Legal doubts over defence for Yingluck

[Eric Loh]

10 hours ago, greenchair said:

Sure she should. As long as every past politician and every future politician will be forced to pay some of  the cost,for every government scheme that has corruption and lost or loses money . Such as the rubber scheme, the rajaphat project, the land encroachment fiasco, that every government official knew about for decades.the corruption in the education department, corruption in almost every major construction project ever initiated, I could go on but will run out of ink. 

Let's be fair shall we ☺☺☺

 

 

I like your argument especially your reference to Rajaphat. So will. Prayut be held responsible and pay for the alleged corruption of the Rajaphat project, his brother son and sister-in-law and Prawit lavish trip? and that may be only the tip of the iceberg of military corruptions. 

 

 

 

[Grubster]

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

IMHO there is a case that he should have been properly investigated on this point.

 

The fact that he wasn't cannot be used to say other leaders should not be investigated in regard to claims of massive criminal dereliction of their duty. 

Criminal dereliction of duty would have to be proven with intent, otherwise it is only dereliction of duty which may hurt the country but wasn't intentional. Are you happy that the new government that is pursuing this matter so vigorously has given themselves total immunity for any crimes they may commit. All I was saying in my original post is that I think the new PM would help his popularity amongst the people if he pardoned her and moved forward.  The old saying goes " let a sleeping dog lye ". Red shirts being the sleeping dog.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

 

I like your argument especially your reference to Rajaphat. So will. Prayut be held responsible and pay for the alleged corruption of the Rajaphat project, his brother son and sister-in-law and Prawit lavish trip? and that may be only the tip of the iceberg of military corruptions. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, imagine the corruption that's going to go on in the trillion baht infrastructure projects. 

Dozens and dozens of cases of corruption, known but not stopped by every government past and present. Thailand would be taking itself to court for the next thousand years. 

[Kiwiken]

12 hours ago, tbthailand said:

No, she should not pay. And no politician should have to pay for costs of a government program just because the government that follows them hates the idea. In the USA, in Europe and throughout Asia, there are agricultural subsidy programs like this rice program. Does any other country change governments and then go after the previous PM for the bill? Of course not, that would be stupid. 

 

And it is stupid in this case too, but then we have clowns behind the wheel of the car... 

 

PS: just so that the somewhat dim junta-huggers get it, let me be clear.  Yes, corruption should be rooted out and people involved charged appropriately and put on trial.  But that is not what is going on here.... 

Correct about subsidies New Zealand had subsidised minimum prices for Agriculture through the 70's and a fixed currency. The result it was claimed there were 70  million sheep so bigger subsidies paid to Farmers. And Farmers were encouraged to be inefficient. The fixed currency plus smp's almost Bankrupted the Country. Since they have gone Farmers are amongst the most efficient in the World getting no Government handouts.True reporting reveals sheep numbers at 30-35 million and cattle 15 million. Our floating currency is valued based on a basket of currencies and is more stable. NZ's economy is still growing. 

What Thailand needs is a Transparent Government something no one is pushing. This is how you begin to remove corruption. If you can't hide what you are doing you must justify it. That is a major step to Democracy. One Day I pray Thailand seizes upon this and it spreads to infect all of Asia. Because that is when the Tigers will return and roar. IMO.

[brucec64]

12 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Ludicrous rebuttal suggesting that his view on deliberate graft being punished and answerable for as an example makes him corrupt.

 

Not so ludicrous if you have followed and managed to understand the thread.

 

The corruption stems from the support of corrupt means to "punish" graft, and the argument was made in many posts that rule of law is more important than any single act of corruption.

 

Try to keep up...

[Dagnabbit]

No, she should not pay. And no politician should have to pay for costs of a government program just because the government that follows them hates the idea. In the USA, in Europe and throughout Asia, there are agricultural subsidy programs like this rice program. Does any other country change governments and then go after the previous PM for the bill? Of course not, that would be stupid. 
 
And it is stupid in this case too, but then we have clowns behind the wheel of the car... 
 
PS: just so that the somewhat dim junta-huggers get it, let me be clear.  Yes, corruption should be rooted out and people involved charged appropriately and put on trial.  But that is not what is going on here.... 

Of course politicians should be forced to pay when they embezzle taxpayer money.

People worked their asses off for that money. It is not government money but the people's money.

Politicians absolutely should be held account for both waste and theft of the people's money.

Only then will they stop pissing it up the wall and/or pilfering it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brucec64]

2 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

Of course politicians should be forced to pay when they embezzle taxpayer money.

People worked their asses off for that money. It is not government money but the people's money.

Politicians absolutely should be held account for both waste and theft of the people's money.

Only then will they stop pissing it up the wall and/or pilfering it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I agree that penalties should be imposed for embezzlement.

