Reports: Yingluck Barred From Leaving Thailand

[Plutojames88]

The idea is to jail YS and attract Red action on Bangkok and elsewhere ( but mainly Bangkok)

This will justify the military rule being extended.

China will benefit from observing many influences like Europe and America move further away from their positions on tolerating Thailand .

TS may contact barracks in Chiang Mai where generals who like his sister control the regiment stationed there .

He could make substantial offers to apply pressure for her release .

This well could be a trigger for civil war according to many outside sources . ( observers)

Jailing a democratically elected leader by non elected forces anti - democracy it may seem is really more than an internal matter.

Internationally YS was popular .

This junta is not .

[Ricardo]

"the vast majority of Thai people who voted for Yingluck"

A tired old chestnut, and still as inaccurate as ever :-

1. Votes for PTP in 2011, 15.7 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

2. Many of whom were voting rather for PTP, and their extravagant election-promises, free Samsung tablet-computers & immediate large pay-rises & everyone becoming rich like the Great Thinker within six months, etcetera, not just "for Yingluck"

3. Population of Thailand, 67.7 million https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/th.html

4. 15.7 million is 23.2% of 67.7 million, and that's a long way short of being a "vast majority", I'm afraid.

Except you have confused thhe POPULATION of Thailand with the ELECTORATE - which is a smaller figure.

in the 2011 election,

The Thai electorate - is about 48,000,000 out of a population of 67 million.

The normal turnout is around 70% = about 34 million

Your figures say 15.7 million voted for Yingluck = just under 50%

Wiki says.........

Pheu Thai 12,211,604 53.0%

Democrat 8,907,140 31.8%

Whichever election you choose the PTP is always the biggest single party and by a long way.

For one there is a difference between 'biggest single party' and 'vast majority of Thai'. Furthermore let's not confuse the 2011 general election figures with unofficial data on the invalidated Feb2 2014 one.

Party Pheu Thai Democrat Popular vote 15,744,190 11,433,762 Percentage 48.41% 35.15%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

The EC announced that as many as 20.1 million out of 43.024 million eligible voters submitted votes in 68 provinces where voting was not disrupted by protestors, with 71.38 percent of those ballots valid, 12.05 percent invalid and 16.57 percent "no-vote".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2014

Whichever way your read it Ricardo''s post was misinformed and wildly inaccurate - if you want to engage in semantics, i'd suggest it is because you don't really have an argument at all.....However - I'd also suggest that the phrase "tired old chestnut" is a lot more subjective than any terms used by InBangkok than any

here's a nice pie chart to underline the results.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Circle_frame.svg/200px-Circle_frame.svg.png

BTW - any reference to "no votes" is pure and unsubstantiated speculation - you also don't seem to understand that irregularities in election apply to ALL parties

A load of spherical objects !

It was not myself, but the poster I was replying to, who was confusing the electorate with the total population, he had said "the vast majority of Thai people", and not "the largest single minority, of those of the electorate, who had bothered to vote" !

I fully accept that PTP (and their sometimes-present 'leader') were the largest minority-party in 2011, and entitled to have first-try at forming a government, but it's too-great-a-stretch to claim that this is the same as the vast majority of the population.

Trying to drag in the incomplete 2014-election is a red-herring. So rubl is correct.

And yes, I do know that despite voting being mandatory in-theory, a significant number of Thais still don't bother to vote, also you will know that many people born here still don't qualify as Thai-citizens, with voting-rights at all. The mistreatment of the hill-tribes in this respect, in an attempt to maintain a pool of desperate disenfranchised labourers, is a long-standing scandal. But that's by-the-way.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Ricardo

[cumgranosalum]

Except you have confused thhe POPULATION of Thailand with the ELECTORATE - which is a smaller figure.

