Supreme Court jails Boonsong 42 years on G-to-G rice deal

[scorecard]

6 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

You need to dig Deeper State and open your eyes but most cannot be discussed here. I'm sorry if you feel you are 'superior' to me and that I'm not 'smart enough' to understand.

 

Of course there has been corruption here for as long as Thailand has existed and none would be more delighted to see it removed than I but your analysis is too simplistic and naive. Yingluck was a minor player who was about to be served up as a political pawn by    >>  SNIP <<<

 

'... a minor player...'

 

Naah don't buy that, she could have kept away from politics but the didn't, she knew very well she didn't have the knowledge or experience for the pm position but she agreed to be a a fake pm / a puppet, a clone and play the big chair role.   She got caught out big time.

 

[choudens]

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

'... a minor player...'

 

Naah don't buy that, she could have kept away from politics but the didn't, she knew very well she didn't have the knowledge or experience for the pm position but she agreed to be a a fake pm / a puppet, a clone and play the big chair role.   She got caught out big time.

 

but which fake, puppet PM you are talking about?

[LannaGuy]

Just now, scorecard said:

 

'... a minor player...'

 

Naah don't buy that, she could have kept away from politics but the didn't, she knew very well she didn't have the knowledge or experience for the pm position but she agreed to be a a fake pm / a puppet, a clone and play the big chair role.   She got caught out big time.

 

Well no one has suggested she was a 'great' nor even a 'good' PM but i do not subscribe to the Junta spin that she was the Devil Incarnate and you do, sort of, contradict yourself. If she was dumb she could not have perpetuated the 'scam' (as you put it).

 

I do not believe she was dumb nor complicit in anyway to fleece farmers I believe it was poorly thought-out, as many governments policies are, and a high risk that back-fired. Anyway aided and abetted (i.e. TOLD to leave) and leave she has.

[scorecard]

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Well no one has suggested she was a 'great' nor even a 'good' PM but i do not subscribe to the Junta spin that she was the Devil Incarnate and you do, sort of, contradict yourself. If she was dumb she could not have perpetuated the 'scam' (as you put it).

 

I do not believe she was dumb nor complicit in anyway to fleece farmers I believe it was poorly thought-out, as many governments policies are, and a high risk that back-fired. Anyway aided and abetted (i.e. TOLD to leave) and leave she has.

 

If she was not dumb (and could therefore see that there were huge problems) and is she genuinely wanted to help the farmers, then how come she never attended one meeting and never gave any detailed presentations or speeches etc., about the subject either in or out of parliament?

[scorecard]

7 minutes ago, choudens said:

but which fake, puppet PM you are talking about?

 

 Silly comment.

[binjalin]

8 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

If she was not dumb (and could therefore see that there were huge problems) and is she genuinely wanted to help the farmers, then how come she never attended one meeting and never gave any detailed presentations or speeches etc., about the subject either in or out of parliament?

It often happens scorecard that senior figures in the corporate world or the governmental world do not, of themselves, attend but are named 'chair' and delegate those responsibilities. This also happens in the political world with committees and sub-committees so I would not over stretch that particular point.

[binjalin]

33 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I have no idea, neither do you, as we have not had access to the 100s documents nor sat through all the arguments and I do not know how guilty Boonsong is or is not and neither do YOU. My constant refrain has been if you trust the system or not. If YES then trust it in all those other controversial cases if NOT then you can't trust this one.  That is my simple premise. 

It appears to me that the country does not have a full trust in the judiciary as evidenced by the many cases which have perplexed most of us here on ThaiVisa Forum and I believe this is the point being made here.

 

That if there is an erosion on the cases we all agree on (Koh Tao etc) then why would we trust this one. If this case was tried in a democratic environment without fear NOR favor the doubts would not exist to the same degree.   

[robblok]

30 minutes ago, choudens said:

why? you think that corruption happens in only one case?

No but any corruption caught is a good thing. 

[robblok]

38 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I have no idea, neither do you, as we have not had access to the 100s documents nor sat through all the arguments and I do not know how guilty Boonsong is or is not and neither do YOU. My constant refrain has been if you trust the system or not. If YES then trust it in all those other controversial cases if NOT then you can't trust this one.  That is my simple premise. 

