Yingluck verdict tipped to have lasting impact

[Thailand]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

Great post, the red supporters here always seem to think that voting gives politicians all rights and checks and balances are not important. Accountable is a word they also prefer not to use. 

Great post, the few yellow supporters here always seem to think that voting gives politicians all rights and checks and balances are not important. Accountable is a word they also prefer not to use. 

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Back against the wall and still keep swinging. Who's getting emotional now.

How on earth is my back against the wall? And what possible reason do you have to believe I am emotional? 

[tomta]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

There were news articles stating this at the time. 

 

http://wordpress.clarku.edu/id125/2016/04/16/rice-farmer-suicide-in-thailand/  (watch the vid)

As Stephen Tracy and a few others have said this is not proof. They are right, but they have  not said why it is not proof. I've pushed this point in a few other threads, some of which you may have read and if you can I'd be interested if you can refute this cut and paste of mine from another thread. 

  On 7/9/2017 at 0:43 AM, Bluespunk said:

Suicides occurred because of this failure under pt's mismanagement of their poorly conceived rice scheme. 

At the risk of appearing callous, we don't really know that. Every year, sadly some farmers, housewives, garbage collectors, soldiers and politicians (and so on) kill themselves. We may have the proximate reasons (rice money, relationship breakdowns, depression etc). But unless we have comparative year by year figures that show a spike in suicides in a particular year (which I haven't seen for farmers) we can't even begin to make the sort of correlations and causations between the rice scheme and farmer suicides which have been made. Recklessly and with sordid political motivations in my view. I'd be interested if someone has this sort of data.I haven't seen it.

•  

Edited August 21, 2017 by tomta

[Bluespunk]

15 minutes ago, tomta said:

As Stephen Tracy and a few others have said this is not proof. They are right, but they have  not said why it is not proof. I've pushed this point in a few other threads, some of which you may have read and if you can I'd be interested if you can refute this cut and paste of mine from another thread. 

  On 7/9/2017 at 0:43 AM, Bluespunk said:

Suicides occurred because of this failure under pt's mismanagement of their poorly conceived rice scheme. 

At the risk of appearing callous, we don't really know that. Every year, sadly some farmers, housewives, garbage collectors, soldiers and politicians (and so on) kill themselves. We may have the proximate reasons (rice money, relationship breakdowns, depression etc). But unless we have comparative year by year figures that show a spike in suicides in a particular year (which I haven't seen for farmers) we can't even begin to make the sort of correlations and causations between the rice scheme and farmer suicides which have been made. Recklessly and with sordid political motivations in my view. I'd be interested if someone has this sort of data.I haven't seen it.

•  

In the case of suicides linked to the rice scheme, it was the crippling debt caused by the govt taking rice and not paying for it that led some to take their own lives. 

[robblok]

28 minutes ago, tomta said:

As Stephen Tracy and a few others have said this is not proof. They are right, but they have  not said why it is not proof. I've pushed this point in a few other threads, some of which you may have read and if you can I'd be interested if you can refute this cut and paste of mine from another thread. 

  On 7/9/2017 at 0:43 AM, Bluespunk said:

Suicides occurred because of this failure under pt's mismanagement of their poorly conceived rice scheme. 

At the risk of appearing callous, we don't really know that. Every year, sadly some farmers, housewives, garbage collectors, soldiers and politicians (and so on) kill themselves. We may have the proximate reasons (rice money, relationship breakdowns, depression etc). But unless we have comparative year by year figures that show a spike in suicides in a particular year (which I haven't seen for farmers) we can't even begin to make the sort of correlations and causations between the rice scheme and farmer suicides which have been made. Recklessly and with sordid political motivations in my view. I'd be interested if someone has this sort of data.I haven't seen it.

•  

The guy told his family the reason was the rice program. Did you listen to the video.  You don't need year by year comparison, you need to hear the family say that they gave the reason before their death. 

[Enoon]

2 hours ago, jesimps said:

Unless you grant yourself immunity.

 

 

And have access to force of arms to maintain that immunity.

