Rice-pledging scheme: PM Yingluck won't acknowledge charges in person

[ginjag]

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

A similar situation, when the P.M. rarely is in the government sessions, when as defense minister she delegates the assistant defense minister to attend defense matters, and to cap it all on foreign visits she attends most foreign secretaries duties leaving the said minister at HOME.

Does this fact explain the reasons for not attending rather than YOUR explanation re-she doesn't have to. It is called opt out--cop out -whatever main reason when the debate is HOT or technical could it be she cannot cope with that.???

[patjem]

It is not recommended that a PM participate in what is essentially a legal procedure. It is accepted practice for the attorney general or a representative of the AG or another designated government legal counsel to appear.

It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges. In recent times, it hasn't happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, USA etc. One of the more recent cases in a parliamentary democracy where a charge of malfeasance was brought, was that of the disgraced Lord Black in 2001. He sued the sitting PM of Canada for abuse of power, misfeasance in public office and negligence. He also sued the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, for negligent misrepresentation. The PM of Canada did not appear in court on what was a significant constitutional issue.

Did Clinton not appear in-person over the Lewinski enquiry? Did Abhisit not appear, even over recent trumped-up charges? Did Saddam not appear against his charges? Bo Xilai? Interesting use if the word 'unusual' you have, Geri.

[gemini81]

It is not recommended that a PM participate in what is essentially a legal procedure. It is accepted practice for the attorney general or a representative of the AG or another designated government legal counsel to appear.

It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges. In recent times, it hasn't happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, USA etc. One of the more recent cases in a parliamentary democracy where a charge of malfeasance was brought, was that of the disgraced Lord Black in 2001. He sued the sitting PM of Canada for abuse of power, misfeasance in public office and negligence. He also sued the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, for negligent misrepresentation. The PM of Canada did not appear in court on what was a significant constitutional issue.

Did Clinton not appear in-person over the Lewinski enquiry? Did Abhisit not appear, even over recent trumped-up charges? Did Saddam not appear against his charges? Bo Xilai? Interesting use if the word 'unusual' you have, Geri.

Aren't we discussing Thailand? I get your point, with integrity one has to show up, regardless of country/level of development.

Why GK tries to justify lack of responsibilty of what has been delegated to the role of (puppet) PM I don't know! Giving remote, unrelated examples from abroad...to a. take the piss? b. wind us up? c. play devil's advocate? d. troll? e. all of the above?

Every post is the same i.e. : it is ok to never show up for a single rice pledging scheme meeting, as the duty of a PM is to oversee it by being informed but not necessarily having to go in person..what the heck, you know?

[Robby nz]

It is not recommended that a PM participate in what is essentially a legal procedure. It is accepted practice for the attorney general or a representative of the AG or another designated government legal counsel to appear.

It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges. In recent times, it hasn't happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, USA etc. One of the more recent cases in a parliamentary democracy where a charge of malfeasance was brought, was that of the disgraced Lord Black in 2001. He sued the sitting PM of Canada for abuse of power, misfeasance in public office and negligence. He also sued the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, for negligent misrepresentation. The PM of Canada did not appear in court on what was a significant constitutional issue.

Was wondering how keen the Attorney General will be to defend her given that she has repeatedly ignored his orders to explain about her brothers illegal passport ?

[Hideout]

This is Thailand and she knows that only politicians with her surname are ever found guilty and sent to prison.

Yes this will tend to happen in many countries when the Prime Minister sells a large, prime piece of Crown Property in the capital city to his wife in a rigged auction at a price significantly below market valuations. Of course in the case involving her brother the prision aspect never eventuated.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The caretaker P.M. isn't one to do herself any favours , but not fronting the court you immediately get the impression Guilty, or I thumb my nose at anyone who questions, the Caretaker PM needs to understand that just like her brother she is only a number, shortly that number could be up.

Not turning up in person will go against her as it implies guilt.

A coward to the end, at least she will be gone soon and Thailand can return to some semblance of normality!!

