Yingluck's case: NACC to question two more in rice case

[webfact]

YINGLUCK'S CASE
NACC to question two more in rice case
The Nation

Watchdog responds to prosecutors' demand for more proof of govt deals

BANGKOK: - The National Anti-Corruption Commission yesterday agreed to question two more witnesses to shore up its case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for dereliction of duty in overseeing the government's rice-pledging scheme.

Surasak Srirattrakul, a senior public prosecutor, said the fourth conference of the NACC and the Office of the Attorney-General at the NACC's headquarters to find a common ground on the case came to the conclusion that more substantiation, particularly of the previous government's claim of the existence of a government-to-government rice deal, was needed.

The NACC acceded to the state attorneys' request to summon the two witnesses - an accuser over the government-to-government rice sale and a researcher from the Thailand Development Research Institute - and to observe the questioning.

The NACC would also seek more evidence against Yingluck.

The NACC and the Office still had minor differences over the completeness of the NACC's investigative report submitted to the public prosecutors, particularly involving the government-to-government issue, Surasak added.

Sansern Poljieak, secretary-general of the NACC, said he expects the state attorneys to proceed with Yingluck's prosecution at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Offices after interviewing the witnesses.

The prosecutors have been suggesting that the NACC needs to flesh out its case by interrogating more witnesses, but the anti-graft agency has insisted it had already built a strong case against Yingluck.

The NACC also had threatened to take the case to court itself if the Office refused to pursue it.

Sansern, who heads the NACC team in the working group with the Office, said the two witnesses had provided conflicting information and further grilling was needed to "sort things out".

He did not think the statements from the witnesses were directly related to the case against Yingluck, saying the NACC already had initiated a separate investigation for the government-to-government rice sale.

"Further questioning of the witnesses should complete the investigative report," he said.

There were some good signs in the meeting.

"We agreed on all issues and I don't think we will be in conflict again," he said.

The questioning of the two witnesses would take only a short time.

"It will be completed in January and the other evidence should be ready by the end of February," he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NACC-to-question-two-more-in-rice-case-30250689.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-26

[jayjayjayjay]

Lots of kangaroos here!

[Loles]

What kind of question you need more?

Nomen est omen.

Chinawattra ...

[DeaconJohn]

The evidence involving the G2G deal should be made airtight.

Get moving.

[LazarusRising]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

[Baerboxer]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

Are you crazy? Were you here? Or simply another Shin apologist?

She was completely negligent in the duties she swore to undertake. No one with an ounce of sense believes she was actually ever allowed to make decisions of state. On the rare occasions she answered questions or made comments she simply read the scripts and lied.

However, she ain't the first and probably won't be the last. And of course, the OAG are being cowardly in case her brother gets another puppet government in place and starts the retribution. Hell hath no fury like an egotistical maniac sociopath scorned!

She was just a player in the "family business" pushed into the staring limelight. She would be lucky to win a lucky dip let alone another election. All those who voted in the belief she was a breadth of fresh air must feel bitterly betrayed. They just got more of Thaksin's stale air.

[LazarusRising]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

Are you crazy? Were you here? Or simply another Shin apologist?

She was completely negligent in the duties she swore to undertake. No one with an ounce of sense believes she was actually ever allowed to make decisions of state. On the rare occasions she answered questions or made comments she simply read the scripts and lied.

However, she ain't the first and probably won't be the last. And of course, the OAG are being cowardly in case her brother gets another puppet government in place and starts the retribution. Hell hath no fury like an egotistical maniac sociopath scorned!

She was just a player in the "family business" pushed into the staring limelight. She would be lucky to win a lucky dip let alone another election. All those who voted in the belief she was a breadth of fresh air must feel bitterly betrayed. They just got more of Thaksin's stale air.

