Yingluck stands trial for rice scheme in Supreme Court

[rubl]

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.

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

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

[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

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?

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

Yes, because this one was supposed to be so much better, remember?

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

Well, how about the army chief allowing (or rather instigating) a military takeover of the democratically elected government and destruction of the constitution. Is that negligent enough for you?

Losses? How about basic human rights?

[Plutojames88]

Pro junta people as pathetic as they might be to ordinary people are rightly able to say so .

Their views .

The jailing of YS might be needed to stimulate a populace into some action.

The apathy is otherwise too boring and the power grip tightening .

This case might be well the cause they have to do so.

[rubl]

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

Not the quality of rice Thai are prepared to consume.

[MZurf]

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 ?

Hard to say. For a junta that praises transparency the are oddly obscure...

[rubl]

Pro junta people as pathetic as they might be to ordinary people are rightly able to say so .

Their views .

The jailing of YS might be needed to stimulate a populace into some action.

The apathy is otherwise too boring and the power grip tightening .

This case might be well the cause they have to do so.

The anti-justice-for-Yingluck people are pathetic. They do all they can to avoid having Ms. Yingluck explain her wonderful RPPS in court.

[NeverSure]

Remember democracy died the day she was asked to show the responsibility which goes with "I'm in charge" ?

I'll be darned. I thought it died when the military took over the government at gunpoint.

[MZurf]

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.

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

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

[halloween]

"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?

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

Yes, because this one was supposed to be so much better, remember?

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

Well, how about the army chief allowing (or rather instigating) a military takeover of the democratically elected government and destruction of the constitution. Is that negligent enough for you?

Losses? How about basic human rights?

You are still confused. This is a TEMPORARY authoritarian government enacting changes to prevent abuse of the democratic system. Only fools expect it to be more democratic and open than the criminal farce it replaced.

Overthrowing the resigned criminal government wasn't negligence. It was both intentional and necessary to achieve reform.

Losses need to be quantifiable, not the ephemeral concepts that bother you so much.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

[halloween]

Pro junta people as pathetic as they might be to ordinary people are rightly able to say so .

Their views .

The jailing of YS might be needed to stimulate a populace into some action.

The apathy is otherwise too boring and the power grip tightening .

This case might be well the cause they have to do so.

Yeah, yeah. Standard red supporter rhetoric. do ANYTHING we don't like , and there will be blood. Followed by some hugely inflated number expected to show outrage. Yawn.

[MZurf]

"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?

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

Yes, because this one was supposed to be so much better, remember?

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

Well, how about the army chief allowing (or rather instigating) a military takeover of the democratically elected government and destruction of the constitution. Is that negligent enough for you?

Losses? How about basic human rights?

You are still confused. This is a TEMPORARY authoritarian government enacting changes to prevent abuse of the democratic system. Only fools expect it to be more democratic and open than the criminal farce it replaced.

Overthrowing the resigned criminal government wasn't negligence. It was both intentional and necessary to achieve reform.

Losses need to be quantifiable, not the ephemeral concepts that bother you so much.

"You are still confused. This is a TEMPORARY authoritarian government enacting changes to prevent abuse of the democratic system."

Please tell me you're not so naive as to actually believe that the reason the junta took power was to "prevent abuse of the democratic system." For your own sake I hope you are joking because what has the junta done for the last two years that would have you reach that conclusion? I guess it must be the lottery reform.

And temporary? Two years and counting and the latest is that there maybe will be elections next year. Few would call that temporary. Do you understand that the junta will remain in power for as long as it takes to make sure the upcoming transition takes place to their satisfaction? Do you, halloween??

"Overthrowing the resigned criminal government wasn't negligence. It was both intentional and necessary..."

Of course it was intentional and necessary. Intentional because even this bunch of <deleted> could not accidentally do a coup, and necessary because their access to the trough was being restricted. Duh!

"....to achieve reform."

You really are most endearingly naive.

Edited May 16, 2016 by MZurf

[rubl]

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 ?

Hard to say. For a junta that praises transparency the are oddly obscure...

Well, this is about a court case, not about the junta however much you like to suggest.

Court cases in Thailand only seem to open up when the court reads out the verdict and the reasoning for the verdict. Pages and hours of it.

For those who are used to legal sessions involving juries this may seem strange, but it's just not what they are used to. Lots of countries have no jury system, my country of birth being one of them.

[rubl]

Remember democracy died the day she was asked to show the responsibility which goes with "I'm in charge" ?

I'll be darned. I thought it died when the military took over the government at gunpoint.

