'Nothing new' about executive order targeting Yingluck

[Jonathan Fairfield]

RICE PLEDGING SCHEME
'Nothing new' about executive order targeting Yingluck
THE NATION


Yingluck

BANGKOK: -- THE government has defended its decision to issue an administrative order seeking a massive compensation from former premier Yingluck Shinawatra due to the huge loss of taxpayers money over her government's rice-pledging scheme, arguing that there is nothing unusual about the move.

Deputy Premier Wissanu Krea-ngam and chief government spokesman Maj Gen Sansern Kaewkamnerd said the rationale behind the administrative order to seek compensation from the ex-premier was based on the rule of law.

They said the accused could fight the case in the Administrative Court, which was empowered to order the government to drop the case.

Wissanu said there were four groups of alleged wrongdoers and some of them had faced impeachment proceedings in the National Legislative Assembly and criminal lawsuits filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

In addition to former politicians, 15 companies are also facing legal action for involvement in the rice scheme.

The deputy premier said the measure to seek compensation from Yingluck was legal and was not something new since the law had been in effect for 19 years. Prosecutors and state legal entities had been using it to seek compensation for losses suffered by the public.

In fact, there have been about 5,000 compensation cases, with the government winning and losing cases, or being ordered to drop some cases.

In a post on her Facebook page, Yingluck argued that the government and Finance Ministry had issued the executive order to proceed with the case even though the criminal lawsuit in this case had not yet finished.

The NCPO also issued an order under Article 44 of the interim charter to protect government officials involved in the case from potential lawsuits from those affected.

Yingluck also said the case was the first in which a former elected premier had faced an executive order to pay compensation.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Nothing-new-about-executive-order-targeting-Yinglu-30273095.html


-- The Nation 2015-11-17

[jcb2001]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

[Thai at Heart]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

[worgeordie]

If she has any sense ?, she will have moved all her asset's out of Thailand,

so the Government will have to whistle for any money they expect to claim,

from her.

regards worgeordie

[NeverSure]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

[robblok]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

Cheers,

But you as a banker knows that you have to budget for it and if you knowingly not include it in the budget (we are talking here about 10% of the yearly budget as extra cost that is a serious error and negligence.

The moment you know cost are high (and certainly if they reach 10% of the yearly national budget) you will have to include them in your budget.

You as a banker should know better.

[bangrak]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

'NeverSure', putting your apologetic blah-blah at the side, one thing you could be ...sure about is nor YS nor the pseudo-government of the time 'approved' anything by itself, that this all charade was the creation of one 'man' (and his 'clan') pulling all the string: Mr puppet-master TS! Does it make the whole scam 'excusable' in your eyes?

Oh, and mind you, these were no 'subsidies', as it was not a part of the State's expenditures budget, it were separate, uncontrolled, loans, 'supposed'(?) to create a revolving fund, even generate profit... according to the crazy theories of 'thaksinomics', as the megalomaniac got the sick dream he was able to manipulate the price of rice, worldwide!

[Thai at Heart]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

Cheers,

But you as a banker knows that you have to budget for it and if you knowingly not include it in the budget (we are talking here about 10% of the yearly budget as extra cost that is a serious error and negligence.

The moment you know cost are high (and certainly if they reach 10% of the yearly national budget) you will have to include them in your budget.

You as a banker should know better.

Plenty of off balance sheet financing in modern govt that ends up costing a lot more than originally budgeted.

[tbthailand]

"Nothing new"

well of course not. These guys have been going after Thaksin and his network since 2006... No, there is nothing new here.

She's toast.

[NeverSure]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

'NeverSure', putting your apologetic blah-blah at the side, one thing you could be ...sure about is nor YS nor the pseudo-government of the time 'approved' anything by itself, that this all charade was the creation of one 'man' (and his 'clan') pulling all the string: Mr puppet-master TS! Does it make the whole scam 'excusable' in your eyes?

