Yingluck stands trial for dereliction of duty on rice scheme in Supreme Court today

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

Ironic that what you post is close to a duplication of the broad scenario in the paymasters hayday of building a dictatorship.

 

Reporters and journalists afraid to ask question, afraid to write analysis, afraid they would be sued into bankruptcy,  paymaster had two batttons;  'yes; and 'no' to indicate whether he would answer questions.

 

And let's not forget the infamous case where a foreign journalist asked him an awkward question, paymasters verbal response  was 'idiot scum' and the journalist was deported the next day.  

 

How does all of that work for you in regard to human rights?

 

I have no clue what you are talking about lol.

[Enzian]

Anyone in her position should have assumed that, this being Thailand, underlings would move the rice into warehouses and then take random lots of it out the back door at night and hope nobody noticed for months. Part of her job would be to avoid that, and it appears she paid no attention. There were other variations too of course. But she's playing like there are no facts, just politics. It may be too late for that approach.

[candide]

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Ironic that what you post is close to a duplication of the broad scenario in the paymasters hayday of building a dictatorship.

 

Reporters and journalists afraid to ask question, afraid to write analysis, afraid they would be sued into bankruptcy,  paymaster had two batttons;  'yes; and 'no' to indicate whether he would answer questions.

 

And let's not forget the infamous case where a foreign journalist asked him an awkward question, paymasters verbal response  was 'idiot scum' and the journalist was deported the next day.  

 

How does all of that work for you in regard to human rights?

You're not trying to explain us that the human right situation was the same before the coup as it is now after the coup, are you? :)

[greenchair]

Isn't it great that there is one politician left that we can criticize without being thrown in jail or face the computer crimes act for stirring up trouble. Isn't it great that there is one politician left that the public have the right to investigate through a court of law. 

[Eric Loh]

15 hours ago, halloween said:

Really, the rice pledging scheme was a fantastic success - there was literally piles of money waiting to pay those farmers. That they hadn't been paid for months is just an anti-democratic lie.

Any more red pipe dreams Eric?

 

Whether it is a fantastic  success or not, you will have to judge that against the current rice subsidies scheme. The pile of money that the junta will dispense to the farmers to the tune of 127 B Baht and counting and not including the rubber subsidies will not come from earnings and profits. Any more yellow twist to this?

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎19‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 11:15 AM, Eric Loh said:

 

You cant handle facts if they hit you in your rear. 

Dec 2013 Parliment dissolved

Jan 2014 Farmers demand payment and threatened protest

Feb 2014 KrungThai and GSB agreed to lend BAAC a combined 1.4 B USD

Feb 2014 Suthep and his UNION allies threatened both banks which withdrew the loans giving excuse that they cant lend to caretaker government.

 

Your derogatory insults just expose your age when losing an argument.

The farmers weren't paid at least 6 months before they demanded payment and threatened protest. You don't start to threaten if you haven't been paid for a week. Get some reality sense

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

 

Whether it is a fantastic  success or not, you will have to judge that against the current rice subsidies scheme. The pile of money that the junta will dispense to the farmers to the tune of 127 B Baht and counting and not including the rubber subsidies will not come from earnings and profits. Any more yellow twist to this?

" The pile of money that the junta will dispense to the farmers to the tune of 127 B Baht and counting and not including the rubber subsidies will not come from earnings and profits. Any more yellow twist to this? "

 

And you conveniently again, repeat again, try to twist. As usual your totally off the topic of the thread.

 

Funds / help disbursed directly to farmers (including many more folks compared to the last mafias' approach) is a different subject to massive derelict mismanagement.

 

 

[greenchair]

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

" The pile of money that the junta will dispense to the farmers to the tune of 127 B Baht and counting and not including the rubber subsidies will not come from earnings and profits. Any more yellow twist to this? "

 

And you conveniently again, repeat again, try to twist. As usual your totally off the topic of the thread.

 

Funds / help disbursed directly to farmers (including many more folks compared to the last mafias' approach) is a different subject to massive derelict mismanagement.

 

 

 

Well, nobody will ever know if there is corruption, backhanders, or mismanagement in the current scheme, because any whiff of an investigation will result in AA.

[tomta]

14 hours ago, candide said:

You're not trying to explain us that the human right situation was the same before the coup as it is now after the coup, are you? :)

 

 

No it's a roundabout way of saying "But, but Thaksin..." So Two wrongs do make a right if Thaksin was one of the wrongs.

 

[Wilsonandson]

 
You can't just bury your head in the sand as people have their human rights trampled upon. The junta is completely unchecked. People can not speak their mind without fear of attitude adjustment. It's peaceful because the people with all the guns are setting the rules and everyone else has no choice but to abide by them and no way to change it.

We had a coup d'eat of course the people with guns are in charge. There is freedom of speech as long as you don't stir people up to protest on the streets. People can have a say in the rules that is called reform. When will we see democracy again, I hope in a years time and when Thailand gets democracy it will look and feel the same as it is now. Nothing changes really same same but different.

