Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court

[MZurf]

Response to MZurf post #106.

The future will tell, but I think they are trying and I am sure they will do better than this group did.

If they really wanted to root out corruption they would have let people research their wealth, because unless the people at the top are clean the whole thing is just a charade.

And we all know what happened when journalists started asking questions about the "PM's" unusual wealth, right?

So we should wait until some perfectly clean and honest persons work their way to the top of a corrupt system before there is any attempt to prosecute the blatantly guilty?

BTW which PM/journalists were you asking about?

"So we should wait until some perfectly clean and honest persons work their way to the top of a corrupt system before there is any attempt to prosecute the blatantly guilty?"

How many have been convicted of corruption the last two years? How many of the junta's supporters have been charged with corruption? How come you so spectacularly fail to see that this is all window dressing??

"BTW which PM/journalists were you asking about?"

The present one of course.

[phoenixdoglover]

What about the accused being given the opportunity to defend herself? Don't you think that important?

BTW Ms. Yingluck's legal team got a cupboard full of documentation the prosecutor deposited as part of the charge. The team has asked for hundreds of witnesses to be called up. It would seem even Ms. Yingluck's legal team doesn't think all is known yet.

As usual, you can't even respond to a simple question.

I don't know what Yingluck legal team "thinks", and neither do you.

In addition, I was not talking about the defense strategy; I was commenting on the prosecution readiness to go to trial. These two things are not the same.

It would seem the prosecution had sufficient information to allow it to start the proceedings. The charge being 'negligence'. What with both Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently going on record to 'explain' their wonderful self-financing scheme till in 2013 even they had to admit to 'no more than 200 something billion Baht losses in less than two years, the prosecution should have an easy job.

Furthermore Ms. Yingluck went on record to be in charge and only she at that (even as late as November 2013 during the last censure debate).

Of course personally I don't see a case of 'negligence' but only one of criminally deceiving the public to defraud the state of billions of funds to finance the Pheu Thai coffers, but that's my personal opinion. BTW I'm not saying here that I believe Ms. Yingluck profited financially herself, she had no need for that. She may have profited indirectly though through a financially strengthened political apparatus.

In the news reports from November 2013, I do not see a statement from Yungluck as you suggest. Instead, that debate was focused on whether she was acting as PM, or her brother. Naturally, she asserted that she was in fact the PM. Do you have a link that documents something else?

However, in Feb 2014, in response to actions by NACC, Yingluck issued a detailed statement, including the following:

"My work as Prime Minister and also as Chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee is done at the policy level. While at the operational level, the implementation of the Rice Pledging Scheme requires the establishment of a framework, steps, and procedures by government agencies and officials in accordance with the policy direction given. The government system of work has its own standards and regulations; therefore my work at the policy level does not have the authority to directly operate, order, or overrule the work of government officials in anyway. "

https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/yingluck-statement-on-the-naccs-charges-over-the-rice-scheme/

This certainly clarifies her outlook on what she means by being in charge.

[yellowboat]

I hope she gets hard time, never like her or her brother. It was a total farce that she became a politician in the first place.

Farce or not, she was elected .

[Baerboxer]

What about the accused being given the opportunity to defend herself? Don't you think that important?

BTW Ms. Yingluck's legal team got a cupboard full of documentation the prosecutor deposited as part of the charge. The team has asked for hundreds of witnesses to be called up. It would seem even Ms. Yingluck's legal team doesn't think all is known yet.

As usual, you can't even respond to a simple question.

I don't know what Yingluck legal team "thinks", and neither do you.

In addition, I was not talking about the defense strategy; I was commenting on the prosecution readiness to go to trial. These two things are not the same.

It would seem the prosecution had sufficient information to allow it to start the proceedings. The charge being 'negligence'. What with both Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently going on record to 'explain' their wonderful self-financing scheme till in 2013 even they had to admit to 'no more than 200 something billion Baht losses in less than two years, the prosecution should have an easy job.

Furthermore Ms. Yingluck went on record to be in charge and only she at that (even as late as November 2013 during the last censure debate).

Of course personally I don't see a case of 'negligence' but only one of criminally deceiving the public to defraud the state of billions of funds to finance the Pheu Thai coffers, but that's my personal opinion. BTW I'm not saying here that I believe Ms. Yingluck profited financially herself, she had no need for that. She may have profited indirectly though through a financially strengthened political apparatus.

