Eric Loh

If Prayuth had carried out his promise to rid this country of corruption, if he'd made just one small step on his silly 'road map', Taksin, today, would be a non issue/entity. Som nom bloody na!

That would probably mean going after his own military generals, the police, politicians of both divide and pro junta officials. That step will never ever happen.

What you Junta apologists continually will not address is what about the 50 or so years before Thaksin?

All establishment governments.

All elitist, Bangkok based parties, with a continual merry go round of military coups and more of the same.

What about that?

Oh no!!!!

Corruption began with Thaksin.

The only reason Thaksin is pursued with such vengeance is that he represented a REAL threat to the establishment.

All the other corrupt leaders and soldiers are all laughing in retirement, because they were all from the same group.

Thaksin was an outsider.

How many times must I say it?

And Robblok, I must be getting under your skin eh?

You are now starting to make personal remarks about me, ha ha.

Uneducated? Which university did you graduate from and with what degree?

Come on Mr Educated.

Your not getting under my skin at all, your demonstrating that you can't debate and provide with simple answers. Anyone who thinks that an economy is not influenced by the world economy and rides the waves of the world economy is uneducated. So your remarks attributing the good economy in Thaksins time to Thaksin alone.. just show me enough. That was not personal at all that was a fact. In reality, countries like Thailand are dependent on the worlds economy and the leaders at good and bad times can do little to change that.

Your constantly going off topic with your remarks not staying with the topic at hand deflecting and such. You just have no arguments.

Now you asked about my educations, I could write down here that I went to MIT or Harvard or whatever how could you know I am telling the truth. You can't therefor it has no use to write it down here. I let my posts speak for themselves and yours speak for you.

Certainly the stellar achievements during Thaksin tenure not due to him alone and you can credited that also to his cabinet ministers. Since he lead and steer, he rightfully credited with the success. Just compare current clueless leader and his impotent cabinet ministers. Not a bright team that even has to borrow some of Thasin's policies and minister. World economic does affect all but a good leader should have the abilities to implement good policies to rise above the turbulence. Vietnam, Mynmar and Indonesia are good examples of leadership having the right policies to attract massive FDI. The failures of this junta government is so obvious and glaring. I am surprise that with your high education, you cant see or refuse to even consider.

Not refusing to see anything..the junta is doing badly for sure, but not all of that is because of their incompetence (partly it is) but a big part is the world economy. To prove that Thaksin was go good you need to compare the Thai economic progress with that of the rest of asia at the time. You are indeed using facts showing that the junta is under performing by comparing it to other Asian countries at this time. Bobmac on the other hand does no such thing and just attributies the difference to Thaksin.

If you really want to compare you can't compare an economy in an up-going world economy with that of a down going. The only fair comparison would be to see if the economy was outperforming others at that time. I have yet to see that kind of proof so when making a comparison make a fair comparison.

I am not suggesting the Junta is doing a good job economically (i agree they not doing a good job but not all is in their control) just contesting the fact that the good economy back then was Thaksins doing

You seem to suggest that Thailand will perform because of an up-going world economy during Thaksin tenure. The country just came out of the worst financial crisis that hit whole of Asia in 98-99 and Thailand will perform in natural progression. You don't think that the government need to reform the financial sector, corporate re-structuring, enhanced legal commercial laws, market deregulation, liberalize trade, improve environment to attract FDI, extend social safety net and human capital investment.

You don't fold your arms and do nothing and hope the better world economy will carry you through. Or comparing current situation, blame the world economy for the bad state of your country. Government need to get their policies and reforms right to achieve the results. Not happening now.

The facts are well documented that Thaksin increased the foreign currency reserves ( we had none during the financial crisis), paid off the IMF loan in advance, attracted massive FDI, reduce poverty etc. Like him or not, that period Thailand was refered to as a tiger economy like the other 4 tiger economies at that time.

The junta is already listening too him by having in the cabinet and employing some of his rural policies.

What you Junta apologists continually will not address is what about the 50 or so years before Thaksin?

