Acquittal likely, says ex-judge

[mfd101]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Even in a banarepublic the person in charge of a program would manage that program and turn up at meetings, listen at things the world bank has to say and would not keep things out of the central budget even when things were costing billions, plus the her own ministers were busy with fake G2G deals defrauding the state of billions. If that is what you call a faulty goverment program then you are a bit kind with your words. Criminal negligence is a closer thing. I wonder what would happen if the PM in your birth country kept an amount equal to the annual health budget off budget with huge corruption in it by its own ministers even being warned by everyone that it was going wrong and ignoring it all..

 

All of which sounds like a Ministerial not a Prime Ministerial responsibility. As in all well-run organisations, the boss delegates functions & the jobs that go with them and then lets the subordinates get on with it.

 

The key is to choose your subordinates wisely, but in politics you may have little choice ...

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

All of which sounds like a Ministerial not a Prime Ministerial responsibility. As in all well-run organisations, the boss delegates functions & the jobs that go with them and then lets the subordinates get on with it.

 

The key is to choose your subordinates wisely, but in politics you may have little choice ...

Not if you make yourself chair of a project and not attend ONE meeting. 

 

Also keeping costs out of the central budget is a big no no ... and cost as high as the annual health budget..... wow in a first world country something that outrageous has never happened. Saying there is no corruption.. while your own ministers are involved in it.. if that is not negligence.. 

 

 

[halloween]

No “special intention” to commit negligence, it 'just happened'. Does that sound like a defence?

[Yinglove]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not if you make yourself chair of a project and not attend ONE meeting. 

Former commerce minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisarn told the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions that there was no need for then prime minister Yingluck to supervise every matter by herself after she had delegated one of the deputy prime ministers or a government agency to take responsibility over the matter.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/witnesses-testify-defence-ex-pm-yingluck-rice-pledging-scheme/

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Also keeping costs out of the central budget is a big no no ... and cost as high as the annual health budget..... wow in a first world country something that outrageous has never happened. Saying there is no corruption.. while your own ministers are involved in it.. if that is not negligence.. 

 

 

No one has ever complained about the rice scheme being out of the budget.

Not the Junta, not Suthep, not Abhisit, not Korn, not the NACC - no one, so where's the crime??

[robblok]

Just now, Yinglove said:

Former commerce minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisarn told the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions that there was no need for then prime minister Yingluck to supervise every matter by herself after she had delegated one of the deputy prime ministers or a government agency to take responsibility over the matter.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/witnesses-testify-defence-ex-pm-yingluck-rice-pledging-scheme/

No one has ever complained about the rice scheme being out of the budget.

Not the Junta, not Suthep, not Abhisit, not Korn, not the NACC - no one, so where's the crime??

They call it causing damages.. because it was not in the central budget. I am sorry that you don't understand accountant speak.If in budget its not causing damages.. because its in the budget. 

[Yinglove]

Just now, robblok said:

They call it causing damages.. because it was not in the central budget. I am sorry that you don't understand accountant speak.If in budget its not causing damages.. because its in the budget. 

And yet the NCPO, Abhisit, Korn, the NACC and Suthep have never once mentioned anything about having a problem with how the rice pledging scheme was funded.

Why do you think that is?

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Yinglove said:

And yet the NCPO, Abhisit, Korn, the NACC and Suthep have never once mentioned anything about having a problem with how the rice pledging scheme was funded.

Why do you think that is?

I answered your question.. they called it causing damages... When something is not put in a central budget its causing damages because the costs were not there. Just look at what she is charged with. Now go and learn something about accounting.

[Yinglove]

Just now, robblok said:

I answered your question.. they called it causing damages... When something is not put in a central budget its causing damages because the costs were not there. Just look at what she is charged with. Now go and learn something about accounting.

I'm not going to go and learn anything about accounting. Accounting is boring.

I understand you are saying the technical term for the losses in this circumstance is "damages".

So people may be upset that there is "damages" that is an entirely different thing than having a problem with how the rice pledging scheme was funded.

If the rice pledging scheme was funded in the central budget and lost the same amount the people would be upset for the same reason - the loss, not the method of funding.

