Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court

[phoenixdoglover]

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.

From the article linked above:

And while farmers in Thailand and elsewhere in the region are being devastated by the weather, the Thai government has an opportunity to unload a good portion of its stockpile.

"Devastated"

[rubl]

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.

Ah, all else failed we're into philosophical territory.

Actually the court case discussed here is only about Ms. Yingluck having been charged with 'negligence' and being asked to explain why she thinks that is not so.

[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.

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

How about item 2?

My hopes are high, though without unrealistic expectations. If they only manage to remove the parasites that have been plaguing the nation for the last decade, it would be a good start, but insufficient.

[yellowboat]

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.

What is implied:

1 You and others agree to government controlled markets. Your problem with Yingluck was that she mishandled it rice scheme, not that she helped create it in the first place. Governments should stay out of the marketplace.

2. Are the high court judges immune to article 44 ? With god like powers in place, any independent thinking in Thailand is questionable . She will get the book thrown at her and you will be happy.

[rubl]

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.

From the article linked above:

And while farmers in Thailand and elsewhere in the region are being devastated by the weather, the Thai government has an opportunity to unload a good portion of its stockpile.

"Devastated"

In Thailand Thai rice farmers were devastated by having the Pheu Thai led government pay out 870 billion Baht directly to them.

With the RPPS the government bought about 70 million tonnes of paddy which turns into slightly less than 50 million tonnes of rice. About 14 million tonnes left in stock. None of the best quality, some still in 'temporary' warehouses the previous government engaged. Yes, unload may be possible, price will not be impressive. Anything less than it's in the books for will only increase the 500++ billion Baht loss.

Edited May 15, 2016 by rubl

[rubl]

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.

What is implied:

1 You and others agree to government controlled markets. Your problem with Yingluck was that she mishandled it rice scheme, not that she helped create it in the first place. Governments should stay out of the marketplace.

2. Are the high court judges immune to article 44 ? With god like powers in place, any independent thinking in Thailand is questionable . She will get the book thrown at her and you will be happy.

Still going on the wrong river with your boat?

Whether or not I agree with government controlled markets has nothing to do with a court case where Ms. Yinglck is asked to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS.

As for your seconds point, just the usual assumptions leading up to what you think is the 'right' answer.

[MZurf]

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.

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

Yes, a truly independent court and in no way influenced by the junta, much like the rest of the judiciary!

[yellowboat]

Farce or not, she was elected .

She was placed as the candidate by her brother so he could run Thailand from Dubai, a convicted criminal how democratic is that?

You have never heard the term "anyone can become president (prime minister) " ? They counted the votes and she won. It is just that simple. More people voted for her than Abihisit.

We all know she wasn't in charge. She did what her brother told her to do. A convicted criminal running Thailand from afar.

Having a convicted criminal father, brother, boyfriend or gardener does not bar you from running for office. Once elected, how she runs is for her to decide. Her time in office is for the people to decide. If she takes a phone call or receives an email from her brother, that is to be expected. You are looking for some sort of big brother type justice that thankfully does not exist yet.

[rubl]

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.

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

Yes, a truly independent court and in no way influenced by the junta, much like the rest of the judiciary!

and all this because some fear for Ms. Yingluck, fear she might not be able to prove she's not negligent. Interesting is that if she proves she's not negligent does that mean she implicitly proves she ran up the tremendous losses on purpose ?

[MZurf]

Thailand is certainly a hell of a lot closer to being a democracy WITH elections than it is WITHOUT elections!

Let us also remember all Thaksin's resounding victories occurred not only under the watchful eyes of international observers but also under intense scrutiny from Yellow-Elite-Military controlled institutions such as the Electoral Commission, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court and National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The fact remains any wrongdoings that could have measurably affected the results would have been ferociously pounced on.

Bottom line is all the elections were fair and the results were all legitimate - a majority of Thais yearn for Thaksinite leadership.

What remains of your post is moronic list of excuses for fascism.

The simple fact is that the Thai people are smart enough to vote for their own government.

Too bad your not smart enough to see that.

"...Bottom line is all the elections were fair and the results were all legitimate....

No comment needed.

Cprrect, no further comments needed as the elections were deemed fair by the international community and therefor the governments elected were legitimate.

And now the pretty figurehead of the Thai government run by a criminal fugitive is democratically asked in court to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS, why it was allowed to rake up a 500++ billion lose and why that does not mean she was negligent.

Yep, and the case was set in motion by a junta who overthrew her democratically elected government, tore up the constitution and gave themselves the mother of all amnesties. Really stand up guys who I'm sure only are after finding out the truth!

