Ex-ministers defend rice scheme via YouTube video

[mikemac]

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?

A group of owls is known as a "parliament", as usual the wrong information posted to suit their feeble agenda. I think I know who the baboon is here.

And as owls are generally a nocturnal bird the description is fitting, considering trying to rush amnesty bills through in the middle of the night, while honest people are in bed asleep ! HOOT HOOT HOOT !

[candide]

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elsewhere, her team have now answered the questions so therefor the argument that they never had a chance to answer is obsolete.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

I recognise that this point can be discussed and that there are advantages and drawbacks in communicating answers via Youtube. Pro: Youtube has a wide audience, and it allows publicising the fact that they have been forbidden to answer during the session. Cons: as you mention, the NACC knows the answers and can refute them in the final statement. Question mark: have they kept striking unexpected arguments for the final speech as suggested in another topic? (I'm not sure they are that smart, but who knows?)

About the other remark, I did not use the word "party", i.e. a political party , but the word "opponents", which has a broader scope.

(maybe I used the word party somewhere else in the judicial sense)

Edited January 19, 2015 by candide

[scorecard]

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

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.

Be fair, complete your statement:

... following the example of her brother who took upon himself, illegally, to return to the pm position.

[scorecard]

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

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.

Rubi said:

"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."

With all respect to Rubi I add:

... and there is no guarantee that they believe anything that was said on the youtube clip.

[rubl]

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

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.

Rubi said:

"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."

With all respect to Rubi I add:

... and there is no guarantee that they believe anything that was said on the youtube clip.

The information provided in the clip seems barely related to the questions. As such I have no doubt that after a year of obfuscation in this case the NLA members made up their mind already. That's only so much 'manure of an exquisite kind' one can accept before shovels are needed to clear the mess.

[djjamie]

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.

Mind you she voluntarily testifies when she can read off a prepared script. She did her weekly talk show…..off a prepared script. She responded to the Trang terrorist attacks with a prepared script on Facebook. But she sends proxies when it's an interactive 2-way Q&A. When ever it is not a controlled environment she is no where to be seen.

[candide]

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

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.

Rubi said:

"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."

With all respect to Rubi I add:

... and there is no guarantee that they believe anything that was said on the youtube clip.

The information provided in the clip seems barely related to the questions. As such I have no doubt that after a year of obfuscation in this case the NLA members made up their mind already. That's only so much 'manure of an exquisite kind' one can accept before shovels are needed to clear the mess.

Please remind that my remarks have been precisely focused on the communication impact on the general public, not on the impact on the NLA members. I think the decision has already been made, and whatever Yingluck and her team can say or do will not have the slightest impact on the impeachment decision. Both sides know it and try to have the best communication impact on the general public.

[rubl]

Rubi said:

"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."

With all respect to Rubi I add:

... and there is no guarantee that they believe anything that was said on the youtube clip.

The information provided in the clip seems barely related to the questions. As such I have no doubt that after a year of obfuscation in this case the NLA members made up their mind already. That's only so much 'manure of an exquisite kind' one can accept before shovels are needed to clear the mess.

Please remind that my remarks have been precisely focused on the communication impact on the general public, not on the impact on the NLA members. I think the decision has already been made, and whatever Yingluck and her team can say or do will not have the slightest impact on the impeachment decision. Both sides know it and try to have the best communication impact on the general public.

Oh, I did notice that 'fact' and 'truth' are not important to you. Just the impact on the 'general public'. A youtube clip as evidence.

So, did you see the NLA youtube clip? No, because the government doesn't rely on such propaganda. They have asked questions which are still not answered whatever BS clip the Pheu Thai party has put together. What's next stating no court case is necessary as the publicity battle has been won by a deceitful party financed from abroad by a criminal fugitive? Amply Rich ladies cannot be held responsible?

[candide]

Rubi said:

"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."

With all respect to Rubi I add:

... and there is no guarantee that they believe anything that was said on the youtube clip.

The information provided in the clip seems barely related to the questions. As such I have no doubt that after a year of obfuscation in this case the NLA members made up their mind already. That's only so much 'manure of an exquisite kind' one can accept before shovels are needed to clear the mess.

Please remind that my remarks have been precisely focused on the communication impact on the general public, not on the impact on the NLA members. I think the decision has already been made, and whatever Yingluck and her team can say or do will not have the slightest impact on the impeachment decision. Both sides know it and try to have the best communication impact on the general public.

