Yingluck 'involved in corruption'

[Baerboxer]

So what happened to make them all of a sudden chase a legal case too?

This will turn into one very long running farce. If they haven't got hard proof that she personally profited from the system they are going to look like fool and will have created a martyr for their own downfall.

Who reckons that she personally profited? I don't.

I'd have thought the Shins too smart at this game to allow any direct connections or traceable money flows. But greed is a strange driver, so who knows yet what they've uncovered.

Something around those false G2G deals maybe?

[mathias67]

I counted my check bin - I am 100% sure I only had 200billion not 800billion - can you count that again please

Yingluck corrupt I don't believe it Ha Ha. Seems to run in the family and it is her with 200 billion and the other one 800 billion

[b2bme]

Did I not see somewhere that because of poor rice crops in India and Vietnam in 2014 Thailands rice exports were increasing and getting higher pricing. Figured these rice stocks from Yinglucks policy would be useful in this case which I think was her original plan on hedging.

I'm sure I read said something how the current rulers were getting a pat on the back but were the fruits of what she did.

The whole rice scheme is corrupt and it starts with the farmers. Farmers sell their self proclaimed quota around harvest time to the local Amper without anyone checking how much they have. They give a higher figure so they can get a higher amount of cash. Periodically the relevant department officials come to inspect and you get locals borrowing off of each others rice stocks to substantiate their stated quote. My wife tried to explain it to me once. Half grasped it but it seemed corrupt from the roots up. Whe up country I'm seen numerous times people coming to borrow rice from us.

[oneday]

Wow! I would love to see the evidence against her. I feel the NACC is myopic and has it out for her because they hate Thaksin with the passion of a rabid dog.

I can believe she was incompetent enough to be a party to the mismanagement of the rice-scheme and I don't think she gives a rat's ass if she is impeached, but actually profiting monetarily from the rice-scheme is very hard for me to believe given she already has so much money. Mismanagement makes her stupid or too trusting of the people under her, but to have been corrupt makes her an imbecile and that I refuse to believe...so show us the evidence...please show us.

[rixalex]

I can believe she was incompetent enough to be a party to the mismanagement of the rice-scheme and I don't think she gives a rat's ass if she is impeached, but actually profiting monetarily from the rice-scheme is very hard for me to believe given she already has so much money.

I think if we learnt anything from her brother's time in office, it's that being extremely wealthy does not necessarily make any difference when it comes to indulging in corruption.

I think, and this goes for pretty much all politicians here, that lining ones own pocket whilst in office is simply considered a rightful entitlement that comes with the job, and if that entitlement didn't exist, i'm sure the majority would have never entered politics in the first place. I mean, why would they?

[Nemesis7]

Doubt if the system can truly take yingluck to prison.

[candide]

This is really very simple.

her wealth and assets alegedly tripled, during her time in government, involving BILLION'S of baht.

Ask her where this new found wealth came from and let her proove it.

Did you hear that from Suthep's stage?

A link to credible evidence most welcome.

" Caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had Bt603 million in assets and Bt28 million in liabilities. Her assets increased since taking office by more than Bt50 million"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yinglucks-assets-rose-by-Bt50m-NACC-30226088.html

8.3% return

"The SET Index gained 36 percent in 2012, the most among Asias benchmark indexes after Pakistan."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-02/thai-stock-rally-to-ease-as-profit-growth-slows-southeast-asia.html

Maybe you could get a job working for the NACC or NLA

Just a reminder for those who failed to read this informative post

[Transporter]

Maybe Yingluck invested in Utokens and made her fortune there. If anyone else has had as much success please let me know and i can tell my brainwashed brother in law to borrow from a Chinese loan shark and invest some more money in Utokens.

[TPI]

These Junta clowns are repeating their 2006 failure. They have silenced all opposition voices with their guns and oppression and now idiotically believe that the dearth of criticism of their ridiculously biased actions is proof of their correctness and vast public support - idiots one and all. This right wing extremist joke is hurtling inevitably towards its deserved demise

"Examples need to be set that those who commit wrong will be punished, so no future leaders dare repeat these actions. This will create sustainable reconciliation," the NACC member said.