No one is concerned with how the scheme was kept out of the central budget - no one.

 

[wakeupplease]

I'm not going to go and learn anything about accounting. Accounting is boring.

 

Yinglove you are so spot on some on here who are accounts so they claim but in reality are the ones who find the loop holes so businesses pay less TAX so rip off everyone else, its what they do all day every day if they have any work, if they do not then TV is the answer.

 

Going on what My account does and says at times I think he is nothing but a conman, but that is only my experience of my accountant.

[Yinglove]

If Prayuth's Chinese railways run at a loss will he be held personally accountable for the losses.

If he's got any brains, he'd be praying for an acquittal so no precedent is set that may end up costing him his 600 million.

[Ricardo]

36 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

All of which sounds like a Ministerial not a Prime Ministerial responsibility. As in all well-run organisations, the boss delegates functions & the jobs that go with them and then lets the subordinates get on with it.

 

The key is to choose your subordinates wisely, but in politics you may have little choice ...

 

If former-PM Yingluck had actually delegated the task of chairing the committee, and that person had actually turned up at meetings, then she would probably not be in the awkward situation she's now in.

 

But she didn't, she insisted she was in-charge, nobody else and she ignored all of the warnings.  That's now come back to bite her.

 

As you say  " As in all well-run organisations, the boss delegates functions & the jobs that go with them and then lets the subordinates get on with it.",  but she chose not to do so, possibly under-orders from afar, we'll never know. 

 

And at some point the failure to run an organisation well becomes negligence.

 

 

[Yinglove]

1 minute ago, Ricardo said:

If former-PM Yingluck had actually delegated the task of chairing the committee, and that person had actually turned up at meetings, then she would probably not be in the awkward situation she's now in.

Um, she did delegate and they did show up.

 

• On my capacity as Chairman of the National Rice Committee, I have never neglected my duties nor omitted to perform my duties because I have delegated my responsibility to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Commerce Minister to act as Chairman of the National Rice Committee and if any matter came up, it was the duty of those persons to report to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister for consideration.
• The Constitution requires the Cabinet to have collective responsibilities but the plaintiff misunderstood that the Prime Minister has sole power and may exercise the power as he/she deems fit. When I was the Prime Minister, ministries working with the National Rice Committee and sub- committee have their own responsibilities required by laws. I could not exercise my power arbitrarily to interfere, make order, or influence the operating level for anyone’s interest. The current Prime Minister should well understand the limitation and that is why special power under section 44 is needed to conduct state administration which elected government like mine never had.

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7301

 

1 minute ago, Ricardo said:

But she didn't, she insisted she was in-charge, nobody else and she ignored all of the warnings.  That's now come back to bite her.

Wrong

1 minute ago, Ricardo said:

As you say  " As in all well-run organisations, the boss delegates functions & the jobs that go with them and then lets the subordinates get on with it.",  but she chose not to do so, possibly under-orders from afar, we'll never know. 

Wrong

1 minute ago, Ricardo said:

And at some point the failure to run an organisation well becomes negligence.

and Wrong.

[elektrified]

16 hours ago, Thechook said:

Might have to sell those subs and give her money back

Even if she is acquitted, I doubt she will ever see the money again. Whatever she has left most likely will go to her lawyers.

[mommysboy]

It's a rock solid defence.  But this country is defined by craziness.

Edited August 13, 2017 by mommysboy

[Ricardo]

21 minutes ago, Yinglove said:

Um, she did delegate and they did show up.

 

• On my capacity as Chairman of the National Rice Committee, I have never neglected my duties nor omitted to perform my duties because I have delegated my responsibility to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Commerce Minister to act as Chairman of the National Rice Committee and if any matter came up, it was the duty of those persons to report to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister for consideration.
• The Constitution requires the Cabinet to have collective responsibilities but the plaintiff misunderstood that the Prime Minister has sole power and may exercise the power as he/she deems fit. When I was the Prime Minister, ministries working with the National Rice Committee and sub- committee have their own responsibilities required by laws. I could not exercise my power arbitrarily to interfere, make order, or influence the operating level for anyone’s interest. The current Prime Minister should well understand the limitation and that is why special power under section 44 is needed to conduct state administration which elected government like mine never had.

http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/7301

 

Wrong

Wrong

and Wrong.

