Old Man River

According to another source, Prayuth: Knowing everyone behind attacks.

The coup leader said he had the names of the supporters and financiers

of the violent attacks in 2010 and in 2013 and this year, and he urged them to report to authorities.

“You would be shocked and surprised if I revealed the names”.

If so, why the public did not know the names?

Why should they be named before they are arrested and charged ?

Then let's hope that soon arrests are reported and the backers can not flee abroad.

Unless...

Everything in the Thai justice system takes sooooooo long. Like a snail going up hill in molasses. After two years of investigation, the NACC uses the TDRI report as a centerpiece to buttress their investigation? At this juncture, I would just ask for the evidence which shows that the pledging program actually cost the country 500 billion baht and how those figures were calculated.

At the same time, and in the name or transparency, the government should release the annual cost of all subsidies including the value of tax subsidies granted to international companies operating in the numerous industrial estates.

As an aside, has anyone read the TRDI report? What does it claim/allege?

The Nation, on August 23rd wrote an article about TDRI's report. In that article is states that TDRI found that the country had paid THB 985 billion to buy 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme, but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium to large scale farmers. The TDRI estimated total corruption of THB 111billion.

For more information from the article you can go to tdri.or.th

Thanks for the link.

I went to this website before just to check on the scope of the Institute's activities but did not read the summary of the report on the rice pledging. While the report appears to be very comprehensive in scope, I can certainly understand the OAG's office reluctance to use the report as 'evidence' to establish guilt. For one, the amount of alleged corruption involved is based on an 'economic model'. If the TRDI actually uncovered corruption during its interviews, then it would have to be willing to share this underlying research with the NACC and the OAG -- and it isn't clear whether either agency has requested that information. The interviews could have also been arranged on the condition of anonymity. All that info should be included in the report and detailed in the methods used for the research, the developments of the economic models, etc.

It seems very strange to me that if the NACC has been doing its own investigation for the past two years, why would it need to rely on a TRDI report released just several months ago? The NACC and the OAG must base their case against YL and others on facts uncovered in their own investigation that detail who, when, where, what, and how.

I agree.

Since TDRI is a think tank and not a group of investigative reporters, I would be surprised if they found anything specific.

Then there is the question of whether anything specific needs to be proven.

IMHO, the NACC has other sources. Let's wait and see.

One thing that hasn't been questioned as to whether Surapong and all the other cabinet ministers and their secretary's, the advisers , the whole PTP administration , did anyone come forward and ask the question , is there corruption and if there is what are we going to do about it , don't place all the blame on one person if corruption is evident, it is the duty of care to inform and act.

Google supa piyajitti and draw your own conclusions.

Part quote: "The big, and highly controversial question, posed by the OAG was: Did the premier have the right to roll back a scheme that the Pheu Thai Party had pledged to the people before the election? In other words, can politicians renege on their election-platform promises once they are elected to run the country?"

.... the right..... is not the question.

What is relevant is that she had the duty on behalf of all Thai people to stop / adjust a scheme which is clearly lacking in many ways including, at least, theft of massive amounts of taxpayers funds.

How can it be any other way?

I agree.

What is also interesting is that YL has said she tried to lower the pledging amounts, but the farmers didn't let her. I never understood that comment.

Everything in the Thai justice system takes sooooooo long. Like a snail going up hill in molasses. After two years of investigation, the NACC uses the TDRI report as a centerpiece to buttress their investigation? At this juncture, I would just ask for the evidence which shows that the pledging program actually cost the country 500 billion baht and how those figures were calculated.

At the same time, and in the name or transparency, the government should release the annual cost of all subsidies including the value of tax subsidies granted to international companies operating in the numerous industrial estates.

As an aside, has anyone read the TRDI report? What does it claim/allege?

The Nation, on August 23rd wrote an article about TDRI's report. In that article is states that TDRI found that the country had paid THB 985 billion to buy 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme, but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium to large scale farmers. The TDRI estimated total corruption of THB 111billion.