In the news reports from November 2013, I do not see a statement from Yungluck as you suggest. Instead, that debate was focused on whether she was acting as PM, or her brother. Naturally, she asserted that she was in fact the PM. Do you have a link that documents something else?

However, in Feb 2014, in response to actions by NACC, Yingluck issued a detailed statement, including the following:

"My work as Prime Minister and also as Chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee is done at the policy level. While at the operational level, the implementation of the Rice Pledging Scheme requires the establishment of a framework, steps, and procedures by government agencies and officials in accordance with the policy direction given. The government system of work has its own standards and regulations; therefore my work at the policy level does not have the authority to directly operate, order, or overrule the work of government officials in anyway. "

https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/yingluck-statement-on-the-naccs-charges-over-the-rice-scheme/

This certainly clarifies her outlook on what she means by being in charge.

Then why appoint herself Chair of the scheme and never actually attend to chair the meetings?

She simply did as her brother instructed - period. She was kept out of parliament so she would be caught with questions. She was kept away from the rice scheme in the hope that plausible deniability could be used if things went wrong. She traveled outside of Thailand regularly to facilitate this,

She has no idea what being in charge means because the never was. She never made any decisions - her brother appointed her handpicked cabinet and shuffled it regularly to suit.

An attractive actress, but also unfortunately one without ethic, morals or any ability to stand up to her brother.

[phoenixdoglover]

In the news reports from November 2013, I do not see a statement from Yungluck as you suggest. Instead, that debate was focused on whether she was acting as PM, or her brother. Naturally, she asserted that she was in fact the PM. Do you have a link that documents something else?

What about the accused being given the opportunity to defend herself? Don't you think that important?

BTW Ms. Yingluck's legal team got a cupboard full of documentation the prosecutor deposited as part of the charge. The team has asked for hundreds of witnesses to be called up. It would seem even Ms. Yingluck's legal team doesn't think all is known yet.

However, in Feb 2014, in response to actions by NACC, Yingluck issued a detailed statement, including the following:

"My work as Prime Minister and also as Chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee is done at the policy level. While at the operational level, the implementation of the Rice Pledging Scheme requires the establishment of a framework, steps, and procedures by government agencies and officials in accordance with the policy direction given. The government system of work has its own standards and regulations; therefore my work at the policy level does not have the authority to directly operate, order, or overrule the work of government officials in anyway. "

https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/yingluck-statement-on-the-naccs-charges-over-the-rice-scheme/

This certainly clarifies her outlook on what she means by being in charge.

Then why appoint herself Chair of the scheme and never actually attend to chair the meetings?

She simply did as her brother instructed - period. She was kept out of parliament so she would be caught with questions. She was kept away from the rice scheme in the hope that plausible deniability could be used if things went wrong. She traveled outside of Thailand regularly to facilitate this,

She has no idea what being in charge means because the never was. She never made any decisions - her brother appointed her handpicked cabinet and shuffled it regularly to suit.

An attractive actress, but also unfortunately one without ethic, morals or any ability to stand up to her brother.

I'm not in the Yingluck defense business. But when my curiosity is roused, I do look for the evidence of her supposed statements or actions in the resources available online. That's why I took the time to look at rubl's assertion regarding the censure debate. If you have something verifiable, you can always share it.

I am not interested in what you are peddling above, which seems like a sprinkling of truth, with a large dollop of exaggerations and suppositions.

[yellowboat]

Oh come on yellowboat.

'hatred' ? You don't like the truth about the mishandling of the RPPS or you don't agree with given Ms. Yingluck a chance to defend herself?

As for the usual distraction., Ms. Yingluck referred to a dying democracy in relation to having been asked to show accountability. Some posters seem to agree that she's too nice to need to be accountable.

This is where your bind hatred gets you into trouble. The truth is the RPPS should have never even been discussed let alone executed. Governments should not get in the way of a free market. She and her government did exactly that. Your mentioning that it was "mishandled" only lends credibility to the RPPS and that you favor such schemes. It should have never even come to be.

The question is where does her guilt lay and will that will she be judged fairly ?

She needs to be held accountable to the failed scheme, but she will be held accountable by a government that is and never will be accountable. That alone casts dubious shadows on her's and others plight at this time.

Your famous tirades against Yingluck will no longer be entertained. You are confused and need a more worthy cause to apply your energies.

