Yingluck sees no interference in justice system; investigation goes ahead

[rametindallas]

I'm not talking about patronage which is more specifically defined as clientelism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clientelism.

Patronage...........this is how it works.

I am talking about the networks of 'peers/equals' who are linked because: they belong to the same political party {snip} {snip}

You have a post on what most people here call cronyism (or sometimes nepotism).

But please do not corrupt or redefine what we all in Thailand call the "basic problem" and patronage. It is NOT covered in that supercilious and silly Wikipedia entry. It is well understood by many, and if you care about Thailand and Thai politics and so on, you'll acquaint yourself.

The Thai patronage is a specific and well-known and often discussed system - although the discussions are often in code words or in low tones behind closed doors. It is NOT clientelism. It is not unique to Thailand either, although it's important here and has unique features. Don't cloud the waters over it.

.

The Thai patronage is a specific and well-known and often discussed system - although the discussions are often in code words or in low tones behind closed doors.

Seems you're the only one of the two of up wanting a discussion on patronage. I only wrote about 'Old boy network'. Are you confused about the subject of my post? If you want to believe patron/client (patronage) equals or doesn't equal cronyism, that's your problem and your confusion doesn't affect my post. I believe they are two completely different things. I specifically confined my post to a discussion of what you call 'cronyism' and Wikipedia calls 'Old boy network'. You define terms for yourself as you will but I won't let you define terms for me. I write what I write and if you choose to understand it as something else, I cannot help that. You know the old saying, 'You can't fix <snip>'

It is NOT clientelism.

What is not 'clientelism'? The patron/client system in Thailand? At least I, unlike yourself, try to back up my statements with neutral, third-party sources. (If Wikipedia is so supercilious and silly, perhaps you can do better?) Poo poo them if you will but it seems to me you have nothing to add; only detractions.

It is not unique to Thailand either, although it's important here and has unique features.

Who said it was?

Straw man argument, much?

Don't cloud the waters over it.

It seems you are the one doing the clouding. I write about one aspect of Thai culture and you condemn me for not writing on another subject, i.e. 'patronage'.

I will continue to write insightful, enlightening posts and you will continue to be a critic and take cheap shots.

BTW, wandasloan, it doesn't cost extra to leave my original comments intact. Your selective editing of my post to serve your futile talking points doesn't portray you in a good way. To negate your distortions, I now include the full text of the post you were responding to:

I'm not talking about patronage which is more specifically defined as clientelism http://en.wikipedia....iki/Clientelism.

I am talking about the networks of 'peers/equals' who are linked because: they belong to the same political party, they went to the same police/army academy, their families have always been allies, they went to the same prep school/university, their companies have had business dealings, etcetera. This is called the 'Good old boy's network' in the US, the 'Old boy's network' in the UK, 'Blat' in Russia, and I don't know what it is called in Thailand. This is where back room deals, that exclude outsiders, happen. This is how microphones for the cabinet cost Bt. 145,000. This network, by its nature, is hidden from the public and, for the most part, it is hidden from competing networks. In Thailand, the culture demands that everyone must 'choose sides'; at least publicly. Many, though, will maintain ties with as many factions as possible to increase their clout. 'Secret' allies are everywhere and that is why it is difficult for prosecutors who couldn't possibly know who will be working behind the scenes to derail/sabotage their investigation/prosecution that, on the face of it, seemed straight forward/simple.

You can believe that Thaksin/Yingluck are pulling every string they have to keep her from being prosecuted and that they have allies who don't want to come out openly, but who will support that outcome in subtle/not so subtle ways. These 'battles' will never be reported in the newspapers. All this makes for 'Thainess' and inexplicable, in the eyes of outsiders, behavior on the part of officials.

http://en.wikipedia....Old_boy_network

Cheap tricks, much, wandasloan?

[Trouble]

"Panadda, meanwhile, refused to identify the millers, saying he did not want to politicise the issue, as it would only widen national conflicts"

This implies that the millers in question have political affiliations. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know which side of the political divide they belong to.

