NLA panel receives over 20 questions for grilling Yingluck so far

[rubl]

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.

May I respectfully remind you that the charge against Ms. Yingluck is not corruption but negligence?

[Baerboxer]

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.

Have you been following things closely?

She made a presentation which she thinks explained her position. These questions are the result of the content of her presentation and will probe the gaps she left out, like how much was really lost.

The case is about as obvious as the pimple on your arse to anyone who wants to see it rather than pretend.

[Baerboxer]

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.

I thought Thailand legally only recognizes marriages registered officially at the Amphor?

Village ceremonies, no matter how posh, mean nothing and can't be used for obtaining visas etc.

[Baerboxer]

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.

They will never accept the Shins are guilty of anything and will continue to claim they are above the law and champions pf the poor, democracy and all that is good.

Sad, but there you are.

[Thai at Heart]

st NLA members want Yingluck to clarify the exact figure of losses of the scheme, Kittisak added.

Earth to NLA, she's been out of power for months, they should know better than her.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

I somehow think u might be disappointed in their questioning.

She doesn't know the loss today, ergo she is guilty will probably be the extent of it.

[candide]

I think all this is mainly for the show! The decision has probably already been taken by the Junta on political reasons. Is it politically better for the Junta to get rid of her for 5 years, or is it better to negotiate some agreement with the red side. That's the main criteria.

My guess is that if she's impeached, it doesn't necessarily mean that she's guilty. If she's not impeached, it probably also doesn't mean she's not guilty (whatever the way you can assess guilt, wich is quite debatable). It will mean it has been perceived as the best political decision to make in the current context (including -------).

[Anthony5]

so far received over 20 questions from NLA members, Kittisak Ratanawaraha, a member of the panel, said Sunday

How many questions is she allowed to answer wrong.

How any wildcards will she be allowed to use.

How many questions she can phone a realtive?

I suggest for the latter they should give her an allowance of 21.

[rubl]

I think all this is mainly for the show! The decision has probably already been taken by the Junta on political reasons. Is it politically better for the Junta to get rid of her for 5 years, or is it better to negotiate some agreement with the red side. That's the main criteria.

My guess is that if she's impeached, it doesn't necessarily mean that she's guilty. If she's not impeached, it probably also doesn't mean she's not guilty (whatever the way you can assess guilt, wich is quite debatable). It will mean it has been perceived as the best political decision to make in the current context (including -------).

Correct. It's to show that even politicians and PMs shouldn't lie too much. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament to be in charge and somehow she doesn't seem to be able to answer simple questions.

A 'self-financing' scheme lost hundreds of billions. Her own government even admitted to US$4.4 billion mid-2013. 'negligence'? How about 'intent to deceive' ?

The only political aspects here seem to be brought up by those who have no other explanation for those billion lost and still want to help a PM who caused it.

[yellowboat]

This will end up being a total waste of time and money. The junta's legal authority is questionable as are the proceedings.

[candide]

I think all this is mainly for the show! The decision has probably already been taken by the Junta on political reasons. Is it politically better for the Junta to get rid of her for 5 years, or is it better to negotiate some agreement with the red side. That's the main criteria.

My guess is that if she's impeached, it doesn't necessarily mean that she's guilty. If she's not impeached, it probably also doesn't mean she's not guilty (whatever the way you can assess guilt, wich is quite debatable). It will mean it has been perceived as the best political decision to make in the current context (including -------).

Correct. It's to show that even politicians and PMs shouldn't lie too much. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament to be in charge and somehow she doesn't seem to be able to answer simple questions.

A 'self-financing' scheme lost hundreds of billions. Her own government even admitted to US$4.4 billion mid-2013. 'negligence'? How about 'intent to deceive' ?

The only political aspects here seem to be brought up by those who have no other explanation for those billion lost and still want to help a PM who caused it.

The political aspect is brought up by those who question the legitimacy and neutrality of a handpicked NLA. Because they have no legitimacy and are not neutral, their decisions will always be suspected.

If she's impeached the democracy supporters will say that it was politicaly motivated in order to purge the system from the Shinawatras. If she's not impeached, the yellow supporters will say that it was politically motivated in order to avoid political unrest.