I DO know it his is convicted by a court of law, evidence was strong and already present before the junta. That you don't believe anything that does not suit your world image is your problem. 

 

You say that a few controversial cases invalidate all cases. That is total bull. In my country we had cases that were controversial and later exposed to be wrong. That did not make all cases wrong. But I know its easier for you to believe this. This was easy. Chinese government did not confirm the G2G deals you can check that yourself. 

[scorecard]

17 minutes ago, binjalin said:

It often happens scorecard that senior figures in the corporate world or the governmental world do not, of themselves, attend but are named 'chair' and delegate those responsibilities. This also happens in the political world with committees and sub-committees so I would not over stretch that particular point.

 

I'm well aware (personal regional management & leadership roles) that senior figures in the corporate world delegate to the next levels of management. However they remain ultimately responsible and therefore watch things closely, attend to give ultimate guidance, hear the tone and content of meeting discussions, take in what attitudes and levels of capability and concern are being employed by the lower levels of management, etc. And if needed take quick actions, and if needed very quickly take over the daily management of the project.

 

A simple example: The company falls way short of achieving it's revenue and margin goals. Then the CEO says to the BOD 'don't blame me, the marketing director / manager is not up to the job'.

 

Question for you: Would / should the BOD say 'OIC, then never mind', or would / should the BOD hold the CEO responsible and have concerns about the capability and commitment of the CEO?

 

In the case of the lady, she has claimed numerous times the rice scheme / scam was her / pt's flagship policy and she was managing the whole thing because of her love for the farmers / her strong desire to help the farmers (she said this more times than you can count).

 

Therefore it's obvious she should have been clearly seen to be monitoring the scheme and it's actions and it's results and making and implementing quick adjustments as needed and talking about the same to show the public the scheme was being managed professionally.

 

She didn't do any of the above, nothing.  

Edited August 27, 2017 by scorecard

[LannaGuy]

11 minutes ago, robblok said:

I DO know it his is convicted by a court of law, evidence was strong and already present before the junta. That you don't believe anything that does not suit your world image is your problem. 

 

You say that a few controversial cases invalidate all cases. That is total bull. In my country we had cases that were controversial and later exposed to be wrong. That did not make all cases wrong. But I know its easier for you to believe this. This was easy. Chinese government did not confirm the G2G deals you can check that yourself. 

 

It is much more fundamental than 'a few cases' much more fundamental. No precedents here, no juries here and your faith in this is unthinkable and unfathomable. 

[binjalin]

17 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

I'm well aware (personal regional management & leadership roles) that senior figures in the corporate world delegate to the next levels of management. However they remain ultimately responsible and therefore watch things closely, attend to give ultimate guidance, hear the tone and content of meeting discussions, take in what attitudes and levels of capability and concern are being employed by the lower levels of management, etc. And if needed take quick actions, and if needed very quickly take over the daily management of the project.

 

A simple example: The company falls way short of achieving it's revenue and margin goals. Then the CEO says to the BOD 'don't blame me, the marketing director / manager is not up to the job'.

 

Question for you: Would / should the BOD say 'OIC, then never mind', or would / should the BOD hold the CEO responsible and have concerns about the capability and commitment of the CEO?

 

In the case of the lady, she has claimed numerous times the rice scheme / scam was her / pt's flagship policy and she was managing the whole thing because of her love for the farmers / her strong desire to help the farmers (she said this more times than you can count).

 

Therefore it's obvious she should have been clearly seen to be monitoring the scheme and it's actions and it's results and making and implementing quick adjustments as needed and talking about the same to show the public the scheme was being managed professionally.

 

She didn't do any of the above, nothing.  

 

Yes ultimately the 'head' is responsible but in my role as SVP I had many 1000s staff and many committee's and meeting's I did not attend. Through appraisal and monitoring we can hope to know the 'general' feel of things but not the detail. I have read that Yingluck did raise concerns, I can't remember to whom, but I am of the firm belief that no PM can know the details you are expecting  nor govern perfectly without mistakes.