So we have the PTP fighting to ensure the rice negligence case does not go to court. We have book that came out highlighting the rice scheme corruption and the PTP have not filed a defamation lawsuit because there are no lies in the book. Now we have rice millers from a certain side of the political divide refusing to cooperate.

These are not the actions of an innocent party, but then again it is only yinglucks lawyer and 6 farangs on TVF that feel she is innocent.

I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty but I am willing to let the Thai justice system (if you can call it that) sort out the investigation, unlike a good number of posters on TV that have found her guilty with no evidence of guilt. Hell, they have not even finished the inventory. In my opinion it's a little difficult to determine if (1) there are large amounts of rice missing and (2) if there are losses to the government treasury until all the rice is accounted for and sold off. Would it not be humorous if for some reason a natural disaster occurred which caused the price of rice to escalate and the government ended up making money on the program?

[greenchair]

Though prayut is doing a great job and loved by many. The idea that he will give up his position of absolute power in 2015 is extremely naive prayut and his sidekicks are going to be in power for a very long time. All of the new laws have been designed to ensure they will stay.

[wandasloan]

I believe they are two completely different things.

Thank you. It makes the conversations much more rational and much less confusing to keep it that way all the time.

BTW, wandasloan, it doesn't cost extra to leave my original comments intact. Your selective editing of my post to serve your futile talking points doesn't portray you in a good way. To negate your distortions, I now include the full text of the post you were responding to:

Irony, thy name is....

"Selective editing" is to make the original post/poster look stupid, witless, etc. I have removed from the quoted part everything I am NOT replying to while leaving in the part I *am* replying to. If you think TV users are so stupid they become confused, and too stupid to scroll up and look at your original post in case they are, then you do. I don't. And, following a couple of decades of polite, clear and ultimately bandwidth-saving tradition, I shall continue to reply to the parts of posts I am... well, replying to. (It actually does "cost" in several ways. Not much, but not zero either.)

Feel free to quote as you will, and I will feel free to quote as I will, etc.

.

Edited September 9, 2014 by wandasloan

[jaidam]

Though prayut is doing a great job and loved by many. The idea that he will give up his position of absolute power in 2015 is extremely naive prayut and his sidekicks are going to be in power for a very long time. All of the new laws have been designed to ensure they will stay.

Which is exactly what was said last time. You were wrong last time, as elections were held as quickly as possible and the junta had no desire to hold on to power. Just as you will be wrong again this time, it is clear that Prayuth does not have the lining of his pockets a national priority like the PTP did.

Honestly you must have a masochistic streak to maintain an opinion that flies in the face of common sense, or do you enjoy being proven wrong over and over? Curious.

[rubl]

Though prayut is doing a great job and loved by many. The idea that he will give up his position of absolute power in 2015 is extremely naive prayut and his sidekicks are going to be in power for a very long time. All of the new laws have been designed to ensure they will stay.

Pray tell, which new laws ?

[wandasloan]

Pray tell, which new laws ?

Seriously?

If you have missed the NCPO policy statements, then at least watch on (probably) Friday when Himself makes the official government policy statement. All of these together are a distillation of the "new laws" - including the new Supreme Law. But I think you're doing it again, trying to distract. I don't believe you for a second when you claim you haven't even heard about a new constitution.

Just for the record in case you think you're fooling someone.

.

[rubl]

Pray tell, which new laws ?

Seriously?

If you have missed the NCPO policy statements, then at least watch on (probably) Friday when Himself makes the official government policy statement. All of these together are a distillation of the "new laws" - including the new Supreme Law. But I think you're doing it again, trying to distract. I don't believe you for a second when you claim you haven't even heard about a new constitution.

Just for the record in case you think you're fooling someone.

Greenchair said "All of the new laws have been designed to ensure they will stay."

Which new laws ?

Edited September 9, 2014 by rubl

[wandasloan]

Greenchair said "All of the new laws have been designed to ensure they will stay."

Which new laws ?

You don't understand "all"? Or you think he's lying? Or what?

He thinks "all" the new laws that have been brought in since May 22 and will be brought in according to NCPO and government announcements and a rubberstamp parliament are to ensure "they" will stay. I don't think a poster can be any clearer about her/his opinion than that short statement.