All establishment governments.

All elitist, Bangkok based parties, with a continual merry go round of military coups and more of the same.

What about that?

Oh no!!!!

Corruption began with Thaksin.

The only reason Thaksin is pursued with such vengeance is that he represented a REAL threat to the establishment.

All the other corrupt leaders and soldiers are all laughing in retirement, because they were all from the same group.

Thaksin was an outsider.

How many times must I say it?

And Robblok, I must be getting under your skin eh?

You are now starting to make personal remarks about me, ha ha.

Uneducated? Which university did you graduate from and with what degree?

Come on Mr Educated.

Your not getting under my skin at all, your demonstrating that you can't debate and provide with simple answers. Anyone who thinks that an economy is not influenced by the world economy and rides the waves of the world economy is uneducated. So your remarks attributing the good economy in Thaksins time to Thaksin alone.. just show me enough. That was not personal at all that was a fact. In reality, countries like Thailand are dependent on the worlds economy and the leaders at good and bad times can do little to change that.

Your constantly going off topic with your remarks not staying with the topic at hand deflecting and such. You just have no arguments.

Now you asked about my educations, I could write down here that I went to MIT or Harvard or whatever how could you know I am telling the truth. You can't therefor it has no use to write it down here. I let my posts speak for themselves and yours speak for you.

Certainly the stellar achievements during Thaksin tenure not due to him alone and you can credited that also to his cabinet ministers. Since he lead and steer, he rightfully credited with the success. Just compare current clueless leader and his impotent cabinet ministers. Not a bright team that even has to borrow some of Thasin's policies and minister. World economic does affect all but a good leader should have the abilities to implement good policies to rise above the turbulence. Vietnam, Mynmar and Indonesia are good examples of leadership having the right policies to attract massive FDI. The failures of this junta government is so obvious and glaring. I am surprise that with your high education, you cant see or refuse to even consider.

Does that mean that Col Khachachart Boondee who was tasked by Gen Udomdej with retrieving the commissions from the amulet trader escaped to Mynmar in vain and all for nothing?

I spilled my coffee when I read about Khun Suriyasai hinting that Thaksin is correctly timing his offer with the junta. Suriyasai, spokesman of the PAD and fervent supporter of the PDRC. Who would have guess that even the junta loyal yellow supporters would have turn their backs on the junta. These yellow shirts academics which include very notable arch Thaksin enemies like Komsan Pokong, Banjerd Singkaneti, Phichai Rattanadilok and Suriyasai recently try to hold a seminar to discuss the charter but was cancelled by the junta. Supporters of the coup is fraying fast. His suggestion of a national government may become a reality as the junta is trying hard and fast to find an exit before something nasty will force them out. Supporters of the junta here are a losing bunch.

Myanmar before reforms was all about the 1960 coup that overthrown the elected government and stayed in power by re-writing the constitution that ensured military dominance. Strikingly similar? When they allowed election in 1992 and the NLD won a landslide 80% election,the military refused to relinquish power. A forewarning by Thaksin? If there is a sign to beware, then it may be the Mynmar saffron revolution in 2007.

Popular trend for repressive regimes to seek deeper ties with China and Russia.

As I understand things if you buy low and sell high you make a profit which enables your business to expand.

If you buy high and sell low you make a loss and eventually your business will crash and you will be bankrupt.

If you buy high, sell low and borrow money to pay for your losses and still cannot make a profit then your debt will be higher and you will go bust quicker and owe more money.

That is a real world scenario.

Now what Eric says is that you buy your rice first at a a high price, store it until you can sell it at a higher price and then make a profit.

The bit that confuses me is having borrowed all that money (and paying interest on it) what happens when you can only sell it at a low price which doesn't cover the cost of buying the rice in the beginning, paying for the loans plus interest, plus storage.

You then end up with not enough money to pay your bills and break even. Where I come from that is called a loss and no company or business can run at a loss for long without going bust.

