Yingluck skips NLA grilling

[sweatalot]

And she can do that unpunished?

[Rhys]

such a whimp...oh come on, we wish to hear your lovely voice explain you hard work for the people.

[Suriya4]

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.

Since coup, no one have any rights left. Yingluck included.

[longway]

I thought she was supposed to have the junta on the ropes on this matter? If she really believed she had done nothing wrong she would have gone down guns blazing, but she chose to run and hide.

I guess you can't expect too much from a mushroom.

[binjalin]

Entirely reasonable not to go the impeachment is by an unelected Military Junta who are following a 'different road' (that we are not allowed to talk about here)

[chrisfwilson]

its time the government/junta showed backbone.... there will not be any real change in this country until the remaining power of Taksin is relinquenced

[binjalin]

Since coup, no one have any rights left. Yingluck included.

Excellent post you have redeemed yourself and glad you recognize that all rights have disappeared +1

[Suriya4]

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.

"then presume guilt "

[jesimps]

If she eventually complains about the process, her complaint will lack credibility, because she failed to personally participate.

The process is illegal, why should she participate?

[jesimps]

Maybe she was shopping ???

No this time she was not shopping.

She was just told by her advisers that she is too dumb to answer any questions so she better stay home.

To the disappointment of the judges and myself waiting for her to get ridiculed.....[/quote)

So dumb she becomes her country's PM. What's your claim to fame? Bazooki plucker?

[rubl]

"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.

Misunderstanding, excuses. Although as non-native English speaker my English isn't too bad, some terms give me problems.

What I meant was that the accused will be present during his/her trial and may be called to answer questions asked by prosecutor or defence council. The accused may decide not to answer. Depending on the questions not answering might be just as damning as providing a truthful answer. Of course during a trial by a court anyone called to answer questions will first be put under oath before the questions are asked. BTW neither prosecutor nor defence council are obliged to submit questions in advance.

As for the impeachment case, if Ms. Yingluck decides to let others provide answers for her, she implicitly accepts those answers as given by her. Not sure how that works out legally.

Constitution 2007

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/

Section 40. A person shall have the rights in judicial process as follows:

(1) right to access to judicial process easily, comfortably, quickly and indiscriminately;

(2) fundamental rights in judicial process composing of, at least, right to public trial; right to be informed of and to examine into facts and related documents adequately; right to present facts, defences and evidences in the case; right to object the partial judges; right to be considered by the full bench of judges; and right to be informed of justifications given in the judgement or order;

(3) right to correct, prompt and fair trial;

(4) an injured person, alleged offender, plaintiff, defendant or the accused, interested parties, interested person or witness to the case shall have the right to appropriate treatment in judicial process including the right to be investigated correctly, promptly and fairly and not to testify against himself;

(5) an injured person, alleged offender, the accused and witness to a criminal case shall have the right to necessary and appropriate protection and assistance from State. The gratuity, compensation and expenses to be paid shall be provided by the law;

(6) every child, youth, woman or aging or disabled person shall have the right to appropriate protection in judicial process and shall have the right to appropriate treatment in the case related to sexual offences;

(7) an alleged offender and the accused in criminal case shall have the right to correct, prompt and fair investigation or trial with an adequate opportunity in defending his case, the right to examine or to be informed of evidence, right to defend himself through counsel and the right to bail;

(8) a person shall, in civil action, have the right to appropriate legal assistance from State.

Edited January 16, 2015 by rubl

[Trouble]

She knows they will vote against her so why would she answer any questions. The whole thing has been rigged from the beginning. The participants in the inquisition make no bones about where their views are in the matter. This is not an independent deliberative hearing to find facts.

A great irony would be that when this ends and there are elections in Thailand another Shinawatra comes out of the closet to win an election.

[rubl]

Entirely reasonable not to go the impeachment is by an unelected Military Junta who are following a 'different road' (that we are not allowed to talk about here)

I guess Ms. Yingluck didn't have answers, couldn't explain how her 'self-financing' RPPS could lose 700 billion Baht. Your deflection suggests you can't explain that either, don't really care and maybe you're not an income tax payer in Thailand anyway.