The Junta has absolute control over every single branch of government. Its authority is unchallenged. Its lackeys hold every post of significance. Its opponents are either exiled or living in suppression under martial law. At this present moment, Prayuth is all powerful. Yet................the case against Yingluck is stalled. Delay. Postponement. Delay. Postponement. If there was even the slightest bit of credibility to the allegations that could withstand the scrutiny of even a semi informed public, Yingluck would have received her 5 year political ban by now. Yet........nothing, just the internal arguing and bickering of a scared and fractious Junta not knowing how to handle this delicate (and corrupt) situation. She wouldn't win a lucky dip? The only reason there is no elections in Thailand is because if there were, it would be Yingluck in both a cakewalk and landslide!

[FangFerang]

Thais have a dilemma here -- and I mean all Thais. If they prosecute her, she becomes a martyr. If they do not prosecute her, they appear powerless.

There are literally millions of lives at stake and the future of a unique and precious nation. This is not a soap opera, nor some entertainment venue. This is the life and well being of 70 million gentle people, who in all ways are deserving of every iota of compassion we can muster.

Posting glib and irreconcilable commentary here is inappropriate. No, coups do not sit well with me, but are the Thais stockpiling weapons over this? Are the Thais screaming bloody murder over this? I speak to Thais, I love Thais, and they are of the opinion that any government that helps them is good. They simply do not care this is a coup.

Who am I to disagree?

They want nothing more than to take care of their families and get on with their lives.

I have to ask: If you are invited to someone's house for dinner, do you pick a side in a family argument? Yes, I have opinions that question the current government, but in all ways everyone must agree they inherited a serious mess.

Please make a note of this. I am a centrist in almost all things. I am neither pro-yellow nor pro-red simply because I am not entitled to any such position. Here, in Thailand, that is the only legal position I may take because this is not my country. I am forbidden from being involved in politics, and you yellow apologists and red apologists are all far outside the rule of law.

Enough is enough, posers.

[EnglishJohn]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

Try writing your comments with logic and reasoning instead of meaningless rhetoric as if a semi-literate child wrote it and then maybe some us will bother to consider what you say.

[Robby nz]

Would seem that now the NACC have called the OAG's bluff, once these 2 witnesses have again been questioned the OAG will not have anything else it can prevaricate with.

It would seem that the 2 to be questioned are : "an accuser over the government-to-government rice sale and a researcher from the Thailand Development Research Institute"

I make the presumption that the accuser is the Democrat party which brought the subject up in the no confidence debate.

It would seem they did extensive research into the subject as per the following report :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/600926-rice-deals-with-china-fake-thai-democrats/ NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE
Rice deals with China fake : opposition

Democrats produce evidence of a dummy firm tied to govt figures

Where the TDRI comes into it remains to be seen.

[tbthailand]

just a question, but didn't Yingluck's lawyer ask to have more witnesses interviewed many months ago and that request was denied?

ah, found a link : http://english.sina.com/world/2014/0708/716405.html

kinda bizarre that the NACC refused to talk to witnesses 5 months ago but now they will.

guess it depends on who does the asking.

[Fat Haggis]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

Try writing your comments with logic and reasoning instead of meaningless rhetoric as if a semi-literate child wrote it and then maybe some us will bother to consider what you say.

Have you stopped for a moment to consider that English might not be the posters first language and they are using an online translation?

Or are you just so perfect it lets you criticise everyone who's not up to your arrogant and elitist supreme attitude ?

It's a multi national forum,any people use translators I bet your dropped a few klanggers when trying to speak Thai!!

[djjamie]

Lots of kangaroos here!

A lot of negligence too!

[candide]

just a question, but didn't Yingluck's lawyer ask to have more witnesses interviewed many months ago and that request was denied?

ah, found a link : http://english.sina.com/world/2014/0708/716405.html

kinda bizarre that the NACC refused to talk to witnesses 5 months ago but now they will.

guess it depends on who does the asking.

Obviously it's their witnesses (witnessing for the accusation), not Yingluck's witnesses.