 

But then she would say that, in her closing-statement to the court, wouldn't she.

 

It's her opinion, but not necessarily backed-up by the other evidence.

 

Let's wait to see what the court decides.

[seajae]

have to wonder if its the same ex judge that let thaksin off even though he knew he was guilty because he was the pm, some of these idiots have very out of touch ideas. She was in charge of the rice scam, she was warned it was corrupt and did nothing about it, very hard to say she had nothing to do with what happened but hey, this is Thailand and you dont know who has been delivering cake boxes and to who, the verdict will be an interesting one thats for sure

[NCC1701A]

think of the huge spontaneous party that will break out all over the country if she is acquitted.

[NanLaew]

5 hours ago, Thechook said:

Prayuth and his people were smart giving themselves immunity on day one.

Boonyaratglin and his cohorts in the previous military administration similarly enshrined their 'get out of jail free' cards in their re-write of the Thailand Owners Manual.

[robblok]

10 hours ago, Yinglove said:

I'm not going to go and learn anything about accounting. Accounting is boring.

I understand you are saying the technical term for the losses in this circumstance is "damages".

So people may be upset that there is "damages" that is an entirely different thing than having a problem with how the rice pledging scheme was funded.

If the rice pledging scheme was funded in the central budget and lost the same amount the people would be upset for the same reason - the loss, not the method of funding.

No one is concerned with how the scheme was kept out of the central budget - no one.

 

Your obviously not educated in accounting, it revolves around the fact that it was kept off books and not in the central budget. I forgive you as  your kind is often not schooled in these matters or just ignores them.

 

If you put something in the central budget and you exceed the budget its damages. If you put it off books and you have cost and exceed it its damages too but worse still if you know these cost were there and it was not put in the central budget. Boring as it might be its the basis of accounting and the basis of why she is negligent. They call it damages to help people like you understand it a bit better. 

 

Not putting stuff in a central budget when its known there are costs is akin to selling a car to someone knowing the brakes don't work and not telling them. Gross negligence. 

[Yinglove]

26 minutes ago, robblok said:

Your obviously not educated in accounting, it revolves around the fact that it was kept off books and not in the central budget. I forgive you as  your kind is often not schooled in these matters or just ignores them.

 

If you put something in the central budget and you exceed the budget its damages. If you put it off books and you have cost and exceed it its damages too but worse still if you know these cost were there and it was not put in the central budget. Boring as it might be its the basis of accounting and the basis of why she is negligent. They call it damages to help people like you understand it a bit better. 

 

Not putting stuff in a central budget when its known there are costs is akin to selling a car to someone knowing the brakes don't work and not telling them. Gross negligence. 

Looks like you've swallowed hook, line and sinker a whole bunch of Junta nonsense.

 

• In June, 2013, the National Rice Committee was reported that the overall economic and social benefits of the RPS amounts to 394,788 million Baht, which was 173,819 million Baht greater than the amount of 220,969 million Baht that allegedly claimed as accounting losses by the Account Closing Sub-Committee.
• The research team of the KMIT, Choa Khun Taharn Ladkrabang presented the data showing that during the production seasons under the RPS, the economy expanded and multiplied 3.726 times and generated increased economic return of 1,088,697 million Baht which was greater than the costs of the project.
• The implementation of the RPS was within the ceiling of the revolving fund of 500,000 million Baht as set by the Cabinet and the loan for the RPS was within the ceiling set by the cabinet resolution in June 2013. Even the cabinet resolution of the present government in August 2016 confirmed that the residual debts payable under the pledging scheme of agricultural produce from the production year 2011/2012 to 2013/2014 was within the debt ceiling set by the cabinet.

All of the above equals ZERO negligence.

[mtls2005]

10 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

think of the huge spontaneous party that will break out all over the country if she is acquitted.