[tomacht8]

Thailand must finally stop doing their Hi So to handle with kid gloves.

[rubl]

She knows they will vote against her so why would she answer any questions. The whole thing has been rigged from the beginning. The participants in the inquisition make no bones about where their views are in the matter. This is not an independent deliberative hearing to find facts.

A great irony would be that when this ends and there are elections in Thailand another Shinawatra comes out of the closet to win an election.

Some Thai only have something against 'Bangkok' elite, but nothing against their own local elite.

[Suriya4]

If she eventually complains about the process, her complaint will lack credibility, because she failed to personally participate.

The process is illegal, why should she participate?

I have never heard of a legal coup before.

Yet they are carried out again and again.

[falangjim]

When has a Thai leader faced the music on anything? At least they are consistent.

[Thai at Heart]

<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.

I agree with haggis. The rules for these things are always constructed to absolve the pooyai. They are written by one group to protect thenselves and then everyone moans when the other side exploits it.

Why can't people be sentenced in absentia in thailand? Because it suits the system and the pooyai to take an extended break.

[Jonmarleesco]

'... she insisted strongly she would come to answer all questions, with confidence of her innocence in the rice-pledging scheme.' Difficult to know which is eroding the quickest: her confidence, her innocence ... or the rice.

'... she might not have knowledge in details as she was a policy holder and not a practitioner.' Er, pardon? What is a policy(sic)holder in the context of politics? She was the prime minister; granted that was often difficult to believe.

[NeilSA1]

A farce, brash and sassy.

If YL as the responsible driver make an accident with her car and she must make statements about the accident,

She will send then her gas station attendant and her car mechanic.

... and then be hurt and disappointed if she is found guilty.

[NeverSure]

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.

It's not a loophole. It's a fundamental human right, available in most civilized countries. One should not be required to be a witness against himself. If the prosecution has the goods, they don't need testimony from the accused.

Prosecutors are trained and expert at twisting you up. Even if innocent I would never get on the stand. I'd let my attorneys try to eat up the prosecution's case.

Even if stopped by the police I don't have to speak to them at all. They either have something or they have to let me go. Why should I risk saying anything?

[djjamie]

Another justification for the coup from yingluck herself. As if they needed another one. RIP to the 24 (out of 28 dead) victims of the UDD terrorists by the way.

And to think she promised to attend to defend herself as well. Well she also made a promise in Septmeber, 2013 as well.

September 25, 2013 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra promised the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme." No one said that on her behalf. She said that.

I remember some had stated so proudly that she did not run overseas to join her brother in exile because she would proudly and resiliently defend herself against these charges with her head held high. Yet when she does not defend herself after promising too she is proud, resilient and has her head held high! She is running away without actually running away.

Maybe with this disjointed logic protruding one can be forgiven if the red apologists have others comment on their behalf in case they incriminate themselves as supporters of a woman that has spent 980 billion baht on a scheme that has not helped the farmers or has made them more sustainable. Of course she knows nothing about that. She was only the chairman after all.

Thank God for accountability.

And if anyone thinks yingluck is innocent please, I beg you, let me CEO of your company.

Edited January 16, 2015 by djjamie

[NeverSure]

Another justification for the coup from yingluck herself. As if they needed another one. RIP to the 24 (out of 28 dead) victims of the UDD terrorists by the way.

And to think she promised to attend to defend herself as well. Well she also made a promise in Septmeber, 2013 as well.

September 25, 2013 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra promised the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme." No one said that on her behalf. She said that.

I remember some had stated so proudly that she did not run overseas to join her brother in exile because she would proudly and resiliently defend herself against these charges with her head held high. Yet when she does not defend herself after promising too she is proud, resilient and has her head held high!