The democratic system is designed so that the electorate, effectively, sacks the PM at elections and that if there is wrong doing the courts can make judgments via impeachments etc. There is NO precedent for political witch hunts after a PM leaves office based on 'mistakes' or 'miscalculations' whilst in elected office. No one would serve if that was the case!  Most of the views I have perused on here are opinion based on political 'leaning' only.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, binjalin said:

I have read that Yingluck did raise concerns, I can't remember to whom, but I am of the firm belief that no PM can know the details you are expecting  nor govern perfectly without mistakes.

Sorry for the source, but it's the first one that popped up. But I've read the same thing elsewhere. Negligence plain and simple. Or, done to avoid being implicated.

 

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201610221046606111-thailand-prime-minister-rice-scheme/

Yingluck was charged with negligence in her duties as head of the National Rice Policy Committee. In 2013, Yingluck admitted that she had never attended any meetings of the committee.

[scorecard]

10 minutes ago, binjalin said:

 

Yes ultimately the 'head' is responsible but in my role as SVP I had many 1000s staff and many committee's and meeting's I did not attend. Through appraisal and monitoring we can hope to know the 'general' feel of things but not the detail. I have read that Yingluck did raise concerns, I can't remember to whom, but I am of the firm belief that no PM can know the details you are expecting  nor govern perfectly without mistakes.

The democratic system is designed so that the electorate, effectively, sacks the PM at elections and that if there is wrong doing the courts can make judgments via impeachments etc. There is NO precedent for political witch hunts after a PM leaves office based on 'mistakes' or 'miscalculations' whilst in elected office. No one would serve if that was the case!  Most of the views I have perused on here are opinion based on political 'leaning' only.

 

None of the above alters the fact that corporate executives and PMs are the position holders who are ultimately responsible.

 

In the case of corporations, if revenue, profit margins, market share and growth goals are not being achieved then I guess you wouldn't focus on this at all, just wait until the end of the trading year then probably 3 months later scan a summary of performance ratings.

 

Meanwhile the company is in receivership and the investment costs all lost. 

 

In regard to politics, parties, getting re-elected etc., the PM is responsible, nothing can change that regardless of any other factors. And don't forget the money involved is taxpayers funds and the public have every right to expect that all expenditure of taxpayers funds is under absolutely scrutiny and control, at the top.  

Edited August 27, 2017 by scorecard

[Jack100]

Seems they also confiscated 20 billion from his personal accounts  - must say they do it different in Thailand

[scorecard]

12 minutes ago, binjalin said:

 

Yes ultimately the 'head' is responsible but in my role as SVP I had many 1000s staff and many committee's and meeting's I did not attend. Through appraisal and monitoring we can hope to know the 'general' feel of things but not the detail. I have read that Yingluck did raise concerns, I can't remember to whom, but I am of the firm belief that no PM can know the details you are expecting  nor govern perfectly without mistakes.

The democratic system is designed so that the electorate, effectively, sacks the PM at elections and that if there is wrong doing the courts can make judgments via impeachments etc. There is NO precedent for political witch hunts after a PM leaves office based on 'mistakes' or 'miscalculations' whilst in elected office. No one would serve if that was the case!  Most of the views I have perused on here are opinion based on political 'leaning' only.

 

' political 'leaning' only.

 

So you see the current comments I have just made as political, rather than best in class / benchmark management and governance and risk management processes and responsibilities?

[Siripon]

Yingluck had written  reports and warnings about corruption and irregularities  from:

a. The Office of the Auditor-General

b. the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)

c. The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives

d. The Public Warehouse Organisation

e. The Marketing Organisation for Farmers

And still she did nothing!

 

[djjamie]

12 minutes ago, Siripon said:

Yingluck had written  reports and warnings about corruption and irregularities  from:

a. The Office of the Auditor-General

b. the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)

c. The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives

d. The Public Warehouse Organisation

e. The Marketing Organisation for Farmers

And still she did nothing!

 

So what your saying then is that this has nothing to do with "Democracy", but more to do with actual proven negligence? That means her running away is due to her not wanting to accept accountability and she ignored these 5 entities that are in place in a democracy to ensure checks and balances. 