- Does this line of thinking apply to the Army leaders and the coups they continually inflict upon the nation? Selective justice is no justice at all!

Reconciliation cannot be forced by one side onto the other at the barrel of a gun.

What nonsense! Where have guns been used to silence people? Where is the Army on the streets? Barricades? Armed vehicles?

It was Prayut who commenced paying the rice farmers within 3 days of taking over; not the Yingluck Gov't...they allowed graft & corruption to occur to the tune of Billions of baht.

Wicha's comment that you quoted is correct;Thai people are entitled to have those who have wronged them, to be punished....that's natural justice!!

Agree: your only correct statement is in the last line...."Reconciliation cannot be forced by one side onto the other at the barrel of a gun."

Hear hear! The shin's are collectivly at fault, nationalisation of the entire Shin ediface would be/should be natural justice!

[SaamBaht]

Well it is good if they pursue legal actions as well as impeaching her. She needs to be held accountable for such huge losses to the country and from what I understand in this article they have enough proof that she contributed and benefitted from those losses as well.

They should immediately revoke her passport or she is going to follow her brother and do a runner.

Amazing what military dictators can do when they put their minds and bullets to it.

[rubl]

Wouldn't it have been a much better world if Ms. Yingluck's government had been a wee bit better in administration, auditing and so. Even after positioning her RPPS as 'self-financing' scheme and truly defending it we still lack clear info from her government.

A 700 billion Baht debt left at the BAAC, guaranteed by the Yingluck government and some here have it it's undemocratic and a witch hunt to ask about it?

[mike324]

by the looks of all the comments here pointing fingers back and forth, heck the TVs here are no different than the Thai politicians

[rebelplatoon]

Really? Serious?

[tbthailand]

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

Wicha said ... that for true reconciliation, people should be able to see "right from wrong" and once facts are clarified to the public, it can decide for itself if holders of public office possess the qualities to lead the country.

speaking of facts, Khun Wicha is one of the former 2007 military constitution drafters. At the time he stated such things as "we all know elections are evil..."

Given his earlier statements and current statements, one can conclude that he doesn't give a rat's a** about reconciliation.

So you believe in saying "....naughty boy, never mind it's OK ....."

no. do you care to explain how you get that out of my post?

[Cuchulainn]

Good. Let the dog see the rabbit.......................

......and then tear it to pieces.

[A1Str8]

Agree. Punish that .....!

[GerdT]

There have been similar schemes like the rice pledging scheme in other countries and on different continents. There too governments tried interfere and manipulate the world markets and in most cases they failed. Australia had a scheme were the government was buying off all the wool from sheep farmers and placing them into storage to drive world market prices through the roof.

The intention in Thailand too was to store the rice until the prices went up far the previous levels and to gain from that. Unfortunately that failed because Thailand might have been the rice exporter number one on the world stage but there was serious competition from other countries that jumped to supply and fill the demand that Thailand created artificially.

Certainly like the schemes in other countries that don’t constitute crimes but a failed economic and fiscal policy that the voters should punish. That would require that people are informed and what decisions have been taken on their behalf, let’s not forget they voted for these governments, and what it will mean for the short and long term future. In Australia and Europe people realised that and voted accordingly, in Thailand that seems to be not the case because whoever is in power, may that be reds or blue/yellows seem to take decisions that in the short term will be of benefit to their supporters but in the long term harm the country.

In Yingluck’s case, she gambled on a world market she tried to control and manipulate but she failed and for that she deserves to be punished but not by the courts but by the electorate. Taken legal steps against her without having proof that she personally benefited from it or that she ensured that associates benefited from it without having evidence to support it is a step onto very thin ice.

What future politician will be prepared to make a decision if the threat of criminal actions against him might loom not knowing if his/her decision actually might be beneficial for the country or fail? That should be left to the voters and being the judge of it; and well educated and informed voters will ensure that it will not happen again.

