Yingluck's minister incensed by NLA 'hired guns' remark

[Siripon]

"If [Yingluck] sends hired guns to answer for her, how will that be credible?"

From another perspective that has nothing to do with Yingluck, this is a ludicrous and hypocrital statement.

The NLA only exists because of the military coup. It owes its existence to the end of a gun aimed at the collective head of the Thai people. A majority of NLA membership is composed of military officers and 100% of the NLA was selected and appointed by the Junta leadership. The NLA has NO judicial, ethical, or moral credibility.

From a more realistic perspective that has all to do with the NLA trying to ask Ms. Yingluck a few more questions regarding her defence statement as it would seem she didn't address the issue of how her self-financing RPPS could lose hundreds of billion Baht.

Of course Ms. Yingluck may bring some hired help to pass questions but even then she'll be asked to confirm the answer provided is correct and she agrees with it.

As for legality, well although some seem to think Thailand is a lawless country we do have an Interim Constitution and lots of laws. It would seem Ms. Yingluck has flaunted laws and legality and her 'incensed' former Minister of Finance is a self-confessed teller of 'little' white lies.

But the scheme didn't help poor farmers.Farmers with less than 10 rai will use the rice for personal consumption. It's rich or farmers with plenty of land who benefitted.

[Baerboxer]

Why did the caretaker government HAVE to try and borrow money to pay the farmers, it was a revolving scheme. Money came from sales to pay the farmers BUT we all know that's not what happened!

Also the payment structure SHOULD have been in place BEFORE Yingluck stepped down .. no?

the scheme was set up to assist poor farmers... just like the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU which costs many more BILLIONS than this scheme and I don't see Merkle, Cameron and Hollande (or predecessors) in Court

this has nothing to do with RICE and everything to do with POWER and things we cannot talk about - many people 'get' this and hopefully you will soon

Merkel, Cameron and Hollande would be in court of they openly and repeatedly lied, refused to give true accounting on schemes, allowed fraud, repeatedly claimed things were o k and denied problems, etc etc etc.

700 billion baht is unaccounted for, very few poor farmers benefited and many are in worse debt than before (some driven to suicide), stocks are missing, poor quality substituted for high quality, contaminated rice due to poor storage practices, fraud in export deals, etc etc. The whole thing is an unmitigated shambles with scams and frauds seemingly at all levels and all parts of the system. And yet, the person in charge, the self appointed chair, never attended one single committee meeting or made any meaningful statement other than give assurances that there were / are no problems and vowing farmers would be paid when she had no intentions of doing so.

Under such circumstances, Merkel, Cameron or Hollande would certainly be appearing in court instead of just (currently) being impeached for negligence.

[Baerboxer]

From a more realistic perspective that has all to do with the NLA trying to ask Ms. Yingluck a few more questions regarding her defence statement as it would seem she didn't address the issue of how her self-financing RPPS could lose hundreds of billion Baht.

Of course Ms. Yingluck may bring some hired help to pass questions but even then she'll be asked to confirm the answer provided is correct and she agrees with it.

As for legality, well although some seem to think Thailand is a lawless country we do have an Interim Constitution and lots of laws. It would seem Ms. Yingluck has flaunted laws and legality and her 'incensed' former Minister of Finance is a self-confessed teller of 'little' white lies.

dear rubl the 'Interim Constitution' was written by the unelected Junta Ms Yingluck was ELECTED or you propose the D can 'make up' laws and it's perfectly legal? bit like Mugabe and Kim Jong-un?

Yingluck will be found guilty, of course, but do you REALLY support this witch-hunt of political opponents? you think it's ethical? moral?

Do you think the charges of murder against Abhisit and Suthep were also a witch hunt against political opponents and those charges carry the death penalty?

Yet both Abhisit and Suthep WANTED their time in court and would have been there and answered the questions themselves.

I believe that public office HAS to include 'Parliamentary Privilege' or no one would serve and so I believe both Abhisit and Suthep were wrong but are covered by that, as is Bush, as is Blair, as are all Ministers and MP's and as Yingluck should be - right or wrong that's what elections are for UNLESS it's illegal (Nixon et al)

Parliamentary privilege is one thing, lying and thieving outside parliament debating is something else. Ask those British MPs jailed for expense claim fraud.

[rubl]

From a more realistic perspective that has all to do with the NLA trying to ask Ms. Yingluck a few more questions regarding her defence statement as it would seem she didn't address the issue of how her self-financing RPPS could lose hundreds of billion Baht.

Of course Ms. Yingluck may bring some hired help to pass questions but even then she'll be asked to confirm the answer provided is correct and she agrees with it.

As for legality, well although some seem to think Thailand is a lawless country we do have an Interim Constitution and lots of laws. It would seem Ms. Yingluck has flaunted laws and legality and her 'incensed' former Minister of Finance is a self-confessed teller of 'little' white lies.

dear rubl the 'Interim Constitution' was written by the unelected Junta Ms Yingluck was ELECTED or you propose the D can 'make up' laws and it's perfectly legal? bit like Mugabe and Kim Jong-un?

Yingluck will be found guilty, of course, but do you REALLY support this witch-hunt of political opponents? you think it's ethical? moral?

Do you think the charges of murder against Abhisit and Suthep were also a witch hunt against political opponents and those charges carry the death penalty?

Yet both Abhisit and Suthep WANTED their time in court and would have been there and answered the questions themselves.

I believe that public office HAS to include 'Parliamentary Privilege' or no one would serve and so I believe both Abhisit and Suthep were wrong but are covered by that, as is Bush, as is Blair, as are all Ministers and MP's and as Yingluck should be - right or wrong that's what elections are for UNLESS it's illegal (Nixon et al)

So now we have Abhisit, Suthep and Yingluck on the same line ? After the right amount of twisting?

Next you'll tell us we need an amnesty

Anyway, as a tax payer in Thailand I fail to see a 700 billion Baht loss on a scheme positioned as 'self-financing' a simple matter of 'parliamentary privilege'. It would seem you have no problems with a government spending money aimed at the poor and reaching, well reaching who ?? Maybe only their own backers ??

It would seem even diehard Yingluck followers are starting to have doubts. Let's see what tomorrow brings.

[halloween]

I believe that public office HAS to include 'Parliamentary Privilege' or no one would serve and so I believe both Abhisit and Suthep were wrong but are covered by that, as is Bush, as is Blair, as are all Ministers and MP's and as Yingluck should be - right or wrong that's what elections are for UNLESS it's illegal (Nixon et al)

If Yingluk did nothing illegal, why was she and her government included in the attempted amnesty?

There's a big enough conflict of interest proposing an amnesty for a convicted family member facing many even more serious charges, but including yourself and your cronies while still in the current term of office is way over the top, and should be considered a crime in itself.