NACC may sue Ms Yingluck by itself on the rice pledging scheme

[GarryP]

I suppose this is your way, as an abject slave of military dictatorship, of suggesting it's not appropriate for the members of the NRC to declare their assets.The NRC is charged with redesigning the entire political system in which the eradication of corruption is a primary objective.

Hence the refusal of the NRC to declare personal assets sends a dreadful message.Since most are academics or similar on low level salaries this should not have been an embarrassing problem.Or is it the case that NRC members like the rest of the Junta's creations just happened to have inherited great wealth or married rich wives?

Frankly I feel soiled at the hypocrisy and dishonest contained when reading your recent posts.How you must feel is hard to imagine - but you can scarcely feel very proud.

His point was well made.. only those who can influence the spending of money or are in a position to profit from their position should be checked. However if they cant profit from corruption and stuff.. why ?

So Jayboy, do explain how are they going to coin their position ?

Whybother makes a good point, as usual. Jayboy's point could also be well made, but he spoils it by appearing condescending and insulting towards the originator.

The NRC may not have financial responsibility. But, they are charged with making reforms which should change the political landscape of Thailand. Certain interested parties may wish to influence and guide those reforms in ways which will be of significant future benefit. I'm guessing this or something similar is what Jayboy alludes to.

The obvious danger is overseas bank accounts which are never revealed. Many politicians seem to have acquired mansions and fleets of luxury cars and openly flaunt their wealth so I shouldn't think the NRC would have anything to fear by an asset declaration anyway. As usual, any laws are only ever selectively enforced.

What have they got to hide? I do not care that they are not making financial decisions. The very fact that the whole shebang was supposed to set new levels of transparency and cleaner running of the country, means that they should show their moral metal by revealing their assets. Even a number of NRC members have come out to say they should all reveal their assets to show good faith.

Your last sentence says it all.

I thought things would be very different, but have become disillusioned with the same old attitude.

[whybother]

It's called transparency it was the Generals buzzword when he came to power, all it is doing is showing the country that the rich and elite are still running the country irrespective of their shirt colour

Transparency of what? How could it make a difference whether you know their assets at the start of their tenure and their assets at the end, especially when they are not in a position to change those assets due to their NRC jobs?

Because normal and simple academics don't normally amass huge fortunes mate they're not in high paid positions in society that makes their wealth leap out at you

For example If a professor of literature has 60million baht in his account wouldn't you be curious as to HOW he got that?

That's the transparency I'm on about

Declaration of assets is to determine the change of fortune during tenure, it's not to analyse how they got their fortune before they started.

[Fat Haggis]

So they "could "have gained these assets illegally before they took the position but that doesn't matter or count? That seems a bit bizarre.

I was under the impression that honesty and integrity would be also important issues for anyone in a position of influence.

[ginjag]

That's one of the biggest problems Ginjag as no government seems to last a full term to make good the changes that are much needed, every 2-6 years there's a coup as the army don't agree with what's going on, there's a pattern there in its own The Military are always at the forefront of political problems.

Has any Thai government in the 20 years *started* any of the "changes that are much needed"?

Why just 20 years ? Could it be that it's because your aluding to the PTP tenure years being he biggest issue ?

It's been a mess for over 30 years by all accounts and before the Thaksin era again by all accounts the poor and majority of the country never had any say or input into how things should be.

The problem with many of the elite on both sides is they care nothing for the common man, and yet they need his vote to get into power.

Once the them and us attitude changes in Thailand things might get more stable politically, but as long as people look down on the Issan people it's never going to happen, Thaialnd is a divided country at best between the haves and the have nots nothing will change that.

Anyways it's getting off topic

So the main reason according to you is that the people look down on the Issan dwellers. ???? was he alluding to PTP ?? Power hungry-control freaks no one in particular but some stand out more than others.

[whybother]

So they "could "have gained these assets illegally before they took the position but that doesn't matter or count? That seems a bit bizarre.

I was under the impression that honesty and integrity would be also important issues for anyone in a position of influence.

When assets are declared, the original source of those assets aren't declared or analysed. The only thing that is analysed is the difference in assets at the start and the finish.

[Wombat6]

Now they want to sue Yingluck??? They are making this up as they go along

They want to take her to court ... which is something they've wanted to do for months. The only thing that has changed is that they are talking about doing it themselves because the OAG doesn't seem to want to.

It's about time Yingluck faced the court. Years ago she was investigated for insider trading but that event seemed to fade away. She sold shares in a company but at par value to avoid paying tax with the difference between the par and True value being paid into an account of of her brothers ex wife where once again it appeared that no action was taken. Miss Goody Goody two shoes is not as good as some people like to think

[whybother]

Now they want to sue Yingluck??? They are making this up as they go along

They want to take her to court ... which is something they've wanted to do for months. The only thing that has changed is that they are talking about doing it themselves because the OAG doesn't seem to want to.

