Rice-pledging scheme: Criminal case against Yingluck 'a step closer'

[whybother]

No I said they have not yet faced trial and get a free pass.

Sutep has refused to answer a court summons.

As for perjury what conviction was recorded ?

As for other comments just the usual out of ammo answers.

She wasn't charged for some reason. That doesn't change the fact that she lied in court.

[Thai at Heart]

So who gets to choose who gets prosecuted or accused of historic neglignce?

There will be a list as lorng as 20 peoples arms being made up for prosecution when a shinawwtra wins the next election. Didn't all the democratsbrice schemes lose money too?

Seems.anyone with a susbsidy should be open for a good trial. Actually, didn't this current bunch just give a load of money away to the farmers too?

[The stuttering parrot]

Can't work some posters out.

I asked what convictions have been recorded against Yingluck Shinawatra former elected PM of the kingdom of Thailand after it was stated she is a criminal.

None of them could answer they why bother says perjury.

I asked what conviction was recorded and the answer was she was never charged.

So the posters who stated she was a criminal can't respond and why bother throws in perjury but was never charged.

And I'm accused of trolling .

Well do carry on.......

[phutoie2]

So this must good news for Yingluck as they not proof that she is or was corrupt.

Chalk one up for the stuttering parrot!

Now on with the witch hunt and let's see what trumped up evidence they will come up with.

If a censure motion is the best they have got then the case is dead in the water.

Oh and then there's those pesky witnesses that the defence wants to call and have been denied.

The cheerleaders for the yellows on here time and time again said she's going to flee.Well she's still here maintaing her dignity and grace and willing to face her accusers even though others before her either have been put on the back burner or hide behind monks robes and refuse to even answer a summons.

And one more non sense biased post!

If bullsh*t was at gold price, you would really be a rich man!

Rubbish, the parrot is one of the few here who sees this pointless witch hunt of YS as it is. Some posters here should be careful with their insults and accusations.

[gemini81]

So this must good news for Yingluck as they not proof that she is or was corrupt.

Chalk one up for the stuttering parrot!

Now on with the witch hunt and let's see what trumped up evidence they will come up with.

If a censure motion is the best they have got then the case is dead in the water.

Oh and then there's those pesky witnesses that the defence wants to call and have been denied.

The cheerleaders for the yellows on here time and time again said she's going to flee.Well she's still here maintaing her dignity and grace and willing to face her accusers even though others before her either have been put on the back burner or hide behind monks robes and refuse to even answer a summons.

And one more non sense biased post!

If bullsh*t was at gold price, you would really be a rich man!

Rubbish, the parrot is one of the few here who sees this pointless witch hunt of YS as it is. Some posters here should be careful with their insults and accusations.

Why the need to 'be careful'? She gonna hire ol' chalerm or his drunken boys to stumble along drunk, trying to hunt us down? Hahaha.

[whybother]

Can't work some posters out.

I asked what convictions have been recorded against Yingluck Shinawatra former elected PM of the kingdom of Thailand after it was stated she is a criminal.

None of them could answer they why bother says perjury.

I asked what conviction was recorded and the answer was she was never charged.

So the posters who stated she was a criminal can't respond and why bother throws in perjury but was never charged.

And I'm accused of trolling .

Well do carry on.......

Lying under oath makes her a criminal in my book.

[scorecard]

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

So in other words, they are still trying to come up with a trumped up charge to put her in prison. Didn't this happen in Myanmar a few years ago?

How is it a trumped up charge?

[than]

Make the dream, come true.......

I think the prison uniform will be fine to her.....

[The stuttering parrot]

Not much point debating this anymore.

Just the usual yellow dem supporters who make false accusations and when they are shirt fronted they go for the insults because they know they have been proven wrong.

[gemini81]

Not much point debating this anymore.

Just the usual yellow dem supporters who make false accusations and when they are shirt fronted they go for the insults because they know they have been proven wrong.

LOL. Proves our hunch that you're were the biggest 'mass-debater' on here...

Youre missing the point that all the graft wasn't charged; that is the most criminal thing of it all. Only thing worse is old pensioner keyboard warriors trolling on in support of such a medieval fiefdom in a 3rd world place. But at least those who fit the bill on that are ready to audition for 'My Thai Bride' sequel.

Edited November 19, 2014 by gemini81

[Fat Haggis]

Can't work some posters out.

I asked what convictions have been recorded against Yingluck Shinawatra former elected PM of the kingdom of Thailand after it was stated she is a criminal.

None of them could answer they why bother says perjury.

I asked what conviction was recorded and the answer was she was never charged.

