Ms Yingluck pleads for review of her civil liability over rice pledging scheme loss

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, Grubster said:

Not knowing that others under you are corrupt would not fit the negligence required for that.

 

You must be joking. She appointed herself chair. Never bothered to attend meetings or show any interest in any warnings. But still claimed she alone was responsible, in charge and made the decisions.

 

In the UK, knowing others are corrupt and keeping quiet is a criminal offense. 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Farm subsidies certainly not a crime. Only this wasn't a subsidy. It wasn't part of the government budget. Accounts have never been presented.

It was touted as a self financing scheme - only it lost a vast amount of money of which no one is really sure how much or where it went. The self appointed chair never bothered attending any meetings, ignored external warnings and removed, threatened and intimidated internal ones. I don't think anything like that happened in the West.

Take a closer look at the EU if you don't think this type of thing goes on in the west.

[Gunna]

11 hours ago, Grubster said:

You must know more than I do, from what I have seen she has not been implicated in stealing any rice or money from rice to date. Have I missed something? Farm subsidies have never been a crime in the west that I know of.

It was never a subsidy - that's a blatant lie that keeps being repeated by brainwashed imbicilles..

It was an off budget scheme that was promoted as self financing - that everybody ( except PTP ) told her that it wouldn't work

In reality it was scam using Thai public funds to buy the votes of the farmers so she could introduce the amnesty bill for her lying thieving brother.

It backfired when world rice price fell and she couldn't stop the scheme /scam for fear of losing the farmers support.

The result is most rice farmers are poorer than before the scam started - and many committed suicide and had to sell their farms due to increased debts.

The only people that made money were corrupt government officials, warehouse owners, rice millers, rice exporters,  rice transport companies, absentee landlords  and a few large scale rice farmers . 

 

[Gunna]

11 hours ago, Grubster said:

You must know more than I do, from what I have seen she has not been implicated in stealing any rice or money from rice to date. Have I missed something? Farm subsidies have never been a crime in the west that I know of.

It was never a subsidy - that's a blatant lie that keeps being repeated by brainwashed imbicilles..

It was an off budget scheme that was promoted as self financing - that everybody ( except PTP ) told her that it wouldn't work

In reality it was scam using Thai public funds to buy the votes of the farmers so she could introduce the amnesty bill for her lying thieving brother.

It backfired when world rice price fell and she couldn't stop the scheme /scam for fear of losing the farmers support.

The result is most rice farmers are poorer than before the scam started - and many committed suicide and had to sell their farms due to increased debts.

The only people that made money were corrupt government officials, warehouse owners, rice millers, rice exporters,  rice transport companies, absentee landlords  and a few large scale rice farmers . 

 

[JAG]

9 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Gordon Bennett! You really believe that. 

 

She must be a very accomplished actress indeed. All that smiling, frowning or crying as brother commands. And all that acting dumb, ludicrous unintelligible TV interviews and conference presentations, and inability to debate in parliament - all an act and she's really as sharp as a razor, ambitious and just waiting her opportunity. 

If you say so. 

But then my starting point is not an all embracing overarching obsessive hatred of the Shinawatra family,  coupled with an obvious (and recently again expressed) contempt for the views of the Thai electorate and a casual disregard for their civil and political rights and freedoms. 

 

Not being thus constrained allows one to think more widely. You should try it sometimes! 

Edited September 30, 2016 by JAG

[jamesbrock]

9 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

A witch hunt is where people are randomly unjustly accused of something. She appointed herself chair of this scheme which her brother and his government touted as self financing and insisted it was not a subsidy included in the budget and subject to parliament's scrutiny. 

 

As Chair did she attend any meetings?

Did she act on the warnings from the World Bank, Bloomberg or IMF?

Did she act positively on warnings from internal people?

Did she ensure allegations of corruption and fraud in the scheme were thoroughly investigated and that procedures were robust?

Did she ensure management accounts were produced?

Did she lie about G2G deals which she allegedly negotiated?

Did she lie to farmers when vowing to pay them "next week"?

Did she say she and she alone was in charge?

 

Now ask yourself why?  Her brother thought he could wangle his Amnesty and cover her as well, get back free and active and get his hands on the 2.2 trillion baht loan. Then all of this could have been swept under the carpet and plenty of dosh to make sure the family stayed in power for generations. All came unstuck because he misjudged the Thai peoples reaction to his crude whitewash attempt.

 

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to the scheme being an outright disaster - and YL being ultimately responsible.

 

I accept and agree with DPM Wissanu that "the guilt wasn't caused by corruption, but by dereliction of duty."

