Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court

[rubl]

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

From the topic, no further comment your honour

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/411-wpcf_728x410.jpg

[rubl]

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..

She really does look victimised, poor little Amply Rich girl. Barely three years of smiling and be looked upon by the adoring masses and now suddenly asked to show some spine. Being in charge and being responsible is followed by being accountable as well.

So, tell us why the charge of 'negligence' is incorrect? Did you let the 'self-financing' RPPS scheme lose money on purpose?

[MZurf]

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.

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

Au contraire, I would love to hear her explain herself but, that doesn't change the fact that this is a political trial and not the first step in the junta's corruption fight as some misguided individuals seem to think.

I say "first step" as they have done <deleted> all until now.

[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.

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.

Actually you seem to lose your ability to read English. I wrote she's charged and asked to explain herself. The prosecution of course thinks her guilty and thinks it's able to prove that. The Supreme Court thinks the prosecution has a case. Ms. Yingluck asked for justice and a chance to explain herself. Simple enough.

Personally I believe she has not been negligent at all, but that would start another discussion as to why if not negligent she allowed the 'self-financing' RPPs to rake up 500++ billion in losses.

[rubl]

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.

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

Au contraire, I would love to hear her explain herself but, that doesn't change the fact that this is a political trial and not the first step in the junta's corruption fight as some misguided individuals seem to think.

I say "first step" as they have done <deleted> all until now.

This is neither a political trial nor the first step of a junta's fight against corruption.

This is about a former PM who was full of 'being in charge', and 'responsible government' and 'taking special care of corruption' and having personally setup criteria to hand-pick her very own cabinet. Next she manged to let her 'self-financing' RPPS lose 500++ billion Baht. Now even in 'real' democracies questions would be asked and if no answers forthcoming a court case raised to try to get the answers.

So, with all nonsense here it would seem even Ms. Yingluck fanclub doesn't believe she's innnocent. That would explain all distractions in this topic, and any topic on "Ms. Yingluck shows up at court"

[phoenixdoglover]

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..

She really does look victimised, poor little Amply Rich girl. Barely three years of smiling and be looked upon by the adoring masses and now suddenly asked to show some spine. Being in charge and being responsible is followed by being accountable as well.

So, tell us why the charge of 'negligence' is incorrect? Did you let the 'self-financing' RPPS scheme lose money on purpose?

I think it is interesting that you persist in using the noun, "negligence" as the descriptor of Yingluck's crime.

If she did break the law, it is certainly because of something illegal which manifests itself due to negligence, and not just simple negligence.

Your arguments would be significantly better if you could identify the core criminal acts.

I realize this is a challenge for all of us under the circumstances. For example, the non-specific descriptors used in most news accounts don't get us any closer to the truth. And throwing around terms like "500 billion baht loss" can lead to confusion; after all, every loss has a boundary condition. Some people on this forum think she being prosecuted for stealing the money. I'm guessing that is not the case.

I have my own ideas about the "real crimes" of Yingluck. What I don't know is whether they are crimes under Thai law. The actual applicable law being applied to Yingluck is so infrequently specified.

Just my observation.

[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.

Actually you seem to lose your ability to read English. I wrote she's charged and asked to explain herself. The prosecution of course thinks her guilty and thinks it's able to prove that. The Supreme Court thinks the prosecution has a case. Ms. Yingluck asked for justice and a chance to explain herself. Simple enough.

Personally I believe she has not been negligent at all, but that would start another discussion as to why if not negligent she allowed the 'self-financing' RPPs to rake up 500++ billion in losses.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Your writing seems obtuse to me at times.

Why don't you spell out what you think she is guilty of (it seems like you think she is guilty of something significant). ??

[rubl]

She really does look victimised, poor little Amply Rich girl. Barely three years of smiling and be looked upon by the adoring masses and now suddenly asked to show some spine. Being in charge and being responsible is followed by being accountable as well.

So, tell us why the charge of 'negligence' is incorrect? Did you let the 'self-financing' RPPS scheme lose money on purpose?

I think it is interesting that you persist in using the noun, "negligence" as the descriptor of Yingluck's crime.

