Yingluck must face rice scheme trial: Thai opinion

[dru2]

"The NACC has accused her of allowing massive corruption to happen under her nose and being involved in some of the grafts herself, and now it will have to prove it. In short, the NACC must establish that corruption took place "upstream" and all the way down".

Says it all. How will the NACC do a fair job when they already concluded there were corruption from the beginning. Almost like a mission from the start and they now have to prove it and fill up the blanks.

How unconvincing. Is that all you've got? Why should anybody place any credence in your views when - unlike the non-partisan NACC - your inexplicable mission is to defend the indefensibly corrupt Shin clan - as anyone who follows your posts on TV already knows.

"Congratulations Madame Yingluck!"

[BillyBobThai]

[jpeg]

Look at the facts. How many rich, hi-so or politicians in Thailand have EVER gone to prison? If she's found guilty, she might be SENTENCED to prison, but then it will be suspended, and pay a fine. Maybe a large one, but nothing she can't easily afford. And that will be the end of it. Banned for life from politics? I don't think she ever wanted to be in politics in the first place, so that might actually be a relief to her. But a "cockroach infested cell"? Ain't gonna happen.

You could simply have stopped at 'rich' or 'hi-so'. No one goes to jail here unless they're poor or farang. It's rude

[rickirs]

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

Yingluck must face rice scheme trial: Thai opinion

in the happy thailand, does the thai people have the right to express their opinion..... freely alt=whistling.gif>

If Yingluck is charged with dereliction of duty, malfeasance and other serious offences, it is up to the courts to decide her fate, not the Thai people, even though they are living in Happyland.

Her supporters may have opinions, as do her opposition, but ultimately it will be the legal system that makes a decision, not the polling booth (freely).

Unfortunately, the Thai legal system is questionable, especially given the Junta's absolute power over ALL Thailand institutions. The Junta has the power to reverse any court decision, make laws, appoint its military to any organization. Add to that the fact that a defendent can be subjected to "double jeapordy." That is where the defendent can be tried over and over until a guilty verdict is decided. That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State. The final concern is that there is no trial by jury. Given a judiciary that was originally (in part at least) appointed by the 2006 Junta regime, what is the likelihood that a credible verdict will be delivered?

[Krataiboy]

Yingluck is the cause that many farmers killed themselves. She will be charged for unintended man slaughters. Gen Prayuth is exactly opposite. He should be given another medal for returning happiness to the people.

Wouldn't that be tantamount to damning with faint praise? How about a Nobel Peace Prize instead?

[jaidam]

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

Yingluck must face rice scheme trial: Thai opinion

in the happy thailand, does the thai people have the right to express their opinion..... freely alt=whistling.gif>

If Yingluck is charged with dereliction of duty, malfeasance and other serious offences, it is up to the courts to decide her fate, not the Thai people, even though they are living in Happyland.

Her supporters may have opinions, as do her opposition, but ultimately it will be the legal system that makes a decision, not the polling booth (freely).

Unfortunately, the Thai legal system is questionable, especially given the Junta's absolute power over ALL Thailand institutions. The Junta has the power to reverse any court decision, make laws, appoint its military to any organization. Add to that the fact that a defendent can be subjected to "double jeapordy." That is where the defendent can be tried over and over until a guilty verdict is decided. That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State. The final concern is that there is no trial by jury. Given a judiciary that was originally (in part at least) appointed by the 2006 Junta regime, what is the likelihood that a credible verdict will be delivered?

"That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State."

Could you clarify your remark here. Do you mean Thaksin was found to be not married to Potjaman when they bid? Or are you claiming that Thaksin was not a political office holder at the time he countersigned his wife's land purchase papers? The law is very clear, this case was a no brainer(even though there are some hysterical spin blogs attempting to muddy the waters surrounding the case).

[Tchooptip]

I think the thought of spending time in a cockroach infested cell with a bucket for a toilet and 30 lice infested room mates will be enough to keep her overseas.