[Artisi]

I heard that she might have to go to Singapore during that time for a medical check up.

What for, non-functioning brain activity?

[ginjag]

I heard that she might have to go to Singapore during that time for a medical check up.

What for, non-functioning brain activity?

SCANdinavia would be appropriate.

[geriatrickid]

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

A similar situation, when the P.M. rarely is in the government sessions, when as defense minister she delegates the assistant defense minister to attend defense matters, and to cap it all on foreign visits she attends most foreign secretaries duties leaving the said minister at HOME.

Does this fact explain the reasons for not attending rather than YOUR explanation re-she doesn't have to. It is called opt out--cop out -whatever main reason when the debate is HOT or technical could it be she cannot cope with that.???

I will dumb it down for you. The claim was made that the acting PM has defied a law by not appearing at a judicial process. There is no defiance because there is no law that compels an appearance.

It would be irresponsible for a sitting PM to appear at a politically charged hearing instead of designating a competent legal professional to appear and to provide the required response. To top it off, with the current threat by the PDRC that it intends to follow the PM wherever she goes, her presence at a court could put people's life and safety at risk.

[Macrohistory]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This woman is supposed to lead the country and fails at every turn.

She chairs committees she never attends, has no time to attend the House, ignores the Ombudsman and court decisions that don't suit her and on and on.

Any supposed rule of law clearly only applies to lesser mortals so why should she personally acknowledge charges against her ?

I don't know the NACC's powers and procedures but wouldn't it be nice if they could order her appearance and have what it takes to see if through ?

From the very beginning of his rule in 2001, Thaksin thumbed his nose at (or gave the finger to) the independent commissions established by the 1997 constitution. He tried to gut the human rights commission by denying it funds and personnel and just generally showing it a contemptuous disrespect; he abused the counter-corruption commission by directing it to investigate the finances of NGOs; and so on. Yingluck declining to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on her power and prerogatives is just par for the course for the Shinawatra clan. These people are dangerous demagogues who will stop at nothing unless absolutely forced to do so by the Army or higher powers.

[geriatrickid]

The caretaker P.M. isn't one to do herself any favours , but not fronting the court you immediately get the impression Guilty, or I thumb my nose at anyone who questions, the Caretaker PM needs to understand that just like her brother she is only a number, shortly that number could be up.

Not turning up in person will go against her as it implies guilt.

A coward to the end, at least she will be gone soon and Thailand can return to some semblance of normality!!

Only in the minds of those that believe it so.

Can you please cite an example when a sitting PM of a parliamentary democracy has appeared in court on a procedural matter?

[MGP]

A post circling on Facebook at the moment:

Translation of the YL speech from Thai to English using the new tool "Google Truth Translate":

1. The rice scheme was totally flawed in design from the start. We were warned by many from economic, academic and business sectors but chose repeatedly to ignore them

2. The reason we keep all the finances around the scheme a secret, is because the numbers would horrify you and would reveal massive corruption and losses

3. The reason the farmers have not been paid since October is not politics, but because we failed to sell hardly any rice, and we forgot to initiate new financing before we dissolved parliament, as the scheme has run out of money

4. We lied about the G2G deals and I knew about it

5. We thought by buying all the rice and storing it, it would cause a shortage in the market and drive price up. This was absolutely stupid, and indeed all other rice producers had plenty of surplus for the market. We should have listened to economists but didn't"

Edited February 20, 2014 by MGP

[ginjag]

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

A similar situation, when the P.M. rarely is in the government sessions, when as defense minister she delegates the assistant defense minister to attend defense matters, and to cap it all on foreign visits she attends most foreign secretaries duties leaving the said minister at HOME.

Does this fact explain the reasons for not attending rather than YOUR explanation re-she doesn't have to. It is called opt out--cop out -whatever main reason when the debate is HOT or technical could it be she cannot cope with that.???

I will dumb it down for you. The claim was made that the acting PM has defied a law by not appearing at a judicial process. There is no defiance because there is no law that compels an appearance.

