Troops to boost police presence at final hearing in Yingluck’s trial

[steven100]

Thankfully Khun Prayuth took over ..... 

[Baerboxer]

23 hours ago, jayboy said:

Absolutely.How refreshing it is to hear your brave statement of the facts.Personally I do not think it was worth bringing this case to trial at all because the heaviest penalties are so obviously appropriate.The fact that there has been no evidence produced is immaterial.Political leaders should be responsible for the damage their policies do to the country.It is outrageous that some bad thinking people have pointed out that Yingluck was a legitimate leader implementing policies endorsed democratically while those who seized power caused infinitely greater damage and have avoided punishment.The two cases are not comparable as the military leadership has  brought tranquillity and content.What is more they have obtained a massive vote of satisfaction in the constitutional referendum.The fact that all debate was banned and dissidents were punished is of little relevance.The important thing is that the Shinawatra clan is eviscerated, and the people of Thailand should take guidance from the "good people".

 

 

Pray tell, in your world, how does not bothering to chair meetings, after appointing yourself chairperson, not equate to negligence?

 

How does still refusing or not bothering to chair any meetings or take any action after being warned by the World Bank, IMF and internal finance officers not constitute negligence? How does threatening and transferring officers who raised issues not compound that negligence?

 

The charge is negligence. Deal with the charge.

 

Waffling on about being elected, even trying to write with sarcastic amusement has nothing to do with this. The way she was removed by a court for abuse of power has nothing to do with this. The coup has nothing to do with this. 

 

Isolate this case, the charge and provide us with an explanation of how her actions or in-actions weren't negligence. Don't blame other, say worse things are done by others, or try and turn it into a political debate of Western constructs.

 

So, do you have evidence to proof that Yingluck did chair the meetings, and took decisive action to ensure the scheme was well managed, including with detailed accounts, and free from corruption as she could? Perhaps you could share with us if you do.

So far Yingluck and her defense team have not shown that.

 

 

[halloween]

21 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

No, if corruption is proven in a non partisan and non politicised justice system, culprits whether politicians or bureaucrats should face the full penalties of law.

As to incompetence or maladministration guilty officials should be demoted or dismissed.

As to politicians - as regards incompetence etc -the verdict lies with the people to be shown in a free and fair general election.If they are guilty of corruption or illegal acts (such as seizing power by force if arms) the law must take its course - but see above regarding the need for the justice system to be "blind".

It goes without saying that politicians cannot award themselves pardons.In exceptional circumstances a democratically mandated government can do that in respect of predecessors who have committed criminal acts( e.g. Ford:Nixon)


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

The penalty applied is not for lack of competence (lucky her, she had very little of that) but for negligence in the administration of a major policy. Politicians DO have a duty of care, especially when they appoint themselves as chair of the administrating committee.

As for your disclaimer of her personal corruption, I find it far from convincing. She acted as a puppet for her corrupt brother, and companies linked to him were appointed as agents in the sale of the rice via G2G deals, deals which saw those companies reap handsome profits adding to the nation's loss. That she hasn't been charged with corruption YET does not prove innocence.

Edited July 6, 2017 by halloween

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

There's a big difference between "little" evidence and "no" evidence which you bracket together.Let us be clear: there is no evidence at all to link Yingluck personally to corruption.

 

I agree with you that her performance was sub par on this issue.Much fuller engagement in policy/detail would of course have been better.The policy itself was misguided but whether you like it or not was designed to help the farmers - which is not to say nobody saw opportunities for corrupt opportunities.

 

You make various statements about corruption.Undoubtedly this was involved but it was certainly not limited to political entities/politicians linked to her.You need to be more careful in your language here as this kind of distinction is misleading.

 

Politicians should face the consequences of poor decisions.But it is ultimately for the people to decide in fair democratic elections. The vulgar but pertinent phrase "kick the bums out" applies.Illegal activity is a different matter of course but in Thailand it's hard to find independent assessment.In any event politicians do not pay personally for perceived mistakes - especially when the policy was democratically legitimate.What you call a cynical electoral ploy and what others call populism is equally the line taken by every legitimate democratic government - to implement policies which find electoral support.Only in Thailand would a crazy idea about holding Yingluck personally financially responsible find fertile soil.Do the Americans hold Obama personally responsible for Obamacare losses? Do the Brits hold Cameron personally financially responsible for the Brexit fiasco? One only has to ask the question to see how bat shit crazy things have become in Thailand.

 

Why then this insanity of personal vindictiveness in Thailand? It's certainly nothing to do with the rice policy but that perhaps is for discussion in another place.

 

 

 

 

 

Yingluck hasn't been charged with corruption.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

23 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Upset Baerboxer too . He probably has no appetite for dinner. 