Stop attacking the poster to pretend his comments aren't pertinent. Doesn't work and is transparent.

Instead please explain how being the self appointed Chair of the rice scheme, never bothering to attend meetings, ignoring warnings from internal and external sources, glibly pronouncing all was well in the scheme and confirming repeatedly that she was in charge and therefore responsible and accountable can be defended?

That is what she is charged with, being negligent.

The question posed by me was will she get a fair trial. My stance from the very beginning was that the RPPS was a horrible idea, and should have never been allowed to exist in the first place. You can argue and lend credibility to RPPS and other such schemes all you like. I appose them.

My other point was was it fair for a junta that is forgiven for all past, present and future trespasses in a position to establish a fair trial and pass judgment ?

Edited May 14, 2016 by yellowboat

[scorecard]

probably not, but he could always give it another go.

but maybe next time he can figure out the facts, a government subsidy is not stealing from the Thai people. In fact, the economy in Isaan got a boast from the program and tanked after it. It may not have been well run, but it did help the economy here, ... which was one of the goals as I recall.

But it wasn't a government subsidy, budgeted for properly, with audited accounts showing where exactly the money went.

Now was it?

It might have helped the economy but it helped some individuals a damn sit more - and they certainly weren't poor, farmers, or particularly honest.

"... a government subsidy is not stealing from the Thai people..."

Not worth wasting time to respond to tbt, he's been factually corrected on this point at least 100 times but no doubt he'll keep on with his untruthful comments.

Dishonest, and boring to say the least.

Edited May 14, 2016 by scorecard

[Skywalker69]

Response to MZurf post #106.

The future will tell, but I think they are trying and I am sure they will do better than this group did.

If they really wanted to root out corruption they would have let people research their wealth, because unless the people at the top are clean the whole thing is just a charade.

And we all know what happened when journalists started asking questions about the "PM's" unusual wealth, right?

it´s not made over night, let´s wait for the nex raport from Transparency International.

In 2015 Thailand ranked 78.

In 2014 Thailand ranked 85

In 2013 Thailand ranked 102

In 2012 Thailand ranked 88

In 2011 Thailand ranked 80

(The lower ranking the better)

I cant wait for 2016 raport.

Forgot the link.

https://www.transparency.org/

Edited May 14, 2016 by Skywalker69

[Skywalker69]

Response to MZurf post #106.

The future will tell, but I think they are trying and I am sure they will do better than this group did.

In two years, they have only added a few bike lanes, in Bangkok of course, and arranged a few beach chairs. They have done nothing else since usurping from an elected government. Let us and Mr. Abhisit know when they actually achieve something positive.

Farang's in favor taking power by force from elected governments are the greatest of hypocrites.

Then what are those accepting a farce and calling it democracy?

The majority.

Can you link please?

Google is your friend. Just enter election results Thailand and you will find the information you requested.

When you come with a statement you have to link, så please post the link.

No, I don't.

Your statement:

" I am sure they will do better than this group did"

Link, please.

IMHO! It´s a future tense, so what part of "they will do better" do you don´t understand?

[cyberfarang]

Yingluck implemented this rice pledging scheme with guarantees of huge government subsidies for the rice farmers as a means of gaining votes from the poorer class majorities of the country that was doomed to fail right from the start. She and her corrupt collaborators knew that the treasury would have to sustain the loss and if not due to this being exposed by the opposing yellow shirted mob and military takeover, the whole deal would have been covered up.

Yingluck used the government coffers for her own benefit with the farmers as pawns in her game, many who were financially destroyed and lost everything, including several suicides. The amounts of monies involved created a huge dent in the Thai economy and also almost destroyed the whole banking system when the treasury monies were frozen and the banks had to carry the brunt of the monies owned to the farmers, especially the BAAC.

She really does deserve to have the book thrown at her, that`s if she doesn`t manage to buy her way out or if her friends in high places manage to influence the courts with a lenient verdict.

Edited May 14, 2016 by cyberfarang

[Robm579]

"She said as now many countries have voiced their concern about human rights and right of free expression in the country, she asked that the military junta allows such free expression of opinions."

Does this have anything to do with her being able to provide her own explanation and documentation in court regarding her failed RPPS ?

No, but she is a human being, and should therefore be free to express her opinion. An opinion I and many others share.

Q: Ms. Yingluck , what about your RPPS case?

