Ousted Thai PM Yingluck proclaims innocence as criminal trial starts

[LannaGuy]

Yingluck herself has said the rice scheme "lifted the quality of life for rice farmers"

Tell that to the families of farmers who went bankrupt and killed themselves months after you failed to deliver payment as promised. Most of them only got paid after you were thrown out of office.

That is actually a distortion of facts. The banks refused to release the money until after the coup....

I refuse to see anyone one-dimensionally for the sake of having online forum fake friends.

Both sides are up their elbows in stolen cash, but only one side is being pursued in the "name of justice".

Everyone who isn't a cheerleader notices there were 18 coups, that the "ruinous populist policies" included the health care reform that lets poor people be treated, and that no one even considered a coup or prosecuting negligence when the protesters were shot down in a temple.

Duh.

it seems that on this forum, everyone sees a question as sarcasm or an attack. Please let me ask you a question so I may LEARN.

Where can I read more about this event where it was the banks who refused to release government money? (A rather novel concept)

If there is no public written source, can you please share some of that inside information with me?

Really, I never heard this before .. please expand and elaborate on this thesis.

Thank You.

UPDATE: OK, I did find a good and credible source (Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/10/us-thailand-protest-idUSBREA1904Y20140210

In that, it said...

"The government lacks the power to transfer money from the central budget to pay for the rice it has committed to buy from farmers, some of whom have not been paid for months. Big banks have refused to offer bridging loans, unconvinced the government has the authority to seek them."

Is the refusal of a Bank to furnish a high risk bridge loan to an administration under siege and on the verge of collapse the same as "The banks refused to release the money until after the coup...." ??

But I think I see your point. If the opposition holds the purse strings, and knows that a failure to pay the rice (bribes) scheme will get the populace on the "throw the bums out" train .. yes .. I do see your point there.

Thanks for this posting, you make me think, do some research and see this a different way.

The Yingluck government set aside a 500 billion Baht fund to get the 'self-funding' Rice Support program running. It was so popular that non-farmers became rice farmers and everyone expanded land under cultivation and, with rice coming from dubious sources (Cambodia, Laos) and corrupt millers double charging the government, etc., the Yingluck government had to borrow an additional 150 billion Baht to keep the program running. That was gone by August of 2013 and payments stopped. There were several attempts by farmers to march on government house but they were stopped by radical, armed elements of the UDD. Also, farmers were threatened with having their houses burned and equipment destroyed if they protested. For three months before PM Yingluck dissolved the House of Representatives, there had been no payments but only weekly, from-the-heart promises, to somehow find them money. In the meantime, farmers were bringing in bumper crops that the government was giving out IOUs for. The Agricultural Bank that had been funding the program was nearly out of credit itself. The Yingluck government still had not made provisions for funding the program when, in December, she dissolved Parliament. Her, now caretaker, government, by Thai Constitutional law, cannot borrow and create debt for a future government but her supporters started the spin machine that you read daily on this forum; blaming it on the Suthep protests or the military coup. Because the government was paying 40% above world prices and wasn't really selling rice on the world market (that's another case that is in the courts now), the scheme really was not self-funding as advertised and, because of the corruption, it ran out of money sooner than planned; even with the extra 150 billion Baht on top of the original 500 billion Baht (all of it off-budget). You don't have to believe me, just start reading the newspaper headlines beginning August 2013 to see who is telling the truth on this forum about when payments stopped and why.

perfectly normal for governments to underwrite agriculture output and it happens in almost every country (EU, USA etc. etc. etc.) they are trying to make it look like 'something else' but sometimes a cigar is a cigar

they subsidised rice, nothing new here, move on

Edited May 22, 2015 by LannaGuy

[scorecard]

From Heybruce:

... Instead they are trying her for negligence, which could open the door to many prosecutions. For example, there were dozens of illegal refugee camps in the south, where the military had many men supposedly guarding the area. This strikes many as criminal negligence.

On a more farcical note, there's the submarine base with no submarines. Did someone negligently forget to order submarines, or neglect to cancel plans for the base? Either way, it seems seriously negligent.

In a democracy the voters deal with negligent elected officials. Too bad Thailand doesn't have a democracy.

Me:

Well bruce no doubt you would have preferred the totally democratic government (a wonderful model of democracy) which yingluck lead.

But there's one serious problem that you and some others seem to be blind to, she wasn't leading a democracy, she was the pupper front man for the development (with some success) of a dictatorship.

"...the voters deal with negligent elected officials. " Nice text book theory bruce but with no connection whatever to the realities of the Thai situation.

Your comments bruce about opening the door to other prosecutions. Well if your a supporter of democracy then you would be rooting for equal application of the law and justice regardless of political affiliations etc., rather than making comments which are basically 'don't investigate it may bounce back'.

The old, ridiculous claim that it wasn't a democracy because Yingluck listened to her brother. Yigluck made no secret of the fact that she would be taking advice from her brother, in fact she campaigned on the promise to act on Thaksin's behalf and her party received far more votes than any other. Just because you don't like the voters choice doesn't change the fact that it was a democratic government that came to power by a legitimate election and was toppled in the most undemocratic manner possible.