If she did break the law, it is certainly because of something illegal which manifests itself due to negligence, and not just simple negligence.

Your arguments would be significantly better if you could identify the core criminal acts.

I realize this is a challenge for all of us under the circumstances. For example, the non-specific descriptors used in most news accounts don't get us any closer to the truth. And throwing around terms like "500 billion baht loss" can lead to confusion; after all, every loss has a boundary condition. Some people on this forum think she being prosecuted for stealing the money. I'm guessing that is not the case.

I have my own ideas about the "real crimes" of Yingluck. What I don't know is whether they are crimes under Thai law. The actual applicable law being applied to Yingluck is so infrequently specified.

Just my observation.

For one you must remember this is Thailand not the USA. Different laws, no jurisprudence, no jury.

Furthermore I use 'negligence' as that is the common translation for the charge against her. According to Thai law it would seem the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders is responsible for handling cases of possible misconduct by such figures. In one of the organic laws mentioned in various versions of the constitution is described that a government office holder may not cause harm to the state (and might even be taken personally responsible if he/she does).

If you want to know the precise article check with the OAG who deposited the charge at the Supreme Court.

[rubl]

Actually you seem to lose your ability to read English. I wrote she's charged and asked to explain herself. The prosecution of course thinks her guilty and thinks it's able to prove that. The Supreme Court thinks the prosecution has a case. Ms. Yingluck asked for justice and a chance to explain herself. Simple enough.

Personally I believe she has not been negligent at all, but that would start another discussion as to why if not negligent she allowed the 'self-financing' RPPs to rake up 500++ billion in losses.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Your writing seems obtuse to me at times.

Why don't you spell out what you think she is guilty of (it seems like you think she is guilty of something significant). ??

English is a difficult language, isn't it?

Why should I spell out what I think she might be guilty of? For one I leave it to the Supreme Court to judge and I also do not want to open myself to a defamation case here in Thailand. And thridly in this topic I already mentioned a possible criminal activity to defraud the state of hundreds of bilion Baht to enrich the Pheu Thai political organisation.

Still logically if Ms. Yingluck is not guilty of negligence, how come her 'self-financing' scheme lost 500++ billion Baht?

Edited May 15, 2016 by rubl

[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.

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.

Oh yeah she did have a bloody mandate. That's how democracy works dear Rubl, you still don't get it do you ? Democracy also means respecting and accepting that the people you prefer did a lousy job and didn't get enough seats.

You keep mentioning 500 billion baht, the deficit the current lot reached in just six months, but this time, not a single member of the electorate actually casted a vote for any of the lot currently "throwing money away".

There is no law against bad policies Rubl, those happen not only in Thailand but the world over, again you seem to be blisfully unaware about how democracy is carried out the world over.

If she is guilty of corruption, let's have it and prove it, this case is absolute , a witch hunt, plain and simple. Or the opposite of reconciliation, the term the Junta uttered two years ago.

They still don't get it, they are charging Yingluck with a bogus claim in a bogus court, and no one outside of Thailand will take it seriously. Meanwhile, the reconciliation isn't achieved and the resentment will continue. I wonder when they start using their brains ?

As to Yingluck asking for a chance, I'm sure she didn't ask to be tried before the supreme court on a bogus charge.

As to you harping on about the blanket amnesty bill, might I remind you that that bill never made it and that we currently have an active amnesty bill that is much far reaching and just benefits a select few.

I never heard you complain about that particular amnesty, or in other words, you're a hypocrite.

Edited May 15, 2016 by sjaak327

[sjaak327]

Actually you seem to lose your ability to read English. I wrote she's charged and asked to explain herself. The prosecution of course thinks her guilty and thinks it's able to prove that. The Supreme Court thinks the prosecution has a case. Ms. Yingluck asked for justice and a chance to explain herself. Simple enough.

Personally I believe she has not been negligent at all, but that would start another discussion as to why if not negligent she allowed the 'self-financing' RPPs to rake up 500++ billion in losses.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Your writing seems obtuse to me at times.

Why don't you spell out what you think she is guilty of (it seems like you think she is guilty of something significant). ??

English is a difficult language, isn't it?