1. Votes for PTP in 2011, 15.7 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

2. Many of whom were voting rather for PTP, and their extravagant election-promises, free Samsung tablet-computers & immediate large pay-rises & everyone becoming rich like the Great Thinker within six months, etcetera, not just "for Yingluck"

3. Population of Thailand, 67.7 million https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/th.html

4. 15.7 million is 23.2% of 67.7 million, and that's a long way short of being a "vast majority", I'm afraid.

in the 2011 election,

The Thai electorate - is about 48,000,000 out of a population of 67 million.

The normal turnout is around 70% = about 34 million

Your figures say 15.7 million voted for Yingluck = just under 50%

Wiki says.........

Pheu Thai 12,211,604 53.0%

Democrat 8,907,140 31.8%

Whichever election you choose the PTP is always the biggest single party and by a long way.

For one there is a difference between 'biggest single party' and 'vast majority of Thai'. Furthermore let's not confuse the 2011 general election figures with unofficial data on the invalidated Feb2 2014 one.

Party Pheu Thai Democrat Popular vote 15,744,190 11,433,762 Percentage 48.41% 35.15%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

The EC announced that as many as 20.1 million out of 43.024 million eligible voters submitted votes in 68 provinces where voting was not disrupted by protestors, with 71.38 percent of those ballots valid, 12.05 percent invalid and 16.57 percent "no-vote".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2014

Whichever way your read it Ricardo''s post was misinformed and wildly inaccurate - if you want to engage in semantics, i'd suggest it is because you don't really have an argument at all.....However - I'd also suggest that the phrase "tired old chestnut" is a lot more subjective than any terms used by InBangkok than any

here's a nice pie chart to underline the results.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Circle_frame.svg/200px-Circle_frame.svg.png

BTW - any reference to "no votes" is pure and unsubstantiated speculation - you also don't seem to understand that irregularities in election apply to ALL parties

Whichever way your reply reminds me of Mattheüs 7:3-5

Excuses, native English speakers may know this chap as "Matthew"

I think you'll find Mathew 7.15 is more appropriate to the current situation.

[Ricardo]

Except you have confused thhe POPULATION of Thailand with the ELECTORATE - which is a smaller figure.

in the 2011 election,

The Thai electorate - is about 48,000,000 out of a population of 67 million.

The normal turnout is around 70% = about 34 million

Your figures say 15.7 million voted for Yingluck = just under 50%

Wiki says.........

Pheu Thai 12,211,604 53.0%

Democrat 8,907,140 31.8%

Whichever election you choose the PTP is always the biggest single party and by a long way.

PS - voting is compulsory in Thailand.

On the contrary, that is not what "Wiki says", I had given the correct citation to Wikipedia in my post, as source of the 2011-election figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011 clearly credits Pheu Thai with a Popular vote of 15,744,190.

Are you perhaps taking your numbers from somewhere else ?

I'd be interested to know the source, as I've not seen any results for the incomplete 2014-election, which you may be mistakenly referring to, and I would be interested to look at the full source/article/whatever.

I'm reminded of a variant of the popular saying, that 'there are lies, damn-lies and election-statistics.

[JAG]

The case has not even gone before the court. There are no charges yet. So it's just another act of the Junta being judge and jury.

Only someone like you would make a comment like this. She is being charged with criminal actions. No court in the world would let you travel abroad with a case pending in the courts for a criminal action. In most cases passports are seized for fear of fleeing prosecution

She is being charged by a military junta government which overthrew a democratically elected government, of which she was the prime minister. You choose to overlook that fact. It is however widely recognized both within the country and internationally. As widely recognized indeed as is the expectation, again within the country and internationally that the judicial system which may deal with her will, shall we say, take carefull note of the juntas desires. But no doubt you will overlook that as well.

Sorry to break this to you Jag but no democratically elected government was overthrown in 2014. Parliament was dissolved in 2013 and the PTP were a caretaker government. They even tried an election between then and the military taking over, but even that failed as PTP wouldn't wait and listen to the EC's advice that delaying it until it could be managed more effectively, and they went ahead anyways.

Same in 2006 mate, Parliament was dissolved and Thaksin illegally appointed himself as a caretaker PM despite having no authority to do so prior to the military again stepping in to put an end to the madness.