Why not join or contradict or add to the discussion instead of merely disrupting? You KNOW for an absolute solid fact there is a new Supreme Law for starters. You know that. So why just toss sillybuggers into a perfectly valid claim? Because you can't make an actual contribution and want to heckle-nyah-nyah-nyah others? Or what?

Make a useful post and maybe others will too. Otherwise, many will believe you are trolling to prevent useful posts. I do.

.

[rubl]

Greenchair said "All of the new laws have been designed to ensure they will stay."

Which new laws ?

You don't understand "all"? Or you think he's lying? Or what?

He thinks "all" the new laws that have been brought in since May 22 and will be brought in according to NCPO and government announcements and a rubberstamp parliament are to ensure "they" will stay. I don't think a poster can be any clearer about her/his opinion than that short statement.

Why not join or contradict or add to the discussion instead of merely disrupting? You KNOW for an absolute solid fact there is a new Supreme Law for starters. You know that. So why just toss sillybuggers into a perfectly valid claim? Because you can't make an actual contribution and want to heckle-nyah-nyah-nyah others? Or what?

Make a useful post and maybe others will too. Otherwise, many will believe you are trolling to prevent useful posts. I do.

So, all. As in which new laws?

Even your "If you have missed the NCPO policy statements ... All of these together are a distillation of the "new laws" - including the new Supreme Law." doesn't really say much as policy statements are not the same as "new laws".

Anyway, it would seem you and the green chair are distracting and obfuscating, while we try to discuss the topic. I was probably right when I wrote

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/758759-yingluck-sees-no-interference-in-justice-system;-investigation-goes-ahead/page-2#entry8365663

[Publicus]

As always yingluck retains her quiet poise and dignity. She has never resorted to mudslinging or bad mouthing anyone. Even those who seek to destroy her.

Yingluck did this. Yingluck did that.

PROVE IT!!!!

Mostly we just rely on what she says herself.

Like stating in parliament that she and only she is in charge which of course doesn't match too well with her stating to know nothing.

Yingluck has told lie after lie, failed to due her duty despite her oath, put family first every time, tried to get amnesty for her brother - at any cost or consequences to the Thai people, failed to condemn those who murdered. attacked and assaulted any who opposed or spoke against her family and made "no show" her norm. Hardly innocent or little miss goody two shoes.

She keeps quiet because she doesn't know what to say unless big brother tells her. How anyone can mistake inability to understand and debate with quiet poise is mind boggling. Dignity - like lying to the farmers then going to ground. Very dignified.

But, don't worry, she'll be let off.

Yes Yingluck will get off the hook but it's getting increasingly clear she may never have been on the hook to begin with. That is, it appears increasingly clear from the Attorney General that Yingluck was not seriously or professionally charged.

The AG said that too much of the NACC case is the report of the National Institute for Development Administration that the NACC simply adopted as its own data, findings, conclusions. This isn't the only aspect of it, but it is a major factor.

The government of the time and the PTP said repeatedly the NACC proceeded with great haste to charge Yingluck. They could say that because the whole political class knew the NACC was slapping the NIDA report into its folder and using it as a significant basis of its charges.

It certainly did expedite the commission's "investigation" and the pronouncement of charges.

Btw the pro coup people are writing some posts lately that make interesting reading, such as yours above. It could seem that what in public are red and yellow transform privately into orange in places the 99% never see and where they never sit.

[rametindallas]

"Panadda, meanwhile, refused to identify the millers, saying he did not want to politicise the issue, as it would only widen national conflicts"

This implies that the millers in question have political affiliations. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know which side of the political divide they belong to.

So we have the PTP fighting to ensure the rice negligence case does not go to court. We have book that came out highlighting the rice scheme corruption and the PTP have not filed a defamation lawsuit because there are no lies in the book. Now we have rice millers from a certain side of the political divide refusing to cooperate.

These are not the actions of an innocent party, but then again it is only yinglucks lawyer and 6 farangs on TVF that feel she is innocent.