[Chris Lawrence]

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.

May I respectfully remind you that the charge against Ms. Yingluck is not corruption but negligence?

And I respectfully remind you this is a purge of enemies of the elite. Marine, has a point that there were others that profited from this Government scheme; they need to be a party to proceedings.

The mad monk and Abhisit are also lying low over their charges of giving orders to fire upon a crowd?

I offer no support for Yingluck or the self-appointed Prime Minister.

What do you think this is really about Rubi. I don't think it is an ideological principle as both sides have no principles when making money on the side. I have always seen this as a breaking of the code. That is Thaksin made too much money and wasn't going to share. The sly water buffalo from the north. Or more to the point rubbing ones nose in the sh!t.

I just wish I could save like the military hierarchy does on their wages.

Negligence, more like hypocrisy/conceit gone made?

[diehard60]

"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.

It is real hard to prove your ability in a short period of time. And when the people in these non elected jobs do not do their job.

[webfact]

IMPEACHMENT
Yingluck urged to answer NLA's questions in person
The Nation

Impeachment committee wants to know why the former premier failed to stop the rice pledging scheme after she had been warned about huge losses, graft

BANGKOK: - Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would help her case considerably by personally answering questions and delivering her closing statement at her impeachment hearing related to her administration's rice-pledging scheme, a key National Legislative Assembly member advised yesterday.

Kittisak Rattanawaraha, a member of the NLA committee in charge of the questioning procedure against Yingluck, said yesterday that while the law doesn't require Yingluck to do this in person, it would not be as convincing if she sent a representative to do it on her behalf.

More than 20 questions for Yingluck have already been submitted by NLA members with the deadline coming up tomorrow. Yingluck or her representative will have to answer them and then present closing arguments on Friday.

Some NLA members want her to explain why she couldn't stop the rice-pledging scheme after she had been warned and to explain why data used by both sides regarding the loss stemming from the scheme were conflicting.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked questions like how Yingluck could be impeached when the Constitution of 2007 has been abrogated, he said.

Bowornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, has said it is possible.

Kittisak said that while no one else can answer to Yingluck's satisfaction the allegations but her, if she fails to perform well under examination, it could hurt her case.

Jate Siratranont, spokesman for NLA whips, said that since Yingluck came in person last week to defend herself, it would be more appropriate that she answer the questions and give the closing statement herself.

Suriyasai Katasila, a lecturer at Rangsit University's College of Social Innovation, said the NLA should not fear upsetting reconcilement of the country by impeaching Yingluck, as this was a matter of corruption and not politics.

Udomdej Ratanasatien, a former Pheu Thai MP and government whip, warned that any move by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to ban impeached political office holders from politics for life could face rejection by the public and fuel further social disunity.

The CDC had floated the idea of a majority vote, instead of a two-thirds vote, by both the upper and lower houses to approve a lifetime political ban for disgraced politicians.

Udomdej said such an alteration would make elected governments more insecure and bringing down an elected government easier.

Impeaching politicians who no longer hold a political position reflects the desire to see elected politicians disqualified from running for office again, he said.

Sourece: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yingluck-urged-to-answer-NLAs-questions-in-person-30251711.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-12

[englishoak]

I think all this is mainly for the show! The decision has probably already been taken by the Junta on political reasons. Is it politically better for the Junta to get rid of her for 5 years, or is it better to negotiate some agreement with the red side. That's the main criteria.

My guess is that if she's impeached, it doesn't necessarily mean that she's guilty. If she's not impeached, it probably also doesn't mean she's not guilty (whatever the way you can assess guilt, wich is quite debatable). It will mean it has been perceived as the best political decision to make in the current context (including -------).

Correct. It's to show that even politicians and PMs shouldn't lie too much. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament to be in charge and somehow she doesn't seem to be able to answer simple questions.

A 'self-financing' scheme lost hundreds of billions. Her own government even admitted to US$4.4 billion mid-2013. 'negligence'? How about 'intent to deceive' ?

The only political aspects here seem to be brought up by those who have no other explanation for those billion lost and still want to help a PM who caused it.