[Baerboxer]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

Are you crazy? Were you here? Or simply another Shin apologist?

She was completely negligent in the duties she swore to undertake. No one with an ounce of sense believes she was actually ever allowed to make decisions of state. On the rare occasions she answered questions or made comments she simply read the scripts and lied.

However, she ain't the first and probably won't be the last. And of course, the OAG are being cowardly in case her brother gets another puppet government in place and starts the retribution. Hell hath no fury like an egotistical maniac sociopath scorned!

She was just a player in the "family business" pushed into the staring limelight. She would be lucky to win a lucky dip let alone another election. All those who voted in the belief she was a breadth of fresh air must feel bitterly betrayed. They just got more of Thaksin's stale air.

The Junta has absolute control over every single branch of government. Its authority is unchallenged. Its lackeys hold every post of significance. Its opponents are either exiled or living in suppression under martial law. At this present moment, Prayuth is all powerful. Yet................the case against Yingluck is stalled. Delay. Postponement. Delay. Postponement. If there was even the slightest bit of credibility to the allegations that could withstand the scrutiny of even a semi informed public, Yingluck would have received her 5 year political ban by now. Yet........nothing, just the internal arguing and bickering of a scared and fractious Junta not knowing how to handle this delicate (and corrupt) situation. She wouldn't win a lucky dip? The only reason there is no elections in Thailand is because if there were, it would be Yingluck in both a cakewalk and landslide!

Do you see the contradictions in your thoughts? Junta control everything ....... absolute power, authority unchallenged.

But obviously not the OAG. Once again the state prosecutors lack the balls where anything to do with the Shins is concerned. Maybe they've seen what can happen to those who oppose this family clan.

The only reason this hasn't been pushed through is the seemingly unwritten rule among HiSo's elites. None normally face prosecution, with one big exception of course. Same for many other PTP leaders.

You really think Yingluck would maintain her large minority vote - given the poor performances in Don Meuang, BKK governor, and even Chiang Mai (relatively - big sister won but with less votes than her driver who stood in while she and her daughter were serving out their fraud bans). The amnesty for Thakisn above everything fiasco was too much for many former Shin voters judging by the piss poor numbers who attended their beating the war drum rallies. Maybe people don't want to be duped by the desert coward anymore.

[Baerboxer]

just a question, but didn't Yingluck's lawyer ask to have more witnesses interviewed many months ago and that request was denied?

ah, found a link : http://english.sina.com/world/2014/0708/716405.html

kinda bizarre that the NACC refused to talk to witnesses 5 months ago but now they will.

guess it depends on who does the asking.

Aren't the 2 witnesses actually being re-questioned rather than new witnesses? And aren't they witnesses for the prosecution?

Yingluck's lawyers' request was denied, AFAIK, as they simply wanted more, many more, witnesses saying the same thing, nothing new. One of their usual delaying tactics.

[Baerboxer]

Thais have a dilemma here -- and I mean all Thais. If they prosecute her, she becomes a martyr. If they do not prosecute her, they appear powerless.

There are literally millions of lives at stake and the future of a unique and precious nation. This is not a soap opera, nor some entertainment venue. This is the life and well being of 70 million gentle people, who in all ways are deserving of every iota of compassion we can muster.

Posting glib and irreconcilable commentary here is inappropriate. No, coups do not sit well with me, but are the Thais stockpiling weapons over this? Are the Thais screaming bloody murder over this? I speak to Thais, I love Thais, and they are of the opinion that any government that helps them is good. They simply do not care this is a coup.

Who am I to disagree?

They want nothing more than to take care of their families and get on with their lives.

I have to ask: If you are invited to someone's house for dinner, do you pick a side in a family argument? Yes, I have opinions that question the current government, but in all ways everyone must agree they inherited a serious mess.