It's about time Yingluck faced the court. Years ago she was investigated for insider trading but that event seemed to fade away. She sold shares in a company but at par value to avoid paying tax with the difference between the par and True value being paid into an account of of her brothers ex wife where once again it appeared that no action was taken. Miss Goody Goody two shoes is not as good as some people like to think

Was that the case where she committed perjury?

[Fat Haggis]

That's one of the biggest problems Ginjag as no government seems to last a full term to make good the changes that are much needed, every 2-6 years there's a coup as the army don't agree with what's going on, there's a pattern there in its own The Military are always at the forefront of political problems.

Has any Thai government in the 20 years *started* any of the "changes that are much needed"?

Why just 20 years ? Could it be that it's because your aluding to the PTP tenure years being he biggest issue ?

It's been a mess for over 30 years by all accounts and before the Thaksin era again by all accounts the poor and majority of the country never had any say or input into how things should be.

The problem with many of the elite on both sides is they care nothing for the common man, and yet they need his vote to get into power.

Once the them and us attitude changes in Thailand things might get more stable politically, but as long as people look down on the Issan people it's never going to happen, Thaialnd is a divided country at best between the haves and the have nots nothing will change that.

Anyways it's getting off topic

So the main reason according to you is that the people look down on the Issan dwellers. ???? was he alluding to PTP ?? Power hungry-control freaks no one in particular but some stand out more than others.

Try reading a bit clearer mate or can you not see too well as the PMs butt cheeks are blocking your view ?? Hahahahaha

Did I say it was due to people looking down on Isaan people?

If I'm not mistaken it took a megalomaniac in Thaksin to give the voice to the North and North east and took control away from the old Bangkok elite, but I'm sure you'll correct that point if it's not correct?? But again we digress from the topic in question

[JOC]

So they "could "have gained these assets illegally before they took the position but that doesn't matter or count? That seems a bit bizarre.

I was under the impression that honesty and integrity would be also important issues for anyone in a position of influence.

When assets are declared, the original source of those assets aren't declared or analysed. The only thing that is analysed is the difference in assets at the start and the finish.

Not sure that Prayuths brother would agree with you!!

[whybother]

So they "could "have gained these assets illegally before they took the position but that doesn't matter or count? That seems a bit bizarre.

I was under the impression that honesty and integrity would be also important issues for anyone in a position of influence.

When assets are declared, the original source of those assets aren't declared or analysed. The only thing that is analysed is the difference in assets at the start and the finish.

Not sure that Prayuths brother would agree with you!!

Agree with what? He wouldn't agree with how the asset declarations currently work?

[jayboy]

It's called transparency it was the Generals buzzword when he came to power, all it is doing is showing the country that the rich and elite are still running the country irrespective of their shirt colour

Transparency of what? How could it make a difference whether you know their assets at the start of their tenure and their assets at the end, especially when they are not in a position to change those assets due to their NRC jobs?

Because normal and simple academics don't normally amass huge fortunes mate they're not in high paid positions in society that makes their wealth leap out at you

For example If a professor of literature has 60million baht in his account wouldn't you be curious as to HOW he got that?

That's the transparency I'm on about

Declaration of assets is to determine the change of fortune during tenure, it's not to analyse how they got their fortune before they started.

Wrong again.Part of the purpose is also to show that those appointed do not have "unusual wealth" that cannot be justified.This criterion has very long antecedents in Thailand and elsewhere.

Inconvenient for those who have a slave like relationship with the current regime but nevertheless true.

[petercool]

a flame post using profanity removed

[Thailand]

Being Thailand I guess that when/ if the court case fails Yingluck will be able to sue them and subsequently add to the Shinawatra coffers.

Som nam na.

[whybother]

Wrong again.Part of the purpose is also to show that those appointed do not have "unusual wealth" that cannot be justified.This criterion has very long antecedents in Thailand and elsewhere.

Inconvenient for those who have a slave like relationship with the current regime but nevertheless true.

<deleted> does it have to do with what I think of the junta (besides the fact that you're wrong). You just can't help yourself, can you?

And, I'm not wrong. Show me any report on asset declarations that discuss where any assets came from.

[The stuttering parrot]

Banging on about suing Yingluck.

The yellows said she would flee the country .Did she ? no

At least she's got the nads to face her accusers and not run off and hide behind a nuns outfit.

Not like the peoples champion who thinks the robes are like a magic force field protecting him.

I don't see anyone pursing him for his past deeds.

Him or the fake monk!

