Doubts voiced over Abhisit proposals

[fab4]

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As has been proved again and again.............well, actually it hasn't , has it?

There's been lots of allegations, but no actual proof. I'm sure it goes on but "massive"? What does that mean exactly, can you quantify it? Or is it just one of those well "everyone knows" tangibles that are sprinkled around on this forum like confetti yet never backed up with actual facts?

It's like the NACC accusing Yingluck of being negligent in her role as Chair of the National Rice Policy Committee for not stopping corruption even though the NACC have failed in identifying any corruption themselves. Accusations are cheap.

What the NACC realised was that no one in Ms. Yinglucks government and certainly not Ms. Yingluck herself either was/is able to explain why the BAAC had to spent 880 billion Baht which the government still franctically trying to borrow close to 90 billion more (40 billion 'earned' or borrowed, so 130 no longer),

Anyway, the Abhisit proposals are of course incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. Nothing new, but at least a framework to start further discussions. Seems a bit better tan just "have elections and see about reforms later", would you say?

PS to answer the last, no doubt you wouldn't.

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

[mikemac]

The rice scam is just about to cost Yingluck her token position as PM, the people who run this scam cannot/will not say where the money is/went, poor rice farmers are taking their own lives over it because of the overwhelming debt it has put them in, and yet there are people out there who will defend it.

Wow, how desperate can you get ?

[Melyn]

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As has been proved again and again.............well, actually it hasn't , has it?

There's been lots of allegations, but no actual proof. I'm sure it goes on but "massive"? What does that mean exactly, can you quantify it? Or is it just one of those well "everyone knows" tangibles that are sprinkled around on this forum like confetti yet never backed up with actual facts?

It's like the NACC accusing Yingluck of being negligent in her role as Chair of the National Rice Policy Committee for not stopping corruption even though the NACC have failed in identifying any corruption themselves. Accusations are cheap.

There has never been any accounts on the rice scheme published. Over 500 billion in the red. If that isnt massive then what is? The NACC has evidence to take cases forward against the cabinet for corruption.

In terms of cheating in the house - loads of evidence and some admissions.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Melyn]

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As has been proved again and again.............well, actually it hasn't , has it?

There's been lots of allegations, but no actual proof. I'm sure it goes on but "massive"? What does that mean exactly, can you quantify it? Or is it just one of those well "everyone knows" tangibles that are sprinkled around on this forum like confetti yet never backed up with actual facts?

It's like the NACC accusing Yingluck of being negligent in her role as Chair of the National Rice Policy Committee for not stopping corruption even though the NACC have failed in identifying any corruption themselves. Accusations are cheap.

What the NACC realised was that no one in Ms. Yinglucks government and certainly not Ms. Yingluck herself either was/is able to explain why the BAAC had to spent 880 billion Baht which the government still franctically trying to borrow close to 90 billion more (40 billion 'earned' or borrowed, so 130 no longer),

Anyway, the Abhisit proposals are of course incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. Nothing new, but at least a framework to start further discussions. Seems a bit better tan just "have elections and see about reforms later", would you say?

PS to answer the last, no doubt you wouldn't.

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Were they just too damn lazy to sell the rice?

Did someone forget?

Didn't figure out that the scheme needed money to finance the scheme?

Didn't realise that the rice would deteriorate?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rubl]

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As has been proved again and again.............well, actually it hasn't , has it?

There's been lots of allegations, but no actual proof. I'm sure it goes on but "massive"? What does that mean exactly, can you quantify it? Or is it just one of those well "everyone knows" tangibles that are sprinkled around on this forum like confetti yet never backed up with actual facts?

It's like the NACC accusing Yingluck of being negligent in her role as Chair of the National Rice Policy Committee for not stopping corruption even though the NACC have failed in identifying any corruption themselves. Accusations are cheap.

What the NACC realised was that no one in Ms. Yinglucks government and certainly not Ms. Yingluck herself either was/is able to explain why the BAAC had to spent 880 billion Baht which the government still franctically trying to borrow close to 90 billion more (40 billion 'earned' or borrowed, so 130 no longer),

Anyway, the Abhisit proposals are of course incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. Nothing new, but at least a framework to start further discussions. Seems a bit better tan just "have elections and see about reforms later", would you say?