 

No - the untrue propaganda like that makes me laugh. Even louder when I see some soak it up as reality Eric.

[onthesoi]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

Thankfully Khun Prayuth took over ..... 

 

Best thing to happen to Thailand since Lek was fit and able.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

No if you chair the rice program and you don't show up and it is left with huge debts.. there is absolutely no reason to say that her scheme and her not showing up were the reason of those debts. Remember it was said to be cost free she was warned by international organisations like the world bank and she threatened the person who brought out the figures of the rice scheme instead of investigating it and accepting it went wrong.but worst of all it was financed off budget (not taken into the central budget). I know you don't like the facts. But name some other countries where a cost as large as the health budget is kept off books and called self financing.

 

I wait your reply (probably deflection and no real reply as is your standard)

 

Spot on Rob. Especially the last sentence.

 

Let's ignore the topic, the actual charge Yingluck faces, and pretend it's all about elected governments and coups. Much easy than defending the real case.

[jayboy]

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

The penalty applied is not for lack of competence (lucky her, she had very little of that) but for negligence in the administration of a major policy. Politicians DO have a duty of care, especially when they appoint themselves as chair of the administrating committee.

As for your disclaimer of her personal corruption, I find it far from convincing. She acted as a puppet for her corrupt brother, and companies linked to him were appointed as agents in the sale of the rice via G2G deals, deals which saw those companies reap handsome profits adding to the nation's loss. That she hasn't been charged with corruption YET does not prove innocence.

I would have thought "lack of competence" would certainly embrace "negligence in administration".

 

Still I note you have now focused on her possible involvement in corruption.I have already agreed that if this is indeed the case, the position differs from poor administration of a policy.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Spot on Rob. Especially the last sentence.

 

Let's ignore the topic, the actual charge Yingluck faces, and pretend it's all about elected governments and coups. Much easy than defending the real case.

Yes that is the standard deflection.. lets mention elections.. lets mention others did worse...

 

But please let us not go into the real case because then we might have to agree that indeed she was negligent.

[halloween]

Just now, jayboy said:

I would have thought "lack of competence" would certainly embrace "negligence in administration".

 

Still I note you have now focused on her possible involvement in corruption.I have already agreed that if this is indeed the case, the position differs from poor administration of a policy.

Really. Do you think she was that incompetent that she couldn't find the room where the rice policy committee was meeting? There is such a thing as wilful negligence - by avoiding attending she could claim not to know the extent of the damage, a tactic she used on other matters as well. Remember the military helicopter that couldn't fly at night?

Edited July 6, 2017 by halloween

[jayboy]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes that is the standard deflection.. lets mention elections.. lets mention others did worse...

 

But please let us not go into the real case because then we might have to agree that indeed she was negligent.

Have you been paying attention? Nobody has suggested she was not negligent.The argument is not about efficient administration - we know that was not the case.The argument is about corruption (was she or was she not involved) and whether a PM should be personally responsible for financial losses resulting from their policies.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

Have you been paying attention? Nobody has suggested she was not negligent.The argument is not about efficient administration - we know that was not the case.The argument is about corruption (was she or was she not involved) and whether a PM should be personally responsible for financial losses resulting from their policies.

I think you have been sleeping.. as the case is about negligence.. not corruption (at least not YL personally). 

I would reply yes they should be held responsible if there was GROSS negligence.. like ignoring advice of the world bank and suppressing data that showed a loss was made and that the program was not cost neutral.. To keep such a loss out of the state budget. 

Suppressing data that does not suit you even after you have been advised by independent international organisations shows gross negligence..  Being the chair woman of the project but not turning up just once.. even though its such a controversial scheme.. also makes it gross negligence in my book. 

[jayboy]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

Really. Do you think she was that incompetent that she couldn't find the room where the rice policy committee was meeting? There is such a thing as wilful negligence - by avoiding attending she could claim not to know the extent of the damage, a tactic she used on other matters as well. Remember the military helicopter that couldn't fly at night?

She didn't have a handle on it.Whether her lack of attention was prompted by the considerations you mention is a matter that can only be speculated on.Either way it doesn't change the position.If you listen carefully you might see we are not really disagreeing about the facts.

[jayboy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think you have been sleeping.. as the case is about negligence.. not corruption (at least not YL personally). 

I would reply yes they should be held responsible if there was GROSS negligence.. like ignoring advice of the world bank and suppressing data that showed a loss was made and that the program was not cost neutral.. To keep such a loss out of the state budget. 

Suppressing data that does not suit you even after you have been advised by independent international organisations shows gross negligence..  Being the chair woman of the project but not turning up just once.. even though its such a controversial scheme.. also makes it gross negligence in my book. 

