Decision on Yingluck 'negligence' case likely to be decided on Thursday

[smutcakes]

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.

Baer, even if as you say she did not attend any meetings, what is the legal responsibility for her to do so? Was she legally responsible to turn up??? If she does not legally need to turn up then its very difficult to prosecute her using that as a case in point.

You are just saying, she did not turn up so she is negligent. It just does not work that simply unfortunately.

I am sure on most boards there is no legal requirement that board members must attend all meetings, even the Chairman. Obviously it is frowned upon missing to many meetings, but its not a criminal offence.

Edited December 23, 2014 by smutcakes

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Baer, even if as you say she did not attend any meetings, what is the legal responsibility for her to do so? Was she legally responsible to turn up??? If she does not legally need to turn up then its very difficult to prosecute her using that as a case in point.

You are just saying, she did not turn up so she is negligent. It just does not work that simply unfortunately.

I am sure on most boards there is no legal requirement that board members must attend all meetings, even the Chairman. Obviously it is frowned upon missing to many meetings, but its not a criminal offence.

Of course this is the defence they will use.

Let's just hope all the previous PMs attended all these policy meetings.....I can just imagine the embarrasment.

In fact, who knows of anyone ever attends these meetings at all, ever, or they just all pocket the expenses. Wouldnt that be a shock, to find huge swathes of politicians not doing their job....

Think people why they are dillyinh around throwing the book at her.

[EnglishJohn]

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.

That is Thailands problem right there.

Denial of anything which doesn't suit the personal agenda. Honesty and integrity are nowhere to be seen.

You have to be truly brainwashed or truly stupid to actually believe that given all the news stories which have been before your eyes over the last few years. Or is every news reporter lying as well ?.

[mikemac]

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.

Baer, even if as you say she did not attend any meetings, what is the legal responsibility for her to do so? Was she legally responsible to turn up??? If she does not legally need to turn up then its very difficult to prosecute her using that as a case in point.

You are just saying, she did not turn up so she is negligent. It just does not work that simply unfortunately.

I am sure on most boards there is no legal requirement that board members must attend all meetings, even the Chairman. Obviously it is frowned upon missing to many meetings, but its not a criminal offence.

Of course this is the defence they will use.

Let's just hope all the previous PMs attended all these policy meetings.....I can just imagine the embarrasment.

In fact, who knows of anyone ever attends these meetings at all, ever, or they just all pocket the expenses. Wouldnt that be a shock, to find huge swathes of politicians not doing their job....

Think people why they are dillyinh around throwing the book at her.

........................."Baer, even if as you say she did not attend any meetings, what is the legal responsibility for her to do so? Was she legally responsible to turn up??? If she does not legally need to turn up then its very difficult to prosecute her using that as a case in point.

You are just saying, she did not turn up so she is negligent. It just does not work that simply unfortunately.

I am sure on most boards there is no legal requirement that board members must attend all meetings, even the Chairman. Obviously it is frowned upon missing to many meetings, but its not a criminal offence."..........................

????????????? <deleted> ! Even by your low standards !

And Thai at Heart, your comment was no better. As usual when you have used up whatever wet ammo you had you resort to saying "The other side did it as well". Not skilled in law myself, but I would be very surprised if your defense would save anyone's ass in a court of law, even in Thailand.

And you left out "But, but , but Suthep" !

[rubl]

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.

Baer, even if as you say she did not attend any meetings, what is the legal responsibility for her to do so? Was she legally responsible to turn up??? If she does not legally need to turn up then its very difficult to prosecute her using that as a case in point.

You are just saying, she did not turn up so she is negligent. It just does not work that simply unfortunately.

I am sure on most boards there is no legal requirement that board members must attend all meetings, even the Chairman. Obviously it is frowned upon missing to many meetings, but its not a criminal offence.

So, what is the function of the chair in the National Rice Policy Committee? Just to pick up the cheque every month? To have introduced the RPPS as PM and to assume the function of chair of the NRPC suggest a certain interest in the correct functioning of the RPPS and to make sure it fulfills its purpose.

To be ignorent seems to only confirm the case of negligence.

[wabothai]

If there is a scam which we all seem to agree on, somebody is guilty of scamming.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Baer, even if as you say she did not attend any meetings, what is the legal responsibility for her to do so? Was she legally responsible to turn up??? If she does not legally need to turn up then its very difficult to prosecute her using that as a case in point.

You are just saying, she did not turn up so she is negligent. It just does not work that simply unfortunately.

I am sure on most boards there is no legal requirement that board members must attend all meetings, even the Chairman. Obviously it is frowned upon missing to many meetings, but its not a criminal offence.
Of course this is the defence they will use.

Let's just hope all the previous PMs attended all these policy meetings.....I can just imagine the embarrasment.

