Graft buster blasts attorney-general

[Dogmatix]

I think the Thaksin appointed A-G was replaced by the NCPO but the office has a horrible reputation for corruption and letting crooks off the hook and there is probably still a lot of muck in there. I am not sure what is going on between the OAG and the NACC on this case but I expect there are many thousands of donut boxes at stake. The NACC is probably peeved becaused the OAG didn't just say they want to consult the NACC for clarification of the evidence to strengthen the prosecution. They dismissed the case completely by saying that the NACC had just claimed there was corruption at every stage of the rice pledging scheme without any details.

Some people is responsible for theft from the tax payer on a gigantic scale and they deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison (a regular one not a VIP one) and to have all their family assets seized from Thailand and overseas to reimburse some of the theft. That might make those low class thieves that count as politicians consider an easier way to make money in future.

[joecoolfrog]

Thailand remains a fuedal system , the elite ( regardless of political affiliation ) are largely immune to the laws of the land. I am surprised , given the constant affirmation of this fact , that some of you seem unable to comprehend this reality.

[Thai at Heart]

According to the BP today, a poll showed that about 20% of Thais surveyed wanted an immediate indictment of YS, whereas about 45% of TVF posters are wanting the same (I only counted 100 posts). 20% is not anywhere near a simple majority. According to the poll, 32% of Thai people wanted clear evidence and supporting documentation, whereas 45% of TVF posters have already found her guilty.

The public overall is not convinced. Indicting her will make her a martyr -- and that';s the last thing anyone should wish for. If you really want peace in this country, then the last thing you should want is to light a firecracker inside a half-full petrol tank. Oops, I forgot. This isn't a discussion -- it's a political religion and the devils are the Shins.

It seems clear that what Thai people want and think is very different than the posters here. Yeah they think the government was corrupt. Yeah, they think all the governments they have had since 1970 were corrupt. Trying to convince them, or me, that, somehow, these bad dogs are worse than the last ten litters is a joke. A self-serving megalomaniacal cyber joke.

The poll, strangely, is at the bottom of the article titled "Most want education problems solved."

They're all dirty -- picking a side is like saying you prefer one form of dirt over another.

The final conviction of Thaksin where they had to revise the legal defintion of the FIDF shows that they should be very careful.of trying to create a convction for Yingluck.

The case should be clear and the accusation clear. Otherwise they will create a martyr.

[pookiki]

I don't see why the NACC won't just go ahead with the case, they have been charged with collecting the evidence. My impression, from this article, suggests that they have jurisdiction. Maybe they don't want the responsibility or the possible repercussion when a decision is reached. I still don't know that Yingluck participated in graft, but she was responsible for the administration of the scheme. How can she not be guilty of negligence, the only possible excuse would be stupidity, and no Thai, especially a Hi-So is going to admit that. So, negligent, crooked or stupid?

They have to go through the OAG first. If not accepted by the OAG, there has to be a period (2 weeks extendable AFAIK) of joint tightening of the case. Then, if the OAG still refuses to prosecute, The NACC can do it themselves.

It seems to me that the NACC's nose has been put out of joint because the OAG didn't accept the case as is (face loss & all that). So, blame the other side. He'd be better off getting on with the joint NACC-OAG review etc and keeping his mouth shut.

What IS clear from this mess is that the NACC did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG. It's utter nonsense. The NACC has a duty to submit all relevant and pertinent evidence to the OAG. It should be submitted to the OAG with a memorandum summarizing all the findings with references to the relevant exhibits, statements, etc. that support the findings. It's simple and there's certainly no reason to be hiding anything. How can their be justice in Thailand when those responsible for dispensing it can't even work together?

Nothing is clear and you are just jumping to conclusions. You are also telling them how it should be done which I am not so arrogant to say.

Nothing to do with any doubt about justice just because of a loss of face but then I would expect you to exaggerate a rather minor event.

BTW the NACC and the OAG seemed to iron out any defects in the current case against Khunying Jaruvan without any public spat.

Quote from the article: "National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) spokesman and commission Vicha Mahakun said it was not surprised when the attorney-general claimed that evidence was insufficient to proceed the prosecution, because they have not seen what the NACC has in hands to implicate her in the charge."

Jumping to conclusions? Give me a break!

[AleG]

I don't see why the NACC won't just go ahead with the case, they have been charged with collecting the evidence. My impression, from this article, suggests that they have jurisdiction. Maybe they don't want the responsibility or the possible repercussion when a decision is reached. I still don't know that Yingluck participated in graft, but she was responsible for the administration of the scheme. How can she not be guilty of negligence, the only possible excuse would be stupidity, and no Thai, especially a Hi-So is going to admit that. So, negligent, crooked or stupid?

the only possible excuse would be stupidity, and no Thai, especially a Hi-So is going to admit that.

