Yea just think of all the poor rice farmers that have facebook accounts

big mouth.jpg

Interesting choice of picture ... did you know that a group of baboons is referred to as a 'Parliament' ... so now we know who are running the country.

These answers or the translation of the ones that I have seen only lead to more questions, for giving these answers without proof is no answer at all.

I wonder if the NLA will decide that as the original questions have now been answered by others that they are obsolete and will ask other new questions, probably pertaining to the answers given by the 4 ex ministers.

If they do then the lawyers will be leaping up and down screaming about how unfair it is without even considering how unfair it was for someone else to answer the questions put to Yingluck.

That is if she bothers to attend and why should she, for from her point of view the questions have now been answered ?

Whatever. When it comes to a vote on this every NLA member should be required to vote one way or the other, there should be no abstaining for any reason.

I understand that 15 of them already abstained on the vote to hold this hearing, and that is not on.

These people were put in place to do a job and abstaining on such an important vote is admitting they cant or are to scared do that job.

Any of them who abstain should be dismissed and replaced immediately.

Yingluck need to answer the questions herself. It's that simple.

She can't. It's that simple.

She can know .. they have given her study class on YouTube .. she's going to be a busy girl. Watching and re-watching that clip!

If Suthep had not gone on the streets, this rice scam would stioll be running, stockpiles would be approaching 30 million tonnes and a few more years of the scheme hand in hand with the serious drop in tourism, this country would be on the verge of economic collapse by 2017.

Even PTs most ardent supporters know this scam was a complete disaster. If anything, this defence will lose these idiots a hell of a lot of future votes.

Reading this article is like watching an episode of "Locked up abroad" with the only difference being that these guys are still free.

Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisal - Sept 16, 2013. Affirmed that China is to buy 1.2 million tonnes of Thai rice. Fake. China denied it and the Thai rice exporters association denied it.

Kittiratt Na-Ranong - Aug 24, 2012. "The finance minister may lie to the public if necessary to establish confidence". "The finance minister can lie about some things such as export targets, but these are white lies"

Varathep Ratanakorn - banned from politics by the Supreme Court on September 30, 2009 and received a two-year suspended sentence in a corruption case involving the two- and three-digit lottery

Yanyong Puangrat. Dec 13, 2013. Reaffirmed that the government had enough money to buy rice from farmers while he was leading the private sector to check the quality of rice stockpiles kept at a central warehouse of the Public Warehouse Organization (PWO) in Saraburi province. Well it turned out they didn't have enough money (and this was before the PDRC protests)

What a thaksin dream team these guys are and the common thread with them all is that they will put an unelected leader above their constituents and lie to protect him.

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

Yingluck need to answer the questions herself. It's that simple.

She can't. It's that simple.

She can know .. they have given her study class on YouTube .. she's going to be a busy girl. Watching and re-watching that clip!

But if she turns up, repeats from youtube, then there is challenge and deeper questioning.....

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

If Suthep had not gone on the streets, this rice scam would stioll be running, stockpiles would be approaching 30 million tonnes and a few more years of the scheme hand in hand with the serious drop in tourism, this country would be on the verge of economic collapse by 2017.

Even PTs most ardent supporters know this scam was a complete disaster. If anything, this defence will lose these idiots a hell of a lot of future votes.

There's more, they would have by now invented:

- Another immoral way to try to get an amnesty through parliament white washing / cancelling past convictions and current investigations

- Another immoral way to entrench the party so that it becomes more and more difficult / impossible to unseat the

- More reasons to start and have actually started many large budgets with very little to zero transperancey

When i see the level of exasperation of yellow supporters, i conclude that it was quite a good communication trick.

Yea just think of all the poor rice farmers that have facebook accounts

big mouth.jpg

Last time I checked, FB accounts were free

I can assure you that less than 5% of the average farmers (not talking about the large-scale farmers with oceans of land) in Isaan villages has access to the Internet ... except from the wi-fi at the village school, that is.