There isnt an administration that hasnt poured away billions in some stupid scheme or other. I see little to gain for this military faction the longer things drag on, constantly contradicting themselves by giving the Shins continued spotlight whilst banning talking about them or giving them publicity on the other.

Delaying the return of a peoples chosen government etc whilst consistently lying about the intentions is alienating many, even other parties. This is fast turning into a conflict between civilian governance and continued veto exercised by the military when it chooses.

This isnt a trail of someone brought to justice by their peers or people, its effectively a military court,. That alone should make people pause and not be jumping for joy, they should think also of its further reaching implications. It's not lost on most Thais I know and many are getting more worried by the week, although admittedly most that oppose the Shins dont really care how its done if it means they can feel like winners for a while.

Best I think they can hope to show in the case is ignorance and typical Thai refusal to take responsibility for those acting on ones behalf or for those representing them. However the outcome and penalty if any will have already been decided and negotiated long since.

I will not be surprised if half the questions make little sense or arn't what youd call probing and well thought out.

Whatever happens to YL i will shed no tear nor care, The method however and just what it means in a country with no constitution or rule of law and run by a military Junta shouldnt be missed, this whole set up whether deserved or not by method alone is nothing short of Orwellian.

Edited January 11, 2015 by englishoak

[NongKhaiKid]

i would think her defence team and advisers will be against her answering any questions as the result would likely be a disaster for them.

Remember how when PM she answered, well more like didn't answer, questions from the media with giggles and when really pushed by running away ?

Reading a prepared submission which she probably didn't understand was about the best she could do.

Edited January 11, 2015 by NongKhaiKid

[darhut]

The questions have not been chosen yet so it may well be just 5.

The article also states many of the over 20 questions received are the same question referring to exact losses.

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!

[smedly]

well in the west they sit people down in front of a board and grill them, all she did was say how much she loved the farmers

answer questions ? I have 2

1. how many pairs of nice fashion shoes can you buy for 700 billion baht

2. How many planes to carry them all to Dubai

oh never mind she left the building

farce

[Thai at Heart]

IMPEACHMENT

Yingluck urged to answer NLA's questions in person

The Nation

Impeachment committee wants to know why the former premier failed to stop the rice pledging scheme after she had been warned about huge losses, graft

BANGKOK: - Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would help her case considerably by personally answering questions and delivering her closing statement at her impeachment hearing related to her administration's rice-pledging scheme, a key National Legislative Assembly member advised yesterday.

Kittisak Rattanawaraha, a member of the NLA committee in charge of the questioning procedure against Yingluck, said yesterday that while the law doesn't require Yingluck to do this in person, it would not be as convincing if she sent a representative to do it on her behalf.

More than 20 questions for Yingluck have already been submitted by NLA members with the deadline coming up tomorrow. Yingluck or her representative will have to answer them and then present closing arguments on Friday.

Some NLA members want her to explain why she couldn't stop the rice-pledging scheme after she had been warned and to explain why data used by both sides regarding the loss stemming from the scheme were conflicting.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked questions like how Yingluck could be impeached when the Constitution of 2007 has been abrogated, he said.

Bowornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, has said it is possible.

Kittisak said that while no one else can answer to Yingluck's satisfaction the allegations but her, if she fails to perform well under examination, it could hurt her case.

Jate Siratranont, spokesman for NLA whips, said that since Yingluck came in person last week to defend herself, it would be more appropriate that she answer the questions and give the closing statement herself.

Suriyasai Katasila, a lecturer at Rangsit University's College of Social Innovation, said the NLA should not fear upsetting reconcilement of the country by impeaching Yingluck, as this was a matter of corruption and not politics.

Udomdej Ratanasatien, a former Pheu Thai MP and government whip, warned that any move by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to ban impeached political office holders from politics for life could face rejection by the public and fuel further social disunity.

The CDC had floated the idea of a majority vote, instead of a two-thirds vote, by both the upper and lower houses to approve a lifetime political ban for disgraced politicians.

Udomdej said such an alteration would make elected governments more insecure and bringing down an elected government easier.

Impeaching politicians who no longer hold a political position reflects the desire to see elected politicians disqualified from running for office again, he said.