It's either a very selective or very cloudy memory you have.

Yingluck needs to remain in Thailand to face the prosecutors in the next couple of weeks. And in many democratic countries a person facing criminal charges would usually have to surrender their passport so that they don't flee. And as her family members have a track record for fleeing from justice I don't see the harm personally with the decision made this time round.

May I congratulate you on your interpretation (albeit a rather selective interpretation) of Thailand s recent political history. You have not allowed tour memoey to be clouded by minor considerations such as the Army (as the front men for an anti democratic power block which has constantly been rejected by the Thai electorate), engineering, directly or indirectly the removal of the government that electorate have selected. Three tines in ten years!

Some would claim it is a significant omission, but I suppose it does allow for "clarity".

[thesetat2013]

The case has not even gone before the court. There are no charges yet. So it's just another act of the Junta being judge and jury.

Only someone like you would make a comment like this. She is being charged with criminal actions. No court in the world would let you travel abroad with a case pending in the courts for a criminal action. In most cases passports are seized for fear of fleeing prosecution

She is being charged by a military junta government which overthrew a democratically elected government, of which she was the prime minister. You choose to overlook that fact. It is however widely recognized both within the country and internationally. As widely recognized indeed as is the expectation, again within the country and internationally that the judicial system which may deal with her will, shall we say, take carefull note of the juntas desires. But no doubt you will overlook that as well.

Sorry to break this to you Jag but no democratically elected government was overthrown in 2014. Parliament was dissolved in 2013 and the PTP were a caretaker government. They even tried an election between then and the military taking over, but even that failed as PTP wouldn't wait and listen to the EC's advice that delaying it until it could be managed more effectively, and they went ahead anyways.

Same in 2006 mate, Parliament was dissolved and Thaksin illegally appointed himself as a caretaker PM despite having no authority to do so prior to the military again stepping in to put an end to the madness.

It's either a very selective or very cloudy memory you have.

Yingluck needs to remain in Thailand to face the prosecutors in the next couple of weeks. And in many democratic countries a person facing criminal charges would usually have to surrender their passport so that they don't flee. And as her family members have a track record for fleeing from justice I don't see the harm personally with the decision made this time round.

May I congratulate you on your interpretation (albeit a rather selective interpretation) of Thailand s recent political history. You have not allowed tour memoey to be clouded by minor considerations such as the Army (as the front men for an anti democratic power block which has constantly been rejected by the Thai electorate), engineering, directly or indirectly the removal of the government that electorate have selected. Three tines in ten years!

Some would claim it is a significant omission, but I suppose it does allow for "clarity".

No offense but I have seemed to notice although people criticize the coup they fail to remember that YL was no longer the elected leader when the army took over. She was a caretaker only and people also seem to forget was that when her caretaker status expired she refused to step aside even then.

I know, I know! She was the elected PM. But she quit that job. She could have stayed and been legally in charge of the country but she chose a different route to thinking she would win again in the next election. But that never happened either. She was running the country illegally when the coup occurred. So I think maybe your memory might have been a little clouded as well.

[JAG]

Essential basics remain do they not? Three tines in ten years. And now it looks like they are maneuvering to keep power. I suppose that will save having ro have another coup.

[Baerboxer]

and yet, EVERYBODY (especially the d-man) knows that she or her party would win an election right now.

Just the same as everybody knows that millions of red shirts and democracy defense volunteers would march on Bangkok if ever the courts held against Yinggy and removed her from office, or the military staged a coup.

Not sure the Shins, are the attraction they were. That's the problem when you shit in your own nest. The farmers ain't forgetting and the gravy train the provided funds for sweetening has been derailed.

If that really is the case BB and not just propoganda from the D-man, then all he has to do is hold an election allowing all people to run, win it and the Shins would be done & dusted legitimately and he would have a solid power-base and at the same time end his whining about America etc as they would have to accept democracy, right? But Thaksin was ousted from the job 9 years ago and yet everybody is terrified of him! People (particularly here) keep pissing and moaning about him 9 years on! If what you say is correct - then this would be the opportunity to be rid of him through democracy, right?

