A guilty verdict for Thailand's Yingluck may stoke anger but military firmly in charge

[webfact]

A guilty verdict for Thailand's Yingluck may stoke anger but military firmly in charge

By Panarat Thepgumpanat and Aukkarapon Niyomyat

 

Ousted former Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra greets supporters as she leaves the Supreme Court in Bangkok, Thailand, August 1, 2017. REUTERS/Aukkarapon Niyomyat

 

BANGKOK (Reuters) - A long-awaited verdict in the trial of former Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra this week could inflame tension and would likely have far-reaching implications in the politically divided kingdom.

 

The ruling military said more than 3,000 of Yingluck's supporters could show up at the court on Friday in what would be one of the biggest political gatherings since Yingluck's government was ousted in a 2014 coup.

 

Thousands of policemen will be on hand in a bid to head off the sort of trouble that has become a hallmark of antagonistic Thai politics over the past decade or more.

 

Yingluck has been accused of negligence in her handling of a multi-billion dollar rice subsidy scheme, under which the government bought rice from farmers at inflated prices.

 

That led to stockpiles of rotting grain, distorted world prices and lostThailand its crown as the world's top exporter. Losses amounted to $8 billion, this government says.

 

Critics said the scheme was engineered by Yingluck's brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, to shore up support among rural voters who have handed electoral victory to a Shinawatra party in every election since 2001.

 

Yingluck has denied wrongdoing and has said she is the victim of political persecution. She faces up to 10 years in jail if found guilty of negligence.

 

A military-backed legislature found her guilty in a separate impeachment case in 2015, and banned her from politics for five years, for failing to exercise sufficient oversight of the subsidy scheme.

 

Despite that, Yingluck remains the unofficial face of the Shinawatra political machine, which, supporters say, the royalist-military establishment is determined to sideline once and for all.

 

Opposition activists said a guilty verdict would fuel anti-government anger and could spark a smattering of small protests in defiance of a government ban, particularly in the north and northeast where support for the Shinawatras appears

unwavering.

 

"If she is found guilty there will surely be some action by underground resistance forces," said a leader of the pro-Shinawatra "red shirt" movement in the northeastern city of Khon Kaen who declined to be identified.

 

"There are plans to burn tyres at up to 10 locations in Khon Kaen."

 

POLITICAL IMPACT

 

Former telecommunications tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra, overthrown in a 2006 coup and living quietly in self-exile to avoid a 2008 conviction for graft he said was politically motivated, has made no public comment on his sister's case.

 

Trakool Meechai, a former political science professor at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, said widespread sustained protests in response to a conviction of Yingluck were unlikely, given the firm grip the military has imposed.

 

But in the long-term, a conviction could deter future governments from intervening to support markets.

 

"No matter how this case turns out it will have an impact on Thai politics," Trakool told Reuters. "This case will be a litmus test for how future politicians will manage the country."

 

A verdict of innocent would invigorate the rank and file of the Shinawatras' embattled Puea Thai Party and boost its prospects in a general election the junta has promised to hold in 2018.

 

"If the case is thrown out it will increase the strength of Yingluck and her Puea Thai Party and this will show in the next election," Trakool said.

 

Two potential leaders have emerged to lead the party in the election, one of them from within the Shinawatra family. 

 

But a guilty verdict would spell the end of Yingluck's political career, deal a heavy blow to the Shinawatras and their loyalists, and deepen the political divisions that the military has vowed to heal.

 

(Additional reporting and writing by Amy Sawitta Lefevre; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-23

[Samui Bodoh]

3 minutes ago, webfact said:

A verdict of innocent would invigorate the rank and file of the Shinawatras' embattled Puea Thai Party and boost its prospects in a general election the junta has promised to hold in 2018.

 

This is why it was decided long ago that the verdict would be guilty.

 

 

[YetAnother]

11 minutes ago, webfact said:

Yingluck remains the unofficial face of the Shinawatra political machine, which, supporters say, the royalist-military establishment is determined to sideline once and for all.

finally, someone came out and concisely said it

[binjalin]

10 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

finally, someone came out and concisely said it

Even so it's only a question of time.

[ezzra]

It might stoke anger, but at least justice will be SEEN to work, if

not really works for all to see.... 

[binjalin]

1 minute ago, ezzra said:

It might stoke anger, but at least justice will be SEEN to work, if

not really works for all to see.... 