I'm sorry but you haven't enhanced your case, simply repeating what is already known.

 

I don't have any information on Yingluck suppressing data.What data was this and how did she suppress it? Link please.

 

Incidentally the current military government has been advised by numerous international organizations to clean up its act from the day it seized power.It has paid no attention.

[halloween]

Just now, jayboy said:

Have you been paying attention? Nobody has suggested she was not negligent.The argument is not about efficient administration - we know that was not the case.The argument is about corruption (was she or was she not involved) and whether a PM should be personally responsible for financial losses resulting from their policies.

That is your twist on it. The ex-PM is being charged with criminal negligence in the management of her major policy - criminal negligence in failing to act to reduce or halt those losses. Anybody can enact a bad policy, but in 2.5 years she did nothing to improve or cancel a bad policy.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I'm sorry but you haven't enhanced your case, simply repeating what is already known.

 

I don't have any information on Yingluck suppressing data.What data was this and how did she suppress it? Link please.

 

Incidentally the current military government has been advised by numerous international organizations to clean up its act from the day it seized power.It has paid no attention.

Deflection

 

As for the data..everyone here that followed the case knows about the official that came out that was bullied and transferred by YL for stating there was a loss and it was denied by YL. Just look for it yourself its common knowledge, no need for me to to educate you all the time. 

 

Have you forgotten also the threats of theft made to the Democrat that came out with rotting rice ? He took some from a warehouse.. and instead of doing something about the problem they wanted to charge him with theft of rice. Sounds a lot like suppressing too.  

 

So if you know all of this already then you also know she was grossly negligent. Lets hope the judges see it this way too. 

[JAG]

Deflection

 

As for the data..everyone here that followed the case knows about the official that came out that was bullied and transferred by YL for stating there was a loss and it was denied by YL. Just look for it yourself its common knowledge, no need for me to to educate you all the time. 

 

Have you forgotten also the threats of theft made to the Democrat that came out with rotting rice ? He took some from a warehouse.. and instead of doing something about the problem they wanted to charge him with theft of rice. Sounds a lot like suppressing too.  

 

So if you know all of this already then you also know she was grossly negligent. Lets hope the judges see it this way too. 

You are an accountant yes?

 

Would you accept "everyone knows" and "it is common knowledge" as proof of what has happened to money when conducting an audit?

 

No, of course you wouldn't.

 

And by the way, venturing an opinion which is contrary to yours and has a bearing on the argument is not deflection.

 

[robblok]

Just now, JAG said:

You are an accountant yes?

Would you accept "everyone knows" and "it is common knowledge" as proof of what has happened to money when conducting an audit?

No, of course you wouldn't.

And by the way, venturing an opinion which is contrary to yours is not deflection.

Its a deflection because the topic is not the junta but YL its a way to veer of the topic as is so often done here.

 

I am not doing an audit here,  that is a totally different thing. We are holding a discussion here. 

 

In a discussion there are certain things known already like I would not ask for proof that YL was PM with a link.. otherwise you can ask proof of everything and the side replying would be swamped in looking for links. If you don't even know the basics of this case how can you hold a discussion. Bearboxer and others all seem to know about this and I recall it also in the papers. So its general knowledge. 

[jayboy]

Deflection
 
As for the data..everyone here that followed the case knows about the official that came out that was bullied and transferred by YL for stating there was a loss and it was denied by YL. Just look for it yourself its common knowledge, no need for me to to educate you all the time. 
 
Have you forgotten also the threats of theft made to the Democrat that came out with rotting rice ? He took some from a warehouse.. and instead of doing something about the problem they wanted to charge him with theft of rice. Sounds a lot like suppressing too.  
 
So if you know all of this already then you also know she was grossly negligent. Lets hope the judges see it this way too. 

So no evidence.No link.No reasoned argument.Just second hand assertions and debate winning ace that "everybody knows".


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[halloween]

Just now, JAG said:

You are an accountant yes?

 

Would you accept "everyone knows" and "it is common knowledge" as proof of what has happened to money when conducting an audit?

 

No, of course you wouldn't.

 

And by the way, venturing an opinion which is contrary to yours and has a bearing on the argument is not deflection.

 

He was discussing general knowledge of a whistle-blower, not of the finances of the scheme.

 

BTW a bit cheeky raising "audit" when it is also general knowledge that there a distinct lack of accounting for her little scam.

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Pray tell, in your world, how does not bothering to chair meetings, after appointing yourself chairperson, not equate to negligence?

 

How does still refusing or not bothering to chair any meetings or take any action after being warned by the World Bank, IMF and internal finance officers not constitute negligence? How does threatening and transferring officers who raised issues not compound that negligence?