[Skywalker69]

Yellowboat #160

But having a convited criminal running it with a help from a proxy is!

[MZurf]

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.

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

Yes, a truly independent court and in no way influenced by the junta, much like the rest of the judiciary!

and all this because some fear for Ms. Yingluck, fear she might not be able to prove she's not negligent. Interesting is that if she proves she's not negligent does that mean she implicitly proves she ran up the tremendous losses on purpose ?

"and all this...."

All of what? As usual you are totally missing the point, the point being that this is a political trial. If the junta gave a rodent's behind about corruption, mismanagement, negligence etc they would have started reforming the police, judiciary and armed forces.

Only then could one expect real progress to be made.

[yellowboat]

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.

What is implied:

1 You and others agree to government controlled markets. Your problem with Yingluck was that she mishandled it rice scheme, not that she helped create it in the first place. Governments should stay out of the marketplace.

2. Are the high court judges immune to article 44 ? With god like powers in place, any independent thinking in Thailand is questionable . She will get the book thrown at her and you will be happy.

Still going on the wrong river with your boat?

Whether or not I agree with government controlled markets has nothing to do with a court case where Ms. Yinglck is asked to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS.

As for your seconds point, just the usual assumptions leading up to what you think is the 'right' answer.

No, the boat was built in Thailand but sold for tidy sum in Singapore. More orders are pending.

Happen to agree that the RPPS was a bad idea, and she should to be held accountable for doing something so stupid.

Explain that how article 44 does not over shadow this or any other politically charged court preceding? She will either get the maximum, which may incense those who voted for her. Or she will get off with a light sentence, and the junta will try to use that as some sort of reconciliation tool. Either way, politics will be the deciding factor.

Edited May 15, 2016 by yellowboat

[MZurf]

Yellowboat #160

But having a convited criminal running it with a help from a proxy is!

Is what? If you want people to understand what you're referring to might I suggest you use the "quote" button?

[halloween]

Having a convicted criminal father, brother, boyfriend or gardener does not bar you from running for office. Once elected, how she runs is for her to decide. Her time in office is for the people to decide. If she takes a phone call or receives an email from her brother, that is to be expected. You are looking for some sort of big brother type justice that thankfully does not exist yet.

Is it expected that she allowed her criminal fugitive brother access to cabinet meetings, and allegedly to dictate policy?

[halloween]

"and all this...."

All of what? As usual you are totally missing the point, the point being that this is a political trial. If the junta gave a rodent's behind about corruption, mismanagement, negligence etc they would have started reforming the police, judiciary and armed forces.

Only then could one expect real progress to be made.

"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."

Some people like to have it both ways, as long as they are both negative.

[sjaak327]

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.

Ah, all else failed we're into philosophical territory.

Actually the court case discussed here is only about Ms. Yingluck having been charged with 'negligence' and being asked to explain why she thinks that is not so.

Ah so now Yingluck, a politician with an undisputed mandate needs to prove she is innocent of whatever she is charged with.

Meanwhile this country is run by people who awarded themselves amnesty for past AND future crimes.

Why are we even discussing this witch hunt ? No one with a set of brains will take these proceeding seriously, absolutely no one.

[halloween]

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.

Ah, all else failed we're into philosophical territory.

Actually the court case discussed here is only about Ms. Yingluck having been charged with 'negligence' and being asked to explain why she thinks that is not so.

Ah so now Yingluck, a politician with an undisputed mandate needs to prove she is innocent of whatever she is charged with.

Meanwhile this country is run by people who awarded themselves amnesty for past AND future crimes.

Why are we even discussing this witch hunt ? No one with a set of brains will take these proceeding seriously, absolutely no one.

That's easy for you to say, it's not your assets up for grabs. I'm sure quite a few politicians, including the fragrant one, are taking it very seriously.

[Winniedapu]

and yet the majority of Thais still prefer them to all of the other alternatives. What does that tell you? Better the devil you know maybe?

No.. It confirms what we already know... The majority of Thai people are extremely poor and worry about food on the table TODAY... How I'm going to pay for it I will maybe worry about next week...

Few Thai people can comprehend the sum the was stolen by this one individual... So it's irrelevant to them...

And this RPP 500 billion is just another drop in the ocean...

Like them or not... Justice must be seen to be done...

wow... Could you be more condescending towards the Thais?

Should the truth be rephrased to be more 'politically correct' ?

Perhaps the truth should be rephrased to me more like the truth. If you know the truth. I don't, but I think I know a crock when I see one.

