'Nothing new' about executive order targeting Yingluck

[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.

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?

Abhisit warned her, economic experts warned her, commerce experts warned her, Prayut warned her when she was PM. Note her reply, especially her closing last few words in her reply to Prayut. From Thai PBS.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha on Friday said he had warned Yingluck Shinawatra, while she was still prime minister and he the army chief, that there were problems over her government's rice-pledging scheme.

Gen Prayuth, who is also chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order, said he, then as a government official, cautioned Ms Yingluck that many people had criticised the controversial rice programme.

He gave Ms Yingluck the warning before the May 22, when he staged a coup last year, he said.

“I told her there would be problems. She said everything would be alright and she was determined to push through the programme. She said she had evidence to fight back,” said Gen Prayut.

Gen Prayut said that as army chief he felt obliged to support every government in implementing its policy.

“So when there were problems I asked how she would cope with them. She said she could handle them and, as leader of the country’s administration, she was ready to take the responsibility,” he said.

Well I just hope that she is true to her word!!

[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?

Abhisit warned her, economic experts warned her, commerce experts warned her, Prayut warned her when she was PM. Note her reply, especially her closing last few words in her reply to Prayut. From Thai PBS.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha on Friday said he had warned Yingluck Shinawatra, while she was still prime minister and he the army chief, that there were problems over her government's rice-pledging scheme.
Gen Prayuth, who is also chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order, said he, then as a government official, cautioned Ms Yingluck that many people had criticised the controversial rice programme.
He gave Ms Yingluck the warning before the May 22, when he staged a coup last year, he said.
“I told her there would be problems. She said everything would be alright and she was determined to push through the programme. She said she had evidence to fight back,” said Gen Prayut.
Gen Prayut said that as army chief he felt obliged to support every government in implementing its policy.
“So when there were problems I asked how she would cope with them. She said she could handle them and, as leader of the country’s administration, she was ready to take the responsibility,” he said.
Well I just hope that she is true to her word!!

Her people I said. Not the opposition.

[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.

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?

Abhisit warned her, economic experts warned her, commerce experts warned her, Prayut warned her when she was PM. Note her reply, especially her closing last few words in her reply to Prayut. From Thai PBS.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha on Friday said he had warned Yingluck Shinawatra, while she was still prime minister and he the army chief, that there were problems over her government's rice-pledging scheme.

Gen Prayuth, who is also chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order, said he, then as a government official, cautioned Ms Yingluck that many people had criticised the controversial rice programme.

He gave Ms Yingluck the warning before the May 22, when he staged a coup last year, he said.

“I told her there would be problems. She said everything would be alright and she was determined to push through the programme. She said she had evidence to fight back,” said Gen Prayut.

Gen Prayut said that as army chief he felt obliged to support every government in implementing its policy.

“So when there were problems I asked how she would cope with them. She said she could handle them and, as leader of the country’s administration, she was ready to take the responsibility,” he said.

Well I just hope that she is true to her word!!

Her people I said. Not the opposition.

Here lies the problem 'her people' are all stupid imbeciles that couldn't see the damage it would cause. Good PM's don't cross their fingers or pray to Buddha that everything is going to turn out all right!!

Her stock answer when she hasn't a clue or wants to deflect attention from something she doesn't like that is happening is "it's all right, everything is under control" when it clearly isn't.

Anyway, she has already stated that she wants to take responsibility, so let her go ahead and do this, after all. I'm sure that everything will turn out OK as it is under control..

[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?

Abhisit warned her, economic experts warned her, commerce experts warned her, Prayut warned her when she was PM. Note her reply, especially her closing last few words in her reply to Prayut. From Thai PBS.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha on Friday said he had warned Yingluck Shinawatra, while she was still prime minister and he the army chief, that there were problems over her government's rice-pledging scheme.

Gen Prayuth, who is also chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order, said he, then as a government official, cautioned Ms Yingluck that many people had criticised the controversial rice programme.

He gave Ms Yingluck the warning before the May 22, when he staged a coup last year, he said.

“I told her there would be problems. She said everything would be alright and she was determined to push through the programme. She said she had evidence to fight back,” said Gen Prayut.

Gen Prayut said that as army chief he felt obliged to support every government in implementing its policy.

“So when there were problems I asked how she would cope with them. She said she could handle them and, as leader of the country’s administration, she was ready to take the responsibility,” he said.

Well I just hope that she is true to her word!!

Her people I said. Not the opposition.

Here lies the problem 'her people' are all stupid imbeciles that couldn't see the damage it would cause. Good PM's don't cross their fingers or pray to Buddha that everything is going to turn out all right!!

Her stock answer when she hasn't a clue or wants to deflect attention from something she doesn't like that is happening is "it's all right, everything is under control" when it clearly isn't.

Anyway, she has already stated that she wants to take responsibility, so let her go ahead and do this, after all. I'm sure that everything will turn out OK as it is under control..

Ah so, now we have a legal problem.

If the finance minister was telling her all along, don't worry, it will make a profit, for a year or two, is she guilty of negligence?

[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.

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?

Abhisit warned her, economic experts warned her, commerce experts warned her, Prayut warned her when she was PM. Note her reply, especially her closing last few words in her reply to Prayut. From Thai PBS.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha on Friday said he had warned Yingluck Shinawatra, while she was still prime minister and he the army chief, that there were problems over her government's rice-pledging scheme.