For more information from the article you can go to tdri.or.th

There are a couple odd bits:

- “by law the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is in its right to take the case to court.”

Then why is the NACC even wasting its time trying to convince the OAG to try the case and being asked to get involved in a joint committee to refine its evidence? The NACC says its evidence is perfect, spot on, ironclad; so go try the case. Instead the NACC and OAG are playing “ring-around-the-rosie,” who will fall down? Maybe the NACC doubts its own trial capabilities so that it really has no alternative to rejection by the OAG. While the NACC has nothing to lose trying the case if it loses, the OAG apparently feels it does if it loses. The OAG isn't saying that if it loses because of inadequate evidence, it can still come back to the court with new evidence later and re-open the decision. This all detracts from the seriousness of the charge and makes a mockery of judicial efficiency.

- “Once the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders hands down a verdict, the defendant cannot appeal unless he or she has sufficient new evidence for the court to overturn its previous verdict.”

The Supreme Court is the final court to try and ajudicate a case. That means that the orders and decisions made by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for Persons Holding Political Positions are final. "Final" as in "the end." It would seem that neither the prosecution with regard to a not guilty verdict nor the defense with regard to a guilty verdict could further appeal the decision for a claim of new evidence.

As I understand it, If new evidence is presented it then becomes a different case and reverts back to a lower court.

I feel sorry for the affected. But for Pete's sake, we ALL know this is happening year after year after year. Find a long term solution, dammit!

After the 2011 floods, World Bank experts offered a solution and arranged for an IMF soft loan. The PTP respectfully declined and came up with their own plan.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Was that the plan to have 5000 helicopters running to blow the rain back into the sky?

No, that was my plan, but I structured it to blow the water back in your direction.

BTW, did they ever find those mambas?

[thread edited]After the 2011 floods, World Bank experts offered a solution and arranged for an IMF soft loan. The PTP respectfully declined and came up with their own plan.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You may have made an inadvertent "soft" slur against the PTP government. The government appears to have been responsible in its handling of the 2011 flood devastation.

The World Bank Nov. 2011 “Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery and Reconstruction Planning” report was advisory and a compilation of virtual "pie in the sky" solutions without regard to Thailand's economic ability to finance every recommendation. The government did what governments do, develop its own financial plans to meet its economic and security needs without driving the country into significant inflation and loss of GDP growth.

The government did immediately self-financed short-term loans to support resident needs whom were impacted from the floods. For the affected industrial sector the Industry Minister and Deputy Finance Minister agreed to provide an immediate 15 billion baht low interest ("soft") loan to the Industrial State Authority covering four industrial parks to support the implementation of the flood prevention plan going forward.

Credit Suisse did an assessment of the government's post-flood recovery plan and held in part that from the government's planned investment, 1) the GDP growth rate for 2012 will increase from 3% to 3.8%, and 2) an annual 5% increase in GDP for the next five years.

The G-7 industrialized countries dominate the WB and IMF lending policies. No doubt if Thailand wanted to request an IMF/World Bank loan it had sufficient credit to do so. However, with such loans come with social and economic pre-conditions that can result in the loss of a country’s authority to govern its own economy and even its foreign policy. Thailand was wise to provide its own means of recovery.

Instead of writing World Bank experts, I should have written experts from the World Bank. Whether they were still with the World Bank at the time, I don't know, but they were able to arrange a soft loan from the IMF.

What I am referring to is a specific plan that was designed for Thailand and was similar in nature to systems already in use in other parts of Asia.

There obviously is no quick fix for this, but out of curiosity, what flood prevention/control plan did the Thai government ultimately come up with and pre-coup, how far along was it?

The point seems to be that you're not quite sure what the plan from the World Bank/IMF people was, or where it originated, but you are quite sure it was good, and that the failure to pursue it was regrettable.

For myself, if I were a developing country and the IMF/WB came calling with their plans, I would smile, thank them for their suggestions, and escort them to the door as soon as possible. And I would avoid taking loans from them at all costs.

