RICE-PLEDGING SCHEME
Decision on Yingluck 'negligence' case likely to be decided on Thursday
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A resolution on what to do with the alleged negligence of duty case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra is expected to be reached at a meeting between the National Anti-Corruption Commission and public prosecutors on Thursday, the anti-graft agency said Monday.

However, NACC member Vicha Mahakun said he did not know if the Office of the Attorney General would decide to pursue the case through the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Offices.

Vicha said that the OAG had called the urgent meeting. The NACC has suggested it will pursue the case itself if the OAG refuses to take it.

Representatives from the NACC and the OAG have met four times to discuss the matter but failed to reach a conclusion.

Public prosecutors suggested that the NACC question more witnesses, particularly those requested by Yingluck's lawyers, but the anti-graft agency said it had a strong case against the ex-PM.

The NACC has accused Yingluck of negligence leading to massive state losses - in excess of Bt500 billion - from her government's scrapped rice price-pledging scheme.

Vicha said the NACC was confident that its case was complete.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Decision-on-Yingluck-negligence-case-likely-to-be--30250409.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-22

he said she said again, when will the public prosecutors grow the balls to actually take a hi so to court or have they been provided with a large donut box to postpone it. The prosecutors must take all possible action against all accused hi so's/people so we stop seeing them let off and allowed to simply leave the country and never face legal action, they are pathetic

' decided on Thursday' guess they haven't figured out which Thursday yet!

he said she said again, when will the public prosecutors grow the balls to actually take a hi so to court or have they been provided with a large donut box to postpone it. The prosecutors must take all possible action against all accused hi so's/people so we stop seeing them let off and allowed to simply leave the country and never face legal action, they are pathetic

Whilst i agree with you for those who are caught for corruption , who is to say they actually have evidence?Maybe the Public prosecutors are doing there job?Maybe there is little or no evidence?

Or dare i say, people in the police, army, politicians,judiciary were also beneficiaries......

Nothing happening here....move on....

If nothing decisive happens on Thursday, these procrastinating clowns should be replaced.

They've had enough time.

With the loss of possibly 700++ billion Baht on this 'self-financing' scheme it would seem that if not negligent than certainly criminal.

Anyway, the NAAC will discuss again with the OAG on 'negligence'. They may still open a second case on corruption which will probably be less clear and very fragmented.

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

"Representatives from the NACC and the OAG have met four times to discuss the matter but failed to reach a conclusion."

Paraphrased, Sycophant:"Honest, Boss, we know some bad things happened but if we create a martyr we will never hear the end of it"

Boss: "Oh how I miss the days when anyone could be a patsy!"

Sycophant: "Boss, worse, a LOT of our own people were in on it."

Boss: "Silence blasphemer! Silence! (sotto voice) I already knew that."

Ad nauseum ad infinitum.....repeat.

time for another trip out of los in the works?

It might be a high profile case of alleged negligence of duty against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, but negligence of duty applies to all governments in Thailand since 1998, including the current government.

Tempers and tension within the Thai population might run high but as Thai I am more concerned about the cases that raise international attention and that show that none of the governments including the current is free of blame, ignoring to carry out the January 2013 order of the supreme administrative court.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/dec/19/thai-government-censured-for-failure-to-tackle-lead-pollution

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

Why didn't you add: 'there was no rice'... Typical Shins' fan total denial. Guess who's grasping at straws hoping to avoid landing behind bars for this scandal of a rice scam...

'Neglect of duty' ( = 'dereliction') is much, much, worse than ('simple plain') 'neglicence'! Is this 'lost in translation' again, or is there an organised attempt to 'banalise' what Yingluck has done, ...and what she had to do, should have done, but hasn't?

The buck stops at the top, and she was (officially) at the top of 'her' (pseudo-) 'government', and had appointed herself at the top of the rice committee, but there will never be enough truth or evidence for Shins/PTP/UDD, nor for the red denialists here, isn't it...?

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

Haha you're either blind, in denial or just taking the piss.

Fake deals were done at several levels from low to high, some of the lower end guys got 20 years in jail and a guy named Poom sarapol is currently charged with facilitating fake government to government deals with a bogus company supposedly representing the chinese govt.

