, then can I have 8 more witnesses?"

"No"

...............

I thought the ongoing inspections from the NCPO have so far actually confirmed Ms Supa's claims

Yes, but if you close your eyes and your ears, and order your accounts team not to publish the accounts, then you can continue claiming everything is fine

I am going to enjoy watching this one unfold.

I wonder how far away all the figures for the rice mess are going to be from the physical count.

I go with about 15% water, and bug infested, along with at least 15% mould.

About 5mn tonnes of product that is all still there, but unusable.

Suitable punishment would be to force anyone that was involved in this scandal to eat a portion of this molded mash until the stock is gone.

What about the warehouse managers. Surely they have played some part in this mess.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I think you have all misunderstood what actually happened here. There was so much rice in the warehouses, that scaffolding was ordered and raised to support the weight of the rice. To keep costs low, Cambodian workers were hired for the job. Eventually the Cambodian workers realised that Yingluck had run out of tax payer money, and that like the farmers, they would not get paid for the scaffolding, so they decided to take all the rice under the scaffolding as payment, which explains why there is now a huge empty space where the rice once was. After taking all the rice, the Cambodians of course fled back to Cambodia, claiming the army was planning to arrest them for working illegaly, which is why 200.000 Cambodians have now left, each with a few bags of rice over their shoulder.

Unfortunately the Thai authorities cannot catch the Cambodian workers now that they are back in Cambodia with all the rice, but we can hardly blame Yingluck or the warehouse managers for that. However, should the workers eventually come back to Thailand, Yingluck's lawyer has already prepared plans to call an additional 200,000 witnesses in her defence.

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

If he has factual information that could assist in Yingluck's defence, then why doesn't he come right out and reveal it? I think we'd all like to hear it. Surely there can't be anything that is prejudicial to the country's commerce that needs to be kept confidential? And why would she care now, anyway? This is pussyfooting around. Weren't previous witnesses rejected because they were simply character witnesses? Is this the same case now with these latest witnesses?

In most criminal courts of the world neither a prosecution or defense attorneys are allowed to testify as it would be deemed prejudical - hence the need for 3rd party testimony. But in Thailand it appears that the court controls the degree to which one can defend themselves as the court has the power to reject defense witnesses without hearing whatever alleged facts they might present. Again in most criminal courts, hearsay testimony is not typically allowed INTO THE RECORD but witnesses are not prevented from testimony. Also, there is no jury; therefore, any testimonial statements carry no emotional prejudice or weight that might affect the court's decision. So why unnecessarily and with prejudice does the court not allow the additional eight witnesses to testify?

Precisely how much time does she need to buy a ticket to Dubai?

Ms Yingluck is facing a charge of negligence of duty in overseeing the rice pledging schem causing heavy damages to the state.’

Seems as if the lady concerned has now begun to realize what a poisoned chalice her delightful brother passed to her in his failed attempt to retain and later consolidate the Shinwatra dynasty.

'Tis a trifle amusing to hear the ''slow down plea'' when one considers the undue haste on a large number of propositions and bills that were propounded by the last administration in their attempts to further their own causes , politically , business and family wise.

Comments regarding how the scales of justice appear to be balanced on this matter should be compared to the balance of the scales of justice when the then administration was hunting down its opponents.

No doubt about it, the fact is that the Yingluck P.T.P. mirror image is not so pleasant now the image making mirror has changed.

Perhaps now Yinglucks brother will change her name to ''Patsy'' so as to honour her services to him and the Shinwatra clan and the coming sacrifice she may have to make.

Joan of Arc gave her all and look at her fate

A good post, but I believe Eva Braun would have been a better parallel on several levels. Maybe even better is Bonnie of Bonnie and Clyde? I certainly would not YS into martyr territory.

I'm ready to die on the democratic battlefield : Yingluck

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Im-ready-to-die-on-the-democratic-battlefield-Ying-30228049.html

Just how can we be sure that the audit can be conclusive when soldiers are implicated in stealing large amount of rice. Don't see the rationale to rush since the mission to get rid of her and the government has been accompished.

Large amount of rice? Lots of posters complained that it was just minimal. Till the soldiers involvement was made known that is. A private and a sergeant brought to the police station compliments of the Army.

So, why do some like to suggest a 'rush' when the NACC already warned begin of 2013 and Ms. Yingluck acknowledged the warnings and said to take them into account mid-2013 ? Maybe better the NACC wraps up so Ms. Yingluck and her legal team get the chance (of their lifetime) to defend her in a real court with all the witnesses they like to have called up.

I won't consider 90,000 sacks as minimal. Thats almost 1.8M tons. Bail was at 150,000B which does indicated the severity of the case. Could be higher but they did surrender.

The NACC press charges and initiate impeachment on 14 Feb. 2557 and Yingluck acknowledged the charge on Feb. 27. The OAG and NACC only warn her but it is the formal charge that counts. Only then are the details of the charges are provided by the prosecutors. Still a short period for the defense counsel to prepare for such a big legal case.