I haven't bothered to add into the cost that unless the product is stored correctly it will deteriorate and be worth less when you try to sell it, nor the cost of transport which unless the customers pays for it becomes another loss to your company, nor the natural wastage, corruption etc.

In the end I don't understand why buying high, borrowing money to pay your bills and selling at a loss is a good thing. I am sure that Eric will come along with a perfectly plausible explanation which we will all be asked to accept as gospel.

I was explaining the mechanics of the pay and sell system and not the operating performance. There is a political attrition going on in the last decade and this trial is another manifestation of effort to weaken the popular side. Previous rice schemes and current rubber subsidies lost money by pledging higher prices and none went on trial. The multiplier economic benefits like an additional of revenue collected annually are conveniently not discussed. Recent investigating panel concluded that farmers indeed benefitted from the scheme. The junta makes no bone that they are after a particular group and really make obvious the trial agenda.

I chopped a lump from the earlier post to make it fit. Sorry if it seems out of context..

I can understand the mechanics of the pay and sell system but thank you for your explanation.

I just can't understand how Yingluck et al believed that it would work to any degree without incurring large losses.

IMHO they would have saved money by not buying the rice in the first place and giving the rice farmers perhaps 250,000 baht per rai up to 10 rai and a smaller amount per rai from 10 to say 25 rai and nothing beyond that amount of land. After that they could have told the rice farmers that there would be no more subsidies, soft loans, support etc and that the farmers could sell their rice to who they wanted at whatever price they could get.

Smart farmers would have paid their debts and the not so smart ones would have spent it on other things but there would be no more money available. I don't think it would have worked but what they did do didn't work either. Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing.

I don't think that the scheme aimed to fail. The food crisis in the 08/09 years and the rocketing rice price increase plus the fact that India and Vietnam imposed rice export due to food security may have contributed to the policy decision. The PT government didnt expect that the scheme will be such a gargantuan undertaking and became too hard to manage. Once started, the scheme will be difficult to stop without causing the wrath of his voters. Remember they try to lower the pledge price to 14,000 Bt and meet a wave of resistance.

Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing. Looking back to easy to condemn the scheme. Things will be quite different if the India and Vietnam didn't have bumper crop and prices eroded.

Yes it was an election pledge aimed to win votes. Not exclusive and others have done the same. There is also no precedent in past governments to be indicted for such policy.

The Economist just put out an interesting article, titled "Twentieth time lucky?". With a title like that you know it has to be good. It ends with:

"It is a febrile mood, and no end of conspiracy theories posit what a scheming junta intends to do next. Yet the debacle surrounding the constitution may hint at something more worrying still: that Thailands self-chosen leaders have no real strategy at all." http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21693251-some-generals-come-up-new-plan-saving-thailand-democracy-twentieth-time-lucky

They may be right, the junta doesn't seem very good at thinking things through. Perhaps we should worry less about what the junta's plans are, and worry more that they have no plans.

The "no real strategy" can be ditto for the economic, foreign public relationship and reconciliation. However they do have a strategy regarding with the writing of the charter to maintain the establishment power grip over the people and highly skewed reforms.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Ask yourself why a self-financing scheme is hundreds of billions of baht in debt and needs further loans.

It is a pay and sell scheme. You pay the farmers first and sell subsequently. There will always be a gap whereby loans are needed. Common in the business world. What's so hard to understand.

As I understand things if you buy low and sell high you make a profit which enables your business to expand.

If you buy high and sell low you make a loss and eventually your business will crash and you will be bankrupt.

If you buy high, sell low and borrow money to pay for your losses and still cannot make a profit then your debt will be higher and you will go bust quicker and owe more money.

That is a real world scenario.

Now what Eric says is that you buy your rice first at a a high price, store it until you can sell it at a higher price and then make a profit.

The bit that confuses me is having borrowed all that money (and paying interest on it) what happens when you can only sell it at a low price which doesn't cover the cost of buying the rice in the beginning, paying for the loans plus interest, plus storage.

