Yingluck voices strong opposition to using Section 44 to demand civil compensation

[webfact]

Yingluck voices strong opposition to using Section 44 to demand civil compensation

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Ms Yingluck Shinawatra insisted on her strong opposition to an attempt to propose the prime minister invoke Section 44 of the interim constitution to demand compensation from politicians and government officials responsible for causing immense damage to the state on the rice pledging scheme.

 

Her comment came as she appeared at the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to give testimony as defendant on her rice pledging scheme.

 

Today was the third hearing of her testimony in the trial which she was charged with dereliction of duties, thus resulting in the immense loss.

 

Ms Yingluck said the use of power under Section 44 to demand civil compensation could violate the judicial power as the case is still in the trial process in the court.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/yingluck-voices-strong-opposition-using-section-44-demand-civil-compensation/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-09

[jcsmith]

Whatever you think about her responsibility or whether or not she should be paying anything, if they invoke Section 44 for this, there's going to be a lot of backlash. It would be the equivalent of bypassing the legal system to take money from someone else without oversight which would be the equivalent of theft in the eyes of many.

Edited September 9, 2016 by jcsmith

[ezzra]

In military ruled country, they can write their own check and write their own

laws, and S44 is no different, there were a many emergency decrees over the years

by this general/MP of the day, and as they say, the taller they're the harder they fall,

and Yingluck and her ilk knew it very well when they took control, that one day

she'll might find herself on the receiving end... and there she is.....

Edited September 9, 2016 by ezzra

[craigt3365]

21 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Whatever you think about her responsibility or whether or not she should be paying anything, if they invoke Section 44 for this, there's going to be a lot of backlash. It would be the equivalent of bypassing the legal system to take money from someone else without oversight which would be the equivalent of theft in the eyes of many.

There have been many court proceedings already.  Lots of information has been gathered.  I hear what you are saying, but without S44, it might be 20 years before justice is served.  like in the Sondhi case.  If she's not guilty, then she has nothing to worry about.

[Cuchulainn]

BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Ms Yingluck Shinawatra insisted on her strong opposition to an attempt to propose the prime minister invoke Section 44 of the interim constitution to demand compensation from politicians and government officials responsible for causing immense damage to the state on the rice pledging scheme.

 

Better start shitting yourself now. Let's hope you have to pay back every satang personally.

[robblok]

It was a vote buying scheme.. world bank and other international organisations warned her it would cost money.. PTP said it wont cost money and we wont put it in the central budget (like it should be).. losses were shown.. but not put in the central budget (where subsidies are put so its not a subsidie). That is gross negligence when you know something is making a loss and costs money but you don't account it in the budget. The costs were around same as the health budget.. just imagine forgetting an amount like that in the budget.

 

Only reason why is because then they would not have money to spend on the other vote buying policies so she is guilty. And the money should be taken back from her. Also negligent because she was the one responsible but was never at the meetings. 

 

Wow.. just imagine the reds would never recover if she has to pay this because then there wont be any budget to finance elections and bribes again. Can only hope she is held accountable. 

[halloween]

Well she would, wouldn't she?   (apologies to M R-D)

 

I'm sure Yingluk would like this matter to be delayed ad infinitum, or at least until SoL applies.

Edited September 9, 2016 by halloween

[halloween]

6 minutes ago, sharecropper said:

 

How does that work for gross, uninvestigated and whitewashed military corruption?

 

Why should a country's politically dispossessed and hostaged people accept such a one-sided metering out of justice by unaccountable traitors and criminals?

OTOH why should a government be allowed to squander the common wealth on ill-conceived vote-buying bribe, lie about its failure and refuse to take steps to reduce/limit the incurred losses?

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, sharecropper said:

 

How does that work for gross, uninvestigated and whitewashed military corruption?

 

Why should a country's politically dispossessed and hostaged people accept such a one-sided metering out of justice by unaccountable traitors and criminals?

Understood.  But at least a few criminals will be prosecuted.  Better than none.  Until Thailand completely reforms it's justice system, corruption will be widespread.

 

[craigt3365]

Just now, sharecropper said:

 

Because it was  democratically elected to allocate the nation's resources as it sees fit. If Thais don't like it, vote them out.

But of course we all know this has nothing to do with democracy - just a way to more and untouchable graft by those grubbily finger-pointing elsewhere.

Just because you were democratically elected doesn't mean you are allowed to break the law, and get away with it.  The public is not allowed to vote them out until the next election.  And even then, just more corrupt officials will be sworn in.  At least a message is being sent here.  Hopefully....