It would be irresponsible for a sitting PM to appear at a politically charged hearing instead of designating a competent legal professional to appear and to provide the required response. To top it off, with the current threat by the PDRC that it intends to follow the PM wherever she goes, her presence at a court could put people's life and safety at risk.

555 Thank's for bothering to "dumb it down to me" we were not just talking about the actual law here, I didn't question that. It is the gist of the opt out attitude that really is in question, THAT IS THE POINT. not twisting the theme to -if the law insists.

So if you get my drift without your reasons/excuses for the P.M.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The caretaker P.M. isn't one to do herself any favours , but not fronting the court you immediately get the impression Guilty, or I thumb my nose at anyone who questions, the Caretaker PM needs to understand that just like her brother she is only a number, shortly that number could be up.

Not turning up in person will go against her as it implies guilt.

A coward to the end, at least she will be gone soon and Thailand can return to some semblance of normality!!

Only in the minds of those that believe it so.

Can you please cite an example when a sitting PM of a parliamentary democracy has appeared in court on a procedural matter?

Its not a procedural matter it's for fraud, corruption and negligence of duty - all criminal acts!!!

She knew exactly what was happening as Thaksin was directing her, plus, being PM and chairperson of the rice scheme she is top of the pile and should have known more than anyone else.

[billd766]

An open act of defiance to a constitutionally enabled commission. Yingluck is supposed to go there. Yingluck is supposed to answer questions. This investigation carries impeachment power. They have the power to remove her from office. But is Yingluck actually capable of answering questions ? To date, no one really knows ( though all shockingly suspect ). Yingluck is not to provide a " letter of explanation ". Does she really think this will impress the committee in any shape or form ? She is supposed to answer questions. She is the one under indictment. Others cannot speak on her behalf. Does she need the Constitutional Court to drag her to the proceeding ? ( What if she still said no ? ) She is supposed to show respect for the committee and the institution. This lawless administration has got to come to an end. They won't even show up in court. Two acts of jurisprudence defiance in one day. First Chalerm's blanket and unconstitutional disavowal of the Civil Court's ruling to forbid a violent dispersal of the protest movement. And now this. Defiance of the rule of law. Pure and simple. Impeachment seems to be a secret yearning of this administration.

When did you become an expert in Thailand's constitutional law/civil law/criminal law?

There is no legal requirement for a sitting PM to attend, nor should she. Where exactly in the applicable statutes is a sitting PM compelled to appear in person for this procedure? This is a legal issue and is best left to those qualified to respond to this type of litigation. There is no defiance of the law. Rather, you are offering your personal opinion which is not based upon the applicable law(s).

But Yingluck is NOT a sitting PM, only a caretaker PM.

Parliament is NOT in session so she cannot claim parliamentary immunity even.

[than]

She show her real face, cowardice,no character, a puppet

[rubl]

Even still being MPs and with parliament in session k. Abhisit and k. Suthep answered charges by DSI and Prosecutor by themselves. Mind you a caretaker PM must be a very busy person. Ms. Yingluck doesn't even have time to talk with farmers.

You really ought to pay attention, rubl.

Exactly when did suthep acknowledge charges?

I posted some links a month or two ago when you were wondering. Search and find them. Both Abhisit and Suthep have acknowledged charges by DSI and Office of the Prosecutor. Abhisit even acknowledged charges by the criminal court, something Suthep is trying to postpone. Also too busy I guess

Well that's very good that abhisit even acknowledged the charges at the criminal court, how jolly decent of him.

Seeing as that was the formal indictment he didn't really have a lot of choice unless he wanted to disrespect the legal process like his "brother in arms", suthep.

For you to bring up these two who are charged with murder as some sort of moral example to Yingluck who is sending a representative to the NACC is laughable at the very least.

If you think I am going to wade through reams of your tedious purportedly sarcastic posts looking for links you don't have the good grace to provide, you'll have to think again.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/699104-bangkok-cmpo-bans-protesters-from-entering-buildings-roads/page-3#entry7352402

Of course I never got any reply on that.