Winnie

[sjaak327]

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.

Ah, all else failed we're into philosophical territory.

Actually the court case discussed here is only about Ms. Yingluck having been charged with 'negligence' and being asked to explain why she thinks that is not so.

Ah so now Yingluck, a politician with an undisputed mandate needs to prove she is innocent of whatever she is charged with.

Meanwhile this country is run by people who awarded themselves amnesty for past AND future crimes.

Why are we even discussing this witch hunt ? No one with a set of brains will take these proceeding seriously, absolutely no one.

That's easy for you to say, it's not your assets up for grabs. I'm sure quite a few politicians, including the fragrant one, are taking it very seriously.

Oh sure, I am dead certain Yingluck will take it seriously, after all she IS the victim here. No worries, she will get out of the country and no sane country will ever extradite her.

Those Junta boys never learn from past mistakes, they aren't the sharpest knives..

Edited May 15, 2016 by sjaak327

[MZurf]

"and all this...."

All of what? As usual you are totally missing the point, the point being that this is a political trial. If the junta gave a rodent's behind about corruption, mismanagement, negligence etc they would have started reforming the police, judiciary and armed forces.

Only then could one expect real progress to be made.

"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."

Some people like to have it both ways, as long as they are both negative.

And some people should work on trying to be clearer when posting.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about past election results and past coups have been removed.

[Winniedapu]

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.

What is implied:

1 You and others agree to government controlled markets. Your problem with Yingluck was that she mishandled it rice scheme, not that she helped create it in the first place. Governments should stay out of the marketplace.

2. Are the high court judges immune to article 44 ? With god like powers in place, any independent thinking in Thailand is questionable . She will get the book thrown at her and you will be happy.

Still going on the wrong river with your boat?

Whether or not I agree with government controlled markets has nothing to do with a court case where Ms. Yinglck is asked to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS.

As for your seconds point, just the usual assumptions leading up to what you think is the 'right' answer.

No, the boat was built in Thailand but sold for tidy sum in Singapore. More orders are pending.

Happen to agree that the RPPS was a bad idea, and she should to be held accountable for doing something so stupid.

Explain that how article 44 does not over shadow this or any other politically charged court preceding? She will either get the maximum, which may incense those who voted for her. Or she will get off with a light sentence, and the junta will try to use that as some sort of reconciliation tool. Either way, politics will be the deciding factor.

I see no evidence whatever that the junta is interested in reconciliation of any kind, except as a talking point to defend themselves against human rights violations. For which they are quickly becoming legendary.

Winnie

[phoenixdoglover]

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.

Ah, all else failed we're into philosophical territory.

Actually the court case discussed here is only about Ms. Yingluck having been charged with 'negligence' and being asked to explain why she thinks that is not so.

Ah so now Yingluck, a politician with an undisputed mandate needs to prove she is innocent of whatever she is charged with.

Meanwhile this country is run by people who awarded themselves amnesty for past AND future crimes.

Why are we even discussing this witch hunt ? No one with a set of brains will take these proceeding seriously, absolutely no one.

I wish we could have more faith in the Thai judicial system. So much stems from the perceived deficiencies.

Also, I see you caught rubl in a "she is guilty until proven innocent" moment. :-)

It is a challenge to remember the basics.

Edited May 15, 2016 by phoenixdoglover

[phoenixdoglover]

Having a convicted criminal father, brother, boyfriend or gardener does not bar you from running for office. Once elected, how she runs is for her to decide. Her time in office is for the people to decide. If she takes a phone call or receives an email from her brother, that is to be expected. You are looking for some sort of big brother type justice that thankfully does not exist yet.

Is it expected that she allowed her criminal fugitive brother access to cabinet meetings, and allegedly to dictate policy?

I would say it is allowed until prohibited by law. Why get all tangled up in moral outrage?

[phoenixdoglover]

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.

What is implied:

1 You and others agree to government controlled markets. Your problem with Yingluck was that she mishandled it rice scheme, not that she helped create it in the first place. Governments should stay out of the marketplace.

2. Are the high court judges immune to article 44 ? With god like powers in place, any independent thinking in Thailand is questionable . She will get the book thrown at her and you will be happy.

Still going on the wrong river with your boat?

Whether or not I agree with government controlled markets has nothing to do with a court case where Ms. Yinglck is asked to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS.

As for your seconds point, just the usual assumptions leading up to what you think is the 'right' answer.

No, the boat was built in Thailand but sold for tidy sum in Singapore. More orders are pending.