Sourece: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yingluck-urged-to-answer-NLAs-questions-in-person-30251711.html

-- The Nation 2015-01-12

What a process. She doesn't have to answer the questions herself?

What type of procedure is this. Maybe she can answer via skype?

[Robby nz]

IMPEACHMENT

Yingluck urged to answer NLA's questions in person

The Nation

Impeachment committee wants to know why the former premier failed to stop the rice pledging scheme after she had been warned about huge losses, graft

BANGKOK: - Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would help her case considerably by personally answering questions and delivering her closing statement at her impeachment hearing related to her administration's rice-pledging scheme, a key National Legislative Assembly member advised yesterday.

Kittisak Rattanawaraha, a member of the NLA committee in charge of the questioning procedure against Yingluck, said yesterday that while the law doesn't require Yingluck to do this in person, it would not be as convincing if she sent a representative to do it on her behalf.

More than 20 questions for Yingluck have already been submitted by NLA members with the deadline coming up tomorrow. Yingluck or her representative will have to answer them and then present closing arguments on Friday.

Some NLA members want her to explain why she couldn't stop the rice-pledging scheme after she had been warned and to explain why data used by both sides regarding the loss stemming from the scheme were conflicting.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked questions like how Yingluck could be impeached when the Constitution of 2007 has been abrogated, he said.

Bowornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, has said it is possible.

Kittisak said that while no one else can answer to Yingluck's satisfaction the allegations but her, if she fails to perform well under examination, it could hurt her case.

Jate Siratranont, spokesman for NLA whips, said that since Yingluck came in person last week to defend herself, it would be more appropriate that she answer the questions and give the closing statement herself.

Suriyasai Katasila, a lecturer at Rangsit University's College of Social Innovation, said the NLA should not fear upsetting reconcilement of the country by impeaching Yingluck, as this was a matter of corruption and not politics.

Udomdej Ratanasatien, a former Pheu Thai MP and government whip, warned that any move by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to ban impeached political office holders from politics for life could face rejection by the public and fuel further social disunity.

The CDC had floated the idea of a majority vote, instead of a two-thirds vote, by both the upper and lower houses to approve a lifetime political ban for disgraced politicians.

Udomdej said such an alteration would make elected governments more insecure and bringing down an elected government easier.

Impeaching politicians who no longer hold a political position reflects the desire to see elected politicians disqualified from running for office again, he said.

Sourece: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yingluck-urged-to-answer-NLAs-questions-in-person-30251711.html

-- The Nation 2015-01-12

What a process. She doesn't have to answer the questions herself?

What type of procedure is this. Maybe she can answer via skype?

Possibly T a H its something like they have in the US, third amendment isn't it "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself"

Seems the only defense Yinglucks side has is to question whether the NLA has the jurisdiction to impeach her and that if they do it might cause "Farther social disunity".

[Thai at Heart]

IMPEACHMENT

Yingluck urged to answer NLA's questions in person

The Nation

Impeachment committee wants to know why the former premier failed to stop the rice pledging scheme after she had been warned about huge losses, graft

BANGKOK: - Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would help her case considerably by personally answering questions and delivering her closing statement at her impeachment hearing related to her administration's rice-pledging scheme, a key National Legislative Assembly member advised yesterday.

Kittisak Rattanawaraha, a member of the NLA committee in charge of the questioning procedure against Yingluck, said yesterday that while the law doesn't require Yingluck to do this in person, it would not be as convincing if she sent a representative to do it on her behalf.

More than 20 questions for Yingluck have already been submitted by NLA members with the deadline coming up tomorrow. Yingluck or her representative will have to answer them and then present closing arguments on Friday.

Some NLA members want her to explain why she couldn't stop the rice-pledging scheme after she had been warned and to explain why data used by both sides regarding the loss stemming from the scheme were conflicting.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked questions like how Yingluck could be impeached when the Constitution of 2007 has been abrogated, he said.

Bowornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, has said it is possible.

Kittisak said that while no one else can answer to Yingluck's satisfaction the allegations but her, if she fails to perform well under examination, it could hurt her case.