 

The so called immunity rests entirely upon an already demonstrated willingness to use force of arms to achieve any aim, including resisting any attempt to impose accountability by civil, "legal", means.

 

Such a card can only be trumped by force of arms.

 

Thus the wind is sown...................

 

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Enoon

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

I guess you forgot that part

 

3 hours ago, robblok said:

One could argue that YL her failure to secure the funds(before stepping down)  that led to the deaths of farmers is criminal.. people did die..

Let's not forget ...

Yingluck was not charged with negligence causing death. She is being charged a "political" crime of causing government debt as a result of a flawed subsidy program. Where is that prescribed by law? The laws do not proscribe "one could argue" as a tenant of criminality. The NACC made an obtuse interpretation of laws to reason that intangible political actions are tantamount to physical personal actions and that the government (under "new leadership") and/or the nation should be treated as an injured person.

 

It is sad that some rice farmers committed suicide over financial destitution during Yingluck's regime as they did during Abhisit's and Prayut's regimes - none of whom have been charged with negligence causing death.

 

Yingluck tried to stem farmer's worsening financial plight by advancing their rice subsidies preceding government rice sales through government loans but the Government Bank refuse and the Constitutional Court held such loans to be unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court hasn't been charged with negligent malfeasance that Yingluck was charged. And obviously, the Court wasn't charged with negligence causing death according to your hypothetical argument of law.

 

In fact PM Prayut did borrow the Bt500 billion or so through sale of 10-year treasury bonds to make Yingluck's payments to the rice farmers, albeit after he abolished the constitution which constrained Yingluck - remember? Should he not to under your theory of law be held complicit for damaging the nation with such debt?

 

[Jonah Tenner]

16 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

what is the value of a vote?

Nothing.

 

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”

 - Mark Twain

[candide]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

So the US never made mistakes.. even the Netherlands has cases that the law made mistakes.  So does that mean those laws are not good either.. That is your argument. 

I agree with you that no judiciary system is exempt of mistakes.

But in the cases that have been cited in Thailand, it was not about "mistakes". In theses cases, they was a clear pattern: look for scapegoats, protect some influent people, eradicate disturbing opponents, prevent investigation, etc...

[Becker]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes the law, you might not like it but the law will decide. I will accept what they say unlike many here i have faith in the ability of these judges. 

 

Wow! Do you actually have faith in the impartiality and ability of the judiciary? What, despite all the evidence to the contrary, makes you think this branch of government is less compromised than the others???

[docshock13]

Can one deplore the Red Shirts without being a junta supporter? And can one deplore the junta without being a Red Shirt supporter? I think so. I have read thoughtful arguments from both sides. 

[JAG]

The government is accountable to the laws and regulations of a country too.. That is what you red lot love to forget. You forgot it again. They are NOT only accountable to the electorate. 

The government which we are discussing was in the process of offering itself to be held to account ( by calling an entirely legal and constitutional election) when the present regime installed itself by staging a coup, tore up the constitution, dismissed the elected parliament and appointed its own, and then the coup leader installed himself as Prime Minister and effectively rules by decree.
I really would appreciate it if you could explain to me how that is even remotely in line with the "laws and regulations" - by which I assume you mean the constitution then in force, as that is where the "laws and regulations" spring from.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, docshock13 said:

Can one deplore the Red Shirts without being a junta supporter? And can one deplore the junta without being a Red Shirt supporter? I think so. I have read thoughtful arguments from both sides. 

Can one believe in an ideology that parallels the junta or the Pheu Thai Party without being a supporter of either? Yes, of course.

You suggest that ideologies are exclusive property. They are not. The existence of about 20 political parties in the last election proves that point. Even the junta-lite Democrats diverge from the junta on basic issues.

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

The government which we are discussing was in the process of offering itself to be held to account ( by calling an entirely legal and constitutional election) when the present regime installed itself by staging a coup, tore up the constitution, dismissed the elected parliament and appointed its own, and then the coup leader installed himself as Prime Minister and effectively rules by decree.
I really would appreciate it if you could explain to me how that is even remotely in line with the "laws and regulations" - by which I assume you mean the constitution then in force, as that is where the "laws and regulations" spring from.