A: "As many countries have voiced their concern about human rights and the right of free expression in the country, I want to ask the military junta to allow such free expression of opinions"

Q: well thank you very much Ms. Yingluck, Good luck with explaining the RPPS in court."

Making it up rubl?

As you may be aware, defendants are often advised or ordered to not discuss the case in public.

However, other important issues are fair game. And why not?

Nice distraction. Anything to avoid Ms. Yingluck be put in a negative light. Democracy died when she was asked to show responsibility for her 'self-financing' scheme.

As usual the defense here ignores the RPPS itself.

I agree a distraction from the issue... And avoidance of the question asked of them

What is wrong with asking anyone to defend their actions and accept responsibility for them... No matter who they might be... Elected or not... Public servant or not... ( infact probably more so from an elected Public servant)

[HLover]

She is lovely.

[VincentRJ]

In discussions like this, there appears to me to be a complete lack of focus on the initial purpose of the rice scheme.

There is rarely just one single reason or purpose for a particular policy. In the case of the rice scheme, there were a number of 'hoped for' benefits.

(1) The rice farmers would benefit from the higher price paid to them.

(2) The rice farmers, and those in related activities and economies, would appreciate the Yingluck government's policy and would help vote the government back in power. Nothing wrong with that.

(3) The cost of the scheme would be paid for, as a result of generally higher, world-wide prices for rice, since Thailand is a major exporter of rice, and the shortage of supply would drive up prices according to the general economic principle of 'supply and demand'.

The third reason for this scheme is the one which was flawed. Attempting to help a particular group gain greater wealth by artificially raising prices, is not sound economics. I'm reminded of the Oil Cartel of Saudi Arabia, who restricted the supply of oil in order to raise prices.

The Yingluck government appears to have used this as a model. She, and her advisers, should have realised that such a tactic would result in rice growers in other countries increasing production, as a result of any shortage and increase in price.

Failing to take into account this natural, economic response to a higher rice price, as a result of her policy, is her major fault. Isn't she supposed to have a degree in economics?

The main question for me is, how could such a person with a degree in economics, not understand the economic consequences of her rice scheme, considering that we have a 'world economy'?

I think the worst aspect of the policy, the excessive price paid by the government for rice, was the direct result of a sort of bidding war in the national political campaign. PTP outbid the opposition, but bid way too much.

Maybe so, but the fact remains that it should have been obvious to anyone with a degree in economics that such a policy could not work, especially considering that the product, rice, can be grown in a relatively short period of time, so that other countries would soon be able to respond to the initial higher price by increasing their own rice production, which is what happened. That's the way world markets work.

It should also have been apparent, to anyone with any economic nous, that storing huge quantities of rice for long periods of time is an additional expense which makes the entire process of 'production plus storage' less efficient. You don't solve problems by doing things less efficiently. If that were possible, then we could always solve unemployment by encouraging everyone who is currently employed to work less efficiently so their employer would have to take on more staff. Such an approach would be sheer madness.

Finally, there is the ethical aspect. For the rice scheme to have worked successfully, it would have required millions of poor people around the world to become poorer because they would be less able to afford to buy their staple diet.

Regardless of the actual legalities of this trial, it seems clear to me that Yingluck is guilty of at least gross incompetence and unethical behaviour, and she has paid for that by being removed from office. Whatever the final verdict, the trial should at least expose the incompetence that took place so that future politicians might learn from the mistakes. We progress by learning from our own mistakes and those of others.

[Keesters]

Not a great idea, but one wonders if she will get a fair trial.

If she thinks trials should be fair she should have changed the system while she had the chance as PM.

There is some logic to your statement, but that can be said about all of her predecessors as well. including her brother. One would imagine getting the Thai elites to go along with any changes would have been difficult.

I hope more of the 'elites' get a taste of their juristic system.

[StefanBBK]

Back to rice.

I am sure many agree that we saw the flaws of the pledging scheme right at the beginning.

Leaving aside any accusation if ill intend the question really is should governments and individuals therein be held accountable for policies that don't work out?

IMO no, unless it is proven that these policies benefitted those who implemented them. There could be financial benefits directly or other benefits, like being voted for and gaining elsewhere.

[scorecard]

Back to rice.

I am sure many agree that we saw the flaws of the pledging scheme right at the beginning.

Leaving aside any accusation if ill intend the question really is should governments and individuals therein be held accountable for policies that don't work out?