Jate Siratranont, spokesman for NLA whips, said that since Yingluck came in person last week to defend herself, it would be more appropriate that she answer the questions and give the closing statement herself.

Suriyasai Katasila, a lecturer at Rangsit University's College of Social Innovation, said the NLA should not fear upsetting reconcilement of the country by impeaching Yingluck, as this was a matter of corruption and not politics.

Udomdej Ratanasatien, a former Pheu Thai MP and government whip, warned that any move by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to ban impeached political office holders from politics for life could face rejection by the public and fuel further social disunity.

The CDC had floated the idea of a majority vote, instead of a two-thirds vote, by both the upper and lower houses to approve a lifetime political ban for disgraced politicians.

Udomdej said such an alteration would make elected governments more insecure and bringing down an elected government easier.

Impeaching politicians who no longer hold a political position reflects the desire to see elected politicians disqualified from running for office again, he said.

Sourece: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yingluck-urged-to-answer-NLAs-questions-in-person-30251711.html

-- The Nation 2015-01-12

What a process. She doesn't have to answer the questions herself?

What type of procedure is this. Maybe she can answer via skype?

Possibly T a H its something like they have in the US, third amendment isn't it "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself"

Seems the only defense Yinglucks side has is to question whether the NLA has the jurisdiction to impeach her and that if they do it might cause "Farther social disunity".

That's one thing, but how the hell can you send someone else to answer on your behalf? That is truly bizarre.

[Thrilla]

"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.

Indeed, no "smoking gun" frivolity is being applied, serious debate and serious charges have her now in the court building answering serious questions - did you not notice ?

And that's 'Burberry' !

[smedly]

any other country they would be bringing these people before an investigative committee to hear what they have to say for themselves, look back at the phone tap scandal in the UK, there were hearings were the people involved were grilled and it was publicly aired after which it was taken to court and criminal convictions followed

This woman standing up and saying she did it for the farmers is just ridiculous - is that really all she has to say on the matter, how about standing up and saying - my brother made me do it honest - I think most people would believe that one

As an ex PM she should have the balls to face the music and be questioned in public along with the rest of them who have apparently got off scot free- where is Charlerm - the ex finance minister who I'm sure is up to his neck in it

and all this crap about the reds taking to the streets is just a nod and a wink to see if they can rise them up - not going to happen simply because the power base they once had is gone and the good people of Thailand have moved away from the red Thaksin terrorists because they have seen what they really are

[mango66]

I think all this is mainly for the show! The decision has probably already been taken by the Junta on political reasons. Is it politically better for the Junta to get rid of her for 5 years, or is it better to negotiate some agreement with the red side. That's the main criteria.

My guess is that if she's impeached, it doesn't necessarily mean that she's guilty. If she's not impeached, it probably also doesn't mean she's not guilty (whatever the way you can assess guilt, wich is quite debatable). It will mean it has been perceived as the best political decision to make in the current context (including -------).

Correct. It's to show that even politicians and PMs shouldn't lie too much. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament to be in charge and somehow she doesn't seem to be able to answer simple questions.

A 'self-financing' scheme lost hundreds of billions. Her own government even admitted to US$4.4 billion mid-2013. 'negligence'? How about 'intent to deceive' ?

The only political aspects here seem to be brought up by those who have no other explanation for those billion lost and still want to help a PM who caused it.

There isnt an administration that hasnt poured away billions in some stupid scheme or other. I see little to gain for this military faction the longer things drag on, constantly contradicting themselves by giving the Shins continued spotlight whilst banning talking about them or giving them publicity on the other.

Delaying the return of a peoples chosen government etc whilst consistently lying about the intentions is alienating many, even other parties. This is fast turning into a conflict between civilian governance and continued veto exercised by the military when it chooses.

This isnt a trail of someone brought to justice by their peers or people, its effectively a military court,. That alone should make people pause and not be jumping for joy, they should think also of its further reaching implications. It's not lost on most Thais I know and many are getting more worried by the week, although admittedly most that oppose the Shins dont really care how its done if it means they can feel like winners for a while.

Best I think they can hope to show in the case is ignorance and typical Thai refusal to take responsibility for those acting on ones behalf or for those representing them. However the outcome and penalty if any will have already been decided and negotiated long since.