So the posters who stated she was a criminal can't respond and why bother throws in perjury but was never charged.

And I'm accused of trolling .

Well do carry on.......

Lying under oath makes her a criminal in my book.

A very interesting comment from a poster I hold in high regards due to your normal well balanced and thought out responses and that you also never rise to the "baiting"

However based in what you just said, all Thai politicians will more or less fall onto the criminal bracket then too ?

Now considering he was under oath at the time, when General Prayuth stated repeatedly he would NOT stage a coup, but did it anyway, how does this not label him one too?

military coups are also against the laws of the land too, incase you forgot and the perpetrators had to answer to the highest authority in the land despite that acknowledgement from there, it was still a criminal act that was undertaken regardless of the reasons according to the law.

So does that make the current PM a criminal also based on you own nterpretations?

Edited November 19, 2014 by Fat Haggis

[gemini81]

Can't work some posters out.

I asked what convictions have been recorded against Yingluck Shinawatra former elected PM of the kingdom of Thailand after it was stated she is a criminal.

None of them could answer they why bother says perjury.

I asked what conviction was recorded and the answer was she was never charged.

So the posters who stated she was a criminal can't respond and why bother throws in perjury but was never charged.

And I'm accused of trolling .

Well do carry on.......

Lying under oath makes her a criminal in my book.

A very interesting comment from a poster I hold in high regards due to your normal well balanced and thought out responses and that you also never rise to the "baiting"

However based in what you just said, all Thai politicians will more or less fall onto the criminal bracket then too ?

Now considering he was under oath at the time, when General Prayuth stated repeatedly he would NOT stage a coup, but did it anyway, how does this not label him one too?

military coups are also against the laws of the land too, incase you forgot and the perpetrators had to answer to the highest authority in the land despite that acknowledgement from there, it was still a criminal act that was undertaken regardless of the reasons according to the law.

So does that make the current PM a criminal also based on you own nterpretations?

One group has more brains & more guns. Comes down to that!

[whybother]

A very interesting comment from a poster I hold in high regards due to your normal well balanced and thought out responses and that you also never rise to the "baiting"

However based in what you just said, all Thai politicians will more or less fall onto the criminal bracket then too ?

Now considering he was under oath at the time, when General Prayuth stated repeatedly he would NOT stage a coup, but did it anyway, how does this not label him one too?

military coups are also against the laws of the land too, incase you forgot and the perpetrators had to answer to the highest authority in the land despite that acknowledgement from there, it was still a criminal act that was undertaken regardless of the reasons according to the law.

So does that make the current PM a criminal also based on you own nterpretations?

"Under oath" as in "in court" and swearing that you will "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" ... or how ever they do it in Thailand. When you do that you are guilty of perjury.

Was Prayuth under oath when he said he wouldn't stage a coup? I don't think you understand what "under oath" is.

Prayuth did say he he wouldn't stage a coup at a news conference, yet he did, so that turned out to be a lie. That doesn't make him guilty of perjury, and therefore a criminal.

And obviously he is a criminal for staging the coup, as, clearly, staging a coup is against the law. (although he did give himself amnesty for that, so he's not a criminal anymore )

[Fat Haggis]

Gemini and whybother two great replies!!

My interpretation of under oath is the one you take to when entering the military, which isn't much different to being in court under oath.

Now I have another question, to is Farangs under oath is normally associated with the Bible, and Christianity, how does this work in Thai courts where they are Buhddists?

Do they actually even have an oath as in " I swear that I shall tell the truth no matter what? "

All one needs to do is look around some of the high profile situations past and present where many wouldnt know the truth if it bit them on the arse!!

There's a whole different meaning to the "truth" as there is to "saving face with a distortion of the facts" but it's simply " Thainess"

[halloween]

Just because she is being charged with criminal negligence now does not preclude her being charged with corruption later. I doubt it will be difficult to prove that both she and her family profited from this previously tried, obviously failed and proven corrupt policy.

[halloween]

Gemini and whybother two great replies!!

My interpretation of under oath is the one you take to when entering the military, which isn't much different to being in court under oath.

Now I have another question, to is Farangs under oath is normally associated with the Bible, and Christianity, how does this work in Thai courts where they are Buhddists?

Do they actually even have an oath as in " I swear that I shall tell the truth no matter what? "

All one needs to do is look around some of the high profile situations past and present where many wouldnt know the truth if it bit them on the arse!!

There's a whole different meaning to the "truth" as there is to "saving face with a distortion of the facts" but it's simply " Thainess"

The oath when joining the military is to serve King and country, not to pander to corrupt politicians. Do you believe that there is any part of it that mentions that you would not remove same?