PS to answer the last, no doubt you wouldn't.

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Unconstitutional? It all depends on who you ask. It also depends on how to interpret the 'under senate mandate' I think.

As for the 'subsidy', well the idea behind the originally 500 billion Baht 'revolving' funds was to pay out from it and deposit revenue from sales. Now that really worked so well that we are about 700++ in deficit. Of course the comparison with other countries on subsidy is totally off the mark as 1. the RPPS was not planned as subsidy, 2. as part of the National Budget the RPPS would have doubled the deficit for the last three years from around 9% to 18% or so.

Of course Thailand is a much richer country than the UK and can easily afford to 'mislay' 700++ billion Baht,

[rickirs]

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

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us." alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Maybe the PTP learned too well from the examples set forth by the Democrat regime in 2007 and 2010. By the way when is Suthep going to turn himself in to authorities on an arrest warrants for premeditated murder?

[h90]

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

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us." alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Maybe the PTP learned too well from the examples set forth by the Democrat regime in 2007 and 2010. By the way when is Suthep going to turn himself in to authorities on an arrest warrants for premeditated murder?

2007 wasn't a Democrat government..

[Stan7444]

What a farce and joke.

[tingtongteesood]

What difference does it make if Abhisit's ideas are completely 100% 'constitutional' or not ? Thailand is already a failed state meaning the people have been failed by the constitution, not to mention PT have continually tried to ignore it when it suits them and are saying on a daily basis ( yet another report today ) that they refuse to recognize the authority of the courts if they rule against Thaksin's bunch of circus clowns....It is just a useful excuse for them to hide behind when it suits the red detritus. Double standards all the way !

Edited May 4, 2014 by tingtongteesood

[tingtongteesood]

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

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us." alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Maybe the PTP learned too well from the examples set forth by the Democrat regime in 2007 and 2010. By the way when is Suthep going to turn himself in to authorities on an arrest warrants for premeditated murder?

Your post is as completely vacuous as that cavity in your head. And By the way, when is the convicted fugititive on the run Thaksin going to turn himself in to authorities to start serving his 2 year prison term ? Not to mention facing the music for the numerous other cases awaiting his arrival to be tried. 'Premeditated murder' my ass, what a load of cobblers.

[tingtongteesood]

The flaw in your argument is that it would leave Thailand without an elected government for at least 6 months. Considering the gap between the various factions, it is likely that the time period would go beyond a year. Either Thailand is a democracy governed by elected MPs or it is not. Your proposal, no matter how well intentioned, would have a large country without an elected government.

The administration during that period would not be allowed to enact or modify laws. In an given House session there are important changes made to laws. These changes include tax laws, fiscal matters and various changes to rules and regulations. All appointments overseen by the House would be delayed because there would be no House to propose and vote on those appointments. If Thailand wishes to continue as a Democracy, it must have an elected government without further delay. From a practical matter, the longer Thailand is without a functioning government that can deal with strategic issues, the more likely the negative impact will be on foreign investment. The financial community may not be thrilled with the PTP, but it is not thrilled with the absence of a finance minister or a minister responsible for tax policy either. There are major infrastructure projects that have to be dealt with now or else there will be significant additional costs and under the Constitution only an elected House is allowed to deal with that.

If you really believe that Thailand has ever had a real completely functioning democracy ever then maybe you really are geriatric and it's time to go and live in an assisted facility somewhere....

[JAG]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

The greatest sticking point is that the opposition party had years to reform and did bugger all and NOW we have Abhisit calling for an self installed 'management team', despite the fine words.

All these years and still the Thais have learned not a jot about how democracy functions and are too dumb/self interested to ever will.

I would suggest that perhaps the Thais have a reasonable grasp of the fundamentals of democracy, it's rather that the old political guard aren't prepared to let it function.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited May 4, 2014 by JAG

[MickGC]

You can argue the if's and but's all night but the simple fact of the matter is it was the PDRC that rejected AV's proposal outright and not the PTP. Actually, so far there has only been one side in this conflict that has been unwilling to compromise. The government stood down and agreed to fresh elections. That would be a major concession in any other country in the world especially the home countries of the posters here. Ask yourself, who compromised the last elections resulting in this ongoing conflict?