 

What I do disagree with is the completely unprecedented move of seizing her personal assets, making responsible as a private citizen for actions she undertook as PM. Has this happened in any country (outside of banana republics) in the world, ever?

 

Why is this any different to the thousands of documented, but forgotten, cases of political office holders, state bureaucrats, or commissioned military officers losing billions through dereliction of duty? There is zero difference, but—as JAG so accurately described it—the all embracing overarching obsessive hatred of the Shinawatra family shared by you and the general, a hatred that seems to cloud your otherwise reasonable outlook.

[jamesbrock]

9 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

You must be joking. She appointed herself chair. Never bothered to attend meetings or show any interest in any warnings. But still claimed she alone was responsible, in charge and made the decisions.

 

In the UK, knowing others are corrupt and keeping quiet is a criminal offense. 

 

She has not yet been found guilty of any criminal offence. She is charged with dereliction of duty causing damage (Criminal Code Section 157) and failure to perform her duty as a state official (Anti-Corruption Act 1999) for allegedly causing losses to the state.

 

9 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

I don't think what Thailand has or has not now has any bearing on Yingluck's gross negligence and complicity in being a puppet stooge for her brother. 

As she or her legal team have yet to offer one sentence in actual defense of the actual charges, or give her explanation, we wait with bated breath. Maybe she can explain why this isn't gross negligence.

 

Now you're just making things up! What do you think she and her legal team were doing in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions all last month? Just because you didn't see, or read about, her testimony, it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

8 hours ago, Gunna said:

It was never a subsidy - that's a blatant lie that keeps being repeated by brainwashed imbicilles..

It was an off budget scheme that was promoted as self financing - that everybody ( except PTP ) told her that it wouldn't work

In reality it was scam using Thai public funds to buy the votes of the farmers so she could introduce the amnesty bill for her lying thieving brother.

It backfired when world rice price fell and she couldn't stop the scheme /scam for fear of losing the farmers support.

The result is most rice farmers are poorer than before the scam started - and many committed suicide and had to sell their farms due to increased debts.

The only people that made money were corrupt government officials, warehouse owners, rice millers, rice exporters,  rice transport companies, absentee landlords  and a few large scale rice farmers . 

 

But not Yingluck. She is charged with dereliction of duty causing damage (Criminal Code Section 157) and failure to perform her duty as a state official (Anti-Corruption Act 1999) for allegedly causing losses to the state, not with any corruption charges in relation to this scheme.

 

Do you think if the junta had even a shred of evidence that she gained personally that they wouldn't be shouting it from the mountain tops?

 

If she is charged and found guilty of personally gaining through corrupt means, then by all means seize that what she stole.

[seedy]

Derogatory post Removed. Take the time to read the Pinned Topic at the head of the News Forums

[Eric Loh]

For better or for worse, the scheme brought about changes to the way rice trading was done. In the past it was the rice exporters, traders and mill owners who were in control of the rice trade. This scheme has brought the farmers and government to the forefront. For the first time farmers made a profit selling their rice. It will be hard for farmers to forget this sense of empowerment for a long time. 

[Eric Loh]

If the appeal goes to the Adminstrative Court, it will be very hard for the judge to craft a decision based on common law legal system without any precedent. There are also no precedents from other countries on this matter. I don't think this civil liability will fly and just a scare tactic by the junta. 

[louse1953]

On 29/09/2016 at 4:31 PM, Squeegee said:

 

Exactly how she dealt with Suthep's mob. That's why it fizzled out and forced the hand of their military buddies. She remains smarter than her political adversaries.

No.That was the Armies plan all along.Allow her to lose control of the country and they have to step in,and thank goodness they did.It was all about getting the criminal back in to the country with no jail time.That was never ever going to happen and never will.

[louse1953]

On 29/09/2016 at 10:34 PM, Grubster said:

Just take her out and hang her then. Are you happy Thailand has a dictator now?

Yes i am,because it is heaps better than before.I know he drones on a bit,but at least he tells you every Friday what the govt are up to.Yinluck wouldn't know if she was Arthur or Martha.

Edited October 1, 2016 by louse1953

[Chris Lawrence]

What may come out of this is Ms T could become Thailand's Aung San Suu Kyi. She is doing what her brother didn't do and still commands a lot of support. The more the General pushes this one the more he may distance himself from a lot of Thai's. His policies  serve the elite of Bangkok, but persecuting Yingluck in this way may make her a martyr or saint?  

[Ace of Pop]

I tapped the topic because I read it as Rice Pudding


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[halloween]

23 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

For better or for worse, the scheme brought about changes to the way rice trading was done. In the past it was the rice exporters, traders and mill owners who were in control of the rice trade. This scheme has brought the farmers and government to the forefront. For the first time farmers made a profit selling their rice. It will be hard for farmers to forget this sense of empowerment for a long time. 