[worgeordie]

It might be the only way,to claw back any monies

that have been wilfully wasted,but I suspect they

will have been moving their liquid assets out of 

the country,making them pay,is the only way to

at least ,make future MP's,think before they do, anything like this again........maybe. 

regards worgeordie

Edited September 9, 2016 by worgeordie

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, sharecropper said:

 

Because it was  democratically elected to allocate the nation's resources as it sees fit. If Thais don't like it, vote them out.

But of course we all know this has nothing to do with democracy - just a way to more and untouchable graft by those grubbily finger-pointing elsewhere.

Being democratically elected does not remove the responsibility of due diligence. A government can put up any policy they like, but if it is failing in its objectives and/or the expense is far outweighing the benefit, the duty for responsible management must be applied.

The 3 stooges could have done a better job than Yingluk, who not only failed to act, she failed to attend meetings for which she assumed responsibility, and lied to the public about the policies (lack of) success.

[Thailand]

I wonder if there is ever a real elected goverment in the distant future would they be able to use section 44 to disband a large proportion of the military, you know, that part that serves no real purpose.

[derator01]

Please abide by forum rules and show respect to other members.    Especially this new rule:

 

 

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.

 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Whatever you think about her responsibility or whether or not she should be paying anything, if they invoke Section 44 for this, there's going to be a lot of backlash. It would be the equivalent of bypassing the legal system to take money from someone else without oversight which would be the equivalent of theft in the eyes of many.

 

"...the equivalent of bypassing the legal system to take money from someone else without oversight which would be the equivalent of theft in the eyes of many."

 

Ohhh the irony....

[robblok]

1 hour ago, sharecropper said:

 

Because it was  democratically elected to allocate the nation's resources as it sees fit. If Thais don't like it, vote them out.

But of course we all know this has nothing to do with democracy - just a way to more and untouchable graft by those grubbily finger-pointing elsewhere.

Democratic elected governments put their schemes in the central budget and dont forget to include a cost the size of the annual health budget. They don't keep things like that off the books. Also the person who is the one responsible for the program should be there at meetings..

 

This was a vote buying scheme.. costs loads of money but was not accounted in the central budget but wanted to hide it with the Chinese loans.  This is not something a democratically elected government could or should do. This is something a corrupt government with total disregard for open accounting would do

[ramrod711]

 Former prime minister Ms Yingluck Shinawatra insisted on her strong opposition to an attempt to propose the prime minister invoke Section 44 of the interim constitution to demand compensation from politicians and government officials responsible for causing immense damage to the state on the rice pledging scheme.

 

She and her Ministers repeatedly promised that the (plan, scheme, scam or outright theft, choose your own term) would be self funding. Then when it was obvious to the world that it wouldn't be, that farmers were calling for accountability and compensation, they invented fake government to government rice deals. When those were revealed to be fraudulent, they blamed it on the banks. Those nasty bankers refuse to dig us out of this mess by loaning us more money to squander. She may not be a crook, I don't know, she most certainly is incompetent and a liar.

[hansnl]

3 hours ago, sharecropper said:

 

How does that work for gross, uninvestigated and whitewashed military corruption?

 

Why should a country's politically dispossessed and hostaged people accept such a one-sided metering out of justice by unaccountable traitors and criminals?

Take care what you say.

 

[sweatalot]

Not surprised she says this

 

And the reason?

public wellbeing?

Fear of losing her prey?

 

[baboon]

31 minutes ago, hansnl said:

Take care what you say.

 

That rather confirms what he said was correct...

[baboon]

31 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

Not surprised she says this

 

And the reason?

public wellbeing?

Fear of losing her prey?

 

Witch hunt?

Might be found Not Guilty?

Pointless having courts in the first place?

[elgordo38]

A criminal division for political office holders really? Is there really a steady stream of political office holder offenders to feed the needs of such a place? Its good to see such an institution exists for when the next crop of "freshman" politicians come forth to test the waters. Maybe a guided tour of the place would be a good idea for any Thai's that has dreams of being a future politician. I wonder if they have a flogging room/dungeon in the basement. A lady dressed in leather whoa dere Hoss your getting carried away again. 

[Eric Loh]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

If she's not guilty, then she has nothing to worry about.

 

Conversely if she is guilty, why the rush and need for 44 which is absolute and no recourse. They fear the normal judiciary process or just simply an abuse of power. 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, ramrod711 said:

 Former prime minister Ms Yingluck Shinawatra insisted on her strong opposition to an attempt to propose the prime minister invoke Section 44 of the interim constitution to demand compensation from politicians and government officials responsible for causing immense damage to the state on the rice pledging scheme.