Really?  SEEN to work?  you jest Sir!  I do not have acquaintance with even ONE Thai or Farang who believes this is even remotely related to justice. Even those who hate her and say 'som nam na' know its not related and those who are more enlightened are horrified for the country. 

[Jip99]

SHINAWATRA INNOCENT.

 

 

No, even in capitals, it doesn't hold water...... then, now, or for the future.

[LannaGuy]

12 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

SHINAWATRA INNOCENT.

 

 

No, even in capitals, it doesn't hold water...... then, now, or for the future.

At last someone admits it's not about rice it's about the political persecution of the Shinawatras!    well done!

[Jip99]

54 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

At last someone admits it's not about rice it's about the political persecution of the Shinawatras!    well done!

 

 

Did I mention rice?

 

Your paranoia about persecution is shining through - I didn't mention that either.

 

You have a talent  for misquoting a simple 16 word post....... it does mark you....

[NCC1701A]

"There are plans to burn tyres at up to 10 locations in Khon Kaen."

 

We should have real time tire burning reports here on Thai Visa.

[korkenzieher]

Umm. Has it really occurred to no-one that the military is about 75% Isan boys?

 

Might be timely to consider the implications of that!

[scorecard]

5 hours ago, YetAnother said:

finally, someone came out and concisely said it

 

Yes, a biased newspaper.

[stephen tracy]

4 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Did I mention rice?

 

Your paranoia about persecution is shining through - I didn't mention that either.

 

You have a talent  for misquoting a simple 16 word post....... it does mark you....

So what were you implying she wasn't innocent of?

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

This is why it was decided long ago that the verdict would be guilty.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

At last someone admits it's not about rice it's about the political persecution of the Shinawatras!    well done!

 

No, it's about Yingluck being held accountable for blatant negligence. She, or her controller, or advisers or all of them decided she should appoint herself to chair the rice scheme and then not bother, not attend any meetings, not chair the meetings, not act on warnings and follow up issues etc. Now we can all speculate on the reasons for that.

 

But that created the scenario to charge her with negligence, a charge which to date, AFAIK, she and her legal team have not actually defended.

 

Now, if you said that the decisions on who to prosecute and who not too, were not equal and based on factors other than transgressing laws then you'd have a point.

 

Had she not been negligent, she couldn't be prosecuted. Someone was a bit too clever and left the door open. 

[stephen tracy]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No, it's about Yingluck being held accountable for blatant negligence. She, or her controller, or advisers or all of them decided she should appoint herself to chair the rice scheme and then not bother, not attend any meetings, not chair the meetings, not act on warnings and follow up issues etc. Now we can all speculate on the reasons for that.

 

But that created the scenario to charge her with negligence, a charge which to date, AFAIK, she and her legal team have not actually defended.

 

Now, if you said that the decisions on who to prosecute and who not too, were not equal and based on factors other than transgressing laws then you'd have a point.

 

Had she not been negligent, she couldn't be prosecuted. Someone was a bit too clever and left the door open. 

No it ain't.  It's political.  If it was one of their own that did (does) it, this would not be happening.  As if a court case in Thailand ever has anything to do with actual justice.

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, binjalin said:

Really?  SEEN to work?  you jest Sir!  I do not have acquaintance with even ONE Thai or Farang who believes this is even remotely related to justice. Even those who hate her and say 'som nam na' know its not related and those who are more enlightened are horrified for the country. 

 

Horrified - because it's always been that way, and probably always will?

 

The selectivity in how and for whom the law is applied renders the concept of justice somewhat abstract based on most farang's notion of it.

 

Someone might well be guilty as charged, and convicted. But the decision to prosecute some rather than all cases adds a selectivity which doesn't fit with our farang notion of justice.

[Baerboxer]

5 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

No it ain't.  It's political.  If it was one of their own that did (does) it, this would not be happening.  As if a court case in Thailand ever has anything to do with actual justice.

 

No, the decision on who to prosecute and who not to prosecute, which is taken by prosecutors should only be based on the investigative evidence and the law appertaining to that charge and evidence. But here, we see that those decisions appear to be influenced by outside factors and applied very unevenly.

 

The decision on whether to prosecute or not appears political. The offense of gross negligence, based on the evidence so far reported, isn't.

