Supreme Court to choose panel for Yingluck case

[webfact]

Supreme Court to choose panel for Yingluck case
The nation

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court will today hold a meeting with all judges to select a nine-member panel to hear the case on the rice-pledging scheme against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thanarerk Nitiserani, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said all 170 Supreme Court judges would get together to cast a secret vote to select nine judges for the panel.

Once the panel has been selected, Supreme Court secretary Theerathai Charoenwong will tell the press of the voting results and the name of the presiding judge. The list of names of the panel will be made public five days later so both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection.

Once the panel is set up, it will decide if the indictment against Yingluck is legitimate and if it should accept the case.

If the case is accepted, it will schedule the first hearing and send a notice to Yingluck to appear in court.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Supreme-Court-to-choose-panel-for-Yingluck-case-30254723.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-24

[Robby nz]

Who is it that gets the job, the winners or the losers of the vote ?

At least they will no longer have to expect threats or intimidation if they make a decision that displeases some.

[rubl]

A bit confusing. Will tell the press, make public five days later so any one can complain,

Anyway I'm sure almost anyone will complain and find 'good' reasons why to

[oneday]

OK, you bloodthirsty Yingluck haters...go for the jugular and stack the deck against her so you can show this country how reconciliation is working. Send her to jail so your blood lust for Thaksin will be slaked and then go home to bed and sleep like a baby knowing you have saved Thailand from a dirty rotten criminal.

RECONCILIATION! WHAT A FAIRYTALE!

[Gunna]

OK, you bloodthirsty Yingluck haters...go for the jugular and stack the deck against her so you can show this country how reconciliation is working. Send her to jail so your blood lust for Thaksin will be slaked and then go home to bed and sleep like a baby knowing you have saved Thailand from a dirty rotten criminal.

RECONCILIATION! WHAT A FAIRYTALE!

Letting this criminal off doesn't make for reconciliation.

It just makes UDD and Red fanatics happy and the rest of the country angry that she got away with so many scams

[Freed1948]

I takes 5 days so that they know who to send the "pastry boxes"to

[Baerboxer]

OK, you bloodthirsty Yingluck haters...go for the jugular and stack the deck against her so you can show this country how reconciliation is working. Send her to jail so your blood lust for Thaksin will be slaked and then go home to bed and sleep like a baby knowing you have saved Thailand from a dirty rotten criminal.

RECONCILIATION! WHAT A FAIRYTALE!

She didn't seem to have any problems sleeping (or shopping) when she ran out of money and couldn't pay the farmers. Nor when they protested and she lied and vowed to pay them next week and then did nothing. Nor when some succumbed to the pressure and gave their lives to despair. What a gal, all she was worried about was that whitewash of all her brothers crimes, along with making sure she couldn't be touched for anything in her 2 years of office,

Do they have judge Jefferies and Judge Parker available?

[WitawatWatawit]

There are 170 supreme court judges? Why does it take 20 years to hear a case?

[Srikcir]

"both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection."

And if either does object what then is the process? I suspect we'll know as it's a certainty that the defendent can probably argue conflict of interest with most of the judges.

[greenchair]

I bet all those judges are thinking.

If she loses the people punish us.

If she wins --------. (Defamation on my mind )

Pleeeaaase , don't choose me ?????????

[Si Thea01]

OK, you bloodthirsty Yingluck haters...go for the jugular and stack the deck against her so you can show this country how reconciliation is working. Send her to jail so your blood lust for Thaksin will be slaked and then go home to bed and sleep like a baby knowing you have saved Thailand from a dirty rotten criminal.

RECONCILIATION! WHAT A FAIRYTALE!

Are you for real? Whatever you taking I certainly do not want any if this is how it reacts with the chemicals in you brain. I am not a Yingluck hater; do not know the lady and have no idea if she is innocent or guilty of any offense.

Allegations have been made against her so what would you suggest would the best way to deal with these allegations? Obviously, 170 Supreme Court Judges voting secretly to select 9 judges is not to your liking, then what would be? They also select one presiding Judge, and then after 5 days those 9 names are made public and are open to objections by the prosecution (plaintiff) and defence. Is this also unsatisfactory to you?