Why should I spell out what I think she might be guilty of? For one I leave it to the Supreme Court to judge and I also do not want to open myself to a defamation case here in Thailand. And thridly in this topic I already mentioned a possible criminal activity to defraud the state of hundreds of bilion Baht to enrich the Pheu Thai political organisation.

Still logically if Ms. Yingluck is not guilty of negligence, how come her 'self-financing' scheme lost 500++ billion Baht?

Hmm, somehow I think your last remark is nowhere near logical. In fact it is utterly stupid. The fact that the scheme "lost" 500 billion baht, does not indicate in any way that Yingluck was guilty of negligence. Hopefully the likes of you are kept far, far away from any court room as you quite clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about..

[rubl]

Oh yeah she did have a bloody mandate. That's how democracy works dear Rubl, you still don't get it do you ? Democracy also means respecting and accepting that the people you prefer did a lousy job and didn't get enough seats.

You keep mentioning 500 billion baht, the deficit the current lot reached in just six months, but this time, not a single member of the electorate actually casted a vote for any of the lot currently "throwing money away".

There is no law against bad policies Rubl, those happen not only in Thailand but the world over, again you seem to be blisfully unaware about how democracy is carried out the world over.

If she is guilty of corruption, let's have it and prove it, this case is absolute <deleted>, a witch hunt, plain and simple. Or the opposite of reconciliation, the term the Junta uttered two years ago.

They still don't get it, they are charging Yingluck with a bogus claim in a bogus court, and no one outside of Thailand will take it seriously. Meanwhile, the reconciliation isn't achieved and the resentment will continue. I wonder when they start using their brains ?

As to Yingluck asking for a chance, I'm sure she didn't ask to be tried before the supreme court on a bogus charge.

Ms. Yingluck had a mandate to be in charge, a mandate to show responsibility and a mandate to be accountable.

Now Ms. Yingluck positioned her RPPS as 'self-financing, kept it out of the National Budget and view of parliament, defended it, ridiculed nay-sayers, slowly changed face and kept smiling.

Now her 'self-financing' RPPS has lost 500++ billion Baht and she's asked to explain. Her explanation in parliament was more of political nonsense rather than answering questions. Impeached and now charged with negligence. The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders takes such cases and allows the OAG the proceed if they see the merit of the process (which includes both for and against information in relation to the charge). That's democratic. Even in the Netherlands we would not be satisfied with "well, vote for another fool next time". We would demand explanations and have no problem with a court case if that was the only possibility to get explanations.

Democracy at work.

[rubl]

Hmm, somehow I think your last remark is nowhere near logical. In fact it is utterly stupid. The fact that the scheme "lost" 500 billion baht, does not indicate in any way that Yingluck was guilty of negligence. Hopefully the likes of you are kept far, far away from any court room as you quite clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about..

Well if a 'self-financing' scheme is allowed to lose 500++ billion Baht it's either negligence or on-purpose. The charge is negligence.

[rubl]

As to you harping on about the blanket amnesty bill, might I remind you that that bill never made it and that we currently have an active amnesty bill that is much far reaching and just benefits a select few.

I never heard you complain about that particular amnesty, or in other words, you're a hypocrite.

You put the point correctly about the select few. Think about it.

Anyway here I'm talking about the topic, not about ..but, but the junta.

[sjaak327]

Oh yeah she did have a bloody mandate. That's how democracy works dear Rubl, you still don't get it do you ? Democracy also means respecting and accepting that the people you prefer did a lousy job and didn't get enough seats.

You keep mentioning 500 billion baht, the deficit the current lot reached in just six months, but this time, not a single member of the electorate actually casted a vote for any of the lot currently "throwing money away".

There is no law against bad policies Rubl, those happen not only in Thailand but the world over, again you seem to be blisfully unaware about how democracy is carried out the world over.

If she is guilty of corruption, let's have it and prove it, this case is absolute <deleted>, a witch hunt, plain and simple. Or the opposite of reconciliation, the term the Junta uttered two years ago.

They still don't get it, they are charging Yingluck with a bogus claim in a bogus court, and no one outside of Thailand will take it seriously. Meanwhile, the reconciliation isn't achieved and the resentment will continue. I wonder when they start using their brains ?