 

If she wasn't negligent, she couldn't be prosecuted. 

 

The Shiniwattras, like many others, have relied on screaming "it's all political" as some sort of magical get out of jail card, and defelction from actual fact. Whilst they may well be right that the decision to prosecute is politically motivated, they wouldn't be in that position  if they hadn't broken a law!

 

Try and understand that difference Stephen. Attacking the process, doesn't absolve breaking the law. The real criticism should be that some are allowed to break laws and not be prosecuted.

[stephen tracy]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No, the decision on who to prosecute and who not to prosecute, which is taken by prosecutors should only be based on the investigative evidence and the law appertaining to that charge and evidence. But here, we see that those decisions appear to be influenced by outside factors and applied very unevenly.

 

The decision on whether to prosecute or not appears political. The offense of gross negligence, based on the evidence so far reported, isn't.

 

If she wasn't negligent, she couldn't be prosecuted. 

 

The Shiniwattras, like many others, have relied on screaming "it's all political" as some sort of magical get out of jail card, and defelction from actual fact. Whilst they may well be right that the decision to prosecute is politically motivated, they wouldn't be in that position  if they hadn't broken a law!

 

Try and understand that difference Stephen. Attacking the process, doesn't absolve breaking the law. The real criticism should be that some are allowed to break laws and not be prosecuted.

Despite all nuance and irrelevant detail, you have always failed to grasp the far bigger picture of what this really is.  What process? WHat law?  There is one breathtakingly corrupt establishment within the Thai nation state going after an equally corrupt entity.  It's an internal war for power. The elites refuse to give and inch, lest they lose a mile, and Mr P has been brought in to ensure that this never happens.  That's all this is about...  the rice?  Yeah sure.

[TKDfella]

Can't imagine an 'innocent' verdict and I only wish the guilty verdict was for pure justice but it won't be.

[Baerboxer]

22 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Despite all nuance and irrelevant detail, you have always failed to grasp the far bigger picture of what this really is.  What process? WHat law?  There is one breathtakingly corrupt establishment within the Thai nation state going after an equally corrupt entity.  It's an internal war for power. The elites refuse to give and inch, lest they lose a mile, and Mr P has been brought in to ensure that this never happens.  That's all this is about...  the rice?  Yeah sure.

 

Don't be rude Stephen - if you want an intellectual debate and discussion bring it on. But don't result to the shallow silly tactics of some TVF posters who always try to dismiss any view different to their own by claiming superior intelligence.

 

I never mentioned rice. You did. I spoke of negligence. She has been charged with negligence and malfeasance. And, based on reports from the case, she has never answered those charges. And never will. Because she has no answer. She, or her brother and advisers left her wide open for those charges. So her only defense appears to be, as usual, to challenge the process, claim political persecution, and repeat the Shin mantra "I haven;t done anything wrong"! As to why she acted that way, we'll never know. Possibly they thought they'd claim plausible deniability, possibly she was told to look the other way and keep out the detail, who knows?

 

I'm glad you recognize that the corruption is universal. Too many posters seize on "she's being" persecuted as meaning she's innocent. It doesn't. The unfairness is that she's being prosecuted whilst others aren't. But that's the way it is. It might be distasteful but it still doesn't mean she should be let off. It means the others ought to be brought to justice. Corrupt politicians the world over play the "bigger picture" card to try and obscure the detail of how they've broken the law. It's the detail that catches them out.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Baerboxer

[Thailand]

58 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Still bigger.

 

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Still bigger.

 

 

That's done me - off to mash a cuppa! Enjoy!!

[Fumanchang]

54 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No, it's about Yingluck being held accountable for blatant negligence. She, or her controller, or advisers or all of them decided she should appoint herself to chair the rice scheme and then not bother, not attend any meetings, not chair the meetings, not act on warnings and follow up issues etc. Now we can all speculate on the reasons for that.

 

But that created the scenario to charge her with negligence, a charge which to date, AFAIK, she and her legal team have not actually defended.

 

Now, if you said that the decisions on who to prosecute and who not too, were not equal and based on factors other than transgressing laws then you'd have a point.

 

Had she not been negligent, she couldn't be prosecuted. Someone was a bit too clever and left the door open. 

The first Thai politician ever to be charged with negligence, do you think that is because no other Thai politician has ever been negligent or are there other motivations at work here?