That is some serious rice sacks, carrying 20 tonnes in each sack? Is that what they said on red shirt radio? It would make sense if they did as not a single red shirt will be able to divide 1.8M tons with 90,000 sacks, so they will all believe it

I have not heard about this story before, but I guess if it is true that there is a case of soldiers stealing some rice, then that automatically negates the other 5000 or so cases of theft and corruption in the rice scam

Coming from a purely academic viewpoint (as NCPO says, let's put aside the political colors and present just the facts), what has been disclosed thus far with regard to the rice program is that pledged rice tonnage loss has been caused by poor accounting, water evaporation, bug infestation, and mould. While these factors might reflect dereliction of duty of the rice program, they do not constitute criminal actions - just incompetency. Lost rice was also attributed to corrupted warehouse owners, distributors, and maybe even a minister or two who PERSONALLY GAINED from theft of government property; that is criminal indeed. But where is the evidence that former PM Yingluck was involved in any conspiracy to steal government rice and benefited from its theft?

I recall the original charge by the Democrats was that Yingluck was quilty for a failed rice program because she should have known it would fail and cost the State billions of baht. And that all the PTP ministers that voted for the program were equally criminal because they too should have know the program would fail economically. But somehow complicit to its failure, the ministers and Yingluck personally reaped billions of baht from government funds intended to pay the farmers for the pledged rice. The criminal case against Yingluck so far appears to be one of some kind of guilt by association embedded in smoke and mirrors.

All that said, the public may not be privy to all the evidence NACC holds. I'm not sure even Yingluck is privy to all of NACC's evidence. But given the high profile of this case involving a popular publicly elected official, the public should be as convinced of Yingluck's quilt as NACC is.

Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - no matter who they are and whether rich or poor!

That fundamental right guarantees the freedom of us all.

The judicial process must take its course and the PM is entitled to a fair trial by an unbiased Court

Sure, but Yingluck is not in court yet, so all that does not really matter. Currently the NACC is just declining to hear her witnesses in their investigation of her before they decide whether to submit the case to court. It would be similar to the police building a case against a criminal. The police can and should of course decide on their own if they want to hear what your or your witnesses have to say before they decide whether to submit the case to court. Once in court your principles of course apply.

In most western democracies, the Official Prosecuting Agency is required to be independent and impartial in deciding whether or not there is sufficient evidence to lay any formal charges. This includes an obligation to investigate any alleged criminal offence by listening to any exculpatory evidence as well as inculpatory evidence.

If the Police are not fair and impartial, it taints the entire administration of criminal justice which erodes the Rule of Law which underpins every civilised society .

So is Thailand civilised or just a barbaric totalitarian State which hangs its former heads of State without a fair trial?

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

If he has factual information that could assist in Yingluck's defence, then why doesn't he come right out and reveal it? I think we'd all like to hear it. Surely there can't be anything that is prejudicial to the country's commerce that needs to be kept confidential? And why would she care now, anyway? This is pussyfooting around. Weren't previous witnesses rejected because they were simply character witnesses? Is this the same case now with these latest witnesses?

In most criminal courts of the world neither a prosecution or defense attorneys are allowed to testify as it would be deemed prejudical - hence the need for 3rd party testimony. But in Thailand it appears that the court controls the degree to which one can defend themselves as the court has the power to reject defense witnesses without hearing whatever alleged facts they might present. Again in most criminal courts, hearsay testimony is not typically allowed INTO THE RECORD but witnesses are not prevented from testimony. Also, there is no jury; therefore, any testimonial statements carry no emotional prejudice or weight that might affect the court's decision. So why unnecessarily and with prejudice does the court not allow the additional eight witnesses to testify?

Yingluck has not yet been charged, hence there is no trial or court for her to present any witnesses in.

Yingluck is currently being investigated, but she is not on trial nor is she in court, and in most if not all countries, those responsible for the investigation and for pressing charges (NACC in this case) can call or reject any witnesses they like.

Just how can we be sure that the audit can be conclusive when soldiers are implicated in stealing large amount of rice. Don't see the rationale to rush since the mission to get rid of her and the government has been accompished.

Large amount of rice? Lots of posters complained that it was just minimal. Till the soldiers involvement was made known that is. A private and a sergeant brought to the police station compliments of the Army.

So, why do some like to suggest a 'rush' when the NACC already warned begin of 2013 and Ms. Yingluck acknowledged the warnings and said to take them into account mid-2013 ? Maybe better the NACC wraps up so Ms. Yingluck and her legal team get the chance (of their lifetime) to defend her in a real court with all the witnesses they like to have called up.

I won't consider 90,000 sacks as minimal. Thats almost 1.8M tons. Bail was at 150,000B which does indicated the severity of the case. Could be higher but they did surrender.