In fact, who knows of anyone ever attends these meetings at all, ever, or they just all pocket the expenses. Wouldnt that be a shock, to find huge swathes of politicians not doing their job....

Think people why they are dillyinh around throwing the book at her.


........................."Baer, even if as you say she did not attend any meetings, what is the legal responsibility for her to do so? Was she legally responsible to turn up??? If she does not legally need to turn up then its very difficult to prosecute her using that as a case in point.

You are just saying, she did not turn up so she is negligent. It just does not work that simply unfortunately.

I am sure on most boards there is no legal requirement that board members must attend all meetings, even the Chairman. Obviously it is frowned upon missing to many meetings, but its not a criminal offence."..........................

????????????? <deleted> ! Even by your low standards !

And Thai at Heart, your comment was no better. As usual when you have used up whatever wet ammo you had you resort to saying "The other side did it as well". Not skilled in law myself, but I would be very surprised if your defense would save anyone's ass in a court of law, even in Thailand.
And you left out "But, but , but Suthep" !



I didn't bring up Suthep and I never do.

Do you or I actually know how many meetings this Rice board are meant to have had? Do we know how many times they met? Do we know how many people are meant to attend such meetings? Is it customary for the PM of thailand to attend every committee meeting historically?

None of which you or I know.

So she people are running around here saying "well its obvious", " and we all know", actually we KNOW basically **** all about any of it and only what we have been fed by the english language media.

I predict they will squirm and squirm and not successfully prosecute Yingluck for anything and people on here will continue to complain "but its obviously a scam" "we all know they stole the money".

And yet, we are expecting to hold this Thai PM to a higher standard than that expected of our politicians in the west. I find it extrmely unlikely that they can successfully put a politician on the hook for a policy loss, with no proven criminality.

That sir, is a kangaroo court and is wrong. Good luck to them proving negligence because as I put up top, it will probably start holding ALL Thai politicians to standard of conduct unheard of elsewhere.

Spend money on a government project and be personally on the hook for the loss. Bush, Brown and Blair must be very nervous this might catch on elsewhere.

[mikemac]

@ Thai at Heart

Has any politician, anywhere, ever been in control of a "subsidy" that "lost" so much money ? Let's be honest here, it was a bold and brazen vote-buying scheme that blew up in their stupid faces. Some of your red flag waving mates admit to it, when are you going to man up ?

This fiasco has set a new benchmark in incompetence. In any other country she would have been hung out to dry, long ago.

You seem to think that just because someone cannot be proved guilty in a court of law they must be innocent. What a naive attitude.

[Thai at Heart]

@ Thai at Heart

Has any politician, anywhere, ever been in control of a "subsidy" that "lost" so much money ? Let's be honest here, it was a bold and brazen vote-buying scheme that blew up in their stupid faces. Some of your red flag waving mates admit to it, when are you going to man up ?

This fiasco has set a new benchmark in incompetence. In any other country she would have been hung out to dry, long ago.

You seem to think that just because someone cannot be proved guilty in a court of law they must be innocent. What a naive attitude.

No, they don't have to be innocent, but when you overthrow governments you had better have some damn good proof. As yet, little or nothing.

You really think this junta is acting to save Thailand from the shinawatras? They ate just a tiny cog in all the issues going on .

The EU puts out 50bn Euros a year in subsidies. Every year. Politicians get elected because of it, every year.

It was never going to be 100% self financing and the indians saw that they stole the market. Does that make it criminal and worthy of a coup only to be followed by more payments to farmers.

This issue is very important for thailanf because there are still 20mn farmers in the country . did she steal anything personally? I doubt it. Are subsidies wrong ? No, if they were why are they continuing.

The crime if you can call it a crime was to claim it would be self financing. Thaksins wet dream of a system. Did it need a coup to change it? No.

So, they won't get her for anything serious just watch because fundamentally either the current bunch will have tk keep throwing money into the countryside anyway.

[scorecard]

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

@ Thai at Heart

Has any politician, anywhere, ever been in control of a "subsidy" that "lost" so much money ? Let's be honest here, it was a bold and brazen vote-buying scheme that blew up in their stupid faces. Some of your red flag waving mates admit to it, when are you going to man up ?

This fiasco has set a new benchmark in incompetence. In any other country she would have been hung out to dry, long ago.

You seem to think that just because someone cannot be proved guilty in a court of law they must be innocent. What a naive attitude.

@thai a theart:

- There is also moral as well as legal responsibility.

- She / her gang always say she was elected by the majority. Surely that means she has a moral responsibility in terms of everything, let alone legal responsibility.

- Comparisons with the public sector are not so easy. It may well be that BOD members sometimes don't turn up but it could also in some cases be that their stated and agreed role (job description) allows this, especially if it's a family company.