And Siam Indica made a B900 million profit on ONE 300,000t rice deal, a company closely associated with the Shinawatras. It will hard for the taxpayers to forget the b3.3 billion loss they made on the same deal, even if they rejoice in the farmers' windfall.

[halloween]

On 30/09/2016 at 11:38 AM, jamesbrock said:

 

She has not yet been found guilty of any criminal offence. She is charged with dereliction of duty causing damage (Criminal Code Section 157) and failure to perform her duty as a state official (Anti-Corruption Act 1999) for allegedly causing losses to the state.

 

 

Now you're just making things up! What do you think she and her legal team were doing in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions all last month? Just because you didn't see, or read about, her testimony, it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

 

But not Yingluck. She is charged with dereliction of duty causing damage (Criminal Code Section 157) and failure to perform her duty as a state official (Anti-Corruption Act 1999) for allegedly causing losses to the state, not with any corruption charges in relation to this scheme.

 

Do you think if the junta had even a shred of evidence that she gained personally that they wouldn't be shouting it from the mountain tops?

 

If she is charged and found guilty of personally gaining through corrupt means, then by all means seize that what she stole.

 

Responsibility for politicians for their management of the nation's wealth. What a novel concept!

[SaintLouisBlues]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Responsibility for politicians for their management of the nation's wealth. What a novel concept!

How is it different to company directors being personally liable for the management of the company? They're not. That's the whole point of limited liability. Politicians are stewards, not owners, just like company directors

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

How is it different to company directors being personally liable for the management of the company? They're not. That's the whole point of limited liability. Politicians are stewards, not owners, just like company directors

Company directors that commit crimes go to jail because they don't have the power to change the law, or vote themselves an amnesty.

BTW you are comparing two cases of the privileged avoiding personal responsibility. AFAIk both stink.

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, louse1953 said:

Yes i am,because it is heaps better than before.I know he drones on a bit,but at least he tells you every Friday what the govt are up to.Yinluck wouldn't know if she was Arthur or Martha.

Heaps better than before. In what way, I haven't noticed any improvements. The people up here in the NE seam to be much worse off.

[SaintLouisBlues]

12 minutes ago, halloween said:

Company directors that commit crimes go to jail because they don't have the power to change the law, or vote themselves an amnesty.

BTW you are comparing two cases of the privileged avoiding personal responsibility. AFAIk both stink.

It's known as democratic capitalism

[jamesbrock]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Responsibility for politicians for their management of the nation's wealth. What a novel concept!

 

If a public official having personal assets seized as penalty for losses (spending) in a public scheme had happened before at any time in history, in any country that had ever existed, then I'd agree that the general in more progressive than thought - but as it is—a globally, historically, unprecedented move targeting a member of one political faction—it's a long way off passing the sniff test.

[halloween]

2 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

If a public official having personal assets seized as penalty for losses (spending) in a public scheme had happened before at any time in history, in any country that had ever existed, then I'd agree that the general in more progressive than thought - but as it is—a globally, historically, unprecedented move targeting a member of one political faction—it's a long way off passing the sniff test.

I would like to see it instituted in Australia. But OTOH can you think of any Oz government implementing a scheme as monumentally flawed and wasteful as the rice scam?

[jamesbrock]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

I would like to see it instituted in Australia. But OTOH can you think of any Oz government implementing a scheme as monumentally flawed and wasteful as the rice scam?

 

Turnbull's butchering of the NBN springs immediately to mind...

[halloween]

9 minutes ago, jamesbrock said:

 

Turnbull's butchering of the NBN springs immediately to mind...

To be proportional, with Oz to Thai GDP around 3 to 1, the loss would have to be around US$60 billion, or AU$80 billion. With SFA to show for it.

[jamesbrock]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

To be proportional, with Oz to Thai GDP around 3 to 1, the loss would have to be around US$60 billion, or AU$80 billion. With SFA to show for it.

 

At the rate it's going, and by the time Turnbull's fraudband is replaced with the network we should have, it will cost considerably more than $80 billion.

 

Labor's original plan was to connect an optical fibre network to just about every home and business in the country—Fibre to the Home (FTTH)—creating a superfast, high capacity network that would future-proof broadband in Australia for many years to come.

 

But to "save on costs," the Liberals decided many homes and businesses will be connected to the network via nodes that connect the fibre to the already obsolete century-old copper telephone wires (Fibre to the Node (FTTN), which will considerably slow down speeds.

