Yingluck asks PM to halt civil compensation claim from her

[sweatalot]

So who has caused more damage to the country? Her government or the current one!

So you freely admit she caused damage to the country, but wish to try the "Little Johnny did it too!" defence. Good luck with that.

Her government

Stupid question

[seajae]

Talk about a serious lack of intestinal fortitude by so many here, you make me laugh.

Any time there is an opportunity to have a go at the Shiz's /PT, Red's the boogie man in the Dubai, your right on it like a fat kid on a cup cake.

And that's cool, get in while ya can.

Now why is it you lot are all so VERY ABCENT in comment with story's like man arrested for sharing a satirical song regarding the current PM??? nowhere to be found huh..

Or the story of government asking Google to bend the rules for it. Quiet yet again.

Or the statement There are NO planes for an internet fire wall it's just a study, then a few weeks latter Whola!!!!! you blokes are missing in action again, no surprises there.

Or now how about the story that the mid 2017 elections could be moved YET AGIAN to the end of the year, defining silence from you guy's once again...

Is it cowardice or simply an understanding that you would be trying to defend the in-defensible? HA HA HA!!!

As for compensation from a PM, has this ever happened to another Thai PM? Why only the PM and not all who were involved to pay compensation? is this totally legal? It can't be constitutional because uncle Too ripped up that lil chestnut and gave himself ultimate power. Have all the protocols been observed?

Then if yes and this is existing law that compensation is sort then let the chip's fall as they may.

come on mate, you are beating a dead horse on this, you really need to stop your pro shin crap and just be honest. We all know the truth when we see it apart from the apologists for either side(hint), trying to change the course of what the article is about is a pretty pathetic attempt at stopping the truth about your hero(even if you do deny it). The song was not even news worthy, I didn't even look at it, must have been a bit ABSENT minded at the time, then AGAIN maybe I read the real news and not about some idiot that was simply after likes on his page while knowingly doing something he knew he could be charged for doing(brainless moron comes to mind). We are constantly being told the elections will be moved so until they actually set a date there is nothing to talk about, same with the single gateway(seems only the reporters/anti govt are saying this after the govt canned it), maybe if thai reporters would actually check facts and do some investigative work instead of simply trying to sensationalize everything instead of printing the truth it would help so until they do who is going to believe what they write except for the whingers/anti govt/shin lovers, so Voila`, there you go. Seems you are simply calling anyone that doesn't share your biases cowards and ignoring the fact yl actually allowed all the corruption to happen under her watch and refused to stop it or doing anything about it when shown the facts which makes her complicit in it but as usual she thinks she is above the law and no one is allowed to say otherwise. Having to repay the billions she personally allowed to be funneled out of the public purse is just reward for her(and her brother/puppet master) but only her fan club refuses to see the truth of it.

[KenKadz]

It occurs to me that Yingluck was acting in her capacity as an official of the Thai Government, therefore the Thai Government itself is responsible for any financial losses created while she was in office.

[puffy]

I hope all Prime Ministers are held to the same standard.

The Army are controlling the 1.1 trillion dollar infrastructure public/private loans.

I hope all that money can be properly accounted for as it makes the rice subsidies look like chicken feed.

[uptoyoumyfriend]

So if compensation is being demanded of her for the damage her governments rice subsidy caused the country and some kind of legal process allows this , it follows that the same legal process can and should be used against all politicians who in the past have damaged the country.

Wow ........what a can of worms.

you forget the ones in the future!

[scorecard]

It occurs to me that Yingluck was acting in her capacity as an official of the Thai Government, therefore the Thai Government itself is responsible for any financial losses created while she was in office.

?

[scorecard]

It occurs to me that Yingluck was acting in her capacity as an official of the Thai Government, therefore the Thai Government itself is responsible for any financial losses created while she was in office.

Perhaps you should get a bit more knowledgeable about the whole situation.

Just a couple of examples - her relationship to the Thai government and how much control her brother had over both her and the senior folks in the Thai government.

[scorecard]

The case is political.

The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances.

They will convict her.

It's stupid.

No elected official has ever committed a crime by enacting a government policy. No matter how stupid the policy.

"The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances."

I guess today is your 'when all other arguments fail go for humor' day.