As to Yingluck asking for a chance, I'm sure she didn't ask to be tried before the supreme court on a bogus charge.

Ms. Yingluck had a mandate to be in charge, a mandate to show responsibility and a mandate to be accountable.

Now Ms. Yingluck positioned her RPPS as 'self-financing, kept it out of the National Budget and view of parliament, defended it, ridiculed nay-sayers, slowly changed face and kept smiling.

Now her 'self-financing' RPPS has lost 500++ billion Baht and she's asked to explain. Her explanation in parliament was more of political nonsense rather than answering questions. Impeached and now charged with negligence. The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders takes such cases and allows the OAG the proceed if they see the merit of the process (which includes both for and against information in relation to the charge). That's democratic. Even in the Netherlands we would not be satisfied with "well, vote for another fool next time". We would demand explanations and have no problem with a court case if that was the only possibility to get explanations.

Democracy at work.

There is absolutely nothing democratic about this case, no need to pretend there is. In the Netherlands, no politician, or no General is above the law. The current lot have comitted high treason, and have written amnesty for past and future crimes into their own little constitution.

By the way, hillarious you would mention accountablity, as the current lot aren't accountable to anyone.

Stop mentioning the Netherlands, as any of the above would not fly there, and for good reason.

Edited May 15, 2016 by sjaak327

[sjaak327]

As to you harping on about the blanket amnesty bill, might I remind you that that bill never made it and that we currently have an active amnesty bill that is much far reaching and just benefits a select few.

I never heard you complain about that particular amnesty, or in other words, you're a hypocrite.

You put the point correctly about the select few. Think about it.

Anyway here I'm talking about the topic, not about ..but, but the junta.

5555, I hope one day you will understand that for justice to be fair and efficient, EVERYONE should be subjected to it. Therefore the amnesty the current lot have awarded themselves is very relevant to the topic at hand.

I'm disappointed that someone raised and educated in the Netherlands doesn't seem to understand this very vital point. Maybe our education has failed ?

[rubl]

Oh yeah she did have a bloody mandate. That's how democracy works dear Rubl, you still don't get it do you ? Democracy also means respecting and accepting that the people you prefer did a lousy job and didn't get enough seats.

You keep mentioning 500 billion baht, the deficit the current lot reached in just six months, but this time, not a single member of the electorate actually casted a vote for any of the lot currently "throwing money away".

There is no law against bad policies Rubl, those happen not only in Thailand but the world over, again you seem to be blisfully unaware about how democracy is carried out the world over.

If she is guilty of corruption, let's have it and prove it, this case is absolute <deleted>, a witch hunt, plain and simple. Or the opposite of reconciliation, the term the Junta uttered two years ago.

They still don't get it, they are charging Yingluck with a bogus claim in a bogus court, and no one outside of Thailand will take it seriously. Meanwhile, the reconciliation isn't achieved and the resentment will continue. I wonder when they start using their brains ?

As to Yingluck asking for a chance, I'm sure she didn't ask to be tried before the supreme court on a bogus charge.

Ms. Yingluck had a mandate to be in charge, a mandate to show responsibility and a mandate to be accountable.

Now Ms. Yingluck positioned her RPPS as 'self-financing, kept it out of the National Budget and view of parliament, defended it, ridiculed nay-sayers, slowly changed face and kept smiling.

Now her 'self-financing' RPPS has lost 500++ billion Baht and she's asked to explain. Her explanation in parliament was more of political nonsense rather than answering questions. Impeached and now charged with negligence. The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders takes such cases and allows the OAG the proceed if they see the merit of the process (which includes both for and against information in relation to the charge). That's democratic. Even in the Netherlands we would not be satisfied with "well, vote for another fool next time". We would demand explanations and have no problem with a court case if that was the only possibility to get explanations.

Democracy at work.

There is absolutely nothing democratic about this case, no need to pretend there is. In the Netherlands, no politician, or no General is above the law. The current lot have comitted high treason, and have written amnesty for past and future crimes into their own little constitution.

Stop mentioning the Netherlands, as any of the above would not fly there, and for good reason.