Yingluck was the chairperson of the scheme, she never attended a meeting or made any executive orders to change things, that's negligence because at the end of the day at the lowest end the scheme has cost 500billion baht and several farmers committed suicide because she dissolved parliament without thinking of paying the farmers first (dissolved parliament meant no executive powers to facilitate payments - more negligence).

She also lied about amounts of poor quality / missing rice back in March (to the NACC if i remember correctly),

Sure she seems like a nice enough lady, but this is not a popularity contest. This is serious business and she should face the same scrutiny that those with less influential surnames and connections face, otherwise what is the point in having laws & bodies to investigate iof they've been broken?

On which Thursday? 2020?

Will the decision be after or before the turkey and ham.

Will the decision be after or before the turkey and ham.

Before the ham. This is a ham-fisted investigation run by a bunch of turkeys.

Moves on Yingluck case known Thursday
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A resolution on what to do with the alleged negligence of duty case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra is expected to be reached at a meeting between the National Anti-Corruption Commission and public prosecutors on Thursday, the anti-graft agency said yesterday.

However, NACC member Vicha Mahakun said he did not know if the Office of the Attorney General would decide to pursue the case through the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Offices.

Vicha said that the OAG had called the urgent meeting. The NACC has suggested it will pursue the case itself if the OAG refuses to take it.

Representatives from the NACC and the OAG have met four times to discuss the matter but failed to reach a conclusion. Public prosecutors suggested that the NACC question more witnesses, particularly those requested by Yingluck's lawyers, but the anti-graft agency said it had a strong case against the ex-PM. The NACC has accused Yingluck of negligence leading to massive state losses - in excess of Bt500 billion - from her government's scrapped rice price-pledging scheme.

Vicha said the NACC was confident its case was complete. "If we were not confident, we would not have sent our secretary-general, Sansern Poljieak, to head the NACC's team in this case's joint working group. This is unprecedented," he said.

He expected the NACC subcommittee investigating former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom over alleged irregularities in a government-to-government rice deal to be completed no later than next week.

NACC members would decide later whether to indict Boonsong, he said.

Democrat Party politician Warong Dechgitvigrom has countered a claim that Yingluck should not be held responsible. Yingluck's lawyer and some Cabinet members from her government said warehouse owners and rice surveyors should be held responsible for losses caused to the rice stored in government stockpiles.

But Warong said that as head of the government, Yingluck should be held responsible.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Moves-on-Yingluck-case-known-Thursday-30250442.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-23

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

Single digit IQ lol

I wish her a Merry Christmas and a "Captivating" New Year.

They have got nothing on her. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

.

Such a definitive and uncompromising position has led to many a defendent sitting in prison and wondering what went wrong.

The "no negligence" declaration, especially, sounds fanatical.

As well, the "nothing on her" stance is difficult to have much faith in when it was revealed months ago that are literally thousands of pages of evidence against her that have been submitted. Have you personally reviewed all of them to reach your conclusion?

.

' decided on Thursday' guess they haven't figured out which Thursday yet!

If they do prosecute now that's a Xmas gift yingluck won't forget. Merry Xmas thaipeople on 25th we prosecute...or not ?

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

Riiiiiight and how did you come to that conclusion? 500baht maybe??

he said she said again, when will the public prosecutors grow the balls to actually take a hi so to court or have they been provided with a large donut box to postpone it. The prosecutors must take all possible action against all accused hi so's/people so we stop seeing them let off and allowed to simply leave the country and never face legal action, they are pathetic

Whilst i agree with you for those who are caught for corruption , who is to say they actually have evidence?Maybe the Public prosecutors are doing there job?Maybe there is little or no evidence?

Or dare i say, people in the police, army, politicians,judiciary were also beneficiaries......

Good grief. The charge is negligence. Did she turn up to any of the meetings she was supposed to - No. Did she listen to or act upon the warnings from many sources - No. Did she silence those who spoke out with warnings that she could - Yes. Did she carry out meaningful checks - No. Did she lie to farmers about payments - Yes.

The prosecutors are simply scared shitless to do their jobs and prosecute a hiso member of the ruthless Shin clan. They know what the consequences might be.

If the charge was corruption, then you may have a point. But it's not, it's negligence.

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

Of course not - perfectly acceptable for her to lie, never turn up to meetings she was supposed to chair and remunerated for, having appointed herself, and make false statements when questioned.