 

But, do you think they should be penalized prior to any conviction? Because that is what is happening in this case. Penalties have been applied prior to any convictions - (criminal or civil) - in a court of law.

[Dagnabbit]

 
I agree that penalties should be imposed for embezzlement.
 
But, do you think they should be penalized prior to any conviction? Because that is what is happening in this case. Penalties have been applied prior to any convictions - (criminal or civil) - in a court of law.

In corruption cases, assets should be seized before conviction lest they disappear before the verdict, the appeal and then the supreme court decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brucec64]

Just now, Dagnabbit said:

 

In corruption cases, assets should be seized before conviction lest they disappear before the verdict, the appeal and then the supreme court decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I agree, It is common practice to freeze assets prior to the judicial process. Once the process is complete, assets are either seized or returned, depending on the penalty imposed.

 

But there is an important distinction in this case. Assets have been seized, and the penalty imposed, and there has been no judicial process. No verdict at all, just an administrative declaration, which, incidentally, no one will sign because of the future repercussions of this very dodgy act.

 

The issue here is that the judicial process is being bypassed, and that is the corruption of the rule of law.

[Dagnabbit]

 
I agree, It is common practice to freeze assets prior to the judicial process. Once the process is complete, assets are either seized or returned, depending on the penalty imposed.
 
But there is an important distinction in this case. Assets have been seized, and the penalty imposed, and there has been no judicial process. No verdict at all, just an administrative declaration, which, incidentally, no one will sign because of the future repercussions of this very dodgy act.
 
The issue here is that the judicial process is being bypassed, and that is the corruption of the rule of law.

Great isn't it?

From the moment she agreed to help her brother 'game' the electoral process by agreeing to be his proxy, her card was marked.

Not a single Thai citizen ever really believed she was in charge. Not those that voted for her nor those that voted against. Everybody knew her brother pulled the strings.

As they tried to game the system, so has the system gamed them back.

Or did you believe she was really in charge? That she was calling the shots and not her brother?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, Grubster said:

 The old saying goes " let a sleeping dog lye ". Red shirts being the sleeping dog.

 

In other words your saying:  'please don't upset the red shirts'.

 

You and many others continue to proclaim text book democracy but now you want to ignore and protect a major dangerous factor / force which by ignoring the pillars of democracy, just one of them being 'equal application of the law'.

 

Which way do you want it?

 

Now stand by for the diversion...

[Grubster]

7 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

In other words your saying:  'please don't upset the red shirts'.

 

You and many others continue to proclaim text book democracy but now you want to ignore and protect a major dangerous factor / force which by ignoring the pillars of democracy, just one of them being 'equal application of the law'.

 

Which way do you want it?

 

Now stand by for the diversion...

Do you have any idea how incoherent you are. My god man take a pill and wake up.

[halloween]

23 hours ago, tbthailand said:

No, she should not pay. And no politician should have to pay for costs of a government program just because the government that follows them hates the idea. In the USA, in Europe and throughout Asia, there are agricultural subsidy programs like this rice program. Does any other country change governments and then go after the previous PM for the bill? Of course not, that would be stupid. 

 

And it is stupid in this case too, but then we have clowns behind the wheel of the car... 

 

PS: just so that the somewhat dim junta-huggers get it, let me be clear.  Yes, corruption should be rooted out and people involved charged appropriately and put on trial.  But that is not what is going on here.... 

That would be stupid? Stupid would be believing "In the USA, in Europe and throughout Asia, there are agricultural subsidy programs like this rice program."

Why don't you cough up a few examples, those most "like" the rice scam, for use to compare and contrast?

[scorecard]

16 hours ago, Grubster said:

 The old saying goes " let a sleeping dog lye ". Red shirts being the sleeping dog.

 

I reword my comment:

 

In other words your saying:  'please don't upset the red shirts'. Why would that be?

 

You and many others continue to proclaim you want text book democracy but now you want to ignore textbook democracy and especially and selectively ignore one of the main pillars of democracy,  'equal application of the law'.

 

Which way do you want it?

 

Now stand by for the diversion...

[candide]

21 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

I reword my comment:

 

In other words your saying:  'please don't upset the red shirts'. Why would that be?

 

You and many others continue to proclaim you want text book democracy but now you want to ignore textbook democracy and especially and selectively ignore one of the main pillars of democracy,  'equal application of the law'.

 

Which way do you want it?

 

Now stand by for the diversion...

Now you advocate for "equal application of the law"? In case it could be considered as application of the law (without any judicial process as mentioned by other posters), has it or will it be applied equally? Anyone convicted before for implementing inefficient policies? Any chance of having the law equally applied to the current bunch, that enthusiastically fines its political opponents, while granting itself full amnesty for any decision made? 