When the Economist, of all publications, tries to defend them and winds up casting further aspersions on them, you know something's up.

From a post in that journal from 2001:

The IMF, especially, is criticised for sending its experts into developing countries and commanding governments to balance the budget in ways that assault the poor-- by cutting spending on vital social services, ending subsidies or cutting spending on food and fuel, levying charges on use of water, and so on down the list of shame.

....the Fund, especially, may have invited much of the criticism it received in this respect because it specifies policy changes in such detail. The IMF should strenuously avoid letting itself be seen as running the country, giving the government instructions and telling voters and workers to get lost. ... The Fund turns up only when things have gone very wrong indeed-- and only when the government in question has asked for its help. That last point is surely worth more attention than the sceptics pay to it. If governments find the Fund's conditions so oppressive, they always have the option of refraining from asking for its help.

Www.economist.com/node/796127

In this case, the Thai government elected to refrain from asking for help. That has saved the Thai people, not only from involvement in dubious international finance schemes, but from the recriminations from such as the above author, who, I am sure, were the scheme to fail, would be quick to point out that the government in question "asked for it"!! I am not a fan of Yingluck's rice-pledging and certain other policies or the Shinawatra cartel in general. But to invite in the IMF and World Bank would be asking for trouble on top of trouble.

And to equate opposing IFI loans with support of the government's other policies is a straw-man argument.

You are confusing me with someone else. I haven't equated IMF loans with anything. That must have been a different discussion with someone else.

As it relates to this flood plan, the head engineer who has worked on similar projects in other countries put the group together. He has a personal interest in Thailand because he lives here. He and other experts in this type of technology (tunneling) put the project together and took it to the WB who then vetted it and offered financing. As I understand it, the IMF financing was optional.

As it turned out, the Thai government wanted to use a small part of it and they gave permission.

Pre-coup, how far along were the PTP government in the flood mitigation plan they ultimately came up with?

I think that TDRI stays out of is a clear signal that they don't want to be dragged into something which smells possible like a deal.

I agree on the possibility of a deal, but deals aside, TDRI took a similar stance in 2012 as it related to its research.

In a BP article it was reported that one of the Dem.'s had put on his FB page that NIDA, TDRI and the NESBD were going to launch a campaign against the rice pledging scheme. TDRI responded by saying they would be willing to supply technical info in support of NIDA, whose stance they agreed with, but they didn't want to engage in a conflict with the government as rice pledging was part of its platform.

Clearly covering his ass as regards the Shins. He doesn't fancy disappearing any time soon.

It has nothing to do with the Shins. He just doesn't want TDRI to get mixed up in lawsuits. They don't take on this responsibility. They are a think tank and are apolitical. They do research and draw conclusions.

For social media purposes I like to check out their website. IMHO, as it relates to Thailand, they are the best out there.

Why are so many of you being negative? They are not here to change the world. They're here to provide students with exposure to a foreign language. Any exposure to the language is a good thing regardless of the duration.

I don't think 9 weeks is sufficient to teach and learn. It is not even enough to get used to the accent of the teacher. Another program run by crooks. Why not give them a semester to do it??

As you say, it is only exposure with no impact at all.

Crooks? Surely the English government must be paying for this. My take is it is good for the kids, fun for the Thai's and good PR for the Brits.

As long as you are right and they don't pick up the accent, what harm is there?

I feel sorry for the affected. But for Pete's sake, we ALL know this is happening year after year after year. Find a long term solution, dammit!

After the 2011 floods, World Bank experts offered a solution and arranged for an IMF soft loan. The PTP respectfully declined and came up with their own plan.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You may have made an inadvertent "soft" slur against the PTP government. The government appears to have been responsible in its handling of the 2011 flood devastation.