Please make a note of this. I am a centrist in almost all things. I am neither pro-yellow nor pro-red simply because I am not entitled to any such position. Here, in Thailand, that is the only legal position I may take because this is not my country. I am forbidden from being involved in politics, and you yellow apologists and red apologists are all far outside the rule of law.

Enough is enough, posers.

Martyr - you jest surely?

She was the little rich sister of the very rich criminal who acted as his proxy. No more no less. The Shins are not some freedom fighting democracy loving socialist uprising. They are a rich multi billionaire elite hiso family clan engaged in power struggles with their rivals. Should they win, they and only they will benefit along with any cronies they deem necessary.

[Thai at Heart]

Thais have a dilemma here -- and I mean all Thais. If they prosecute her, she becomes a martyr. If they do not prosecute her, they appear powerless.

There are literally millions of lives at stake and the future of a unique and precious nation. This is not a soap opera, nor some entertainment venue. This is the life and well being of 70 million gentle people, who in all ways are deserving of every iota of compassion we can muster.

Posting glib and irreconcilable commentary here is inappropriate. No, coups do not sit well with me, but are the Thais stockpiling weapons over this? Are the Thais screaming bloody murder over this? I speak to Thais, I love Thais, and they are of the opinion that any government that helps them is good. They simply do not care this is a coup.

Who am I to disagree?

They want nothing more than to take care of their families and get on with their lives.

I have to ask: If you are invited to someone's house for dinner, do you pick a side in a family argument? Yes, I have opinions that question the current government, but in all ways everyone must agree they inherited a serious mess.

Please make a note of this. I am a centrist in almost all things. I am neither pro-yellow nor pro-red simply because I am not entitled to any such position. Here, in Thailand, that is the only legal position I may take because this is not my country. I am forbidden from being involved in politics, and you yellow apologists and red apologists are all far outside the rule of law.

Enough is enough, posers.

Have you considered the possibility that they might not have much of a case, or that she simply acted similarly to previous PMs and sent minions as a proxy to attend meetings and represent?

Hence why they may not actually want the embarrassment of losing?

[rubl]

Have you considered the possibility that they might not have much of a case, or that she simply acted similarly to previous PMs and sent minions as a proxy to attend meetings and represent?

Hence why they may not actually want the embarrassment of losing?

Have you considered the possibility that if Ms. Yingluck sent minions as proxy (assuming she did), she is negligent by failing to ensure those proxies did their work correctly? Furthermore just sending proxies itself already suggests a certain level of negligence. She took the chair of the NRPC to better observe / control the RPPS her government had enacted. If she send proxies that suggests she had no interest or no time and therefore should not have taken the chair, but let some of her knowledgeble, capable, full of potential people take it.

[Thai at Heart]

Have you considered the possibility that they might not have much of a case, or that she simply acted similarly to previous PMs and sent minions as a proxy to attend meetings and represent?

Hence why they may not actually want the embarrassment of losing?

Have you considered the possibility that if Ms. Yingluck sent minions as proxy (assuming she did), she is negligent by failing to ensure those proxies did their work correctly? Furthermore just sending proxies itself already suggests a certain level of negligence. She took the chair of the NRPC to better observe / control the RPPS her government had enacted. If she send proxies that suggests she had no interest or no time and therefore should not have taken the chair, but let some of her knowledgeble, capable, full of potential people take it.

Not really. It is presumably very common that PMs cannot attend absolutely every meeting for which they are scheduled to attend as part of or head a policy board.

They have their jobs to do, domestically and internationally that cannot always be according to their schedule. That is what there are deputy PMs for. At least that was what it was the last time I looked.

Do you know whether or not she had legitinate reasons to miss some or all of these meetings? No, and neither do I.

Because, if this is such an obvious open and shut case, what on earth is anyone waiting for?

[rubl]

Have you considered the possibility that they might not have much of a case, or that she simply acted similarly to previous PMs and sent minions as a proxy to attend meetings and represent?

Hence why they may not actually want the embarrassment of losing?

