NACC stands by case against Yingluck, asks if all files read

[rametindallas]

It's amazing what kind of view from responsibility some have here.

The whole last year there was several times, weekly news that there are irregularities with the rice scheme.

Ministers have repeatedly asked questions in Parliament.

- They mentioned the specific cases with names, quantities, location and even the account numbers.

- Internal administration officials, which have confirmed the irregularities, were transferred and made ​ silenced.

- About nightly bulk transfers of Natthawuts transport company was reported.

- The director of the BAAC was silenced.

- Reports on rotting and missing rice

- Warehouses were set on fire.

- Farmers had to wait for their money, were lied for months and some killed themselves.

So what those responsible ministers and the chairwoman (NRC) have done the whole last year?

- no parliamentary questions have been answered.

- Denial, cover up, lying, cheating, snake in the grass strategy.

- Alibi warehouse testing, with the result: everything was in best order.

This is more then only a case of dereliction of duty!

Negligent supervision duty injury with concealment in office.

The culprits have contributed absolutely nothing to clarify and limit the damage,

on the contrary, the damage was through the denial and passivity far from larger.

Everyone knows that the G-to-G deals were very high placed in the hierarchy.

Control mechanisms could be bypassed.

Or how else a 500 million baht check could be once issued?

Or how else somebody can provide and cash out a 500 million check at a bank without examination?

Or how else can 1 million tonnes of rice just got out of warehouses and disappear?

Those are more signs of organized economic crime, nothing less.

Then why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption? Generally the courts prefer some more substantial arguments and evidence than just "everyone knows". What it haste on NACC's part? They were an integral part of the planned series of steps to justify the overthrow of the government. Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability as a major reason.

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Yep. Taken from the playbook of Thaksin who twice (second time through his puppet, Yingluck.) dissolved Parliament and both times leading to illegitimate governments.

why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption?

Really, you have no idea what detail was presented to the OAG so, why make wild suppositions? I've just read that the NACC sent more than 4,000 pages of evidence to the OAG.

Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability

If Ms Yingluck had stayed within the law, she would not have been impeached. Unfortunately, for her and for Thailand, she relied totally on advise from her 'caddy' and blindly broke many more laws that we are even of aware of, yet.

Yep. Taken from the playbook of Thaksin who twice (second time through his puppet, Yingluck.) dissolved Parliament and both times leading to illegitimate governments.

I will agree on this point that events in 2006 and 2014 (street protests, etc) led to illegitimate governments, but you should be careful about calling the current government illegitimate in this current political climate.

Really, you have no idea what detail was presented to the OAG so, why make wild suppositions? I've just read that the NACC sent more than 4,000 pages of evidence to the OAG.

There are many articles that make this "wild supposition": http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nacc-case-former-prime-minister-yingluck-water-tight/ is one of them. Check BP from 3 days ago for another example.

The case was rejected because there was no detail on the actual corruption and additional witnesses were required. Also, the TDRI report used to detail the corruption was the cover sheet only.

If Ms Yingluck had stayed within the law, she would not have been impeached. Unfortunately, for her and for Thailand, she relied totally on advise from her 'caddy' and blindly broke many more laws that we are even of aware of, yet.

Even with the current loss of many rights in Thiland, there is still the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The NACC indicted, and imposed punishment, for a case that the OAG stated is not strong enough to obtain a criminal indictment. Yet you are so biased that you have found her guilty of things that we are not even aware of yet!

Until you calm down and write coherently, and with real facts to back up your suppositions, I cannot respond in any meaningful way. You are wrong to twist my meaning to assert that the NCPO is illegitimate as the NCPO has been endorsed by the highest authority. The link you included does not support any of your 'wild suppositions'. Why are you bringing the TDRI into the discussion??? Ms Yingluck was found guilty of transferring a civil servant for personal gain by the Supreme Court so she was proved guilty and had to step down as PM. As for my claim she is guilty of more law breaking than we know of, time will prove if I am right or if I am the fanatic. Like I wrote in my earlier post: this is not over by a long shot. Much criminality has already been uncovered and it is just a matter of time and confessions before the crimes that I'm referring to are linked to the former, lady PM. BTW, my finding her guilty has zero effect/influence on the Thai justice system so don't get too upset. Yes, I am biased against those who actively or passively damage the people of Thailand.