Again JAG, (not surprisingly) you see elections as being held to account. I was talking about judicial accountability. Something that is what is going to happen the 24th. I understand that scares your side like nothing else because popularity does not count then.. just the law. 

 

The coup certainly was not in line with the law but it certainly allowed for in-depth investigations into the rice program that would otherwise be almost impossible.You do remember how hard they denied the fake G2G deals dismissing them and all.. Stuff like that would have been swept under the rug. So even though the coup was not in line with the law it did serve a good purpose helping to bring justice to Thailand. Now IMHO they should hold elections ASAP. But without the coup I doubt they would have as much evidence against all the reds as they have now. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by robblok

[Srikcir]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

The coup certainly was not in line with the law

It was treason! Not just something "not in line with the law."

 

You suggest that treason or any law can be excused if some unelected group decides it can do better than an elected government. Ironically, you would be justified as the junta-drafted new constitution provides the military with such power - not a surprise by a group that has abolished 11 constitutions.

 

The Thai military believes it holds "extra-constitutionality." It is not required to maintain itself "in line with the law." Yet, it holds elected governments to such standard. By extension the military can bring political pressure on all branches of government (ie., judicial system ) and so-called Independent Organizations through junta-appointments, firings, change in qualifications, reorganizations, etc. to effect its political goals - the continuation of its autocracy.

 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

It was treason! Not just something "not in line with the law."

 

You suggest that treason or any law can be excused if some unelected group decides it can do better than an elected government. Ironically, you would be justified as the junta-drafted new constitution provides the military with such power - not a surprise by a group that has abolished 11 constitutions.

 

The Thai military believes it holds "extra-constitutionality." It is not required to maintain itself "in line with the law." Yet, it holds elected governments to such standard. By extension the military can bring political pressure on all branches of government (ie., judicial system ) and so-called Independent Organizations through junta-appointments, firings, change in qualifications, reorganizations, etc. to effect its political goals - the continuation of its autocracy.

 

Its not treason if you win and if its for the greater good of the country. Was it treason when the US broke free from the England ? 

 

The winner writes the rules. Just like YL (and her government) would have gotten away with all of her crimes if she had stayed in power. 

 

Its not how it should be but how it is. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by robblok

[JAG]

39 minutes ago, robblok said:

Again JAG, (not surprisingly) you see elections as being held to account. I was talking about judicial accountability. Something that is what is going to happen the 24th. I understand that scares your side like nothing else because popularity does not count then.. just the law. 

 

The coup certainly was not in line with the law but it certainly allowed for in-depth investigations into the rice program that would otherwise be almost impossible.You do remember how hard they denied the fake G2G deals dismissing them and all.. Stuff like that would have been swept under the rug. So even though the coup was not in line with the law it did serve a good purpose helping to bring justice to Thailand. Now IMHO they should hold elections ASAP. But without the coup I doubt they would have as much evidence against all the reds as they have now. 

Again I ask: I really would appreciate it if you could explain to me how that is even remotely in line with the "laws and regulations" - by which I assume you mean the constitution then in force, as that is where the "laws and regulations" spring from.

 

You won't answer it will you, because you cannot.

 

By your yardstick any number of illegal acts could be justified because they co-incidentally bring - in your opinion - a benefit. It is a bankrupt argument.

 

Incidentally I note that you are now converted to the idea of an election, "Now IMHO they should hold elections ASAP. " That wouldn't be any chance be because the Junta are about to put all the probable winners "out of politics", and have managed to rig the process so that no matter what the result they will retain power?

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, JAG said:

Again I ask: I really would appreciate it if you could explain to me how that is even remotely in line with the "laws and regulations" - by which I assume you mean the constitution then in force, as that is where the "laws and regulations" spring from.

 

You won't answer it will you, because you cannot.