Oh, I did notice that 'fact' and 'truth' are not important to you. Just the impact on the 'general public'. A youtube clip as evidence.

So, did you see the NLA youtube clip? No, because the government doesn't rely on such propaganda. They have asked questions which are still not answered whatever BS clip the Pheu Thai party has put together. What's next stating no court case is necessary as the publicity battle has been won by a deceitful party financed from abroad by a criminal fugitive? Amply Rich ladies cannot be held responsible?

I don't know for whom fact and truth are not important!

Don't reverse what I said. I just say that as the decision is already made and that both sides know it and just do political communication about it. So there's no reason telling me that she will not influence the NLA members with a Youtube, as I think she will not influence the NLA with anything as the decision is already made.

[rubl]

Please remind that my remarks have been precisely focused on the communication impact on the general public, not on the impact on the NLA members. I think the decision has already been made, and whatever Yingluck and her team can say or do will not have the slightest impact on the impeachment decision. Both sides know it and try to have the best communication impact on the general public.

Oh, I did notice that 'fact' and 'truth' are not important to you. Just the impact on the 'general public'. A youtube clip as evidence.

So, did you see the NLA youtube clip? No, because the government doesn't rely on such propaganda. They have asked questions which are still not answered whatever BS clip the Pheu Thai party has put together. What's next stating no court case is necessary as the publicity battle has been won by a deceitful party financed from abroad by a criminal fugitive? Amply Rich ladies cannot be held responsible?

I don't know for whom fact and truth are not important!

Don't reverse what I said. I just say that as the decision is already made and that both sides know it and just do political communication about it. So there's no reason telling me that she will not influence the NLA members with a Youtube, as I think she will not influence the NLA with anything as the decision is already made.

With Ms Yingluck answering questions not asked and not relevant, with questions not answered, with lots of nonsense over the last year AND with records of Ms. Yingluck making interesting statements as PM, is a near miracle the NLA stil gives her Thursday to come give answers. Do you think she will have answers? If yes, why didn't she give them before? Playing the public to avoid responsibility? Have pity with this little rich girl?

[candide]

Please remind that my remarks have been precisely focused on the communication impact on the general public, not on the impact on the NLA members. I think the decision has already been made, and whatever Yingluck and her team can say or do will not have the slightest impact on the impeachment decision. Both sides know it and try to have the best communication impact on the general public.

Oh, I did notice that 'fact' and 'truth' are not important to you. Just the impact on the 'general public'. A youtube clip as evidence.

So, did you see the NLA youtube clip? No, because the government doesn't rely on such propaganda. They have asked questions which are still not answered whatever BS clip the Pheu Thai party has put together. What's next stating no court case is necessary as the publicity battle has been won by a deceitful party financed from abroad by a criminal fugitive? Amply Rich ladies cannot be held responsible?

I don't know for whom fact and truth are not important!

Don't reverse what I said. I just say that as the decision is already made and that both sides know it and just do political communication about it. So there's no reason telling me that she will not influence the NLA members with a Youtube, as I think she will not influence the NLA with anything as the decision is already made.

With Ms Yingluck answering questions not asked and not relevant, with questions not answered, with lots of nonsense over the last year AND with records of Ms. Yingluck making interesting statements as PM, is a near miracle the NLA stil gives her Thursday to come give answers. Do you think she will have answers? If yes, why didn't she give them before? Playing the public to avoid responsibility? Have pity with this little rich girl?

I just commented that this youtube initiative was a good communication tactic and explained why. Now if it makes you angry that someone may think it's a good communication tactic, there's nothing i can do for you

[rubl]

With Ms Yingluck answering questions not asked and not relevant, with questions not answered, with lots of nonsense over the last year AND with records of Ms. Yingluck making interesting statements as PM, is a near miracle the NLA stil gives her Thursday to come give answers. Do you think she will have answers? If yes, why didn't she give them before? Playing the public to avoid responsibility? Have pity with this little rich girl?

I just commented that this youtube initiative was a good communication tactic and explained why. Now if it makes you angry that someone may think it's a good communication tactic, there's nothing i can do for you

Angry? Why should it make me angry?

I only remarked that 'good communication tactics' may influence the public but should have no effect on courts. The 2001 remark "how could we find him guilty, he had just won an election" was a disgrace.