[fab4]

What the NACC realised was that no one in Ms. Yinglucks government and certainly not Ms. Yingluck herself either was/is able to explain why the BAAC had to spent 880 billion Baht which the government still franctically trying to borrow close to 90 billion more (40 billion 'earned' or borrowed, so 130 no longer),

Anyway, the Abhisit proposals are of course incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. Nothing new, but at least a framework to start further discussions. Seems a bit better tan just "have elections and see about reforms later", would you say?

PS to answer the last, no doubt you wouldn't.

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Unconstitutional? It all depends on who you ask. It also depends on how to interpret the 'under senate mandate' I think.

As for the 'subsidy', well the idea behind the originally 500 billion Baht 'revolving' funds was to pay out from it and deposit revenue from sales. Now that really worked so well that we are about 700++ in deficit. Of course the comparison with other countries on subsidy is totally off the mark as 1. the RPPS was not planned as subsidy, 2. as part of the National Budget the RPPS would have doubled the deficit for the last three years from around 9% to 18% or so.

Of course Thailand is a much richer country than the UK and can easily afford to 'mislay' 700++ billion Baht,

So you think that when the PTP came up with the RPPS, as you call it, paying rice farmers 15000 baht a ton for rice there was no thought of subsidy in their minds, or anyone elses' for that matter? Right, OK, perhaps they were as daft as you and your's keep on plugging, that they really expected to make a profit from it, is that what you're telling me?

Now this deficit, how's that going?

Thailand Government Debt To GDP

Thailand recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 45.27 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2013. Government Debt To GDP in Thailand averaged 45.46 Percent from 1996 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 57.80 Percent in 2000 and a record low of 15.20 Percent in 1996.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/government-debt-to-gdp

Doesn't seem too shabby to me.

Anyway, as you are wont to say, back to why abhisits proposals are unconstitutional.

You say it depends on who you ask. Normally the people you would need to ask would be the Constitutional Court but they've not proved too, how can we say, stable, in their verdicts of late.

You could try googling "Verapat Pariyawong", an independent legal academic, and see where he states that abhisits proposal is unconstitutional in four different areas. He does agree with the need for reforms of the EC regulations, but I don't think anybody would disagree with that, unless they didn't want elections at all, can't think who that would be , and I don't mean just suthep.

[fasteddie]

Doubt? you don't say! this insignificant little man withdrew from the democratic process, why is anybody even listening?

[spidermike007]

The greatest sticking point is that Thaksin will never relinquish power by allowing his caretaker cabinet and caretaker PM to step aside.

The good of the country and the people mean nothing to that man.

There will never be any meaningful reforms, particularly to electoral law, if it is left up to politicians, they have to many vested interests.

So you agree that Suthep, a career politician with vested interests, should have nothing to do with it.

You forgot to mention a multi millionaire who made a lot of his money through very questionable means. And the 1995 land scandal that he was a large part of, and the 2009 disqualification as MP. And the 2013 murder charge brought against him. A very, very questionable man indeed. Not the kind of leader this nation needs.

[rubl]

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Unconstitutional? It all depends on who you ask. It also depends on how to interpret the 'under senate mandate' I think.

As for the 'subsidy', well the idea behind the originally 500 billion Baht 'revolving' funds was to pay out from it and deposit revenue from sales. Now that really worked so well that we are about 700++ in deficit. Of course the comparison with other countries on subsidy is totally off the mark as 1. the RPPS was not planned as subsidy, 2. as part of the National Budget the RPPS would have doubled the deficit for the last three years from around 9% to 18% or so.

Of course Thailand is a much richer country than the UK and can easily afford to 'mislay' 700++ billion Baht,

So you think that when the PTP came up with the RPPS, as you call it, paying rice farmers 15000 baht a ton for rice there was no thought of subsidy in their minds, or anyone elses' for that matter? Right, OK, perhaps they were as daft as you and your's keep on plugging, that they really expected to make a profit from it, is that what you're telling me?

