NLA panel receives over 20 questions for grilling Yingluck so far

BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly's ad hoc panel in charge of grilling former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra over the rice-pledging case has so far received over 20 questions from NLA members, Kittisak Ratanawaraha, a member of the panel, said Sunday.

He said his panel would receive questions from NLA members until Tuesday and would hold a meeting to select questions for Yingluck to answer to the NLA. Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme, Kittisak added.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/NLA-panel-receives-over-20-questions-for-grilling--30251677.html

-- The Nation 2015-01-11

"Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme,"

I doubt she can clarify anything.....she never knew anything she was never capable of being a PM.

The only thing she's good at, is crying and thanking people 3 times.

"Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme,"

I doubt she can clarify anything.....she never knew anything she was never capable of being a PM.

The only thing she's good at, is crying and thanking people 3 times.

you forgot shopping as well....

"Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme,"

I doubt she can clarify anything.....she never knew anything she was never capable of being a PM.

The only thing she's good at, is crying and thanking people 3 times.

you forgot shopping as well....

........and First Class World Travel. She does have one skill which may come in handy, perjury, though she is apparently inept at that as well.

So all this time they have been trying to get her in court they are only now coming up with questions to ask her?

Sounds like they have a great case.

Nothing instils confidence more than to be grilled by an Ad hoc panel, this infers a disjointed panel of the NLA are going to question the former PM, I have no qualms about this proceeding, as the whole of Thailand's government is Ad Hoc.

her defense will be scrambling to do that with so many reputable sources coming out with high numbers it will be difficult to keep them down.

However surely that is not the point, you cant determine whether she has done her job correctly or not by how much has been lost, if the loss is 500 billion does that mean she has not been negligent whereas if it were 700 billion she was ?

The focus of the questions should be to make her prove the statements she made in her evidence and to ask her to prove that she actually exerted good governance over the scheme.

Where are the minutes of the meetings she was supposed to chair, what input did she really have into the policy committee, where is the proof that the G 2 G deals were real and not lies to make it look like something was happening, if they did happen there will be shipping details, letters of credit, bank deposits and details of how much was paid and to whom.

The very fact that she did, what was it 52 overseas trips, (correct that number if I am wrong) in two and a half years does not give her much time at home to do much at all.

Over to you madam ex PM, if you turn up.

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

her defense will be scrambling to do that with so many reputable sources coming out with high numbers it will be difficult to keep them down.

However surely that is not the point, you cant determine whether she has done her job correctly or not by how much has been lost, if the loss is 500 billion does that mean she has not been negligent whereas if it were 700 billion she was ?

The focus of the questions should be to make her prove the statements she made in her evidence and to ask her to prove that she actually exerted good governance over the scheme.

Where are the minutes of the meetings she was supposed to chair, what input did she really have into the policy committee, where is the proof that the G 2 G deals were real and not lies to make it look like something was happening, if they did happen there will be shipping details, letters of credit, bank deposits and details of how much was paid and to whom.

The very fact that she did, what was it 52 overseas trips, (correct that number if I am wrong) in two and a half years does not give her much time at home to do much at all.

Over to you madam ex PM, if you turn up.

Also:

Will she be told the list of questions in advance?

For some of the agreed specific questions will the NLA investigate in advance of the answers being given, to compare answers?

It doesn't matter what questions they come up with to ask her. She will only forward them to her lawyers since she is clueless what was going on in that scheme. Then she will either try to memorize what her lawyers tell her or she will change the topic so she double talks her way through without answering anything

"Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme,"

I doubt she can clarify anything.....she never knew anything she was never capable of being a PM.

The only thing she's good at, is crying and thanking people 3 times.

you forgot shopping as well....

........and First Class World Travel. She does have one skill which may come in handy, perjury, though she is apparently inept at that as well.

I am really starting to wonder how many young teenage members we have now on TV with responses like these? Sounds like the comments I usually read on youtube, I guess next they will bring up is her mulberry boots as the "smoking gun" proof against her for corruption and conspiracy. Seems that serious debate has left the building.

20 questions is 20 questions way too many. Only five pertinent questions need answering, in order to lay blame with accuracy. Otherwise it is an easy shift of blame and a get out clause offer - or waiver of charges against the constitution. Nobody, in any position, seems to understand the simplicities, and all seem to want to over-complicate matters, and that can only be for one of two reasons, namely: 1) fear, or 2) graft!

"Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme,"

I doubt she can clarify anything.....she never knew anything she was never capable of being a PM.

The only thing she's good at, is crying and thanking people 3 times.

you forgot shopping as well....

........and First Class World Travel. She does have one skill which may come in handy, perjury, though she is apparently inept at that as well.