IMO no, unless it is proven that these policies benefitted those who implemented them. There could be financial benefits directly or other benefits, like being voted for and gaining elsewhere.

So you don't agree with investigation and punishment if their is guilt in terms of gross dereliction of duty?

[phoenixdoglover]

Back to rice.

I am sure many agree that we saw the flaws of the pledging scheme right at the beginning.

Leaving aside any accusation if ill intend the question really is should governments and individuals therein be held accountable for policies that don't work out?

IMO no, unless it is proven that these policies benefitted those who implemented them. There could be financial benefits directly or other benefits, like being voted for and gaining elsewhere.

Agree.

The case against Yingluck is on shaky legal ground:

- she is being charged with negligence, which is a qualitative and circumstantial judgment.

- she is being held uniquely and personally liable for government program losses, despite overwhelming evidence of shared accountabilities.

Moreover, the judicial process is opaque.

Regardless of outcome, this will be just fuel on the fire.

[Basil B]

I have no sympathy for her...

it is not that she embezzled the money, but she allowed herself to be used by her corrupt megalomaniac sibling while actually having no concern about consequence of her actions in following out his instructions.

IMHO she is not as dumb as many would believe and should stand trial for "dereliction of duty", 500 Billion is a lot of money and it is the poorest who burden this so why they should still think the sun shines out the a hole of the Shinawatras is beyond belief.

PS.

My spell checker is more intelligent than I thought, it wants to correct "Shinawatras" to "Brainwashing"...

[rubl]

What about the accused being given the opportunity to defend herself? Don't you think that important?

BTW Ms. Yingluck's legal team got a cupboard full of documentation the prosecutor deposited as part of the charge. The team has asked for hundreds of witnesses to be called up. It would seem even Ms. Yingluck's legal team doesn't think all is known yet.

As usual, you can't even respond to a simple question.

I don't know what Yingluck legal team "thinks", and neither do you.

In addition, I was not talking about the defense strategy; I was commenting on the prosecution readiness to go to trial. These two things are not the same.

It would seem the prosecution had sufficient information to allow it to start the proceedings. The charge being 'negligence'. What with both Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently going on record to 'explain' their wonderful self-financing scheme till in 2013 even they had to admit to 'no more than 200 something billion Baht losses in less than two years, the prosecution should have an easy job.

Furthermore Ms. Yingluck went on record to be in charge and only she at that (even as late as November 2013 during the last censure debate).

Of course personally I don't see a case of 'negligence' but only one of criminally deceiving the public to defraud the state of billions of funds to finance the Pheu Thai coffers, but that's my personal opinion. BTW I'm not saying here that I believe Ms. Yingluck profited financially herself, she had no need for that. She may have profited indirectly though through a financially strengthened political apparatus.

In the news reports from November 2013, I do not see a statement from Yungluck as you suggest. Instead, that debate was focused on whether she was acting as PM, or her brother. Naturally, she asserted that she was in fact the PM. Do you have a link that documents something else?

However, in Feb 2014, in response to actions by NACC, Yingluck issued a detailed statement, including the following:

"My work as Prime Minister and also as Chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee is done at the policy level. While at the operational level, the implementation of the Rice Pledging Scheme requires the establishment of a framework, steps, and procedures by government agencies and officials in accordance with the policy direction given. The government system of work has its own standards and regulations; therefore my work at the policy level does not have the authority to directly operate, order, or overrule the work of government officials in anyway. "

https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/yingluck-statement-on-the-naccs-charges-over-the-rice-scheme/

This certainly clarifies her outlook on what she means by being in charge.

Absolutely! Ignorant next to negligent.

Also clear acting as PM, worthy of an Oscar.

In the mean time she gets a chance to explain her RPPS. I'm afraid "Oh, I don't know ask my brother" will only emphasise the charge of 'negligence'.

[phoenixdoglover]

I have no sympathy for her...

it is not that she embezzled the money, but she allowed herself to be used by her corrupt megalomaniac sibling while actually having no concern about consequence of her actions in following out his instructions.

IMHO she is not as dumb as many would believe and should stand trial for "dereliction of duty", 500 Billion is a lot of money and it is the poorest who burden this so why they should still think the sun shines out the a hole of the Shinawatras is beyond belief.

PS.

My spell checker is more intelligent than I thought, it wants to correct "Shinawatras" to "Brainwashing"...

Some members of this forum have unique and detailed insights into the mind of Yingluck.