I will not be surprised if half the questions make little sense or arn't what youd call probing and well thought out.

Whatever happens to YL i will shed no tear nor care, The method however and just what it means in a country with no constitution or rule of law and run by a military Junta shouldnt be missed, this whole set up whether deserved or not by method alone is nothing short of Orwellian.

why dont you give advice how to change a completely corrupt gvt which holds all political positions in a country,

by a so called " DEMOCRATIC " election,

where you panished if you say one word against them !

Try to put up another flag in ISSAN than red !!

You would not be able to write any comment here !!

[SOTIRIOS]

.what next...have someone else serve her sentence.....

..contempt of court is a charge unto itself.....

...what is done to people who refuse to appear......normally.....???

[Baerboxer]

"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.

It is real hard to prove your ability in a short period of time. And when the people in these non elected jobs do not do their job.

She had nearly 3 years in office. How much time do you think she needed to prove her ability?

Maybe her brother really running things and the constant lying didn't hep?

[rubl]

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.

May I respectfully remind you that the charge against Ms. Yingluck is not corruption but negligence?

And I respectfully remind you this is a purge of enemies of the elite. Marine, has a point that there were others that profited from this Government scheme; they need to be a party to proceedings.

The mad monk and Abhisit are also lying low over their charges of giving orders to fire upon a crowd?

I offer no support for Yingluck or the self-appointed Prime Minister.

What do you think this is really about Rubi. I don't think it is an ideological principle as both sides have no principles when making money on the side. I have always seen this as a breaking of the code. That is Thaksin made too much money and wasn't going to share. The sly water buffalo from the north. Or more to the point rubbing ones nose in the sh!t.

I just wish I could save like the military hierarchy does on their wages.

Negligence, more like hypocrisy/conceit gone made?

And may I remind you that we have an RPPS which the Yingluck government positioned and defended as "self-financing" scheme, reasons used to keep it out of the National Budget. The Yingluck government admitted to US$4.4 billion loss mid-2013 covering 2011/2012 two seasons and maybe including 2012 one season. Furthermore Ms. Yingluck stated in the November 2013 censure debate that she and only she was in charge.

Objectively it is difficult to justify a charge of 'negligence', 'intend to deceive and defraud the state of hundreds of billions in order to satisfy some people' seems more correct. Unless you want to believe Ms. Yingluck was really only a puppet of the criminal fugitive abroad. In that case the whole cabinet and the Pheu Thai party should be charged with 'corruption of the Constitution and democratic principles'.

All of this seems to put weight on the need for reforms. No one is really happy with the coup, but politicians were not inclined to offer change.

Edited January 12, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

I think all this is mainly for the show! The decision has probably already been taken by the Junta on political reasons. Is it politically better for the Junta to get rid of her for 5 years, or is it better to negotiate some agreement with the red side. That's the main criteria.

My guess is that if she's impeached, it doesn't necessarily mean that she's guilty. If she's not impeached, it probably also doesn't mean she's not guilty (whatever the way you can assess guilt, wich is quite debatable). It will mean it has been perceived as the best political decision to make in the current context (including -------).

Correct. It's to show that even politicians and PMs shouldn't lie too much. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament to be in charge and somehow she doesn't seem to be able to answer simple questions.

A 'self-financing' scheme lost hundreds of billions. Her own government even admitted to US$4.4 billion mid-2013. 'negligence'? How about 'intent to deceive' ?

The only political aspects here seem to be brought up by those who have no other explanation for those billion lost and still want to help a PM who caused it.

The political aspect is brought up by those who question the legitimacy and neutrality of a handpicked NLA. Because they have no legitimacy and are not neutral, their decisions will always be suspected.

If she's impeached the democracy supporters will say that it was politicaly motivated in order to purge the system from the Shinawatras. If she's not impeached, the yellow supporters will say that it was politically motivated in order to avoid political unrest.

The political aspects and questions of legality of the NLA are brought up by those who have no answer to why the Yingluck Government positioned and defended the RPPS as 'self-financing' scheme, used the arguments to keep all out of the National Budget and managed to make hundreds of billions of losses (US$4.4 billion acknowledged mid-2013) while voicing to listen, adjust, only minor problems, etc..