Theoretically yes, that would be the best solution. But, given his track record, can you imagine Thaksin fighting an election fairly, allowing other parties to canvas in Chiang Mai and parts of Isaan? His party big wigs threatening any who don't vote for them won't get any money if they win, like Phuket with its conference center blocked as punishment for not voting PTP. He has developed an effective election machine and knows how to exploit the vagaries of Thai laws and procedures.

I'm sure other politicians and their parties are just as slippery but Thaksin and his clan have proven to be more ruthless and win at any cost mentality.

There is real reform needed - not just political procedures and process, but the entire justice and legal system and the police and law enforcement. The latter has started with the clear out of senior officers and talk of reforming the police structure. This is a tall order, with many interested factions still determined to control the outcomes to favor themselves. Unfortunately that means plenty of pain still to come.

[Baerboxer]

Prayuth said he wouldn't stop Yingluk from leaving unless the court banned her. Was this just a blatant lie fed to her supporters?

Yingluck was banned from politics for 5 years and now faces a criminal trial. Seen as someone with a high potential flight risk she has quite rightly been barred from leaving the country. The fact she wanted to be away and return after she is due in court to acknowledge the charges may have influenced that decision.

This was more about the Shins trying to flex their muscles and show they still have influence. Bar her and they squeal unfair. Let he go and court has to be re-arranged at their whim - "look how powerful we still are" syndrome.

Judging from her reaction to the ban on TV that was a shock. Maybe she should expect a bigger one soon.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Baerboxer

[SpokaneAl]

I see no way out of this never-ending cycle as long as Thailand allows its military to remain atop the food chain as unquestioned judge, jury and arbiter of what is right and wrong, always ready to take over, throw out both the current constitution and in their sole definition - the rascals. Until this changes this country will continue on its Groundhog Day like endless loop.

Edited February 10, 2015 by SpokaneAl

[wowfactor10]

So where is the prove that she has benefitted financially from any missing rice bags

[rubl]

The problem is ...Who will want to be an elected PM ever again in this democracy. Even the American democracy did not impeach or lock up the discredited resigned President Nixon. He spent the rest of his life in disgrace but not prison. Afterall she was the overall winner of the last election and represented Thailand to the world especially during the horrendous floods. A little humility would go a long way in the world's eyes.

I agree.

Thing is, what type of governments round up and jail/impeach political opponents? Clue. It begins with 'F'. No chance of humility, I'm afraid.

Now let me see

Thailand, no F ... uhm ... Egypt ... Italy, former PM convicted, but no F ... oh bother ... France, former Pres. Chirac convicted of graft, corruption while out of office, former PM Jupe convicted of graft, corruption while out of office; well maybe

[rubl]

So where is the prove that she has benefitted financially from any missing rice bags

Ms. Yingluck is impeached on grounds of negligence. The charge at the Supreme Court didn't say she profited financially herself.

So, 700,000,000,000 Baht lost on a self-financing scheme defended frequently, even by Ms. Yingluck. Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament to be in charge and only she be in charge. Maybe 'negligent' is an incorrect charge ? It almost looks like 'intend to deceive and defraud for political gain' is more accurate.

[rubl]

For one there is a difference between 'biggest single party' and 'vast majority of Thai'. Furthermore let's not confuse the 2011 general election figures with unofficial data on the invalidated Feb2 2014 one.

Party Pheu Thai Democrat Popular vote 15,744,190 11,433,762 Percentage 48.41% 35.15%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

The EC announced that as many as 20.1 million out of 43.024 million eligible voters submitted votes in 68 provinces where voting was not disrupted by protestors, with 71.38 percent of those ballots valid, 12.05 percent invalid and 16.57 percent "no-vote".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2014

Whichever way your read it Ricardo''s post was misinformed and wildly inaccurate - if you want to engage in semantics, i'd suggest it is because you don't really have an argument at all.....However - I'd also suggest that the phrase "tired old chestnut" is a lot more subjective than any terms used by InBangkok than any

here's a nice pie chart to underline the results.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Circle_frame.svg/200px-Circle_frame.svg.png

BTW - any reference to "no votes" is pure and unsubstantiated speculation - you also don't seem to understand that irregularities in election apply to ALL parties

Whichever way your reply reminds me of Mattheüs 7:3-5

Excuses, native English speakers may know this chap as "Matthew"

I think you'll find Mathew 7.15 is more appropriate to the current situation.