Have you considered the possibility that if Ms. Yingluck sent minions as proxy (assuming she did), she is negligent by failing to ensure those proxies did their work correctly? Furthermore just sending proxies itself already suggests a certain level of negligence. She took the chair of the NRPC to better observe / control the RPPS her government had enacted. If she send proxies that suggests she had no interest or no time and therefore should not have taken the chair, but let some of her knowledgeble, capable, full of potential people take it.

Not really. It is presumably very common that PMs cannot attend absolutely every meeting for which they are scheduled to attend as part of or head a policy board.

They have their jobs to do, domestically and internationally that cannot always be according to their schedule. That is what there are deputy PMs for. At least that was what it was the last time I looked.

Do you know whether or not she had legitinate reasons to miss some or all of these meetings? No, and neither do I.

Because, if this is such an obvious open and shut case, what on earth is anyone waiting for?

You're getting very vague on your assumptions which means anything you base on them is getting more and more simple speculation.

Furthermore if this PM cannot attend every meeting then why did she take the chair of the NRPC? Realising she didn't have the time why didn't she pass the chair to one of her Dept. PMs or some other worthy chaps? How many meetings did she actually chair?

As for legitimate reasons not to attend, well, maybe she had another meeting in the Four Seasons? The one we know of she missed a parliamentary session just to listen to some business people.

Waiting is now for the OAG to get off its .... It would seem it accepted the "premeditated murder by two private persons" case with much less information than this possible case.

[Thai at Heart]

Have you considered the possibility that they might not have much of a case, or that she simply acted similarly to previous PMs and sent minions as a proxy to attend meetings and represent?

Hence why they may not actually want the embarrassment of losing?

Have you considered the possibility that if Ms. Yingluck sent minions as proxy (assuming she did), she is negligent by failing to ensure those proxies did their work correctly? Furthermore just sending proxies itself already suggests a certain level of negligence. She took the chair of the NRPC to better observe / control the RPPS her government had enacted. If she send proxies that suggests she had no interest or no time and therefore should not have taken the chair, but let some of her knowledgeble, capable, full of potential people take it.

Not really. It is presumably very common that PMs cannot attend absolutely every meeting for which they are scheduled to attend as part of or head a policy board.

They have their jobs to do, domestically and internationally that cannot always be according to their schedule. That is what there are deputy PMs for. At least that was what it was the last time I looked.

Do you know whether or not she had legitinate reasons to miss some or all of these meetings? No, and neither do I.

Because, if this is such an obvious open and shut case, what on earth is anyone waiting for?

You're getting very vague on your assumptions which means anything you base on them is getting more and more simple speculation.

Furthermore if this PM cannot attend every meeting then why did she take the chair of the NRPC? Realising she didn't have the time why didn't she pass the chair to one of her Dept. PMs or some other worthy chaps? How many meetings did she actually chair?

As for legitimate reasons not to attend, well, maybe she had another meeting in the Four Seasons? The one we know of she missed a parliamentary session just to listen to some business people.

Waiting is now for the OAG to get off its .... It would seem it accepted the "premeditated murder by two private persons" case with much less information than this possible case.

I fear, that there will be (she will claim)a very simple basic reason for her absences and as such, they cannot pin her for negligence.

Politicians miss appointments for committees all the time. Part of their job is not to be stuck in town all the time. I am not speculating at all about why she may or may not have missed meetings.

The accusation is that she was negligent because she missed meetings. Well I offer a simple reason why any politician, or any other person misses a meeting. They are otherwise engaged..

It is the responskbility of the prosecution to prove why. Did this committee miss every week or month? Any details anyone?

Because this "we all know she was negligent" with zero detail is getting rather tedious. The fact that they are dillying to take the case is strange if, all they have to do is prove she was in bangkok but deliberately avoiding these meetings.