You then end up with not enough money to pay your bills and break even. Where I come from that is called a loss and no company or business can run at a loss for long without going bust.

I haven't bothered to add into the cost that unless the product is stored correctly it will deteriorate and be worth less when you try to sell it, nor the cost of transport which unless the customers pays for it becomes another loss to your company, nor the natural wastage, corruption etc.

In the end I don't understand why buying high, borrowing money to pay your bills and selling at a loss is a good thing. I am sure that Eric will come along with a perfectly plausible explanation which we will all be asked to accept as gospel.

I was explaining the mechanics of the pay and sell system and not the operating performance. There is a political attrition going on in the last decade and this trial is another manifestation of effort to weaken the popular side. Previous rice schemes and current rubber subsidies lost money by pledging higher prices and none went on trial. The multiplier economic benefits like an additional of revenue collected annually are conveniently not discussed. Recent investigating panel concluded that farmers indeed benefitted from the scheme. The junta makes no bone that they are after a particular group and really make obvious the trial agenda.

Somehow I don't trust what the man said. Wonder why. Could be due to the number of promises renege in the past.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Ask yourself why a self-financing scheme is hundreds of billions of baht in debt and needs further loans.

It is a pay and sell scheme. You pay the farmers first and sell subsequently. There will always be a gap whereby loans are needed. Common in the business world. What's so hard to understand.

I'm just saying that Ms. Yingluck's RPPS was positioned as 'self-financing' with her then Minister of Commerce Kittirat stating a day before the 'scheme' started that only a 'revolving fund' of 430 billion Baht was required to make initial payments and money would come back from rice sold.

The scheme was allowed to run up massive losses, losses predicted before, losses pointed out, but denied, ridiculed, slowly acknowledge as 'minimal', etc., etc. There seems to be a case of 'negligence'.

Of course Ms. Yingluck gets her chance to explain all in court. Justice will prevail.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Absolutely, a 'self-financing' scheme has it's merits especially when it's self-financing. When it goes wrong to the tune of 500++ billion Baht it's a criminal disaster.

The rest is just the usual distraction ignoring what a caretaker government is not able to do legally anymore. Ignoring the fact that Ms. Yingluck had stated that the 2013/2014 financing was secured. Ignoring as usual all that's inconvenient.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

No.

Yes. The 3 to 5 billion Baht budget for rubber is part of the National Budget and a subsidy.

Ms. Yingluck's wonderful RPPS was 'self-financing' and managed to lose 500 billion Baht.

Are you saying that subsidy is better than self-financing in general? Your thoughts Rubi.

I'm just saying that Ms. Yingluck's RPPS was positioned as 'self-financing' with her then Minister of Commerce Kittirat stating a day before the 'scheme' started that only a 'revolving fund' of 430 billion Baht was required to make initial payments and money would come back from rice sold.

The scheme was allowed to run up massive losses, losses predicted before, losses pointed out, but denied, ridiculed, slowly acknowledge as 'minimal', etc., etc. There seems to be a case of 'negligence'.

Of course Ms. Yingluck gets her chance to explain all in court. Justice will prevail.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

No.

Yes. The 3 to 5 billion Baht budget for rubber is part of the National Budget and a subsidy.

Ms. Yingluck's wonderful RPPS was 'self-financing' and managed to lose 500 billion Baht.

Are you saying that subsidy is better than self-financing in general? Your thoughts Rubi.

OK, what have you got to say about my 3 snippets - Chalerm doesn't seem to care about the HR from what he says!! Do you still support the murderous Thaksin and his ministers and do you condone random murder? These 2 unsavoury characters seem to be happy with the execution of innocent citizens, are you?

This is not the forum to discuss this. I will just say that the jury on the number of death claim is still out there. No one or institution has the firmed conclusion. In passing, the junta and Ahbisit appointed committee to investigate and possibly lead to ICC prosecution. So far none went anywhere due to lack of evidence.

ICC? You refer to the long forgotten 'request' from 2011-01-31 ?