[billd766]

44 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

We had a coup d'eat of course the people with guns are in charge. There is freedom of speech as long as you don't stir people up to protest on the streets. People can have a say in the rules that is called reform. When will we see democracy again, I hope in a years time and when Thailand gets democracy it will look and feel the same as it is now. Nothing changes really same same but different.

 

Democracy is not just simply an election and a vote for any political party to form a government.

 

It is just the first of many steps that need to be taken over years and decades.

 

Things like honesty, transparency, trust, accountability, moral leadership, ethics and much much more.

 

Most of these things have been missing in just about every government civil and military, elected or coup since 1932. There has never been democracy in the western sense in Thailand yet though it will come eventually and painfully.

 

I am 72 and it wont be in my lifetime, my wife is 51 and it may possibly come in her lifetime. Our son as 12 and it WILL come in his lifetime although when that will be is debatable.

 

In the west democracy took hundreds of years to develop yet Thailand has only had 84 years so far.

[tukkytuktuk]

On 11/19/2016 at 9:11 PM, nottocus said:

Lock her up

And have her sell rice to the prisoners.

[halloween]

17 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

 

Whether it is a fantastic  success or not, you will have to judge that against the current rice subsidies scheme. The pile of money that the junta will dispense to the farmers to the tune of 127 B Baht and counting and not including the rubber subsidies will not come from earnings and profits. Any more yellow twist to this?

Yes let's compare the current and previous rice "subsidies", which is what you claim her scam was.

Possibly the best measure would be what percentage of each ends up in farmer's pockets.  Can you think of a better way to compare?

I suppose you would rather stay away from estimated cost compared to actual.

[sjaak327]

On ‎19‎-‎11‎-‎2016 at 1:02 PM, halloween said:

 I consider being voted in as PM a personal benefit. Can you honestly claim the electoral bribe contained in the scam (what it was, despite your denial) had no effect on the results?

You might also ask yourself why a policy known to be a failure AND corrupt was re-instated without alteration.

What you consider is inconsequential. The facts are that Yingluck's government had the support of 300 out of 500 mp's. All of those got there because the Thai electorate voted for them or their party.

 

the current lot is just as corrupt, actually more so, yet not a single member of the rubber stamp parliament called the NLA got there on behalf of the Thai electorate.

Edited November 21, 2016 by sjaak327

[sjaak327]

10 hours ago, halloween said:

Yes let's compare the current and previous rice "subsidies", which is what you claim her scam was.

Possibly the best measure would be what percentage of each ends up in farmer's pockets.  Can you think of a better way to compare?

I suppose you would rather stay away from estimated cost compared to actual.

I will make a little wager, it is going to be less. And that despite the fact that people like the constitutional court or the election idiots cannot stop payment on the premises of the government being in care taker status. Because the junta makes their own rules, or have the ability to bypass them at will.

 

None of the people involved will ever have to go through the same Yingluck is doing, as they received amnesty already.

 

I honestly cannot understand how someone openly supporting these criminals could even comment, how do you honestly believe anyone with half a brain would take you seriously...

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by sjaak327

[halloween]

On 21/11/2016 at 5:21 PM, sjaak327 said:

I will make a little wager, it is going to be less. And that despite the fact that people like the constitutional court or the election idiots cannot stop payment on the premises of the government being in care taker status. Because the junta makes their own rules, or have the ability to bypass them at will.

 

None of the people involved will ever have to go through the same Yingluck is doing, as they received amnesty already.

 

I honestly cannot understand how someone openly supporting these criminals could even comment, how do you honestly believe anyone with half a brain would take you seriously...

 

 

 

 

You honestly cannot understand.....but it's others with half a brain. Work on that.

 

What do you think will be less? How can a subsidy paid directly to farmers be a lower percentage then the waste of Yingluk's scam?

And what leads you to believe the current administration is a caretaker government? do you understand the term?

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, halloween said:

You honestly cannot understand.....but it's others with half a brain. Work on that.

 

What do you think will be less? How can a subsidy paid directly to farmers be a lower percentage then the waste of Yingluk's scam?

And what leads you to believe the current administration is a caretaker government? do you understand the term?

No obviously the care taker statement was a reference to the previous administration, the fact that you fail to realize that speaks volumes...

[halloween]

20 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

No obviously the care taker statement was a reference to the previous administration, the fact that you fail to realize that speaks volumes...

" And that despite the fact that people like the constitutional court or the election idiots cannot stop payment on the premises of the government being in care taker status. Because the junta makes their own rules, ..."

 

It seems my psychic powers failed me - I totally failed to grasp that you were referring, completely inaccurately with the word 'cannot', to the Yingluk government.

[sjaak327]

15 minutes ago, halloween said:

" And that despite the fact that people like the constitutional court or the election idiots cannot stop payment on the premises of the government being in care taker status. Because the junta makes their own rules, ..."