 

Only to be off-set by the Yellows going apoplectic. They'll hand-clap themselves silly.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by mtls2005

[NanLaew]

Just now, robblok said:

Not putting stuff in a central budget when its known there are costs is akin to selling a car to someone knowing the brakes don't work and not telling them. Gross negligence. 

Isn't this protected in Holland in the same way if you buy a bike on the street that is way, way below market price and thus suspect that it is probably stolen, if in the event the seller is apprehended for selling stolen goods (the bike), you can still keep the bike? The seller never admitted to you that the brakes were shot/bike was stolen so no harm, no foul?

Edited August 14, 2017 by NanLaew

[Eric Loh]

Big significant for the ex-judge to make such statement. It exert lots of pressure on the Supreme Court judges and may even be seen as a contempt of court.

 

I think this is smartly crafted to lower the expectation of the yellow shirts and the junta to nail Yingluck and justify their asset seizure order. 

 

The political situation has changed much since last year. Previously the judges were  "advise" to use the judiciary process to break political impasse. Not now and complicated by a tussle at the top. Judges may feel that they are not pressured to do the political bidding for someone like before. 

 

The ex-PM Somkiat and others acquittal was significant and may signal a paradigm move unlike previous time. I think it's about time that the judiciary system be more independent in their dispensation of justice. 

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Isn't this protected in Holland in the same way if you buy a bike on the street that is way, way below market price and thus suspect that it is probably stolen, if in the event the seller is apprehended for selling stolen goods (the bike), you can still keep the bike? The seller never admitted to you that the brakes were shot/bike was stolen so no harm, no foul?

No only if the bike was bought for market price and there was no reason to doubt the seller. That is not the case in your example where you buy something on the street way below market price. However if you buy it from a shop at market price then you can keep it even if it was stolen. 

 

 

[robblok]

2 hours ago, Yinglove said:

Looks like you've swallowed hook, line and sinker a whole bunch of Junta nonsense.

 

• In June, 2013, the National Rice Committee was reported that the overall economic and social benefits of the RPS amounts to 394,788 million Baht, which was 173,819 million Baht greater than the amount of 220,969 million Baht that allegedly claimed as accounting losses by the Account Closing Sub-Committee.
• The research team of the KMIT, Choa Khun Taharn Ladkrabang presented the data showing that during the production seasons under the RPS, the economy expanded and multiplied 3.726 times and generated increased economic return of 1,088,697 million Baht which was greater than the costs of the project.
• The implementation of the RPS was within the ceiling of the revolving fund of 500,000 million Baht as set by the Cabinet and the loan for the RPS was within the ceiling set by the cabinet resolution in June 2013. Even the cabinet resolution of the present government in August 2016 confirmed that the residual debts payable under the pledging scheme of agricultural produce from the production year 2011/2012 to 2013/2014 was within the debt ceiling set by the cabinet.

All of the above equals ZERO negligence.

Total B.S given out by a organisation controlled by YL. That is why it was good that there was a coup finally all the bad things come out when she lost her protection. Also what you are quoting has nothing to do with the whole off book financing and not taking it in the central budget as per accounting rules. What you read there is someone trying to justifying the program itself. If you don't know the difference between those two things its useless debating with you. I don't think you have much knowledge in this field. 

 

Your still missing the point of budgets and accounting and keeping things off budget. I know its hard because its not your field.So stop making stuff up and admit you don't have a clue about how things work. 

 

In a previous topic I have proven without a doubt that in the 2011 budget Nothing was taken up for the rice program. Nobody could refute that and I have posted the real budget figures that are int he public domain. I am not going to do that again because it goes way over your head obviously.

 

I have no interest in debating with someone who does not even know the basics of accounting or can read a budget. 

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Big significant for the ex-judge to make such statement. It exert lots of pressure on the Supreme Court judges and may even be seen as a contempt of court.

 

I think this is smartly crafted to lower the expectation of the yellow shirts and the junta to nail Yingluck and justify their asset seizure order. 

 

The political situation has changed much since last year. Previously the judges were  "advise" to use the judiciary process to break political impasse. Not now and complicated by a tussle at the top. Judges may feel that they are not pressured to do the political bidding for someone like before. 