"It was a honest mistake" worked very well for her brother.

[phanangpete]

She can do anything she wants and get away with it.

Why leave it up to one man to make the decision ?

Typical of this Country, they run scared, why not have a panel of Judge's, so no one person is left to take the blame, where there should be no blame anyway.

The judiciary system here is a soap opera, most of us have stated that a hundred times, roll on ASEAN.

[khunken]

They have to go through the OAG first. If not accepted by the OAG, there has to be a period (2 weeks extendable AFAIK) of joint tightening of the case. Then, if the OAG still refuses to prosecute, The NACC can do it themselves.

It seems to me that the NACC's nose has been put out of joint because the OAG didn't accept the case as is (face loss & all that). So, blame the other side. He'd be better off getting on with the joint NACC-OAG review etc and keeping his mouth shut.

What IS clear from this mess is that the NACC did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG. It's utter nonsense. The NACC has a duty to submit all relevant and pertinent evidence to the OAG. It should be submitted to the OAG with a memorandum summarizing all the findings with references to the relevant exhibits, statements, etc. that support the findings. It's simple and there's certainly no reason to be hiding anything. How can their be justice in Thailand when those responsible for dispensing it can't even work together?

Nothing is clear and you are just jumping to conclusions. You are also telling them how it should be done which I am not so arrogant to say.

Nothing to do with any doubt about justice just because of a loss of face but then I would expect you to exaggerate a rather minor event.

BTW the NACC and the OAG seemed to iron out any defects in the current case against Khunying Jaruvan without any public spat.

Quote from the article: "National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) spokesman and commission Vicha Mahakun said it was not surprised when the attorney-general claimed that evidence was insufficient to proceed the prosecution, because they have not seen what the NACC has in hands to implicate her in the charge."

Jumping to conclusions? Give me a break!

Yes jumping to conclusions so no break.

That quote does not indicate that the NACC "did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG". The Op only says that the OAG has not seen what the NACC has, which could well mean that they didn't look hard enough. It's not clear as I said.

No comment I see about the fact that the NACC and OAG were quite capable of working together in the other case I mentioned.

Yes exaggeration too but not addressed.

[pookiki]

Quote from the article: "National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) spokesman and commission Vicha Mahakun said it was not surprised when the attorney-general claimed that evidence was insufficient to proceed the prosecution, because they have not seen what the NACC has in hands to implicate her in the charge."

Jumping to conclusions? Give me a break!

Yes jumping to conclusions so no break.

That quote does not indicate that the NACC "did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG". The Op only says that the OAG has not seen what the NACC has, which could well mean that they didn't look hard enough. It's not clear as I said.

No comment I see about the fact that the NACC and OAG were quite capable of working together in the other case I mentioned.

Yes exaggeration too but not addressed.

Khun Ken, I'm sorry but your interpretation of the quote is a real streeeeetch.

"because they (the OAG) has not seen what the NACC has in hands (they have it not the OAG)" How you give credence to your interpretation is beyond any plain meaning that would be ascribed to this sentence. As for my alleged 'exaggeration', any first year law student worth their salt outside of Thailand would know how to put a good evidence package together. Not sure why your being such an apologist for incompetence. Will you feel the same if YL walks? Seems to be headed in that direction.

[khunken]

Quote from the article: "National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) spokesman and commission Vicha Mahakun said it was not surprised when the attorney-general claimed that evidence was insufficient to proceed the prosecution, because they have not seen what the NACC has in hands to implicate her in the charge."

Jumping to conclusions? Give me a break!

Yes jumping to conclusions so no break.

That quote does not indicate that the NACC "did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG". The Op only says that the OAG has not seen what the NACC has, which could well mean that they didn't look hard enough. It's not clear as I said.

No comment I see about the fact that the NACC and OAG were quite capable of working together in the other case I mentioned.

Yes exaggeration too but not addressed.

Khun Ken, I'm sorry but your interpretation of the quote is a real streeeeetch.

"because they (the OAG) has not seen what the NACC has in hands (they have it not the OAG)" How you give credence to your interpretation is beyond any plain meaning that would be ascribed to this sentence. As for my alleged 'exaggeration', any first year law student worth their salt outside of Thailand would know how to put a good evidence package together. Not sure why your being such an apologist for incompetence. Will you feel the same if YL walks? Seems to be headed in that direction.

And your interpretation is jumping to a conclusion based on your prejudice.

If you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I'm certainly not apologising for anyone. Go on, don't be so bloody lazy, read previous posts.

Still no answer to the exaggeration of 'not working together'.

The case is headed in the exact same procedural direction as the K. Jaruvan case. OAG & NACC revise and tighten the case and the OAG will probably then take action. Or the NACC will be prosecutor. I don't personally care how it ends up but I would like to see the commerce mob in court via another case proceeding along the same path.