[Eric Loh]

There is an incremental, 'moving the goal posts' approach here that won't help intermational credibility - if at first you do not succeed change the rules and the personnel involved until you get the desired result. As Eric says above, the same thing happened in the Thaksin land deal case (doubtlessly he was a shady character, but that too failed to meet the test of due process). Things like this make it easy for critics to say that Thai law is shaped by Thai politics.

P.S. The suggestion in the land deal case is not so much that the law was changed, but that the established understandings about the rules on Ministers and public auctions were set aside, even when official advice was to the contrary.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.co.uk/

Is it really necessary to post that utter BS propaganda link yet again?

You would have thought such an impartial and intensely researched document would cover one of the more staggering aspects of the case, that instead of try to defend himself using law, he chose to bribe the court with a pastry box containing 2 million baht. Is this how an innocent man behaves? Did Slimdog not consider this important enough to include? That Thaksin had the power to fire the head of FIDF, indisputable.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Shinawatra propaganda is way too clunky for my liking. To apply rational thought process to the propaganda just goes to show what it is. Nonsense, prepared for fools to digest and froth over.

The pastry box case was bizarre. The speed of the court sentencing so near to the hearing on the land case was bizarre. That these veteran well educated lawyers delivered the box openly to the Supreme Court Office was even more bizarre. The establishment sure work in a mysterious way.

[jaidam]

There is an incremental, 'moving the goal posts' approach here that won't help intermational credibility - if at first you do not succeed change the rules and the personnel involved until you get the desired result. As Eric says above, the same thing happened in the Thaksin land deal case (doubtlessly he was a shady character, but that too failed to meet the test of due process). Things like this make it easy for critics to say that Thai law is shaped by Thai politics.

P.S. The suggestion in the land deal case is not so much that the law was changed, but that the established understandings about the rules on Ministers and public auctions were set aside, even when official advice was to the contrary.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.co.uk/

Is it really necessary to post that utter BS propaganda link yet again?

You would have thought such an impartial and intensely researched document would cover one of the more staggering aspects of the case, that instead of try to defend himself using law, he chose to bribe the court with a pastry box containing 2 million baht. Is this how an innocent man behaves? Did Slimdog not consider this important enough to include? That Thaksin had the power to fire the head of FIDF, indisputable.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Shinawatra propaganda is way too clunky for my liking. To apply rational thought process to the propaganda just goes to show what it is. Nonsense, prepared for fools to digest and froth over.

The pastry box case was bizarre. The speed of the court sentencing so near to the hearing on the land case was bizarre. That these veteran well educated lawyers delivered the box openly to the Supreme Court Office was even more bizarre. The establishment sure work in a mysterious way.

IF what you wrote is true(it isn't), you would expect Thaksin's lawyers to deny attempting to bribe the courts. But, they didn't did they, they claimed to have given the "wrong pastry box". Anybody daft enough here to swallow that little gem? Fighting against common sense will cause mental confusion and stress, better to follow the logic my friend.

[brucec64]

Then why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption? Generally the courts prefer some more substantial arguments and evidence than just "everyone knows". What it haste on NACC's part? They were an integral part of the planned series of steps to justify the overthrow of the government. Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability as a major reason.

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Take a look at the series of events leading up to the 2006 coup. Eerily similar to the steps leading up to the 2014 coupe. Almost as if taken from a playbook...

Yep. Taken from the playbook of Thaksin who twice (second time through his puppet, Yingluck.) dissolved Parliament and both times leading to illegitimate governments.

why did the NACC provide only a cover sheet from a report issued by an NGO as proof of the corruption?