An other evidence that Yingluck has no honor. She send puppet to defend herself.

But these puppets don't give answer about some question :

why this scheme lost money ?

During her regime, Why farmers no receive their money since several months ?

why some rice stockpile disappeared ?

Why no country buy thai rice during her regime ?

Why Yingluck let farmers commit suicide ?

Why Yingluck regime help only rich farmer and no poor farmers ?

Why She let corruption prospers in the rice scheme ?

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

When i see the level of exasperation of yellow supporters, i conclude that it was quite a good communication trick.

How's that?

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

When i see the level of exasperation of yellow supporters, i conclude that it was quite a good communication trick.

How's that?

She did not give her political opponents the opportunity to grill her publicly and so to fully achieve their communications objectives. Answering on Youtube is also a good idea because you can answer what you want without someone in front of you objecting anything to your answers.

It can be objected that she will not increase her chance of escaping impeachment by doing so. But my reasoning is based on the assumption that both parties, Yingluck and her political opponents, know the decision that has been already made. And that the questions and answers will not have any impact on the final decision. Both parties know it and try to have the best political communication impact about it.

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

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

When i see the level of exasperation of yellow supporters, i conclude that it was quite a good communication trick.

How's that?

She did not give her political opponents the opportunity to grill her publicly and so to fully achieve their communications objectives. Answering on Youtube is also a good idea because you can answer what you want without someone in front of you objecting anything to your answers.

It can be objected that she will not increase her chance of escaping impeachment by doing so. But my reasoning is based on the assumption that both parties, Yingluck and her political opponents, know the decision that has been already made. And that the questions and answers will not have any impact on the final decision. Both parties know it and try to have the best political communication impact about it.

Some of us have better values.

What a pack of A-holes trying to usurp the system by getting in and answering on her behalf, putting words in her mouth.

And look who they are, 3 who are at present being investigated for corruption within the scheme and a self confessed liar.

I see in the BKK post that Niwattumrong said that PT made improvements to an old scheme to really get farmers out of poverty.

I wonder then if he can explain why they are now deeper in debt than they ever have been before.

Their main anti corruption measure was cutting the budgets of the NACC and other anti corruption agencies and of course the amnesty bill which had it gone through would have forgiven all corruption within the scheme.

And they say they put Chalerm in charge of preventing corrupting, what a wonderful choice.

And they say the dont know where the TDRI got their information.

Im sure they dont, nobody was supposed to know. And they forgot to mention that the World Bank and others have also come out with similar numbers.

I suspect that words are not going to help here and documented proof of what they say will need to be produced, but does that exist ?

Usurping the system....................if guilty, I can't imagine from whom that got that idea from, perhaps everything the Yellows and military have done since 2006 is the answer!

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

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

When i see the level of exasperation of yellow supporters, i conclude that it was quite a good communication trick.

How's that?

She did not give her political opponents the opportunity to grill her publicly and so to fully achieve their communications objectives. Answering on Youtube is also a good idea because you can answer what you want without someone in front of you objecting anything to your answers.

It can be objected that she will not increase her chance of escaping impeachment by doing so. But my reasoning is based on the assumption that both parties, Yingluck and her political opponents, know the decision that has been already made. And that the questions and answers will not have any impact on the final decision. Both parties know it and try to have the best political communication impact about it.

Some of us have better values.

Additionally, her opponents find themselves in the situation of impeaching her after having refused her team the opportunity to answer accusation questions.

That's the reality of politics in Thailand: playing communication tricks with the NLA, blocking elections, making coups, etc....

So, did the legal team of Ms. Yingluck forward the youtube clip to the NLA? Did they include the written statement with Ms. Yingluck confirming to agree with the clips contents and to see it as the answer she would otherwise have given herself if only she had had the time to do so?

BTW 'subsidy'? The RPPS was not a subsidy, it was a 'self-financing' scheme, didn't need reservations in the National Budget. Even the day before the scheme formally started Kittirat stated that the costs of 440 billion Baht would be regained by the sale of rice.