[phoenixdoglover]

No, you are missing the point. The question is not which court should try the criminal complaint; the question is whether an administrative process with a finding of guilt or innocence should precede or follow the criminal trial.

Your original claim was "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

It seem you have abandoned the double jeopardy as unsustainable and now wish to argue precedence. Based on what law?

I believe you cut out the context of my remarks. (I understand why; however it matters)

I would not abandon double jeopardy. The obvious (practical) way prosecutors avoid it is to establish precedence. Most prosecutors don't want to waste time and effort. In Thailand, this may not be a consideration. "Piling on" is the current strategy.

[tbthailand]

The case is political.

The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances.

They will convict her.

It's stupid.

No elected official has ever committed a crime by enacting a government policy. No matter how stupid the policy.

Political or not, crimes were committed by elected government officials. Under the direct control of the PM, according to her own admission. Dummy companies setup to transact dodgy deals. Rice disappearing from warehouses, or switched. And a huge amount of money lost. Most of the money never actually helped the people it was suppose to. Those "up stream" from the farmers benefited the most.

Nothing was fabricated. They've got the proof. And yes, elected officials have been arrested before. And hopefully, more in the future if they commit crimes.

This is a must read for those interested in how this scam fell apart:

http://world.time.com/2013/07/12/how-thailands-botched-rice-scheme-blew-a-big-hole-in-its-economy/

http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/Int%20news/News_2012/int_news_080812-1.html

Ammar Siamwalla, honorary economist at the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), said the rice pledging scheme was "pro-rich and anti-poor", with high pledging prices raising the cost of living for the entire public.

"The policy is biased in favour of farmers who can produce more rice compared with those who produce less," he said yesterday. "The policy has also added to the hardship faced by the poor who must purchase rice for their own consumption."

According to the TDRI, 63% of the funds spent on the pledging programme went to merchants and millers, with the rest going to farmers. Only 5% of funds spent went to poor farmers.

This scam was purely political. Just to get votes from poor, uneducated farmers. And it worked. Sadly, the entire country is suffering due to this, including the people it was suppose to help.

well, now, I can imagine that we agree, if people are corrupt and commit crimes, then the right thing to do is to prosecute them. Of course, you and I both understand that even in cases which are not political, it is not the Thai judiciary's best known trait to dispense justice...

Now, what is being completely fabricated on the fly is the entire case against Yingluck. It makes no sense to prosecute a public official for a government policy. As I have said before - no matter how stupid the policy. This is pure political vengeance. It's even more obviously fabricated than the case against Thaksin.

As for the TDRI quotes and numbers above, I have seen those too. (I keep in mind that the TDRI is not independent with regards to this issue). Keep in mind, the program was designed to provide money to millers etc. And of course a program that pays higher prices for an agricultural product will benefit farmers who produce more of that product. Some posters have been mistaken all along that this was specifically for poor farmers.

Finally, a huge amount of money was spent, not lost. Excluding the rather obvious corruption in the scheme, the money was planned to be spent in this way.

Last but not least, when it comes to corruption, is anyone surprised that there was corruption in this program? Thailand is rampant with corruption. Any time there is 100 bhat involved in a transaction, you have the potential for corruption here. This program was no shining example of good governance ... no more than any other program under the PTP government or the Dem government, and certainly no worse then the current self-appointed "government" where claims are that pay-offs for government programs have risen to 30-50%

I have always predicted that they will convict her and send her up the river. But that doesn't mean that the entire process is not politically motivated and that the charges are not fictional crimes. It is and they are. But she'll still get screwed. Her opponents hate her that much. They can't help themselves. Like wolves, they are out for blood.

[tbthailand]

The case is political.

The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances.

They will convict her.

It's stupid.

No elected official has ever committed a crime by enacting a government policy. No matter how stupid the policy.

"The "crime" is fabricated to fit the circumstances."

I guess today is your 'when all other arguments fail go for humor' day.

yeah, right. please point out any other head of government in a real country which has been prosecuted not for corruption, but for a public policy.

You guys either don't understand political purges or you are willing cheerleaders. I put my money on the latter.

[JAG]

So who has caused more damage to the country? Her government or the current one!

So you freely admit she caused damage to the country, but wish to try the "Little Johnny did it too!" defence. Good luck with that.

Her government

Stupid question

I'd say the jury is out.

And for every month the junta stumble around, like bulls in a china shop, the damage gets worth.