The NACC press charges and initiate impeachment on 14 Feb. 2557 and Yingluck acknowledged the charge on Feb. 27. The OAG and NACC only warn her but it is the formal charge that counts. Only then are the details of the charges are provided by the prosecutors. Still a short period for the defense counsel to prepare for such a big legal case.

That is some serious rice sacks, carrying 20 tonnes in each sack? Is that what they said on red shirt radio? It would make sense if they did as not a single red shirt will be able to divide 1.8M tons with 90,000 sacks, so they will all believe it

I have not heard about this story before, but I guess if it is true that there is a case of soldiers stealing some rice, then that automatically negates the other 5000 or so cases of theft and corruption in the rice scam

You right. I made a boo boo. Should be 1,800 Tons.

In most western democracies, the Official Prosecuting Agency is required to be independent and impartial in deciding whether or not there is sufficient evidence to lay any formal charges. This includes an obligation to investigate any alleged criminal offence by listening to any exculpatory evidence as well as inculpatory evidence.

If the Police are not fair and impartial, it taints the entire administration of criminal justice which erodes the Rule of Law which underpins every civilised society .

So is Thailand civilised or just a barbaric totalitarian State which hangs its former heads of State without a fair trial?

If the prosecution (anywhere) deems a witness irrelevant to their investigation, then they are under no obligation to hear the witness. It is entirely up to the prosecution to decide when they have enough evidence to press formal charges. The defendant can present the witness in court should he or she wish to do so. If this was not the case, then anyone caught for shoplifting could request his/her entire family and all facebook friends to be heard as witnesses, which obviously would demand so many resources that the system would break down.

Generally the prosecution is not going to take cases to court unless they believe they have enough evidence for a conviction, as if they do that too often and thereby lose too often, then not only will they have the press on their backs, they will likely also be fired for incompetence.

Edited July 17, 201412 yr by monkeycountry

Coming from a purely academic viewpoint (as NCPO says, let's put aside the political colors and present just the facts), what has been disclosed thus far with regard to the rice program is that pledged rice tonnage loss has been caused by poor accounting, water evaporation, bug infestation, and mould. While these factors might reflect dereliction of duty of the rice program, they do not constitute criminal actions - just incompetency. Lost rice was also attributed to corrupted warehouse owners, distributors, and maybe even a minister or two who PERSONALLY GAINED from theft of government property; that is criminal indeed. But where is the evidence that former PM Yingluck was involved in any conspiracy to steal government rice and benefited from its theft?

I recall the original charge by the Democrats was that Yingluck was quilty for a failed rice program because she should have known it would fail and cost the State billions of baht. And that all the PTP ministers that voted for the program were equally criminal because they too should have know the program would fail economically. But somehow complicit to its failure, the ministers and Yingluck personally reaped billions of baht from government funds intended to pay the farmers for the pledged rice. The criminal case against Yingluck so far appears to be one of some kind of guilt by association embedded in smoke and mirrors.

All that said, the public may not be privy to all the evidence NACC holds. I'm not sure even Yingluck is privy to all of NACC's evidence. But given the high profile of this case involving a popular publicly elected official, the public should be as convinced of Yingluck's quilt as NACC is.

Then of course there has been cases where lots of rice sacks have gone missing entirely, which does not happen due to mold or water evaporation. Then there was a case of scaffolding with empty space being built under the rice.

I agree with you though, the accounting was extremely poor. The PTP government was the only "company" in the entire world that was not able to put a value on it's stock, and thereby close the books and publish the loss. All listed Thai companies are required (by the government) to do exactly this every year, and they all manage to do it without problems.

Have you ever heard a major company claim they cannot publish a balance sheet because they are unable to put a value on their current stock? (The secret is to count the stock, even if you count wrong, and multiply the amount of stock with the current market price (not imaginary market price)).

I think the public, at least those not wearing a red shirt, is already as convinced of Yingluck's guilt as the NACC is

Edited July 17, 201412 yr by monkeycountry

Even after all those statements, it would seem some still don't understand that the NACC isn't a court. The NACC is investigating the RPPS for irregularities and/or losses to the state due to seemingly negligence.

After a while the NACC will conclude that there is a case or that there isn't a case. If there's no case they will file all. If they think there's a case they pass on their conclusion to whoever they're supposed to pass their conclusion to (the Senate or OAG?).

If a court case will be opened the accused will have a legal team and be able to request whatever witnesses deemed necessary.

Of course with 700++ billion simply lost it would seem we either have a clear case of negligence on the part of Ms. Yingluck as PM and chairwoman of the NRC and a few of related cabinet people, or there may be a criminal case. Now if only Ms. Yingluck c.s. had spent a few minutes in the last thwo and a half years to get that detailed accounting report fixed, things might not be so bad, but we still have NO report, NO details, ONLY 700++ billion lost.