 

In 2013 Turnbull labelled his version on the NBN as ‘fast, affordable, sooner’, but every assumption which he used to justify his shift from Labor’s superior fibre-based network to his inferior multi-technology mix has been proven wrong.

 

Wrong on cost, wrong on timing, wrong on technology.

 

Turnbull promised he could build a second rate copper NBN for $29.5b but it is now costing up to $54b - $14 billion more than the full FTTH.

 

The Liberals promised all Australians they would have access to minimum speeds on the NBN by 2016, but that timing has blown out to 2020. The NBN corporate plan released in August states that it will only be by June next year that nearly half of Australia will even be able to order a FTTN service.

 

Under Malcolm Turnbull’s watch — Australia’s internet speeds dropped from 30th in the world to 60th.

 

Even before it is complete, there are plans to replace it with - you guessed it - a full FTTH network.

 

If there was ever a monumentally flawed wasteful scheme - this is it. 

 

The question is: who should have their personal assets seized to pay for the losses to the state - Abbott or Turnbull?

[jayboy]

I would like to see it instituted in Australia. But OTOH can you think of any Oz government implementing a scheme as monumentally flawed and wasteful as the rice scam?

Your crazed obsession with the Shinawatras has blinded you to the point being made, namely the unprecedented suggestion that democratically elected politicians should be made personally responsible for financial losses of their programmes.

If this was standard policy there would be no large infrastructure schemes, no NHS, no redistributive policies to help the less privileged - because politicians would never want to implement risk based programmes.

Everybody knows that this is a politically motivated witch hunt designed to crush Thaksin's influence once and for all.Even those driving the campaign know that.

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 minutes ago, jamesbrock said:

The question is: who should have their personal assets seized to pay for the losses to the state - Abbott or Turnbull?

Yingluck?

[halloween]

Just now, jayboy said:

 

 

Your crazed obsession with the Shinawatras has blinded you to the point being made, namely the unprecedented suggestion that democratically elected politicians should be made personally responsible for financial losses of their programmes.

If this was standard policy there would be no large infrastructure schemes, no NHS, no redistributive policies to help the less privileged - because politicians would never want to implement risk based programmes.

Everybody knows that this is a politically motivated witch hunt designed to crush Thaksin's influence once and for all.Even those driving the campaign know that.

if this was an infrastructure project, there would be something to show for it. If it distrubutive, why did those nominated to receive funds get very little?

It was a scam to buy votes, and for the Shinawatras to enrich themselves at the expense of the Thai people. My so called "crazed obsession"hatred of those filthy rich exploiting there countrymen who have very little seems much more normal that condoning the excesses of blatant criminals.

[Baerboxer]

On 9/30/2016 at 7:18 AM, JAG said:

But then my starting point is not an all embracing overarching obsessive hatred of the Shinawatra family,  coupled with an obvious (and recently again expressed) contempt for the views of the Thai electorate and a casual disregard for their civil and political rights and freedoms. 

 

Not being thus constrained allows one to think more widely. You should try it sometimes! 

 

Not only the Shins, I dislike all lying, cheating, corrupt politicians. I certainly don't pretend or be fooled into believing Yingluck was ever allowed to make any decisions of any relevance other than what her brother instructed. 

 

Now, show me where I show contempt for the electorate. 

 

You should try taking off your blinkers - and see the Shins for what they are. Still your assertions regarding the keen intellect and shrewd political ability of Ms. Yingluck demonstrate your analytical ability enough.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

 

 

Your crazed obsession with the Shinawatras has blinded you to the point being made, namely the unprecedented suggestion that democratically elected politicians should be made personally responsible for financial losses of their programmes.

If this was standard policy there would be no large infrastructure schemes, no NHS, no redistributive policies to help the less privileged - because politicians would never want to implement risk based programmes.

Everybody knows that this is a politically motivated witch hunt designed to crush Thaksin's influence once and for all.Even those driving the campaign know that.

 

 

 

Are infrastructure schemes, NHS, and subsidy schemes usually touted as self financing, kept off budget, devoid of all scrutiny, accounts kept secret and controlled by meetings where the self appointed chair fails to ever turn up to chair the meetings?

 

Do democratically elected politicians normally break parliamentary rules and issue statements that they won't respect court rulings or abide by the law as it stands?

 

This, and other issues do appear to be used to remove the Shin influence on politics and the way they use that influence. But they created all the issues themselves which others can now turn against them.

 

Yinluck, her legal team and PR team have yet to make any comments that could be considered a defense, explanation or mitigation of the actual negligence charges. Just the usual crap about how all unfair, why me, others did/do it, and challenges on the process. Will she ever actually offer an explanation? Course not.