Still, they will never be held to account, after all they awarded themselves an amnesty !

[tbthailand]

So who has caused more damage to the country? Her government or the current one!

So you freely admit she caused damage to the country, but wish to try the "Little Johnny did it too!" defence. Good luck with that.

Her government

Stupid question

I'd say the jury is out.

And for every month the junta stumble around, like bulls in a china shop, the damage gets worth.

Still, they will never be held to account, after all they awarded themselves an amnesty !

I guess he never heard about the economic costs of a coup d'etat...

[EnglishJohn]

She will have to pay they need the money to pay the rubber farmers for over the market priced rubber with no buyers.

What a shame you have completely missed the point.

Nobody argued about helping the farmers. It is the 500 billion stolen from the 600 billion budget she is being held accountable for.

Just stick your head back in the sand and only believe what suits you.

[halloween]

No, you are missing the point. The question is not which court should try the criminal complaint; the question is whether an administrative process with a finding of guilt or innocence should precede or follow the criminal trial.

Your original claim was "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

It seem you have abandoned the double jeopardy as unsustainable and now wish to argue precedence. Based on what law?

I believe you cut out the context of my remarks. (I understand why; however it matters)

I would not abandon double jeopardy. The obvious (practical) way prosecutors avoid it is to establish precedence. Most prosecutors don't want to waste time and effort. In Thailand, this may not be a consideration. "Piling on" is the current strategy.

Criminal and civil cases do NOT amount to double jeopardy. I see no reason, or law, that precludes a civil case preceding a criminal case. If you do, please enlighten us.

[craigt3365]

well, now, I can imagine that we agree, if people are corrupt and commit crimes, then the right thing to do is to prosecute them. Of course, you and I both understand that even in cases which are not political, it is not the Thai judiciary's best known trait to dispense justice...

Now, what is being completely fabricated on the fly is the entire case against Yingluck. It makes no sense to prosecute a public official for a government policy. As I have said before - no matter how stupid the policy. This is pure political vengeance. It's even more obviously fabricated than the case against Thaksin.

As for the TDRI quotes and numbers above, I have seen those too. (I keep in mind that the TDRI is not independent with regards to this issue). Keep in mind, the program was designed to provide money to millers etc. And of course a program that pays higher prices for an agricultural product will benefit farmers who produce more of that product. Some posters have been mistaken all along that this was specifically for poor farmers.

Finally, a huge amount of money was spent, not lost. Excluding the rather obvious corruption in the scheme, the money was planned to be spent in this way.

Last but not least, when it comes to corruption, is anyone surprised that there was corruption in this program? Thailand is rampant with corruption. Any time there is 100 bhat involved in a transaction, you have the potential for corruption here. This program was no shining example of good governance ... no more than any other program under the PTP government or the Dem government, and certainly no worse then the current self-appointed "government" where claims are that pay-offs for government programs have risen to 30-50%

I have always predicted that they will convict her and send her up the river. But that doesn't mean that the entire process is not politically motivated and that the charges are not fictional crimes. It is and they are. But she'll still get screwed. Her opponents hate her that much. They can't help themselves. Like wolves, they are out for blood.

Agreed this case could potentially be unusual. I've not done research into this. The case is not being fabricated. Crimes were committed, requests to disclose detailed info were denied, and massive corruption was involved. Yingluck admitted she was the head of it and the video the democrats have of her saying this is the key to this case. And sorry, the case against Thaksin was also not fabricated. Crimes were committed there also. Otherwise, he would have never done a runner. He know the evidence was insurmountable. I've yet to see a politician do a runner who wasn't guilty.

I never heard the rice policy was to help the millers. It was advertised all along as a way to help the poor farmers. You'll need to provide links that show millers were the target.

She created this mess, along with her brother. Only makes sense she's involved in the investigation of what went wrong. Even her closest associates admitted they lied to the public. It all ties together.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/579327-interview-with-thai-finance-minister-kittiratt-white-lies-sometimes-needed/

Interview With Thai Finance Minister Kittiratt: 'White Lies Sometimes Needed'

[jgriff]

I always find it amusing that YS and the rest of the gang sight the rule of law and constitution when it comes to defending themselves. When the were in power they ignored both of them.