Kittirat lies, admits to lying and sees nothing wrong in it.

Who would believe anything a serial self admitting liar says?

But BB, if he is a serial liar, and he admits to it, is he to be believed ?

When i see the level of exasperation of yellow supporters, i conclude that it was quite a good communication trick.

Actually, it was "tricks" that got her here in the first place !

they all have cought the :: "ich habe es nicht gewust" syndrome ?

like many people in germany post ww2 ?

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

She did not give her political opponents the opportunity to grill her publicly and so to fully achieve their communications objectives. Answering on Youtube is also a good idea because you can answer what you want without someone in front of you objecting anything to your answers.

It can be objected that she will not increase her chance of escaping impeachment by doing so. But my reasoning is based on the assumption that both parties, Yingluck and her political opponents, know the decision that has been already made. And that the questions and answers will not have any impact on the final decision. Both parties know it and try to have the best political communication impact about it.

Some of us have better values.

Additionally, her opponents find themselves in the situation of impeaching her after having refused her team the opportunity to answer accusation questions.

That's the reality of politics in Thailand: playing communication tricks with the NLA, blocking elections, making coups, etc....

As we are discussing elsewhere, her team have now answered the questions so therefor the argument that they never had a chance to answer is obsolete.

And as I stated, the NACC now have these answers so now have the chance to refute them in their closing statement.

Her clever defense team in their haste to jump in and answer the questions instead of leaving the answers for her to read out as her closing statement have given the advantage to the NACC and they must now prepare another closing statement for her to read.

If they do not and should that closing statement consist of the answers given, then the NACC is in a position to refute them as they now know what she will say.

It is her defense team that are attempting to play tricks by not letting her answer in the first place and saying they don't know where she is and cant contact her, and now answering for her

Could it be that they are not quite as smart as they think they are ?

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

She did not give her political opponents the opportunity to grill her publicly and so to fully achieve their communications objectives. Answering on Youtube is also a good idea because you can answer what you want without someone in front of you objecting anything to your answers.

It can be objected that she will not increase her chance of escaping impeachment by doing so. But my reasoning is based on the assumption that both parties, Yingluck and her political opponents, know the decision that has been already made. And that the questions and answers will not have any impact on the final decision. Both parties know it and try to have the best political communication impact about it.

Some of us have better values.

Additionally, her opponents find themselves in the situation of impeaching her after having refused her team the opportunity to answer accusation questions.

That's the reality of politics in Thailand: playing communication tricks with the NLA, blocking elections, making coups, etc....

As we are discussing elsewhere, her team have now answered the questions so therefor the argument that they never had a chance to answer is obsolete.

And as I stated, the NACC now have these answers so now have the chance to refute them in their closing statement.

Her clever defense team in their haste to jump in and answer the questions instead of leaving the answers for her to read out as her closing statement have given the advantage to the NACC and they must now prepare another closing statement for her to read.

If they do not and should that closing statement consist of the answers given, then the NACC is in a position to refute them as they now know what she will say.

It is her defense team that are attempting to play tricks by not letting her answer in the first place and saying they don't know where she is and cant contact her, and now answering for her

Could it be that they are not quite as smart as they think they are ?

But at least she has avoided to be publicly grilled. They can still argue that as they have not been allowed to answer, and they had to answer using Youtube. Additionally, I find interesting to have the NLA and the NACC answer comments made on Youtube outside the procedure.

Anyway I don't feel anything surprising will come out of it. Basically we'll hear the same arguments as before from previous government's opponents, and the same arguments from Yingluck's side.

But I find it interesting to analyse the communication tactics applied by each camp. It compensates for the absence of any suspence on the decision that will be made.

Yea just think of all the poor rice farmers that have facebook accounts

big mouth.jpg

Interesting choice of picture ... did you know that a group of baboons is referred to as a 'Parliament' ... so now we know who are running the country.

