Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court

[metisdead]

Off topic generalizations about the current political situation have been removed. Stay on the topic of Yingluck Stands Trial For Rice Scheme In Supreme Court, if not your posts will simply disappear.

[rubl]

Apart that is from the fact that Yingluck was warned by a wide range of people and organizations that the scheme would create corruption and damage the rice industry and result in negative consequences for the farmers and the nation.

Yingluck was warned before she enacted the scheme, she was warned repeatedly during operation of the scheme and she was presented with evidence during the operation of the scheme that clearly demonstrated the damage the scheme was doing.

Yingluck's government's reaction to a civil servant revealing corruption in the rice scheme was to press criminal charges against the civil servant.

Yingluck's government gave us the bare faced lies of government to government rice sales, while exporters reported no rice being shipped.

Yingluck's government pronounced those criticizing the scheme are criticizing 'Thailand'

Yingluck's government banned reporters from visiting rice stores (when she was removed from office we learned why).

The Yingluck government were warned, were advised and were aware of the wide spread corruption and criminality surrounding the rice scheme, their only response was to denial, cover-up and persecution of people telling the truth.

Thankfully all the above is a matter of public record.

Oh I'm sure she was warned about the scheme.

Fact is, she received a mandate (a pretty impressive one I might add) and therefore she was entitled to execute the scheme.

It is up to the Thai electorate to determine if that gamble should lead to her removal from office, not up to some idiots with guns.

Again, if she personally benefitted from the scheme and if she knowingly tried to cover up any wrongdoings, by all means prosecute here, but this case does not seem to aim for that.

A mandate to execute a scam as 'self-financing' and losing 500++ billion Baht. Democratically so.

Anyway, Ms. Yingluck is not accused of having personally benefited, nor even accused of covering up (strange that one though), just accused of negligence as she has cause the state to lose 500

+= billion Baht. That's not part of the mandate.

As for gamble, you're really blishfully ignoring reality if you continue with the "they don't need to vote for corrupt politicians". Seems Thai like to do that, every times. Seems someone needs to explain to them that that is not democratic. In democracies corruption is a no-no. Even Ms. Yingluck understood that when she yearly organised the "anti-corruption' day.

Voting for corrupt politicians is most certainly democratic. No one needs to tell the Thai people whom to vote for, especially not an immigrant who doesn't seem to know the first thing about how this country works.

There are other avenues to handle corrupt politicians.

Of course now those avenues have been put on the backburner, as the current lot have awarded themselves amnesty.

Sad state of affairs, now Thailand is run by corrupt generals, with sweeping powers and power abuse and human rights abuses are rampant, meanwhile no one can vote these clowns out of office.

Absolutely, voting for corrupt politicians is a clear sign of a mature democracy.

Anyway, ignoring the usual insults and insinuations, let's just look at Ms. Yingluck trying to make others feel sorry for her. Well, I do feel sorry for her. Sorry she forgot that being in charge and talking about being responsible was bound to be followed by being asked to show that accountability as well.

[rubl]

Your not so pretty picture is full of wishful thinking, Stating your views as if they are facts. Basic you critisise the Thai legal system as not as you would expect it. Using 'reality' and 'I haven't figured out yet'. Seem you're right in the last. I'm inclined to say that is.

In the mean time Ms. Yingluck is having fun in court.

Of course I am criticizing the Thai legal system in comparison with what I expect. That is exactly the logic of most criticism.

Moreover, my expectations are not personal whimsy; they are well accepted norms I have identified, to which even the Thai legal community aspires.

I am happy to see, however, that you do not dispute any of my observations.

Terribly sorry and all that, but even in Europe we expect something different than you in America. Different ideas about things. As such reasoning from what you know may be fun, but really irrelevant.

I don't dispute your observations as you base them on what you think. That's nice. Now pray show how that relates to the Thai legal system. your thoughts that is. Part of your post is phrased as 'just writing down facts', with some "uncertainties' sprinkled over it. After all, you want to show you're only human and don't know Thai law or legal system.

BTW

" I would welcome any legal eagles setting me straight on matters of fact. I'm no expert on the Thai legal system."

"my expectations are not personal whimsy; they are well accepted norms I have identified, to which even the Thai legal community aspires."

"my observations"

Terribly sorry and all that, but even in Europe we expect something different than you in America. Different ideas about things. As such reasoning from what you know may be fun, but really irrelevant.

Just to check your BS, rubl:

Could you specify, among the four judicial system principles I identified above, which ones are not a feature of your country of birth?

Or, if you prefer, could you specify the principles above that are not recommended by Thai legal experts for the Thai judicial system?

Or, you could natter on; but what is your point?

Why should I? You wrote a nice post which may have costs you hours of hard work or less with help of some, in it you have your musings ("observations"), expertise ("identified well accepted norms") and ignorance ("I'm not an expert on Thai legal system"). Not worthwhile in relation to the topic.

Now Ms. Yingluck's is charged with "negligence" in relation to her RPPS, the self-financing scheme which lost 500++ billion Baht. The OAG deposited a cupboard full of documentation, most likely Ms. Yingluck's legal team did the same and Ms. Yingluck asked for hundreds of witnesses for the defence to be heard. A month or two ago it was said some of those witnesses were too busy and required another appointment. No idea how many have been 'processed' by now. If witnesses keep on being too busy will the court drop them or subpoena them I wonder. Maybe Ms. Yingluck will write a passionate appeal on her facebook page, like "please make time available to help me, to make your statement in court". Maybe her legal team will ask the court the subpoena the reluctant witnesses?

[rubl]

A mandate to execute a scam as 'self-financing' and losing 500++ billion Baht. Democratically so.

Anyway, Ms. Yingluck is not accused of having personally benefited, nor even accused of covering up (strange that one though), just accused of negligence as she has cause the state to lose 500

+= billion Baht. That's not part of the mandate.

As for gamble, you're really blishfully ignoring reality if you continue with the "they don't need to vote for corrupt politicians". Seems Thai like to do that, every times. Seems someone needs to explain to them that that is not democratic. In democracies corruption is a no-no. Even Ms. Yingluck understood that when she yearly organised the "anti-corruption' day.

"Seems someone needs to explain to them that that is not democratic. In democracies corruption is a no-no."

And do you honestly believe the "PM" is the man for the job?

Do you honestly believe Ms. Yingluck is innocent and not negligent? Do you really think that rather than being negligent Ms. Yingluck was involved in criminal activities? Is that why you and others keep trying to distract?

I think the whole rice scheme was ill thought out, poorly executed and most likely mired in corruption, just like any other public project probably has been since 1932. Has YL been negligent? Quite possibly.

That doesn't change the fact that this trial is just round X in the fight between the old elite and Thaksin/red shirt movement and has nothing to do with the junta wanting to punish wrongdoers as who they go after is completely lopsided.

Well ignoring the usual distraction I can only applaud your openness in the first paragraph.

Ms. Yingluck may have been negligent, but maybe she wasn't. Of course if she wasn't negligent she might have another problem.

[Cook my sock]

Mods, are we allowed to discuss Yinglucks attire?

[yellowboat]

"And the only reason her guilt or innocence shouldn't be determined by a trial is alleged biased motivation of the prosecution, which is irrelevant to the decision of the court."

Irrelevant to the decision of the court? Are you seriously suggesting that the courts are impartial???

Not at all. Are you saying the only reason reds are convicted is the court's bias; that none of them are guilty? Or that those charged shouldn't be tried, because the court might be biased?

Are the courts subject to S44 or Article 44 ?