[Si Thea01]

No, you are missing the point. The question is not which court should try the criminal complaint; the question is whether an administrative process with a finding of guilt or innocence should precede or follow the criminal trial.

Your original claim was "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convictedor acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country."

It seem you have abandoned the double jeopardy as unsustainable and now wish to argue precedence. Based on what law?

I believe you cut out the context of my remarks. (I understand why; however it matters)

I would not abandon double jeopardy. The obvious (practical) way prosecutors avoid it is to establish precedence. Most prosecutors don't want to waste time and effort. In Thailand, this may not be a consideration. "Piling on" is the current strategy.

Criminal and civil cases do NOT amount to double jeopardy. I see no reason, or law, that precludes a civil case preceding a criminal case. If you do, please enlighten us.

You are right Halloween. I am currently involved in a malpractice case, here in Thailand and in this instance there are two matters, the first civil, for compensation, the second being criminal, owing to the injuries sustained. There is no double jeopardy, as each matter is separate although relevant to each incident. The lawyers for the defense tried to have the civil case stood over under the criminal matter was dealt with, however, after the two judges adjourned the civil case and sought advice, they returned and declined the defense's requests telling them there was no point of law nor had there been any precedent set that would allow this to occur

They also added that each case must be treated separately, because if the defendant was found guilty in the civil case and was required to pay compensation, it did not necessarily mean a guilty verdict would apply in the criminal jurisdiction owing to the different proofs of law required to sustain such a verdict. in addition, they ruled that were the criminal case to proceed first, then it could jeopardize the result of the compensation case, therefore, as both had to be treated separately, then they must proceed in the order of civil, then criminal. So given their findings, it would appear, that in this matter, a precedent has been set.

[Wilsonandson]

When will she do a runner? Surely can't be long now.

She and her brother in law said they won't run away.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Somchai-vows-Yingluck-and-he-wont-flee-30278155.html

[phoenixdoglover]

I believe you cut out the context of my remarks. (I understand why; however it matters)

I would not abandon double jeopardy. The obvious (practical) way prosecutors avoid it is to establish precedence. Most prosecutors don't want to waste time and effort. In Thailand, this may not be a consideration. "Piling on" is the current strategy.

Criminal and civil cases do NOT amount to double jeopardy. I see no reason, or law, that precludes a civil case preceding a criminal case. If you do, please enlighten us.

You are right Halloween. I am currently involved in a malpractice case, here in Thailand and in this instance there are two matters, the first civil, for compensation, the second being criminal, owing to the injuries sustained. There is no double jeopardy, as each matter is separate although relevant to each incident. The lawyers for the defense tried to have the civil case stood over under the criminal matter was dealt with, however, after the two judges adjourned the civil case and sought advice, they returned and declined the defense's requests telling them there was no point of law nor had there been any precedent set that would allow this to occur

They also added that each case must be treated separately, because if the defendant was found guilty in the civil case and was required to pay compensation, it did not necessarily mean a guilty verdict would apply in the criminal jurisdiction owing to the different proofs of law required to sustain such a verdict. in addition, they ruled that were the criminal case to proceed first, then it could jeopardize the result of the compensation case, therefore, as both had to be treated separately, then they must proceed in the order of civil, then criminal. So given their findings, it would appear, that in this matter, a precedent has been set.

That is interesting, and would seem to be the opposite sequence of what is typical in the US. But perhaps not for malpractice cases.

However, what is the legal status of the administrative proceeding that is being conducted now, in which a government committee supposedly could assess a very substantial financial liability? It does not seem to me to be a true civil case. I think Yingluck's main complaint, and her various letters, are directed at getting this procedure quashed. Yet it is clear the government rejected the idea of making this a civil case; instead, they suggested an administrative ruling could be appealed (but what I think they mean is that Yingluck could sue the government if she wants to contest an administrative ruling). Why has the government not filed a civil suit? Could it be because there is no clear statute applying to this situation, and they want to avoid that trap?

[rubl]

I believe you cut out the context of my remarks. (I understand why; however it matters)

I would not abandon double jeopardy. The obvious (practical) way prosecutors avoid it is to establish precedence. Most prosecutors don't want to waste time and effort. In Thailand, this may not be a consideration. "Piling on" is the current strategy.

Criminal and civil cases do NOT amount to double jeopardy. I see no reason, or law, that precludes a civil case preceding a criminal case. If you do, please enlighten us.