Now this deficit, how's that going?

Thailand Government Debt To GDP

Thailand recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 45.27 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2013. Government Debt To GDP in Thailand averaged 45.46 Percent from 1996 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 57.80 Percent in 2000 and a record low of 15.20 Percent in 1996.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/government-debt-to-gdp

Doesn't seem too shabby to me.

Anyway, as you are wont to say, back to why abhisits proposals are unconstitutional.

You say it depends on who you ask. Normally the people you would need to ask would be the Constitutional Court but they've not proved too, how can we say, stable, in their verdicts of late.

You could try googling "Verapat Pariyawong", an independent legal academic, and see where he states that abhisits proposal is unconstitutional in four different areas. He does agree with the need for reforms of the EC regulations, but I don't think anybody would disagree with that, unless they didn't want elections at all, can't think who that would be , and I don't mean just suthep.

I'm sure I'll be able to find a few more of these independent legal academics who state that the Abhisit proposal is legal or at least not illegal. Same with your 'CC stable', a faction of the UDD today sent a letter to Pheu Thai urging them to ignore the CC. I saw Prompong on MCOT waiving a document and envelope.

As for the RPPS (i.e. Rice Price Pledging Scheme) pray explain how a money losing subsidy can be financed by a revolving funds? Furthermore since the RPPS is renewed every year, it's more usual to include it's costs in the National Budget. That's why I referred to doubling of planned deficits. The Yingluck government choose to keep the RPPS out of the National Budget and therefor parliamentary scrutiny for whatever reason. Like you I don't think the NACC should accuse Ms. Yingluck of negligence. Pure criminal misconduct leading to 700++ billion Baht loss is more like it.

[Thaddeus]

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

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us." alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Maybe the PTP learned too well from the examples set forth by the Democrat regime in 2007 and 2010. By the way when is Suthep going to turn himself in to authorities on an arrest warrants for premeditated murder?

2007 wasn't a Democrat government..

Don't put little facts like that in, it makes them break stride, and that just creates a bullshit swamp that we all have to wade through.

[Thai at Heart]

Most of the massive cheating and corruption lies with the incumbent administration.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As has been proved again and again.............well, actually it hasn't , has it?

There's been lots of allegations, but no actual proof. I'm sure it goes on but "massive"? What does that mean exactly, can you quantify it? Or is it just one of those well "everyone knows" tangibles that are sprinkled around on this forum like confetti yet never backed up with actual facts?

It's like the NACC accusing Yingluck of being negligent in her role as Chair of the National Rice Policy Committee for not stopping corruption even though the NACC have failed in identifying any corruption themselves. Accusations are cheap.

There has never been any accounts on the rice scheme published. Over 500 billion in the red. If that isnt massive then what is? The NACC has evidence to take cases forward against the cabinet for corruption.

In terms of cheating in the house - loads of evidence and some admissions.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If the corruption is so widespread it must be a cinch to prove. I hope they arrest thousands.

[Thai at Heart]

What the NACC realised was that no one in Ms. Yinglucks government and certainly not Ms. Yingluck herself either was/is able to explain why the BAAC had to spent 880 billion Baht which the government still franctically trying to borrow close to 90 billion more (40 billion 'earned' or borrowed, so 130 no longer),

Anyway, the Abhisit proposals are of course incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. Nothing new, but at least a framework to start further discussions. Seems a bit better tan just "have elections and see about reforms later", would you say?

PS to answer the last, no doubt you wouldn't.

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Unconstitutional? It all depends on who you ask. It also depends on how to interpret the 'under senate mandate' I think.

As for the 'subsidy', well the idea behind the originally 500 billion Baht 'revolving' funds was to pay out from it and deposit revenue from sales. Now that really worked so well that we are about 700++ in deficit. Of course the comparison with other countries on subsidy is totally off the mark as 1. the RPPS was not planned as subsidy, 2. as part of the National Budget the RPPS would have doubled the deficit for the last three years from around 9% to 18% or so.