[jayboy]

Wrong again.Part of the purpose is also to show that those appointed do not have "unusual wealth" that cannot be justified.This criterion has very long antecedents in Thailand and elsewhere.

Inconvenient for those who have a slave like relationship with the current regime but nevertheless true.

<deleted> does it have to do with what I think of the junta (besides the fact that you're wrong). You just can't help yourself, can you?

And, I'm not wrong. Show me any report on asset declarations that discuss where any assets came from.

Your craven attitude to the regime is a matter of record.

As to asset declarations please don't be so childishly naive.Of course asset declarations do not include an analysis of the source of wealth.However once the submission is made implausible statements of wealth (ie where the person involved has never earned more than a government salary) can then be considered, and action taken as necessary.For example the NACC recently took action against the Transport Secretary.At very least the crooks and thieves you are so anxious to defend become the subject of public interest and scrutiny.

[Robby nz]

The PT supporters are doing their best to get as far away from the subject of the topic as possible.

No doubt because they know Yingluck is guilty of negligence as charged for failing to do the job of chair of the rice policy committee that she took on herself.

She needs to be made an example of to show present and future politicians that they must do the job they were elected to do and will be held responsible if they fail to do it because of negligence.

She was warned time and again that the scheme was failing and did nothing to prevent it failing, indeed she denied anything was wrong in the face of obvious evidence it was.

This is not just about Yingluck it is about showing that any politicians who damage the country and the people by their actions or lack of actions must be held accountable.

[whybother]

Wrong again.Part of the purpose is also to show that those appointed do not have "unusual wealth" that cannot be justified.This criterion has very long antecedents in Thailand and elsewhere.

Inconvenient for those who have a slave like relationship with the current regime but nevertheless true.

<deleted> does it have to do with what I think of the junta (besides the fact that you're wrong). You just can't help yourself, can you?

And, I'm not wrong. Show me any report on asset declarations that discuss where any assets came from.

Your craven attitude to the regime is a matter of record.

As to asset declarations please don't be so childishly naive.Of course asset declarations do not include an analysis of the source of wealth.However once the submission is made implausible statements of wealth (ie where the person involved has never earned more than a government salary) can then be considered, and action taken as necessary.For example the NACC recently took action against the Transport Secretary.At very least the crooks and thieves you are so anxious to defend become the subject of public interest and scrutiny.

Show me one post where I have supported the "regime".

The Transport Secretary wasn't caught due to his asset declaration. He was caught because he was robbed.

[Emster23]

Correct me I am wrong, but the rice scheme was not her acting unilaterally but had to be passed also by elected (and appointed) members of Parliament/senate? And since it was not deemed unconstitutional at the time, then everything was legal. I agree it was totally political move and economically unsound, but to sue Yingluck for acting as Prime Minister while Prime Minister smacks of a witch hunt. If they are going to sue her, then sue everyone else who was part of decision making in government, and also the courts that allowed this to happen. Another travesty and pay back time from our fair and balanced NACC.

[whybother]

Correct me I am wrong, but the rice scheme was not her acting unilaterally but had to be passed also by elected (and appointed) members of Parliament/senate? And since it was not deemed unconstitutional at the time, then everything was legal. I agree it was totally political move and economically unsound, but to sue Yingluck for acting as Prime Minister while Prime Minister smacks of a witch hunt. If they are going to sue her, then sue everyone else who was part of decision making in government, and also the courts that allowed this to happen. Another travesty and pay back time from our fair and balanced NACC.

She is being charged because, as head of the rice committee, she did nothing about the corruption and failure of the scheme.

[smutcakes]

The PT supporters are doing their best to get as far away from the subject of the topic as possible.

No doubt because they know Yingluck is guilty of negligence as charged for failing to do the job of chair of the rice policy committee that she took on herself.

She needs to be made an example of to show present and future politicians that they must do the job they were elected to do and will be held responsible if they fail to do it because of negligence.

She was warned time and again that the scheme was failing and did nothing to prevent it failing, indeed she denied anything was wrong in the face of obvious evidence it was.

This is not just about Yingluck it is about showing that any politicians who damage the country and the people by their actions or lack of actions must be held accountable.

Well it appears its not just PT supporters who are unsure of her guilt, it also appears the OAG are also unsure. Maybe you could let the TVF posters, and the OAG know of the proof that you hold which makes this a clear and cut case?

Perhaps the OAG have read the case file prepared, and there are in fact omissions in it, or lack of evidence?

Would be interested to hear your information though?

[Baerboxer]

Wrong again.Part of the purpose is also to show that those appointed do not have "unusual wealth" that cannot be justified.This criterion has very long antecedents in Thailand and elsewhere.

Inconvenient for those who have a slave like relationship with the current regime but nevertheless true.

