bangrak Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Now, who's going to leak the questions to her, for the whole team to work hard on answers, in time before she is made to appear? Will she ask permission to read from a paper, ...the answers on unknown questions...? Or maybe she'll wear a small earpiece on that day? When on the first question she starts he answer with: 'check, one, two, three, check one, two, three' we'd know for sure... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smedly Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 After several NLA members demanded to know the reasons why Yingluck did not turn up to answer the questions, Norawit Laleng, Yingluck's lawyer, said the meeting regulations allowed Yingluck to assign others to answer questions for her. as usual making it up as they go - arrest her and force her to attend the enquiry - if she doesn't answer questions put to her then assume guilt as no defence has be given - then proceed with criminal charges 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 her team expoiting a loophole in the NLA's own rules? now who on earth would have thought this was possible? She's going to be banned from Politics for 5 years, she knows this,as does every member of the NACC/NCPO/NLA/Junta.. it's like a featherweight boxer against a Heavy weight, the outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion, she never attended any metteings, she's negligent on that part, she's not able to answer any questions about the scheme, as she was so far out of the loop. Did anyone expect a grand old entry full of defiance? Her lawyers are smart, getting her to keep her mouth closed is damage limitation!! This was good advice from her lawyers considering that she is possibly facing a criminal trial. The rules governing questioning may not be the same during this process i.e. objections may not be possible for leading questions, etc. Anything she said now could be incriminating at a trial and she does not have to testify at a criminal trial. "she does not have to testify at a criminal trial" ? Since when does the accused not have to testify in his/her trial? Both prosecutor and council of the defence may grill him/her. The more interesting part for the "impeachment" meeting would be if any answers provided by Ms. Yinglucks legal or other representatives are automatically put on Ms. Yingluck's account or would she need to acknowledge "what they said is correct". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Does it stand that to defy parliament is to break the law? I suppose that depends on whether one regards a "legislative assembly" appointed by a military junta who seized power during a constitutionally mandated election process, (one which they and their backers were trying their hardest to impede), could be regarded as a parliament, Well thats as maybe, but how does a law get written that someone is being empeached, and then a rule is slid in the side that they are allowed to send someone else to answer the question? I am not arguing that the so called parliament is a bit of a misnomer, but if parliament asks Mr. Thaiatheart to attend, where in the small print could it say, I can send Mr. Jag to answer. A summons is a summons is a summons surely. So all in all, this whole process isn't covering itself in any glory at all, and it is descending into more farce. To be perfectly frank, I woudln't argue with the concept that the commision should really only ask her questions that she absolutely knows the answer too, or as her lawyer I would tell her not to answer, or claim she needs info from someone else to confirm. She wasn't finance minister and neither was she commerce or agriculture minister. But, they should ask her the question and make her deny or defer that she knows the answer. This way, just gets to the point that she can claim that she wasn't aware, and as such there is another Thai legal SNAFU created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherOneAmerican Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 So, what's the punishment if found guilty? Can't run for office for 5 years or is there more? NRA would have her shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seajae Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Is that what they call 'grilling without meat'? Seems a lot of posters wanna give her a drilling more than a grilling. no thanks, the way she refuses to do her job I reckon she would be lifeless at it and just lie there like a log, have to be desperate to want to touch her anyway 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Now, who's going to leak the questions to her, for the whole team to work hard on answers, in time before she is made to appear? Will she ask permission to read from a paper, ...the answers on unknown questions...? Or maybe she'll wear a small earpiece on that day? When on the first question she starts he answer with: 'check, one, two, three, check one, two, three' we'd know for sure... LOL That is by the by. By answering herself those words would be by defnintion her own. She would be unable to claim that the words were not her own, in which case, she would either have to disagree with the answers given or be on oath agreeing with what she said. The worst outcome if the NLA want to hold her accountable is that she is allowed to say nothing. It is a horses arse of an arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> her team expoiting a loophole in the NLA's own rules? now who on earth would have thought this was possible?She's going to be banned from Politics for 5 years, she knows this,as does every member of the NACC/NCPO/NLA/Junta.. it's like a featherweight boxer against a Heavy weight, the outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion, she never attended any metteings, she's negligent on that part, she's not able to answer any questions about the scheme, as she was so far out of the loop.Did anyone expect a grand old entry full of defiance? Her lawyers are smart, getting her to keep her mouth closed is damage limitation!! This was good advice from