 

By your yardstick any number of illegal acts could be justified because they co-incidentally bring - in your opinion - a benefit. It is a bankrupt argument.

 

Incidentally I note that you are now converted to the idea of an election, "Now IMHO they should hold elections ASAP. " That wouldn't be any chance be because the Junta are about to put all the probable winners "out of politics", and have managed to rig the process so that no matter what the result they will retain power?

JAG,

 

I have always supported elections been saying that for ages you were just not reading it. Junta been in power long enough did not do enough as promised. Been saying this for months and months now, you must have been sleeping.

 

The coup obviously was not legal, but it was a medicine to cure a cancer spreading in Thailand, and violence getting worse and worse. Without this coup the crimes of your beloved YL would not have been as deeply investigated and I know that is your problem .. you refuse to accept that she did things wrong and you refuse to accept that as long as she was in power no real investigations could be done. The fake G2G deals were flat out denied by her and her ministers. Nothing was done about it. It took a coup to get to the bottom of it. Incidentally those fake G2G deals are connected to a friend of Thaksin... quite damming id say.. 

[JAG]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

JAG,

 

I have always supported elections been saying that for ages you were just not reading it. Junta been in power long enough did not do enough as promised. Been saying this for months and months now, you must have been sleeping.

 

The coup obviously was not legal, but it was a medicine to cure a cancer spreading in Thailand, and violence getting worse and worse. Without this coup the crimes of your beloved YL would not have been as deeply investigated and I know that is your problem .. you refuse to accept that she did things wrong and you refuse to accept that as long as she was in power no real investigations could be done. The fake G2G deals were flat out denied by her and her ministers. Nothing was done about it. It took a coup to get to the bottom of it. Incidentally those fake G2G deals are connected to a friend of Thaksin... quite damming id say.. 

You make a great number of assumptions about my views, assumptions which are not based on any thing I have ever said.

 

My "problem" as you describe it, ( if it is one), is that you and a number of others, but you are perhaps the most persistent, continue  in justifying the overthrow of an elected government that was in the process of offering itself for the judgement of the people, through standing for re-election. Phrases such as a"medicine to cure cancer", and "violence getting worse" are simply a veneer, the real truth is that you disliked the Pheu Thai government (I hardly regard it as a model for good governance), and were unable to accept that it may well have been returned. You are prepared to compromise your attachment to democracy by supporting a coup, because it removed that possibility and has led to a process which you expect will prevent it returning again. That is what I meant by a bankrupt argument.

 

Perhaps you may leave your (wrong) assessment of any feelings I may have for Yingluck out of it. You do have a habit of personalising the debate, you did so a couple of weeks ago (commenting on  my wife, daughter and dogs) and now you do so again by suggesting that Yingluck is "beloved".

 

Why not, instead of that, devote you r efforts to answering the question I posed  at the start of this exchange, "I really would appreciate it if you could explain to me how that is even remotely in line with the "laws and regulations" - by which I assume you mean the constitution then in force, as that is where the "laws and regulations" spring from."

 

Or shall we just leave it that you don't really believe in democracy, and the supremacy of the electorate in selecting their own government?

 

 

 

[GarryP]

17 hours ago, robblok said:

So the US never made mistakes.. even the Netherlands has cases that the law made mistakes.  So does that mean those laws are not good either.. That is your argument. 

Of course courts make mistakes. But in Thailand you could not put down what has happened to mistakes in many cases where there is a political aspect or influential individual - money or power- involved. There are deliberate acts of misjustice, where decisions have been made by others and the judges told how to rule. Questioning the judges' impartiality then puts you at risk of charges being brought against you. You know who appoints the judges so questioning their honesty/competence/intelligence/logic etc. can be interpreted as maligning the reputation of such person which is definitely a no-no.

 

  

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, JAG said:

You make a great number of assumptions about my views, assumptions which are not based on any thing I have ever said.

