Thailand braces itself for rice scandal ruling

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

55555. Good one Eric. First you better work out whose responsibility it is to stop corruption in office, but you just made a pretty good case for the RTA throwing her out on her corrupt Rs.

Still have your general uniform on? Blinkered beyond redemption. 

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Many also say that this is agenda filled political persecution of one side and the same broken law committed by the other side will never ever be convicted. Those cowards seize power and wrote themselves an amnesty to protect from prosecution and change the laws to put their cronies in power in all the enforcement agencies and the NLA. Those are the people who will never be punished and you support them.  

Yeah, life's a bitch innit? Her amnesty got thrown out as being just too self-servingly corrupt, and then the RTA threw her out before she could push it through the next parliament. Tough TIT.

[seajae]

15 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

That's a common response from the wilfully ignorant when they hit the brick wall that is reality.

no its the response when you have someone that has their head buried in the sand and refuses to accept the truth and is simply an apologist for every thing ptp, maybe if you could produce some factual arguments rather then the fake ones  you have been using. 

 

[idman]

I do feel sorry for Yinluck, she was nothing more than a patsy for her piece of garbage brother/father and his motives. She is going down and what happens next will be determined by the evil one in Dubai. If he urges his Red Shirt supporters to take to the streets and create anarchy and chaos then the General Premier has every right to use all means to protect the country. The way Thaksin has treated Yingluck is beyond the pale and it is he who should be shown the inside of a prison. Of course we know that will never happen.

Sent from my SM-T805 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[robblok]

58 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Many also say that this is agenda filled political persecution of one side and the same broken law committed by the other side will never ever be convicted. Those cowards seize power and wrote themselves an amnesty to protect from prosecution and change the laws to put their cronies in power in all the enforcement agencies and the NLA. Those are the people who will never be punished and you support them.  

Standard red side argument... not denying that corruption or dereliction of duty was done but saying other criminals did not get prosecuted so our criminals should not either. Its political... its political...  

 

Eric did YL go after ANY PTP corruption during their rule or just after the democrats with Tarit his DSI ..  It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot. 

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

Standard red side argument... not denying that corruption or dereliction of duty was done but saying other criminals did not get prosecuted so our criminals should not either. Its political... its political...  

 

Eric did YL go after ANY PTP corruption during their rule or just after the democrats with Tarit his DSI ..  It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot. 

Fact is Yingluck now face the court and asset seizure order while similar rice populist schemes from previous governments and the current lot will never see a day in court. Yes it's politics. If amount is the factor, the Strong THailand populist scheme was larger than the rice scheme and mired with corruptions. Has the scheme being investigated by the NACC? 

 

Tarit is not worth mentioning. He served Suthep well going after the red shirts and change his demeanor when serving Yingluck. 

 

If you can be more clear on corruptions that were overlooked during the PTP administration instead of a motherhood statement, perhaps we can have a constructive debate.

[canuckamuck]

Are their any other examples in history of a national leader having to personally pay for a failed national program?

It sure would help keep some of these mega projects under a tight watch. There would probably be a lot less enthusiasm to get elected though.

I say they keep this policy and see how the junta does when it's their turn. Oh right, they already wrote themselves a pass.

[robblok]

27 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Fact is Yingluck now face the court and asset seizure order while similar rice populist schemes from previous governments and the current lot will never see a day in court. Yes it's politics. If amount is the factor, the Strong THailand populist scheme was larger than the rice scheme and mired with corruptions. Has the scheme being investigated by the NACC? 

 

Tarit is not worth mentioning. He served Suthep well going after the red shirts and change his demeanor when serving Yingluck. 

 

If you can be more clear on corruptions that were overlooked during the PTP administration instead of a motherhood statement, perhaps we can have a constructive debate.

What has been overlooked.. how about her own MP's doing fake rice deals to make a killing when the rice that was never transported was sold back in the system. YL was informed about this by the opposition during her reign. Now do tell me why she did not do anything about it.. maybe because of her negligence.. oh she is on trial for that.... 

[halloween]

6 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Are their any other examples in history of a national leader having to personally pay for a failed national program?

It sure would help keep some of these mega projects under a tight watch. There would probably be a lot less enthusiasm to get elected though.

I say they keep this policy and see how the junta does when it's their turn. Oh right, they already wrote themselves a pass.

Correction, the amount is 20% of the losses from her negligence. If she had acted to curb the losses, she would have a defence. Instead, she tried to borrow more, off-budget, so that the program could continue. Nobody cares much if a policy goes wrong, but those elected have a duty of care to act to reduce the damage being incurred. Failure to do so is criminal negligence.