Oh, and mind you, these were no 'subsidies', as it was not a part of the State's expenditures budget, it were separate, uncontrolled, loans, 'supposed'(?) to create a revolving fund, even generate profit... according to the crazy theories of 'thaksinomics', as the megalomaniac got the sick dream he was able to manipulate the price of rice, worldwide!

And... The US and the EU and various other Western countries have balanced budgets and never spend more money than expected? If that happens the leaders have to pay the money back themselves and perhaps even go to jail?

Those Western countries don't borrow money for deficit spending? None of them have budget items that appear and deficit money is never spent?

This is a personal vendetta against the Shins. Now, I'm not supporting the Shins. I'm just calling it as it is.

Cheers.

[webfact]

Dr Wisanu defends the government’s use of administrative order against Ms Yingluck



BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Wasanu Krea-ngarm defended the government’s use of an administrative order to demand compensation from former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for losses incurred from the rice pledging scheme, claiming that the government has no bias against her.

He explained that the government has two options to demand compensation from Ms Yingluck. The first option is to file civil lawsuit against her in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code and the second option is to Officials’ Accountability for Wrongful Act B.E. 2539 and Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539.

The government, said Mr Wisanu chose the second option which is nothing new and, in fact, has been put in practice for 19 years and administrative order has been invoked for over 5,000 cases.

The deputy prime minister went on saying that the government has no ill intention to defame Ms Yingluck but wanted to make clarification to dispel misunderstanding.

Elaborating on the procedure pertaining to the administrative order, he said if the fact-finding probes of both the Commerce and Finance ministries clear Ms Yingluck of any wrongdoings, then the case is closed. But if they found she was negligent in her performance of duty, then the Finance Ministry would issue an administrative order to demand compensation from her.

In such a case, Ms Yingluck has the right to appeal within 15 days to an appeals committee and if the committee rejects her appeal, the administrative order will take effect but she can take the case to the Administrative Court to revoke the administrative order.

Dr Wisanu explained that there were four groups of people implicated in alleged corruption pertaining to the rice pledging scheme. The first group includes Ms Yingluck. The second group comprises those involved in the fake G-to-G rice deals. The third group is similar to the second group and the four group involves 15 private companies abetting or benefiting from the fake G-to-G rice deals.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/dr-wisanu-defends-the-governments-use-of-administrative-order-against-ms-yingluck


-- Thai PBS 2015-11-17

[Somtamnication]

I don't get it ( and I never will ). On one hand he wants money from this lady. On the other hand he wants to get more support from the red shirts. Which one is it, buddy?

[robblok]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

'NeverSure', putting your apologetic blah-blah at the side, one thing you could be ...sure about is nor YS nor the pseudo-government of the time 'approved' anything by itself, that this all charade was the creation of one 'man' (and his 'clan') pulling all the string: Mr puppet-master TS! Does it make the whole scam 'excusable' in your eyes?

Oh, and mind you, these were no 'subsidies', as it was not a part of the State's expenditures budget, it were separate, uncontrolled, loans, 'supposed'(?) to create a revolving fund, even generate profit... according to the crazy theories of 'thaksinomics', as the megalomaniac got the sick dream he was able to manipulate the price of rice, worldwide!

And... The US and the EU and various other Western countries have balanced budgets and never spend more money than expected? If that happens the leaders have to pay the money back themselves and perhaps even go to jail?

Those Western countries don't borrow money for deficit spending? None of them have budget items that appear and deficit money is never spent?

This is a personal vendetta against the Shins. Now, I'm not supporting the Shins. I'm just calling it as it is.

Cheers.

Spending 10% of the national budget off books, could you please tell me where that happens in Europe or US ? Spending a bit more can happen and you have to take it into account.

You are a lot smarter then this but you don't want to admit your wrong. You can't spend 10% (200 billion not even the 800 over multiple years) for a few years in a row off budget and not account for it. That is unheard of in EU or US.

For your information 200 billion is almost as much as the whole health budget for a year in Thailand. So it is crazy much overspending.

Its ok, (but extreme) if you take it into your budget, they did not because they could not do other programs then and would have gotten a lot of problems and would have to defend it.