Yes, I preferred the elected government of the PTP to military rule, and I would have preferred that the people of Thailand been given the choice of keeping or changing the PTP government through a new election. The reality of the situation is that the military did not want an elected government and saw to it that there wouldn't be one.

Do you really think that the junta is providing equal application of the law and justice regardless of political affiliation? The only purpose of this prosecution is to keep the Shinawatra's out of government. If they could have proven corruption the junta would be trying Yingluck for corruption, but this prosecution for negligence is the best they could come up with. To my knowledge this type of prosecution has never been done to a prominent elected official in Thailand before, it certainly has never been done to a high ranking military officer, and it probably will never be done again after this show trial. Do you consider that equal application of the law and justice?

Well your preamble is just your deliberate strong twist of the situation, with no balance.

"If they could have proven corruption the junta would be trying Yingluck for corruption," Step by step.

"To my knowledge this type of prosecution has never been done to a prominent elected official in Thailand before..." Well there's a first time for everything. There have been situations before where previous PMs, politicians should probably have been charged, that doesn't mean they can't start to bring such charges now.

In terms of corruption, all people who get involved with corruption know well that they are breaking the law and they know well that one day the axe might well fall and probably will fall, and nobody knows when. That's part of the known risks involved when get your hands dirty. 'Nobody has been charged before' is not and cannot be a defense. If you don't agree with this then you strongly display your own severe bias.

"Yes, I preferred the elected government of the PTP to military rule, and I would have preferred that the people of Thailand been given the choice of keeping or changing the PTP government through a new election."

And you continue to ignore that the yingluck / thaksin government was not a democratic government, it was developing more and more into an obvious dictatorship.

You comment "The old, ridiculous claim that it wasn't a democracy because Yingluck listened to her brother. " Well lets' get some facts straight here, there's a lot more in the overall picture of the yingluck government besides her brothers input, but of course you don't mention that.

But then again, maybe you think it's all ok for a convicted person with a 2 year jail sentence yet unserved to be interfering / directing the running of Thailand. And please don't say it was minor offense and please don't say the charges were politically motived. Not true and not true.

"...keeping or changing the PTP government through a new election..." And you and your ilk continue to ignore / continue to give no specific structured response to the fact that the yingluck / thaksin gang had made quite some progress towards setting up a situation whereby they could never be removed through an election. And they had displayed their lack of ethics and morals many times.

Perhaps you should learn the word pragmatic.

There are many anti-thaksin posters on these threads who are branded (by the likes of you) as 'junta lovers'.

My guess is that they are not junta or coup lovers, they are pragmatists who understand that someone had to intervene. I repeat my comment: "And you and your ilk continue to ignore / continue to give no specific structured response to the fact that the yingluck / thaksin gang had made quite some progress towards setting up a situation whereby they could never be removed through an election."

You want equal application of the law. So do I and my guess is that 99% or even 100% of the 'junta lovers' want the same thing, total equality.

Perhaps another member might like to list the numerous cases under the overall dictatorship when thousands of good Thai people received zero justice.

[JAG]

If the Yingluck Government was becoming a dictatorship why then did it call an election, in accordance with the then constitution?

"Someone had to intervene."

The electorate were asked to intervene, and then prevented from doing so.

Two inconvenient truths, which if not addressed mean your post is little more than yet another "I don't like Thaksin so the military seizing power is all right by me" offering

[heybruce]

From Heybruce:

... Instead they are trying her for negligence, which could open the door to many prosecutions. For example, there were dozens of illegal refugee camps in the south, where the military had many men supposedly guarding the area. This strikes many as criminal negligence.

On a more farcical note, there's the submarine base with no submarines. Did someone negligently forget to order submarines, or neglect to cancel plans for the base? Either way, it seems seriously negligent.

In a democracy the voters deal with negligent elected officials. Too bad Thailand doesn't have a democracy.

Me:

Well bruce no doubt you would have preferred the totally democratic government (a wonderful model of democracy) which yingluck lead.

But there's one serious problem that you and some others seem to be blind to, she wasn't leading a democracy, she was the pupper front man for the development (with some success) of a dictatorship.

"...the voters deal with negligent elected officials. " Nice text book theory bruce but with no connection whatever to the realities of the Thai situation.

Your comments bruce about opening the door to other prosecutions. Well if your a supporter of democracy then you would be rooting for equal application of the law and justice regardless of political affiliations etc., rather than making comments which are basically 'don't investigate it may bounce back'.

The old, ridiculous claim that it wasn't a democracy because Yingluck listened to her brother. Yigluck made no secret of the fact that she would be taking advice from her brother, in fact she campaigned on the promise to act on Thaksin's behalf and her party received far more votes than any other. Just because you don't like the voters choice doesn't change the fact that it was a democratic government that came to power by a legitimate election and was toppled in the most undemocratic manner possible.

Yes, I preferred the elected government of the PTP to military rule, and I would have preferred that the people of Thailand been given the choice of keeping or changing the PTP government through a new election. The reality of the situation is that the military did not want an elected government and saw to it that there wouldn't be one.

Do you really think that the junta is providing equal application of the law and justice regardless of political affiliation? The only purpose of this prosecution is to keep the Shinawatra's out of government. If they could have proven corruption the junta would be trying Yingluck for corruption, but this prosecution for negligence is the best they could come up with. To my knowledge this type of prosecution has never been done to a prominent elected official in Thailand before, it certainly has never been done to a high ranking military officer, and it probably will never be done again after this show trial. Do you consider that equal application of the law and justice?

Well your preamble is just your deliberate strong twist of the situation, with no balance.

"If they could have proven corruption the junta would be trying Yingluck for corruption," Step by step.

"To my knowledge this type of prosecution has never been done to a prominent elected official in Thailand before..." Well there's a first time for everything. There have been situations before where previous PMs, politicians should probably have been charged, that doesn't mean they can't start to bring such charges now.

In terms of corruption, all people who get involved with corruption know well that they are breaking the law and they know well that one day the axe might well fall and probably will fall, and nobody knows when. That's part of the known risks involved when get your hands dirty. 'Nobody has been charged before' is not and cannot be a defense. If you don't agree with this then you strongly display your own severe bias.

"Yes, I preferred the elected government of the PTP to military rule, and I would have preferred that the people of Thailand been given the choice of keeping or changing the PTP government through a new election."

And you continue to ignore that the yingluck / thaksin government was not a democratic government, it was developing more and more into an obvious dictatorship.

You comment "The old, ridiculous claim that it wasn't a democracy because Yingluck listened to her brother. " Well lets' get some facts straight here, there's a lot more in the overall picture of the yingluck government besides her brothers input, but of course you don't mention that.

But then again, maybe you think it's all ok for a convicted person with a 2 year jail sentence yet unserved to be interfering / directing the running of Thailand. And please don't say it was minor offense and please don't say the charges were politically motived. Not true and not true.

"...keeping or changing the PTP government through a new election..." And you and your ilk continue to ignore / continue to give no specific structured response to the fact that the yingluck / thaksin gang had made quite some progress towards setting up a situation whereby they could never be removed through an election. And they had displayed their lack of ethics and morals many times.

Perhaps you should learn the word pragmatic.

There are many anti-thaksin posters on these threads who are branded (by the likes of you) as 'junta lovers'.

My guess is that they are not junta or coup lovers, they are pragmatists who understand that someone had to intervene. I repeat my comment: "And you and your ilk continue to ignore / continue to give no specific structured response to the fact that the yingluck / thaksin gang had made quite some progress towards setting up a situation whereby they could never be removed through an election."

You want equal application of the law. So do I and my guess is that 99% or even 100% of the 'junta lovers' want the same thing, total equality.

Perhaps another member might like to list the numerous cases under the overall dictatorship when thousands of good Thai people received zero justice.

You accuse me of being wrong without refuting anything I said, maintain that the elected PTP government was undemocratic without giving any reason other than the fact that they communicated with Thaksin, and state without proof that "the yingluck / thaksin gang had made quite some progress towards setting up a situation whereby they could never be removed through an election." How will the junta be removed?

Many of the junta supporters maintain that the PTP had lost a lot of support and would have suffered and perhaps lost had the July 2014 election been allowed to proceed. I agree with them on this. However I think the proposed elections should have been allowed to proceed, while for reasons unstated the junta supporters think it is better that democracy was crushed.

I think it's especially funny that you claim to be a pragmatist. Coups and military governments have been tried many times in Thailand and have never led to a better government. Einstein is attributed with the statement: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Supporting yet another military government is not pragmatic, it's insanity.

I will conclude with the same paragraph I used before:

"Do you really think that the junta is providing equal application of the law and justice regardless of political affiliation? The only purpose of this prosecution is to keep the Shinawatra's out of government. If they could have proven corruption the junta would be trying Yingluck for corruption, but this prosecution for negligence is the best they could come up with. To my knowledge this type of prosecution has never been done to a prominent elected official in Thailand before, it certainly has never been done to a high ranking military officer, and it probably will never be done again after this show trial. Do you consider that equal application of the law and justice?"

[halloween]

perfectly normal for governments to underwrite agriculture output and it happens in almost every country (EU, USA etc. etc. etc.) they are trying to make it look like 'something else' but sometimes a cigar is a cigar

they subsidised rice, nothing new here, move on

If I were to accept for the moment that the rice scam was nothing but a rather expensive subsidy, don't you think that the expenditure would still be accountable?

Would it be unfair to ask those who installed and ran the scheme where the money went, why it never achieved any of its stated goals, what measures were installed to prevent corruption, and why it was continued long after it was apparent that it was an expensive failure and that the rice being bought was far in excess of demand?

Those questions are going to be asked in court, and the person elected to be responsible for the nation's wealth is going to have to answer satisfactorily, or be found guilty of criminal negligence.