 

It seems my psychic powers failed me - I totally failed to grasp that you were referring, completely inaccurately with the word 'cannot', to the Yingluk government.

Do I really have to explain ? The Yingluck administration was prevented from paying the farmers by the constitutional court on the premises that borrowing additional money would burden the next administration (since the government was already in care taker mode) even though the commitment was engaged when the government had every right to do so.

 

The Junta wasn't prevented of course (they abolished the constitution after all) and could therefore pay the farmers, creating the false impression that the Yingluck administration refused to pay whilst in fact, the potential impartial constitutional court prevented them under dubious premises to say the least.

 

People that know how this country really work wouldn't need this explanation, they saw that one coming from a mile away !

 

And yes, the constitutional court cannot prevent payment of the current scheme, as the junta has the ability to over rule seemingly at will.

Edited November 22, 2016 by sjaak327

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Do I really have to explain ? The Yingluck administration was prevented from paying the farmers by the constitutional court on the premises that borrowing additional money would burden the next administration (since the government was already in care taker mode) even though the commitment was engaged when the government had every right to do so.

 

The Junta wasn't prevented of course (they abolished the constitution after all) and could therefore pay the farmers, creating the false impression that the Yingluck administration refused to pay whilst in fact, the potential impartial constitutional court prevented them under dubious premises to say the least.

 

People that know how this country really work wouldn't need this explanation, they saw that one coming from a mile away !

Oh, is that the red version of history? You do know that there were outstanding debts to farmers from well before the government went into caretaker mode, and that caretaker government being prohibited from borrowing is standard practise?

But why go down this sidetrack to avoid admitting a stupid mistake? Your statement " And that despite the fact that people like the constitutional court or the election idiots cannot stop payment on the premises of the government being in care taker status" clearly does NOT refer to Yingluk et al, which did have their payments stopped.

[sjaak327]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

Oh, is that the red version of history? You do know that there were outstanding debts to farmers from well before the government went into caretaker mode, and that caretaker government being prohibited from borrowing is standard practise?

But why go down this sidetrack to avoid admitting a stupid mistake? Your statement " And that despite the fact that people like the constitutional court or the election idiots cannot stop payment on the premises of the government being in care taker status" clearly does NOT refer to Yingluk et al, which did have their payments stopped.

There is nothing red about this, it has been published by all the mainstream media, unless you believe they are all red (your little world must be very simple indeed, there is red, yellow and absolutely nothing else right ?).

 

Standard practice or not, the commitment was engaged when they were not in care taker status, therefore the decision was suspect to say the least.

 

Now I also added that the constitutional court cannot stop payment on any premises, the care taker status is a direct reference to Yingluck's government who was prevented, as you've just confirmed. English might not be my first language, but I fail to see how you could tie the care taker status to the Junta, that was quite obviously a reference to Yingluck's government, no mistakes are being made here...

[halloween]

9 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

There is nothing red about this, it has been published by all the mainstream media, unless you believe they are all red (your little world must be very simple indeed, there is red, yellow and absolutely nothing else right ?).

 

Standard practice or not, the commitment was engaged when they were not in care taker status, therefore the decision was suspect to say the least.

 

Now I also added that the constitutional court cannot stop payment on any premises, the care taker status is a direct reference to Yingluck's government who was prevented, as you've just confirmed. English might not be my first language, but I fail to see how you could tie the care taker status to the Junta, that was quite obviously a reference to Yingluck's government, no mistakes are being made here...

My dear ESL friend, try to understand that the standard practice is actually law. While some believe that elected governments should be allowed to break the nation's laws at will, even in caretaker mode, others do not accept this. Even more so when the illegal act is to prop up a political party's popularity.

That the Yingluuk government had long-term unpaid debts is irrelevant. If they were so concerned, they should have made borrowings before voluntarily entering caretaker mode, but it was more politically convenient to ignore the problem and blame others.

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

My dear ESL friend, try to understand that the standard practice is actually law. While some believe that elected governments should be allowed to break the nation's laws at will, even in caretaker mode, others do not accept this. Even more so when the illegal act is to prop up a political party's popularity.

That the Yingluuk government had long-term unpaid debts is irrelevant. If they were so concerned, they should have made borrowings before voluntarily entering caretaker mode, but it was more politically convenient to ignore the problem and blame others.

Well, you seem to be ok with unelected governments, that got there by force, to actually abolish the law of the land and write their own ?

 

Yes that government did have long term unpaid debts, engaged whilst they were (legally I might add) in office. In many countries the world over, commitments that were done whilst the governement was not in care taker mode, are carried out even when they do become in care taker mode. As logically those decisions where executed under a valid mandate and should therefore be carried out.

 

New policies are logically not being considered (unless they are not controversial), policies devised and exectued whilst still in full mode are carried through. And in this case they should have been carried through, but as usual this was used as a political weapon, nothing more and nothing less.