The World Bank Nov. 2011 “Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery and Reconstruction Planning” report was advisory and a compilation of virtual "pie in the sky" solutions without regard to Thailand's economic ability to finance every recommendation. The government did what governments do, develop its own financial plans to meet its economic and security needs without driving the country into significant inflation and loss of GDP growth.

The government did immediately self-financed short-term loans to support resident needs whom were impacted from the floods. For the affected industrial sector the Industry Minister and Deputy Finance Minister agreed to provide an immediate 15 billion baht low interest ("soft") loan to the Industrial State Authority covering four industrial parks to support the implementation of the flood prevention plan going forward.

Credit Suisse did an assessment of the government's post-flood recovery plan and held in part that from the government's planned investment, 1) the GDP growth rate for 2012 will increase from 3% to 3.8%, and 2) an annual 5% increase in GDP for the next five years.

The G-7 industrialized countries dominate the WB and IMF lending policies. No doubt if Thailand wanted to request an IMF/World Bank loan it had sufficient credit to do so. However, with such loans come with social and economic pre-conditions that can result in the loss of a country’s authority to govern its own economy and even its foreign policy. Thailand was wise to provide its own means of recovery.

What I am referring to is a specific plan that was designed for Thailand and was similar in nature to systems already in use in other parts of Asia.

There obviously is no quick fix for this, but out of curiosity, what flood prevention/control plan did the Thai government ultimately come up with and pre-coup, how far along was it?

I feel sorry for the affected. But for Pete's sake, we ALL know this is happening year after year after year. Find a long term solution, dammit!

After the 2011 floods, World Bank experts offered a solution and arranged for an IMF soft loan. The PTP respectfully declined and came up with their own plan.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Good to see that the Water Management Policy Committee and Gen Chatchai Sarikalya have decreed that flooding only affects Bangkok and that the rest of the country can go fend for itself.

What is the problem? YL said, in mid 2012, that the THB 120 billion flood rehabilitation and prevention plan would be completed in August 2012.

I don't remember any of it being spent for Bangkok.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

But, but, how could this be so, the super fantastic PTP flood mitigation programme solved all this problem , just go's to show you shouldn't believe anything you hear and only believe half of what you see, the People Talk Party fooled yer again.

It was a THB 120 billion flood rehabilitation and prevention plan. By May 2012, close to THB 50 billion had already been spent. The focus seems to have been rehabbing the damaged areas from the 2011 floods.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

While you decide if this case has merit, remember:

The TDRI's research shows that "the country spent up to THB 985 billion buying 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and a half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium-large scale farmers." "The research also found that the schemes' accounting cost as of April (2014) was estimated at THB 519.5 billion."

TDRI estimated total corruption at THB 111Billion. They show the different ways corruption took place and estimated how much was attributable in each way in order to come up with the amount of corruption.

"Last, the government failed to disclose vital data to the public, causing losses to stack up."

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

In August 2011 PM Yingluck as part of urgent policies to be implemented the first year

"Implement a crop insurance scheme in order to provide income security for farmers, beginning with long grain rice and fragrant Hom Mali rice with moisture not exceeding 15% at 15,000 Baht and 20,000 Baht per cart, respectively."

Following the government decided on a revolving funds to be setup by the BAAC and guaranteed by the government, to have the cashflow for this self-financing scheme. No reservations were deemed necessary in the 2011/2012 National Budget. Still no financial reserves in the 2012/2013 or 2013/2014 National Budgets. In the meantime the revolving funds was expanded to 700 billion Baht and the government issued a statement that for 2013/2014 only 270 billion was needed and taken care off. Then the caretaker government wanted to borrow 130 billion Baht in December 2013 and in total about 200 billion extra had to be paid out to cover outstanding obligations to farmers.

Ms. Yingluck didn't lie to parliament in how the RPPS was funded and till now no one even suggested that. It's you who comes with this distraction. The issue is if Ms. Yingluck was negligent or criminal, with till now the NACC only pushing the 'negligent' charge'.