I'm afraid the 'lack of evidence' only suggest that there might be evidence to support the

"APPLICATION TO INVESTIGATE THE SITUATION OF

THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND

WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY"

Lack of evidence, or simply no reason to assume the situation had anything to do with crimes against humanity. Mind you, a few dozen grenades dropped on non-red-shirts might construe terrorist attacks.

Goodness Rubi. You are rambling and I don't understand a word you say.

When the military advance with a superior force and , APCs fully armed and equipped with live bullets and snipers, it is silly to think that it was for protection. It's disproportionate use of lethal force on their own people and the leaders that gave the order must be held accountable. Please don't make comparison to war time as it is totally irrelevant and silly. Even more silly is quoting the war of drugs and stating the people killed as though you know the facts.

What is it you expect? For the the military to advance with inferior force? Or perhaps for the military to advance with exactly equal force, just to show what gents they are and make it a fair fight? Of course the military advance with superior force. That is their job. It's very easy to sit behind your computer making pronouncements willy nilly about what was excessive and what wasn't, but it wasn't your neck on the line out there was it. The soldiers had no choice to be there. They couldn't walk away. All of the protesters, armed or not, had that choice. They chose to stay and some paid the ultimate price for their decision. My sympathy is with the soldiers and all those like the medics who weren't there of their own choosing.

You really soaked in junta kool aid. It's not me willy nilly behind my computer saying all these things about excessive force but from the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand report putting the blame for the majority of deaths and injuries were due to the military excessive use of lethal force.

Then if you not so quick to shoot your mouth off, you may also refer to the 2014 Criminal Court verdict that Ahbisit and Suthep decision to authorize live ammunition didn't follow international standards on the use of lethal force.

You should be embarrassed by what you posted.

Reasonable outcome which should come as no surprise when looking at justification was to "restore peace and order in the country" When one looks at what the UDD element did before a single bullet was fired by the military to squash the uprising one can understand that peace and order was already spiralling out of control and would have kept getting worse had the military not stepped in. Harsh words, tear gas and rubber bullets certainly didn't work and the lethargy of the govt in fact made the UDD element more brazen,

When looking at the violence perpetrated by the UDD before a single bullet was fired one could surmise that Ahbisit and Suthep should answer as to why they did not react sooner and harder to the violence instead of letting it spiral out of control to the point they did.

Anyway, a just and reasonable outcome in this instance. Well done to them both.

WHAT! Pm sends the army out against protesters with live ammunition, shoot to kill ! and you think its OK. i wonder which country you come from. Is that what they do there. We know that it has become practice in the USA, but i hope not Europe

Errm, it wasn't shoot to kill, it was protect your self (from the black shirts and militant reds) - this is completely different to what you are implying and was totally justified and the right thing to do given the difficult circumstances they were placed under!!

In wars, armies don't send their troops out with rubber bullets just in case there are civilians in the vicinity that might get hit. I'm afraid that if someone is indiscriminately firing upon you, you return fire on them and with the attackers mingling in with the protesters there is bound to be collateral damage and civilian deaths, it is unfortunate but inevitable!!

Don't forget about Thaksin's 'war on drugs' whereby 1,400 people were murdered including more than 50% of the total recognised as being INNOCENT civilians - some were killed to ensure that Thaksin's ordered quotas of deaths were made (so that demotions and dismissals were not forthcoming if they were not met) whilst others were caught in the cross fire, much in the same vane as what happened with the protests. Thaksin was somehow found not guilty of what amounts to genocide of your own nations people!!

When the military advance with a superior force and , APCs fully armed and equipped with live bullets and snipers, it is silly to think that it was for protection. It's disproportionate use of lethal force on their own people and the leaders that gave the order must be held accountable. Please don't make comparison to war time as it is totally irrelevant and silly. Even more silly is quoting the war of drugs and stating the people killed as though you know the facts.

However much they are trying to ignore it, it is quite obvious that this has become a political issue, with one side seemingly being Red, and one side Yellow to put it in simple terms.