Well, who am I to question Ms. Yingluck's judgment? Maybe the Amply Rich elite have different ideas about democracy as the common people should see it.

[rubl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankfully all the above is a matter of public record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[billd766]

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.

Have you any idea what the word martyr means?

From the OED.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/martyr

noun

1A person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs: the first Christian martyr

More example sentences

1.1A person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy: she wanted to play the martyr

More example sentences Synonyms

1.2 (martyr to) A constant sufferer from (an ailment): I’m a martyr to migraine!

More example sentences

verb

[with object]

1Kill (someone) because of their beliefs: she was martyred for her faith

More example sentences Synonyms

1.1Cause great pain or distress to: there was no need to martyr themselves again

Now please can you explain to me why you think Yingluck is a martyr?

[rubl]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW

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

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

"my observations"

Edited May 16, 2016 by rubl

[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.

You think that insider trading is legal here?

Don't know. Been told prostitution is illegal in Thailand, but having conversations with people who are accused of a crime does not seem to be.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

There are other avenues to handle corrupt politicians.

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

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

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW

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

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

"my observations"

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

Just to check your BS, rubl:

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

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

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

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Plutojames88]

Judicial in Thailand is a sad joke .

[halloween]

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

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

So here we have a trial of someone you admit is "quite possibly" guilty of causing a huge loss to the Thai people by her negligence. And the only reason her guilt or innocence shouldn't be determined by a trial is alleged biased motivation of the prosecution, which is irrelevant to the decision of the court.

Is guilt or innocence irrelevant to you if those prosecuted come from the Thaksin side of politics?

Should murderers and paedophiles only be prosecuted by those who like them?

[MZurf]

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

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

So here we have a trial of someone you admit is "quite possibly" guilty of causing a huge loss to the Thai people by her negligence. And the only reason her guilt or innocence shouldn't be determined by a trial is alleged biased motivation of the prosecution, which is irrelevant to the decision of the court.

Is guilt or innocence irrelevant to you if those prosecuted come from the Thaksin side of politics?

Should murderers and paedophiles only be prosecuted by those who like them?

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

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

[Cook my sock]

I can't decide what's worse, Yinglucks gamble or prayuth's decision to sell shed loads of seriously contaminated rice to unsuspecting international consumers. That rice has been sprayed to <deleted>

Edited May 16, 2016 by Cook my sock

[StefanBBK]

Back to rice.

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

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

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

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

not exactly what I meant to say. Gross dereliction of duty is a big word. I think incompetence better describes what was going on there. I think this will be hard to prove.

If there is a case prosecute her.

[halloween]

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

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

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

Edited May 17, 2016 by halloween

[halloween]

They are an army.

They have no mandate to invent laws or enforce any.

They are illegal and against the international perception of civil society democratic and just.

And since when does a mistake in power make you liable to prosecution ?

The judicial system in Thailand targets opponents .

The international community are well aware of this.

Jail an elected rightful PM on bogus charges ( under international eyes)

You get to a point your deemed a rogue state.

So I dare them.

I would love to see the reaction locally and internationally .

Go ahead make my day

Any idea when the world's policeman will invade? Just so I can be prepared.

[Jai Dee]

One strong anti-government post has been removed from this thread.

From the pinned topic in the News Forum:

Thailand remains under the close watch of the Thai military and the rules related to Social Media and posting on Thaivisa will follow the guidelines set forth by the government and the military. Here are some things that you should consider when posting:

All suspects in lese majeste cases, national security cases, violators of NCPO orders will face court martial. In the past, discussion of the lese majeste law has been allowed, but due to increased scrutiny by the government this will no longer be permitted on Thaivisa.

Any discussion of the Monarchy or members of the royal family in a political context will result in a ban. This includes vague comments that could be construed as referring to the Monarchy.

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed. Any posts which can be construed as rumor mongering are not allowed.

Posters violating these rules and the forum rules will receive a warning, a possible suspension of posting privileges or a ban from the site.

Please check the entire list of forum rules: http://www.thaivisa....tion=boardrules

[billd766]

I can't decide what's worse, Yinglucks gamble or prayuth's decision to sell shed loads of seriously contaminated rice to unsuspecting international consumers. That rice has been sprayed to <deleted>

Do you really believe that the buyers would buy sight unseen and that they haven't read the news/media/TV/social networks/seen the publicity over the last 3 years etc?

If my business was buying 100,000 tonnes of rice I would make damn sure that my inspectors tested as much as possible before I shipped a single bag out of a warehouse.