[Baerboxer]

any other country they would be bringing these people before an investigative committee to hear what they have to say for themselves, look back at the phone tap scandal in the UK, there were hearings were the people involved were grilled and it was publicly aired after which it was taken to court and criminal convictions followed

This woman standing up and saying she did it for the farmers is just ridiculous - is that really all she has to say on the matter, how about standing up and saying - my brother made me do it honest - I think most people would believe that one

As an ex PM she should have the balls to face the music and be questioned in public along with the rest of them who have apparently got off scot free- where is Charlerm - the ex finance minister who I'm sure is up to his neck in it

and all this crap about the reds taking to the streets is just a nod and a wink to see if they can rise them up - not going to happen simply because the power base they once had is gone and the good people of Thailand have moved away from the red Thaksin terrorists because they have seen what they really are

Spot on - on all points.

[Baerboxer]

IMPEACHMENT

Yingluck urged to answer NLA's questions in person

The Nation

Impeachment committee wants to know why the former premier failed to stop the rice pledging scheme after she had been warned about huge losses, graft

BANGKOK: - Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would help her case considerably by personally answering questions and delivering her closing statement at her impeachment hearing related to her administration's rice-pledging scheme, a key National Legislative Assembly member advised yesterday.

Kittisak Rattanawaraha, a member of the NLA committee in charge of the questioning procedure against Yingluck, said yesterday that while the law doesn't require Yingluck to do this in person, it would not be as convincing if she sent a representative to do it on her behalf.

More than 20 questions for Yingluck have already been submitted by NLA members with the deadline coming up tomorrow. Yingluck or her representative will have to answer them and then present closing arguments on Friday.

Some NLA members want her to explain why she couldn't stop the rice-pledging scheme after she had been warned and to explain why data used by both sides regarding the loss stemming from the scheme were conflicting.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked questions like how Yingluck could be impeached when the Constitution of 2007 has been abrogated, he said.

Bowornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, has said it is possible.

Kittisak said that while no one else can answer to Yingluck's satisfaction the allegations but her, if she fails to perform well under examination, it could hurt her case.

Jate Siratranont, spokesman for NLA whips, said that since Yingluck came in person last week to defend herself, it would be more appropriate that she answer the questions and give the closing statement herself.

Suriyasai Katasila, a lecturer at Rangsit University's College of Social Innovation, said the NLA should not fear upsetting reconcilement of the country by impeaching Yingluck, as this was a matter of corruption and not politics.

Udomdej Ratanasatien, a former Pheu Thai MP and government whip, warned that any move by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to ban impeached political office holders from politics for life could face rejection by the public and fuel further social disunity.

The CDC had floated the idea of a majority vote, instead of a two-thirds vote, by both the upper and lower houses to approve a lifetime political ban for disgraced politicians.

Udomdej said such an alteration would make elected governments more insecure and bringing down an elected government easier.

Impeaching politicians who no longer hold a political position reflects the desire to see elected politicians disqualified from running for office again, he said.

Sourece: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yingluck-urged-to-answer-NLAs-questions-in-person-30251711.html

-- The Nation 2015-01-12

What a process. She doesn't have to answer the questions herself?

What type of procedure is this. Maybe she can answer via skype?

Possibly T a H its something like they have in the US, third amendment isn't it "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself"

Seems the only defense Yinglucks side has is to question whether the NLA has the jurisdiction to impeach her and that if they do it might cause "Farther social disunity".

That's one thing, but how the hell can you send someone else to answer on your behalf? That is truly bizarre.

She has never really put herself in a position where she has to debate or answer questions without a script.

She can't. She really has no idea. If they asked her why she never attended one single meeting of the rice policy committee when she appointed herself Chairperson how could she answer? Or what about vowing there were no quality or quantity discrepancies? Or maybe about the real figures and the reality about the G2G deals she claimed?

All she could do is show she was in fact very negligent, at best.

So they will try the usual denials, smoke and mirrors, deviations and threats of what will happen if anyone dare vote to impeach her. All hollow context and threats - but they've gotten away with it before.