 

She and her Ministers repeatedly promised that the (plan, scheme, scam or outright theft, choose your own term) would be self funding. Then when it was obvious to the world that it wouldn't be, that farmers were calling for accountability and compensation, they invented fake government to government rice deals. When those were revealed to be fraudulent, they blamed it on the banks. Those nasty bankers refuse to dig us out of this mess by loaning us more money to squander. She may not be a crook, I don't know, she most certainly is incompetent and a liar.

 

IMHO I don't really think that Yingluck made anything out of this at all. What I do think is that she was put in as PM by her brother, did as she was asked/told to do, was guided by her ministers who were told to keep her out of the limelight and then knowledge of what went on with the ultimate fall back position as the person at the top whose responsibility it became.

 

Thaksin can be blamed if you will but he is not in the country and his sister isn't the first one in the family to be pushed under a bus.

 

Personally I feel sorry for her because she was out of her depth from day 1 and most probably cut out of what really went on so that if it all fell apart as it has she could rely on the I know nothing about anything defence.

[maoro2013]

6 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Whatever you think about her responsibility or whether or not she should be paying anything, if they invoke Section 44 for this, there's going to be a lot of backlash. It would be the equivalent of bypassing the legal system to take money from someone else without oversight which would be the equivalent of theft in the eyes of many.

The military are not conforming with anything to do with judicial procedure, just forget about it. Will, if S44 be invoked, cause a lot of backlash? It has already been used numerous times and how would the backlash occur? haven't seen too much backlash yet.

[jcsmith]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

There have been many court proceedings already.  Lots of information has been gathered.  I hear what you are saying, but without S44, it might be 20 years before justice is served.  like in the Sondhi case.  If she's not guilty, then she has nothing to worry about.

 

And they need to let the court proceedings play out and have a fair trial. Otherwise it will only look like a Witch Hunt and an unelected government imposing rules that they make to take money that they may not be entitled to.

 

Will, if S44 be invoked, cause a lot of backlash? It has already been used numerous times and how would the backlash occur? haven't seen too much backlash yet.

 

What exactly are you wanting to see? People fighting in the street? That would be pretty one sided considering the people who are doing wrong in this case are the military themselves. Internationally though it would be another black eye for this regime. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by jcsmith

[dominique355]

There have been many court proceedings already.  Lots of information has been gathered.  I hear what you are saying, but without S44, it might be 20 years before justice is served.  like in the Sondhi case.  If she's not guilty, then she has nothing to worry about.

If she is innocent she has nothing to fear? Are those who apply Sec. 44 infallible?

I thought only the Pope is infallible but he is certainly more humble especially when taking revenge on his political opponents.

[phantomfiddler]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

It was a vote buying scheme.. world bank and other international organisations warned her it would cost money.. PTP said it wont cost money and we wont put it in the central budget (like it should be).. losses were shown.. but not put in the central budget (where subsidies are put so its not a subsidie). That is gross negligence when you know something is making a loss and costs money but you don't account it in the budget. The costs were around same as the health budget.. just imagine forgetting an amount like that in the budget.

 

Only reason why is because then they would not have money to spend on the other vote buying policies so she is guilty. And the money should be taken back from her. Also negligent because she was the one responsible but was never at the meetings. 

 

Wow.. just imagine the reds would never recover if she has to pay this because then there wont be any budget to finance elections and bribes again. Can only hope she is held accountable. 

 

Give her bail to the amount of the losses, and let,s see how big bruv turns out   "Well, I really like you, Sis, but not that much" !

[Remus1830]

Rightly or wrongly she should not be made to pay this money or in the future no political will try to make any changes increase it goes wrong and they are held personally responsible. How many business enterprise's have been affected by the two coups with huge losses and bankruptcies .The costs of this is far greater overall to the economy investor confidence etc but no one can be held resposible because they wear army uniforms. This is a pure witch hunt to ensure that a certain family do not get back in power even though they have a majority following. Dont know the solution here but a witch hunt is not going to help matters. 

[halloween]

23 minutes ago, Remus1830 said:

Rightly or wrongly she should not be made to pay this money or in the future no political will try to make any changes increase it goes wrong and they are held personally responsible. How many business enterprise's have been affected by the two coups with huge losses and bankruptcies .The costs of this is far greater overall to the economy investor confidence etc but no one can be held resposible because they wear army uniforms. This is a pure witch hunt to ensure that a certain family do not get back in power even though they have a majority following. Dont know the solution here but a witch hunt is not going to help matters. 

How are businesses affected by government policy a responsibility of any or all members of a government?

OTOH they are directly responsible for losses TO THE STATE, not so much for causing a loss, but for failing to manage and minimise losses. They have a duty to the people of Thailand to diligently manage the nation's wealth. Ignoring mounting losses, failing to minimise loss, and even worse LYING ABOUT IT TO THE PUBLIC is not only dereliction, it is malfeasance.