Ms. Yingluck and her (brothers) Pheu Thai party had this election promise. PM Yingluck had this RPPS and suddenly she knows nothing? She's innocent? It's unfair to blame her? 500 to 700++ billion Baht down the drain and Ms. Yingluck shouldn't be blamed because she didn't know?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

She may have been negligent. Then there is criminal negligence which normally needs intent.

I am just wondering how they will prove it beyond pointing fingers.

Well, as she told parliament she and only she was in charge, as earlier that year she told to have listened to NACC concerns and did whatever to address their issues, it would seem 'criminal negligent' or even just 'negligent' has been disproven by her own statements. That would bring us to her being an accessory to willful criminal action which cost the State 500 to 700++ billion Baht.

So, you may zig or zag around the issue, but you cannot convince that Ms. Yingluck didn't know. You can distract with what about other MPs, but none is relevant. This ex-PM stated to be in charge, explicitly, she run the show she said. Well, so be it.

Its not up to me to convince anyone. So far, the case has been sent back to get more info. Apparently its such a slam dunk,it needs more research. And there is a world of difference in this case between someone being negligent or criminally negligence.

One you go to jail for, the other you get fired. So, now you see the point of the supposed zigzag on this issue because the devil.is most definitely going to be in the details of the accusation and the proof.

Just wait and watch. They are going to have to dig and dig to prove what she knew or didn't know.

Which case?

The one about the cost to the country or the one about corruption? Note: Both led to costs to the country.

So, which case?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

To Animatic

There are thousands of interventions that cost the country money every day, so the paying of the money to the rice farmers isn't the issue.

It was a large total value but there are many farmers. Issue to me is did she knowingly lie to parliament about how it was to be funded. Being the boss on station during the loss is hardly reason for criminal investigation. She's been fired. That's a lot more than most western politicians or business people suffer during losses like this.

In August 2011 PM Yingluck as part of urgent policies to be implemented the first year

"Implement a crop insurance scheme in order to provide income security for farmers, beginning with long grain rice and fragrant Hom Mali rice with moisture not exceeding 15% at 15,000 Baht and 20,000 Baht per cart, respectively."

Following the government decided on a revolving funds to be setup by the BAAC and guaranteed by the government, to have the cashflow for this self-financing scheme. No reservations were deemed necessary in the 2011/2012 National Budget. Still no financial reserves in the 2012/2013 or 2013/2014 National Budgets. In the meantime the revolving funds was expanded to 700 billion Baht and the government issued a statement that for 2013/2014 only 270 billion was needed and taken care off. Then the caretaker government wanted to borrow 130 billion Baht in December 2013 and in total about 200 billion extra had to be paid out to cover outstanding obligations to farmers.

Ms. Yingluck didn't lie to parliament in how the RPPS was funded and till now no one even suggested that. It's you who comes with this distraction. The issue is if Ms. Yingluck was negligent or criminal, with till now the NACC only pushing the 'negligent' charge'.

Ms. Yingluck and her (brothers) Pheu Thai party had this election promise. PM Yingluck had this RPPS and suddenly she knows nothing? She's innocent? It's unfair to blame her? 500 to 700++ billion Baht down the drain and Ms. Yingluck shouldn't be blamed because she didn't know?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

She may have been negligent. Then there is criminal negligence which normally needs intent.

I am just wondering how they will prove it beyond pointing fingers.

As far as I am aware, there are two issues. One relates to the cost to the Country and the other relates to corruption.

I am unclear which issue the NACC is focusing on, or both, as articles tend to discuss both. Also there may be other concerns. In any event, from what I understand, for malfeasance the questions would be did she know about it, if so did she know what to do, if so did she look the other way and if so was there some sort of benefit gained.

The rice scheme has often been described as a populist policy, so the benefit may be that it was a populist policy. This all, of course, is for the courts to decide.

TDRI, has a website in English where you can read their reports. It has been written that some of the info being used by the NACC has come from TDRI research. It is a think tank. They do not take sides, and in fact have disagreed with the price insurance rice policies of both the PTP and Democrats, opting instead for a crop insurance policy (against crop failures). Check out their website.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

There are thousands of those trapezium shaped concrete forms and pillars put up for roads they will never finish. Why not use them to make flood walls -- ?