Edited January 17, 2015 by GerdT

[ianf]

Did I not see somewhere that because of poor rice crops in India and Vietnam in 2014 Thailands rice exports were increasing and getting higher pricing. Figured these rice stocks from Yinglucks policy would be useful in this case which I think was her original plan on hedging.

I'm sure I read said something how the current rulers were getting a pat on the back but were the fruits of what she did.

The whole rice scheme is corrupt and it starts with the farmers. Farmers sell their self proclaimed quota around harvest time to the local Amper without anyone checking how much they have. They give a higher figure so they can get a higher amount of cash. Periodically the relevant department officials come to inspect and you get locals borrowing off of each others rice stocks to substantiate their stated quote. My wife tried to explain it to me once. Half grasped it but it seemed corrupt from the roots up. Whe up country I'm seen numerous times people coming to borrow rice from us.

Hang on! Yingluck's policy??? Don't make me laugh: She had no policy. All of these schemes came from Big Bro himself. Why? Because he is a schemer and he was trying to pull a trick on the world's rice stocks and make a profit on the resultant increased prices once he had created an artificial shortage. Clever stuff, eh? Thaksin is a man who always takes the side of the poor - or so we are told. How come then he wanted to double the world price of poor people's basic food? If someone higher up could explain this evil monstrosity to the masses in terms that they could understand, then we might get some movement on this issue. As for Yingluck she has only been a pawn in Thaksin's game all along. Yes, she can be blamed because she took on the responsibility, but she was not the cause.

[Lovekorat]

She may well have been involved in corruption but like the others weren't?

Do the words pot kettle and black mean anything to those that want a prosecution

I think there are far more important things to worry about here than the prosecution of an ex politician

[rubl]

She may well have been involved in corruption but like the others weren't?

Do the words pot kettle and black mean anything to those that want a prosecution

I think there are far more important things to worry about here than the prosecution of an ex politician

Well, this particular former PM and current politician still needs to answer on 700 billion Baht loss on her 'self-financing' scheme. I don't think she even mentioned 'my brother told me so' which would probably the most truthful answer she can give

Of course there are other things to do in Thailand as well and I fear all that may take a decade or so. I don't think though this case should be allowed to laps into 'statute of limitation reached'. Would give the wrong signal.

[rixalex]

There have been similar schemes like the rice pledging scheme in other countries and on different continents. There too governments tried interfere and manipulate the world markets and in most cases they failed. Australia had a scheme were the government was buying off all the wool from sheep farmers and placing them into storage to drive world market prices through the roof.

The intention in Thailand too was to store the rice until the prices went up far the previous levels and to gain from that. Unfortunately that failed because Thailand might have been the rice exporter number one on the world stage but there was serious competition from other countries that jumped to supply and fill the demand that Thailand created artificially.

Certainly like the schemes in other countries that don’t constitute crimes but a failed economic and fiscal policy that the voters should punish. That would require that people are informed and what decisions have been taken on their behalf, let’s not forget they voted for these governments, and what it will mean for the short and long term future. In Australia and Europe people realised that and voted accordingly, in Thailand that seems to be not the case because whoever is in power, may that be reds or blue/yellows seem to take decisions that in the short term will be of benefit to their supporters but in the long term harm the country.

In Yingluck’s case, she gambled on a world market she tried to control and manipulate but she failed and for that she deserves to be punished but not by the courts but by the electorate. Taken legal steps against her without having proof that she personally benefited from it or that she ensured that associates benefited from it without having evidence to support it is a step onto very thin ice.

What future politician will be prepared to make a decision if the threat of criminal actions against him might loom not knowing if his/her decision actually might be beneficial for the country or fail? That should be left to the voters and being the judge of it; and well educated and informed voters will ensure that it will not happen again.

There is a big difference between making a bad decision, and making a bad decision and then persisting with it and refusing to reverse or at the very least, amend the decision, in spite of piles of evidence that showed the damage it was doing. That's gross negligence and if you think the only punishment it deserves is the risk of being voted out of office then I think you are being extraordinarily kind on politicians and giving then a lot of scope for bringing a country to its knees and then walking away with a shrug off the shoulders and a, 'oh well, that didn't work out so well but not to worry, the voters are really the ones to blame for voting me in in the first place'.