 

My "problem" as you describe it, ( if it is one), is that you and a number of others, but you are perhaps the most persistent, continue  in justifying the overthrow of an elected government that was in the process of offering itself for the judgement of the people, through standing for re-election. Phrases such as a"medicine to cure cancer", and "violence getting worse" are simply a veneer, the real truth is that you disliked the Pheu Thai government (I hardly regard it as a model for good governance), and were unable to accept that it may well have been returned. You are prepared to compromise your attachment to democracy by supporting a coup, because it removed that possibility and has led to a process which you expect will prevent it returning again. That is what I meant by a bankrupt argument.

 

Perhaps you may leave your (wrong) assessment of any feelings I may have for Yingluck out of it. You do have a habit of personalising the debate, you did so a couple of weeks ago (commenting on  my wife, daughter and dogs) and now you do so again by suggesting that Yingluck is "beloved".

 

Why not, instead of that, devote you r efforts to answering the question I posed  at the start of this exchange, "I really would appreciate it if you could explain to me how that is even remotely in line with the "laws and regulations" - by which I assume you mean the constitution then in force, as that is where the "laws and regulations" spring from."

 

Or shall we just leave it that you don't really believe in democracy, and the supremacy of the electorate in selecting their own government?

 

 

 

JAG, 

 

Yes I dislike the PTP actually I dislike their style of governance, people bring out proof of corruption and wrong doing in the rice program get bullied and no action is undertaken. The PTP seems to think that when they are in power no rules apply. See the secret votes at night sending the opposition away saying that the voting will be the next day.  I really dislike those kind of things the sheer arrogance they display (something I dislike in the junta too).

 

You keep saying that they were given themselves up for judgement.. the people are not judges they are voters and are not the checks and balances I was talking about. An investigation of the magnitude of the rice program could not have been done without the coup. I really do hope it seals the fate of YL. Because be it stupidity or negligence that program was rotten to the core and unsustainable. She was warned and ignored it. 

 

As for that thing about your wife and daughter that was a parody a joke (obviously one you did not get and might have been not funny) But it stemmed from you stating about the two dogs your wife and daughter on a motorcycle. You had ideas about me I said I would probably have ideas about you that were wrong and as an exaggerated example pictured you all in red on a motorbike. It was a joke nothing more.

 

I believe in real democracies, with checks and balances that uphold all principles.. Mughabe is voted in too.. do you call that a democracy too ? My problem as I stated before with the PTP is the arrogance they display once in power by ignoring all independent organisations and removing checks and balances.

 

You keep on coming up with voting.. but voting is one part.. following the law is the rest and that means not obstructing investigations in corruption and problems of the rice program.

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Of course courts make mistakes. But in Thailand you could not put down what has happened to mistakes in many cases where there is a political aspect or influential individual - money or power- involved. There are deliberate acts of misjustice, where decisions have been made by others and the judges told how to rule. Questioning the judges' impartiality then puts you at risk of charges being brought against you. You know who appoints the judges so questioning their honesty/competence/intelligence/logic etc. can be interpreted as maligning the reputation of such person which is definitely a no-no.

 

  

So basically you are saying that the judges are not honest and could call white black if they wanted too.

 

I refuse to believe that, I do believe they can stretch the law in the favor of the party they like but they still can't completely ignore the law, especially not when the other side is rich and powerful too. 

 

It kinda depends how far you think they can go if I agree with you or not.. 

[Baerboxer]

“Yingluck declared the rice-pledging scheme in Parliament, followed it and did not touch a baht involved in the case, yet she has become a defendant,” he added.

 

No she didn't follow it. Not attending any meetings after appointing herself to chair the meetings; not actively managing issues despite all the warnings.

 

If she has of followed it, then she wouldn't be a defendant. 

[bristolgeoff]

I think she knows what will happen It has started already if true with the bank account stories.they will take everything and leave her little

[GarryP]

36 minutes ago, robblok said:

So basically you are saying that the judges are not honest and could call white black if they wanted too.

 

I refuse to believe that, I do believe they can stretch the law in the favor of the party they like but they still can't completely ignore the law, especially not when the other side is rich and powerful too. 

 

It kinda depends how far you think they can go if I agree with you or not.. 