What...No VIP cells in LOS ?

[gemini81]

She was never completely 'there' to begin; when it comes to brains!

[ratcatcher]

A Shin will never take responsibility for their screw-ups. They rather spend a few million on lobbyists.

True enough, but then aren't you talking about any politician anywhere in the world???!!! (show me the evidence otherwise!!)...

1,Naoto Kan

2. Shinzo Abe.

3. Yasuo Fukuda

4. Yukio Hatoyama

5. Chung Hong Won

4 Japanese PMs and 1 S.Korean. All resigned because of scandals and loss of public confidence.

All men had a large degree of integrity and honor. Thai politicians, on the other hand, seem to cling on to power regardless. This also may apply to some western politicians too.

Things may well have gone better for both Thaksin and Yingluck had they originally taken the honorable course. History will judge them to be lacking.

[mikemac]

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

Yingluck is the cause that many farmers killed themselves. She will be charged for unintended man slaughters. Gen Prayuth is exactly opposite. He should be given another medal for returning happiness to the people.

Sorry, but I read on this forum that PTP and Yingluck discovered the farmers that killed themselves in desperation were fake farmers. I took that to mean the 20 odd corpses belonged to general nutcases that killed themselves solely to discredit the Yingluck administration, and had nothing to do with a rice scheme designed and engineered to enrich the offshore amart and it's onshore arselickers at the cost of the hardworking farmer and general taxpaying populus.

Perhaps your vocation should be fiction writing.

Well at least jaidam's prose was blatant tongue in cheek, sarcastic fiction, as opposed to the scurrilous rumors, lies, fantasies and innuendos published by some of the desperate red flag waving mob.

Keep em comin' jaidam.

[gemini81]

Yingluck is the cause that many farmers killed themselves. She will be charged for unintended man slaughters. Gen Prayuth is exactly opposite. He should be given another medal for returning happiness to the people.

Sorry, but I read on this forum that PTP and Yingluck discovered the farmers that killed themselves in desperation were fake farmers. I took that to mean the 20 odd corpses belonged to general nutcases that killed themselves solely to discredit the Yingluck administration, and had nothing to do with a rice scheme designed and engineered to enrich the offshore amart and it's onshore arselickers at the cost of the hardworking farmer and general taxpaying populus.

As shameless as her! Look: they rented land, as they didn't own any. Her plan wiped them out completely. Some were reduced to underground loans they couldn't pay back, and anything they had failed trying to make a livelihood.. You should be ashamed of yourself as she should of herself.

Amart this and that; had nothing to do with it. They were not in power, and objected to the policy. Please get a clue, or kindly stop trolling.

[Eric Loh]

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

Yingluck must face rice scheme trial: Thai opinion

in the happy thailand, does the thai people have the right to express their opinion..... freely alt=whistling.gif>

If Yingluck is charged with dereliction of duty, malfeasance and other serious offences, it is up to the courts to decide her fate, not the Thai people, even though they are living in Happyland.

Her supporters may have opinions, as do her opposition, but ultimately it will be the legal system that makes a decision, not the polling booth (freely).

Unfortunately, the Thai legal system is questionable, especially given the Junta's absolute power over ALL Thailand institutions. The Junta has the power to reverse any court decision, make laws, appoint its military to any organization. Add to that the fact that a defendent can be subjected to "double jeapordy." That is where the defendent can be tried over and over until a guilty verdict is decided. That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State. The final concern is that there is no trial by jury. Given a judiciary that was originally (in part at least) appointed by the 2006 Junta regime, what is the likelihood that a credible verdict will be delivered?

"That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State."

Could you clarify your remark here. Do you mean Thaksin was found to be not married to Potjaman when they bid? Or are you claiming that Thaksin was not a political office holder at the time he countersigned his wife's land purchase papers? The law is very clear, this case was a no brainer(even though there are some hysterical spin blogs attempting to muddy the waters surrounding the case).