[brucec64]

She may well have been involved in corruption but like the others weren't?

Do the words pot kettle and black mean anything to those that want a prosecution

I think there are far more important things to worry about here than the prosecution of an ex politician

The only difference is the current lot have rewritten the laws so that anything they do is legal. To paraphrase our esteemed PM: do not worry about where myself and my brother got all our millions. That is not your concern.

I'm not sure that they are impeaching the right PM!

[mikecat]

Well, this is nothing more than predictable. The heading, "Yingluck involved in corruption" is false. She is not guilty until proven so in a court of law. Guilty or not, there is clearly a witchhunt going on here. Corruption has been rife in Thailand at all levels of Government and in all shades of politics for years. It is clear nothing has been learned from the past. Sooner or later the Junta will be removed, elections will be held, a new leader will be elected and the cycle of corruption and payback will begin again. Anyone who thinks the removal of Yingluck without a similar purge within the democrats, local government and their buddies in industry etc is going to resolve anything is kidding themselves.

[waitforusalso]

There have been similar schemes like the rice pledging scheme in other countries and on different continents. There too governments tried interfere and manipulate the world markets and in most cases they failed. Australia had a scheme were the government was buying off all the wool from sheep farmers and placing them into storage to drive world market prices through the roof.

The intention in Thailand too was to store the rice until the prices went up far the previous levels and to gain from that. Unfortunately that failed because Thailand might have been the rice exporter number one on the world stage but there was serious competition from other countries that jumped to supply and fill the demand that Thailand created artificially.

Certainly like the schemes in other countries that don’t constitute crimes but a failed economic and fiscal policy that the voters should punish. That would require that people are informed and what decisions have been taken on their behalf, let’s not forget they voted for these governments, and what it will mean for the short and long term future. In Australia and Europe people realised that and voted accordingly, in Thailand that seems to be not the case because whoever is in power, may that be reds or blue/yellows seem to take decisions that in the short term will be of benefit to their supporters but in the long term harm the country.

In Yingluck’s case, she gambled on a world market she tried to control and manipulate but she failed and for that she deserves to be punished but not by the courts but by the electorate. Taken legal steps against her without having proof that she personally benefited from it or that she ensured that associates benefited from it without having evidence to support it is a step onto very thin ice.

What future politician will be prepared to make a decision if the threat of criminal actions against him might loom not knowing if his/her decision actually might be beneficial for the country or fail? That should be left to the voters and being the judge of it; and well educated and informed voters will ensure that it will not happen again.

There is a big difference between making a bad decision, and making a bad decision and then persisting with it and refusing to reverse or at the very least, amend the decision, in spite of piles of evidence that showed the damage it was doing. That's gross negligence and if you think the only punishment it deserves is the risk of being voted out of office then I think you are being extraordinarily kind on politicians and giving then a lot of scope for bringing a country to its knees and then walking away with a shrug off the shoulders and a, 'oh well, that didn't work out so well but not to worry, the voters are really the ones to blame for voting me in in the first place'.

Subsidies making massive losses are continued year after year in US, Europe & Japan.

[waitforusalso]

There have been similar schemes like the rice pledging scheme in other countries and on different continents. There too governments tried interfere and manipulate the world markets and in most cases they failed. Australia had a scheme were the government was buying off all the wool from sheep farmers and placing them into storage to drive world market prices through the roof.

The intention in Thailand too was to store the rice until the prices went up far the previous levels and to gain from that. Unfortunately that failed because Thailand might have been the rice exporter number one on the world stage but there was serious competition from other countries that jumped to supply and fill the demand that Thailand created artificially.

Certainly like the schemes in other countries that don’t constitute crimes but a failed economic and fiscal policy that the voters should punish. That would require that people are informed and what decisions have been taken on their behalf, let’s not forget they voted for these governments, and what it will mean for the short and long term future. In Australia and Europe people realised that and voted accordingly, in Thailand that seems to be not the case because whoever is in power, may that be reds or blue/yellows seem to take decisions that in the short term will be of benefit to their supporters but in the long term harm the country.