I am really starting to wonder how many young teenage members we have now on TV with responses like these? Sounds like the comments I usually read on youtube, I guess next they will bring up is her mulberry boots as the "smoking gun" proof against her for corruption and conspiracy. Seems that serious debate has left the building.

Thank you Sir......how did you know I'm a teenager?

If they get one true answer they will be lucky,and that one

could be what is your name.

regards worgeordie

Amazing, simply amazing that so many fine gentlemen at Thaivisa don't have one good thing to say about the former PM.

I also find it amazing that she alone is found guilty when probably thousands of wheelers and dealers, official and farmer took part

enriching themselves...........

Well, human kind has a long history of crucifying one person for the fowl deeds of the many.........

"Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme,"

I doubt she can clarify anything.....she never knew anything she was never capable of being a PM.

The only thing she's good at, is crying and thanking people 3 times.

you forgot shopping as well....

........and First Class World Travel. She does have one skill which may come in handy, perjury, though she is apparently inept at that as well.

What about lying in the most unconvincing way imaginable? She was pretty damn special at that too

"Most NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme,"

I doubt she can clarify anything.....she never knew anything she was never capable of being a PM.

The only thing she's good at, is crying and thanking people 3 times.

you forgot shopping as well....

........and First Class World Travel. She does have one skill which may come in handy, perjury, though she is apparently inept at that as well.

I am really starting to wonder how many young teenage members we have now on TV with responses like these? Sounds like the comments I usually read on youtube, I guess next they will bring up is her mulberry boots as the "smoking gun" proof against her for corruption and conspiracy. Seems that serious debate has left the building.

Thank you Sir......how did you know I'm a teenager?

You seem to take delight being called a juvenile. Did you miss much yesterday at the Parliment House.

In all seriousness robbynz post no7 has hit the nail on the head. There is no need for a big song and dance. Simply Yingluck needs to show clearly how and when she showed leadership, tackled unforeseen problems and generally steered the ship in the right direction.

If she is able to prove undoubtedly that she performed acts of leadership that improved the running of the scheme and checked the conduct of those involved in the scheme when either in Thailand or from afar, then any case the NACC presents can be countered effectively.

Her simply saying that the scheme meant well and that any personal scrutiny towards her is politically motivated is indeed a very big cop out and simply compounds the belief that she would rather deflect criticism, bury her head in the sand and blame others first before actually addressing the problem at hand.

She has (in public view at least) never given any kind of scrutiny towards the rice pledging scheme since 2011. This is in spite of numerous farmer suicides, warnings from external agencies and clear information from finance ministries and well placed ministers pointing towards lack of sufficient funds to run the scheme effectively and transparently.

She hasn't helped herself yet and by her latest speech doesn't appear to be starting to do that either.

A lot of things are sorely lacking about her. Even the blind could see it, unless of course they were in complete denial

And for the twentieth time, Yingluck is married and not available for a date!!!

.....

Well, human kind has a long history of crucifying one person for the fowl deeds of the many.........

Do keep up. It's a rice farming scheme, not a chicken farming one.

Amazing, simply amazing that so many fine gentlemen at Thaivisa don't have one good thing to say about the former PM.

I also find it amazing that she alone is found guilty when probably thousands of wheelers and dealers, official and farmer took part

enriching themselves...........

Well, human kind has a long history of crucifying one person for the fowl deeds of the many.........

So tell us what good things do you have to say about the former PM? Can you also tell what good did she do for the the country and the Thai people during her time as a PM?

Amazing, simply amazing that so many fine gentlemen at Thaivisa don't have one good thing to say about the former PM.

I also find it amazing that she alone is found guilty when probably thousands of wheelers and dealers, official and farmer took part

enriching themselves...........

Well, human kind has a long history of crucifying one person for the fowl deeds of the many.........

Whats that got to do with it, try to understand what this is about.

Its not about any corruption within the scheme or anyone enriching themselves it is far above that and these things will come later.

Its about whether she did or did not do the job she took on as chair of the rice pledging committee, whether she exerted good governance over the scheme.

Its not about holding her responsible for the actions of others its about holding her responsible for her own actions, or in this case inaction, called negligence.

That her negligence may have allowed others to get away with corruption and straight out theft does not automatically make her corrupt or a thief, she may not have known or understood what was happening as she was in a position of taking advice from, and the word of others.

Right now she is being presented with pieces of paper to read and coached in what to say, whether she has a full understanding of the rice scheme is debatable and unlikely.

Personally I think she is a victim in all of this, a victim of her brothers politics that is, and has been put in this position to become a martyr to his ambitions.