<deleted> does it have to do with what I think of the junta (besides the fact that you're wrong). You just can't help yourself, can you?

And, I'm not wrong. Show me any report on asset declarations that discuss where any assets came from.

Your craven attitude to the regime is a matter of record.

As to asset declarations please don't be so childishly naive.Of course asset declarations do not include an analysis of the source of wealth.However once the submission is made implausible statements of wealth (ie where the person involved has never earned more than a government salary) can then be considered, and action taken as necessary.For example the NACC recently took action against the Transport Secretary.At very least the crooks and thieves you are so anxious to defend become the subject of public interest and scrutiny.

Show me one post where I have supported the "regime".

The Transport Secretary wasn't caught due to his asset declaration. He was caught because he was robbed.

Oh dear WB. He had made several really good posts recently. Very valid comments and some witty satire too. More importantly he's stopped the snide remarks, patronizing and condescending tone and crass comments trying to undermine other posters legitimacy.

Looks like the medication has run out.

[chooka]

So who's money are they going to use for the court action? The country is currently under martial law and not civilian law so is it wise to bare your naked rear end at the junta and say up yours and your decision? We will go it alone using tax payers money as this is personal.

[Baerboxer]

The PT supporters are doing their best to get as far away from the subject of the topic as possible.

No doubt because they know Yingluck is guilty of negligence as charged for failing to do the job of chair of the rice policy committee that she took on herself.

She needs to be made an example of to show present and future politicians that they must do the job they were elected to do and will be held responsible if they fail to do it because of negligence.

She was warned time and again that the scheme was failing and did nothing to prevent it failing, indeed she denied anything was wrong in the face of obvious evidence it was.

This is not just about Yingluck it is about showing that any politicians who damage the country and the people by their actions or lack of actions must be held accountable.

Well it appears its not just PT supporters who are unsure of her guilt, it also appears the OAG are also unsure. Maybe you could let the TVF posters, and the OAG know of the proof that you hold which makes this a clear and cut case?

Perhaps the OAG have read the case file prepared, and there are in fact omissions in it, or lack of evidence?

Would be interested to hear your information though?

She took on the role of chair for that committee.

How many meetings did she chair and actually attend?

How did she respond to warnings of issues in the policy and its implementation?

How did she treat those who highlighted irregularities?

Did she give assurances and assert there were no problems, no fraudulent "export" sales, no quality or inventory problems?

Did she present transparent and audited figures?

Did she take the finance and commerce ministers to task for issuing contradictory statement and figures?

Did she lie about G2G "orders" which were never confirmed or received?

Did she lie to the farmers when vowing they would be paid?

Inept, negligent, not really running things (as we all know), simply doing as her criminal brother instructed, mislead by her brother's mates in the cabinet, ignoring any corruption and mismanagement going on etc.

Take your pick and believe which bits you want to. She definitely appeared inept, unconcerned and never actually did anything but lie or make false promises. Is that negligence, criminal, corruption? Depends how you want to interpret it.

The NACC take one view. The OAG, known for keeping their heads down, staying out of anything remotely controversial and generally spineless take their view. Perhaps they've read the case file and see an obvious conviction - something they really don't want to be involved in.

The whole PTP government was a farce. It was Thaksin controlling everything from outside the country through his little sister and various other relatives, in-laws and cronies. The number of cabinet shuffles and the immediate appointment of his old TRT mates as soon as they were eligible says it all.

Should she be charged for being a puppet? - hardly likely because the loss of face would be too much to Thailand to bear. Chances are, as usual, sweep it under the carpet, let it lie (no pun intended) and carry on as usual.

[Baerboxer]

So who's money are they going to use for the court action? The country is currently under martial law and not civilian law so is it wise to bare your naked rear end at the junta and say up yours and your decision? We will go it alone using tax payers money as this is personal.

Probably the same mysterious sort of budget the Shins used to fund Tarit's political investigations and all those law suits against any who spoke out against them.

[Robespiere]

You know you're one hell of a long way out on a limb when even your fellow corrupted non-independant government agencies don't support your ridiculous trumped up case against the last democratically elected PM.

[chooka]

So who's money are they going to use for the court action? The country is currently under martial law and not civilian law so is it wise to bare your naked rear end at the junta and say up yours and your decision? We will go it alone using tax payers money as this is personal.

Probably the same mysterious sort of budget the Shins used to fund Tarit's political investigations and all those law suits against any who spoke out against them.

They had better succeed in thier personal vendetta against Yingluk or I can see a huge defamation case coming and the Shins stand to make Billions.

[Eric Loh]

Goodbye and good grief NACC. When the reforms are completely, you and your other independent agencies may not be around to cause more political anguish. They and the EC are more destructive than constructive when officials are appointed by internal appointment system.