I mean she has a diary of her events and where she was. This can be checked in 20 minutes.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[mikemac]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

Try writing your comments with logic and reasoning instead of meaningless rhetoric as if a semi-literate child wrote it and then maybe some us will bother to consider what you say.

Have you stopped for a moment to consider that English might not be the posters first language and they are using an online translation?

Or are you just so perfect it lets you criticise everyone who's not up to your arrogant and elitist supreme attitude ?

It's a multi national forum,any people use translators I bet your dropped a few klanggers when trying to speak Thai!!

My first wife and I went to a restaurant in Chiang Rai years ago and I thought I would try out my Thai language skills by ordering a banana shake.

The waiter looked very embarrassed and ran back to the kitchen.

My distraught wife informed me that I had asked him if he could shake his banana for me.

I ended up with a bottle of water.

So I can see your point Fatty.

[rubl]

Not really. It is presumably very common that PMs cannot attend absolutely every meeting for which they are scheduled to attend as part of or head a policy board.

They have their jobs to do, domestically and internationally that cannot always be according to their schedule. That is what there are deputy PMs for. At least that was what it was the last time I looked.

Do you know whether or not she had legitinate reasons to miss some or all of these meetings? No, and neither do I.

Because, if this is such an obvious open and shut case, what on earth is anyone waiting for?

You're getting very vague on your assumptions which means anything you base on them is getting more and more simple speculation.

Furthermore if this PM cannot attend every meeting then why did she take the chair of the NRPC? Realising she didn't have the time why didn't she pass the chair to one of her Dept. PMs or some other worthy chaps? How many meetings did she actually chair?

As for legitimate reasons not to attend, well, maybe she had another meeting in the Four Seasons? The one we know of she missed a parliamentary session just to listen to some business people.

Waiting is now for the OAG to get off its .... It would seem it accepted the "premeditated murder by two private persons" case with much less information than this possible case.

I fear, that there will be (she will claim)a very simple basic reason for her absences and as such, they cannot pin her for negligence.

Politicians miss appointments for committees all the time. Part of their job is not to be stuck in town all the time. I am not speculating at all about why she may or may not have missed meetings.

The accusation is that she was negligent because she missed meetings. Well I offer a simple reason why any politician, or any other person misses a meeting. They are otherwise engaged..

It is the responskbility of the prosecution to prove why. Did this committee miss every week or month? Any details anyone?

Because this "we all know she was negligent" with zero detail is getting rather tedious. The fact that they are dillying to take the case is strange if, all they have to do is prove she was in bangkok but deliberately avoiding these meetings.

I mean she has a diary of her events and where she was. This can be checked in 20 minutes.

I fear as well there will be basic reasons for her absences. Maybe her Office of the PM team wasn't up to standards, the Four Seasons meetings wasn't registered, allegedly.

BTW no need to go into the absurd to find excuses for Ms. Yingluck. She has a large legal team to do that for her.

[tbthailand]

just a question, but didn't Yingluck's lawyer ask to have more witnesses interviewed many months ago and that request was denied?

ah, found a link : http://english.sina.com/world/2014/0708/716405.html

kinda bizarre that the NACC refused to talk to witnesses 5 months ago but now they will.

guess it depends on who does the asking.

Aren't the 2 witnesses actually being re-questioned rather than new witnesses? And aren't they witnesses for the prosecution?

Yingluck's lawyers' request was denied, AFAIK, as they simply wanted more, many more, witnesses saying the same thing, nothing new. One of their usual delaying tactics.

well, I don't know if they have been called before, but from this article, it sounds like they are new witnesses.

[Thai at Heart]

Not really. It is presumably very common that PMs cannot attend absolutely every meeting for which they are scheduled to attend as part of or head a policy board.

They have their jobs to do, domestically and internationally that cannot always be according to their schedule. That is what there are deputy PMs for. At least that was what it was the last time I looked.

Do you know whether or not she had legitinate reasons to miss some or all of these meetings? No, and neither do I.

Because, if this is such an obvious open and shut case, what on earth is anyone waiting for?