Amazing, simply amazing that so many fine gentlemen at Thaivisa don't have one good thing to say about the former PM.

I also find it amazing that she alone is found guilty when probably thousands of wheelers and dealers, official and farmer took part

enriching themselves...........

Well, human kind has a long history of crucifying one person for the fowl deeds of the many.........

She is just the first of many who will be found guilty of incompetence, theft, graft, lying and corruption. They are just starting with the chairwoman and her only defence is she knows nothing as she wasn't actually at any of the Rice scam meetings - probably TS told her not to attend so she could deny any knowledge of corruption , not realising that she would be charged with neglegence for not attending.

So all this time they have been trying to get her in court they are only now coming up with questions to ask her?

Sounds like they have a great case.

Might it be a list of questions still not answered even after the 'wonderful' defence statement Ms. Yingluck read out on Friday?

The question on losses comes to mind, but I doubt Ms. Yingluck will be able to answer that one. Mind you she would only need to ask the BAAC for the balance of the 'revolving funds' she as PM and leader of the government stood guarantee for.

20 questions is 20 questions way too many. Only five pertinent questions need answering, in order to lay blame with accuracy. Otherwise it is an easy shift of blame and a get out clause offer - or waiver of charges against the constitution. Nobody, in any position, seems to understand the simplicities, and all seem to want to over-complicate matters, and that can only be for one of two reasons, namely: 1) fear, or 2) graft!

1. Ms. Yingluck, did you position the RPPS as 'self-financing' scheme?

2. Ms. Yingluck, did your government get warnings about losses ?

3. Ms. Yingluck, did your government state to heed warnings and do all to take care of them?

4. Ms. Yingluck, did your government state mid-2013 losses were US$4.4 billion?

5. Ms. Yingluck, did you state in the last censure debate in parliament November 2013 that you and only you were in charge of your cabinet and government?

I doubt a "yes, but" is acceptable.

The 20 questions is a sham. If there was true corruption in this case all they have to do is follow a money trail using forensic accounts and investigators. It is not really difficult even if cash was used, search warrants could be used to search anyone involved in it. They could search their houses, and acquaintances from top to bottom or anywhere else they think the money is. They've had months and months and they can't even give an accurate amount of rice that is currently in storage or the quality of it. We keep hearing figures that it may have cost between 200 to 900 billion in debt to the government. Question her all they want but they have burden to prove their case against her. They should Televise the the hearing and let the people see how she answers questions as she has requested, if they are afraid of double talk, they simply have to ask her yes or no questions.

Should not be a problem for Yingluck to answer all 20 questions or more. Point is whether the NLA already have a verdict in mind and all this is just a dog and pony show. Eventually an election will have to be held and the real judge will be the people.

So all this time they have been trying to get her in court they are only now coming up with questions to ask her?

Sounds like they have a great case.

If you are going to post on this subject at least try to keep up.

The questions that are to be asked are in relation to her defense that she submitted, they will be asking her to clarify what she said.

How on earth could the NLA ask her questions on her defense submission before they had heard it ?

You would know if you had been following this that they will also be asking questions of the NACC on their submission.

The procedure for these hearings was agreed upon and notified, they would first hear submissions, then ask questions of both parties, they then debate and vote in an agreed time frame.

So all this time they have been trying to get her in court they are only now coming up with questions to ask her?

Sounds like they have a great case.

If you are going to post on this subject at least try to keep up.

The questions that are to be asked are in relation to her defense that she submitted, they will be asking her to clarify what she said.

How on earth could the NLA ask her questions on her defense submission before they had heard it ?

You would know if you had been following this that they will also be asking questions of the NACC on their submission.

The procedure for these hearings was agreed upon and notified, they would first hear submissions, then ask questions of both parties, they then debate and vote in an agreed time frame.

Agreed, I wonder why the YS & TS supporters can't comprehend - maybe because the truth hurts and they prefer fiction.

Should not be a problem for Yingluck to answer all 20 questions or more. Point is whether the NLA already have a verdict in mind and all this is just a dog and pony show. Eventually an election will have to be held and the real judge will be the people.

I'm sure the NLA is wondering after all delaying tactics, obfuscation, a defence statement answering all question not asked as they were irrelevant, clear reluctance or even disinterest to prove on-topic answers.

They might consider handing back the case to the NACC as 'negligence' is an incorrect charge. "criminal intend to deceive" and maybe "fraud" added to it seems more accurate.

And for the twentieth time, Yingluck is married and not available for a date!!!

Common Law only.

Did you ever read the Frank Herbert book "Dune" or watch the movie? Some reasoning is given there.