[pookiki]

Quote from the article: "National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) spokesman and commission Vicha Mahakun said it was not surprised when the attorney-general claimed that evidence was insufficient to proceed the prosecution, because they have not seen what the NACC has in hands to implicate her in the charge."

Jumping to conclusions? Give me a break!

Yes jumping to conclusions so no break.

That quote does not indicate that the NACC "did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG". The Op only says that the OAG has not seen what the NACC has, which could well mean that they didn't look hard enough. It's not clear as I said.

No comment I see about the fact that the NACC and OAG were quite capable of working together in the other case I mentioned.

Yes exaggeration too but not addressed.

Khun Ken, I'm sorry but your interpretation of the quote is a real streeeeetch.

"because they (the OAG) has not seen what the NACC has in hands (they have it not the OAG)" How you give credence to your interpretation is beyond any plain meaning that would be ascribed to this sentence. As for my alleged 'exaggeration', any first year law student worth their salt outside of Thailand would know how to put a good evidence package together. Not sure why your being such an apologist for incompetence. Will you feel the same if YL walks? Seems to be headed in that direction.

And your interpretation is jumping to a conclusion based on your prejudice.

If you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I'm certainly not apologising for anyone. Go on, don't be so bloody lazy, read previous posts.

Still no answer to the exaggeration of 'not working together'.

The case is headed in the exact same procedural direction as the K. Jaruvan case. OAG & NACC revise and tighten the case and the OAG will probably then take action. Or the NACC will be prosecutor. I don't personally care how it ends up but I would like to see the commerce mob in court via another case proceeding along the same path.

Amazing how you think ascribing a plain meaning to English language is somehow prejudicial. If the NACC and the OAG were truly working together, they wouldn't be airing their dirty laundry and engaging in finger pointing in the media. If there was a problem with the NACC's submission to the OAG, they would address and correct the problem in a professional and competent matter -- right? As for being lazy, don't be so prejudicial. You're jumping to conclusions!

[khunken]

Yes jumping to conclusions so no break.

That quote does not indicate that the NACC "did not submit all the evidence in their possession to the OAG". The Op only says that the OAG has not seen what the NACC has, which could well mean that they didn't look hard enough. It's not clear as I said.

No comment I see about the fact that the NACC and OAG were quite capable of working together in the other case I mentioned.

Yes exaggeration too but not addressed.

Khun Ken, I'm sorry but your interpretation of the quote is a real streeeeetch.

"because they (the OAG) has not seen what the NACC has in hands (they have it not the OAG)" How you give credence to your interpretation is beyond any plain meaning that would be ascribed to this sentence. As for my alleged 'exaggeration', any first year law student worth their salt outside of Thailand would know how to put a good evidence package together. Not sure why your being such an apologist for incompetence. Will you feel the same if YL walks? Seems to be headed in that direction.

And your interpretation is jumping to a conclusion based on your prejudice.

If you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I'm certainly not apologising for anyone. Go on, don't be so bloody lazy, read previous posts.

Still no answer to the exaggeration of 'not working together'.

The case is headed in the exact same procedural direction as the K. Jaruvan case. OAG & NACC revise and tighten the case and the OAG will probably then take action. Or the NACC will be prosecutor. I don't personally care how it ends up but I would like to see the commerce mob in court via another case proceeding along the same path.

Amazing how you think ascribing a plain meaning to English language is somehow prejudicial. If the NACC and the OAG were truly working together, they wouldn't be airing their dirty laundry and engaging in finger pointing in the media. If there was a problem with the NACC's submission to the OAG, they would address and correct the problem in a professional and competent matter -- right? As for being lazy, don't be so prejudicial. You're jumping to conclusions!

Actually I feel that ascribing a prejudicial meaning to a sentence, translated from Thai, is par for your course.

You still refuse to even acknowledge that the NACC and OAG are working together on other prominent cases. This one is a minor spat where the NACC's nose was put out of joint and the face loss prompted a reaction. Nothing more should be read into it unless you have another agenda.

I have every right to draw conclusions about your agenda after you refused to give any reason for your 'investigation' into my TV 'life story'.

The bottom line is that I don't trust you, Pookiki.

[pookiki]

And your interpretation is jumping to a conclusion based on your prejudice.

If you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I'm certainly not apologising for anyone. Go on, don't be so bloody lazy, read previous posts.

Still no answer to the exaggeration of 'not working together'.

The case is headed in the exact same procedural direction as the K. Jaruvan case. OAG & NACC revise and tighten the case and the OAG will probably then take action. Or the NACC will be prosecutor. I don't personally care how it ends up but I would like to see the commerce mob in court via another case proceeding along the same path.