Maybe with this disjointed logic protruding one can be forgiven if the red apologists have others comment on their behalf in case they incriminate themselves as supporters of a woman that has spent 980 billion baht on a scheme that has not helped the farmers or has made them more sustainable. Of course she knows nothing about that. She was only the chairman after all.

Thank God for accountability.

And if anyone thinks yingluck is innocent please, I beg you, let me CEO of your company.

I don't recall anyone saying Yingluck is innocent or that she shouldn't be punished. This is a battle of wits between an illegal junta and someone who has been popular with the people, even if she's a criminal.

The junta is playing its cards and Yingluck is playing hers. Yingluck, by not testifying against herself is following the law. It would be hard to say that it's the junta which is legal and should be the one to prosecute. The junta gets its "rights" by the power of a military coup.

It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

This is a classic battle of wits and so far I think Yingluck is winning. Even if convicted and punished, the general loses because it won't set well with many Thais.

I'm just watching the show.

[cookee68]

She does not have the knowledge. that is about right

[jaidam]

A great irony would be that when this ends and there are elections in Thailand another Shinawatra comes out of the closet to win an election.

Panthongtae Shinawatra has already come out of the closet.

One of my Thaksin top 5 moments was when he blamed Abhisit's poor decision making on Abhisit's decision to surround himself with homosexuals. Who knows what Thaskin's son and his boyfriend at the time thought. FWIW the top moment was his cave of gold, the legend of 2,500 tons of gold hidden in a cave which led to the classic headline "Thaksin exits cave, enters the real world."

I really start to miss him, never a dull moment.

[scorecard]

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

Another justification for the coup from yingluck herself. As if they needed another one. RIP to the 24 (out of 28 dead) victims of the UDD terrorists by the way.

And to think she promised to attend to defend herself as well. Well she also made a promise in Septmeber, 2013 as well.

September 25, 2013 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra promised the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme." No one said that on her behalf. She said that.

I remember some had stated so proudly that she did not run overseas to join her brother in exile because she would proudly and resiliently defend herself against these charges with her head held high. Yet when she does not defend herself after promising too she is proud, resilient and has her head held high!

Maybe with this disjointed logic protruding one can be forgiven if the red apologists have others comment on their behalf in case they incriminate themselves as supporters of a woman that has spent 980 billion baht on a scheme that has not helped the farmers or has made them more sustainable. Of course she knows nothing about that. She was only the chairman after all.

Thank God for accountability.

And if anyone thinks yingluck is innocent please, I beg you, let me CEO of your company.

I don't recall anyone saying Yingluck is innocent or that she shouldn't be punished. This is a battle of wits between an illegal junta and someone who has been popular with the people, even if she's a criminal.

The junta is playing its cards and Yingluck is playing hers. Yingluck, by not testifying against herself is following the law. It would be hard to say that it's the junta which is legal and should be the one to prosecute. The junta gets its "rights" by the power of a military coup.

It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

This is a classic battle of wits and so far I think Yingluck is winning. Even if convicted and punished, the general loses because it won't set well with many Thais.

I'm just watching the show.

"...the general loses because it won't set well with many Thais."

Just your opinion, many others see the opposite picture.

[JAG]

'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!

Says rather more about you than it does about Yingluck or AFP. Edited January 17, 2015 by JAG

[binjalin]

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

Another justification for the coup from yingluck herself. As if they needed another one. RIP to the 24 (out of 28 dead) victims of the UDD terrorists by the way.

And to think she promised to attend to defend herself as well. Well she also made a promise in Septmeber, 2013 as well.

September 25, 2013 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra promised the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme." No one said that on her behalf. She said that.

I remember some had stated so proudly that she did not run overseas to join her brother in exile because she would proudly and resiliently defend herself against these charges with her head held high. Yet when she does not defend herself after promising too she is proud, resilient and has her head held high!

Maybe with this disjointed logic protruding one can be forgiven if the red apologists have others comment on their behalf in case they incriminate themselves as supporters of a woman that has spent 980 billion baht on a scheme that has not helped the farmers or has made them more sustainable. Of course she knows nothing about that. She was only the chairman after all.