After this the panel will decide if the indictment is legitimate, then only after this, if in the positive, will she be required to attend a hearing. So all this is unfair and stacking the deck against her. I suppose next you tell us that what they are doing is only a smoke screen in order to conceal their true agenda? Wonder what you post would be if they find in her favour?

Ok, you're not happy, an understatement I think , so please, without being a hater of others, please show us, those not on either side, how you would handle the matter, taking into account that you must be fair, not only to Ms Yingluck but to all those others that were affected by the scheme, Or have you forgotten about the farmers who were promised money, time after time and never received any and resulted in at least 12 deaths (suicides) proven to be associated with the scheme.

And then the icing on the cake, the missing 700 billion, that's seven hundred thousand million, taken from the public purse without any accountability. Unfortunately, your bias sticks out like the proverbial and it is evident that you only care about one person, not the millions of others that this has affected.. Instead of espousing such bitterness, for what reason one would have to question, don't you think that to get to the bottom of this, that the matter should be handled by the Thai legal system or will you try to tell us that this is unfair and a conspiracy against her. Please show us how the matter should be handled? I don't think it's asking too much, not if you're looking for fair treatment for all.

[Si Thea01]

I bet all those judges are thinking.

If she loses the people punish us.

If she wins --------. (Defamation on my mind )

Pleeeaaase , don't choose me ?????????

Defamation cannot be brought against anyone involved in a legitimate judgement held by a duly elected panel consisting of supreme Court Judges in any legal system. If is a little word with a big meaning. The panel hasn't even been formed or the judges selected let alone the indictment accepted and we're going off on this tangent. Please!

Edited February 24, 2015 by Si Thea01

[tbthailand]

so what she is facing is:

If found guilty on the charge of negligence, she could be jailed for up to 10 years.

The anti-corruption agency has also called for her to be personally liable for losses to state coffers.

First, it is clear - she's toast.

Second, in the US, like Thailand, we have political corruption. Good old fashion corruption - taking money, gifts, and bribes for favors. That kind of a charge and conviction is pretty concrete. Businessman bribes politician, receives favor, goes to court, guilty/not guilty, appeals, blah, blah, done... we just convicted the governor of Virginia and his wife - their in the appeal process now, but if it stands, they will both see the inside of a prison.

Negligence is (conveniently?) basically an opinion conviction. In this case, it will be relatively simple for the Thai court to put on a show, wave their hands, pretend to deliberate and then drop an opinion that justifies the conviction.

Like I said, she's toast.

The problem is that the courts over the last decade have become so politicized that they are more a tool for political revenge than justice. Even the recent high-profile, good-old-fashion, convict-them-at-the-speed-of-light, CIB corruption cases weren't about rooting out corruption or "justice".

I think that if Yingluck or any other politician, businessperson, general, or police chief does something illegal and provable that they should have their day in court.

What gets my goat is that real justice is so seldom pursued, yet political "justice" is so often at a feverish pace in Thailand.

Adios Yingluck.

Edited February 24, 2015 by tbthailand

[Bangmod]

@oneday, ate a box of red agression for breakfast??

[Plowman]

There are 170 supreme court judges? Why does it take 20 years to hear a case?

And thousands of Generals. This the the elites living of the government tit. Can't spend money on poverty stricken rice farmers because we have to over employ high ranking bureaucrats. We'll all know when Thailand is free when we read that 1,000 Generals and 161 Supreme Court Judges have been sacked.

[webfact]

Panel of nine judges formed to consider Yingluck's case

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Tuesday set up a panel of nine judges to be in charge of the rice-pledging dereliction of duty against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The nine judges are Salaiket Watanaphan, Wiroon Saengthien, Thanarirk Nitiserani, Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, Sirichai Watanayothin, Cheep Julamon, Weerapol Tungsuwan, Ubolrat Luiwikkai, and Thanit Kessawapithak.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Panel-of-nine-judges-formed-to-consider-Yinglucks--30254740.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-24

[halloween]

"both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection."

And if either does object what then is the process? I suspect we'll know as it's a certainty that the defendent can probably argue conflict of interest with most of the judges.

Wouldn't Yingluk claiming a judge has a conflict of interest be rather hypocritical. She certainly hasn't been worried by her own or her MPs conflicts during her term in office.

[halloween]

There are 170 supreme court judges? Why does it take 20 years to hear a case?