Gen Prayuth, who is also chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order, said he, then as a government official, cautioned Ms Yingluck that many people had criticised the controversial rice programme.

He gave Ms Yingluck the warning before the May 22, when he staged a coup last year, he said.

“I told her there would be problems. She said everything would be alright and she was determined to push through the programme. She said she had evidence to fight back,” said Gen Prayut.

Gen Prayut said that as army chief he felt obliged to support every government in implementing its policy.

“So when there were problems I asked how she would cope with them. She said she could handle them and, as leader of the country’s administration, she was ready to take the responsibility,” he said.

Well I just hope that she is true to her word!!

Her people I said. Not the opposition.

Here lies the problem 'her people' are all stupid imbeciles that couldn't see the damage it would cause. Good PM's don't cross their fingers or pray to Buddha that everything is going to turn out all right!!

Her stock answer when she hasn't a clue or wants to deflect attention from something she doesn't like that is happening is "it's all right, everything is under control" when it clearly isn't.

Anyway, she has already stated that she wants to take responsibility, so let her go ahead and do this, after all. I'm sure that everything will turn out OK as it is under control..

Ah so, now we have a legal problem.

If the finance minister was telling her all along, don't worry, it will make a profit, for a year or two, is she guilty of negligence?

Yes, she appointed him and he was incompetent (one of Thaksin's stooges) , does that answer your question?

[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?

Abhisit warned her, economic experts warned her, commerce experts warned her, Prayut warned her when she was PM. Note her reply, especially her closing last few words in her reply to Prayut. From Thai PBS.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha on Friday said he had warned Yingluck Shinawatra, while she was still prime minister and he the army chief, that there were problems over her government's rice-pledging scheme.

Gen Prayuth, who is also chairman of the National Council for Peace and Order, said he, then as a government official, cautioned Ms Yingluck that many people had criticised the controversial rice programme.

He gave Ms Yingluck the warning before the May 22, when he staged a coup last year, he said.

“I told her there would be problems. She said everything would be alright and she was determined to push through the programme. She said she had evidence to fight back,” said Gen Prayut.

Gen Prayut said that as army chief he felt obliged to support every government in implementing its policy.

“So when there were problems I asked how she would cope with them. She said she could handle them and, as leader of the country’s administration, she was ready to take the responsibility,” he said.

Well I just hope that she is true to her word!!

Her people I said. Not the opposition.

Here lies the problem 'her people' are all stupid imbeciles that couldn't see the damage it would cause. Good PM's don't cross their fingers or pray to Buddha that everything is going to turn out all right!!

Her stock answer when she hasn't a clue or wants to deflect attention from something she doesn't like that is happening is "it's all right, everything is under control" when it clearly isn't.

Anyway, she has already stated that she wants to take responsibility, so let her go ahead and do this, after all. I'm sure that everything will turn out OK as it is under control..

Ah so, now we have a legal problem.

If the finance minister was telling her all along, don't worry, it will make a profit, for a year or two, is she guilty of negligence?

Yes, she appointed him and he was incompetent (one of Thaksin's stooges) , does that answer your question?

Glad you aren't a judge in a any case I could have in thailand.

She is personally liable for the failure of a policy, based on being given information that is incorrect from her own finance ministers?

With a judgement like this, they might as well not bother to have a trial.

[lucky11]

For once I agree with you, just find her guilty and get on with it.

[baboon]

"Glad you aren't a judge in a any case I could have in thailand.

She is personally liable for the failure of a policy, based on being given information that is incorrect from her own finance ministers?

With a judgement like this, they might as well not bother to have a trial." - Thai at Heart.

Have you forgotten which website you are om? This is Thaivisa, where due process and fair, transparent trials are for them there pinko faggots...

(Apologies for the 'f' word, JT and others.)

[candide]

"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.

Your citation is quite interesting indeed . And of course shows the contrary of what you intend to argue.

The source article quoted by dictionary.com is from March 20, 2014 (before the coup if you remember). At this time the objective of the NACC, as other ammart related organisations, was to promote any reason that may support the cause of Suthep's protests (and the following coup). They all talked about malfeasance, massive corruption, massive amount of rice missing etc...

However, when it was later about going to court, that was another story. You need to provide proof of your accusation. And all of a sudden the accusation became one of negligence, because they had no proof of anything else.

It's also interesting to see that the original source quoted by dictionary.com was not at all naive about NACC's accusations:

"The ruling comes amid suspicion about the impartiality of the high court, the judiciary generally, and entities such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers".

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/21/thailand-into-the-void.html

[candide]

"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.

Your citation is quite interesting indeed . And of course shows the contrary of what you intend to argue.

The source article quoted by dictionary.com is from March 20, 2014 (before the coup if you remember). At this time the objective of the NACC, as other ammart related organisations, was to promote any reason that may support the cause of Suthep's protests (and the following coup). They all talked about malfeasance, massive corruption, massive amount of rice missing etc...

However, when it was later about going to court, that was another story. You need to provide proof of your accusation. And all of a sudden the accusation became one of negligence, because they had no proof of anything else.

It's also interesting to see that the original source quoted by dictionary.com was not at all naive about NACC's accusations:

"The ruling comes amid suspicion about the impartiality of the high court, the judiciary generally, and entities such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The commission has accused Yingluck of malfeasance in a rice-subsidy program aimed at improving the incomes of Thai rice farmers".

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/21/thailand-into-the-void.html

And if I remember well, Supa also declared that 2.7 million tonnes of rice were missing. An assertion that the audit did not corroborate.