You have a minor point there, but somehow I can't see Ms. Yingluck as either true or false prophet.

Also I was referring to your "Whichever way your read it Ricardo''s post was misinformed and wildly inaccurate". Makes 7:3-5 more applicable.

For barbarians, non-christians and other people under us

"3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A3-5&version=NIV

[wowfactor10]

So where is the prove that she has benefitted financially from any missing rice bags

Ms. Yingluck is impeached on grounds of negligence. The charge at the Supreme Court didn't say she profited financially herself.

So, 700,000,000,000 Baht lost on a self-financing scheme defended frequently, even by Ms. Yingluck. Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament to be in charge and only she be in charge. Maybe 'negligent' is an incorrect charge ? It almost looks like 'intend to deceive and defraud for political gain' is more accurate.

Yeah i sure they give it a nice spin such as your explanation in court

[rubl]

So where is the prove that she has benefitted financially from any missing rice bags

Ms. Yingluck is impeached on grounds of negligence. The charge at the Supreme Court didn't say she profited financially herself.

So, 700,000,000,000 Baht lost on a self-financing scheme defended frequently, even by Ms. Yingluck. Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament to be in charge and only she be in charge. Maybe 'negligent' is an incorrect charge ? It almost looks like 'intend to deceive and defraud for political gain' is more accurate.

Yeah i sure they give it a nice spin such as your explanation in court

Spin? My dear chap Ms. Yingluck went on record stating she was in charge of her cabinet and only she. She publicly spoke out for and defended the self-financing RPPS, her hand-picked Cabinet members supported her in this. So what am I to think? Political prosecution of a nice endearing lady?

[wowfactor10]

So where is the prove that she has benefitted financially from any missing rice bags

Ms. Yingluck is impeached on grounds of negligence. The charge at the Supreme Court didn't say she profited financially herself.

So, 700,000,000,000 Baht lost on a self-financing scheme defended frequently, even by Ms. Yingluck. Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament to be in charge and only she be in charge. Maybe 'negligent' is an incorrect charge ? It almost looks like 'intend to deceive and defraud for political gain' is more accurate.

Yeah i sure they give it a nice spin such as your explanation in court

Spin? My dear chap Ms. Yingluck went on record stating she was in charge of her cabinet and only she. She publicly spoke out for and defended the self-financing RPPS, her hand-picked Cabinet members supported her in this. So what am I to think? Political prosecution of a nice endearing lady?

How much punishment should she gets? what do u think is fair ?

[rubl]

Ms. Yingluck is impeached on grounds of negligence. The charge at the Supreme Court didn't say she profited financially herself.

So, 700,000,000,000 Baht lost on a self-financing scheme defended frequently, even by Ms. Yingluck. Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament to be in charge and only she be in charge. Maybe 'negligent' is an incorrect charge ? It almost looks like 'intend to deceive and defraud for political gain' is more accurate.

Yeah i sure they give it a nice spin such as your explanation in court

Spin? My dear chap Ms. Yingluck went on record stating she was in charge of her cabinet and only she. She publicly spoke out for and defended the self-financing RPPS, her hand-picked Cabinet members supported her in this. So what am I to think? Political prosecution of a nice endearing lady?

How much punishment should she gets? what do u think is fair ?

Well wow, factor 10 as well. You move from twist accusations to asking how much punishment.

Now relax, first we get a case, then the court decides to accept or throw out and if accept after listening to witnesses, reading all many cupboards filling documents, etc., etc. they will come to a ruling. Such ruling will be read out giving detailed information how the court came to such ruling, etc., etc.

