EC says it has no power to consider rice-scheme funding

[allan michaud]

Whatever else happens Kittirat has to go for the sake of the country and what's left of it's image.

Lying and incompetence are simply not acceptable for a Finance minister of any country.

But they were only "white lies" so it's ok.

[DGIE]

The EC's approval is required under Section 181 of the Constitution, which bans a caretaker government from making any decisions that could impose financial burdens on the next government.

Seems like the next government is no longer PTP?

Or, is it not just scripted that the EC didn't approve the loan so that the government had the reason for another delay?

[MrSlatersParrot]

Quote " EC secretary-general Puchong Nutrawong said at a press conference yesterday that his agency had no authority to consider a request to approve additional loans to pay farmers owed money under the scheme. "The matter is for the government to consider, and is [the government's] responsibility," he said.

The EC's approval is required under Section 181 of the Constitution, which bans a caretaker government from making any decisions that could impose financial burdens on the next government". So on one hand section 181 of the constition states that a caretaker governement cannot make any decisions or impose a burden on a future government, yet at the same time they then add that "The matter is for the government to consider, and is [the government's] responsibility,"

Oh my I love these contradictions/hypocracy and simply feel sorry for the average Thai Farmer, be they yellow, white, red, purple or grey for that matter. When will someone in Thailand and Thai government and it's agenices be a normal adult and take some responsibility. Whilst the current governments pledgling scheme was a dummy from the start, the farmers should still be paid as the government was elected by the PEOPLE. It is besides the point if you are a winner or loser, or complain about vote buying and blah blah.. Face the facts that this is Thailand. We do exactly the same in the west re vote buying and then NOT delivering on election promises and the money dissapearing into the coffers to be never seen again. The only difference is, we say that, Oh yes, we will build a new road here and there, new hospitals, better infrastructure, transportation etc and then a lot of what is promised is dumped once the party is voted into power... No different and there is no argument, One is tangible in cash the other is "sometimes tangible in promises kept, it is still vote buying.

As the EC has does have the power to authorise these loans, they should do so for the benefit of the Thai nation as a whole. (As it stands they are effectively doing all they can to see Thailand go down the pipe due to some pompous ass elites who dont give two cares as to the rest of the NATION) Let the nation then vote the government out at the next elections. America has made their own people pay for failed policies, (and more then anyother country in history 4 years ago) as has England, Ireland and France. Is Thailand really that different from this point of view? I think not... Though my satangs worth is not yours... please go on...

"Whilst the current governments pledgling scheme was a dummy from the start, the farmers should still be paid as the government was elected by the PEOPLE. It is besides the point if you are a winner or loser, or complain about vote buying and blah blah.. Face the facts that this is Thailand. We do exactly the same in the west re vote buying and then NOT delivering on election promises and the money dissapearing into the coffers to be never seen again. The only difference is, we say that, Oh yes, we will build a new road here and there, new hospitals, better infrastructure, transportation etc and then a lot of what is promised is dumped once the party is voted into power.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a big difference in election promises where for example, schools, hospitals or roads are promised. That is infrastructure improvement. If, at a later date, the projects remain undelivered, there may be anger, disappointment etc, but the people have not suffered direct financial loss.

The rice pledging was a "scheme" and morphed into a scam. The farmers were promised artificially high prices for their grain and rightly expected payment upon delivery. They kept their side of the deal, even though to most people it was unsustainable in the real world. Plus, the corruption by all involved was bound to cripple it.

The government reneged on the deal and failed to guarantee sufficient funds available to pay for the incoming crops. Rice sales plummeted due to an oversupply and cheaper prices on the world market particularly from Thailand's neighbors. The Commerce department has consistently lied about G to G sales and stock totals This extremely poor planning by PTP and its leader Thaksin have led to this difficult nay ludicrous situation. It is 100% the fault of PTP's mismanagement that they are presently unable to find funds to pay the monies outstanding to the farmers. The EC is merely following the law and after being verbally abused by PTP members, they are naturally not bending over backwards to be cooperative.

It will only be the anger of the farmers that will truly slap the PTP in the face and wake them up to the reality of the situation. The chickens are at long last coming home to roost. How sweet it is.

Are they following the law?

This is an existing contract which now the EC is not honouring, not a new edict from a transitional government.

It seems to me that they are being partisan and encouraging division within thai society by their antics and particularly by approaching the constitutional court over a ruling to suspend elections they are seeking to undermine the elected government.

Today I hear that over in petchabun my wife's friend says the local farmers have not been paid for corn and rice they grew and sold to the local mill in the government scheme but they have waited now 6 months for payment.

The money has been skimmed en route from the ministries.

By dragging this election or non-election is there a hope the red shirts will turn against the PTP?

I recall during abhisit's SOE the wife's brother working for the army wasn't paid for over 6 months.

[oldthaihand99]

"Without the loans, payments to farmers under the rice-pledging scheme will continue to be delayed, threatening to hurt the Pheu Thai Party's political support. Upset by the delay, many farmers are threatening to take steps to topple the government."

That would be a good way to never get paid. An old elite government has never been on your side.

OTOH if you vote in the YL government in a few days, you can be paid soon thereafter with the trillions they have at their disposal.

Considering you'll be getting double the amount the rice was worth, or payment for two years rice crop for only working one, it would still be one helluva deal.

[ratcatcher]

"Without the loans, payments to farmers under the rice-pledging scheme will continue to be delayed, threatening to hurt the Pheu Thai Party's political support. Upset by the delay, many farmers are threatening to take steps to topple the government."