Happen to agree that the RPPS was a bad idea, and she should to be held accountable for doing something so stupid.

Explain that how article 44 does not over shadow this or any other politically charged court preceding? She will either get the maximum, which may incense those who voted for her. Or she will get off with a light sentence, and the junta will try to use that as some sort of reconciliation tool. Either way, politics will be the deciding factor.

I see no evidence whatever that the junta is interested in reconciliation of any kind, except as a talking point to defend themselves against human rights violations. For which they are quickly becoming legendary.

Winnie

Regarding reconciliation efforts, I guess it could be worse.

(possible motto there)

[rubl]

"...Bottom line is all the elections were fair and the results were all legitimate....

No comment needed.

Cprrect, no further comments needed as the elections were deemed fair by the international community and therefor the governments elected were legitimate.

And now the pretty figurehead of the Thai government run by a criminal fugitive is democratically asked in court to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS, why it was allowed to rake up a 500++ billion lose and why that does not mean she was negligent.

Yep, and the case was set in motion by a junta who overthrew her democratically elected government, tore up the constitution and gave themselves the mother of all amnesties. Really stand up guys who I'm sure only are after finding out the truth!

Actually the case already started before the elections as it was obvious that such RPPS scheme couldn't work as self-financing scheme. Lots of comments, questions in parliament brushed aside. The 'we have a mandate' to throw away money idea and so. The "people can vote differently next time if they don't like it" clique.

So, Ms. Yingluck gets a chance to explain herself and it would seem some posters don't like that.

[rubl]

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.

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

Yes, a truly independent court and in no way influenced by the junta, much like the rest of the judiciary!

and all this because some fear for Ms. Yingluck, fear she might not be able to prove she's not negligent. Interesting is that if she proves she's not negligent does that mean she implicitly proves she ran up the tremendous losses on purpose ?

"and all this...."

All of what? As usual you are totally missing the point, the point being that this is a political trial. If the junta gave a rodent's behind about corruption, mismanagement, negligence etc they would have started reforming the police, judiciary and armed forces.

Only then could one expect real progress to be made.

The point being that some like to call this a political trial. In reality it's the trial of a political figure who seems to have mislaid 500++ billion Baht and is asked to explain herself. With a few against this trial one may wonder what they fear. Maybe they fear Ms. Yingluck is not able to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS scheme and thereby shows she's ignorant and negligent? Or maybe they fear Ms. Yingluck is able to explain her RPPS and shows she had good reasons to allow the 'self-financing' scheme to lose 500++ billion Baht.

[rubl]

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.

What is implied:

1 You and others agree to government controlled markets. Your problem with Yingluck was that she mishandled it rice scheme, not that she helped create it in the first place. Governments should stay out of the marketplace.

2. Are the high court judges immune to article 44 ? With god like powers in place, any independent thinking in Thailand is questionable . She will get the book thrown at her and you will be happy.

Still going on the wrong river with your boat?

Whether or not I agree with government controlled markets has nothing to do with a court case where Ms. Yinglck is asked to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS.

As for your seconds point, just the usual assumptions leading up to what you think is the 'right' answer.

No, the boat was built in Thailand but sold for tidy sum in Singapore. More orders are pending.

Happen to agree that the RPPS was a bad idea, and she should to be held accountable for doing something so stupid.

Explain that how article 44 does not over shadow this or any other politically charged court preceding? She will either get the maximum, which may incense those who voted for her. Or she will get off with a light sentence, and the junta will try to use that as some sort of reconciliation tool. Either way, politics will be the deciding factor.

Nice try, but I'm not going to explain your thoughts.

[rubl]

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.

Ah, all else failed we're into philosophical territory.

Actually the court case discussed here is only about Ms. Yingluck having been charged with 'negligence' and being asked to explain why she thinks that is not so.

Ah so now Yingluck, a politician with an undisputed mandate needs to prove she is innocent of whatever she is charged with.

Meanwhile this country is run by people who awarded themselves amnesty for past AND future crimes.

Why are we even discussing this witch hunt ? No one with a set of brains will take these proceeding seriously, absolutely no one.

BS, utter BS. Ms. Yingluck didn't have a mandate to let a 'self-financing' scheme lose 500++ billion Baht. The fact that her blanket amnesty bill included her own two years in office suggests she was aware of the possible problems she would be in.

'Witch hunt'? We're talking about pretty Ms. Yingluck here, not a witch. Ms. Yingluck herself asked for a chance to explain herself and her RPPS and she's being obliged in court.