Thai at Heart Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I am not privy to the NACC's charges documents. From what the NACC public statements to the medias, I gathered that: 1. Caretaker PM ignored the warning of the possible wide spread corrupt and irregular practices and called for it to drop the policy. IMO, while this warning is helpful, but not necessary that a policy of a government to be dropped. 2. She knew about the corrupt and irregular practices. IMO, On the day of the filing of complaint to the day of acknowledgement of charges, there was not a single government official and minister found guilty of these allegations. 3. That the scheme created financial strain to the State. - This is a narrow personal view on a wider economic perspective of the Government. The scheme was never meant to be a direct money making machine but primary to help the rice farmer which in turn will encourage domestic consumption and growth. It encourage rice farmers to continue farming for food security and the development and growth of related industries. 4. Thar the G-to-G contract was faked. Globally or at least to some countries in the region, G-To-G arrangement and agreement on food is a sensitive national security issue. Access to such information has to follow some security procedures. Yet, we have not found anyone guilty of such allegation, up to this day. Holding a person or politician personally responsible for negligence of others and corruption. What a very refreshing concept. I will try to sanction gordon brown and Greenspan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thait Spot Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 "According to him, the team is confident that participating farmers have benefited from the program and that their depositions will clear her name." How can they have benefited if they haven't been paid? If that's the best he can do then she's doomed. She may as well buy her sand proof Sloggis now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushman1666 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I can see Yingluck popping down to her favourite travel agent for a one-way ticket to Dubai very soon. Family reunion time! Sent from my very clever thingy that uses battery far too quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scamper Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 A really good lawyer would have appealed to Yingluck to show up at the NACC. ( Perhaps the UDD would let her in - who knows ? ) But a good lawyer would want to have the files, and by her not showing up in person they do not have them. A good lawyer would know that she showing up would show respect for the court. A good lawyer would tell her not to go to the North and tell incredulous reporters - even on the very day she was scheduled to appear - that she was unsure if she would attend or not. A good lawyer would tell her not to attack the court through facebook and blatantly feed the suspicions of the UDD, who are not only surrounding the NACC but have now embarked on a campaign to eliminate the independent agencies. But as Yingluck clearly doesn't have a good lawyer, she clearly must think her strategy is a winner. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I am not privy to the NACC's charges documents. From what the NACC public statements to the medias, I gathered that: 1. Caretaker PM ignored the warning of the possible wide spread corrupt and irregular practices and called for it to drop the policy. IMO, while this warning is helpful, but not necessary that a policy of a government to be dropped. 2. She knew about the corrupt and irregular practices. IMO, On the day of the filing of complaint to the day of acknowledgement of charges, there was not a single government official and minister found guilty of these allegations. 3. That the scheme created financial strain to the State. - This is a narrow personal view on a wider economic perspective of the Government. The scheme was never meant to be a direct money making machine but primary to help the rice farmer which in turn will encourage domestic consumption and growth. It encourage rice farmers to continue farming for food security and the development and growth of related industries. 4. Thar the G-to-G contract was faked. Globally or at least to some countries in the region, G-To-G arrangement and agreement on food is a sensitive national security issue. Access to such information has to follow some security procedures. Yet, we have not found anyone guilty of such allegation, up to this day. Without going into details, did you know that 18% of total money spend goes to the farmers? what allegation or accusation you are trying to make? I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. What I am trying to say is; They have spend THB 780,000,000,000. With the outstanding payments it is THB 130,000,000,000 There is 19 million tons of rice in stock which they can't sell because of low quality (rotten) and mixed grades. The amount spent doesn't reflect the gain because of gross mismanagement. If you would just have given the farmers THB 910,000,000,000 they would have been much better of today. A few hundred billion could have been saved to achieve the result we have now. NEGLIGENCE is the charge, punishment is the result. Very clear case IMO. The scheme should have been stopped long time ago when it became apparent that the losses don't even come close the economical gain. Furthermore, do you think it is OK to spend THB 910 billion of taxpayers money with 0 transparency? Edited February 28, 2014 by Nickymaster 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The rice pledging scheme wasn't aimed to make bucket loads of cash, it was a government scheme to support the farmers. I think even the most staunch yellow shirt would agree that is not a bad thing. If there is a manageable cost to the country I don't think many would complain. The real issues are the blatant corruption before money even got to the farmers, the massive cost to the country with no transparency, and the plain and simple fact the farmers are no longer getting paid. Middle men and non-farmers profiting greatly whilst any benefit to those the very scheme is supposed to help is minor. And that, in my opinion, is the crime. Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uty6543 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) "According to him, the team is confident that participating farmers have benefited from the program and that their depositions will clear her name." How can they have benefited if they haven't been paid? If that's the best he can do then she's doomed. She may as well buy her sand proof Sloggis now Well of course she is doomed. If by some miracle she gets away with this problem there are a few more that will get her removed from politics and sent to jail. So she in the end has no choice but to leave Thailand. But unfortunately her brother is going to destroy as much as he can before this is all over. Edited February 28, 2014 by uty6543 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icommunity Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I am not privy to the NACC's charges documents. From what the NACC public statements to the medias, I gathered that: 1. Caretaker PM ignored the warning of the possible wide spread corrupt and irregular practices and called for it to drop the policy. IMO, while this warning is helpful, but not necessary that a policy of a government to be dropped. 2. She knew about the corrupt and irregular practices. IMO, On the day of the filing of complaint to the day of acknowledgement of charges, there was not a single government official and minister found guilty of these allegations. 3. That the scheme created financial strain to the State. - This is a narrow personal view on a wider economic perspective of the Government. The scheme was never meant to be a direct money making machine but primary to help the rice farmer which in turn will encourage domestic consumption and growth. It encourage rice farmers to continue farming for food security and the development and growth of related industries. 4. Thar the G-to-G contract was faked. Globally or at least to some countries in the region, G-To-G arrangement and agreement on food is a sensitive national security issue. Access to such information has to follow some security procedures. Yet, we have not found anyone guilty of such allegation, up to this day. Without going into details, did you know that 18% of total money spend goes to the farmers? what allegation or accusation you are trying to make? I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. What I am trying to say is; They have spend THB 780,000,000,000. With the outstanding payments it is THB 130,000,000,000 There is 19 million tons of rice in stock which they can't sell because of low quality (rotten) and mixed grades. The amount spent doesn't reflect the gain because of gross mismanagement. If you would just have given the farmers THB 910,000,000,000 they would have been much better of today. A few hundred billion could have been saved to achieve the result we have now. NEGLIGENCE is the charge, punishment is the result. Very clear case IMO. The scheme should have been stopped long time ago when it became apparent that the losses don't even come close the economical gain. Furthermore, do you think it is OK to spend THB 910 billion of taxpayers money with 0 transparency? Again, I want to emphasize that I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. I don't take a narrow view on the rice pledging scheme. I am quite used to making 12 full digits calculations. Edited February 28, 2014 by icommunity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby nz Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I can assure you madam that you will be found to be innocent of all charges. And even if you were to be found guilty all it would entail would be a photo opportunity in a designer orange suit with a pair of matching bracelets then I would have you out on bail in no time. This is my account could you please pay in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Without going into details, did you know that 18% of total money spend goes to the farmers?what allegation or accusation you are trying to make? I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. What I am trying to say is; They have spend THB 780,000,000,000. With the outstanding payments it is THB 130,000,000,000 There is 19 million tons of rice in stock which they can't sell because of low quality (rotten) and mixed grades. The amount spent doesn't reflect the gain because of gross mismanagement. If you would just have given the farmers THB 910,000,000,000 they would have been much better of today. A few hundred billion could have been saved to achieve the result we have now. NEGLIGENCE is the charge, punishment is the result. Very clear case IMO. The scheme should have been stopped long time ago when it became apparent that the losses don't even come close the economical gain. Furthermore, do you think it is OK to spend THB 910 billion of taxpayers money with 0 transparency? Again, I want to emphasize that I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. I don't take a narrow view on the rice pledging scheme. I am quite used to making 12 full digits calculations. Ok so make us a calculation to show us it has been a good scheme. -Again, do you think it is OK to spend THB 910 billion of taxpayers money with 0 transparency? -Do you think it is OK to be the chair of the rice committee and never have attended a single meeting? Remember, the charge is negligence! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisY1 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I guess her legal team could hardly say...."uh...she'll lose here"..... But hopefully, that's what will happen......anyway..it could all take years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangmod Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I heard that there is a cakebox ordered from a five star hotel and to be delivered to the NACC, just because the bomb didn't get off as was planned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 That is a really nice photograph. Pity the woman behind it is nothing but an empty shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 According to him, the team is confident that participating farmers have benefited from the program and that their depositions will clear her name. Whether or not they have benefited is not the issue. The issue is: Negligence!!! Today, OAG inspected Govt rice warehouses in Wat Bod District, Phitsanulok. Hmmm..... think I'll skip the curry tonight. Make Thaksin Emperor-for-Life of the North and he can promote the eating of rotten rice to alleviate starvation in his new empire. He did a good job of eating KFC to promote the eating of bird flu chicken after he lied to the EU and got Thai chicken exports banned for 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Someone certainly needs to go