 

The ex-PM Somkiat and others acquittal was significant and may signal a paradigm move unlike previous time. I think it's about time that the judiciary system be more independent in their dispensation of justice. 

Yes it might be seen as contempt of court or pressuring the judges.. or just giving an opinion. He might even be paid for his opinion or it might be his real opinion. 

 

I personally think she won't do any jail-time but will be found guilty. But whatever the judges decide unlike most red members I will respect it.

[Yinglove]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Total B.S given out by a organisation controlled by YL. That is why it was good that there was a coup finally all the bad things come out when she lost her protection. Also what you are quoting has nothing to do with the whole off book financing and not taking it in the central budget as per accounting rules. What you read there is someone trying to justifying the program itself. If you don't know the difference between those two things its useless debating with you. I don't think you have much knowledge in this field. 

 

Your still missing the point of budgets and accounting and keeping things off budget. I know its hard because its not your field.So stop making stuff up and admit you don't have a clue about how things work. 

 

In a previous topic I have proven without a doubt that in the 2011 budget Nothing was taken up for the rice program. Nobody could refute that and I have posted the real budget figures that are int he public domain. I am not going to do that again because it goes way over your head obviously.

 

I have no interest in debating with someone who does not even know the basics of accounting or can read a budget. 

You appear to be quite deluded.

 

• The implementation of the RPS was within the ceiling of the revolving fund of 500,000 million Baht as set by the Cabinet and the loan for the RPS was within the ceiling set by the cabinet resolution in June 2013.

Nobody, nobody, nobody has any issue with how the RPS was funded.

On budget, off budget, in budget, out budget, red budget, blue budget, pineapple budget - not a single sole in the known universe is concerned with how the RPS was funded - just you.

 

What do you mean nothing was taken up for the RPS? A 500 million baht revolving line of credit was set up through the BACC.

You must be one terrible accountant.

 

[mtls2005]

The Yellows will seize an airport or two, and shut down Bangkok (again) if she's acquitted.

 

They'll only be happy after she's offered a blindfold and a cigarette.

 

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Total B.S given out by a organisation controlled by YL. That is why it was good that there was a coup finally all the bad things come out when she lost her protection. Also what you are quoting has nothing to do with the whole off book financing and not taking it in the central budget as per accounting rules. What you read there is someone trying to justifying the program itself. If you don't know the difference between those two things its useless debating with you. I don't think you have much knowledge in this field. 

 

Your still missing the point of budgets and accounting and keeping things off budget. I know its hard because its not your field.So stop making stuff up and admit you don't have a clue about how things work. 

 

In a previous topic I have proven without a doubt that in the 2011 budget Nothing was taken up for the rice program. Nobody could refute that and I have posted the real budget figures that are int he public domain. I am not going to do that again because it goes way over your head obviously.

 

I have no interest in debating with someone who does not even know the basics of accounting or can read a budget. 

 

Yes, but you are clearly biased in your comments, so it is difficult to buy your arguments.

 

The fact that we are having to wrangle over this and that indicates that it will be very unsafe to produce a verdict that is safe beyond all reasonable doubt- which is  a concept many forget is imperative in criminal cases.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by mommysboy

[Yinglove]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Total B.S given out by a organisation controlled by YL. That is why it was good that there was a coup finally all the bad things come out when she lost her protection. Also what you are quoting has nothing to do with the whole off book financing and not taking it in the central budget as per accounting rules. What you read there is someone trying to justifying the program itself. If you don't know the difference between those two things its useless debating with you. I don't think you have much knowledge in this field. 

 

Your still missing the point of budgets and accounting and keeping things off budget. I know its hard because its not your field.So stop making stuff up and admit you don't have a clue about how things work. 

 

In a previous topic I have proven without a doubt that in the 2011 budget Nothing was taken up for the rice program. Nobody could refute that and I have posted the real budget figures that are int he public domain. I am not going to do that again because it goes way over your head obviously.

 

I have no interest in debating with someone who does not even know the basics of accounting or can read a budget. 

Ultracrepidarian