Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court

[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.

" 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!

Yep, what worries me, is that the subject at hand doesn't seem to realize this. That is certainly priceless.

[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?

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.

Correct, the charge is set to 'negligence'. The 'defraud' is what I described as my opinion only.

As for her scheme, well, actually her brother's scheme, but she asked Pheu Thai party to serve and they said "OK, you're our #1". Following it was all about Ms. Yingluck. She was in charge, she setup selection criteria for a cabinet herself, She hand-picked her cabinet. She liked to order her men around.

As for personally reliable that might depend on whether or not she will be found guilty of 'negligence'. The organic laws on this are clear. A government official may not through actions or inaction cause losses to the state and be personally responsible if he/she does. Of course the interesting part here is that when/if Ms. Yingluck is found not guilty to the charge of 'negligence' the Criminal Court may still see the OAG open a case of "defrauding the state'. We'll wait and see

[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.

" 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!

Priceless is the 'junta lovers' label and the fact that not the junta but the OAG pressed the charges.

So, but but "Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court"

[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.

" 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!

Priceless is the 'junta lovers' label and the fact that not the junta but the OAG pressed the charges.

So, but but "Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court"

LOL, and you are certain the OAG didn't get a message from the NCPO ?

55555 how naïeve. Pigs fly and all of that.

Edited May 15, 2016 by sjaak327

[rubl]

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.

Of course all your anti-junta stuff relates to Ms. Yingluck's court case. Well that's obvious

[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!

Priceless is the 'junta lovers' label and the fact that not the junta but the OAG pressed the charges.

So, but but "Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court"

" Priceless is the 'junta lovers' label

..."

Take a deep breath and read my post one more time - I said "junta supporter", not junta lover.

Still priceless?

".... and the fact that not the junta but the OAG pressed the charges."

Yes, because the OAG is totally independent and not party in the conflict between (broadly speaking) the two camps!

[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.

" 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!

Yep, what worries me, is that the subject at hand doesn't seem to realize this. That is certainly priceless.

Stick and stones can break my bones but words never hurt me.

Anyway the 'subject' here is Ms. Yingluck, priceless indeed but that's what you have with Amply Rich elite figures. Luckily she's only deemed to be negligent, but aren't pretty ladies allowed to be so, in democracies that is.

[sjaak327]

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.

Of course all your anti-junta stuff relates to Ms. Yingluck's court case. Well that's obvious

Anti Junta Stuff. My point is really very simple, justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't.

Nothing anti Junta, I am trying to point out the obvious.

Apparently it's not landing into your head. No problem, maybe later hey.

Edited May 15, 2016 by sjaak327

[GuestHouse]

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..

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.

[rubl]

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.

Of course all your anti-junta stuff relates to Ms. Yingluck's court case. Well that's obvious

Anti Junta Stuff. My point is really very simple, justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't.

Nothing anti Junta, I am trying to point out the obvious.

Apparently it's not landing into your head. No problem, maybe later hey.

My point is simple, while we wait for Utopia we will not postpone all possible court cases. We will continue them as usual.

All your stuff here with anti-junta comments have nothing to do with the Ms. Yingluck court case unless one is to believe you want to distract from the case for whatever reason. Don't you want Ms. Yingluck to explain her RPPS? Don't you believe she can do so?

PS 10:15PM, the rest tomorrow. Good night.

Edited May 15, 2016 by rubl

[sjaak327]

Yep, what worries me, is that the subject at hand doesn't seem to realize this. That is certainly priceless.

Stick and stones can break my bones but words never hurt me.

Anyway the 'subject' here is Ms. Yingluck, priceless indeed but that's what you have with Amply Rich elite figures. Luckily she's only deemed to be negligent, but aren't pretty ladies allowed to be so, in democracies that is.

I personally don't see how Yingluck being pretty (if that is what you think) has to do with anything.

I have made my position quite clear, and will leave it at that.

Justice isn't to be seen here, that much is perfectly clear.

[sjaak327]

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.

Of course all your anti-junta stuff relates to Ms. Yingluck's court case. Well that's obvious

Anti Junta Stuff. My point is really very simple, justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't.

Nothing anti Junta, I am trying to point out the obvious.

Apparently it's not landing into your head. No problem, maybe later hey.

My point is simple, while we wait for Utopia we will not postpone all possible court cases. We will continue them as usual.

All your stuff here with anti-junta comments have nothing to do with the Ms. Yingluck court case unless one is to believe you want to distract from the case for whatever reason. Don't you want Ms. Yingluck to explain her RPPS? Don't you believe she can do so?

We don't need to postpone anything, we can charge the NCPO right now. The fact that this doesn't and will never happen should tell the story without further explanation.