[rubl]

In the news reports from November 2013, I do not see a statement from Yungluck as you suggest. Instead, that debate was focused on whether she was acting as PM, or her brother. Naturally, she asserted that she was in fact the PM. Do you have a link that documents something else?

What about the accused being given the opportunity to defend herself? Don't you think that important?

BTW Ms. Yingluck's legal team got a cupboard full of documentation the prosecutor deposited as part of the charge. The team has asked for hundreds of witnesses to be called up. It would seem even Ms. Yingluck's legal team doesn't think all is known yet.

However, in Feb 2014, in response to actions by NACC, Yingluck issued a detailed statement, including the following:

"My work as Prime Minister and also as Chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee is done at the policy level. While at the operational level, the implementation of the Rice Pledging Scheme requires the establishment of a framework, steps, and procedures by government agencies and officials in accordance with the policy direction given. The government system of work has its own standards and regulations; therefore my work at the policy level does not have the authority to directly operate, order, or overrule the work of government officials in anyway. "

https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/yingluck-statement-on-the-naccs-charges-over-the-rice-scheme/

This certainly clarifies her outlook on what she means by being in charge.

Then why appoint herself Chair of the scheme and never actually attend to chair the meetings?

She simply did as her brother instructed - period. She was kept out of parliament so she would be caught with questions. She was kept away from the rice scheme in the hope that plausible deniability could be used if things went wrong. She traveled outside of Thailand regularly to facilitate this,

She has no idea what being in charge means because the never was. She never made any decisions - her brother appointed her handpicked cabinet and shuffled it regularly to suit.

An attractive actress, but also unfortunately one without ethic, morals or any ability to stand up to her brother.

I'm not in the Yingluck defense business. But when my curiosity is roused, I do look for the evidence of her supposed statements or actions in the resources available online. That's why I took the time to look at rubl's assertion regarding the censure debate. If you have something verifiable, you can always share it.

I am not interested in what you are peddling above, which seems like a sprinkling of truth, with a large dollop of exaggerations and suppositions.

Your posts betray your aim, my dear chap.

Ms. Yingluck was PM, Ms. Yingluck had a personally hand-picked cabinet of knowledgeble, capable, full of potential and suitable fellows. She and they positioned the RPPS as self-financing, she and they defended the scheme, she and they kept on going and as if they thought to need it even included their own two years in office in the blanket amnesty bill.

Still wondering why the charge is only negligence.

BTW from September 2014

"Thailand has so far lost 320 billion baht ($9.9 billion) from a 16-month rice support scheme and the final cost will rise substantially, the state bank that helped manage the scheme said on Wednesday, citing Finance Ministry estimates."

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

September 2013

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has said the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme.

The cabinet has said it would spend no more than 270 billion baht for the scheme in the year from

October 2013 to September 2014

Early this month, Commerce Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongphaisan said, "Since the cabinet has approved the budget of 270 billion baht for the scheme, it is the duty of the Finance Ministry to figure out how to get the money."

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

July 2013

"The government said last month that losses amounted to US$4.4 billion for the Thai crop that ended in September 2012."

(rubl: not bad for one year self-financing scheme)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/thailands-failed-rice-scheme-creates-moulding---mountains-of-grain-20130724-2qjdy.html

[phoenixdoglover]

the discussion was NOT that an authoritarian government was better, but that Thai democracy was far from perfect, and badly needed improvement. I only support the current government as a vehicle for that improvement.

So how is that working out?

Is the current government emulating and demonstrating the key attributes of a better democracy?

Is the current government creating a new system that will contain better democratic attributes in the near future?

I would say it is time to do a realistic assessment.

My personal view is that the behavior and outlook are not meeting the basic expectations.

Edited May 15, 2016 by phoenixdoglover

[rubl]

Response to MZurf post #106.

The future will tell, but I think they are trying and I am sure they will do better than this group did.

In two years, they have only added a few bike lanes, in Bangkok of course, and arranged a few beach chairs. They have done nothing else since usurping from an elected government. Let us and Mr. Abhisit know when they actually achieve something positive.

Farang's in favor taking power by force from elected governments are the greatest of hypocrites.

Then what are those accepting a farce and calling it democracy?

What's a farce?

6 consecutive election victories, openly achieved under the nose of multiple international observers and following Junta rigged constitutions?

Wake up and smell the roses.