Perhaps readers will better understand if you can explain what Potjaman should do when there is a requirement in the document requiring her spouse signature.

[mikemac]

Holding the Prime Minister personally responsible for corruption within a government policy would set a fantastic principal.

I would guess they would have to start building a lot of luxury cells to house all the subsequent PMs. By logic, if they take down Yingluck, they would have to take down everyone else in the chain also to the perpetrator so I hope they are ready with a few hundred cells.

I mean, they have a theft at a warehouse. T

That chain starts at the warehouse gate, on upwards. Dozens of people.

I see this as the most dangerous case that they will embark upon. If it fails they look ridiculous. If it succeeds, it ends up being a rod for every Prime minister in the future.

Tell that to Yingluck, not us.

She was the one, when faced with accusations that her criminal brother was actually running the show, who said that she was in charge of things, that she was responsible, and that the buck stopped with her.

[NeilSA1]

Holding the Prime Minister personally responsible for corruption within a government policy would set a fantastic principal.

I would guess they would have to start building a lot of luxury cells to house all the subsequent PMs. By logic, if they take down Yingluck, they would have to take down everyone else in the chain also to the perpetrator so I hope they are ready with a few hundred cells.

I mean, they have a theft at a warehouse. T

That chain starts at the warehouse gate, on upwards. Dozens of people.

I see this as the most dangerous case that they will embark upon. If it fails they look ridiculous. If it succeeds, it ends up being a rod for every Prime minister in the future.

Yes. That will be a good thing. Future PM's will then have to work for, and look after the country and its people's best interests.

Edited July 30, 2014 by metisdead
16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[Ricardo]

"That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State."

Could you clarify your remark here. Do you mean Thaksin was found to be not married to Potjaman when they bid? Or are you claiming that Thaksin was not a political office holder at the time he countersigned his wife's land purchase papers? The law is very clear, this case was a no brainer(even though there are some hysterical spin blogs attempting to muddy the waters surrounding the case).

Perhaps readers will better understand if you can explain what Potjaman should do when there is a requirement in the document requiring her spouse signature.

Perhaps recognise that, as the wife of a current PM, there were some deals which she was temporarily unable to do, unless she divorced him or until he ceased to be PM ?

This wasn't some new-legislation, it was long-standing and for good reason, and she/he should have known about it.

Surely her lawyers would have warned, that the deal might infringe the political-office-holder laws, and should not be done ?

Or did they perhaps advise that the law didn't apply to Thaksin ? Why wouldn't it ? The courts certainly disagreed !

[Thai at Heart]

"That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State."

Could you clarify your remark here. Do you mean Thaksin was found to be not married to Potjaman when they bid? Or are you claiming that Thaksin was not a political office holder at the time he countersigned his wife's land purchase papers? The law is very clear, this case was a no brainer(even though there are some hysterical spin blogs attempting to muddy the waters surrounding the case).

Perhaps readers will better understand if you can explain what Potjaman should do when there is a requirement in the document requiring her spouse signature.

Perhaps recognise that, as the wife of a current PM, there were some deals which she was temporarily unable to do, unless she divorced him or until he ceased to be PM ?

This wasn't some new-legislation, it was long-standing and for good reason, and she/he should have known about it.

Surely her lawyers would have warned, that the deal might infringe the political-office-holder laws, and should not be done ?

Or did they perhaps advise that the law didn't apply to Thaksin ? Why wouldn't it ? The courts certainly disagreed !

This was debated over and over. The organisation that was auctioning the stuff was deemed to not be a govt organisation, and then it was.

Who cares, its done now.

[Eric Loh]

"That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State."

Could you clarify your remark here. Do you mean Thaksin was found to be not married to Potjaman when they bid? Or are you claiming that Thaksin was not a political office holder at the time he countersigned his wife's land purchase papers? The law is very clear, this case was a no brainer(even though there are some hysterical spin blogs attempting to muddy the waters surrounding the case).