I would say that the majority of judges are honest. But there are definitely those who would call white black if instructed to do so or would benefit from doing so. 

 

The vast majority of judges do not handle cases such as these. 

 

However, I would certainly question the fairness of judges ruling on 112 matters and high profile political cases. In the case of the former it is possibly a case of not daring to dismiss the charges, and perhaps in some of the latter cases too. But there is something very clearly wrong in the Thai legal system when a "nobody" ends up in jail for a particular offence but someone with a family name, connections or money does not serve any time for exactly the same kind of offence. I understand that one can afford to hire lawyers and the other can't, but when the offence is irrefutable, how can it be accepted that the Thai legal system is fair if one goes to prison and the other does not. 

 

Thai law is also applied exceedingly selectively.  

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I would say that the majority of judges are honest. But there are definitely those who would call white black if instructed to do so or would benefit from doing so. 

 

The vast majority of judges do not handle cases such as these. 

 

However, I would certainly question the fairness of judges ruling on 112 matters and high profile political cases. In the case of the former it is possibly a case of not daring to dismiss the charges, and perhaps in some of the latter cases too. But there is something very clearly wrong in the Thai legal system when a "nobody" ends up in jail for a particular offence but someone with a family name, connections or money does not serve any time for exactly the same kind of offence. I understand that one can afford to hire lawyers and the other can't, but when the offence is irrefutable, how can it be accepted that the Thai legal system is fair if one goes to prison and the other does not. 

 

Thai law is also applied exceedingly selectively.  

It is called 'political expediency' and an ex-constitution judge admitted to that. You are therefore spot on with your comment.

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Was it treason when the US broke free from the England ? 

Yes. Under British laws. Laws which by the way the British parliament violated with its stamp tax imposed against its New World colonies.

• Note that Britain's rule of law was defined by common law and parliamentary laws - there was no formal written constitution. As the colonies were not afforded representation in Parliament that would enable them to "work within the system," they had to oppose the Empire. From that perspective the colonialists might have viewed the British Parliament as treasonous!

The Colonial rebels did not fight for any country. There was no America or USA. They fought against the British Empire for the freedom of the British 13 colonies to have independent sovereignty with representative democracy. The rebels were insurgents. With surrender of the British military, history was not rewritten but began anew.

 

When the Confederacy insurrection was led by so-called President Davie and Gen. Lee, was it treason against the USA? Yes. They attempted to "right a wrong" (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation to free Southern slaves) outside the rule of law established by the US Constitution by succession and civil war against the USA. With the surrender of the Confederacy, history was not rewritten but began anew.

 

The "offending" Yingluck regime followed the law as prescribed by the constitution. The Democrats and the military committed treason for actions to remove the elected regime by unconstitutional means. Upon success of overthrow, the military junta rewrote history for the twelfth time by abolishing the Constitution and rewriting a new pro-junta constitution. Both refused to work within a democratic system to achieve their political aims. How can you find such lawless actions as justified?

 

 

 

[robblok]

59 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I would say that the majority of judges are honest. But there are definitely those who would call white black if instructed to do so or would benefit from doing so. 

 

The vast majority of judges do not handle cases such as these. 

 

However, I would certainly question the fairness of judges ruling on 112 matters and high profile political cases. In the case of the former it is possibly a case of not daring to dismiss the charges, and perhaps in some of the latter cases too. But there is something very clearly wrong in the Thai legal system when a "nobody" ends up in jail for a particular offence but someone with a family name, connections or money does not serve any time for exactly the same kind of offence. I understand that one can afford to hire lawyers and the other can't, but when the offence is irrefutable, how can it be accepted that the Thai legal system is fair if one goes to prison and the other does not. 

 

Thai law is also applied exceedingly selectively.  

I agree that something is wrong, and that the law is stretched but I mean calling something black white and such is something I would think would not be done. But I do agree largely with you.

 

But in this case YL has money and power.. if the verdict is black when the law says white... i doubt her lawyers will stand for it. I certainly believe the little people have far more to fear then the likes of YL.