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

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Fumanchang said:

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.

 

 

But here she was blatantly negligent. So come on genius, how many other Thai PM's appointed themselves to chair the meetings of their government's flag ship policy and then never bothered attending any meetings? Even when warned by auspicious world bodies and internal experts of issues, still no attendance.

 

Of course the decision to charge here was taken for many reasons, and not all were concerned with justice. But she did rather, or someone did, make her an easy target.

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, Thailand said:

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

 

Suspended sentence.

 

Should keep most parties happy until payback time comes around?

 

Probably about right there. I think the ban might be longer. The suspended sentence and of course the asset seizure - which she might get back in the future!

[Fumanchang]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But here she was blatantly negligent. So come on genius, how many other Thai PM's appointed themselves to chair the meetings of their government's flag ship policy and then never bothered attending any meetings? Even when warned by auspicious world bodies and internal experts of issues, still no attendance.

 

Of course the decision to charge here was taken for many reasons, and not all were concerned with justice. But she did rather, or someone did, make her an easy target.

So explain this then:

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Fumanchang

[thesetat2013]

8 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. 

get youe head out of the north and perhaps you can make these claims... the rest of the country doesn't agree with your comment, as you claimed... 

[mike324]

33 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

The corrupt removing the corrupt?

 

its funny, but at least its a start! its not as if it was any better, two steps back one step forward

[mike324]

34 minutes ago, Fumanchang said:

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

 

its worse due to junta having an iron fist and censorship, but for those who deal with officials on monthly basis, its a big difference. My company works with customs officials, as well as land officials. We have import / export business, as well as a real estate arm. I can tell you that officials are afraid of being outed due to the junta being in power and able to enforce laws.  Corruption and bribery problem is improving in Thailand, not saying it still doesn't happen, but at least civil servant are starting to watch their backs and are more afraid of asking for tea money. That is an improvement in itself.

[StraightTalk]

39 minutes ago, Fumanchang said:

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.

 

Or, maybe because of your argument, this precedent will be used to justify similar occurrences at a later time...

[Fumanchang]

2 minutes ago, mike324 said:

 

its worse due to junta having an iron fist and censorship, but for those who deal with officials on monthly basis, its a big difference. My company works with customs officials, as well as land officials. We have import / export business, as well as a real estate arm. I can tell you that officials are afraid of being outed due to the junta being in power and able to enforce laws.  Corruption and bribery problem is improving in Thailand, not saying it still doesn't happen, but at least civil servant are starting to watch their backs and are more afraid of asking for tea money. That is an improvement in itself.

Transparency International CORRUPTION rating for Thailand has got worse, nothing to do with censorship. 

 

Perhaps you should contact Transparency International and let them know that the half dozen or so officials you spoke to disagree with them, maybe they'll change the rating (or more likely, they'll treat your anecdotes for what they are).

[Fumanchang]

5 minutes ago, SouthernDelight said:

Or, maybe because of your argument, this precedent will be used to justify similar occurrences at a later time...

Only problem, one assumes that in the future there'll be no Section 44 to protect civil servants from prosecution for pursuing malicious prosecutions.

[Jip99]

2 minutes ago, Fumanchang said:

Only problem, one assumes that in the future there'll be no Section 44 to protect civil servants from prosecution for pursuing malicious prosecutions.

 

 

Malicious ?

 

 

Really ?

[Fumanchang]

1 minute ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Malicious ?

 

 

Really ?

To quote:

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

[stephen tracy]

23 minutes ago, mike324 said:

 

its funny, but at least its a start! its not as if it was any better, two steps back one step forward

It's the same. Nothing has changed.

[longtom]

2 hours ago, Fumanchang said:

Transparency International CORRUPTION rating for Thailand has got worse, nothing to do with censorship. 

 

Perhaps you should contact Transparency International and let them know that the half dozen or so officials you spoke to disagree with them, maybe they'll change the rating (or more likely, they'll treat your anecdotes for what they are).

Imho it's always informative to hear a first hand experience, even if it does not correspond to what I have heard from the Thais that I know.

 

Btw it does not help if a 'new' poster seems to know it all (please spare me the outrage ).

[Fumanchang]

4 minutes ago, longtom said:

Imho it's always informative to hear a first hand experience, even if it does not correspond to what I have heard from the Thais that I know.

Btw it does not help if a 'new' poster seems to know it all (please spare me the outrage ).

Outrage?

[longtom]

6 minutes ago, Fumanchang said:

Outrage?

About being a 'new' poster was what I meant, because that's the usual reaction.

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, Fumanchang said:

So explain this then:

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

14 posts. Did el recruit you?

[ratcatcher]

All they have to do  now to turn this into world class news is to provide post trial transportation for Yingluck to wave to her supporters.

 

A la......................

[Jip99]

7 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

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

 

 

Nothing implied..

 

I don't think she is innocent of anything.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Nothing implied..

 

I don't think she is innocent of anything.

I don't know if the case against her is judicially sound or not. To me it doesn't really matter. Certainly the whole rice debacle was a big unholy mess but this case would never even have gone to court if her last name was not Shinawatr. THAT is the real charge here. 

Sure, the junta can go ahead and convict her but it only highlights the stupendous hypocrisy of the old elite currently in power and I'm sure it will only solidify/strengthen the support she still enjoys.