So, no one above the law? Well, it would seem that some who don't like Ms. Yingluck to be given the change to explain in court are holding her above the law. A 'mandate' to lose 500++ billion Baht and a 'mandate' to not be seen as responsible or accountable.

As for the usual distraction, here we talk about the topic of Ms. Yingluck and her RPPS court case. We don't talk about, but, but the others. Try that in other topics.

[rubl]

As to you harping on about the blanket amnesty bill, might I remind you that that bill never made it and that we currently have an active amnesty bill that is much far reaching and just benefits a select few.

I never heard you complain about that particular amnesty, or in other words, you're a hypocrite.

You put the point correctly about the select few. Think about it.

Anyway here I'm talking about the topic, not about ..but, but the junta.

5555, I hope one day you will understand that for justice to be fair and efficient, EVERYONE should be subjected to it. Therefore the amnesty the current lot have awarded themselves is very relevant to the topic at hand.

I'm disappointed that someone raised and educated in the Netherlands doesn't seem to understand this very vital point. Maybe our education has failed ?

and while working towards Utopia we do not suspend justice but continue new cases like Ms. Yingluck's RPPS case.

That's the pragmatic attitude I have learned in the Netherlands. All in due time and so.

[sjaak327]

Oh yeah she did have a bloody mandate. That's how democracy works dear Rubl, you still don't get it do you ? Democracy also means respecting and accepting that the people you prefer did a lousy job and didn't get enough seats.

You keep mentioning 500 billion baht, the deficit the current lot reached in just six months, but this time, not a single member of the electorate actually casted a vote for any of the lot currently "throwing money away".

There is no law against bad policies Rubl, those happen not only in Thailand but the world over, again you seem to be blisfully unaware about how democracy is carried out the world over.

If she is guilty of corruption, let's have it and prove it, this case is absolute <deleted>, a witch hunt, plain and simple. Or the opposite of reconciliation, the term the Junta uttered two years ago.

They still don't get it, they are charging Yingluck with a bogus claim in a bogus court, and no one outside of Thailand will take it seriously. Meanwhile, the reconciliation isn't achieved and the resentment will continue. I wonder when they start using their brains ?

As to Yingluck asking for a chance, I'm sure she didn't ask to be tried before the supreme court on a bogus charge.

Ms. Yingluck had a mandate to be in charge, a mandate to show responsibility and a mandate to be accountable.

Now Ms. Yingluck positioned her RPPS as 'self-financing, kept it out of the National Budget and view of parliament, defended it, ridiculed nay-sayers, slowly changed face and kept smiling.

Now her 'self-financing' RPPS has lost 500++ billion Baht and she's asked to explain. Her explanation in parliament was more of political nonsense rather than answering questions. Impeached and now charged with negligence. The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders takes such cases and allows the OAG the proceed if they see the merit of the process (which includes both for and against information in relation to the charge). That's democratic. Even in the Netherlands we would not be satisfied with "well, vote for another fool next time". We would demand explanations and have no problem with a court case if that was the only possibility to get explanations.

Democracy at work.

There is absolutely nothing democratic about this case, no need to pretend there is. In the Netherlands, no politician, or no General is above the law. The current lot have comitted high treason, and have written amnesty for past and future crimes into their own little constitution.

Stop mentioning the Netherlands, as any of the above would not fly there, and for good reason.

So, no one above the law? Well, it would seem that some who don't like Ms. Yingluck to be given the change to explain in court are holding her above the law. A 'mandate' to lose 500++ billion Baht and a 'mandate' to not be seen as responsible or accountable.

As for the usual distraction, here we talk about the topic of Ms. Yingluck and her RPPS court case. We don't talk about, but, but the others. Try that in other topics.

Of course we are dear Rubl. Justice only works if everyone is subjected to it. The amnesty for the Junta simply invalidates any court case for Political office holders, as it seems some are subjected to the law and others aren't.

Again, I have to laugh about people using rule of law, accountability and other such phrases, whilst at the same time supporting a regime that doesn't need to adher to any of those at all.