[sjaak327]

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..

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.

[phoenixdoglover]

This has been an interesting thread, and a bit weightier than the thread on the 9/11 Reenactment scheme.

It has devolved into some sniping and a linguistic battle, so I want to step back and consider a few big picture issues. Here goes:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The Thai judicial system has come under significant criticism over the years. It is viewed now as too politicized, and perhaps too empowered to intervene in political processes. In my view, one of its major failings is the establishment of trial courts at the Supreme court level. The supposed structure of the Thai judicial system allows for multiple levels, with the opportunity for appeals to a higher court. This well regarded structure was violated by the establishment of the court for political office holders (current venue for the Yingluck trial), and the newly formed administrative court, created by the current Junta. As I understand the system, both of these courts conduct trials, and convicted persons have no avenue for appeal. Can this be right? I have mentioned this repeatedly on TVF, and nobody has ever responded. I am surprised. The right to appeal is considered essential.

RULE OF LAW

This is the idea that you can only be convicted of breaking a properly promulgated law (and that moral or ethical failings are treated in other ways), and that all people are treated similarly. It would be extremely difficult to argue that is the case in Thailand. The advantages of the rich are well documented, especially when it comes to police handover to prosecutors; and under some governments including the present one, laws come into existence through questionable means.

DUE PROCESS

This is the idea that defendants have rights that must be respected at each step of the judicial process. This is an extremely difficult issue to evaluate in Thailand, because so much of the process is hidden from view. The Thai press is rather compliant in this respect, as they do not seem to demand more. Thus, we are treated to news accounts of high profile trials that amount to something like "two people testified today, and the trial is continuing". I would be inclined to say that a process not open to detailed inspection is very unlikely to be a fair process.

TRANSPARENCY

Which brings me to transparency. Much is made of this word in Thailand; everybody in a high position states boldly that their organization and their leadership is transparent, the PM included. The reality is that Thailand is not transparent, particularly when it comes to documenting and publishing the actions of officials. With respect to trials, they tend to be closed rather than open (although I have not yet figured out the rules for this), and the documents that flow out of them tend to be summaries rather than verbatim transcripts. In fact, Thai Judges get to reinvent the trial record in their opinions, with little chance of rebuttal. Of course, if there were a strong appeals system in Thailand, this would have to change, as the appeals courts would demand better records. But the role of judges is different in Thailand; they are afforded more latitude, and this undermines the rule of law.

So there. My not so pretty picture, and the context for discussions about the Great Yingluck Rice Scheme Trial. I would welcome any legal eagles setting me straight on matters of fact. I'm no expert on the Thai legal system.

Edited May 15, 2016 by phoenixdoglover

[GuestHouse]

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.

I agree with you entirely, but when she corrupts the levers of democracy by bringing criminal charges against whistle blowers, denying the press access to the truth and threatening those who reveal criminality with criminal libel then how are the electorate to make an informed choice - especially when the whole purpose of the scheme was to corrupt the democratic process by buying votes? As you observe, very effectively.

Non of that is an argument for or justification of a Junta but the Junta is not an argument against Yingluck facing criminal charges for criminal behaviour.

[Cook my sock]

Well looks like the stockpile is a great thing now there's a massive rice shortage. I guess her defence will point this out.

[sjaak327]

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.

I agree with you entirely, but when she corrupts the levers of democracy by bringing criminal charges against whistle blowers, denying the press access to the truth and threatening those who reveal criminality with criminal libel then how are the electorate to make an informed choice - especially when the whole purpose of the scheme was to corrupt the democratic process by buying votes? As you observe, very effectively.

Non of that is an argument for or justification of a Junta but the Junta is not an argument against Yingluck facing criminal charges for criminal behaviour.

Trouble is, she is not standing trial for the things you mentioned. Whether or not the reason is lack of evidence I leave in the middle. People using libel is cotton industry in this country unfortunately. These laws have been left intact by all sides, and this includes LM, imho one of the first steps in getting a sustainable and healthy democracy is abandoning these laws, as they pose a thread to debate and freedom of speech.

As to the Junta, it's amnesty cast an undeniable shadow on this very court case, there is simply no denying possible. They should have just let this slide, the fact that they didn't is telling. Nothing achieves reconciliation quite like making a martyr out of a very popular person.

As I said the Junta never learns from past mistakes.

[Skywalker69]

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?

It happens thst the "quote" button doesn't work.

If you read my post again you can see that I posted an answer to Yelloeboat's post number #160.

[halloween]

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.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Thailand has a law that covers negligence of office holders?