jail for the massive fraud in this rice pledging swindle, not to mention the incompetence of not organising the funds to pay for the rice they bought in October. The chairman of the National Rice Pledging Committee is the best place to start and I am sure she can appreciate the logic of that. Hopefully another batch of thieves will also go to jail for it. Whining that Abhisit should be prosecuted over his government's tiny (in comparison) rice guarantee scheme first is laughable. Her government tried to ram through an amnesty bill that would have let him off the hook, along with defendants in 25,000 other corruption cases pending at the NACC. At that time she obviously thought Abhisit's case was not worth trying. So too late to change your mind dearie. But, since your government pledged to deal forcefully with corruption, you are the best place to start. Edited February 28, 2014 by Dogmatix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Local Drunk Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Lawyers are paid to say such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why ask Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) There are two sides to the coin, Firstly, if you are asked to attend court you attend with your lawyer, that's how democracy works , the other side of the coin is the Junta style , you do what you want to do and thumb your nose at the law, because you think you are above the law, so, how do you talk reform with these type of people , that consider themselves better that the average person. You talk like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQwa73KXbs Although, Pu probably doesn't really know who her father is nor his tasks at hand. In addition, 100% of Thais would not understand a single word or intended meaning of the attached because, of course, Thailand is the only country in the world of importance. Edited February 28, 2014 by Why ask Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Someone certainly needs to go jail for the massive fraud in this rice pledging swindle, not to mention the incompetence of not organising the funds to pay for the rice they bought in October. The chairman of the National Rice Pledging Committee is the best place to start and I am sure she can appreciate the logic of that. Hopefully another batch of thieves will also go to jail for it. Whining that Abhisit should be prosecuted over his government's tiny (in comparison) rice guarantee scheme first is laughable. Her government tried to ram through an amnesty bill that would have let him off the hook, along with defendants in 25,000 other corruption cases pending at the NACC. At that time she obviously thought Abhisit's case was not worth trying. So too late to change your mind dearie. But, since your government pledged to deal forcefully with corruption, you are the best place to start. And, no announcements whatever from the government about the promised payments to the farmers, all promised for today. And, rice in a large storage facility in Phitsanalook found today by the AOG officers to be well degraded, plus storage rules not being followed, plus local officials tried to keep the AOG officers away from the rotting bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeO Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s lawyer has expressed confidence that the premier will be cleared of corruption charges relating to the government's rice-pledging scheme. If a lawyer announced in the press that his client is guilty as sin, he would be fired wouldn't he ? Strange though that Noppadon wasn't chosen as lawyer Maybe she's not as dumb as she makes out! I would suggest that no one's as dumb as she makes out....!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icommunity Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 what allegation or accusation you are trying to make? I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. What I am trying to say is; They have spend THB 780,000,000,000. With the outstanding payments it is THB 130,000,000,000 There is 19 million tons of rice in stock which they can't sell because of low quality (rotten) and mixed grades. The amount spent doesn't reflect the gain because of gross mismanagement. If you would just have given the farmers THB 910,000,000,000 they would have been much better of today. A few hundred billion could have been saved to achieve the result we have now. NEGLIGENCE is the charge, punishment is the result. Very clear case IMO. The scheme should have been stopped long time ago when it became apparent that the losses don't even come close the economical gain. Furthermore, do you think it is OK to spend THB 910 billion of taxpayers money with 0 transparency? Again, I want to emphasize that I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. I don't take a narrow view on the rice pledging scheme. I am quite used to making 12 full digits calculations. Ok so make us a calculation to show us it has been a good scheme. -Again, do you think it is OK to spend THB 910 billion of taxpayers money with 0 transparency? -Do you think it is OK to be the chair of the rice committee and never have attended a single meeting? Remember, the charge is negligence! I have shared my views on the charges based on what NACC had gone public. You are entitled to your views on the rice scheme and I don't intend to go on arguing over a view that is not focus on the wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand. I am not good at focusing on a single paint brush of a whole picture. Caretaker PM, IMO, did not neglect the overall economy and well being of the Country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 what allegation or accusation you are trying to make? I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. Oh no, no you aren't. If you'd be you'd call it for what it is, a complete disaster measured by any metric you would like to apply (except the electoral success in garnering votes) Go on, show us how it has been a success if you disagree, with actual numbers and citations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickirs Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> There are two sides to the coin, Firstly, if you are asked to attend court you attend with your lawyer, that's how democracy works , the other side of the coin is the Junta style , you do what you want to do and thumb your nose at the law, because you think you are above the law, so, how do you talk reform with these type of people , that consider themselves better that the average person. alt=bah.gif width=19 height=19> This is a preliminary hearing to present the charge and receive a response. It is not a trial, it is not a Western-style grand jury (in fact there are no juries in the Thai judicial system). The ACC accepted her request for representation. This is democracy, Thai style. To those critical of Yingluck's lack of appearance before the ACC how is that any more aggregious than Suthep refusing to appear before the court on his criminal charges of murder three times now because he's too busy leading anti-government protesters? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOOD Robin Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 PM's lawyer confident of her innocence in rice graft charges First of all.... DREAM ON ! Secondly, these lawyers are paid BIG money for (again) lying, money that is supposed to be paid to the rice farmers !! 1 lawyer salary = salary 500 farmers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halion Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 These people and unreal and or they think the population is stupid. It is common knowledge who has benefited and who has suffered from the rice scam of which she was the senior player. The only way she will get an innocent verdict will be as a result of even more corruption. What a parasitic group. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icommunity Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 what allegation or accusation you are trying to make? I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. Oh no, no you aren't. If you'd be you'd call it for what it is, a complete disaster measured by any metric you would like to apply (except the electoral success in garnering votes) Go on, show us how it has been a success if you disagree, with actual numbers and citations. What are you talking about??? I said I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. I know the importance of my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirchai Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I'm confident that ASEAN will bring bad luck to Thais. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiSoLowSoNoSo Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Dear Khun Norawich dream on. It’s not a matter of some participating farmers in red shirt controlled areas has had a windfall, 80 Billion THB has been transferred illegally to Hong Kong from the Rice "scam" budget to Thaksin and his cronies alone, god knows who else gained from this massive corruption. WOW really? But you can back up such massive allegations with proof irrefutable no doubt? and would you like to also name "his cronies"? as the laws in Thailand for liable are really quite heavy and to think that peoples comments here are not being watched could be a serious lack of judgment, I doubt that your square faced hero got the balls to show up in any Thai court to face off with me and my lawyers regarding what you claim is libel. Yesterday, in the other national English speaking newspaper that we are not allowed to mention here, they had a story about the 80 Billion THB illigal transfer to Hong Kong if you are not aware of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 These people and unreal and or they think the population is stupid. It is common knowledge who has benefited and who has suffered from the rice scam of which she was the senior player. The only way she will get an innocent verdict will be as a result of even more corruption. What a parasitic group. Now this is all very well and good. But, saying something is "common" knowledge, that someone has benefitted from something is hardly the case, when there is barely a whisper in the papers about who exactly has benefitted illegally. So, its all well and good to assume that the likelihood is that someone has done something, but to do so without any hard evidence is frankly ridiculous. Lest we forget that ALL sides of this arguement are largely corrupt to the core, so I don't see the point in stating that something is "common" knowledge when it isn't. Yes, the population appears stupid because NO ONE will blow the whistle to go to court to say, "My boss trousered 100 mn" "my boss trousered 500mn", "I transferred 1bn baht" . Shouting that you "think" the Shinawatras are corrupt is intensely boring. I think the moon is made of cheese, but who cares. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRSoul Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 What are you talking about??? I said I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. I know the importance of my vote. And every but you recognise that is a cop out, an attempt to divert from hard figures to ephemeral concepts. What needs to be admitted is that the rice pledging was a Thaksin policy of his own government that was recognised to be both a failure and a vehicle for rampant corruption. From memory, only 37% of the allocated funding of the early version actually reached farmers, yet Yingluk, no doubt at her her brother's insistence, reinstated a known failed policy without change and without measures to increase efficacy or to reduce corruption. In fact, corruption in this version has increased to the point the figure reaching farmers has dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 What are you talking about??? I said I am more interested in the scheme's wider economic perspective and its contribution to the overall economy and food security preparations of Thailand rather than the different methods of statistical calculation and analysis and argument. I know the importance of my vote. And every but you recognise that is a cop out, an attempt to divert from hard figures to ephemeral concepts. What needs to be admitted is that the rice pledging was a Thaksin policy of his own government that was recognised to be both a failure and a vehicle for rampant corruption. From memory, only 37% of the allocated funding of the early version actually reached farmers, yet Yingluk, no doubt at her her brother's insistence, reinstated a known failed policy without change and without measures to increase efficacy or to reduce corruption. In fact, corruption in this version has increased to the point the figure reaching farmers has dropped. Now you see, this is all relative, because then the next question from any reasonable lawyer is going to be "can you prove that 37% is less than all the other types of subsidy programs in Thailand?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now