 

The charge is negligence. Deal with the charge.

 

Waffling on about being elected, even trying to write with sarcastic amusement has nothing to do with this. The way she was removed by a court for abuse of power has nothing to do with this. The coup has nothing to do with this. 

 

Isolate this case, the charge and provide us with an explanation of how her actions or in-actions weren't negligence. Don't blame other, say worse things are done by others, or try and turn it into a political debate of Western constructs.

 

So, do you have evidence to proof that Yingluck did chair the meetings, and took decisive action to ensure the scheme was well managed, including with detailed accounts, and free from corruption as she could? Perhaps you could share with us if you do.

So far Yingluck and her defense team have not shown that.

 

 

I'm not going to suggest there was no negligence because there clearly was.This has been repeated multiple times so it's unclear why you think anybody has suggested otherwise.

 

Being an elected and legitimate government does actually have relevance since there was a mandate to pursue this policy, however misguided.If you are suggesting legitimacy does not excuse incompetence, you are of course right.

 

You are also mistaken in believing the context can be ignored.I am not going to dwell on it in detail but no serious analyst or historian would look in isolation at the price support scheme but rather would see it as part of the campaign against Shinawatra influence.Let us say quite hypothetically the precise same policy had been instituted by another political party.Most people would agree there would be no such vendetta, let alone the extraordinary use of Article 44 in advance of a verdict.

[halloween]

Just now, jayboy said:

I'm not going to suggest there was no negligence because there clearly was.This has been repeated multiple times so it's unclear why you think anybody has suggested otherwise.

 

Being an elected and legitimate government does actually have relevance since there was a mandate to pursue this policy, however misguided.If you are suggesting legitimacy does not excuse incompetence, you are of course right.

 

You are also mistaken in believing the context can be ignored.I am not going to dwell on it in detail but no serious analyst or historian would look in isolation at the price support scheme but rather would see it as part of the campaign against Shinawatra influence.Let us say quite hypothetically the precise same policy had been instituted by another political party.Most people would agree there would be no such vendetta, let alone the extraordinary use of Article 44 in advance of a verdict.

Ah yes, when you have no defence of the crime, claim it is politically motivated. How original.

 

Having a mandate for a policy is no excuse for allowing that policy to run to huge losses of public funds without some attempt at intervention.

[jayboy]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

Ah yes, when you have no defence of the crime, claim it is politically motivated. How original.

 

Having a mandate for a policy is no excuse for allowing that policy to run to huge losses of public funds without some attempt at intervention.

The question of whether it is politically motivated is not in doubt.Even her enemies accept that it is.The question is whether the penalty for her negligence is appropriate.

[YetAnother]

On 7/5/2017 at 5:04 AM, webfact said:

public order would be maintained by sending troops in addition to police officers,

another example of police not able to do their job

[tomta]

2 hours ago, YetAnother said:

another example of police not able to do their job

 Another example of soldiers doing something which they are not trained for and not good at. If the situation is so bad that soldiers are needed, why not end the sham and declare martial law?

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, YetAnother said:

another example of police not able to do their job

Or the military having an agenda of their own. 

[robblok]

18 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Or the military having an agenda of their own. 

Yes the military has an agenda:

- Not allowing red violence

- No cake boxes full of bribe money (it might run in the family)

- Protecting judges so their addresses are not given out nor are their phone numbers

- No burning of coffins

- No bombs

 

I know these are all things that have been done in the past by the reds when there was not enough protection of judges, so they are just thinking ahead.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Yes the military has an agenda:

- Not allowing red violence

- No cake boxes full of bribe money (it might run in the family)

- Protecting judges so their addresses are not given out nor are their phone numbers

- No burning of coffins

- No bombs

 

I know these are all things that have been done in the past by the reds when there was not enough protection of judges, so they are just thinking ahead.

Defending the military is futile. Suthep has already admitted it was all planned since 2011 and every action is part of a grand agenda. 

[robblok]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Defending the military is futile. Suthep has already admitted it was all planned since 2011 and every action is part of a grand agenda. 

nice deflection..

 

We were talking about the reasons for the need of soldiers here.. because of the violent history of the reds. Not Suthep and imaginary grand agenda's. If you can't stick to the topic its better you don't reply. 

[Eric Loh]

45 minutes ago, robblok said:

nice deflection..

 

We were talking about the reasons for the need of soldiers here.. because of the violent history of the reds. Not Suthep and imaginary grand agenda's. If you can't stick to the topic its better you don't reply. 

Wrong again. No history. Reds just formed after the 2006 coup. You should just stop at 2 wrongs. Don't embarrass yourself further.