Remember "justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't." and here you are making excuses and muddying the waters around the fact that an existing law is being applied to blatant negligence causing a huge loss to the state.

When all else fails, pull out the 'reconciliation' card. Oh, you've done that.

[sjaak327]

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.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Thailand has a law that covers negligence of office holders?

Remember "justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't." and here you are making excuses and muddying the waters around the fact that an existing law is being applied to blatant negligence causing a huge loss to the state.

When all else fails, pull out the 'reconciliation' card. Oh, you've done that.

You haven't addressed my main gripe with this law, as it only applies to a select few officeholders, it does for instance not apply to the current PM.

[GuestHouse]

^ The amnisty law does not sit in isolation. A previous propsed amnisty law was accepable to your man in Dubai but not to tge Red shirts he claims to represent.

The only debate is who's snouts are in the trough.

[MZurf]

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.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Thailand has a law that covers negligence of office holders?

Remember "justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't." and here you are making excuses and muddying the waters around the fact that an existing law is being applied to blatant negligence causing a huge loss to the state.

When all else fails, pull out the 'reconciliation' card. Oh, you've done that.

"Why is it so hard for you to accept that Thailand has a law that covers negligence of office holders?"

Does that also include the office of the chief of the army? I guess not as he has given himself an amnesty....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial

[yellowboat]

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?

Though you may find it objectionable, it may not be against the law in Thailand. That is the power and folly of an elected government. They may speak to whomever they like. Their constituents vote them out if they perform badly, which, funny enough, has yet to happen to an elected official bearing the sir name Thaksin.

Mr. Snowden chats with people on TV and during meetings. Those people are not criminally charged.

[sjaak327]

^ The amnisty law does not sit in isolation. A previous propsed amnisty law was accepable to your man in Dubai but not to tge Red shirts he claims to represent.

The only debate is who's snouts are in the trough.

I don't have a man in Dubai.

Your last sentence is spot on. With a tiny difference, if you grab power by force, you get to bypass the constitution and replace it with one that you drafted, which indeed includes an amnesty, one that is much more far reaching in what it covers then the one proposed by an elected government, and indeed one that benefits a very select group of people.

If you however grab power in accordance with the law, which the party lf that man in Dubai has done on four occasions, you are accountable to the law, and in case of Yingluck to this particular one.

The irony couldn't be more striking.

[yellowboat]

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.

nor your own.

[Nickymaster]

It still amazes me how some posters go to great length defending this corrupt Shin clan. They have stolen billions from the taxpayers over the last decade. Are these posters all from Sudan, Afghanistan and Angola?

[halloween]

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.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Thailand has a law that covers negligence of office holders?

Remember "justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't." and here you are making excuses and muddying the waters around the fact that an existing law is being applied to blatant negligence causing a huge loss to the state.

When all else fails, pull out the 'reconciliation' card. Oh, you've done that.

"Why is it so hard for you to accept that Thailand has a law that covers negligence of office holders?"

Does that also include the office of the chief of the army? I guess not as he has given himself an amnesty....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial

You expect a junta to apply that law to themselves? Like the prior government did?

And could you specify his acts of negligence and the losses incurred?

Edited May 16, 2016 by halloween

[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?

Though you may find it objectionable, it may not be against the law in Thailand. That is the power and folly of an elected government. They may speak to whomever they like. Their constituents vote them out if they perform badly, which, funny enough, has yet to happen to an elected official bearing the sir name Thaksin.

Mr. Snowden chats with people on TV and during meetings. Those people are not criminally charged.

You think that insider trading is legal here?

[rubl]

Of course all your anti-junta stuff relates to Ms. Yingluck's court case. Well that's obvious

Anti Junta Stuff. My point is really very simple, justice should apply to everyone. The fact (and this is a verifiable fact) is that it doesn't.

Nothing anti Junta, I am trying to point out the obvious.

Apparently it's not landing into your head. No problem, maybe later hey.

My point is simple, while we wait for Utopia we will not postpone all possible court cases. We will continue them as usual.

All your stuff here with anti-junta comments have nothing to do with the Ms. Yingluck court case unless one is to believe you want to distract from the case for whatever reason. Don't you want Ms. Yingluck to explain her RPPS? Don't you believe she can do so?

We don't need to postpone anything, we can charge the NCPO right now. The fact that this doesn't and will never happen should tell the story without further explanation.

That's nice of course. Will you get in touch with the ICC or will Robert Amsterdam c.s. be engaged?

In the mean time Ms. Yingluck enjoys going to court as that offers her adoring supporters to wish her well, nice photo in the newspapers. Makes up for the boring court session. No details, but I assume we have the witnesses for the defence being questioned at the moment ?

[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..

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.