You're getting very vague on your assumptions which means anything you base on them is getting more and more simple speculation.

Furthermore if this PM cannot attend every meeting then why did she take the chair of the NRPC? Realising she didn't have the time why didn't she pass the chair to one of her Dept. PMs or some other worthy chaps? How many meetings did she actually chair?

As for legitimate reasons not to attend, well, maybe she had another meeting in the Four Seasons? The one we know of she missed a parliamentary session just to listen to some business people.

Waiting is now for the OAG to get off its .... It would seem it accepted the "premeditated murder by two private persons" case with much less information than this possible case.

I fear, that there will be (she will claim)a very simple basic reason for her absences and as such, they cannot pin her for negligence.

Politicians miss appointments for committees all the time. Part of their job is not to be stuck in town all the time. I am not speculating at all about why she may or may not have missed meetings.

The accusation is that she was negligent because she missed meetings. Well I offer a simple reason why any politician, or any other person misses a meeting. They are otherwise engaged..

It is the responskbility of the prosecution to prove why. Did this committee miss every week or month? Any details anyone?

Because this "we all know she was negligent" with zero detail is getting rather tedious. The fact that they are dillying to take the case is strange if, all they have to do is prove she was in bangkok but deliberately avoiding these meetings.

I mean she has a diary of her events and where she was. This can be checked in 20 minutes.

I fear as well there will be basic reasons for her absences. Maybe her Office of the PM team wasn't up to standards, the Four Seasons meetings wasn't registered, allegedly.

BTW no need to go into the absurd to find excuses for Ms. Yingluck. She has a large legal team to do that for her.

Let's see how it pans out. Because I will have a little smirk on my face when her absences match those of all the previous PMs who have also missed plenty of meetings too.

There is some big reason that undermines the entire accusation that is preventing this case from proceeding. I don't know what it is, but it is some basic bit of dirt that will probably buy her a get out of jail card.

I will just sit back and watch because for some reason this case is stuck.

[JAG]

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. How to stop Ms. Yingluck from winning the next election? Trouble ahead for the unelected and unwanted few. This joke of a charge can never be presented to the public with a straight face. Uh oh, games nearly up.

Are you crazy? Were you here? Or simply another Shin apologist?

She was completely negligent in the duties she swore to undertake. No one with an ounce of sense believes she was actually ever allowed to make decisions of state. On the rare occasions she answered questions or made comments she simply read the scripts and lied.

However, she ain't the first and probably won't be the last. And of course, the OAG are being cowardly in case her brother gets another puppet government in place and starts the retribution. Hell hath no fury like an egotistical maniac sociopath scorned!

She was just a player in the "family business" pushed into the staring limelight. She would be lucky to win a lucky dip let alone another election. All those who voted in the belief she was a breadth of fresh air must feel bitterly betrayed. They just got more of Thaksin's stale air.

The Junta has absolute control over every single branch of government. Its authority is unchallenged. Its lackeys hold every post of significance. Its opponents are either exiled or living in suppression under martial law. At this present moment, Prayuth is all powerful. Yet................the case against Yingluck is stalled. Delay. Postponement. Delay. Postponement. If there was even the slightest bit of credibility to the allegations that could withstand the scrutiny of even a semi informed public, Yingluck would have received her 5 year political ban by now. Yet........nothing, just the internal arguing and bickering of a scared and fractious Junta not knowing how to handle this delicate (and corrupt) situation. She wouldn't win a lucky dip? The only reason there is no elections in Thailand is because if there were, it would be Yingluck in both a cakewalk and landslide!

Do you see the contradictions in your thoughts? Junta control everything ....... absolute power, authority unchallenged.

But obviously not the OAG. Once again the state prosecutors lack the balls where anything to do with the Shins is concerned. Maybe they've seen what can happen to those who oppose this family clan.