So I think it's a bit premature to talk about level of punishment. Maybe Ms. Yingluck saved all relevant answers she didn't want to give the NLA just for the Supreme Court. Maybe the legal team will request dozens of character witnesses to testify how innocent Ms. Yingluck looks is.

[NeverSure]

The problem is ...Who will want to be an elected PM ever again in this democracy. Even the American democracy did not impeach or lock up the discredited resigned President Nixon. He spent the rest of his life in disgrace but not prison. Afterall she was the overall winner of the last election and represented Thailand to the world especially during the horrendous floods. A little humility would go a long way in the world's eyes.

Excuse me. That isn't correct. Nixon was indeed impeached by the Senate. He was charged with crimes involving the Watergate break in, to simplify.

Facing trial for his alleged crimes he resigned. When a president leaves office the vice president is automatically president and that was Gerald Ford.

Ford immediately pardoned Nixon which he had the power to do. I believe he thought that Nixon's humiliation, place in history, and loss of the presidency was enough punishment, but he took an awful lot of heat for the pardon and he didn't get re-elected. Nixon, if tried in the Senate and convicted could have gone to prison.

It was apparent to me that Ford also wanted to heal the country which was locked to TV sets every night to find the latest news. The country was essentially shut down.

Why is this relevant and why do I bring it up? Because I think the junta should drop this YS thing for their own good and for the good of Thailand so that Thailand can get on with regular business. I simply can't imagine the junta putting YS in prison, so I have to ask "what the hell is the junta doing?"

[greenchair]

Some people just don't understand the difference between corruption,setting policy for personal gain and poor policy causing a loss.

2 are criminal. The third is not.

If there was corruption, what was the thing that was done that was corrupt. Did she know about it? So far I have not heard exactly what the corruption was.

Which is why the prosecutor would not take the case.

They must first prosecute the corrupters.

Did yingluck gain financially through the scheme. According to the her asset investigation. NO.

A bad policy lost money.

It happens all the time.

She was thailands first female pm. She certainly does not deserve to be treated like this.

Whichever party people support, this is just wrong.

[Gonsalviz]

I do not know where you super pro democratic twits hail from but it takes no genius to see that this is probably the best government this country has seen for decades.

Oh, maybe you weren't around then and just speaking from your limited experience. In case you haven't noticed, Asians do not have the same thought pattern as westerners, but that does not make them wrong.

Asians have a different thought pattern? Maybe..... But I am fairly confident in saying that most don't want to be subjugated under authoritarian rule....

China is authoritarian.

[rubl]

Some people just don't understand the difference between corruption,setting policy for personal gain and poor policy causing a loss.

2 are criminal. The third is not.

If there was corruption, what was the thing that was done that was corrupt. Did she know about it? So far I have not heard exactly what the corruption was.

Which is why the prosecutor would not take the case.

They must first prosecute the corrupters.

Did yingluck gain financially through the scheme. According to the her asset investigation. NO.

A bad policy lost money.

It happens all the time.

She was thailands first female pm. She certainly does not deserve to be treated like this.

Whichever party people support, this is just wrong.

A straunchly defended 'self-financing' RPPS lost 700 billion Baht in 2-1/2 years time, didn't reach most people said to be targeted, Ms. Yingluck gone on record in parliament stating she and only she to be in charge of her cabinet and government.

Her being the first female PM has nothing to do with this case. Direct financial gain by Ms. Yingluck is also not part of the case, although looking for political gain through this financially unsustainable scheme seems undeniable. It's negligence combined with going on record to take care, listen to comments and warnings and do nothing.

Conclusion: she seems to have asked for it.

[thesetat2013]

Some people just don't understand the difference between corruption,setting policy for personal gain and poor policy causing a loss.

2 are criminal. The third is not.

If there was corruption, what was the thing that was done that was corrupt. Did she know about it? So far I have not heard exactly what the corruption was.

Which is why the prosecutor would not take the case.

They must first prosecute the corrupters.