- But comparison of public sector to government roles (and responsibilities) is a different kettle of fish. She was entrusted with managing the affairs of Thailand and in this subject area it amounted to hundreds of billions of Baht. Therefore they can be no grey area, she had a moral responsibility to turn up at meetings. Probably a legal responsibility also.

[rubl]

No, they don't have to be innocent, but when you overthrow governments you had better have some damn good proof. As yet, little or nothing.

You really think this junta is acting to save Thailand from the shinawatras? They ate just a tiny cog in all the issues going on .

The EU puts out 50bn Euros a year in subsidies. Every year. Politicians get elected because of it, every year.

It was never going to be 100% self financing and the indians saw that they stole the market. Does that make it criminal and worthy of a coup only to be followed by more payments to farmers.

This issue is very important for thailanf because there are still 20mn farmers in the country . did she steal anything personally? I doubt it. Are subsidies wrong ? No, if they were why are they continuing.

The crime if you can call it a crime was to claim it would be self financing. Thaksins wet dream of a system. Did it need a coup to change it? No.

So, they won't get her for anything serious just watch because fundamentally either the current bunch will have tk keep throwing money into the countryside anyway.

Don't make it more complicated than it already is. The coup has nothing to do with the case of the RPPS itself. So leave it out.

The 'subsidy' the EU spends money on is just that "a subsidy', budgetted, debated, provided from the EU budget provided by member states, approved as subsidy. Nothing to do with a 'self-financing' RPPS.

So, the (THaksin thinks) Pheu Thai party 'sold' their supporters the RPPS, Ms. Yingluck as PM with her cabinet proposed it in parliament and defended the use of a 'revolving funds' because of the 'self-financing' nature of the RPPS. NO need to make reservations in the National Budget. For more than two years, acknowledging comments, stating to take all in consideration, to have all covered, financing no problem, etc., etc.

If you don't like 'negligence' it should be easy to move to 'criminal intention to defraud the State'.

[scorecard]

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

@ Thai at Heart

Has any politician, anywhere, ever been in control of a "subsidy" that "lost" so much money ? Let's be honest here, it was a bold and brazen vote-buying scheme that blew up in their stupid faces. Some of your red flag waving mates admit to it, when are you going to man up ?

This fiasco has set a new benchmark in incompetence. In any other country she would have been hung out to dry, long ago.

You seem to think that just because someone cannot be proved guilty in a court of law they must be innocent. What a naive attitude.

No, they don't have to be innocent, but when you overthrow governments you had better have some damn good proof. As yet, little or nothing.

You really think this junta is acting to save Thailand from the shinawatras? They ate just a tiny cog in all the issues going on .

The EU puts out 50bn Euros a year in subsidies. Every year. Politicians get elected because of it, every year.

It was never going to be 100% self financing and the indians saw that they stole the market. Does that make it criminal and worthy of a coup only to be followed by more payments to farmers.

This issue is very important for thailanf because there are still 20mn farmers in the country . did she steal anything personally? I doubt it. Are subsidies wrong ? No, if they were why are they continuing.

The crime if you can call it a crime was to claim it would be self financing. Thaksins wet dream of a system. Did it need a coup to change it? No.

So, they won't get her for anything serious just watch because fundamentally either the current bunch will have tk keep throwing money into the countryside anyway.

"Did it need a coup to change it?"

IMHO the answer is YES!

Why, because I suggest there are many Thais and non-Thai observers who are well convinced that the scaly incapable get rich quick gang and their gang owner were taking a line of building a scenario whereby they would NEVER be voted out of office, therefore complete and absolute control - a scenario whereby they could with even more gusto and greed and with zero conscience rape the country even more. And continue to do nothing to develop the country or to create a scenario where a much larger percentage of all Thai have a good quality of life through their own productivity.

Edited December 23, 2014 by scorecard

[Wombat6]

time for another trip out of los in the works?

or a request for a delay.....If she is not negligent then what do you call a person who is the Chairperson of the Committee that managed the scheme and didn't attend any meetings.....that to me spells Gross negligence !!!

[scorecard]

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

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.

"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."

Yes in a court of law there must be a proven case, nothing less. But let's not forget there is a lot of fact publically recorded on lots of media and there is lots of opinion on various media.

But let's please explore legally negligent and morally negligent.

Surely the citizens of any country have an absolute right to be expecting that their 'elected' leader is behaving in a morally (and legally) correct way,

and is showing to the populace (especially the young) good morals / good examples of morality.

Do you think she was absolutely NOT negligent morally, in regards to the rice scheme scam?

If you believe YES SHE WAS NOT MORALLY NEGLIGENT, please share your reasons, love to hear your comment.

Edited December 23, 2014 by scorecard

[Thai at Heart]

No, they don't have to be innocent, but when you overthrow governments you had better have some damn good proof. As yet, little or nothing.