Failing that, at least stop peddling all the nonsensical Junta propaganda - no ones buying it anymore, not even the semi retards who used to swoon at Prayuth's every word.

Only full retards remain at your side - it's probably worth taking a minute or two to think about that.

Indeed! A democratic system is too easily misused and corrupted by some smart businessmen who only think about their own bottom line. Even (minor) handouts are acceptable when the profits reaped are sufficiently large.

Well, Ms. Yingluck pushed this wonderful RPPS (allegedly her brother's idea) and made it a 'self-financing' scam. The government has seven years of 107 billion Baht planned to repay BAAC. How could that happen. Ms. Yingluck will get a chance to explain all in court.

[yellowboat]

Response to MZurf post #106.

The future will tell, but I think they are trying and I am sure they will do better than this group did.

In two years, they have only added a few bike lanes, in Bangkok of course, and arranged a few beach chairs. They have done nothing else since usurping from an elected government. Let us and Mr. Abhisit know when they actually achieve something positive.

Farang's in favor taking power by force from elected governments are the greatest of hypocrites.

Guess you haven´t been around lot in Thailand then. They paid the 1,5 miljon ricefarmers that the Yingluck government didn´t. A lot of untuchebles ar put in jail. Have you seen all the small roads on the countryside that got new tar. Whe have nog got a phoneline to our willage.

Have heard some have gotten goodies and some have not. It sounds like the junta is following the well worn Shinawatra path to political success. Not sure what your point is.

Edited May 15, 2016 by yellowboat

[Jai Dee]

One flame post and reply, as well as a post referring to Thais in an overly negative manner have been removed from this thread.

[phoenixdoglover]

In the news reports from November 2013, I do not see a statement from Yungluck as you suggest. Instead, that debate was focused on whether she was acting as PM, or her brother. Naturally, she asserted that she was in fact the PM. Do you have a link that documents something else?

What about the accused being given the opportunity to defend herself? Don't you think that important?

BTW Ms. Yingluck's legal team got a cupboard full of documentation the prosecutor deposited as part of the charge. The team has asked for hundreds of witnesses to be called up. It would seem even Ms. Yingluck's legal team doesn't think all is known yet.

However, in Feb 2014, in response to actions by NACC, Yingluck issued a detailed statement, including the following:

"My work as Prime Minister and also as Chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee is done at the policy level. While at the operational level, the implementation of the Rice Pledging Scheme requires the establishment of a framework, steps, and procedures by government agencies and officials in accordance with the policy direction given. The government system of work has its own standards and regulations; therefore my work at the policy level does not have the authority to directly operate, order, or overrule the work of government officials in anyway. "

https://thaishortnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/yingluck-statement-on-the-naccs-charges-over-the-rice-scheme/

This certainly clarifies her outlook on what she means by being in charge.

Then why appoint herself Chair of the scheme and never actually attend to chair the meetings?

She simply did as her brother instructed - period. She was kept out of parliament so she would be caught with questions. She was kept away from the rice scheme in the hope that plausible deniability could be used if things went wrong. She traveled outside of Thailand regularly to facilitate this,

She has no idea what being in charge means because the never was. She never made any decisions - her brother appointed her handpicked cabinet and shuffled it regularly to suit.

An attractive actress, but also unfortunately one without ethic, morals or any ability to stand up to her brother.

I'm not in the Yingluck defense business. But when my curiosity is roused, I do look for the evidence of her supposed statements or actions in the resources available online. That's why I took the time to look at rubl's assertion regarding the censure debate. If you have something verifiable, you can always share it.

I am not interested in what you are peddling above, which seems like a sprinkling of truth, with a large dollop of exaggerations and suppositions.

Your posts betray your aim, my dear chap.

Ms. Yingluck was PM, Ms. Yingluck had a personally hand-picked cabinet of knowledgeble, capable, full of potential and suitable fellows. She and they positioned the RPPS as self-financing, she and they defended the scheme, she and they kept on going and as if they thought to need it even included their own two years in office in the blanket amnesty bill.

Still wondering why the charge is only negligence.

BTW from September 2014
"Thailand has so far lost 320 billion baht ($9.9 billion) from a 16-month rice support scheme and the final cost will rise substantially, the state bank that helped manage the scheme said on Wednesday, citing Finance Ministry estimates."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-rice-debt-idUSKBN0HC10Q20140917


September 2013
"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has said the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme.