Amazing how you think ascribing a plain meaning to English language is somehow prejudicial. If the NACC and the OAG were truly working together, they wouldn't be airing their dirty laundry and engaging in finger pointing in the media. If there was a problem with the NACC's submission to the OAG, they would address and correct the problem in a professional and competent matter -- right? As for being lazy, don't be so prejudicial. You're jumping to conclusions!

Actually I feel that ascribing a prejudicial meaning to a sentence, translated from Thai, is par for your course.

You still refuse to even acknowledge that the NACC and OAG are working together on other prominent cases. This one is a minor spat where the NACC's nose was put out of joint and the face loss prompted a reaction. Nothing more should be read into it unless you have another agenda.

I have every right to draw conclusions about your agenda after you refused to give any reason for your 'investigation' into my TV 'life story'.

The bottom line is that I don't trust you, Pookiki.

Well, Khun Ken, at least we got to the bottom line. I guess if we all fluent in spoken and written Thai, we wouldn't be ragging on each other in an 'expats' forum, Unfortunately, we all rely on the translation given to us unless you want to provide me with the original statement in Thai and explain to me how I have gone awry in my understanding of the English translation. I agree with your assessment that 'the NACC's nose was out of joint and the face loss prompted a reaction'. (Amazing, yeah!) But airing such petty issues in the press evinces a total lack of professionalism in government officials who should know better. Just suck it up and get on with things. I regret that you think I have an 'agenda'. You've said that more than once to me and seem to confuse an 'opinion' with an 'agenda' like I'm a person directing a covert operation to sway public opinion among the expat community. A bit paranoid, isn't it? Take care, Khun Ken.

[khunken]

And your interpretation is jumping to a conclusion based on your prejudice.

If you bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I'm certainly not apologising for anyone. Go on, don't be so bloody lazy, read previous posts.

Still no answer to the exaggeration of 'not working together'.

The case is headed in the exact same procedural direction as the K. Jaruvan case. OAG & NACC revise and tighten the case and the OAG will probably then take action. Or the NACC will be prosecutor. I don't personally care how it ends up but I would like to see the commerce mob in court via another case proceeding along the same path.

Amazing how you think ascribing a plain meaning to English language is somehow prejudicial. If the NACC and the OAG were truly working together, they wouldn't be airing their dirty laundry and engaging in finger pointing in the media. If there was a problem with the NACC's submission to the OAG, they would address and correct the problem in a professional and competent matter -- right? As for being lazy, don't be so prejudicial. You're jumping to conclusions!

Actually I feel that ascribing a prejudicial meaning to a sentence, translated from Thai, is par for your course.

You still refuse to even acknowledge that the NACC and OAG are working together on other prominent cases. This one is a minor spat where the NACC's nose was put out of joint and the face loss prompted a reaction. Nothing more should be read into it unless you have another agenda.

I have every right to draw conclusions about your agenda after you refused to give any reason for your 'investigation' into my TV 'life story'.

The bottom line is that I don't trust you, Pookiki.

Well, Khun Ken, at least we got to the bottom line. I guess if we all fluent in spoken and written Thai, we wouldn't be ragging on each other in an 'expats' forum, Unfortunately, we all rely on the translation given to us unless you want to provide me with the original statement in Thai and explain to me how I have gone awry in my understanding of the English translation. I agree with your assessment that 'the NACC's nose was out of joint and the face loss prompted a reaction'. (Amazing, yeah!) But airing such petty issues in the press evinces a total lack of professionalism in government officials who should know better. Just suck it up and get on with things. I regret that you think I have an 'agenda'. You've said that more than once to me and seem to confuse an 'opinion' with an 'agenda' like I'm a person directing a covert operation to sway public opinion among the expat community. A bit paranoid, isn't it? Take care, Khun Ken.

One more post to finish for me.

I would happily attribute an opinion to you rather than an agenda if I had no grounds for being rather suspicious of your previous carry on. Your 'analysis' of my character based on TV posts is exactly some sort of agenda when you won't come clean & tell me why you did it.

You certainly did 'direct' a covert operation into my persona.

[jayboy]

If you have evidence that would shock the OAD why haven't you submitted it Khun Mahakun,, what is your game, trying to point score and get more gold stars on your resume, as a graft buster your duty is to reveal all corruption and all the facts , just on that comment alone I would sack you all immediately and get a new image.

Totally agree.

Duty seems to be the farthest item on his list.

Secrecy, hiding evidence is unwarranted if the case has been honestly built on factual evidence.

This is the same body that forbade YS to present more witnesses in her defense arguing that they already had enough evidence to convict her.

Guilty before a trial and without the opportunity of a good defense?

Fellow Farangs, hope and wish hard that we will never have to endure this type of "justice" in LOS.

All good points.Frankly it is the NACC that needs a thorough investigation - it's politicisation, it's incompetence and management integrity.