And thousands of Generals. This the the elites living of the government tit. Can't spend money on poverty stricken rice farmers because we have to over employ high ranking bureaucrats. We'll all know when Thailand is free when we read that 1,000 Generals and 161 Supreme Court Judges have been sacked.

Nice of you to leave us 9 judges, enough to jail her.

[Plowman]

There are 170 supreme court judges? Why does it take 20 years to hear a case?

And thousands of Generals. This the the elites living of the government tit. Can't spend money on poverty stricken rice farmers because we have to over employ high ranking bureaucrats. We'll all know when Thailand is free when we read that 1,000 Generals and 161 Supreme Court Judges have been sacked.

Nice of you to leave us 9 judges, enough to jail her.

US gets by with 9, I think Thailand could too. It will be interesting if they decide to jail her, if they do it will go down as histories stupidest own goal.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. This is not about Thaksin and it is not about the PTP either.

[halloween]

Nice of you to leave us 9 judges, enough to jail her.

US gets by with 9, I think Thailand could too. It will be interesting if they decide to jail her, if they do it will go down as histories stupidest own goal.

When and if you come to Thailand, you may notice the system is rather different here, and that SCJs have quite a different role.

It's often disappointing to Americans that the world isn't the same as the US.

[FangFerang]

When one considers the total amount that "toxic loans" have sucked from the economy, then add in the amount of tax money sent to private schools as a subsidy, then add in the loan-shark tactics used to inflate lottery tickets...

The rice pledging scheme was the same method, but utilized by the wrong people.

More than 700 billion baht was funneled to private schools alone in the last four years, a real government cost, but no one is asking for that money back--oh no, that's not corruption because even though it is the same method -- paying way over market for an even less tangible commodity, being education -- it is the same method with well, just better and different people. If it is not selective tolerated corruption than why is a former MOE one of the five wealthiest Thais and No One is asking for an assets declaration? More than 700 billion baht also flowed into the lottery coffers over the last several years, again the same methods, but this time the three controlling factions for the lottery came from (two out of three) military owned operations. Again, the right people and --whew--we just cant fix everything! Now consider that 85% of the GDP is now on debt, and the amount over the last several years makes 700 billion baht look like a piss in the ocean. Again, it's not what was done, but who did it.

I have to laugh at both sides for different reasons, simply because both are laughingly claiming the moral high grounds of either Democracy or Integrity -- and there is no moral high ground in Thailand. Sure, Yinunlucky and cronies are probably guilty, but I want to see equal enforcement, not this pogrom posing as reform.

I feel certain that strident critics will ignore the parts they don't like, or grudgingly give a half-nod before ranting, but I really don't expect much more than that from mental midgets posing as intellectuals at all.

[rubl]

There are 170 supreme court judges? Why does it take 20 years to hear a case?

And thousands of Generals. This the the elites living of the government tit. Can't spend money on poverty stricken rice farmers because we have to over employ high ranking bureaucrats. We'll all know when Thailand is free when we read that 1,000 Generals and 161 Supreme Court Judges have been sacked.

This may surprise you, but even under current circumstances those generals cannot be on the panel of the Supreme Court which will look at the Yingluck case.

BTW generals elite? You mean like one of the brothers of Yingluck, or her former relative Priewpan Damapong

[rubl]

so what she is facing is:

If found guilty on the charge of negligence, she could be jailed for up to 10 years.

The anti-corruption agency has also called for her to be personally liable for losses to state coffers.

First, it is clear - she's toast.

Second, in the US, like Thailand, we have political corruption. Good old fashion corruption - taking money, gifts, and bribes for favors. That kind of a charge and conviction is pretty concrete. Businessman bribes politician, receives favor, goes to court, guilty/not guilty, appeals, blah, blah, done... we just convicted the governor of Virginia and his wife - their in the appeal process now, but if it stands, they will both see the inside of a prison.

Negligence is (conveniently?) basically an opinion conviction. In this case, it will be relatively simple for the Thai court to put on a show, wave their hands, pretend to deliberate and then drop an opinion that justifies the conviction.

Like I said, she's toast.

The problem is that the courts over the last decade have become so politicized that they are more a tool for political revenge than justice. Even the recent high-profile, good-old-fashion, convict-them-at-the-speed-of-light, CIB corruption cases weren't about rooting out corruption or "justice".

I think that if Yingluck or any other politician, businessperson, general, or police chief does something illegal and provable that they should have their day in court.