[sjaak327]

As to you harping on about the blanket amnesty bill, might I remind you that that bill never made it and that we currently have an active amnesty bill that is much far reaching and just benefits a select few.

I never heard you complain about that particular amnesty, or in other words, you're a hypocrite.

You put the point correctly about the select few. Think about it.

Anyway here I'm talking about the topic, not about ..but, but the junta.

5555, I hope one day you will understand that for justice to be fair and efficient, EVERYONE should be subjected to it. Therefore the amnesty the current lot have awarded themselves is very relevant to the topic at hand.

I'm disappointed that someone raised and educated in the Netherlands doesn't seem to understand this very vital point. Maybe our education has failed ?

and while working towards Utopia we do not suspend justice but continue new cases like Ms. Yingluck's RPPS case.

That's the pragmatic attitude I have learned in the Netherlands. All in due time and so.

Utopia ? Nah, there are very few countries where justice isn't served equally to all citizens. And in fact, even in Thailand, the justice situation was vastly better just two years ago.

Alas, you cannot possibly ignore and escape the point raised, and just as the "conviction" that was brought against the Dubai man, this one isn't going to fly internationally.

People aren't stupid.

[rubl]

Of course we are dear Rubl. Justice only works if everyone is subjected to it. The amnesty for the Junta simply invalidates any court case for Political office holders, as it seems some are subjected to the law and others aren't.

Again, I have to laugh about people using rule of law, accountability and other such phrases, whilst at the same time supporting a regime that doesn't need to adher to any of those at all.

Of course you are trying to distract. After all this is Amply rich Ms. Yingluck who after all TV shows with near Presidential charm and big words like responsibility has a mandate to not to need to show accountability. According to some that is. The "but but the others" crowd.

Well, Ms. Yingluck's court case is here to stay, nothing invalidated. Ms. Yingluck get a chance to talk, a few hundred witnesses she has asked to be heard. Let them be heard, let Ms. Yingluck be heard. Regarding the case that is.

[sjaak327]

Of course we are dear Rubl. Justice only works if everyone is subjected to it. The amnesty for the Junta simply invalidates any court case for Political office holders, as it seems some are subjected to the law and others aren't.

Again, I have to laugh about people using rule of law, accountability and other such phrases, whilst at the same time supporting a regime that doesn't need to adher to any of those at all.

Of course you are trying to distract. After all this is Amply rich Ms. Yingluck who after all TV shows with near Presidential charm and big words like responsibility has a mandate to not to need to show accountability. According to some that is. The "but but the others" crowd.

Well, Ms. Yingluck's court case is here to stay, nothing invalidated. Ms. Yingluck get a chance to talk, a few hundred witnesses she has asked to be heard. Let them be heard, let Ms. Yingluck be heard. Regarding the case that is.

Ok, wake me up when amply rich Prayuth (a mere Thai general) is going to stand before the supreme court on the charge of High treason, power abuse and human rights abuses. The evidence cannot be a problem, as there is plenty of that for all to see.

Meanwhile, Yingluck's case will be labelled as a political witch hunt by the international community, that much is absolutely certain.

Edited May 15, 2016 by sjaak327

[rubl]

Utopia ? Nah, there are very few countries where justice isn't served equally to all citizens. And in fact, even in Thailand, the justice situation was vastly better just two years ago.

Alas, you cannot possibly ignore and escape the point raised, and just as the "conviction" that was brought against the Dubai man, this one isn't going to fly internationally.

People aren't stupid.

Sure, sure. Ms. Yingluck was still in a 'try to escape from it all mode'. Now charged. I guess she let her defence team read the cupboard full of documentation the OAG deposited as part of the charge.

As for out most favourite criminal fugitive, another fine Amply rich example of too rich to need to be corrupt and still unable to control himself. At least in this case I don't believe Ms. Yingluck profited financially unless indirectly via a financially restrengthened Pheu Thai party.

[sjaak327]

Utopia ? Nah, there are very few countries where justice isn't served equally to all citizens. And in fact, even in Thailand, the justice situation was vastly better just two years ago.

Alas, you cannot possibly ignore and escape the point raised, and just as the "conviction" that was brought against the Dubai man, this one isn't going to fly internationally.