The only reason this hasn't been pushed through is the seemingly unwritten rule among HiSo's elites. None normally face prosecution, with one big exception of course. Same for many other PTP leaders.

You really think Yingluck would maintain her large minority vote - given the poor performances in Don Meuang, BKK governor, and even Chiang Mai (relatively - big sister won but with less votes than her driver who stood in while she and her daughter were serving out their fraud bans). The amnesty for Thakisn above everything fiasco was too much for many former Shin voters judging by the piss poor numbers who attended their beating the war drum rallies. Maybe people don't want to be duped by the desert coward anymore.

Yet the February election had to be stopped. And the Junta can't contemplate going to the electorate for the foreseeable future.

[rametindallas]

The disagreement between the NACC and the OAG is more proof that Prayut is controlling everything... oh, wait!

[DaffyDuck]

Posting glib and irreconcilable commentary here is inappropriate. No, coups do not sit well with me, but are the Thais stockpiling weapons over this? Are the Thais screaming bloody murder over this? I speak to Thais, I love Thais, and they are of the opinion that any government that helps them is good. They simply do not care this is a coup. (...)

Enough is enough, posers.

Well said - sadly we have the likes of LazarusRising and tbthailand's who have appointed themselves as 'supreme protectors of thainess' and feel they can only do that through misrepresentations and lies.

There is no case. That facade is crumbling. Delay, delay, delay. (...)

Try writing your comments with logic and reasoning instead of meaningless rhetoric as if a semi-literate child wrote it and then maybe some us will bother to consider what you say.

LOL.

[jayboy]

Thais have a dilemma here -- and I mean all Thais. If they prosecute her, she becomes a martyr. If they do not prosecute her, they appear powerless.

There are literally millions of lives at stake and the future of a unique and precious nation. This is not a soap opera, nor some entertainment venue. This is the life and well being of 70 million gentle people, who in all ways are deserving of every iota of compassion we can muster.

Posting glib and irreconcilable commentary here is inappropriate. No, coups do not sit well with me, but are the Thais stockpiling weapons over this? Are the Thais screaming bloody murder over this? I speak to Thais, I love Thais, and they are of the opinion that any government that helps them is good. They simply do not care this is a coup.

Who am I to disagree?

They want nothing more than to take care of their families and get on with their lives.

I have to ask: If you are invited to someone's house for dinner, do you pick a side in a family argument? Yes, I have opinions that question the current government, but in all ways everyone must agree they inherited a serious mess.

Please make a note of this. I am a centrist in almost all things. I am neither pro-yellow nor pro-red simply because I am not entitled to any such position. Here, in Thailand, that is the only legal position I may take because this is not my country. I am forbidden from being involved in politics, and you yellow apologists and red apologists are all far outside the rule of law.

Enough is enough, posers.

I expect your heart is in the right place but you are talking nonsense.

How is the prosecution of Yingluck a dilemma for all Thai people? They will have nothing to do with the decision.The last time they collectively took a decision on Yingluck was to vote her into power in free and fair elections.Most commentators agree that if an election was held now she would win again.Hence the efforts to ban her from political life.

Of course the rice case must be investigated and any criminality punished.All criminality should be punished.But apart from the zealots no serious person accuses Yingluck of criminality.

By the way as an aside who are these 70 million gentle people? I'm fond of Thailand and the Thais too but would never describe them as gentle.

The most absurd of your comments is on one hand to suggest guest foreigners should keep schtum and not take sides, and then do that youself with uninformed comments about Thais tolerating the current government, ignoring the fact that the "serious mess" was caused in large part by those factions that overthrew democracy.

Like many foreigners you live in a fantasy dream world of gentle Thais and illusion of benign "good" people who know what's best for the majority.I remember the sacrifices made by brave Thais for democracy including the bloodshed in 1973.I suspect you are just ignorant but people like you insult the past and the huge number of Thais determined to see a fairer and morer free country.

Edited December 28, 2014 by jayboy