What gets my goat is that real justice is so seldom pursued, yet political "justice" is so often at a feverish pace in Thailand.

Adios Yingluck.

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

[tbthailand]

so what she is facing is:

If found guilty on the charge of negligence, she could be jailed for up to 10 years.

The anti-corruption agency has also called for her to be personally liable for losses to state coffers.

First, it is clear - she's toast.

Second, in the US, like Thailand, we have political corruption. Good old fashion corruption - taking money, gifts, and bribes for favors. That kind of a charge and conviction is pretty concrete. Businessman bribes politician, receives favor, goes to court, guilty/not guilty, appeals, blah, blah, done... we just convicted the governor of Virginia and his wife - their in the appeal process now, but if it stands, they will both see the inside of a prison.

Negligence is (conveniently?) basically an opinion conviction. In this case, it will be relatively simple for the Thai court to put on a show, wave their hands, pretend to deliberate and then drop an opinion that justifies the conviction.

Like I said, she's toast.

The problem is that the courts over the last decade have become so politicized that they are more a tool for political revenge than justice. Even the recent high-profile, good-old-fashion, convict-them-at-the-speed-of-light, CIB corruption cases weren't about rooting out corruption or "justice".

I think that if Yingluck or any other politician, businessperson, general, or police chief does something illegal and provable that they should have their day in court.

What gets my goat is that real justice is so seldom pursued, yet political "justice" is so often at a feverish pace in Thailand.

Adios Yingluck.

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

absolutely,

the 700 billion bhat seems real in your own mind. but of course you know that comes from the TDRI estimate of the losses.

As for self-financing, I never saw where making such a claim was illegal. Same for the fact that a government program loses money. is that illegal?

Shall we convict her because of what you think and how you feel about it?

[rubl]

so what she is facing is:

If found guilty on the charge of negligence, she could be jailed for up to 10 years.

The anti-corruption agency has also called for her to be personally liable for losses to state coffers.

First, it is clear - she's toast.

Second, in the US, like Thailand, we have political corruption. Good old fashion corruption - taking money, gifts, and bribes for favors. That kind of a charge and conviction is pretty concrete. Businessman bribes politician, receives favor, goes to court, guilty/not guilty, appeals, blah, blah, done... we just convicted the governor of Virginia and his wife - their in the appeal process now, but if it stands, they will both see the inside of a prison.

Negligence is (conveniently?) basically an opinion conviction. In this case, it will be relatively simple for the Thai court to put on a show, wave their hands, pretend to deliberate and then drop an opinion that justifies the conviction.

Like I said, she's toast.

The problem is that the courts over the last decade have become so politicized that they are more a tool for political revenge than justice. Even the recent high-profile, good-old-fashion, convict-them-at-the-speed-of-light, CIB corruption cases weren't about rooting out corruption or "justice".

I think that if Yingluck or any other politician, businessperson, general, or police chief does something illegal and provable that they should have their day in court.

What gets my goat is that real justice is so seldom pursued, yet political "justice" is so often at a feverish pace in Thailand.

Adios Yingluck.

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

absolutely,

the 700 billion bhat seems real in your own mind. but of course you know that comes from the TDRI estimate of the losses.

As for self-financing, I never saw where making such a claim was illegal. Same for the fact that a government program loses money. is that illegal?

Shall we convict her because of what you think and how you feel about it?

So you think there's no problem when a government positions a scheme as 'self-financing', keeps it out of the National Budget because of that, get's one of the State Banks to set up a 440 billion Baht revolving Funds and promptly has to extend it with a few hundred billion more and then wants to borrow a bit more again.

A self-financing program may lose a lot of money? No need to have someone to be responsible?

Of course if Ms. Yingluck is convicted it is not because of me. Stupid idea you pose. It would be because she could not explain how her wonderful scheme managed to lose that much money and why she didn't heed warnings which came as early as before the elections and then started again begin of 2012 after the scheme had run three months.

2013-09-25

"Luck Wajananawat, president of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), which funds the scheme, said the government had spent 667 billion baht ($21.3 billion) on buying rice since the scheme began.