[Rorri]

On 10/10/2016 at 9:25 AM, halloween said:

"The clear difference is the rice-pledging scheme was graft-related."

Known to be a hotbed of corruption from its early inception, the scam went ahead without change. So why should the PM who used it to buy her way to office be forced to pay some of the costs?

 

BTW I doubt Noppadon Laothong will try the cake-box bribe after his namesake was jailed for it.

I can't think of one country that holds a government to account, except by elections. One would think that cha cha will also be held accountable,  except he has made himself, and his cronies,  "untouchable."

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Rorri said:

I can't think of one country that holds a government to account, except by elections. One would think that cha cha will also be held accountable,  except he has made himself, and his cronies,  "untouchable."

You can't, but does that make it wrong? Why should elected officials have the right to waste taxpayers money on schemes that are obviously not going to work? More to the point, when the scheme turns out to be an abject failure and hugely expensive as predicted, why are those responsible for its inception not accountable if they refuse to act to curb the mounting losses?

Yingluk is not charged or fined with the inception of the rice scam, she is charged with failing to act to control her disastrous policy.

[Grubster]

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

I reword my comment:

 

In other words your saying:  'please don't upset the red shirts'. Why would that be?

 

You and many others continue to proclaim you want text book democracy but now you want to ignore textbook democracy and especially and selectively ignore one of the main pillars of democracy,  'equal application of the law'.

 

Which way do you want it?

 

Now stand by for the diversion...

I want the red shirts to be prosecuted for any " Crimes" they may have committed, and I want the current administration to be held to the letter of the law too. That cannot happen now that they have given themselves total immunity from all criminal or civil actions against them in the future.  Now come back.

[metisdead]

Off topic obfuscation posts about farming subsidies in other countries have been removed as well as the replies.

 

Posts commenting on moderation have been removed. 

[tbthailand]

9 hours ago, halloween said:

You can't, but does that make it wrong? Why should elected officials have the right to waste taxpayers money on schemes that are obviously not going to work? More to the point, when the scheme turns out to be an abject failure and hugely expensive as predicted, why are those responsible for its inception not accountable if they refuse to act to curb the mounting losses?

Yingluk is not charged or fined with the inception of the rice scam, she is charged with failing to act to control her disastrous policy.

you are still just grasping at straws, and your position is not that government officials should be accountable, because of course they should be. Your position, and the position the junta is trying to enforce in this case,  is that government officials are personally, financially liable for government policies. And that is a completely crazy position to take. 

[scorecard]

16 hours ago, candide said:

Now you advocate for "equal application of the law"? In case it could be considered as application of the law (without any judicial process as mentioned by other posters), has it or will it be applied equally? Anyone convicted before for implementing inefficient policies? Any chance of having the law equally applied to the current bunch, that enthusiastically fines its political opponents, while granting itself full amnesty for any decision made? 

 

As I said , stand by for the diversions. Perhaps you could specifically comment on my specific comment.

[scorecard]

10 hours ago, Grubster said:

I want the red shirts to be prosecuted for any " Crimes" they may have committed, and I want the current administration to be held to the letter of the law too. That cannot happen now that they have given themselves total immunity from all criminal or civil actions against them in the future.  Now come back.

 

So why would you make a comment 'please don't upset the red shirts'.

[Grubster]

50 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

So why would you make a comment 'please don't upset the red shirts'.

I didn't make that comment, I said that I think it would be good for the new PMs popularity if he were to just pardon her and get it over with so Thailand can start to move forward, But if she is proven guilty of a "crime" she should suffer the consequences. They have not proven any crime as of yet and have only till November first to do so which would be impossible in any court system. November first the new law made by the new government says that the high government officials will have immunity from any and all criminal and civil charges against them, this is retroactive after that date to include past crimes of high government officials including her.

[Rorri]

On 14/10/2016 at 9:12 AM, halloween said:

You can't, but does that make it wrong? Why should elected officials have the right to waste taxpayers money on schemes that are obviously not going to work? More to the point, when the scheme turns out to be an abject failure and hugely expensive as predicted, why are those responsible for its inception not accountable if they refuse to act to curb the mounting losses?

Yingluk is not charged or fined with the inception of the rice scam, she is charged with failing to act to control her disastrous policy.

The reason is, if individuals are held accountable,  then you wouldn't  have anyone foolish enough to stand for government... very simple.

I will say, there should be some form of accountability, maybe them, their families etc, being banned from politics.

[halloween]

17 hours ago, Rorri said:

The reason is, if individuals are held accountable,  then you wouldn't  have anyone foolish enough to stand for government... very simple.