Of course Thailand is a much richer country than the UK and can easily afford to 'mislay' 700++ billion Baht,

So you think that when the PTP came up with the RPPS, as you call it, paying rice farmers 15000 baht a ton for rice there was no thought of subsidy in their minds, or anyone elses' for that matter? Right, OK, perhaps they were as daft as you and your's keep on plugging, that they really expected to make a profit from it, is that what you're telling me?

Now this deficit, how's that going?

Thailand Government Debt To GDP

Thailand recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 45.27 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2013. Government Debt To GDP in Thailand averaged 45.46 Percent from 1996 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 57.80 Percent in 2000 and a record low of 15.20 Percent in 1996.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/government-debt-to-gdp

Doesn't seem too shabby to me.

Anyway, as you are wont to say, back to why abhisits proposals are unconstitutional.

You say it depends on who you ask. Normally the people you would need to ask would be the Constitutional Court but they've not proved too, how can we say, stable, in their verdicts of late.

You could try googling "Verapat Pariyawong", an independent legal academic, and see where he states that abhisits proposal is unconstitutional in four different areas. He does agree with the need for reforms of the EC regulations, but I don't think anybody would disagree with that, unless they didn't want elections at all, can't think who that would be , and I don't mean just suthep.

The word reform is so generic it means nothing. Didn't chairman Mao reform China?

Until there is a solid explanation of what reform speciifically means, no one can believe or trust it.

[mikemac]

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Ohhh ! It's a subsidy !

Definition of the word subsidy - A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

"given by the government to groups or individuals"............................What is it called when it is NOT given to the groups or individuals ??? And the farmers have handed over their crops in good faith?

"The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden".....................................What is it called when it actually CREATES some type of burden, ie. a great financial burden ? A burden great enough to drive many of the people who were supposed to receive the subsidy to suicide.

You can call it any name you like, coat it in chocolate and roll it in honey, but it was a cunning way for the PTP to win / buy votes and line their pockets at the same time. They may have got away with it if the poor farmers had actually been paid the money, but they even stuffed that up.

I would like to be there if you went to one of the many villages in Thailand whose farmers are still waiting to be paid, or even better a household who has suffered the loss of a loved one, and see the reaction when you tell them what a great thing the Rice Payment Scheme is.

With all likelihood I would see you strung up.

[mikemac]

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

Very simple definition for the stupids: "We don't give a damn what you say, we do it our way, we do it Pheu Thai way, we're gonna win anyway and we will kill anyone who disagrees with us." alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20> alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Maybe the PTP learned too well from the examples set forth by the Democrat regime in 2007 and 2010. By the way when is Suthep going to turn himself in to authorities on an arrest warrants for premeditated murder?

2007 wasn't a Democrat government..

Don't put little facts like that in, it makes them break stride, and that just creates a bullshit swamp that we all have to wade through.

rickirs better be careful or the troll union will tear up his membership !

[Thai at Heart]

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Ohhh ! It's a subsidy !

Definition of the word subsidy - A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

"given by the government to groups or individuals"............................What is it called when it is NOT given to the groups or individuals ??? And the farmers have handed over their crops in good faith?

"The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden".....................................What is it called when it actually CREATES some type of burden, ie. a great financial burden ? A burden great enough to drive many of the people who were supposed to receive the subsidy to suicide.

You can call it any name you like, coat it in chocolate and roll it in honey, but it was a cunning way for the PTP to win / buy votes and line their pockets at the same time. They may have got away with it if the poor farmers had actually been paid the money, but they even stuffed that up.

I would like to be there if you went to one of the many villages in Thailand whose farmers are still waiting to be paid, or even better a household who has suffered the loss of a loved one, and see the reaction when you tell them what a great thing the Rice Payment Scheme is.

With all likelihood I would see you strung up.

Call it what u like. Just about every developed country operates a system like this in some form.or other.

The one in Europe costs every household about 150 GBP per year in higher bills. U can't have a subsidy that has no burden. If so, please invent one

[Morch]

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Ohhh ! It's a subsidy !