her lawyers considering that she is possibly facing a criminal trial. The rules governing questioning may not be the same during this process i.e. objections may not be possible for leading questions, etc. Anything she said now could be incriminating at a trial and she does not have to testify at a criminal trial. "she does not have to testify at a criminal trial" ? Since when does the accused not have to testify in his/her trial? Both prosecutor and council of the defence may grill him/her. The more interesting part for the "impeachment" meeting would be if any answers provided by Ms. Yinglucks legal or other representatives are automatically put on Ms. Yingluck's account or would she need to acknowledge "what they said is correct". Next point: Wonder what big brother is thinking? Wonder if he has any remorse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Ms Yingluck's lawyers advised her to appoint the ministers responsible in the rice-pledging scheme to answer the charges on her behalf, he added. She obviously doesn't quite understand that it is her role as being PM had the ultimate responsibility for everything that the government did, it is not her ministers that were the PM so this hearing has absolutely nothing to do with them, maybe at a later date criminal charges can be brought against them all and efforts made to recover the huge loses Yingluc not turning up for the PM investigative committee hearing is a no show and these other ministers should have been removed from the building Again going back to the Phone tap scandal in the UK - those called for questioning in front of a parliamentary committee did not have an option not to appear in person and answer questions pertaining to their involvement - they couldn't just simply pass the buck for someone to testify on their behalf - which is exactly what YL has done, like I said these people should have been removed and YL arrested and forced to appear, if she chose not to answer questions or comply with the committee then presume guilt as no defence was given - end of Exactly. In the UK situation, the people being questioned were also allowed to say that they didn't know, or weren't sure and were able to defer the precise answer until a later date. That is how it is done to make sure the truth comes out. Which is I fear not really what anyone appears to want here. They want Yingluck impeached without actually putting her personally at the stake. Typical cop out legalese for Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCFC Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Who the hell writes the rules that a minister or prime minister isn't forced to answer questions in their own empeachment. They can of course say that they are unsure of the answers and defer to others with more direct knowledge, but how can she flatly refuse to pitch and do so legally? What a complete and utter farce of a law Possibly more to the point is that it is not that the law intentionally excuses them, but it was not ever written into law as it was never thought that some Thai politician would ever stoop so low... Pitty she did not attend it would have been a good advert for Kleenex Why? What were you planning to do? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucec64 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 her team expoiting a loophole in the NLA's own rules? now who on earth would have thought this was possible? She's going to be banned from Politics for 5 years, she knows this,as does every member of the NACC/NCPO/NLA/Junta.. it's like a featherweight boxer against a Heavy weight, the outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion, she never attended any metteings, she's negligent on that part, she's not able to answer any questions about the scheme, as she was so far out of the loop. Did anyone expect a grand old entry full of defiance? Her lawyers are smart, getting her to keep her mouth closed is damage limitation!! This was good advice from her lawyers considering that she is possibly facing a criminal trial. The rules governing questioning may not be the same during this process i.e. objections may not be possible for leading questions, etc. Anything she said now could be incriminating at a trial and she does not have to testify at a criminal trial. "she does not have to testify at a criminal trial" ? Since when does the accused not have to testify in his/her trial? Both prosecutor and council of the defence may grill him/her. The more interesting part for the "impeachment" meeting would be if any answers provided by Ms. Yinglucks legal or other representatives are automatically put on Ms. Yingluck's account or would she need to acknowledge "what they said is correct". Are you being contrarian again? The right of a defendant to not testify is an almost universal right. It is the case in the Netherlands and in Thailand and many other countries http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Thailand (I should note that this is from the last constitution - many rights will be trampled on in the upcoming version) Section 40 of the Constitution affirms that each person must have the following procedural rights: right to access to judicial process easily, comfortably, quickly and indiscriminately; right to public trial; right to be informed of and to examine into facts and related documents adequately; right to present facts, defenses and evidences in the case; right to object the partial judges; right to be considered by the full bench of judges; right to be informed of justifications given in the judgment or order. Alleged offenders and accused have the right to correct, prompt and fair investigation and trial, the right to defend their case, the right to examine evidence, and cross-examine witnesses, the right to defend themselves through counsel, the right not to testify against themselves, and the right to bail. Section 39 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code protects the defendant from double jeopardy. The Criminal Procedure Code specifies that the trial, taking of evidence, and the reading of the judgment in a criminal case shall be done in open court and in the presence of the accused unless the law provides otherwise (Sections 172 and 182). Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that any material, documentary or oral evidence likely to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused is admissible, provided it was not obtained through inducement, promise, threat, deception or other unlawful means. According to the Regulation of the Department of the Public Prosecutor, the public prosecutor has always take into consideration the human rights aspects, when dealing with a criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridercnx808 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 thank you 3 times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cuchulainn Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2015 Gutless, spineless coward. Just like her convict brother. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Nickymaster Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2015 Another confirmation that the Shins are shameless crooks. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Fat Haggis Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2015 More like another confirmation that Thais create their own problems by having loop holes in their system that smart, and the not so smart exploit. Why not exploit it ?, I'm pretty sure almost 99.9999% of the posters here, given the opportunity would use such loopholes to get them out of appearing in court too, nothing gutless, or spineless about it, when it clearly states that you don't have to appear in person!! She didn't write the rules, just like most other things in Thailand, she, and her legal team took advantage of the loophole.. lots of posters getting their knickers in a twist because YL's lawyers were smarter than the NLA it seems. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLew Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Big sale at Hermes / Grayson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> More like another confirmation that Thais create their own problems by having loop holes in their system that smart, and the not so smart exploit. Why not exploit it ?, I'm pretty sure almost 99.9999% of the posters here, given the opportunity would use such loopholes to get them out of appearing in court too, nothing gutless, or spineless about it, when it clearly states that you don't have to appear in person!! She didn't write the rules, just like most other things in Thailand, she, and her legal team took advantage of the loophole.. lots of posters getting their knickers in a twist because YL's lawyers were smarter than the NLA it seems. Just your twist, others have a different opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mango66 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> I'm sure the committee is upset she didn't show up so they could ask trick questions they had already planned for. Screw the committee they have already made up their minds in the case. It's just to get their picture in the news. The whole process is illegal anyway. Her lawyers ( instructed by TS ) told her not to attend as without notes to read, she would have to tell the truth and implicate not only her but many others ie TS and PTP. Trick questions such as NLA - Why didn't you attend the meetings of the Rice Scam that you were chairwoman of ? YS - I was always away on more important overseas shopping trips. NLA - Who ran the Rice Scam meetings ? TS on Skype from Dubai NLA - Why didn't the Rice Scam work YS - It did, we all made money. NLA Why didn't the scam help the rice farmers YS - It was just to buy their votes - We always knew the rice farmer's income wouldn't increase as we know the poorest farmers eat all their rice, and many rent the land and the landlords just increased their rents as we never fixed them. Illegal according to you, but not to NLA and NACC who say the new charter allows impeachment You should have stepped in for her, you know all the answers. Or are you a puppet for the NLA. Also what new Charter, I believe your mistaken again. does your thai family miss the rice scam ? do they have to plant now real to get the substitution ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 her team expoiting a loophole in the NLA's own rules? now who on earth would have thought this was possible? She's going to be banned from Politics for 5 years, she knows this,as does every member of the NACC/NCPO/NLA/Junta.. it's like a featherweight boxer against a Heavy weight, the outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion, she never attended any metteings, she's negligent on that part, she's not able to answer any questions about the scheme, as she was so far out of the loop. Did anyone expect a grand old entry full of defiance? Her lawyers are smart, getting her to keep her mouth closed is damage limitation!! A Richard Nixon question. How can you impeach somebody that has already been thrown out of office? Isn't that like flogging a dead horse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby nz Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I wonder if the ex minister of finance showed the NLA this chart of the losses which is based on the finance subcommittees post audit report. : Probably not, a white lie would have been more his style. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emster23 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Why do people refer to the Constitution? That does not matter anymore, remember? Martial law here.... the law is anything the PM and his appointed parliament says it is. Shins are shameless opportunistic crooks, just the same as the yellow shirts. To believe those who now hold the reins (and have repeatedly after coups) are somehow upright defenders of honesty and democracy is wishful thinking at best, and brainwashed willful ignorance/stupidity at worst. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClog Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Looks like Yingluck has the NLA on a string, definitely has the moral high ground. And who are the "crescendo of voices", certainly not the voting public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 From another source, paraphrased: ... her representatives were told to ask Ms Yingluck to show up by 6pm to supply answers. Her representatives replied that they could not contact Ms Yingluck and they didn't know where she was ... Do you believe that? Sounds somewhat like hindering the course of justice. These people have no morals whatever and no respect, just contempt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 'The former businesswoman...' cut it there, stop reading, all the rest can only be BS, how is it possible for AFP to fall so low, Robert Amsterdam? See, there you go too, basing all things Thai, from your own experiences, I know plenty of CEO's who were kin of the company founder, who had about as much business accumen as I have in quantum physics, doesn't change the facts they're still seen as business "people" to the General Public, and board members alike. Again, you may not like it, but that's just the way the media works, if it galls you so much, why not go and ask to be the Editor in Chief of the AFP, and run the stories you see fit!! Geeze man, there's some highly strung farang here who seem to think their opinions have any clout within Thai society, just roll with what the media say, and maintain your own opinions, isn't it great you can actually go against the grain, and not be told what to think, and it doesn't stress you out, or wind you up when articles like this and many others goes against your own personal opinions. Nope, just that I met 'some people' working for a Shins' company she had been 'bombarded' GM of, and what they told me, 'in temporare non suspecto', was a carbon copy of what she has proven later as a (pseudo-)PM and head of the rice committee: NOTHING! An empty head, gentle smile, a few rehearsed kind words, a tear here and there, for the rest NOTHING, nearly never present, not involved, avoiding, BUT, outside of the, few, PR shows, a huge 'elitarian' attitude, being above the flock, nose up, looking down on people, bitchy, busy only with vanity stuff, make-up, hair, clothing, shoes, ...and jewels and handbags! A nasty swampgas bubble convinced of being a siamese princess... As for AFP, a private company part of a press group, as you know(?), they were quite big at a time, with a good reputation, generally unbiased (except subjects of French national interest), and what has become of them, with the changes in financial control/management, and the loss of many well informed sources of high integrity (and credibility)? A provincial self-serving, ...self-surviving, micro 'news' agency, open to manipulation and sponsoring, that while in French speaking countries it was as esteemed as the BBC in the English spoken ones, long before the chewinggum ABC- NBC, CNN and other Fox and Bloomberg were born, in times 'the press agencies' were, still, very honourable institutions, focussed on informing the public, and wary to avoid biases and manipulation. I speak about the golden fifties and sixties, not these times where 'the truth' has become more questionable than an opinion! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 This is my 'surprised' face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 When a person cannot properly read a prepared script, e.g. 'Thank you three times', how can one expect her to answer extemporaneously? Wise move to not let her open her mouth except in carefully prepared, controlled settings. She certainly cannot help her case by appearing or hurt her case by skipping. Too bad the maximum penalty is less than a slap on the wrist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ballpoint Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2015 Better to avoid the questioning and be thought a fool than attend and remove all doubt. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Looks like Yingluck has the NLA on a string, definitely has the moral high ground. And who are the "crescendo of voices", certainly not the voting public. What? It's irony I hope: 'moral high ground'!? Anyways, even when irony it is, it is a very 'testing' opinion to associate YS, the Shins, the PTP/UDD, etc. with anything even vaguely linked to 'moral grounds'... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bangrak Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Back to basics, please: even when and if she, technically, did not HAVE TO personally attend, isn't it so that we had heard the words coming out of her mouth that she was GOING TO? ...And that in the end she DIDN'T! No turns or twists from the comrades of the Shins' PR brigade can change that! Edited January 16, 2015 by bangrak 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falangjim Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 cowardice runs strong in the family. This is not a family trait. It's a Thai trait. When it comes to 'fight or flight' Thais almost always choose the flight option. Let's take a look at the flying Thais. They flee from road accidents (the rich, the poor, they all do this) Thai men flee from taking care of their wives and children (especially up in Issan, a.k.a "bastard-land") They flee to Dubai (Okay, so this guy is part of the 'family') They flee from Koh Tao after committing murder They flee from telling the truth in order to save face The Ministry of Education has pretty much built in a "no fight" policy by allowing everyone to pass on to the next grade level even if that student is dumber than a box of rocks They flee from the responsibility of saving for retirement by shackling the next generation with financially taking care of their aging parents in the name of Buddhism? Not so sure where this comes from. They flee from science and reason while still clinging to ghosts When they do fight, they do it in packs outnumbering opponents or they take to the streets by the tens of thousands. Yingluck's no-show is just her acting her national heritage, which is no crime for a Thai in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now