Did yingluck gain financially through the scheme. According to the her asset investigation. NO.

A bad policy lost money.

It happens all the time.

She was thailands first female pm. She certainly does not deserve to be treated like this.

Whichever party people support, this is just wrong.

Maybe it is you who don't understand. First the OAG did take the case so your comment about prosecutors is wrong. Secondly, although her assets may have been accurate with which I have not read about and is irrelevant. There are other ways to gain both monetarily and politically through which her assets may appear to be obtained legally.

Thirdly, who gives a rats a_ _ if she was their 1st female PM! 2nd,3rd,or last. Her sex doesn't excuse actions which are deemed criminal. A crook is a crook no matter what sex they are. It would be wrong in such a corrupt society to allow her to escape justice and punishment should she be convicted. To do so would send a signal to all of the other corrupt officials that they will get away with any illegal activity should they be caught.

[halloween]

Some people just don't understand the difference between corruption,setting policy for personal gain and poor policy causing a loss.

2 are criminal. The third is not.

If there was corruption, what was the thing that was done that was corrupt. Did she know about it? So far I have not heard exactly what the corruption was.

Which is why the prosecutor would not take the case.

They must first prosecute the corrupters.

Did yingluck gain financially through the scheme. According to the her asset investigation. NO.

A bad policy lost money.

It happens all the time.

She was thailands first female pm. She certainly does not deserve to be treated like this.

Whichever party people support, this is just wrong.

So what happens when a PM installs a previously tried policy, unchanged, which is known to enable corruption and very poor at its intended aims, because it is a great vote-buyer and will ensure she is elected? Is that not both corruption and personal gain?

Edited February 10, 2015 by halloween

[Wombat6]

The case has not even gone before the court. There are no charges yet. So it's just another act of the Junta being judge and jury.

Now i know where the saying "Thick as a Mango" came from. The Authorities are making sure she will be in town to face charges when they arise

[fitzcaraldo]

I do not know where you super pro democratic twits hail from but it takes no genius to see that this is probably the best government this country has seen for decades.

what exactly make you say that, any particular proof ?

[Wombat6]

a disgraceful way to treat Thailand's first female PM and all Thai's I know feel very disappointed in the way she is being treated whether they be yellow, red or white

Don't worry too much....she is used to disgraceful behaviour, she did it all the time with her own nation

[baboon]

I do not know where you super pro democratic twits hail from but it takes no genius to see that this is probably the best government this country has seen for decades.

what exactly make you say that, any particular proof ?

Looks good on the 'Supporting Evidence' part of the visa application form?

[samii]

So where is the prove that she has benefitted financially from any missing rice bags

Ms. Yingluck is impeached on grounds of negligence. The charge at the Supreme Court didn't say she profited financially herself.

So, 700,000,000,000 Baht lost on a self-financing scheme defended frequently, even by Ms. Yingluck. Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament to be in charge and only she be in charge. Maybe 'negligent' is an incorrect charge ? It almost looks like 'intend to deceive and defraud for political gain' is more accurate.

And to continue .... Where is the proof of "massimo corruption?

[rubl]

So where is the prove that she has benefitted financially from any missing rice bags

Ms. Yingluck is impeached on grounds of negligence. The charge at the Supreme Court didn't say she profited financially herself.

So, 700,000,000,000 Baht lost on a self-financing scheme defended frequently, even by Ms. Yingluck. Ms. Yingluck stating in parliament to be in charge and only she be in charge. Maybe 'negligent' is an incorrect charge ? It almost looks like 'intend to deceive and defraud for political gain' is more accurate.

And to continue .... Where is the proof of "massimo corruption?

Ms. Yingluck is charged with negligence, failure to stop losses and corruption. The case should make it a bit more clear where there was the old-fashioned corruption and where the new-fashioned "political gain for a small price paid by the taxpayer" starts.

So, more when the case starts, assuming Ms. Yingluck doesn't have an accident in the mean time which would prevent her from attending. Mind you, last time she still bravely continued with her astronaut type boot.