Judges face 3 questions in deciding ex-PM guilt

[webfact]

Judges face 3 questions in deciding ex-PM guilt

By ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM 
THE NATION

 

File photo

 

>> Did Yingluck’s govt actually “pledge” rice from farmers?

>> Was rice from govt stocks sold via govt-to-govt deals?

>> was the then-Prime minister aware of irregularities?

BANGKOK: -- LEGAL EXPERTS have outlined three major points that Supreme Court judges in the negligence case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra are likely to focus on.

 

In order to reach a common verdict as to whether Yingluck is guilty or not, the experts said that the nine judges individually should first try to answer these |questions. Did her government actually “pledge” rice from farmers? Was rice from government stocks sold through government-to-government deals? And was the then-PM aware of irregularities?

 

The prosecution has argued before the court that although the programme was called a “rice-pledging” scheme, farmers who had their rice pledged under the |project would never have bought it back because the pledge price offered by Yingluck’s government was much higher than the market value of the rice. This resulted in large quantities of harvested rice ending up in government stocks.

 

That administration’s policy of |pledging “every grain of rice” was blamed for a lot of irregularities that together cost over Bt400 billion in taxpayers’ money. The graft scams making up many of the irregularities involved pledging low-quality rice and cheaper rice from neighbouring countries, and allowing non-farmers into the project. The judges would also have to determine whether rice under the project was sold to any foreign country through government-to-government deals. 

 

 

In a separate case also stemming from the rice-pledging scheme, Yingluck’s |former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his ex-deputy Poom Sarapol are charged with malfeasance for the alleged sale of rice from state stockpiles to the Chinese government. 

 

The deals were claimed to have been made with a local Chinese state enterprise, but investigators found that the rice “sold” had never been exported. The enterprise cited was not certified by the central Chinese government. Also, the claimed representative of the Chinese firm was found to work for a Thai |company with close connections to |certain figures in Yingluck’s government.

 

The Supreme Court is also scheduled to deliver its verdict in the case against Boonsong and 27 others in the “fake” |government-to-government rice sale case on August 25, the same day as Yingluck’s verdict is handed down.

 

A “guilty” verdict in that case would confirm charges of irregularities in the rice-pledging project and that certain government figures and policy-makers were involved.

 

Regarding the question as to whether Yingluck was aware of the irregularities, the prosecution argued that the Finance Ministry at that time reported to her Cabinet on three occasions about |problems stemming from the project, including a massive loss and damages caused. As chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee, Yingluck would certainly be aware of all those problems, the prosecution argued.

 

Public prosecutors also introduced |evidence that Yingluck seemed to have ignored warnings of irregularities from the Auditor General’s Office and the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

 

In response, the ex-PM argued that her government had to continue with the rice-pledging project because it was one of her political party’s election campaign promises. Yingluck said a budget loss should not be taken into consideration for a government project that benefits |farmers. And she claimed she had taken measures to prevent and stop irregularities at “every stage”, including setting up a committee to investigate graft claims.

 

The judges will have to determine whether irregularities actually took place and if she should be held responsible for the graft, according to the legal experts. And the court will need to judge whether she acted sufficiently in her capacity as government head to stop or prevent those irregularities.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30324602

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-23

[4MyEgo]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his ex-deputy Poom Sarapol

The above should take the rap, Yingluck should walk, that is, unless the junta want a repeat of April 2010, open and shut case, she should not be hounded to inflict pain for her father not being able to be strung up in Thailand because some dipstick wants revenge.

[biggles45]

Derelection of duty and negligence! Probably every PM in the last 20+ years would be guilty of these charges.

[Lupatria]

42 minutes ago, biggles45 said:

Derelection of duty and negligence! Probably every PM in the last 20+ years would be guilty of these charges.

That's because they didn't rule according to 12 core values.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

>> Did Yingluck’s govt actually “pledge” rice from farmers?

>> Was rice from govt stocks sold via govt-to-govt deals?

>> was the then-Prime minister aware of irregularities?

In regard to the case against Yingluck, the only question is what specific law did she allegedly violate?

The cited three questions are anecdotal. While the answers may be or not reflect on Yingluck's state of mind, they don't represent any legal substance that should be addressed by the Supreme Court.

This is the same Supreme Court that had no objection with the junta's unconstitutional overthrow of an elected government and abolishing the constitution. The same Supreme Court that continued to operate afterwards by the permission of the junta. And finally, the same Supreme Court that has ruled that NCPO Orders are constitutional.

However the Court rules on Yingluck, it has failed the perception of conflict of interest that damages the ability to deliver equality of justice.

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

In 10 years will we see such a court case for the high speed trains costing the government billions ? I doubt it, but this court case has opened that possibility. Their hate for TS has caused them to over reach their power. 

[marko kok prong]

Sadly i think she will go down,not for her stupid idea of paying way above the market price for the rice,but on orders from above, who want the Shinawatra's firmly expunged from any type of comeback ,as the song from the Aussie band who's name escapes me goes

"when the general talks you better listen to him, when the general talks you better do what he say"

[ChrisY1]

6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

In regard to the case against Yingluck, the only question is what specific law did she allegedly violate?

The cited three questions are anecdotal. While the answers may be or not reflect on Yingluck's state of mind, they don't represent any legal substance that should be addressed by the Supreme Court.

This is the same Supreme Court that had no objection with the junta's unconstitutional overthrow of an elected government and abolishing the constitution. The same Supreme Court that continued to operate afterwards by the permission of the junta. And finally, the same Supreme Court that has ruled that NCPO Orders are constitutional.

However the Court rules on Yingluck, it has failed the perception of conflict of interest that damages the ability to deliver equality of justice.

Good post Srikcir.

[Baerboxer]

9 hours ago, biggles45 said:

Derelection of duty and negligence! Probably every PM in the last 20+ years would be guilty of these charges.

 

Quite possibly. So could you quote the examples please?

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

In regard to the case against Yingluck, the only question is what specific law did she allegedly violate?

The cited three questions are anecdotal. While the answers may be or not reflect on Yingluck's state of mind, they don't represent any legal substance that should be addressed by the Supreme Court.

This is the same Supreme Court that had no objection with the junta's unconstitutional overthrow of an elected government and abolishing the constitution. The same Supreme Court that continued to operate afterwards by the permission of the junta. And finally, the same Supreme Court that has ruled that NCPO Orders are constitutional.

However the Court rules on Yingluck, it has failed the perception of conflict of interest that damages the ability to deliver equality of justice.

 

Indeed. But your comments apply across the entire legal and justice system spectrum. Cases, including murder and negligent manslaughter, with irrefutable cctv evidence and even confessions, that just vanish into thin air, either not prosecuted, or acquitted with some strange reasoning, or convicted but appealed presumably on the grounds the accused didn't like the verdict. The law is not applied equivocally to  all. The concepts of fairness and blind justice are not known here.

 

But, doing something illegally leaves people wide open should the powers that be decide to take action against them for whatever reason. And that's the game they play..