 

So really she abused the democratic process. Interesting.

 

Of course some will say all these institutions had it in for her and it is a big conspiracy to remove her from power. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by djjamie

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, djjamie said:

So what your saying then is that this has nothing to do with "Democracy", but more to do with actual proven negligence? 

 

An "innocent question" from a seasoned yellow poster. Horrible tactics but saying more will earn me a ban.

[Jack100]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

7 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Of course there has been corruption here for as long as Thailand has existed and none would be more delighted to see it removed than I but your analysis is too simplistic and naive. Yingluck was a minor player who was about to be served up as a political pawn by    >>  SNIP <<<

 

A minor player -  35 billion confiscated  - I'd like to hear about the real big boys !

[binjalin]

21 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

' political 'leaning' only.

 

So you see the current comments I have just made as political, rather than best in class / benchmark management and governance and risk management processes and responsibilities?

I do see you have selected reading lol. Please reread that portion of my post instead of assuming it's about you?

 

I could write all day about bench marking and governance but I have neither the inclination nor the time and it's what I 'used' to do but I'm now retired from all that thank goodness. I see 90% of the views expressed are born from posters political leanings rather than from neutrality. To take a sensible view would mean being at the actual case and hearing all the evidence OR trusting the Court system. I succumb to neither do you?

[scorecard]

15 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

An "innocent question" from a seasoned yellow poster. Horrible tactics but saying more will earn me a ban.

 

What's wrong with djjamies' comment? Why is his comment 'terrible tactics?

[scorecard]

27 minutes ago, binjalin said:

I do see you have selected reading lol. Please reread that portion of my post instead of assuming it's about you?

 

I could write all day about bench marking and governance but I have neither the inclination nor the time and it's what I 'used' to do but I'm now retired from all that thank goodness. I see 90% of the views expressed are born from posters political leanings rather than from neutrality. To take a sensible view would mean being at the actual case and hearing all the evidence OR trusting the Court system. I succumb to neither do you?

 

Yes, a perfect scenario would be to attend and listen to all evidence.

 

In this particular case the evidence was tabled and viewed by dozens of Thai folks, who commented that the evidence was focused and showed direct clear guilt, and none of the evidence was disputed.

 

A good Thai friend (a senior public servant) downed his pen and walked out and sent in his resignation a few minutes later when he was strongly instructed / pushed to sign a batch of payment authorization documents attached to this case, and for very very large amounts of money. The payment process needed many signatures including the public servant assigned to the position he held.

 

Those strongly pushing him to sign the documents were pt cronies who held no position whatever in any government position but were daily hovering around that specific office trying to instruct the public servants what to do. 

 

He refused to sign and resigned because he knew categorically that was in front of him was seriously breaking many policies and regulations and he knew that if he signed and it was investigated he would do serious jail time.

 

By the way, given your comments "...To take a sensible view would mean being at the actual case and hearing all the evidence ... ' , I presume that every comment you make in the future will come from you personally being present at whatever meeting or whatever event is under discussion and you have personally checked that you understand every word. 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by scorecard

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Siripon said:

Yingluck had written  reports and warnings about corruption and irregularities  from:

a. The Office of the Auditor-General

b. the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)

c. The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives

d. The Public Warehouse Organisation

e. The Marketing Organisation for Farmers

And still she did nothing!

 

And now with the proven fake G2G deals and who know what else proven negligence is easy to prove.. she would have found guilty (as she would in any court as the evidence is strong). So she did what any Shin would do.. let her minions get punished while running away... a true heroine .

 

[halloween]

2 hours ago, binjalin said:

It often happens scorecard that senior figures in the corporate world or the governmental world do not, of themselves, attend but are named 'chair' and delegate those responsibilities. This also happens in the political world with committees and sub-committees so I would not over stretch that particular point.

Of course you wouldn't because it is damning when it comes time to prove she wasn't negligent.  It might well be normal to miss an occasional meeting, but not to attend ANY over a 2.5 year period when the committee is overseeing a major government policy attracting huge criticism and with even larger losses is far from that.