That would take planning.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Well if BKK is preparing for flooding, what the hell hope is there for us north of BKK? Phatumtani, Don Muang.... flood them to save the capital again?

The amount of Water Hyacinth in Rangsit Canal, Khlongs 2,3 4,5 6 & 7 and Khlong Sam Wa gives an accurate observation of how well prepared they are.

The flood wall along the length of Rangsit Canal on Nakon Nayok Road has more gaps and holes in it than swiss cheese.

It's a disgrace.

Let's face it. Sukhumphand just got back.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The NFL preseason kicked off today and their wasn't any coverage by True Visions or ASN. I called True Visions where I was told neither True Visions nor ASN was doing preseason this year but there will be coverage beginning September 5th when the regular season opens. Color me skeptical.Email has gone unanswered by ASN who along with True Visions promote the NFL as a high value product. There is no NFL anything scheduled for the month of August and nothing available to view for September. Last year at this time we were inundated with NFL programing.Anyone who has the time or inclination can try to get some information from the providers while at the same time demonstrate interest in their coverage by contacting the offices by phone and/or social media.True Visions: 02 725 2525 Email: [email protected]: Can't find a phone number Email: [email protected] Facebook: ASN: All sports Network Yes TV Hong Kong owns ASN. Below is their contact info.Email:[email protected]:+852 3978 2262Address:16/F, AON China Building, 29 Queens Road, Central, Hong KongGo Niners!

Midnight TS HD4 - Pats vs. Dolphins

Midnight TS HD3/TS3 - Saints vs. Falcons

03:15 AM Monday TS HD3 - COWBOYS vs. sf

03:15 AM TS HD4 - Carolina vs. Tampa Bay

06:30 AM Fox Sports2 - Notre Dame vs. Michigan

07:30 AM TS HD1/TS3 - Colts vs. Broncos

ASN 2 is listed on the PVR as showing some of these games, but it doesn't list specifically which ones. ASN shows NCAAF, while Fox Sports 2 shows MLB, not NCAAF so there is some shifting around.

Still, it is a lot. I couldn't care less about soccer, so I am happy.

OMR

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The A-G also declined initially to prosecute a case against former auditor-general Jaruvan, a key anti-Thaksin figure, for staging a fake seminar with government funds. After the joint committee with the NACC he decided the evidence was complete and is now proceeding with the prosecution.

I would expect Yingluck's case to go the same way. There is only upside for the A-G in being more cautious in a high profile political case, particularly in this case where the main defence argument is that the NACC rushed the investigation and failed to question 50 of Thaksin's closest and most dishonest associates as witnesses on the grounds that they had nothing to do with the case. The joint committee might even come up with some new angles that strengthen the case against Yingluck.

Anyway the NACC has the power to prosecute the case by itself, if the joint committee doesn't agree and the NACC prosecutors will get some tips from the A-G committee about loopholes the defence will try to exploit. Personally I don't understand why the NACC has not prosecuted the other perpetrators first. They seem to have documentary evidence of scams like the fake rice exports which should surely strengthen their case against Yingluck.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

NACC amending laws? I thought a duly elected government did that. Oh wait a minute....

So this body acts as lawmaker and prosecutor. What happened to checks and balances?

Oh come on NCFC, Eric saying the NACC amends laws doesn't make it so.

"Panthep also dismissed a claim in a report by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) - a Hong Kong-based consultant group - that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions.

The NACC chief said the legal amendments were done according to international standard - the charter of the United Nations, for example, for laws relating to bribery cases by state officials or people at private firms."

So, I guess the NLA will have work to do.

Unfortunately Rubl, you left some relevant parts out of your quote, which had you included them will show that the NACC is making/amending laws.