All normal practice for any Shin administration. Why should she be singled out? Just following on.

he said she said again, when will the public prosecutors grow the balls to actually take a hi so to court or have they been provided with a large donut box to postpone it. The prosecutors must take all possible action against all accused hi so's/people so we stop seeing them let off and allowed to simply leave the country and never face legal action, they are pathetic

Whilst i agree with you for those who are caught for corruption , who is to say they actually have evidence?Maybe the Public prosecutors are doing there job?Maybe there is little or no evidence?

Or dare i say, people in the police, army, politicians,judiciary were also beneficiaries......

Good grief. The charge is negligence. Did she turn up to any of the meetings she was supposed to - No. Did she listen to or act upon the warnings from many sources - No. Did she silence those who spoke out with warnings that she could - Yes. Did she carry out meaningful checks - No. Did she lie to farmers about payments - Yes.

The prosecutors are simply scared shitless to do their jobs and prosecute a hiso member of the ruthless Shin clan. They know what the consequences might be.

If the charge was corruption, then you may have a point. But it's not, it's negligence.

Did she turn up to any of the meetings she was supposed to - No. Was she legally required to turn up? How many meetings did she turn up for and how many not? Given you comment i presume you have the information for this? If she was not at some meetings, legally does this make her 'negligent' in a court of law?

Did she listen to or act upon the warnings from many sources - No. Did she take any action, i don't know, do you? Do you have details of what goes on within the Government? There are constant reports that things are not working, or policies are not good by 100's of different sources. Does not acting make you negligent in a court of law?

Did she silence those who spoke out with warnings that she could - Yes. Who did she 'silence'? If someone has 'spoken out' there is not much point silencing them. How does this allegation make her negligent?

Did she carry out meaningful checks - No. Do you have any proof of what checks were, or were not carried out?

Did she lie to farmers about payments - Yes. I don't have any idea what this is referring to, or how it relates to negligence. If a politician was accused of negligence every time they bent the truth or blurred it, there would not be many left.

As much as i realize you wanting her to be hung drawn and quartered, just because you say the above with absolute certainty, does not make it 100% true. I presume all of the information you have is just coming from newspaper articles, much as it is everyone. I presume there are far more goings on that we are not privy to. In grown up world, prosecutors actually need to build a legal case which proves in the eyes of the law negligence, and however much you scream and shout about it, that does not make it true. Try thinking with a little less emotion, there are seemingly to ends of the scale on this, on the one side you, who has her guilty on every charge under the sun, on the other side those who think she is innocent of everything, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Will the middle ground provide enough evidence of negligence to prosecute her? We will have to wait and see.

Good grief. The charge is negligence. Did she turn up to any of the meetings she was supposed to - No. Did she listen to or act upon the warnings from many sources - No. Did she silence those who spoke out with warnings that she could - Yes. Did she carry out meaningful checks - No. Did she lie to farmers about payments - Yes.

The prosecutors are simply scared shitless to do their jobs and prosecute a hiso member of the ruthless Shin clan. They know what the consequences might be.

If the charge was corruption, then you may have a point. But it's not, it's negligence.

Did she turn up to any of the meetings she was supposed to - No. Was she legally required to turn up? How many meetings did she turn up for and how many not? Given you comment i presume you have the information for this? If she was not at some meetings, legally does this make her 'negligent' in a court of law?

Did she listen to or act upon the warnings from many sources - No. Did she take any action, i don't know, do you? Do you have details of what goes on within the Government? There are constant reports that things are not working, or policies are not good by 100's of different sources. Does not acting make you negligent in a court of law?

Did she silence those who spoke out with warnings that she could - Yes. Who did she 'silence'? If someone has 'spoken out' there is not much point silencing them. How does this allegation make her negligent?

Did she carry out meaningful checks - No. Do you have any proof of what checks were, or were not carried out?

Did she lie to farmers about payments - Yes. I don't have any idea what this is referring to, or how it relates to negligence. If a politician was accused of negligence every time they bent the truth or blurred it, there would not be many left.

As much as i realize you wanting her to be hung drawn and quartered, just because you say the above with absolute certainty, does not make it 100% true. I presume all of the information you have is just coming from newspaper articles, much as it is everyone. I presume there are far more goings on that we are not privy to. In grown up world, prosecutors actually need to build a legal case which proves in the eyes of the law negligence, and however much you scream and shout about it, that does not make it true. Try thinking with a little less emotion, there are seemingly to ends of the scale on this, on the one side you, who has her guilty on every charge under the sun, on the other side those who think she is innocent of everything, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Will the middle ground provide enough evidence of negligence to prosecute her? We will have to wait and see.

Even after all the necessary evidence is presented in court, her rabid red-eyed sycophants will still defend her gross negligence and total incompetence.

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

And you know this how, exactly?

Are YOU priviliged and given all this information in person by the NACC or the OAG that none of the rest of us knows about yet, are you just guessing and hoping that you are right or are you just dreaming and clutching at rice straws?

They have got nothing on her. They know it and are grasping at straws. Some government policies win and some don't. As simple as that. There was no corruption, there was no scam, there was no negligence.

Oh for God's sake, who are you kidding? Hopefully joking or trolling!!

he said she said again, when will the public prosecutors grow the balls to actually take a hi so to court or have they been provided with a large donut box to postpone it. The prosecutors must take all possible action against all accused hi so's/people so we stop seeing them let off and allowed to simply leave the country and never face legal action, they are pathetic

Whilst i agree with you for those who are caught for corruption , who is to say they actually have evidence?Maybe the Public prosecutors are doing there job?Maybe there is little or no evidence?

Or dare i say, people in the police, army, politicians,judiciary were also beneficiaries......

Good grief. The charge is negligence. Did she turn up to any of the meetings she was supposed to - No. Did she listen to or act upon the warnings from many sources - No. Did she silence those who spoke out with warnings that she could - Yes. Did she carry out meaningful checks - No. Did she lie to farmers about payments - Yes.

The prosecutors are simply scared shitless to do their jobs and prosecute a hiso member of the ruthless Shin clan. They know what the consequences might be.

If the charge was corruption, then you may have a point. But it's not, it's negligence.

Did she turn up to any of the meetings she was supposed to - No. Was she legally required to turn up? How many meetings did she turn up for and how many not? Given you comment i presume you have the information for this? If she was not at some meetings, legally does this make her 'negligent' in a court of law?

Did she listen to or act upon the warnings from many sources - No. Did she take any action, i don't know, do you? Do you have details of what goes on within the Government? There are constant reports that things are not working, or policies are not good by 100's of different sources. Does not acting make you negligent in a court of law?

Did she silence those who spoke out with warnings that she could - Yes. Who did she 'silence'? If someone has 'spoken out' there is not much point silencing them. How does this allegation make her negligent?

Did she carry out meaningful checks - No. Do you have any proof of what checks were, or were not carried out?

Did she lie to farmers about payments - Yes. I don't have any idea what this is referring to, or how it relates to negligence. If a politician was accused of negligence every time they bent the truth or blurred it, there would not be many left.

As much as i realize you wanting her to be hung drawn and quartered, just because you say the above with absolute certainty, does not make it 100% true. I presume all of the information you have is just coming from newspaper articles, much as it is everyone. I presume there are far more goings on that we are not privy to. In grown up world, prosecutors actually need to build a legal case which proves in the eyes of the law negligence, and however much you scream and shout about it, that does not make it true. Try thinking with a little less emotion, there are seemingly to ends of the scale on this, on the one side you, who has her guilty on every charge under the sun, on the other side those who think she is innocent of everything, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Will the middle ground provide enough evidence of negligence to prosecute her? We will have to wait and see.

All that you highlighted is very easily researched - from Thai Visa as well as other sources. From her not attending any of the rice committee meetings she was supposed to attend as the self appointed chair, to people being threatened and transferred for speaking out, to international organization issuing warnings.

So yes, I do base my comments on research rather than wishful thinking as you seem to on many discussion threads. If your too lazy, can't be bothered or don't like the results of the research, then up to you. But don't present your version as factual when it isn't; or try to dismiss all the comments as they were only reported in the media. Did she turn up to chair meetings - a matter of public record.

She simply didn't care - or bother to do anything, but continue to follow orders, regardless of consequences. Will she be prosecuted and convicted of negligence - that will depend on the Thai legal interpretation of negligence and the evidence actually presented, should it ever go to court.

Why is it Shin apologists like to pretend they are middle ground? You support and therefore defend the Shins as is your right. Why pretend otherwise? Very Amsterdamish approach. You think she's innocent of all that went on during the last administration? Claim the middle ground eh, a compromise? Sure beats admitting she might be guilty or even bothering to check the reported facts.