Definition of the word subsidy - A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

"given by the government to groups or individuals"............................What is it called when it is NOT given to the groups or individuals ??? And the farmers have handed over their crops in good faith?

"The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden".....................................What is it called when it actually CREATES some type of burden, ie. a great financial burden ? A burden great enough to drive many of the people who were supposed to receive the subsidy to suicide.

You can call it any name you like, coat it in chocolate and roll it in honey, but it was a cunning way for the PTP to win / buy votes and line their pockets at the same time. They may have got away with it if the poor farmers had actually been paid the money, but they even stuffed that up.

I would like to be there if you went to one of the many villages in Thailand whose farmers are still waiting to be paid, or even better a household who has suffered the loss of a loved one, and see the reaction when you tell them what a great thing the Rice Payment Scheme is.

With all likelihood I would see you strung up.

Call it what u like. Just about every developed country operates a system like this in some form.or other.

The one in Europe costs every household about 150 GBP per year in higher bills. U can't have a subsidy that has no burden. If so, please invent one

How much did the Rice Pledging Scheme add (in comparable terms) to each Thai household expenses?

I think the point is not whether it's defined as subsidy or not, but on how it was planned and managed.

[rubl]

Call it what u like. Just about every developed country operates a system like this in some form.or other.

The one in Europe costs every household about 150 GBP per year in higher bills. U can't have a subsidy that has no burden. If so, please invent one

A bit off topic, but where did you find these figures?

[fab4]

Call it what u like. Just about every developed country operates a system like this in some form.or other.

The one in Europe costs every household about 150 GBP per year in higher bills. U can't have a subsidy that has no burden. If so, please invent one

A bit off topic, but where did you find these figures?

Try googling, rubl. I don't know, how about European Farming subsidies, it's not beyond the wit of man to find.

Edited May 5, 2014 by fab4

[Thai at Heart]

It's a subsidy rubl, you don't make profits on subsidies, they cost money.

Out of that 880 billion baht over two and a half years (the figure includes 100 billion baht they haven't yet paid to farmers) they have recouped 200 Billion baht in sales so far.

For perspective, the UK's farm subsidy cost in 2012 was 282.6 Billion Euros or, at an exchange rate of 45 baht to the Euro, 12,717 Billion Baht for one year.

Granted that was for all farming subsidies but seeing as the UK doesn't grow much rice and bearing in mind the total acreage in the UK dedicated to farming activity I think it puts the Thai Rice subsidy into perspective.

As you say abhisits proposals are incomplete, contentious, angering both sides. What you neglect to add is they are unconstitutional too.

Ohhh ! It's a subsidy !

Definition of the word subsidy - A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

"given by the government to groups or individuals"............................What is it called when it is NOT given to the groups or individuals ??? And the farmers have handed over their crops in good faith?

"The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden".....................................What is it called when it actually CREATES some type of burden, ie. a great financial burden ? A burden great enough to drive many of the people who were supposed to receive the subsidy to suicide.

You can call it any name you like, coat it in chocolate and roll it in honey, but it was a cunning way for the PTP to win / buy votes and line their pockets at the same time. They may have got away with it if the poor farmers had actually been paid the money, but they even stuffed that up.

I would like to be there if you went to one of the many villages in Thailand whose farmers are still waiting to be paid, or even better a household who has suffered the loss of a loved one, and see the reaction when you tell them what a great thing the Rice Payment Scheme is.

With all likelihood I would see you strung up.

Call it what u like. Just about every developed country operates a system like this in some form.or other.

The one in Europe costs every household about 150 GBP per year in higher bills. U can't have a subsidy that has no burden. If so, please invent one

How much did the Rice Pledging Scheme add (in comparable terms) to each Thai household expenses?

I think the point is not whether it's defined as subsidy or not, but on how it was planned and managed.

The loss is the loss.

That's it.

[Ricardo]

But since the loss-to-date is still growing, as stored-rice rots & market-prices fall, the losses are still increasing.

And since the scheme was part-financed with interest-bearing loans, which have yet to be paid back, those costs too are still growing.

If only they'd stopped, when the budget ran out, but then that would have exposed the scheme for being a bad idea, so that couldn't be allowed to happen.