The Government should remain impartial and stay out of it. Let them battle it out and what will be will be. The Government getting involved will just lend more calls of lack of impartiality. It may also make many Thai's see what Buddhism in the country has become, and force proper change in it. It is difficult to suggest it is just some rogue monks, when we are talking about warring factions at the very top of the pyramid.

We can see the politicization of religion playing out as far back as the Asoke Santi involvement with the PAD and with Buddha Issara during the PDRC demonstration. This current situation has both color sides stating their positions and has added fuel to the rift. A debate will not be helpful and none will back off and compromise as both have powerful political support egging them. The debate will even open up more wounds and increase animosity. It is too much of a serious matter to be left to the government without perception of impartiality as you correctly said. The SSC decision must be respected as they have the authority. Any thing less than that will only mean that the order has been compromise and you only open up a pandora box.

Chokchai Angkaew, a lawyer representing the families, said he will collect more evidence and appeal the ruling. Being prime minister and deputy prime minister, he said, did not mean they could authorize murder.

exactly.

[/quot

When there is insurection on the streets and the people where told to move repeatedly,bus's provided and they refused,this is what happens.When the Army was fired upon they took appropriate action to defend themselves.If people don't want to die,move when you are told by the govt.Therefore they are not guilty.

It's their constitutional right to demonstrate. The argument is whether the government has tried hard enough to negotiate and whether non lethal method should have been used. Apparently not in this case contrast with the amount of tolerance during the PDRC demonstration.

Shoot your own citizens in cold blood (N.B. not one piece of evidence, image or video, of an armed protester being shot) & get off scot-free. Give subsidies to poor farmers & be liable for billions.

What a complete farce!

Wow ! No evidence ?

How much do you need?

Ever heard of youtube?

I have seen many vdo's of guys being shot by a sniper just seconds before they threw a molotov cocktail, also one was being shot while wielding an axe, another one a spear, those snipers saved many lives, bro !!

Can you write Thai? If so, there is zillions more on thai news sites you can search for.

You think those under siege and fire will armed themselves with flowers too be thrown?

This is the reason I thought the charges were ridiculous in the first place So why put everyone through this Circus. Just don't charge them in the beginning

What a waist of court costs and manpower AMAZING THAILAND

These charges were ridiculous and should never have been brought. They were simply doing their job of stopping the 'red' murders from escalating and were perfectly within their rights and powers to do so, so hard luck Thaksin - no charges against Abhisit and Suthep AND your ploy of getting a blanket amnesty was blown out of the water!! Loser!! .

The job of govt leaders is to quell protests using minimum force, hence the army warning to the PTP govt during the last upheaval. It isn't their job to order a mass killing.

They should be taken to The Hague and tried by a court that isn't made up of their drinking buddies.

There is no evidence that they ordered a "mass killing". Such a line is straight out of the red book but doesn't represent the facts as are known.

The statistic is rather grim with almost 100,000 rounds and 2,500 sniper bullets used resulting in 99 deaths and 2,000 injured. That's the fact. Chew on it.

The establishment was trying to pile on the pressure and hoping she will do a runner. Glad she didn't and confronting the group that has an agenda to rid her and her family through the courts and agencies.She will not receive the same lenency treatment accorded to friends of establishment. Good luck to her.

A little hard to do a runner when she was being refused to leave the country and she was being followed all the time.

They will love to see her do a runner in the early stage which will help justify the coup. But at the later stage when she repeatedly said in defiance that she will stay and fight the charges, the junta government realized that granting her permission to go abroad and she returning will become a big embarrassment. I am sure the junta would close an eye and allow her to "escape" and they will be much relieved.

A coup then would have prevented the carnage. Fast forward, smaller chaos on few Bangkok streets and the troops came out. What's going on.

The establishment was trying to pile on the pressure and hoping she will do a runner. Glad she didn't and confronting the group that has an agenda to rid her and her family through the courts and agencies.She will not receive the same lenency treatment accorded to friends of establishment. Good luck to her.