There might be a lot less enthusiasm from criminals in getting elected. If the policy is kept, when politicians are elected, there will be much more enthusiasm FOR DOING THEIR BLOODY JOB instead of gadding around the world, or getting pissed at international conferences, or running scams.

[ramrod711]

4 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

That's the very point of this article.

Millions will care, the question is how will they react.

 

"It will definitely be the most sensitive period politically since the 2014 coup."

Millions will care? I don't think so, perhaps 5 years ago, but most couldn't care less now. I live in a predominately red village, a few years ago Yingluck announced that she would be coming for a visit. She didn't show, after the village officials had erected tents, chairs and had speakers in place at the local OTOP center. Nobody cared, nobody complained, this in a village that has nothing in the way of entertainment. Get out of Bangkok once in a while.

[Eric Loh]

32 minutes ago, robblok said:

What has been overlooked.. how about her own MP's doing fake rice deals to make a killing when the rice that was never transported was sold back in the system. YL was informed about this by the opposition during her reign. Now do tell me why she did not do anything about it.. maybe because of her negligence.. oh she is on trial for that.... 

Yingluck didn't interfered in these investigation that happened in 2013 and 2012 respectively. Her minister even offered to help in the investigation. 

 

"Meanwhile, Deputy Commerce Minister Yanyong Puangrach said he would cooperate with the NACC, instructing the Department of Internal Trade, the Department of Foreign Trade, and the PWO to facilitate the NACC’s probe, providing the agency with whatever information it needed". (2013)

 

"The case was forwarded to the Attorney-General's Office which decided that the evidence had merit and filed a case against Mr Wattana and others in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions" (2012)

[Chris Lawrence]

24 minutes ago, halloween said:

Correction, the amount is 20% of the losses from her negligence. If she had acted to curb the losses, she would have a defence. Instead, she tried to borrow more, off-budget, so that the program could continue. Nobody cares much if a policy goes wrong, but those elected have a duty of care to act to reduce the damage being incurred. Failure to do so is criminal negligence.

There might be a lot less enthusiasm from criminals in getting elected. If the policy is kept, when politicians are elected, there will be much more enthusiasm FOR DOING THEIR BLOODY JOB instead of gadding around the world, or getting pissed at international conferences, or running scams.

Hall, u are quoted as saying that there are no figures for the rice scheme as records weren't kept. Now you say losses can be quantified at 20%. Please show the way you have arrived at this figure. 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

44 minutes ago, robblok said:

What has been overlooked.. how about her own MP's doing fake rice deals to make a killing when the rice that was never transported was sold back in the system. YL was informed about this by the opposition during her reign. Now do tell me why she did not do anything about it.. maybe because of her negligence.. oh she is on trial for that.... 

The fake rice deals and cross border smuggling was investigated by the NACC back in early 2013. YL was informed and didn't made any controversial remark regarding the investigation. Matter of fact, what ever happen to this investigation? I have not heard of any development by the NACC. Maybe lack of evidence and they kept quiet.

 

Much like what was reported by 2 of Thailand’s newspapers. 

" Matichon and Khao Sod, did an investigative report on the anti corruption unit, and found that there are 13 corruption charges, related to Abhisit’s Democrat Party, that have been lodge for years and years, and have went no where at the anti corruption unit. Mean while, both The Economist Magazine, and the iconic global political risk firm, IHS says the anti corruption unit, is involved in a “Judicial Coup” against Yingluck)".

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Hall, u are quoted as saying that there are no figures for the rice scheme as records weren't kept. Now you say losses can be quantified at 20%. Please show the way you have arrived at this figure. 

 

 

Trolling again CL?  Quite clearly I didn't "arrive at this figure" it is what was stated in the ruling against her. IMHO the figure is low by a factor of 4 or 5, but she's hardly likely to bring that up, is she.

 

Of course, if she had accurate accounting of the rice scam, it would go a long way to her defence, as the lack of accounting is negligence in of itself. But then she would have to show that she did something to stop/reduce the losses, and she did nothing of the sort. Big brother was making too much money to stop it.

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The fake rice deals and cross border smuggling was investigated by the NACC back in early 2013. YL was informed and didn't made any controversial remark regarding the investigation. Matter of fact, what ever happen to this investigation? I have not heard of any development by the NACC. Maybe lack of evidence and they kept quiet.

 

Much like what was reported by 2 of Thailand’s newspapers. 