[Gunna]

It got to do with the fact he has called Yingluck a criminal despite not having been convicted of Ant crimes or did that part not register with you?

I pointed out to the stuttering parrot it's what's called Double standards and is quite typical of Jamie ?

Now for starters I will call her a criminal AFTER the courts have convicted her of crimes, until then she's isn't one in the eyes of the law.

Of course you will say but she broke the law, which is exactly my point about Jamie and not wearing a helmet is breaking the law and therefore his actions and act is NO different, the law is the law is an ass ? and he's breaking it that makes his logic of calling her a criminal quite absurd and a double standard, but you don't see that in your utopia do you?

He didn't call her a convicted criminal, eg like her brother

By definition below most of us know Yingluck is a criminal, just not convicted yet

crim·i·nal

ˈkrimənl/

noun

1. 1.

   a person who has committed a crime.

   "these men are dangerous criminals"

   synonyms: lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor,wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant; More

[whybother]

Gemini and whybother two great replies!!

My interpretation of under oath is the one you take to when entering the military, which isn't much different to being in court under oath.

Now I have another question, to is Farangs under oath is normally associated with the Bible, and Christianity, how does this work in Thai courts where they are Buhddists?

Do they actually even have an oath as in " I swear that I shall tell the truth no matter what? "

All one needs to do is look around some of the high profile situations past and present where many wouldnt know the truth if it bit them on the arse!!

There's a whole different meaning to the "truth" as there is to "saving face with a distortion of the facts" but it's simply " Thainess"

I don't believe a military oath includes anything along the lines of "telling the truth". US oaths: http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

[Bernard Flint]

With all these so called expert expats in Thailand, saying that a thai can murder a non thai and get away with it????

Do you actualy think Yinluk will be sent to prison, grow up Gentlemen

[Fat Haggis]

It got to do with the fact he has called Yingluck a criminal despite not having been convicted of Ant crimes or did that part not register with you?

I pointed out to the stuttering parrot it's what's called Double standards and is quite typical of Jamie ?

Now for starters I will call her a criminal AFTER the courts have convicted her of crimes, until then she's isn't one in the eyes of the law.

Of course you will say but she broke the law, which is exactly my point about Jamie and not wearing a helmet is breaking the law and therefore his actions and act is NO different, the law is the law is an ass ? and he's breaking it that makes his logic of calling her a criminal quite absurd and a double standard, but you don't see that in your utopia do you?

He didn't call her a convicted criminal, eg like her brother

By definition below most of us know Yingluck is a criminal, just not convicted yet

crim·i·nal

ˈkrimənl/

noun

• 1.

  a person who has committed a crime.

  "these men are dangerous criminals"

  synonyms: lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor,wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant; More

Another great post, which actually backs up what I was saying about Jamie, when not wearing his helmet makes him a lawbreaker too ergo criminal is an appropriate term to use .

My point in case is that by calling Yingluck one whilst breaking the law by his own admission is a double standard ?

[robblok]

Oh and just to Add I wonder what he thinks of the THAI board of directors who have incurred losses far greater than the rice scam

Now that's gross mismanagement and negligence there and I would hope that NACC are looking into this too as the money bring pumped into THAI is evaporating faster than honest politicians !!!

You guys seem to constantly want to forget that it was not budgetted because the normal budget was at max deficit. This was a vote buyer scheme, everyone international institutions included said it would incur losses. Everyone who came with figures there was a loss got threatened and bullied.

Had it been budgetted and transparent and whisle blowers not percequted it would have been ok.

Now it was gross negligence and she should be punished made an example.

[fab4]

No I said they have not yet faced trial and get a free pass.

Sutep has refused to answer a court summons.

As for perjury what conviction was recorded ?

As for other comments just the usual out of ammo answers.

She wasn't charged for some reason. That doesn't change the fact that she lied in court.

She wasn't charged, she's not guilty, she's not convicted of a crime, she is not a criminal, Simple.

Just being pedantic, I'm sure you understand...................................

[pattayasnowman]

So what exactly is the evidence for corruption in the Rice Pledging Scheme.

Where is the evidence that Yingluck and others made profited by the billions of baht that have been lost by this scheme.

The rice-pledging scheme was a naive plan to boost the incomes of the poor Thai farmers, who make up 40 percent of the population, and to to win their votes.

Thailand – then the world’s largest exporter – the government stockpiled rice in a bid to push up prices, with the view of releasing the rice to the resulting supply-starved markets when the price was right.

But the plan badly backfire . India which had began exporting rice again and other rice exporters increased their exports to fill the gap. World rice prices never rose signicantly and have been in a downward trend for several years.