People aren't stupid.

Sure, sure. Ms. Yingluck was still in a 'try to escape from it all mode'. Now charged. I guess she let her defence team read the cupboard full of documentation the OAG deposited as part of the charge.

As for out most favourite criminal fugitive, another fine Amply rich example of too rich to need to be corrupt and still unable to control himself. At least in this case I don't believe Ms. Yingluck profited financially unless indirectly via a financially restrengthened Pheu Thai party.

Hmm, does your response have any relevance to what I've written. I am utterly confused now.

[rubl]

Of course we are dear Rubl. Justice only works if everyone is subjected to it. The amnesty for the Junta simply invalidates any court case for Political office holders, as it seems some are subjected to the law and others aren't.

Again, I have to laugh about people using rule of law, accountability and other such phrases, whilst at the same time supporting a regime that doesn't need to adher to any of those at all.

Of course you are trying to distract. After all this is Amply rich Ms. Yingluck who after all TV shows with near Presidential charm and big words like responsibility has a mandate to not to need to show accountability. According to some that is. The "but but the others" crowd.

Well, Ms. Yingluck's court case is here to stay, nothing invalidated. Ms. Yingluck get a chance to talk, a few hundred witnesses she has asked to be heard. Let them be heard, let Ms. Yingluck be heard. Regarding the case that is.

Ok, wake me up when amply rich Prayuth (a mere Thai general) is going to stand before the supreme court on the charge of High treason, power abuse and human rights abuses. The evidence cannot be a problem, as there is plenty of that for all to see.

Meanwhile, Yingluck's case will be labelled as a political with hunt by the international community, that much is absoluteley certain.

No problem, will wake you up.

In the mean time the 'negligence' case of a 'self-financing' RPPS scheme being allowed to lose 500++ billion Baht, it progresses, slowly. Seems some of the witnesses for the defence have other things to do and try to delay going to court. Well, they'll be summoned, Ms. Yingluck asked for them.

[phoenixdoglover]

Actually you seem to lose your ability to read English. I wrote she's charged and asked to explain herself. The prosecution of course thinks her guilty and thinks it's able to prove that. The Supreme Court thinks the prosecution has a case. Ms. Yingluck asked for justice and a chance to explain herself. Simple enough.

Personally I believe she has not been negligent at all, but that would start another discussion as to why if not negligent she allowed the 'self-financing' RPPs to rake up 500++ billion in losses.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Your writing seems obtuse to me at times.

Why don't you spell out what you think she is guilty of (it seems like you think she is guilty of something significant). ??

English is a difficult language, isn't it?

Why should I spell out what I think she might be guilty of? For one I leave it to the Supreme Court to judge and I also do not want to open myself to a defamation case here in Thailand. And thridly in this topic I already mentioned a possible criminal activity to defraud the state of hundreds of bilion Baht to enrich the Pheu Thai political organisation.

Still logically if Ms. Yingluck is not guilty of negligence, how come her 'self-financing' scheme lost 500++ billion Baht?

I'm pretty sure the charge "defraud the state of hundreds of bilion Baht to enrich the Pheu Thai political organisation"

is not a subject of the current case. NACC would have communicated something quite different in the run-up to transferring the case, had this sort of fraud been detected. Are you just using hyperbole, or do you actually think hundreds of billions flowed to Pheu Thai?

You persist in describing the rice scheme as "her" scheme. It would be fairer to describe it as a rice pledging scheme approved by and administered by the government of which she was Prime Minister. This is not splitting hairs; it goes directly to the question of personal versus corporate liability. In other words, is Yingluck personally liable for the loss, or is the government under her leadership liable? I'm guessing this is a central question for the Supreme Court in this case.

[sjaak327]

Of course we are dear Rubl. Justice only works if everyone is subjected to it. The amnesty for the Junta simply invalidates any court case for Political office holders, as it seems some are subjected to the law and others aren't.

Again, I have to laugh about people using rule of law, accountability and other such phrases, whilst at the same time supporting a regime that doesn't need to adher to any of those at all.

Of course you are trying to distract. After all this is Amply rich Ms. Yingluck who after all TV shows with near Presidential charm and big words like responsibility has a mandate to not to need to show accountability. According to some that is. The "but but the others" crowd.