Doesn't take a genius to work it out.

 

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Don't be rude Stephen - if you want an intellectual debate and discussion bring it on. But don't result to the shallow silly tactics of some TVF posters who always try to dismiss any view different to their own by claiming superior intelligence.

 

I never mentioned rice. You did. I spoke of negligence. She has been charged with negligence and malfeasance. And, based on reports from the case, she has never answered those charges. And never will. Because she has no answer. She, or her brother and advisers left her wide open for those charges. So her only defense appears to be, as usual, to challenge the process, claim political persecution, and repeat the Shin mantra "I haven;t done anything wrong"! As to why she acted that way, we'll never know. Possibly they thought they'd claim plausible deniability, possibly she was told to look the other way and keep out the detail, who knows?

 

I'm glad you recognize that the corruption is universal. Too many posters seize on "she's being" persecuted as meaning she's innocent. It doesn't. The unfairness is that she's being prosecuted whilst others aren't. But that's the way it is. It might be distasteful but it still doesn't mean she should be let off. It means the others ought to be brought to justice.

They wont because they have awarded themselves blanket amnesty.  And despite their rampant corruption have the audacity to prosecute someone else for the same thing.  It's not a real trial, it's a show trial.  Prayuth could not give a hoot about the rice scam, all he cares about it was his masters have told him to care about: get rid of any and all opposition that will ever challenge their hold on all the levers of state...  That's it.  That's what this is about.  Hence making speech a crime, pressing like on FB a crime, looking at stuff on the Internet a crime, criticising the powers-that-be a crime, reading 1984 a crime, deploying thousands of military personnel to prevent a show of support at a trial a crime...etc, etc, etc.  Always remember that when a mere mortal is involved in financial irregularity, that is "corruption", but when members of the elite do the same thing, that is "Thainess". 

[mike324]

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Don't be rude Stephen - if you want an intellectual debate and discussion bring it on. But don't result to the shallow silly tactics of some TVF posters who always try to dismiss any view different to their own by claiming superior intelligence.

 

I never mentioned rice. You did. I spoke of negligence. She has been charged with negligence and malfeasance. And, based on reports from the case, she has never answered those charges. And never will. Because she has no answer. She, or her brother and advisers left her wide open for those charges. So her only defense appears to be, as usual, to challenge the process, claim political persecution, and repeat the Shin mantra "I haven;t done anything wrong"! As to why she acted that way, we'll never know. Possibly they thought they'd claim plausible deniability, possibly she was told to look the other way and keep out the detail, who knows?

 

I'm glad you recognize that the corruption is universal. Too many posters seize on "she's being" persecuted as meaning she's innocent. It doesn't. The unfairness is that she's being prosecuted whilst others aren't. But that's the way it is. It might be distasteful but it still doesn't mean she should be let off. It means the others ought to be brought to justice. Corrupt politicians the world over play the "bigger picture" card to try and obscure the detail of how they've broken the law. It's the detail that catches them out.

I agree.

 

The fact that the TRT/PTP had together almost a decade of chances to prosecute criminals, but they fail to do so says one thing. The fact that the military who is in charge was able to remove the bangkok govenor and many high ranking police and officials, says a lot about how far they have come in regards to moving cases along.

 

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, mike324 said:

I agree.

 

The fact that the TRT/PTP had together almost a decade of chances to prosecute criminals, but they fail to do so says one thing. The fact that the military who is in charge was able to remove the bangkok govenor and many high ranking police and officials, says a lot about how far they have come in regards to moving cases along.

 

The corrupt removing the corrupt?

[Fumanchang]

Just now, mike324 said:

I agree.

 

The fact that the TRT/PTP had together almost a decade of chances to prosecute criminals, but they fail to do so says one thing. The fact that the military who is in charge was able to remove the bangkok govenor and many high ranking police and officials, says a lot about how far they have come in regards to moving cases along.

 

After 3 years of Junta rule, why does Transparency International show Thailand's corruption rating getting worse not better?

[Thailand]

Simple solution, find her guilty. Banned from politics for 5 years.

 

Suspended sentence.

 

Should keep most parties happy until payback time comes around?

[Fumanchang]

Just now, stephen tracy said:

The corrupt removing the corrupt?

To allow the former to continue being corrupt unhindered by the latter.