Actually a group of baboons is called a Congress not a parliament. So what was your point?

As we are discussing elsewhere, her team have now answered the questions so therefor the argument that they never had a chance to answer is obsolete.

And as I stated, the NACC now have these answers so now have the chance to refute them in their closing statement.

Her clever defense team in their haste to jump in and answer the questions instead of leaving the answers for her to read out as her closing statement have given the advantage to the NACC and they must now prepare another closing statement for her to read.

If they do not and should that closing statement consist of the answers given, then the NACC is in a position to refute them as they now know what she will say.

It is her defense team that are attempting to play tricks by not letting her answer in the first place and saying they don't know where she is and cant contact her, and now answering for her

Could it be that they are not quite as smart as they think they are ?

But at least she has avoided to be publicly grilled. They can still argue that as they have not been allowed to answer, and they had to answer using Youtube. Additionally, I find interesting to have the NLA and the NACC answer comments made on Youtube outside the procedure.

Anyway I don't feel anything surprising will come out of it. Basically we'll hear the same arguments as before from previous government's opponents, and the same arguments from Yingluck's side.

But I find it interesting to analyse the communication tactics applied by each camp. It compensates for the absence of any suspence on the decision that will be made.

You make some assumptions which are incorrect.

Ms. Yingluck was not to be publicly grilled as the meeting would not be broadcast even though Ms. Yingluck's representatives wanted that.

Furthermore there is no indication that the NLA accepts the youtube clip unless it's handed to them by either Ms. Yingluck or by her legal team. Following Ms. Yingluck or her legal team would need to declare that the information provided is accepted by Ms. Yingluck as if it was given verbally by her to the NLA.

So, till now no information on the 700 billion Baht loss by a 'self-financing' scheme.

As we are discussing elsewhere, her team have now answered the questions so therefor the argument that they never had a chance to answer is obsolete.

And as I stated, the NACC now have these answers so now have the chance to refute them in their closing statement.

Her clever defense team in their haste to jump in and answer the questions instead of leaving the answers for her to read out as her closing statement have given the advantage to the NACC and they must now prepare another closing statement for her to read.

If they do not and should that closing statement consist of the answers given, then the NACC is in a position to refute them as they now know what she will say.

It is her defense team that are attempting to play tricks by not letting her answer in the first place and saying they don't know where she is and cant contact her, and now answering for her

Could it be that they are not quite as smart as they think they are ?

But at least she has avoided to be publicly grilled. They can still argue that as they have not been allowed to answer, and they had to answer using Youtube. Additionally, I find interesting to have the NLA and the NACC answer comments made on Youtube outside the procedure.

Anyway I don't feel anything surprising will come out of it. Basically we'll hear the same arguments as before from previous government's opponents, and the same arguments from Yingluck's side.

But I find it interesting to analyse the communication tactics applied by each camp. It compensates for the absence of any suspence on the decision that will be made.

You make some assumptions which are incorrect.

Ms. Yingluck was not to be publicly grilled as the meeting would not be broadcast even though Ms. Yingluck's representatives wanted that.

Furthermore there is no indication that the NLA accepts the youtube clip unless it's handed to them by either Ms. Yingluck or by her legal team. Following Ms. Yingluck or her legal team would need to declare that the information provided is accepted by Ms. Yingluck as if it was given verbally by her to the NLA.

So, till now no information on the 700 billion Baht loss by a 'self-financing' scheme.

Point 1: well, it would have been reported in the media. Not willing to depend on the media's reporting of the session may be a wise tactic. There are also some missing elements we don't know, which is what they expected to be refused, i.e. did they expect the public broadcasting to be refused? Did they expect that the NLA would refuse her team answering questions for her?

I still tend to think that not attending the session was better for her than attending it (based on the assumption that she has no possibility to influence the decision).