" Matichon and Khao Sod, did an investigative report on the anti corruption unit, and found that there are 13 corruption charges, related to Abhisit’s Democrat Party, that have been lodge for years and years, and have went no where at the anti corruption unit. Mean while, both The Economist Magazine, and the iconic global political risk firm, IHS says the anti corruption unit, is involved in a “Judicial Coup” against Yingluck)".

Eric, your entire defence of the rice scam is either "Little Johnny did it too" or political persecution. Neither do anything to reduce the clear guilt of the offences for which she is charged.

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

Eric, your entire defence of the rice scam is either "Little Johnny did it too" or political persecution. Neither do anything to reduce the clear guilt of the offences for which she is charged.

Now we are getting somewhere. So you admit that little johnny did it too but not charged while one party get charged. All guilty but only one side get the full might of the law and a asset seizure before legal judgement. You have any other word beside political persecution?

[Chris Lawrence]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Standard red side argument... not denying that corruption or dereliction of duty was done but saying other criminals did not get prosecuted so our criminals should not either. Its political... its political...  

 

Eric did YL go after ANY PTP corruption during their rule or just after the democrats with Tarit his DSI ..  It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot. 

Rob, I know you are a numbers man. I don't know if you have a summary on the rice scheme losses? Have been searching to find how losses are or have been worked out. Can't see any independent document or report to verify the fact. It all seems to start a way back when the General ordered 44 to be carried out on Ms T. A lot of claims and counter claims but no 'proper audit'. if there is who by? Thanks Rob

[candide]

9 hours ago, ezzra said:

It's not uncommon to see ex PM's and presidents go to jail after they have

been found guilty of derelict of duty, corruptions and other crimes against

the country constitution, in this case, heads must roll to justify justice for this

monstrous blunder and cockup in the rice scheme, Yingluck will be affected,

how sever or how bad it's remain to be seen, meanwhile her brother sit over

seas trying to figure out how he help his sister after putting her in this

predicaments....

Ok, the rice scheme was not well designed and poorly implemented. Now as it not uncommon, can you give us a few examples of PMs or presidents convicted for implementing a scheme which was part of the political platform people voted for, and which has been voted in parliament (excluding corruption and other crimes as she is not accused of such crimes). I am eager to read your reply! 

[Chris Lawrence]

23 minutes ago, halloween said:

Trolling again CL?  Quite clearly I didn't "arrive at this figure" it is what was stated in the ruling against her. IMHO the figure is low by a factor of 4 or 5, but she's hardly likely to bring that up, is she.

 

Of course, if she had accurate accounting of the rice scam, it would go a long way to her defence, as the lack of accounting is negligence in of itself. But then she would have to show that she did something to stop/reduce the losses, and she did nothing of the sort. Big brother was making too much money to stop it.

Trolling basically means to inflame the situation.

 

But Hall u made the statement. That's not a flame. Its repeating something you wrote.

 

Now you bring out your statements that have no actual reference to how the calculations are done.

 

Hall again you said the loss is 20%. 2 days ago you said in a reply to my post that the figures cannot be proven as there were no receipts. That's  not a flame.

 

You must be able to show how this is arrived at to maintain credibility?

[Smarter Than You]

22 minutes ago, halloween said:

Uh huh, our opinions are just opinions, your opinions are facts. Right. Now explain how Yingluck is tremendously popular is irrefutable fact, with nothing to support that claim.

No, all opinions are opinions just as all facts are facts.

What is so hard about this that you guys cannot grasp?

 

Have you read and do you comprehend the article at the start of this thread?

 

I'll make it multiple choice for you (it's easier, you can just guess if you're not sure)

 

Q. How the Junta treats Yingluck in the coming period may have drastic consequences because

 

A -  Yingluck is irrelevant, nobody likes or cares about her

B - Yingluck remains incredibly popular and much loved by the millions of Thais who voted for and they may not accept the unjust persecution of her lying down

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Smarter Than You said:

No, all opinions are opinions just as all facts are facts.

What is so hard about this that you guys cannot grasp?

 

Have you read and do you comprehend the article at the start of this thread?

 

I'll make it multiple choice for you (it's easier, you can just guess if you're not sure)

 

Q. How the Junta treats Yingluck in the coming period may have drastic consequences because

 

A -  Yingluck is irrelevant, nobody likes or cares about her

B - Yingluck remains incredibly popular and much loved by the millions of Thais who voted for and they may not accept the unjust persecution of her lying down

or C somewhere between A and B.

 

as for B, first you would have to prove unjust persecution of a clear case of dereliction of public trust, understand the meaning of "incredible", and then justify any claim that those that voted for her care to do anything about her prosecution without someone paying them B500/day..