[halloween]

2 hours ago, binjalin said:

 

Yes ultimately the 'head' is responsible but in my role as SVP I had many 1000s staff and many committee's and meeting's I did not attend. Through appraisal and monitoring we can hope to know the 'general' feel of things but not the detail. I have read that Yingluck did raise concerns, I can't remember to whom, but I am of the firm belief that no PM can know the details you are expecting  nor govern perfectly without mistakes.

The democratic system is designed so that the electorate, effectively, sacks the PM at elections and that if there is wrong doing the courts can make judgments via impeachments etc. There is NO precedent for political witch hunts after a PM leaves office based on 'mistakes' or 'miscalculations' whilst in elected office. No one would serve if that was the case!  Most of the views I have perused on here are opinion based on political 'leaning' only.

"Did raise concerns" are you serious? She was the PM, it's not her job to "raise concerns" it is her job to ensure something is done. and yes, she attempt to lower the price paid, then withdrew the move under political pressure from her supporters. that not only shows awareness of the problem, it highlights the total lack of ACTION.

[Ricardo]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Of course you wouldn't because it is damning when it comes time to prove she wasn't negligent.  It might well be normal to miss an occasional meeting, but not to attend ANY over a 2.5 year period when the committee is overseeing a major government policy attracting huge criticism and with even larger losses is far from that.

 

Put quite simply, if PM Yingluck was too busy to actually attend or chair any of these meetings, then she should have appointed someone with more spare-time to the job.  That would surely not have been unusual.

 

I doubt she would be in this awkward position now, had she done so, but perhaps someone told her not to ?  In which case it would have been very bad advice, and I hope he apologises to her for it, when he sees her.

[Siripon]

4 hours ago, djjamie said:

So what your saying then is that this has nothing to do with "Democracy", but more to do with actual proven negligence? That means her running away is due to her not wanting to accept accountability and she ignored these 5 entities that are in place in a democracy to ensure checks and balances. 

 

So really she abused the democratic process. Interesting.

 

Of course some will say all these institutions had it in for her and it is a big conspiracy to remove her from power. 

She could not remove the rice policy of 15,000 baht a tonne because it was the main policy to win the votes.

If Pheua Thai had no populist policies, well, why vote for them?

So she was stuck with the policy  for although it was plagued with corruption, to alter it could jeopardize support for the party. 

Better to damage the country than the party.

 

[mike324]

On 8/26/2017 at 0:40 PM, scorecard said:

 

"...Thaksin was a good change for Thai politics. He did bring in change to help the poor, as well as many new contributions to the economy. ..."

 

"...Thaksin was a good change for Thai politics...."

 

      Well he successfully divided all Thai into two groups who were quickly taught to               hate each other, plus quickly established his own ruthless gang of thugs, plus

       bought power in the parliament by employing a gang of thieves who were paid a

      personal not small salary by the paymaster and well as receiving a state parliament       salary but none of them, over many years ever made a speech, none of them ever

      tabled even one suggestion for new / improved policies or laws, and they all voted

      (said yes sir) as ordered by their boss. Nice changes indeed -  all making the young

      folks of Thailand totally confused about what democracy means and what is looks

       like. 

 

"...He did bring in change to help the poor, ..."

       Not true, how many poor farmers now enjoy a good quality of life / are typical

       middle income families?  Answer - very very small numbers - the families who had

       privileged access to rice milling, transport, etc.

 

"...many new contributions to the economy. ..."  

 

        Perhaps you mean things like ordering Thai banks to loan billions to the Myanmar

        state so that Myanmar had money to buy the paymasters products! Totally

        immoral and unethical, but he had no hesitation to do it. 

 

 

All the things you said are true, but he was the first PM to have a policy to help the poor. Which got things rolling in terms of policies that benefit citizens. That you cannot deny. But like I said, he fell to the dark side and became too greedy. Which is why I don't support him anymore and all those things you've said, I've discuss before on thaivisa.

 

Everything from his loans, to computer deals, lottery laws where a portion of proceeds can't be revealed and investigated, etc.