Really, you have no idea what detail was presented to the OAG so, why make wild suppositions? I've just read that the NACC sent more than 4,000 pages of evidence to the OAG.

Impeachment of Yingluck was one of those steps in order to use government instability

If Ms Yingluck had stayed within the law, she would not have been impeached. Unfortunately, for her and for Thailand, she relied totally on advise from her 'caddy' and blindly broke many more laws that we are even of aware of, yet.

Yep. Taken from the playbook of Thaksin who twice (second time through his puppet, Yingluck.) dissolved Parliament and both times leading to illegitimate governments.

I will agree on this point that events in 2006 and 2014 (street protests, etc) led to illegitimate governments, but you should be careful about calling the current government illegitimate in this current political climate.

Really, you have no idea what detail was presented to the OAG so, why make wild suppositions? I've just read that the NACC sent more than 4,000 pages of evidence to the OAG.

There are many articles that make this "wild supposition": http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nacc-case-former-prime-minister-yingluck-water-tight/ is one of them. Check BP from 3 days ago for another example.

The case was rejected because there was no detail on the actual corruption and additional witnesses were required. Also, the TDRI report used to detail the corruption was the cover sheet only.

If Ms Yingluck had stayed within the law, she would not have been impeached. Unfortunately, for her and for Thailand, she relied totally on advise from her 'caddy' and blindly broke many more laws that we are even of aware of, yet.

Even with the current loss of many rights in Thiland, there is still the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The NACC indicted, and imposed punishment, for a case that the OAG stated is not strong enough to obtain a criminal indictment. Yet you are so biased that you have found her guilty of things that we are not even aware of yet!

Until you calm down and write coherently, and with real facts to back up your suppositions, I cannot respond in any meaningful way. You are wrong to twist my meaning to assert that the NCPO is illegitimate as the NCPO has been endorsed by the highest authority. The link you included does not support any of your 'wild suppositions'. Why are you bringing the TDRI into the discussion??? Ms Yingluck was found guilty of transferring a civil servant for personal gain by the Supreme Court so she was proved guilty and had to step down as PM. As for my claim she is guilty of more law breaking than we know of, time will prove if I am right or if I am the fanatic. Like I wrote in my earlier post: this is not over by a long shot. Much criminality has already been uncovered and it is just a matter of time and confessions before the crimes that I'm referring to are linked to the former, lady PM. BTW, my finding her guilty has zero effect/influence on the Thai justice system so don't get too upset. Yes, I am biased against those who actively or passively damage the people of Thailand.

I assumed you could follow a link but I will make it easier and pull out the pertinent piece of the article that supports my "wild supposition", and why I brought TDRI into the discussion:

As for the point that there was only one page of evidence of rice pledging corruption from Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), the NACC secretary-general explained that, in fact, the TDRI had a bunch of research about the alleged corruption in the rice pledging scheme and the NACC only presented just one page of the reports as a sample and the OAG was welcomed to glance through them.

The BP article I pointed you too I cannot quote here due to forum restrictions,but it clearly outlines the 3 reasons why the OAG rejected the indictment.

As to your comment on twisting the facts, what was twisted? You stated "dissolved Parliement leading to illegitimate governments". Was there another government that I am not aware of? A caretaker government was legitimate under the constitution at the time. The junta government only became legitimate after creating a new constitution after the fact. There was a period of illegitimacy, and that is why the interim constituiton required an amnesty clause.

Just as an aside - wasn't amnesty the catalyst for all of this? Or was this amnesty the "good" amnesty because it was for the "right" people?

[citizen33]

There is an incremental, 'moving the goal posts' approach here that won't help intermational credibility - if at first you do not succeed change the rules and the personnel involved until you get the desired result. As Eric says above, the same thing happened in the Thaksin land deal case (doubtlessly he was a shady character, but that too failed to meet the test of due process). Things like this make it easy for critics to say that Thai law is shaped by Thai politics.