The Commerce Ministry, which manages the rice scheme, has repaid only 139 billion baht to the BAAC, Luck was quoted as telling Thai newspapers on Wednesday, well short of the 220 billion the government aims to pay back by the end of the year."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-thailand-rice-idUSBRE98O06Q20130925

2014-09-17

"Luck estimated the government still owed BAAC about 750 billion baht in debt related to the scheme.

"The government plans to set aside money from the central budget and the money it gets from selling rice stocks to repay the bank, but it could take around seven years for the government to pay it all back," he said.

The 750 billion baht was the money the government had borrowed from the bank to buy rice from farmers at 15,000 baht per tonne, about 60 percent above market rates, from October 2011 to February 2014."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-thailand-rice-debt-idUSKBN0HC10Q20140917

[halloween]

TB it is a known fact that a (disputed) large amount of money was lost in a policy that abysmally failed to meet its stated aims. As this is hardly a good result for the people of Thailand, the claim is that as PM she was negligent in the management of this policy. The alternative, you probably won't like, is that she did so intentionally.

As the policy was a re-instatement of a known failed policy with low achievement and high levels of corruption, the latter has reasonable worth, IMHO.

[waitforusalso]

so what she is facing is:

If found guilty on the charge of negligence, she could be jailed for up to 10 years.

The anti-corruption agency has also called for her to be personally liable for losses to state coffers.

First, it is clear - she's toast.

Second, in the US, like Thailand, we have political corruption. Good old fashion corruption - taking money, gifts, and bribes for favors. That kind of a charge and conviction is pretty concrete. Businessman bribes politician, receives favor, goes to court, guilty/not guilty, appeals, blah, blah, done... we just convicted the governor of Virginia and his wife - their in the appeal process now, but if it stands, they will both see the inside of a prison.

Negligence is (conveniently?) basically an opinion conviction. In this case, it will be relatively simple for the Thai court to put on a show, wave their hands, pretend to deliberate and then drop an opinion that justifies the conviction.

Like I said, she's toast.

The problem is that the courts over the last decade have become so politicized that they are more a tool for political revenge than justice. Even the recent high-profile, good-old-fashion, convict-them-at-the-speed-of-light, CIB corruption cases weren't about rooting out corruption or "justice".

I think that if Yingluck or any other politician, businessperson, general, or police chief does something illegal and provable that they should have their day in court.

What gets my goat is that real justice is so seldom pursued, yet political "justice" is so often at a feverish pace in Thailand.

Adios Yingluck.

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

absolutely,

the 700 billion bhat seems real in your own mind. but of course you know that comes from the TDRI estimate of the losses.

As for self-financing, I never saw where making such a claim was illegal. Same for the fact that a government program loses money. is that illegal?

Shall we convict her because of what you think and how you feel about it?

So you think there's no problem when a government positions a scheme as 'self-financing', keeps it out of the National Budget because of that, get's one of the State Banks to set up a 440 billion Baht revolving Funds and promptly has to extend it with a few hundred billion more and then wants to borrow a bit more again.

A self-financing program may lose a lot of money? No need to have someone to be responsible?

Of course if Ms. Yingluck is convicted it is not because of me. Stupid idea you pose. It would be because she could not explain how her wonderful scheme managed to lose that much money and why she didn't heed warnings which came as early as before the elections and then started again begin of 2012 after the scheme had run three months.

2013-09-25

"Luck Wajananawat, president of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), which funds the scheme, said the government had spent 667 billion baht ($21.3 billion) on buying rice since the scheme began.

The Commerce Ministry, which manages the rice scheme, has repaid only 139 billion baht to the BAAC, Luck was quoted as telling Thai newspapers on Wednesday, well short of the 220 billion the government aims to pay back by the end of the year."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-thailand-rice-idUSBRE98O06Q20130925

2014-09-17

"Luck estimated the government still owed BAAC about 750 billion baht in debt related to the scheme.

"The government plans to set aside money from the central budget and the money it gets from selling rice stocks to repay the bank, but it could take around seven years for the government to pay it all back," he said.