Perhaps readers will better understand if you can explain what Potjaman should do when there is a requirement in the document requiring her spouse signature.

Perhaps recognise that, as the wife of a current PM, there were some deals which she was temporarily unable to do, unless she divorced him or until he ceased to be PM ?

This wasn't some new-legislation, it was long-standing and for good reason, and she/he should have known about it.

Surely her lawyers would have warned, that the deal might infringe the political-office-holder laws, and should not be done ?

Or did they perhaps advise that the law didn't apply to Thaksin ? Why wouldn't it ? The courts certainly disagreed !

Point taken especially on infringing political office holder laws. That law is the National Counter Corruption Act which specified that government officials and spouses are prohibited from entering into contract with state agencies under their authorization.

So the question is whether the FIDF who file the charge is under the supervision of the PM. Well the answer is no as it is supervised by BOT Governor and there is a BOT Act that state that the PM don't have jurisdiction to oversee FIDF. Perhaps that's reason why the jury was not unaniminous and hearing did not allow the defence counsels.

[american12bthai]

Yingluck is the cause that many farmers killed themselves. She will be charged for unintended man slaughters. Gen Prayuth is exactly opposite. He should be given another medal for returning happiness to the people.

Sorry, but I read on this forum that PTP and Yingluck discovered the farmers that killed themselves in desperation were fake farmers. I took that to mean the 20 odd corpses belonged to general nutcases that killed themselves solely to discredit the Yingluck administration, and had nothing to do with a rice scheme designed and engineered to enrich the offshore amart and it's onshore arselickers at the cost of the hardworking farmer and general taxpaying populus.

you mean the same guys that "discovered" that the rice scheme was clean also discovered other things too? people may think you are lying by making this comment.

[Baerboxer]

"That is what happended to Thaksin who was found innocent by the lower court but reversed on appeal by the State."

Could you clarify your remark here. Do you mean Thaksin was found to be not married to Potjaman when they bid? Or are you claiming that Thaksin was not a political office holder at the time he countersigned his wife's land purchase papers? The law is very clear, this case was a no brainer(even though there are some hysterical spin blogs attempting to muddy the waters surrounding the case).

Perhaps readers will better understand if you can explain what Potjaman should do when there is a requirement in the document requiring her spouse signature.

Perhaps recognise that, as the wife of a current PM, there were some deals which she was temporarily unable to do, unless she divorced him or until he ceased to be PM ?

This wasn't some new-legislation, it was long-standing and for good reason, and she/he should have known about it.

Surely her lawyers would have warned, that the deal might infringe the political-office-holder laws, and should not be done ?

Or did they perhaps advise that the law didn't apply to Thaksin ? Why wouldn't it ? The courts certainly disagreed !

Point taken especially on infringing political office holder laws. That law is the National Counter Corruption Act which specified that government officials and spouses are prohibited from entering into contract with state agencies under their authorization.

So the question is whether the FIDF who file the charge is under the supervision of the PM. Well the answer is no as it is supervised by BOT Governor and there is a BOT Act that state that the PM don't have jurisdiction to oversee FIDF. Perhaps that's reason why the jury was not unaniminous and hearing did not allow the defence counsels.

Perhaps Thaksin should have hired you for his appeals team. Oh no, he chose to leg it instead.

Do you have similar "explanations" for all the other 15 charges too?

[loppylugs1]

Yingluck is one good looking woman, I would give her shelter any day of the week

[ALFREDO]

Most Thais already know that she will not return. This has been the format of all corrupted politicians in Thailand leaving the country before the hammer comes down on them. It's like a courtesy call to end it nicely as they put it in Thai. Hopefully this will be the last courtesy they give out, reform is a must. Next corrupt politician must go directly to jail, no if and or but's.

Looking at the photo of her luggage, she stays longer outside TH.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/745889-happy-siblings-reunite-in-paris/

Edited July 30, 2014 by ALFREDO