Furthermore you don't seem to have started your reading and interpreting lessons yet. I was not discussing phony charges like murder or not knowing about rice, no I only mentioned that charges of DSI and OAG were acknowledged.

Edited February 20, 2014 by rubl

[Halion]

At least she is consistant in delegating others

Not at all delegation, more akin to abdication.

[MunterHunter]

Drag her there in chains!!

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[bigbamboo]

Would Yingluk be safe if she were to show up in person. Who would supply security for her?

Her brother controls the chief of police and she's the Minister of Defence for heaven's sake!

How much more security can one person need?

[Fryslan boppe]

" PM won't acknowledge charges in person."

COWARD

How one responds to the opposition - in this case one who many call a politicized judiciary - is political calculation and strategy.

The dignity of the Office is taken into account, amongst other things.

Ms. Y, has dignified the office admirably, and the massive electoral support she engenders, will not tolerate any diminishment by those behind this attempt.

Additionally, I am anticipating the next big objective by the coup-mongers will be to self-servingly separate her from the Parliamentary PTP majority, Every other objective has so far come to nought.....Won't work.

[MikeThonBuri]

Perhaps Yingluck could attend the hearing using her brother's Skype account?

[winstonc]

i said to her the other day deny everything baldrick..

[MunterHunter]

" PM won't acknowledge charges in person."

COWARD

How one responds to the opposition - in this case one who many call a politicized judiciary - is political calculation and strategy.

The dignity of the Office is taken into account, amongst other things.

Ms. Y, has dignified the office admirably, and the massive electoral support she engenders, will not tolerate any diminishment by those behind this attempt.

Additionally, I am anticipating the next big objective by the coup-mongers will be to self-servingly separate her from the Parliamentary PTP majority, Every other objective has so far come to nought.....Won't work.

Technically she has no electoral support... shes a caretaker PM and the current general election is 'in progress'

Realistically, even if she is voted back in with a 100% majority (impossible) she is still bound by the laws of the land and is vunerable to prosecution/impeachment should she be found to be breaking the rules.

[waza]

Yingluck ha a long history of thumbing her nose at the judiciary, from the passport issue to this. The darling of Issan is a meant to be a role model for democracy but seem more like the figurehead for a dictatorship.

[JRSoul]

Attending would be tricky. The new definition of perjury (as supplied by Tarit) does not exclude those giving evidence in their own defense.

[animatic]

This is the exact same tactic her brother uses in his other ongoing court cases,

He doesn't show up to acknowledge the charges and the go into sleep mode.

The family that stonewalls together gets sent packing together.

Eventually.

[CantSpell]

She wants to go... Really....

But she can not because of Suthep and the farmers... They are blocking the roads... Not her fault

But good news, the road to Suvarnabhumi is still opened...

She might just go fly to Dubai and lead the government from there, it seems to be family tradition

[Cuchulainn]

A severe lack of little reds popping their heads over the parapet to have a snipe at this one. Wonder why?

[mikemac]

It is not recommended that a PM participate in what is essentially a legal procedure. It is accepted practice for the attorney general or a representative of the AG or another designated government legal counsel to appear.

It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges. In recent times, it hasn't happened in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Korea, USA etc. One of the more recent cases in a parliamentary democracy where a charge of malfeasance was brought, was that of the disgraced Lord Black in 2001. He sued the sitting PM of Canada for abuse of power, misfeasance in public office and negligence. He also sued the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, for negligent misrepresentation. The PM of Canada did not appear in court on what was a significant constitutional issue.

.............................."It is also very unusual for a sitting PM/President to appear in court to answer such charges".................... ?????????????

Choke ! Choke ! Gag !

It is also "very unusual" for a PM to be "elected" even though that person has absolutely zero political experience, no interest in anything but shopping and overseas travel, and whose brother is a criminal on the run who actually controls the government (illegally) from his overseas hideout.

That is very unusual.