You are right Halloween. I am currently involved in a malpractice case, here in Thailand and in this instance there are two matters, the first civil, for compensation, the second being criminal, owing to the injuries sustained. There is no double jeopardy, as each matter is separate although relevant to each incident. The lawyers for the defense tried to have the civil case stood over under the criminal matter was dealt with, however, after the two judges adjourned the civil case and sought advice, they returned and declined the defense's requests telling them there was no point of law nor had there been any precedent set that would allow this to occur

They also added that each case must be treated separately, because if the defendant was found guilty in the civil case and was required to pay compensation, it did not necessarily mean a guilty verdict would apply in the criminal jurisdiction owing to the different proofs of law required to sustain such a verdict. in addition, they ruled that were the criminal case to proceed first, then it could jeopardize the result of the compensation case, therefore, as both had to be treated separately, then they must proceed in the order of civil, then criminal. So given their findings, it would appear, that in this matter, a precedent has been set.

That is interesting, and would seem to be the opposite sequence of what is typical in the US. But perhaps not for malpractice cases.

However, what is the legal status of the administrative proceeding that is being conducted now, in which a government committee supposedly could assess a very substantial financial liability? It does not seem to me to be a true civil case. I think Yingluck's main complaint, and her various letters, are directed at getting this procedure quashed. Yet it is clear the government rejected the idea of making this a civil case; instead, they suggested an administrative ruling could be appealed (but what I think they mean is that Yingluck could sue the government if she wants to contest an administrative ruling). Why has the government not filed a civil suit? Could it be because there is no clear statute applying to this situation, and they want to avoid that trap?

Could it be that the correct procedure is followed which curtails legal tricks, nips them in the bud as it were?

All it all Ms. Yingluck seems to try to wriggle out of the accountability she implied so often talking about her responsibility to help Thailand and deserving people. She had hand-picked her cabinet on knowledge, capabilities, potential and (added later) suitability. She had set up these criteria herself she had stated July 2011.

'democracy died' Ms. Yingluck wrote on her facebook page the day she was impeached. I guess she took it rather personal being asked to show accountability since she had even stated in parliament "I'm in charge, only I".

Seems the inclusion of Ms. Yingluck's first two years in office into the blanket amnesty bill was not 'oversight', but the result of deeming it absolutely necessary.

[tbthailand]

well, now, I can imagine that we agree, if people are corrupt and commit crimes, then the right thing to do is to prosecute them. Of course, you and I both understand that even in cases which are not political, it is not the Thai judiciary's best known trait to dispense justice...

Now, what is being completely fabricated on the fly is the entire case against Yingluck. It makes no sense to prosecute a public official for a government policy. As I have said before - no matter how stupid the policy. This is pure political vengeance. It's even more obviously fabricated than the case against Thaksin.

As for the TDRI quotes and numbers above, I have seen those too. (I keep in mind that the TDRI is not independent with regards to this issue). Keep in mind, the program was designed to provide money to millers etc. And of course a program that pays higher prices for an agricultural product will benefit farmers who produce more of that product. Some posters have been mistaken all along that this was specifically for poor farmers.

Finally, a huge amount of money was spent, not lost. Excluding the rather obvious corruption in the scheme, the money was planned to be spent in this way.

Last but not least, when it comes to corruption, is anyone surprised that there was corruption in this program? Thailand is rampant with corruption. Any time there is 100 bhat involved in a transaction, you have the potential for corruption here. This program was no shining example of good governance ... no more than any other program under the PTP government or the Dem government, and certainly no worse then the current self-appointed "government" where claims are that pay-offs for government programs have risen to 30-50%

I have always predicted that they will convict her and send her up the river. But that doesn't mean that the entire process is not politically motivated and that the charges are not fictional crimes. It is and they are. But she'll still get screwed. Her opponents hate her that much. They can't help themselves. Like wolves, they are out for blood.

Agreed this case could potentially be unusual. I've not done research into this. The case is not being fabricated. Crimes were committed, requests to disclose detailed info were denied, and massive corruption was involved. Yingluck admitted she was the head of it and the video the democrats have of her saying this is the key to this case. And sorry, the case against Thaksin was also not fabricated. Crimes were committed there also. Otherwise, he would have never done a runner. He know the evidence was insurmountable. I've yet to see a politician do a runner who wasn't guilty.