I will say, there should be some form of accountability, maybe them, their families etc, being banned from politics.

Interesting concept. My father makes a mistake and I get banned from politics. Hard to justify.

OTOH why would a person be held accountable if the have sound economic advice as to a policy's viability and took all reasonable measures to ensure success or limit losses? Or do you think Yingluk did that too?

[halloween]

On 14/10/2016 at 8:49 PM, tbthailand said:

you are still just grasping at straws, and your position is not that government officials should be accountable, because of course they should be. Your position, and the position the junta is trying to enforce in this case,  is that government officials are personally, financially liable for government policies. And that is a completely crazy position to take. 

Think what that could lead to! Policies that are subject to cost/benefit analysis, politicians taking all reasonable measures to ensure success or at least minimise losses, no policies whose sole aim is to buy votes. What would you call that, responsible government perhaps?

It might even discourage criminals whose sole aim is self-enrichment from entering government.

[sjaak327]

5 hours ago, halloween said:

Think what that could lead to! Policies that are subject to cost/benefit analysis, politicians taking all reasonable measures to ensure success or at least minimise losses, no policies whose sole aim is to buy votes. What would you call that, responsible government perhaps?

It might even discourage criminals whose sole aim is self-enrichment from entering government.

 

I am sure this policy's sole aim wasn't self enrichment (is there even one piece of evidence Yingluck personally benefitted from the scheme ? ) and it wasn't buying votes either.

 

Precious little policies the world over are based on a proper cost benefit analysis, why this suddenly is such a problem in Thailand beats me.

 

The case against Yingluck will be known the world over (and yes that includes the part of Thailand that is able to see through the <deleted>) as a political witch hunt. She had every right to propose and execute the policy, considering her government had 300 out of 500 seats. Her decision to continue with the scheme, even after huge loses were apparent is again a political decision that she was fully entitled to take.

 

Now I understand you support people who don't have any right to waste tax payers money, yet they do, the deficit they had run up in 6 months exceeded the total cost of the rice scheme, yet these criminals (and they quite clearly are criminals, they have broken a shitload of laws) will never stand trial, partly because they arranged themselves a nice little amnesty.

 

Good luck with trying to defend this witchunt, most people just have to laugh at people being this naieve.

 

Oh I forgot, funny how the junta's main example of reconciliation might actually be this court case !

Edited October 16, 2016 by sjaak327

[Smarter Than You]

Wow, so many topics closed for comments right now but it's still open season on bashing Yingluck.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, halloween said:

taking all reasonable measures to ensure success or at least minimise losses

As most government policies are socio-economic in nature, their predictability and tools for success depend upon unpredictable human (and sometimes inhuman) nature, complex social interactions and unknown factors that may reach global proportions (how often do we hear from the Prayut regime about global effects on Thai economic policy beyond Thailand's control?).

 

To make policy decisions using mathematical cost/benefit analyses will at best identify a range of effects between low-risk and high risk features. But even identification of risks may be subjected to a range of human bias (ie., ideology, age, wealth, gender, religion), intellect, emotions and acuity. Even goals of cost and/or benefit may vary over time by many factors. This is why success for government policies tends to result from an iterative process that uses policy experience to narrow the effects of adverse influences.

 

Even with the more numerically-based policies subjected to less ephemeral programs such as military weapons development and taxation, outcomes cannot be guaranteed and may result in unintended adverse results. 

 

So to say that reasonable measures will ensure success or minimize adverse results of a planned government policy is at best an unscientific hope.

 

 

[tbthailand]

9 hours ago, halloween said:

Think what that could lead to! Policies that are subject to cost/benefit analysis, politicians taking all reasonable measures to ensure success or at least minimise losses, no policies whose sole aim is to buy votes. What would you call that, responsible government perhaps?

It might even discourage criminals whose sole aim is self-enrichment from entering government.

you're blathering now... and you are not even addressing the issue that a policy of arbitrarily jailing leaders of the last government in fabricated charges is based on... it is patently anti-democractic.

 

A contemporary example can be seen in how Americans are abhorred at Trump's threatening to lock up his political rival should be be elected. That's a tactic worthy of Putin, ...

 

Naturally, Thailand is not currently under anything resembling a democracy at this time, so the policy that you support fits the Junta's agenda perfectly. 

 

I notice that you have transitioned to the "vote buying through policy" argument. A complete strawman argument, old, boring, and worn out.  The point of party platforms is to make it clear to the public which policies the government intends to pursue. The public then has the choice. In 2011, both parties proposed rice programs. Both proposed education programs. Both had a variety of economic and social proposals. Then the people voted. That is how it works, ... unless you are in a country with an out-of-control military. Which we are. And everyone can see the incompetence of the Generals on full display for 2 1/2 years.