Point 2: I was responding to Robby. In fact, I agree with you and my comment was intended to be humoristic, but not perfectly phrased (I'm also not native English speaker )

What a farce all this is. Just ban her and all her family from ever entering politics again and have done with it. This whole pretense at legality is pathetic and everyone knows it. Tearing up a constitution abrogates any legality so why not have the balls to just do what you set out to do without worrying about world opinion. The PDRC and PAD have stated it clearly enough. If necessary close down the country and carry out a more thorough purge behind closed doors. When it's all over just open the doors again with a big smile, announce Thainess year , keep the girlie bars open and watch everything return to normal without the heinous trappings of democracy that have served the truly patriotic wealthy Thais so poorly.

Why would she answer questions put forth? If I were her I would consider the NLA an illegally appointed body by an illegally installed Prime Minister.

They should ask away, and she will answer that shes unsure of the answer and has to defer to someone else who has a more detailed knowledge. And nothing is going to change.

Why would she answer questions put forth? If I were her I would consider the NLA an illegally appointed body by an illegally installed Prime Minister.

When you are arrested, I'm sure your lawyer will recommend against that defense.

Additionally, her opponents find themselves in the situation of impeaching her after having refused her team the opportunity to answer accusation questions.

That's the reality of politics in Thailand: playing communication tricks with the NLA, blocking elections, making coups, etc....

As we are discussing elsewhere, her team have now answered the questions so therefor the argument that they never had a chance to answer is obsolete.

And as I stated, the NACC now have these answers so now have the chance to refute them in their closing statement.

Her clever defense team in their haste to jump in and answer the questions instead of leaving the answers for her to read out as her closing statement have given the advantage to the NACC and they must now prepare another closing statement for her to read.

If they do not and should that closing statement consist of the answers given, then the NACC is in a position to refute them as they now know what she will say.

It is her defense team that are attempting to play tricks by not letting her answer in the first place and saying they don't know where she is and cant contact her, and now answering for her

Could it be that they are not quite as smart as they think they are ?

But at least she has avoided to be publicly grilled. They can still argue that as they have not been allowed to answer, and they had to answer using Youtube. Additionally, I find interesting to have the NLA and the NACC answer comments made on Youtube outside the procedure.

Anyway I don't feel anything surprising will come out of it. Basically we'll hear the same arguments as before from previous government's opponents, and the same arguments from Yingluck's side.

But I find it interesting to analyse the communication tactics applied by each camp. It compensates for the absence of any suspence on the decision that will be made.

Its not about publicly grilled at all, there were set questions that were put together to be asked, from what I have read it was never to be taken any farther than those questions.

That is; once the questions had been answered there were to be no questions asked about the answers given.

Had she come out with the answers that the ministers have now given as part of her closing statement, as she could have done, then the answers would have been a surprise and the NACC would not have had the chance to do any research on them.

Now there is the opportunity for the NACC in its closing statement to not only question but to refute the answers given, and looking back at the news reports and statements made over the life of the scheme that should not be difficult at all.

I have not seen anywhere that the NLA will be asking questions of either party on their closing statements, although I am sure some of them would want to.

I see that the lawyers now say Yingluck will turn up in person to give a closing statement on Thursday so they must be confident that there will be no questions asked of her.

Seems they have now discovered where she is and how to contact her.

Why would she answer questions put forth? If I were her I would consider the NLA an illegally appointed body by an illegally installed Prime Minister.

She has always refused to answer questions - in parliament, to reporters, to courts, to anti corruption agencies etc. She is incapable as she was never a real PM, politician or government minister; and has neither the intelligence or experience to do so,

The current government has been royally endorsed as has the PM. She would be on very dangerous ground to follow your advice, especially stating so.

@candide

You say: "But at least she has avoided to be publicly grilled."

You, she, her scaly gang might think this is clever and a victory.

No doubt many others see it as unscrupulous and immoral and in fact not surprised that this gang if liars and people under serious charges take this approach, the result being that they just look more tricky, more untrustworthy, and more scaly, all of them.