Well, Ms. Yingluck's court case is here to stay, nothing invalidated. Ms. Yingluck get a chance to talk, a few hundred witnesses she has asked to be heard. Let them be heard, let Ms. Yingluck be heard. Regarding the case that is.

Ok, wake me up when amply rich Prayuth (a mere Thai general) is going to stand before the supreme court on the charge of High treason, power abuse and human rights abuses. The evidence cannot be a problem, as there is plenty of that for all to see.

Meanwhile, Yingluck's case will be labelled as a political with hunt by the international community, that much is absoluteley certain.

No problem, will wake you up.

In the mean time the 'negligence' case of a 'self-financing' RPPS scheme being allowed to lose 500++ billion Baht, it progresses, slowly. Seems some of the witnesses for the defence have other things to do and try to delay going to court. Well, they'll be summoned, Ms. Yingluck asked for them.

I am absolutely certain you don't need to wake me up, that's the amnesty we talked about. Nothing more needs to be said.

[rubl]

Utopia ? Nah, there are very few countries where justice isn't served equally to all citizens. And in fact, even in Thailand, the justice situation was vastly better just two years ago.

Alas, you cannot possibly ignore and escape the point raised, and just as the "conviction" that was brought against the Dubai man, this one isn't going to fly internationally.

People aren't stupid.

Sure, sure. Ms. Yingluck was still in a 'try to escape from it all mode'. Now charged. I guess she let her defence team read the cupboard full of documentation the OAG deposited as part of the charge.

As for out most favourite criminal fugitive, another fine Amply rich example of too rich to need to be corrupt and still unable to control himself. At least in this case I don't believe Ms. Yingluck profited financially unless indirectly via a financially restrengthened Pheu Thai party.

Hmm, does your response have any relevance to what I've written. I am utterly confused now.

I'm trying to get us to stick to the topic of Ms. Yingluck's trial. In that sense I have to ignore all your stuff as non-related, sorry

[MZurf]

Of course we are dear Rubl. Justice only works if everyone is subjected to it. The amnesty for the Junta simply invalidates any court case for Political office holders, as it seems some are subjected to the law and others aren't.

Again, I have to laugh about people using rule of law, accountability and other such phrases, whilst at the same time supporting a regime that doesn't need to adher to any of those at all.

Of course you are trying to distract. After all this is Amply rich Ms. Yingluck who after all TV shows with near Presidential charm and big words like responsibility has a mandate to not to need to show accountability. According to some that is. The "but but the others" crowd.

Well, Ms. Yingluck's court case is here to stay, nothing invalidated. Ms. Yingluck get a chance to talk, a few hundred witnesses she has asked to be heard. Let them be heard, let Ms. Yingluck be heard. Regarding the case that is.

" The "but but the others" crowd."

I must admit I find it hilarious that one of the stalwart junta supporters and but, but, but...Thaksin "argument" users start whining when the junta is mentioned in a thread about the JUNTA pressing charges against someone.

Priceless!

[sjaak327]

Utopia ? Nah, there are very few countries where justice isn't served equally to all citizens. And in fact, even in Thailand, the justice situation was vastly better just two years ago.

Alas, you cannot possibly ignore and escape the point raised, and just as the "conviction" that was brought against the Dubai man, this one isn't going to fly internationally.

People aren't stupid.

Sure, sure. Ms. Yingluck was still in a 'try to escape from it all mode'. Now charged. I guess she let her defence team read the cupboard full of documentation the OAG deposited as part of the charge.

As for out most favourite criminal fugitive, another fine Amply rich example of too rich to need to be corrupt and still unable to control himself. At least in this case I don't believe Ms. Yingluck profited financially unless indirectly via a financially restrengthened Pheu Thai party.

Hmm, does your response have any relevance to what I've written. I am utterly confused now.

I'm trying to get us to stick to the topic of Ms. Yingluck's trial. In that sense I have to ignore all your stuff as non-related, sorry

Of course "all my stuff" IS related. You are just trying to pretend it isn't. Of course any observant reader will know how wrong you are.