Thank God for accountability.

And if anyone thinks yingluck is innocent please, I beg you, let me CEO of your company.

I don't recall anyone saying Yingluck is innocent or that she shouldn't be punished. This is a battle of wits between an illegal junta and someone who has been popular with the people, even if she's a criminal.

The junta is playing its cards and Yingluck is playing hers. Yingluck, by not testifying against herself is following the law. It would be hard to say that it's the junta which is legal and should be the one to prosecute. The junta gets its "rights" by the power of a military coup.

It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

This is a classic battle of wits and so far I think Yingluck is winning. Even if convicted and punished, the general loses because it won't set well with many Thais.

I'm just watching the show.

"...the general loses because it won't set well with many Thais."

Just your opinion, many others see the opposite picture.

what "opposite picture"? this is the TRUTH

an unelected military junta is making up rules as it goes and victimizing Thailand's last elected PM what is untruthful about this? how can you possibly support it?

"many others" being who? the electorate? there isn't any and they have made sure that no one has the right to speak out or protest - you support this? wow... just wow

[Baerboxer]

The cheek of it, an elected Prime Minister refusing to present herself before those tasked with impeaching her by the Junta who deposed her in a military coup!

Over to the Junta cheerleaders...

An elected Prime Minister removed from office for an illegal act refusing to come and answer questions just like she refused, and still refuses to answer the Ombudsman too,

Lies and refusals to comment have always been her MO - why change the game plan now. She thinks she's above the law.

Disgraceful that she is allowed to flaunt anything she likes.

[Baerboxer]

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

Another justification for the coup from yingluck herself. As if they needed another one. RIP to the 24 (out of 28 dead) victims of the UDD terrorists by the way.

And to think she promised to attend to defend herself as well. Well she also made a promise in Septmeber, 2013 as well.

September 25, 2013 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra promised the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme." No one said that on her behalf. She said that.

I remember some had stated so proudly that she did not run overseas to join her brother in exile because she would proudly and resiliently defend herself against these charges with her head held high. Yet when she does not defend herself after promising too she is proud, resilient and has her head held high!

Maybe with this disjointed logic protruding one can be forgiven if the red apologists have others comment on their behalf in case they incriminate themselves as supporters of a woman that has spent 980 billion baht on a scheme that has not helped the farmers or has made them more sustainable. Of course she knows nothing about that. She was only the chairman after all.

Thank God for accountability.

And if anyone thinks yingluck is innocent please, I beg you, let me CEO of your company.

I don't recall anyone saying Yingluck is innocent or that she shouldn't be punished. This is a battle of wits between an illegal junta and someone who has been popular with the people, even if she's a criminal.

The junta is playing its cards and Yingluck is playing hers. Yingluck, by not testifying against herself is following the law. It would be hard to say that it's the junta which is legal and should be the one to prosecute. The junta gets its "rights" by the power of a military coup.

It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

This is a classic battle of wits and so far I think Yingluck is winning. Even if convicted and punished, the general loses because it won't set well with many Thais.

I'm just watching the show.

"...the general loses because it won't set well with many Thais."

Just your opinion, many others see the opposite picture.

what "opposite picture"? this is the TRUTH

an unelected military junta is making up rules as it goes and victimizing Thailand's last elected PM what is untruthful about this? how can you possibly support it?

"many others" being who? the electorate? there isn't any and they have made sure that no one has the right to speak out or protest - you support this? wow... just wow

Would that be the last elected PM that was removed from office for acting illegally. One whose brother ran the government and made up his rules as he went along?

She is a proven liar who disregarded the rules whenever it suited whilst nominally in office, failed to prevent or punish murder and attacks against her opponents and still lies making promises and vowing things she has no intention of doing.

Do you really believe she stayed up late arguing with her legal team who finally persuaded her not to testify - wow just wow!

The "truth" - a meaningless word that describes something occasionally inconvenient is how the Shins view the truth.