The 750 billion baht was the money the government had borrowed from the bank to buy rice from farmers at 15,000 baht per tonne, about 60 percent above market rates, from October 2011 to February 2014."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-thailand-rice-debt-idUSKBN0HC10Q20140917

The 'self-financing' angle is a poor argument that has been repeated ad nauseam by Rubi. Yes, the plan was for it to be self-financing, but market conditions changed drastically for the worse, meaning it wasn't successful. In the early 80's New Zealand's National party borrowed $7 billion to finance its 'Think Big' projects to combat high oil prices. The idea was for the scheme to be 'self-financing' in the medium term. Shortly after, the oil price dropped significantly & the projects (natural gas, etc) were not financially viable. Even though huge losses were made on the intended 'self-financing' scheme, the PM was not impeached or imprisoned, but voted out by the public in the next election.

Edited February 24, 2015 by waitforusalso

[tbthailand]

so what she is facing is:

If found guilty on the charge of negligence, she could be jailed for up to 10 years.

The anti-corruption agency has also called for her to be personally liable for losses to state coffers.

First, it is clear - she's toast.

Second, in the US, like Thailand, we have political corruption. Good old fashion corruption - taking money, gifts, and bribes for favors. That kind of a charge and conviction is pretty concrete. Businessman bribes politician, receives favor, goes to court, guilty/not guilty, appeals, blah, blah, done... we just convicted the governor of Virginia and his wife - their in the appeal process now, but if it stands, they will both see the inside of a prison.

Negligence is (conveniently?) basically an opinion conviction. In this case, it will be relatively simple for the Thai court to put on a show, wave their hands, pretend to deliberate and then drop an opinion that justifies the conviction.

Like I said, she's toast.

The problem is that the courts over the last decade have become so politicized that they are more a tool for political revenge than justice. Even the recent high-profile, good-old-fashion, convict-them-at-the-speed-of-light, CIB corruption cases weren't about rooting out corruption or "justice".

I think that if Yingluck or any other politician, businessperson, general, or police chief does something illegal and provable that they should have their day in court.

What gets my goat is that real justice is so seldom pursued, yet political "justice" is so often at a feverish pace in Thailand.

Adios Yingluck.

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

absolutely,

the 700 billion bhat seems real in your own mind. but of course you know that comes from the TDRI estimate of the losses.

As for self-financing, I never saw where making such a claim was illegal. Same for the fact that a government program loses money. is that illegal?

Shall we convict her because of what you think and how you feel about it?

So you think there's no problem when a government positions a scheme as 'self-financing', keeps it out of the National Budget because of that, get's one of the State Banks to set up a 440 billion Baht revolving Funds and promptly has to extend it with a few hundred billion more and then wants to borrow a bit more again.

A self-financing program may lose a lot of money? No need to have someone to be responsible?

Of course if Ms. Yingluck is convicted it is not because of me. Stupid idea you pose. It would be because she could not explain how her wonderful scheme managed to lose that much money and why she didn't heed warnings which came as early as before the elections and then started again begin of 2012 after the scheme had run three months.

2013-09-25

"Luck Wajananawat, president of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), which funds the scheme, said the government had spent 667 billion baht ($21.3 billion) on buying rice since the scheme began.

The Commerce Ministry, which manages the rice scheme, has repaid only 139 billion baht to the BAAC, Luck was quoted as telling Thai newspapers on Wednesday, well short of the 220 billion the government aims to pay back by the end of the year."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-thailand-rice-idUSBRE98O06Q20130925

2014-09-17

"Luck estimated the government still owed BAAC about 750 billion baht in debt related to the scheme.

"The government plans to set aside money from the central budget and the money it gets from selling rice stocks to repay the bank, but it could take around seven years for the government to pay it all back," he said.

The 750 billion baht was the money the government had borrowed from the bank to buy rice from farmers at 15,000 baht per tonne, about 60 percent above market rates, from October 2011 to February 2014."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-thailand-rice-debt-idUSKBN0HC10Q20140917

So you think...

well for a long time, I have thought that you are just a troll.

But go ahead, point out which part of your post is about something illegal

Please excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for an actual reply with substance...

[tif]

TB it is a known fact that a (disputed) large amount of money was lost in a policy that abysmally failed to meet its stated aims. As this is hardly a good result for the people of Thailand, the claim is that as PM she was negligent in the management of this policy. The alternative, you probably won't like, is that she did so intentionally.

As the policy was a re-instatement of a known failed policy with low achievement and high levels of corruption, the latter has reasonable worth, IMHO.

I keep seeing this word 'lost'. What is lost? Nothing. It's sitting somewhere. Where? Why has the present Incumbent been unable to find it. With all his resources. Laughable.