As to these trumped up corruption charges. This is just more Shinawata bashing dating back to the illegal 2006 coup of a legally democratically elected government.

Edited November 19, 2014 by pattayasnowman

[whybother]

No I said they have not yet faced trial and get a free pass.

Sutep has refused to answer a court summons.

As for perjury what conviction was recorded ?

As for other comments just the usual out of ammo answers.

She wasn't charged for some reason. That doesn't change the fact that she lied in court.

She wasn't charged, she's not guilty, she's not convicted of a crime, she is not a criminal, Simple.

Just being pedantic, I'm sure you understand...................................

She lied under oath. You can "pedant" that away as you like. It won't change that fact.

[whybother]

So what exactly is the evidence for corruption in the Rice Pledging Scheme.

Where is the evidence that Yingluck and others made profited by the billions of baht that have been lost by this scheme.

The rice-pledging scheme was a naive plan to boost the incomes of the poor Thai farmers, who make up 40 percent of the population, and to to win their votes.

Thailand – then the world’s largest exporter – the government stockpiled rice in a bid to push up prices, with the view of releasing the rice to the resulting supply-starved markets when the price was right.

But the plan badly backfire . India which had began exporting rice again and other rice exporters increased their exports to fill the gap. World rice prices never rose signicantly and have been in a downward trend for several years.

As to these trumped up corruption charges. This is just more Shinawata bashing dating back to the illegal 2006 coup of a legally democratically elected government.

She's not being charged with corruption. She's being charged with negligence for allowing the scheme to continue even with evidence of corruption.

[pattayasnowman]

She's not being charged with corruption. She's being charged with negligence for allowing the scheme to continue even with evidence of corruption.

==========================================================

Right can't show the scheme was corrupt so lets go for deriliction of duty

Same , Same , but different !

[whybother]

She's not being charged with corruption. She's being charged with negligence for allowing the scheme to continue even with evidence of corruption.

==========================================================

Right can't show the scheme was corrupt so lets go for deriliction of duty

Same , Same , but different !

Actually, they have shown that the scheme was corrupt. That's why they are charging her with dereliction of duty.

What they can't show is that she made money from the scheme, which is why they're not charging her with corruption.

[Eric Loh]

This case has really lose its importance and relevancy with the change of government. Whether the supreme court accept or not accept the case, the political reality really will not change much. She wouldn't be better or worse off whatever the conviction. If the case goes against her, it only galvanize PT supporters as they see that as a unfair persecution. If she is let off, I doubt Tkasin will want her to run for office again for many reasons. She will be extremely effective in campaigning in next election as there will many who sympathize with her. She has played the role of a victim very well by keeping her dignity and keeping silence. The Dem Party everyone knows will never ever win an election. Unless there is a new coalition that will rise to the challenge, PT will win again.

[whybother]

This case has really lose its importance and relevancy with the change of government. Whether the supreme court accept or not accept the case, the political reality really will not change much. She wouldn't be better or worse off whatever the conviction. If the case goes against her, it only galvanize PT supporters as they see that as a unfair persecution. If she is let off, I doubt Tkasin will want her to run for office again for many reasons. She will be extremely effective in campaigning in next election as there will many who sympathize with her. She has played the role of a victim very well by keeping her dignity and keeping silence. The Dem Party everyone knows will never ever win an election. Unless there is a new coalition that will rise to the challenge, PT will win again.

If she's not banned, she will be there at the top. Thaksin wants a relative there and there are no other acceptable alternatives.

[Eric Loh]

This case has really lose its importance and relevancy with the change of government. Whether the supreme court accept or not accept the case, the political reality really will not change much. She wouldn't be better or worse off whatever the conviction. If the case goes against her, it only galvanize PT supporters as they see that as a unfair persecution. If she is let off, I doubt Tkasin will want her to run for office again for many reasons. She will be extremely effective in campaigning in next election as there will many who sympathize with her. She has played the role of a victim very well by keeping her dignity and keeping silence. The Dem Party everyone knows will never ever win an election. Unless there is a new coalition that will rise to the challenge, PT will win again.

If she's not banned, she will be there at the top. Thaksin wants a relative there and there are no other acceptable alternatives.

Not necessary so as Thaksin has before selected a non-Shin in Samad. Yingluck is a much reluctant choice but succumbed to his brother persuasion. Don't think she crave for power and want to run for office again and Thaksin must felt regretful for the woes and burden she endured. He also not stubborn or stupid to see that another Shin will only galvanize his enemies or perhaps there is a inside deal that no more Shin takes the top job. There are many loyal, young and capable choices in PT with no political baggages.