I never heard the rice policy was to help the millers. It was advertised all along as a way to help the poor farmers. You'll need to provide links that show millers were the target.

She created this mess, along with her brother. Only makes sense she's involved in the investigation of what went wrong. Even her closest associates admitted they lied to the public. It all ties together.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/579327-interview-with-thai-finance-minister-kittiratt-white-lies-sometimes-needed/

Interview With Thai Finance Minister Kittiratt: 'White Lies Sometimes Needed'

And sorry, the case against Thaksin was also not fabricated. Crimes were committed there also. Otherwise, he would have never done a runner. He know the evidence was insurmountable. I've yet to see a politician do a runner who wasn't guilty.

Craig - if you were a PTP politician today and you had to go to court for anything, do you think it likely that you would get a fair trial?

TIT - Thaksin was / is an idiot, but I recognize that the case against him was nonsense and that there was no way that he was going to get a fair shake. It's not the topic to go into details of his case on, but his wife paid the highest bid, above the appraised value and it was done under an agency for which Thaksin was not directly responsible. Hang him for other crimes, but his opponents must have been very lazy to have taken this case as the one to hang him for...

As for the rice plan - I'll have to look for links - it's been a long drawn out story and I read the details about the PTP, the Democrats, and the TRT plans a long time ago. But there was money budgeted all along for storage and millers as well as the payments to farmers. That doesn't make the plan any better, nor does it account for the corruption that undoubtedly occurred. Like I said, more than 100 Bhat, and... It was also never sold as a way to help (specifically) poor farmers.

The Dems had their own plan for a rice price support program prior to the 2011 election. This PTP plan wasn't "unique".

[rubl]

Agreed this case could potentially be unusual. I've not done research into this. The case is not being fabricated. Crimes were committed, requests to disclose detailed info were denied, and massive corruption was involved. Yingluck admitted she was the head of it and the video the democrats have of her saying this is the key to this case. And sorry, the case against Thaksin was also not fabricated. Crimes were committed there also. Otherwise, he would have never done a runner. He know the evidence was insurmountable. I've yet to see a politician do a runner who wasn't guilty.

I never heard the rice policy was to help the millers. It was advertised all along as a way to help the poor farmers. You'll need to provide links that show millers were the target.

She created this mess, along with her brother. Only makes sense she's involved in the investigation of what went wrong. Even her closest associates admitted they lied to the public. It all ties together.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/579327-interview-with-thai-finance-minister-kittiratt-white-lies-sometimes-needed/

Interview With Thai Finance Minister Kittiratt: 'White Lies Sometimes Needed'

And sorry, the case against Thaksin was also not fabricated. Crimes were committed there also. Otherwise, he would have never done a runner. He know the evidence was insurmountable. I've yet to see a politician do a runner who wasn't guilty.

Craig - if you were a PTP politician today and you had to go to court for anything, do you think it likely that you would get a fair trial?

TIT - Thaksin was / is an idiot, but I recognize that the case against him was nonsense and that there was no way that he was going to get a fair shake. It's not the topic to go into details of his case on, but his wife paid the highest bid, above the appraised value and it was done under an agency for which Thaksin was not directly responsible. Hang him for other crimes, but his opponents must have been very lazy to have taken this case as the one to hang him for...

As for the rice plan - I'll have to look for links - it's been a long drawn out story and I read the details about the PTP, the Democrats, and the TRT plans a long time ago. But there was money budgeted all along for storage and millers as well as the payments to farmers. That doesn't make the plan any better, nor does it account for the corruption that undoubtedly occurred. Like I said, more than 100 Bhat, and... It was also never sold as a way to help (specifically) poor farmers.

The Dems had their own plan for a rice price support program prior to the 2011 election. This PTP plan wasn't "unique".

The Thaksin 'land plot' case was a good example of a PM who was supposed to be too rich to need to be corrupt still being unable to control himself and his wife of doing private business.

As for the RPPS scam, let me help you with your mis-believes and continued attempts to suggest that it wasn't much different from subsidies and so. Here a link I posted less than a dozen times so you may have missed it.

A statement from the then Minister of Commerce who explained the need for a 430 billion Baht 'revolving fund'. Made the dat before the RPPs started officially.