I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty but I am willing to let the Thai justice system (if you can call it that) sort out the investigation, unlike a good number of posters on TV that have found her guilty with no evidence of guilt. Hell, they have not even finished the inventory. In my opinion it's a little difficult to determine if (1) there are large amounts of rice missing and (2) if there are losses to the government treasury until all the rice is accounted for and sold off. Would it not be humorous if for some reason a natural disaster occurred which caused the price of rice to escalate and the government ended up making money on the program?

Would it not be humorous if for some reason a natural disaster occurred which caused the price of rice to escalate and the government ended up making money on the program?

No, it would not. It would take a world-wide disaster of Biblical proportions to cause '78% substandard' Thai rice to command a price that would equal the '40-50% above market price' the government paid for it. Why do you think such a disaster would be 'humerous'? Are you that twisted?

(http://www.oryza.com/news/rice-news/thai-inspection-teams-find-78-rice-stocks-sub-standard)

[rametindallas]

Greenchair said "All of the new laws have been designed to ensure they will stay."

Which new laws ?

You don't understand "all"? Or you think he's lying? Or what?

He thinks "all" the new laws that have been brought in since May 22 and will be brought in according to NCPO and government announcements and a rubberstamp parliament are to ensure "they" will stay. I don't think a poster can be any clearer about her/his opinion than that short statement.

Why not join or contradict or add to the discussion instead of merely disrupting? You KNOW for an absolute solid fact there is a new Supreme Law for starters. You know that. So why just toss sillybuggers into a perfectly valid claim? Because you can't make an actual contribution and want to heckle-nyah-nyah-nyah others? Or what?

Make a useful post and maybe others will too. Otherwise, many will believe you are trolling to prevent useful posts. I do.

So, all. As in which new laws?

Even your "If you have missed the NCPO policy statements ... All of these together are a distillation of the "new laws" - including the new Supreme Law." doesn't really say much as policy statements are not the same as "new laws".

Anyway, it would seem you and the green chair are distracting and obfuscating, while we try to discuss the topic. I was probably right when I wrote

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/758759-yingluck-sees-no-interference-in-justice-system;-investigation-goes-ahead/page-2#entry8365663

They are both futurists and fortune tellers who can see into the future with a certainty we can't comprehend. Why can't you see that they have special powers, rubl?

[rubl]

As always yingluck retains her quiet poise and dignity. She has never resorted to mudslinging or bad mouthing anyone. Even those who seek to destroy her.

Yingluck did this. Yingluck did that.

PROVE IT!!!!

Mostly we just rely on what she says herself.

Like stating in parliament that she and only she is in charge which of course doesn't match too well with her stating to know nothing.

Yingluck has told lie after lie, failed to due her duty despite her oath, put family first every time, tried to get amnesty for her brother - at any cost or consequences to the Thai people, failed to condemn those who murdered. attacked and assaulted any who opposed or spoke against her family and made "no show" her norm. Hardly innocent or little miss goody two shoes.

She keeps quiet because she doesn't know what to say unless big brother tells her. How anyone can mistake inability to understand and debate with quiet poise is mind boggling. Dignity - like lying to the farmers then going to ground. Very dignified.

But, don't worry, she'll be let off.

Yes Yingluck will get off the hook but it's getting increasingly clear she may never have been on the hook to begin with. That is, it appears increasingly clear from the Attorney General that Yingluck was not seriously or professionally charged.

The AG said that too much of the NACC case is the report of the National Institute for Development Administration that the NACC simply adopted as its own data, findings, conclusions. This isn't the only aspect of it, but it is a major factor.

The government of the time and the PTP said repeatedly the NACC proceeded with great haste to charge Yingluck. They could say that because the whole political class knew the NACC was slapping the NIDA report into its folder and using it as a significant basis of its charges.

It certainly did expedite the commission's "investigation" and the pronouncement of charges.

Btw the pro coup people are writing some posts lately that make interesting reading, such as yours above. It could seem that what in public are red and yellow transform privately into orange in places the 99% never see and where they never sit.

Interesting description of the situation. Some others described it as

"The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) said last week that the case needed further investigation by a joint panel due to gaps in evidence.

...

The Deputy Attorney-General will head the OAG team on the joint panel."