You really think this junta is acting to save Thailand from the shinawatras? They ate just a tiny cog in all the issues going on .

The EU puts out 50bn Euros a year in subsidies. Every year. Politicians get elected because of it, every year.

It was never going to be 100% self financing and the indians saw that they stole the market. Does that make it criminal and worthy of a coup only to be followed by more payments to farmers.

This issue is very important for thailanf because there are still 20mn farmers in the country . did she steal anything personally? I doubt it. Are subsidies wrong ? No, if they were why are they continuing.

The crime if you can call it a crime was to claim it would be self financing. Thaksins wet dream of a system. Did it need a coup to change it? No.

So, they won't get her for anything serious just watch because fundamentally either the current bunch will have tk keep throwing money into the countryside anyway.

Don't make it more complicated than it already is. The coup has nothing to do with the case of the RPPS itself. So leave it out.

The 'subsidy' the EU spends money on is just that "a subsidy', budgetted, debated, provided from the EU budget provided by member states, approved as subsidy. Nothing to do with a 'self-financing' RPPS.

So, the (THaksin thinks) Pheu Thai party 'sold' their supporters the RPPS, Ms. Yingluck as PM with her cabinet proposed it in parliament and defended the use of a 'revolving funds' because of the 'self-financing' nature of the RPPS. NO need to make reservations in the National Budget. For more than two years, acknowledging comments, stating to take all in consideration, to have all covered, financing no problem, etc., etc.

If you don't like 'negligence' it should be easy to move to 'criminal intention to defraud the State'.

Indeed, intent to damage the state is a better charge or basic misprepresntation to parliament is a better case.

Still hard to prove against her personally, but still better than negligence. All they have to prove in that case is that she knew for sure it would never be self funding but that she lied about it.

This is much closer to reality than negligence.

[mikemac]

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

@ Thai at Heart

Has any politician, anywhere, ever been in control of a "subsidy" that "lost" so much money ? Let's be honest here, it was a bold and brazen vote-buying scheme that blew up in their stupid faces. Some of your red flag waving mates admit to it, when are you going to man up ?

This fiasco has set a new benchmark in incompetence. In any other country she would have been hung out to dry, long ago.

You seem to think that just because someone cannot be proved guilty in a court of law they must be innocent. What a naive attitude.

@thai a theart:

- There is also moral as well as legal responsibility.

- She / her gang always say she was elected by the majority. Surely that means she has a moral responsibility in terms of everything, let alone legal responsibility.

- Comparisons with the public sector are not so easy. It may well be that BOD members sometimes don't turn up but it could also in some cases be that their stated and agreed role (job description) allows this, especially if it's a family company.

- But comparison of public sector to government roles (and responsibilities) is a different kettle of fish. She was entrusted with managing the affairs of Thailand and in this subject area it amounted to hundreds of billions of Baht. Therefore they can be no grey area, she had a moral responsibility to turn up at meetings. Probably a legal responsibility also.

Hi scorecard, I did not mention the term "moral responsibility" in my previous comment regarding the rice scam, the love child of the PTP because I thought the red crowd would not know what I was talking about and you guys would have laughed at me, given the circumstances.

[scorecard]

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

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

@ Thai at Heart

Has any politician, anywhere, ever been in control of a "subsidy" that "lost" so much money ? Let's be honest here, it was a bold and brazen vote-buying scheme that blew up in their stupid faces. Some of your red flag waving mates admit to it, when are you going to man up ?

This fiasco has set a new benchmark in incompetence. In any other country she would have been hung out to dry, long ago.

You seem to think that just because someone cannot be proved guilty in a court of law they must be innocent. What a naive attitude.

@thai a theart:

- There is also moral as well as legal responsibility.

- She / her gang always say she was elected by the majority. Surely that means she has a moral responsibility in terms of everything, let alone legal responsibility.

- Comparisons with the public sector are not so easy. It may well be that BOD members sometimes don't turn up but it could also in some cases be that their stated and agreed role (job description) allows this, especially if it's a family company.

- But comparison of public sector to government roles (and responsibilities) is a different kettle of fish. She was entrusted with managing the affairs of Thailand and in this subject area it amounted to hundreds of billions of Baht. Therefore they can be no grey area, she had a moral responsibility to turn up at meetings. Probably a legal responsibility also.

Hi scorecard, I did not mention the term "moral responsibility" in my previous comment regarding the rice scam, the love child of the PTP because I thought the red crowd would not know what I was talking about and you guys would have laughed at me, given the circumstances. alt=biggrin.png>

Understood.

[mikemac]

The coup did not happen just because of the rice scam, there was a lot more factors involved. The writing was on the wall when the rats tried to rush the Amnesty Bill through in the wee hours of the morning.