In Yingluck’s case, she gambled on a world market she tried to control and manipulate but she failed and for that she deserves to be punished but not by the courts but by the electorate. Taken legal steps against her without having proof that she personally benefited from it or that she ensured that associates benefited from it without having evidence to support it is a step onto very thin ice.

What future politician will be prepared to make a decision if the threat of criminal actions against him might loom not knowing if his/her decision actually might be beneficial for the country or fail? That should be left to the voters and being the judge of it; and well educated and informed voters will ensure that it will not happen again.

There is a big difference between making a bad decision, and making a bad decision and then persisting with it and refusing to reverse or at the very least, amend the decision, in spite of piles of evidence that showed the damage it was doing. That's gross negligence and if you think the only punishment it deserves is the risk of being voted out of office then I think you are being extraordinarily kind on politicians and giving then a lot of scope for bringing a country to its knees and then walking away with a shrug off the shoulders and a, 'oh well, that didn't work out so well but not to worry, the voters are really the ones to blame for voting me in in the first place'.

US, Europe & Japan lose huge amounts on subsidies year after year.

[waitforusalso]

She may well have been involved in corruption but like the others weren't?

Do the words pot kettle and black mean anything to those that want a prosecution

I think there are far more important things to worry about here than the prosecution of an ex politician

Well, this particular former PM and current politician still needs to answer on 700 billion Baht loss on her 'self-financing' scheme. I don't think she even mentioned 'my brother told me so' which would probably the most truthful answer she can give

Of course there are other things to do in Thailand as well and I fear all that may take a decade or so. I don't think though this case should be allowed to laps into 'statute of limitation reached'. Would give the wrong signal.

But letting AV off for his rice guarantee scheme costing the country 150 billion or Chuan's many disasters gives the correct signal?

[JAG]

Well it is good if they pursue legal actions as well as impeaching her. She needs to be held accountable for such huge losses to the country and from what I understand in this article they have enough proof that she contributed and benefitted from those losses as well.

They should immediately revoke her passport or she is going to follow her brother and do a runner.

Wiser heads on TV have been saying for years she has been up to her neck in this scheme

hatched by her brother. Nice to see the current government taking the same view. They

will not revoke her passport, as my opinion is they want her to do a runner. That way another

nail is put into the coffin of the Thaksin dynasty., The prospect of her coming a martyr

to the red buffaloes is removed by the fact she would not be thrown in jail, but rather would

be far away, and tainted by an endless string of charges.

At one level it is sort of sad, as she really was nothing more than a puloesppet dancing on

the strings of her brother. I personally do not believe she was smart enough to hatch

any kind of major scheme.....

"Red buffaoes" eh?

Well we know where your allegiances lie - would you object to being called a "Yellow fascist"? You being one of the wiser heads on TV and all?

Edited January 17, 2015 by JAG

[djjamie]

How could she be involved in corruption?

She had no involvement in the rice scheme apart from being the chairwoman and even then someone did that on her behalf.

I wonder how the partnership between the Maldives and Thailand is blossoming since her crucial visit that removed her from chairing the rice scheme meeting that was highlighting corruption in the scheme?

Maybe if she was at that meeting she might have offered some leadership advice to her subordinates telling them to stop the corruption.

I tell you if I was involved in the corruption I would be in the Maldives as well when this discussion took place. Kinda like yingluck being absent from every critical moment in the amnesty bill discussions involving her brother.

Kinds like yingluck being absent when discussions took place regarding flooding in 2011.

Kinda like yingluck being absent when……..

Edited January 17, 2015 by djjamie

[lewy67]

Yingluck 'involved in corruption'
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

And how does that make her any different from any copper, army - navy - air force officer, politician, Sino-Thai businessmen or public servant in the history of this country?

Apply the law to all equally or continue be seen as a laughing stock because your witch hunt is indefensible and totally see through to anyone who understands the separation of powers and justice.

[rixalex]

Subsidies making massive losses are continued year after year in US, Europe & Japan.

The rice pledging scheme wasn't a subsidy.