That would be a good way to never get paid. An old elite government has never been on your side.

OTOH if you vote in the YL government in a few days, you can be paid soon thereafter with the trillions they have at their disposal.

Considering you'll be getting double the amount the rice was worth, or payment for two years rice crop for only working one, it would still be one helluva deal.

"..........with the trillions they have at their disposal."

Do they, really? A deal too good to be true.

[Old Man River]

As the EC has does have the power to authorise these loans, they should do so for the benefit of the Thai nation as a whole.

I am not sure the EC does have that power.

As one of the people forced to pay for this scheme, many of us think the entire scheme should be declared insolvent, and the lies and corruption surrounding it completely exposed. It was PT's fault for calling a snap election without first resolving this issue which is an operational issue, nothing else. The reason why PT are pushing it onto EC is political, because they are trying to play the wounded matyr where 'everyone is against them'. Rather than admitting it's because the PM has attended 1 meeting as the head of the committee running the scheme; they have lied constantly about it; they have no real idea what is going on, and they refuse to take any responsibility for saddling us, the Thai taxpayers, with the bill. The bank oversight has been woeful, and they have run out of cash.

Why should the EC be complicit in acting beyond their authority in this house of cards - the wording of clause 181 is something like

there shall not be taken of any act resulting in the disbursement of reserved funds available for emergency or necessity, unless upon prior permission of the EC

- it's not an emergency (like a flood) or a necessity, it's government policy - on par with paying out first car tax benefits etc - this is definitely not an emergency, and it is not a necessity (like food, water, power) so it outside the control of the EC - it is part of the government process

- I don't think the funds were reserved anyhow

- it's a failure to budget that has caused this, join the rest of us stuck in queues for stuff that the government claims it would do and hasn't

Perhaps PT should read further in the same clause (which is why they want to release payment as it's an election bribe as blatant as the cheap tolls in the 2005 election heading north):

There shall not be any exploitation of state resources....for any act having impacts on an election

I always look forward to your messages.

The PT pulled back a bond issue a few months ago as it would have ended up too expensive. Now, not as cheap as before. I don't see how they can get this paid, and I really feel for the farmers who relied on these promises.

The BOT doesn't oversee the BAAC, and the BAAC's deposits are not insured up to THB 50 million, as the commercial banks depositors are, since these bank's are required to pay for this insurance. Hence, I can understand the BAAC's union head's comments.

I like the Finance Minister and I really can't see how this is a win for anyone. I would have been happy if the EC allowed the loan, but understand why that isn't possible.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[steveromagnino]

Are they following the law?

This is an existing contract which now the EC is not honouring, not a new edict from a transitional government.

No it isn't. If it was an existing contract, then Section 181 doesn't apply and payment would be released already; the problem is the government failed to plan the funds prior to calling the election, and now wants to saddle someone else with paying for it: As it is not an emergency or necessity situation it is difficult to see how the EC could agree to it. If they had been honest about not selling any rice, this would have been easily discussed and pushed through in the house last year, but PT kept claiming they had sales of rice so the scheme was self funding.

Section 181

The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out duty until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office, but in case of vacation of office under section 180 (2) the Council of Ministers and a Minister is able to carry out any duty as necessary within the following conditions:

(1) refraining from the exercise of power which resulting in the appointment or transfer of government officials holding permanent positions or salaries or of officials of State agency, State enterprise or any enterprise in which the State is a major shareholders or resulting in leaving such persons from the performance of their duties or offices or replacing other persons to replace him except by prior approval of the Election Commission;

(2) refraining from doing an act which resulting in giving of approval to spend budget reserved for emergency or necessity situation except by prior approval of the Election Commission;

(3) refraining from doing an act which resulting in giving approval of work or project or which the forthcoming Council of Ministers may be bound;

(4) refraining from using resources or personnel of State to do an act which may affect the result of a general election, and refraining from the violation of any prohibitions under the rules prescribed by the Election Commission.

For the EC to agree to spend this money would immediately imply that it was no longer necessary to seek budgetary approval for anything you felt like via the terms of section 166 during a caretaker government, which makes little sense as the EC is not equipped to make a decision on something like this. They are there to run an election, and in an emergency, provide emergency relief sa needed. its not EC's fault that PT thought they could cover the cost of financing the rice scheme via a government bank BAAC (as TRT used to do with KTB) as the head of the bank is also the deputy minister of finance and everyone felt sales would cover off the loans made even though everyone told them it wouldn't work. Lying has not helped either, now we are in a situation where no one knows how much money is actually needed in total because no one knows where the scheme stands.

Section 166.

The expenditure estimates of the State shall be made in the form of an Act. If the Annual Appropriations Act for the following fiscal year is not enacted in time, the law on annual appropriations for the preceding fiscal year shall apply for the time being.

Section 167.

In an introduction of the annual appropriations bill, the bill shall be annexed with documents stating estimated incomes, obscure objectives, activities, plans or projects of each item of expenditures including monetary and financial status of the country through the overview of economic condition arising from spending and gathering of incomes, benefits and deficiencies resulting from any specific tax exemption, justification for binding of over-year obligations, State debts and its incurring and financial status of State enterprises of that year and the previous year.

If any expenditure is unable to be directly allocated to a government agency, State enterprise or other State agencies, it shall be allocated to the item of reserved expenditure and, in such case, justification and necessary of such allocation shall also be stated.

Edited January 22, 2014 by steveromagnino