Your not calling you as it is your stubborn something I seen more often with you.

Give me an example in the US where they spend off books a 10% extra of the national budget and ill agree with you. So 10% of the national budget in overspending on a subsidy. Plus doing so for multiple years in a row without taking it into account.

I am laughing real hard here that you who said he was well versed in accounting and a banker could even imagine such a thing.

The whole extra cost are around 800 billion.. and I only took 1/4th into the calculation to keep it real because it was over multiple years. So in reality its not one year of overspending but 4 in a row off books each equaling 10% of the national budget.

Now be a good boy and back your statement up. I did my work looking up the national budget of Thailand. Now you give a good a example.

[chainarong]

This is the last time I am going to comment on this subject of Executive Order, firstly it could prove DeJa time later on for Junta members or others for revenge attacks , it sets a precedence , secondly it looks like a witch hunt , thirdly, was there any inquiry into the whole rice scheme , questions asked, heads of department quizzed , the executive arm of Government were all involved, not only one was involved were they questioned , rice trade officials were they questioned on their input , fourth easy option , to be seen to be doing something when in fact the Junta is doing nothing at all, I rest my case m Lord.......................

[Srikcir]

"the rationale behind the administrative order to seek compensation from the ex-premier was based on the rule of law."

What this really means is that it is because of the rule of law that an administrative order must be issued to CIRCUMVENT the rule of law. If the rule of law were followed, the Prayut government wouldn't otherwise have sufficient time through the current judicial process to sue for compensation because of the statue of limitations.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Srikcir

[IMA_FARANG]

Useless to argue.

Anyhow, who cares now.?

When I first came to Thailand in 1977 there was some corruption scandal running.

There still is today, and it will soon be 2016.

Different names, different politicians, same old corruption.

Nothing has really changed, just the actors are different.

Edited November 17, 2015 by IMA_FARANG

[EnglishJohn]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

Talk about missing the point. Your post exhibits a blinding level of ignorance.

1) It has nothing to do with the money lost by subsidizing the farmers. It is about 500 billion from a 600 billion budget going to others instead.

2) Yingluck is not accused of taking the money. She is accused of gross negligence because she knew what was going on and consciously chose not to do anything about it. As PM, the responsibility stops with her. She is more guilty than those who stole it because it was her responsibility to stop them.

3) Hiding behind 'Government Approved' program is seriously lame. It was the government who devised the scheme the way they did in order to make the corruption possible. Using Parliamentary majority to force through things like this does not make it right. Even Thaksin said publicly ".. a little loss is acceptable .." which is about as big a green light for corrution as you are going to get.

Going by your post, I don't think you have any idea what is actually going on. You should get your news from reliable sources instead of your red-shirt friends.

[EnglishJohn]

What on earth is going on ?.

It seems Yinglucks lawyers think her best chance is 'trial by facebook' where nobody can have a counter argument to correct the simplistic half-truths they know her followers will swallow.

It's ridiculous. It has no significance at all outside the courtroom.

All part of the prepping to get some intimidation mobs outside the courtrooms when the time comes. Funny how it always happens when the Shins bank-balance is the victim.

[Bakseeda]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Sorry, are you an English speaking person... Because Malfeasance is completely right in this case .." Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful". So , no getting away from it... Malfeasance is right..! Negligence is an act of Malfeasance... Seems YOU need educating in English language... And whatever, Yinluck should and I hope does go to prison for a long time...

[NeverSure]

If every national leader who was stupid and negligent with budgets went to jail and/or had to pay the money back themselves, most leaders would be in jail.

I ask again. Where is proof of corruption or personal monetary gain by Yingluck?

By the time Obama leaves office he will have doubled the US debt which is horrible. He's done that to make the economy look good. I could make anyone's "economy look good" if I threw more than $8 trillion dollars at it. Instead of going to jail and getting a bill for the money, some say only that he's done a good job with the economy.

All over the world leaders are in deficit spending, and much of it is for populist things such as national health care, housing, food and other bennies for people. Are they going to jail for running the NHS into the ground? Of course not.

I simply want to know what crime Yingluck committed such as stealing the money which would also get any Western leader thrown in jail.

Well, where is the proof or even reasonable accusation?

Well?

[devaram]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Sorry, are you an English speaking person... Because Malfeasance is completely right in this case .." Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful". So , no getting away from it... Malfeasance is right..! Negligence is an act of Malfeasance... Seems YOU need educating in English language... And whatever, Yinluck should and I hope does go to prison for a long time...

I think her motivation was pure and you should go to prison because you are too arrogant

[SOTIRIOS]

......since when is someone accused of crimes....with overwhelming evidence......'targeted'.....

[lucky11]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Interesting you should say that.

I looked at the definition of malfeasance on the net and the first entry in Google.co.uk was from dictionary.com.

This is the first example given:

Examples from the Web for malfeasance.

Contemporary Examples

• The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers.

How wonderfully ironic and it just shows how wrong one can be!!

Why not simply charge her for malfeasance and negligence for good measure and prosecute her for both.

Edited November 17, 2015 by lucky11

[Thai at Heart]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Interesting you should say that.

I looked at the definition of malfeasance on the net and the first entry in Google.co.uk was from dictionary.com.

This is the first example given:

Examples from the Web for malfeasance.

Contemporary Examples

• The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers.

How wonderfully ironic and it just shows how wrong one can be!!

Why not simply charge her for malfeasance and negligence for good measure and prosecute her for both.

She is charged with negligence not malfeasance. One is not doing enough, another doing something wrong.

Whatever. The point is, the original message was pleading that Yingluck is so obviously guilty that no one could possibly see another reason for why this could possibly be occurring.

This will be quite a complicated case, which has to be handled very delicately otherwise every politician in Thailand in future will have to be very careful what they promise and do.

Don't be surprised if once they realise this, they backtrack and she's either not guilty or they drop the charges.

If she is guilty of anything, it could be misfesance.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[ratcatcher]

This is the last time I am going to comment on this subject of Executive Order, firstly it could prove DeJa time later on for Junta members or others for revenge attacks , it sets a precedence , secondly it looks like a witch hunt , thirdly, was there any inquiry into the whole rice scheme , questions asked, heads of department quizzed , the executive arm of Government were all involved, not only one was involved were they questioned , rice trade officials were they questioned on their input , fourth easy option , to be seen to be doing something when in fact the Junta is doing nothing at all, I rest my case m Lord.......................

" I rest my case m Lord...................... ?"

Thank you counselor chainarong. You have every reason to rest your case after that sentence, which is longer than the one I intend to impose on your client Ms Yingluck Shinawatra.

Edited November 17, 2015 by ratcatcher

[h90]

Unless they can prove that she stole money... Many leaders around the world have instigated programs that lost a lot of money and they weren't held personally responsible. Money losing farm subsidies are SOP for some Western countries including the US.

Where is all of this money she got as a benefit from the rice scheme? I agree that the rice scheme was stupid, but it was a government approved program.

Are we going to send Obama a bill for doubling the US debt, which he has done? I don't think so. Has he been "negligent" in that regard? Damn right but then so were a lot of other leaders around the world.

This is personal. Personal.

Cheers.

Money was stolen...that is proved....by her...that can't be proved.

But from the beginning on money was stolen and evidence was shown in TV (ASTV). Like them or hate them but videos of constructions under the rice to make it appear more aren't fake.

So she knew all the time that government money is stolen, didn't investigate and most probably blocked investigations.

In case of Obama....the Republicans and the Democrats nicely agreed every time to make more debts....while I still think it is criminal, what can you do if even the opposition agrees.... A world where the leaders were accountable for what the do would be for sure a better world.

[lucky11]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Interesting you should say that.

I looked at the definition of malfeasance on the net and the first entry in Google.co.uk was from dictionary.com.

This is the first example given:

Examples from the Web for malfeasance.

Contemporary Examples

• The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers.

How wonderfully ironic and it just shows how wrong one can be!!

Why not simply charge her for malfeasance and negligence for good measure and prosecute her for both.

She is charged with negligence not malfeasance. One is not doing enough, another doing something wrong.

Whatever. The point is, the original message was pleading that Yingluck is so obviously guilty that no one could possibly see another reason for why this could possibly be occurring.

This will be quite a complicated case, which has to be handled very delicately otherwise every politician in Thailand in future will have to be very careful what they promise and do.

Don't be surprised if once they realise this, they backtrack and she's either not guilty or they drop the charges.

She may only be charged with one, but clearly, as it is used as an example defining malfeasance then she is guilty of both!!

I don't see it as complicated case as she is culpable as charged. Another thing, I don't think that the government will be paralysed with fear at the thought of reprisals from the impotent red shirts and I very much doubt that the government will back off from prosecuting this political imposter..

[Thai at Heart]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Interesting you should say that.

I looked at the definition of malfeasance on the net and the first entry in Google.co.uk was from dictionary.com.

This is the first example given:

Examples from the Web for malfeasance.

Contemporary Examples

• The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers.

How wonderfully ironic and it just shows how wrong one can be!!

Why not simply charge her for malfeasance and negligence for good measure and prosecute her for both.

She is charged with negligence not malfeasance. One is not doing enough, another doing something wrong.

Whatever. The point is, the original message was pleading that Yingluck is so obviously guilty that no one could possibly see another reason for why this could possibly be occurring.

This will be quite a complicated case, which has to be handled very delicately otherwise every politician in Thailand in future will have to be very careful what they promise and do.

Don't be surprised if once they realise this, they backtrack and she's either not guilty or they drop the charges.

She may only be charged with one, but clearly, as it is used as an example defining malfeasance then she is guilty of both!!

I don't see it as complicated case as she is culpable as charged. Another thing, I don't think that the government will be paralysed with fear at the thought of reprisals from the impotent red shirts and I very much doubt that the government will back off from prosecuting this political imposter..

She is guilty (if guilty) of applying a legal process which it is alleged caused damages to the govt that she personally could have stopped.

Believe me, it is a very complicated issue legally. It was firstly a legal scheme.

Why she the only one liable? She was pm, normally this provides immunity from being sued for this type of thing.

Defining this type of scheme illegal and not including several others will be very complicated and it is in no way an open and shut case. Putting a public officer on trial personally for govt losses has huge legal issues around it.

Otherwise, every country would do it wouldn't they.....

[lucky11]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Interesting you should say that.

I looked at the definition of malfeasance on the net and the first entry in Google.co.uk was from dictionary.com.

This is the first example given:

Examples from the Web for malfeasance.

Contemporary Examples

• The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers.

How wonderfully ironic and it just shows how wrong one can be!!

Why not simply charge her for malfeasance and negligence for good measure and prosecute her for both.

She is charged with negligence not malfeasance. One is not doing enough, another doing something wrong.

Whatever. The point is, the original message was pleading that Yingluck is so obviously guilty that no one could possibly see another reason for why this could possibly be occurring.

This will be quite a complicated case, which has to be handled very delicately otherwise every politician in Thailand in future will have to be very careful what they promise and do.

Don't be surprised if once they realise this, they backtrack and she's either not guilty or they drop the charges.

She may only be charged with one, but clearly, as it is used as an example defining malfeasance then she is guilty of both!!

I don't see it as complicated case as she is culpable as charged. Another thing, I don't think that the government will be paralysed with fear at the thought of reprisals from the impotent red shirts and I very much doubt that the government will back off from prosecuting this political imposter..

She is guilty (if guilty) of applying a legal process which it is alleged caused damages to the govt that she personally could have stopped.

Believe me, it is a very complicated issue legally. It was firstly a legal scheme.

Why she the only one liable? She was pm, normally this provides immunity from being sued for this type of thing.

Defining this type of scheme illegal and not including several others will be very complicated and it is in no way an open and shut case. Putting a public officer on trial personally for govt losses has huge legal issues around it.

Otherwise, every country would do it wouldn't they.....

Get it right, it was a bribe to voters to gain power that was destined for disaster. She was warned countless times by experts on such matters both before and at various times during this government firstly, not to implement it and then to adjust or better still terminate it as it was causing massive losses to the nation. Thaksin didn't listen and his young sister is paying for the consequences now.

You seem to have forgotten the fact that she was chairwoman of the rice commission running the scam and is accountable for it's actions (inactions) on the running of it and it's performance.

You can't simply promise something that you can't deliver (to gain power) and then shrug your shoulders when it all goes t*ts up!! Being PM of a country is a highly responsible job and it doesn't give you the freedom to do what you want.

Put it this way, if I promised to give every person in Thailand a thousand pounds if they elect me then I imagine that I would stand a good chance of being elected. My question is, is that democratic when it is clear and obvious that I can't deliver on this once in power? To say that this was their flagship policy and they couldn't renege on it as they had promised the voters to implement it just shows how irresponsible they were.

[Thai at Heart]

"Give me a break!"

Prayuth hungry for a buck? Are you even aware of what went on with the rice scheme? And the corruption that was involved?

It's called Holding the Gov't accountable for malfeasance. Pure wrongdoing by the previous Gov't and being held responsible for their actions.

It's about negligence not malfeasance. Since u seem so keen to educate everyone about this case..

Interesting you should say that.

I looked at the definition of malfeasance on the net and the first entry in Google.co.uk was from dictionary.com.

This is the first example given:

Examples from the Web for malfeasance.



Contemporary Examples

• The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers.

How wonderfully ironic and it just shows how wrong one can be!!
Why not simply charge her for malfeasance and negligence for good measure and prosecute her for both.

She is charged with negligence not malfeasance. One is not doing enough, another doing something wrong.

Whatever. The point is, the original message was pleading that Yingluck is so obviously guilty that no one could possibly see another reason for why this could possibly be occurring.

This will be quite a complicated case, which has to be handled very delicately otherwise every politician in Thailand in future will have to be very careful what they promise and do.

Don't be surprised if once they realise this, they backtrack and she's either not guilty or they drop the charges.

She may only be charged with one, but clearly, as it is used as an example defining malfeasance then she is guilty of both!!

I don't see it as complicated case as she is culpable as charged. Another thing, I don't think that the government will be paralysed with fear at the thought of reprisals from the impotent red shirts and I very much doubt that the government will back off from prosecuting this political imposter..

She is guilty (if guilty) of applying a legal process which it is alleged caused damages to the govt that she personally could have stopped.

Believe me, it is a very complicated issue legally. It was firstly a legal scheme.

Why she the only one liable? She was pm, normally this provides immunity from being sued for this type of thing.

Defining this type of scheme illegal and not including several others will be very complicated and it is in no way an open and shut case. Putting a public officer on trial personally for govt losses has huge legal issues around it.

Otherwise, every country would do it wouldn't they.....

Get it right, it was a bribe to voters to gain power that was destined for disaster. She was warned countless times by experts on such matters both before and at various times during this government firstly, not to implement it and then to adjust or better still terminate it as it was causing massive losses to the nation. Thaksin didn't listen and his young sister is paying for the consequences now.
You seem to have forgotten the fact that she was chairwoman of the rice commission running the scam and is accountable for it's actions (inactions) on the running of it and it's performance.
You can't simply promise something that you can't deliver (to gain power) and then shrug your shoulders when it all goes t*ts up!! Being PM of a country is a highly responsible job and it doesn't give you the freedom to do what you want.
Put it this way, if I promised to give every person in Thailand a thousand pounds if they elect me then I imagine that I would stand a good chance of being elected. My question is, is that democratic when it is clear and obvious that I can't deliver on this once in power? To say that this was their flagship policy and they couldn't renege on it as they had promised the voters to implement it just shows how irresponsible they were.

None of which is what she is being accused of.

Call it what u like. Politicians promise tax cuts, spending promises to people and businesses all the time to get elected.

Question.

When was the first time she was told by her own people that the system would make a loss?

Anyone know that? Anyone?