"The government’s rice mortgage scheme would boost rice prices so less than 15 million tonnes of paddy would have to be mortgaged by farmers, says Commerce Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong."

...

Mr Kittiratt said the 430 billion baht budget is not a one-off payment but the state would gain it back when selling the milled rice.

The minister yesterday called a meeting with 400 rice millers and traders taking part in the programme.

He instructed millers to accept all amounts pledged by farmers even it might be higher than the reported figures."

http://en.isnhotnews.com/?p=14909

[scorecard]

Agreed this case could potentially be unusual. I've not done research into this. The case is not being fabricated. Crimes were committed, requests to disclose detailed info were denied, and massive corruption was involved. Yingluck admitted she was the head of it and the video the democrats have of her saying this is the key to this case. And sorry, the case against Thaksin was also not fabricated. Crimes were committed there also. Otherwise, he would have never done a runner. He know the evidence was insurmountable. I've yet to see a politician do a runner who wasn't guilty.

I never heard the rice policy was to help the millers. It was advertised all along as a way to help the poor farmers. You'll need to provide links that show millers were the target.

She created this mess, along with her brother. Only makes sense she's involved in the investigation of what went wrong. Even her closest associates admitted they lied to the public. It all ties together.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/579327-interview-with-thai-finance-minister-kittiratt-white-lies-sometimes-needed/

Interview With Thai Finance Minister Kittiratt: 'White Lies Sometimes Needed'

And sorry, the case against Thaksin was also not fabricated. Crimes were committed there also. Otherwise, he would have never done a runner. He know the evidence was insurmountable. I've yet to see a politician do a runner who wasn't guilty.

Craig - if you were a PTP politician today and you had to go to court for anything, do you think it likely that you would get a fair trial?

TIT - Thaksin was / is an idiot, but I recognize that the case against him was nonsense and that there was no way that he was going to get a fair shake. It's not the topic to go into details of his case on, but his wife paid the highest bid, above the appraised value and it was done under an agency for which Thaksin was not directly responsible. Hang him for other crimes, but his opponents must have been very lazy to have taken this case as the one to hang him for...

As for the rice plan - I'll have to look for links - it's been a long drawn out story and I read the details about the PTP, the Democrats, and the TRT plans a long time ago. But there was money budgeted all along for storage and millers as well as the payments to farmers. That doesn't make the plan any better, nor does it account for the corruption that undoubtedly occurred. Like I said, more than 100 Bhat, and... It was also never sold as a way to help (specifically) poor farmers.

The Dems had their own plan for a rice price support program prior to the 2011 election. This PTP plan wasn't "unique".

The Thaksin 'land plot' case was a good example of a PM who was supposed to be too rich to need to be corrupt still being unable to control himself and his wife of doing private business.

As for the RPPS scam, let me help you with your mis-believes and continued attempts to suggest that it wasn't much different from subsidies and so. Here a link I posted less than a dozen times so you may have missed it.

A statement from the then Minister of Commerce who explained the need for a 430 billion Baht 'revolving fund'. Made the dat before the RPPs started officially.

"The government’s rice mortgage scheme would boost rice prices so less than 15 million tonnes of paddy would have to be mortgaged by farmers, says Commerce Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong."

...

Mr Kittiratt said the 430 billion baht budget is not a one-off payment but the state would gain it back when selling the milled rice.

The minister yesterday called a meeting with 400 rice millers and traders taking part in the programme.

He instructed millers to accept all amounts pledged by farmers even it might be higher than the reported figures."

http://en.isnhotnews.com/?p=14909

QUOTE: "TIT - Thaksin was / is an idiot, but I recognize that the case against him was nonsense and that there was no way that he was going to get a fair shake. It's not the topic to go into details of his case on, but his wife paid the highest bid, above the appraised value and it was done under an agency for which Thaksin was not directly responsible. Hang him for other crimes, but his opponents must have been very lazy to have taken this case as the one to hang him for... "

Congratulations, the post with the biggest number of total twists, totally wrong / untruthful statements etc. this year.

The repeated twists and untruthful posts on these points is getting boring.

Oh don't forget the paymasters finance man / the puppets finance man was also good at this, what a strange connection.

Edited January 31, 2016 by scorecard

[derator01]

Please abide by forum rules and show respect to other members.