 

[halloween]

10 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Trolling basically means to inflame the situation.

 

But Hall u made the statement. That's not a flame. Its repeating something you wrote.

 

Now you bring out your statements that have no actual reference to how the calculations are done.

 

Hall again you said the loss is 20%. 2 days ago you said in a reply to my post that the figures cannot be proven as there were no receipts. That's  not a flame.

 

You must be able to show how this is arrived at to maintain credibility?

Trolling also means making false statements to elicit response. You're not getting one.

[robblok]

52 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The fake rice deals and cross border smuggling was investigated by the NACC back in early 2013. YL was informed and didn't made any controversial remark regarding the investigation. Matter of fact, what ever happen to this investigation? I have not heard of any development by the NACC. Maybe lack of evidence and they kept quiet.

 

Much like what was reported by 2 of Thailand’s newspapers. 

" Matichon and Khao Sod, did an investigative report on the anti corruption unit, and found that there are 13 corruption charges, related to Abhisit’s Democrat Party, that have been lodge for years and years, and have went no where at the anti corruption unit. Mean while, both The Economist Magazine, and the iconic global political risk firm, IHS says the anti corruption unit, is involved in a “Judicial Coup” against Yingluck)".

NACC did she not cut its funding by 50%.. no wonder they could not investigate good. I read the articles about threats to the people who brought out the news.

[robblok]

41 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Rob, I know you are a numbers man. I don't know if you have a summary on the rice scheme losses? Have been searching to find how losses are or have been worked out. Can't see any independent document or report to verify the fact. It all seems to start a way back when the General ordered 44 to be carried out on Ms T. A lot of claims and counter claims but no 'proper audit'. if there is who by? Thanks Rob

Maybe the problem is that we don't read Thai and havent seen them. Why would everything be translated ? It would be hard enough to make such a document.. then translating it.. i think you can find it after you read Thai.. so study that first. Then maybe try to get into the court case and read up. Maybe contact YL her lawyers.

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

NACC did she not cut its funding by 50%.. no wonder they could not investigate good. I read the articles about threats to the people who brought out the news.

Cutting the NACC budget from 1.5 B to 1.3 B is not 50% Rob. Be honest with me and not try to snow me and I will respect you. All the courts like the justice and administrative courts also have their budget cut about same percentage proportion. NACC has a very poor conviction rate and you have mentioned this before. Really down to performance in relationship to cost. 

[Reigntax]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Uh huh, our opinions are just opinions, your opinions are facts. Right. Now explain how Yingluck is tremendously popular is irrefutable fact, with nothing to support that claim.

 

Only that she won the last election. But, hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[LannaGuy]

8 hours ago, ramrod711 said:

How sad, poor Yingluck, who really cares.

millions of Thais care, I care and be careful what you wish for

[LannaGuy]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Yeah, life's a bitch innit? Her amnesty got thrown out as being just too self-servingly corrupt, and then the RTA threw her out before she could push it through the next parliament. Tough TIT.

but your junta's amnesty is squeaky clean huh?  wow just wow

 

BTW where are these corruption charges?  has she been charged?  Police taken her away?  or was she the PM and instituted a rice subsidy scheme as has the present Junta?  and the EC... and the USA and every other country?  instead of swallowing the fake news how about some facts?

Edited June 26, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, JAG said:

Hey, he is on a roll.
He asked if someone understood hypocrisy a number of posts ago - he is giving us a master class in it!

His disconnect from reality really is breathtaking.

 

Here is a question for the junta supporters:

 

Since you all support the junta's attempts at getting YL convicted and having her assets confiscated based on the rice scheme do you believe that juntas (the previous ones, this one and future ones) should be afforded the same judicial consideration, self-imposed amnesties notwithstanding?

[Reigntax]

2 hours ago, Becker said:

His disconnect from reality really is breathtaking.

 

Here is a question for the junta supporters:

 

Since you all support the junta's attempts at getting YL convicted and having her assets confiscated based on the rice scheme do you believe that juntas (the previous ones, this one and future ones) should be afforded the same judicial consideration, self-imposed amnesties notwithstanding?

 

Sociopaths have a great resilience for believing what they want to and completely ignore any fact, despite being so obvious to any reasonable person, that proves their position or belief is untenable. However, as they have convinced themself that they are right, they selectively pick, choose and misinterpret the truth to suit their agenda.

 

Why even bother with them, they are better off left to discuss the topic and continue to mass debate upon and amongst themselves.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Reigntax