P.S. The suggestion in the land deal case is not so much that the law was changed, but that the established understandings about the rules on Ministers and public auctions were set aside, even when official advice was to the contrary.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.co.uk/

Is it really necessary to post that utter BS propaganda link yet again?

You would have thought such an impartial and intensely researched document would cover one of the more staggering aspects of the case, that instead of try to defend himself using law, he chose to bribe the court with a pastry box containing 2 million baht. Is this how an innocent man behaves? Did Slimdog not consider this important enough to include? That Thaksin had the power to fire the head of FIDF, indisputable.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Shinawatra propaganda is way too clunky for my liking. To apply rational thought process to the propaganda just goes to show what it is. Nonsense, prepared for fools to digest and froth over.

Readers of the forum who have yet to make their minds up on the issues will no doubt appreciate your helpful labelling of documents like this blog as ‘utter BS’. This will save them the trouble of checking for themselves whether the various reported pronouncements of the Bank of Thailand, the FIDF and the NCCC were ever made, or reflecting on why the Asset Examination Committee had to be replaced by the Asset Scrutiny Committee. No doubt this will contribute substantially to their happiness and save them from being 'fools'.

I have always thought your moniker was particular apposite by the way. You have indeed parroted a particular line with tedious regularity ('I've said it before'...).

Edited September 8, 2014 by citizen33

[Eric Loh]

There is an incremental, 'moving the goal posts' approach here that won't help intermational credibility - if at first you do not succeed change the rules and the personnel involved until you get the desired result. As Eric says above, the same thing happened in the Thaksin land deal case (doubtlessly he was a shady character, but that too failed to meet the test of due process). Things like this make it easy for critics to say that Thai law is shaped by Thai politics.

P.S. The suggestion in the land deal case is not so much that the law was changed, but that the established understandings about the rules on Ministers and public auctions were set aside, even when official advice was to the contrary.

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.co.uk/

Is it really necessary to post that utter BS propaganda link yet again?

You would have thought such an impartial and intensely researched document would cover one of the more staggering aspects of the case, that instead of try to defend himself using law, he chose to bribe the court with a pastry box containing 2 million baht. Is this how an innocent man behaves? Did Slimdog not consider this important enough to include? That Thaksin had the power to fire the head of FIDF, indisputable.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Shinawatra propaganda is way too clunky for my liking. To apply rational thought process to the propaganda just goes to show what it is. Nonsense, prepared for fools to digest and froth over.

The pastry box case was bizarre. The speed of the court sentencing so near to the hearing on the land case was bizarre. That these veteran well educated lawyers delivered the box openly to the Supreme Court Office was even more bizarre. The establishment sure work in a mysterious way.

IF what you wrote is true(it isn't), you would expect Thaksin's lawyers to deny attempting to bribe the courts. But, they didn't did they, they claimed to have given the "wrong pastry box". Anybody daft enough here to swallow that little gem? Fighting against common sense will cause mental confusion and stress, better to follow the logic my friend.

Well I don't admit I know any back story but what's clear is the consequence which was the Supreme Court disallowed the defence counsels in the land case hearing. Pretty convenient I must say.

[rubl]

The pastry box case was bizarre. The speed of the court sentencing so near to the hearing on the land case was bizarre. That these veteran well educated lawyers delivered the box openly to the Supreme Court Office was even more bizarre. The establishment sure work in a mysterious way.

IF what you wrote is true(it isn't), you would expect Thaksin's lawyers to deny attempting to bribe the courts. But, they didn't did they, they claimed to have given the "wrong pastry box". Anybody daft enough here to swallow that little gem? Fighting against common sense will cause mental confusion and stress, better to follow the logic my friend.

Well I don't admit I know any back story but what's clear is the consequence which was the Supreme Court disallowed the defence counsels in the land case hearing. Pretty convenient I must say.

Pray tell, Eric. You don't admit you know, but it's clear?

Could you please elaborate a bit, clarify, try to make it possible for us poor souls to understand your musings. Thank you