" he said he was willing to work with the Office of the Attorney-General, which on Thursday asked the NACC for more evidence on charges it seeks to lay against Yingluck and asked that a joint panel be set up to make a stronger case against the former premier."

"if the joint committee cannot agree on the case then the matter will be sent back to NACC so they can indict Yingluck themselves"

"Panthep also dismissed a claim... that the anti-graft agency plans to amend laws in order to target certain political factions...the legal amendments were done according to international standard"

So Panthep is acting as both lawmaker and prosecutor, and doubtless has powers of judge and jury, too. Democratic much?

So, Panthep dismisses claims the NACC will amend laws, and continues with " said the legal amendments were done according to international standard"

So where does it say the NACC will do it?

The NACC may petition the NLA and make suggestions, that would be according to standards.

Does the NLA take the senate's place? Impeachment would have needed senate approval.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The clincher is if they can prove that she knew it was never going to be self financing or that she was told very clearly very early on that it wasn't going to be self financing and continued anyway.

I.e. that they can prove she knowingly lied to parliament.

How about increasing the limit of the revolving funds from 500 to 700 billion Baht, or was that just 'temporarily' as the Thai rice farmers were really at it and stocks couldn't be sold fast enough?

Even mid-2013 Ms. Yingluck indicated the RPPS only needed 270 billion and financing was secured, only to have her caretaking cabinet needed to borrow 130 billion Baht December 2013.

If Ms. Yingluck had been running a company it would be broke. As it is now the Thai population is left with a 500 to 700++ billion Baht debt at BAAC guranteed by the Yingluck government.

TDRI estimates that Thailand spent up to THB 985 billion buying 54.4 million tons over the two and a half year rice scheme program, with most of the estimated THB 560 billion producer surplus going to medium to large scale farmers. They also estimated that corruption from this rice scheme cost Thailand THB 111 billion.

I can certainly understand, given the scale of this fiasco. the OAG needing more time to get its hands around this.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Subsidies are subsidies. It's about working out whether she knew it was never going of be self financing or not. That is the lie.

Governments are not run like companies.

There we go again. That was NOT a subsidy!

The Yingluck Administration positioned their RPPS as self-financing requiring a 500 billion Baht REVOLVING" funds only. With that reasoning they even got away with leaving the financing out of the National Budget.

'revolving' as in pay out from it, restore with revenue from rice sales.

"A revolving fund is a fund or account that remains available to finance an organization's continuing operations without any fiscal year limitation, because the organization replenishes the fund by repaying money used from the account. Revolving funds have been used to support both government and non-profit operations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_fund

Sorry Rubl but that's not the whole story. There is absolutely no doubt that the fund could never be self sustaining when the cost of inputs substantially exceeded the revenue from outputs.

Here is a better (broader) description of a revolving fund:

A revolving fund is a means by which Parliament provides continuing authorization for an operation that is funded completely by users, or partly by users and partly by subsidization (the latter usually taking the form of an annual appropriation.

See: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fm-gf/tools-outils/guides/rf-fr/rf-fr01-eng.asp

It comes from Canada where fiscal prudence is somewhat higher than it neighbour as well as Thailand.

"absolutely no doubt that the fund could never be self sustaining"

Might I add "... except in the explanations offered by the Yingluck Administration and a few posters here" ?

The Yingluck Administration let tthe BAAC set up this 500 billion Baht fund acting as guarantor. With the BAAC warning about the funds running empty, the Yingluck Administration let it add another 200 billion or so.. None of this financing has come from the National Budget.

Indeed, 'fiscal prudence' seems lost on the Yingluck Administration which in their blanket amnesty bill even covered their own two years in office. That's 'prudence' of another kind all together!

PS I striked out the "n" as I think that was a typo ?

It could be that they ended up buying more rice than they originally thought. For example, the Cambodian Rice Exporters Association said for the first 4 months of 2013, they had exported 14,250 tons of rice to Thailand, which placed Thailand for that period as Cambodia's 4th largest export market.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand