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

[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.

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.

After Samak was forced to step down, he could have been selected again, but Thaksin chose to go with his brother in law, Somchai.

She doesn't crave for power and didn't want to run for office the first time around. He doesn't give a crap what she's endured. All he cares about is that he is in control. He is stubborn in that way. He doesn't care what his enemies think. If he cared about that, he wouldn't have got Yingluck to stand in the first place.

Name one "loyal, young and capable choice in PT"? Actually, see if you can name one person with a single one of those attributes in PT. OK, maybe you can name someone that's loyal, but that's it.

[chotthee]

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.

Can show that she and her brother are both corrupted.

But give her some face, so don't want to charge.

[rubl]

See jamie that's the yellow reasoning guilty before innocent.

So you called her a criminal .

For the benefit of all posters can you please list all or any criminal convictions against Yingluck Shinawatra former elected prime minister of the kingdom or Thailand?

It would seem lots of posters are guilty of same reasoning and some have different colours as well.

Anyway, I doubt Ms. Yingluck profited financially from the disastrous RPPS. I think though she's guilty of being negligent to the point of 700 billion Baht. Of course the NACC and the OAG have to put their act together. We do not want to see Ms. Yingluck charged and acquitted because of lack of evidence as that would surely soil her good name.

As for your question, unlike her brother Ms. Yingluck hasn't been convicted. I think there's only one case which required her to hear charges in person, but even that I'm not sure. In Thailand these things take time you know

[JAG]

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 !!!

No, they're "good" people.

[rubl]

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.

Ms. Yingluck told the Pheu Thai party she wanted to serve and the executive committee after due deliberation said OK, we'll put you as number one.

Anyway, just like Ms. Yingluck had so many knowlegeble, capable, full of potential people to choice from for her cabinet, to the point she needed six reshuffles to give all of them a chance, it would seem there's still another group, this one 'loyal' as well and without political baggage. Must be real good people then. Care to name some ?

[JAG]

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?

No. AFAIL Myanmar has never had a brainless puppet supposedly heading a government really being run by a convicted criminal fugitive from overseas by Skype.

They just had a military dictatorship, which maintained itself in power by threat of armed force, restricted freedom of the press, removed freedom of assembly and banged up their political opponents on trumped up charges.

Can't imagine why that sounds vaguely familiar. ....

[JAG]

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.

Hmm, no personal issues there then!

[JAG]

Whatever she may be convicted of, it will always be a charge, trial and conviction of an elected politician persued by and under the rule of a military junta which removed her elected government in a coup. A government which was in the process of offering itself for re-election in accordance wirh the constitution

That will be how it will be regarded, and dismissed, internationally and in Thailand (except by those who support rhe coup).

Edited November 19, 2014 by JAG

[mikemac]

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...................................

Just trolling, are we, Pips, I am sure everyone understands .............................

[rubl]

Whatever she may be convicted of, it will always be a charge, trial and conviction of an elected politician persued by and under the rule of a military junta which removed her elected government in a coup. A government which was in the process of offering itself for re-election in accordance wirh the constitution

That will be how it will be regarded, and dismissed, internationally and in Thailand (except by those who support rhe coup).

Actually that would be 'except by those who have to foot the bill, all 700 --/++ billion Baht of it.' That would be tax payers a.o.

[rubl]

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...................................

Just trolling, are we, Pips, I am sure everyone understands .............................

Oh come on, for once fabs is right. He's pedantic.

Mind you, in that case may I be so bold as to point out that "she's not a criminal" is because "she's not convicted of a crime" only. The "wasn't charged, wasn't guilty" has nothing to do with that, apart from the legal sequence "charged, found guilty, convicted" leading someone to become legally recognised as criminal.

[Thai at Heart]

Since when does breaking a law automatically confer criminality?

[Fat Haggis]

When it's Thai Visa Barstool lawyers who say so!!!

[robblok]

When it's Thai Visa Barstool lawyers who say so!!!

Yes and you are equally qualified.

I hope they finally start convicting the rich (on either side) when a garbage man can be convicted of such a minor thing Thai politicians should too. I get tired of this lack of accountability on both sides.

I sometimes think they don't want to convict the other side and take back ill gotten gain (not talking about YL but corruption cases on both sides). I wonder if anyone has seen a corruption case where they had to pay a fine larger as the´money they stole. This should go for both sides, Thailand can only prosper once corruption is tackled that way. If they keep getting low punishments and keeping their ill gotten gains it will never end.

[jdinasia]

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?

No, had she been jailed in Burma Thailand would be better off

[longway]

Looking forward to the trial

[Baerboxer]

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 lied in court. Tarit had the job of "investigating". The day after she took up office as PM he came up with some creative bullshit along the lines that she couldn't be charged with perjury because she was only a witness not the accused. Some crap along those lines.

Lying is a habit of hers - plenty of examples over the last 3 years as she tells whoppers and couldn't give a shit how ridiculous they are.

[Baerboxer]

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...................................

Just like all the other politicians then................................. well apart from one of course.