Once again the bumbling bunch of baboons currently in charge are about to shoot themselves in the foot (and it's beautiful to behold). 

 

[Happyman58]

She has about as much chance of being found Not Guilty as i have wining the Thai Lottery  No Chance. Nice to see her corrupt brother supporting her. Oh thats right he is living it up on the money he stole from That Thai people before he left the country

[d2b2]

She should have planned ahead (as others have) and made her own article 44, so she would not have any responsibilities for any of her actions. 

[mike324]

17 hours ago, Fumanchang said:

Transparency International CORRUPTION rating for Thailand has got worse, nothing to do with censorship. 

 

Perhaps you should contact Transparency International and let them know that the half dozen or so officials you spoke to disagree with them, maybe they'll change the rating (or more likely, they'll treat your anecdotes for what they are).

No doubt the rating is getting worse, I don't deny it. Corruption, transparency, and censorship all go hand in hand in case you haven't noticed that in Thailand. Most folks here just read the news and compare it with their home country on how things should work according to the book, most aren't in touch with civil servants and have been in this country for over 30 years to know how things actually are behind the scenes.

 

If you want to talk facts, under Yinglucks administration the number of Les Majeste cases increase. Under Thaksins administration he had a very bad mark for Human Rights violation. It has all been the same if you view Thailand from the outside.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by mike324

[LannaGuy]

12 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

All they have to do  now to turn this into world class news is to provide post trial transportation for Yingluck to wave to her supporters.

 

A la......................

Is that the same cart Prayut was in the other day?

 

 

[mike324]

16 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

It's the same. Nothing has changed.

nothing has changed because you don't deal with civil servants on weekly and monthly basis. I do and there certainly is change. But if you don't believe me, its fine. We live different lives.

[geriatrickid]

  On 8/22/2017 at 8:56 PM, 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.

A verdict is  Guilty or Not Guilty.  There is no verdict of "Innocent".  

In a criminal trial, Not Guilty means that there is  insufficient  evidence to convict. It does not mean someone is innocent, even if  the accused is innocent. A guilty person can be found Not Guilty.    As such, the suggestion that anyone would be "invigorated" by a "Not Guilty" verdict is twaddle. It would just mean the former popularly and legally elected PM would be subject to more harassment and persecution and this never ending saga of political hatred will continue wasting time and money.

 

[geriatrickid]

11 minutes ago, mike324 said:

nothing has changed because you don't deal with civil servants on weekly and monthly basis. I do and there certainly is change. But if you don't believe me, its fine. We live different lives.

Can you be more specific please. I can assure you that many people do indeed deal with civil servants  on a weekly and monthly basis and  that they are  not far off the mark if they assert there has been no change for the better. For example;

- We all deal with the immigration service. Have you not seen what has been going on at the airports? It's a mess.

- Has there been any improvement in the administration of justice? Have litigation waiting times improved? Has the  resolution of  civil cases been more transparent?

- Can anyone claim with a straight face that hospital administration and the delivery of basic health services  has improved?

- How about education? Have you seen  what's running the shop now?

- Has anyone  cleaned up the corruption within the police forces? Seriously, how can  anyone claim there has been a change when the Marine 5 police unit still allows the  illegal jetski and motorboat activity at Phuket beaches?

-Have any civil servants been arrested, or charged or convicted for corruption in relation to land encroachment? I don't think it magically stopped after the overthrow of the legally elected  government.

- Has there been an end to  the paying for positions in the public service?

 

Tell you what, when the Patong civil servants finally deal with the transport gangsters and enforce the  parking regulations and stop their illegal activities, then I will accept that there has been some positive change. When  business owners can receive their permits or operate  without paying protection money and bribes, then I'll  listen.

 

 

 

 

 

[stephen tracy]

36 minutes ago, mike324 said:

nothing has changed because you don't deal with civil servants on weekly and monthly basis. I do and there certainly is change. But if you don't believe me, its fine. We live different lives.

How do you know I don't deal with civil servants?  I wasn't aware we'd met.

[billd766]

20 hours ago, Fumanchang said:

To quote:

Since it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be prosecuted for corruption that he or she did not commit, state agencies were initially hesitant to pursue the case. The junta therefore invoked Article 44 in late 2016 to grant legal immunity to officials involved in the prosecution, meaning that they cannot be held accountable if the prosecution is later proved malicious or unfair to Yingluck.

 

I could agree with you IF Yingluck was charged with corruption. However she WASN'T charged with corruption, but with negligence which is totally different.

 

If you don't understand the difference I suggest that you look it up in a dictionary or online.

[binjalin]

16 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I could agree with you IF Yingluck was charged with corruption. However she WASN'T charged with corruption, but with negligence which is totally different.

 

If you don't understand the difference I suggest that you look it up in a dictionary or online.

Sir I understand this : they have granted themselves immunity from the very thing they pursue Yingluck for and that, where I come from, is hypocrisy and despicable. 

[Jip99]

13 minutes ago, binjalin said:

Sir I understand this : they have granted themselves immunity from the very thing they pursue Yingluck for and that, where I come from, is hypocrisy and despicable. 

 

 

You are not domiciled in Thailand then ?