The cabinet has said it would spend no more than 270 billion baht for the scheme in the year from
October 2013 to September 2014

Early this month, Commerce Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongphaisan said, "Since the cabinet has approved the budget of 270 billion baht for the scheme, it is the duty of the Finance Ministry to figure out how to get the money."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-thailand-rice-idUSBRE98O06Q20130925

July 2013
"The government said last month that losses amounted to US$4.4 billion for the Thai crop that ended in September 2012."
(rubl: not bad for one year self-financing scheme)
http://www.smh.com.au/world/thailands-failed-rice-scheme-creates-moulding---mountains-of-grain-20130724-2qjdy.html

I would love to know what you think my "aim" is. It might be amusing.

Thanks for the links. I don't know anyone who is disputing the circumstances and basic figures revealed in those articles.

The dispute centers around the legal theory at the core of the government's case, which is the attempt to hold the former PM personally liable. This is worth debating.

[rubl]

Oh come on yellowboat.

'hatred' ? You don't like the truth about the mishandling of the RPPS or you don't agree with given Ms. Yingluck a chance to defend herself?

As for the usual distraction., Ms. Yingluck referred to a dying democracy in relation to having been asked to show accountability. Some posters seem to agree that she's too nice to need to be accountable.

This is where your bind hatred gets you into trouble. The truth is the RPPS should have never even been discussed let alone executed. Governments should not get in the way of a free market. She and her government did exactly that. Your mentioning that it was "mishandled" only lends credibility to the RPPS and that you favor such schemes. It should have never even come to be.

The question is where does her guilt lay and will that will she be judged fairly ?

She needs to be held accountable to the failed scheme, but she will be held accountable by a government that is and never will be accountable. That alone casts dubious shadows on her's and others plight at this time.

Your famous tirades against Yingluck will no longer be entertained. You are confused and need a more worthy cause to apply your energies.

Stop attacking the poster to pretend his comments aren't pertinent. Doesn't work and is transparent.

Instead please explain how being the self appointed Chair of the rice scheme, never bothering to attend meetings, ignoring warnings from internal and external sources, glibly pronouncing all was well in the scheme and confirming repeatedly that she was in charge and therefore responsible and accountable can be defended?

That is what she is charged with, being negligent.

The question posed by me was will she get a fair trial. My stance from the very beginning was that the RPPS was a horrible idea, and should have never been allowed to exist in the first place. You can argue and lend credibility to RPPS and other such schemes all you like. I appose them.

My other point was was it fair for a junta that is forgiven for all past, present and future trespasses in a position to establish a fair trial and pass judgment ?

You're just implying a lot with your 'junta this, junta that'. Like setting a stage, making it 'obvious' and clear for all to know that Ms. Yingluck is guilty and needs to be defended.

Will she get a fair trial? Till now it would seem as fair as befitting one of the Amply Rich Elite.

As for your other point The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders is handling the case, not the junta.

[halloween]

the discussion was NOT that an authoritarian government was better, but that Thai democracy was far from perfect, and badly needed improvement. I only support the current government as a vehicle for that improvement.

So how is that working out?

Is the current government emulating and demonstrating the key attributes of a better democracy?

Is the current government creating a new system that will contain better democratic attributes in the near future?

I would say it is time to do a realistic assessment.

My personal view is that the behavior and outlook are not meeting the basic expectations.

If you expect that an authoritarian government would be "emulating and demonstrating the key attributes of a better democracy" then I am quite sure your expectations have not been met. Why you would have such expectations is a mystery.

[jamhar]

It looks like the US media has chimed in....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/crazy-decision-led-thailand-stockpile-235100132.html

But it also says it's predicting some good news ahead for Thai rice production, and stockpile.

[phoenixdoglover]

the discussion was NOT that an authoritarian government was better, but that Thai democracy was far from perfect, and badly needed improvement. I only support the current government as a vehicle for that improvement.

So how is that working out?

Is the current government emulating and demonstrating the key attributes of a better democracy?

Is the current government creating a new system that will contain better democratic attributes in the near future?

I would say it is time to do a realistic assessment.

My personal view is that the behavior and outlook are not meeting the basic expectations.

If you expect that an authoritarian government would be "emulating and demonstrating the key attributes of a better democracy" then I am quite sure your expectations have not been met. Why you would have such expectations is a mystery.

I'll mark you down as a "no" for item 1.

How about item 2?