Rice fraud verdict on Thaksin's aide due today

[robblok]

One poster, Prbkk, -- remarked that this clown was prosecuted by the Yingluck government....

I checked it out and it is true. The Yingluck Shinawatra government prosecuted the case.

And not a single response to that from the yellow ranters, except one mumble about 'well that means the Shins couldn't stop it'.

A yellow ranter is no better than a red ranter...he just has a few more friends since the coup. Drop Imelda Marcos a note and she'll jump in too, along with the Ghost of Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro as escorts to join the little yellow tea party.

A Shinawatra government prosecuted this guy, who is allegedly a Shinawatra lacky .... um, the logic is astonishing, followed by 'root out the evil' and 'I hope the court does the right thing and goes after the rest of them' and the famously idiotic 'there go the last PTPs on earth.'

Thai law is designed to favor whoever is in power, and they are not killing that cash cow just for Thaksin Shinawatra, or any of us.

You're buying what they're selling and calling it a discount.

I know, I know, this must be a red post because it isn't a yellow post.

And only primary colors are real colors.

And on and on and on all the way to a point even satire cannot take seriously.

Rubbish.

It is not only possible, but likely, that most people dislike both sides. The extremists always hijack posts because of insecurity, and then end up name calling and issuing vaguely annoying paper tiger threats after that fails, and then getting entire threads removed from beligerant and self-indulgent arrogance.

Sorry to rant, but a government cannot prosecute a case, it is what courts do. What you and the other red posters mean is that the case started under PTP rule. Are you saying that the goverment had so much power over the courts that they could stop cases. If so then all the better they are disposed as there should be a division of the three powers.

I don't really get your point while my point is clear, its a Taksins aide who got a contract because of his close ties to Taksin. He is a prime example of what is wrong with Taksin. The fact that the case was initiated during the PTP rule as such does not mean a thing unless you are stating that the government had total control over the courts (should not in a democracy).

[Globeman]

"his company was granted right to “rebuild” 10% broken rice to 5% broken rice"

Rebuild? ... Don't they mean cut it in half?

It is a common term in the industry globally. But gosh, it is hilariously funny now that you mention it.

[Nickymaster]

One poster, Prbkk, -- remarked that this clown was prosecuted by the Yingluck government....

I checked it out and it is true. The Yingluck Shinawatra government prosecuted the case.

And not a single response to that from the yellow ranters, except one mumble about 'well that means the Shins couldn't stop it'.

A yellow ranter is no better than a red ranter...he just has a few more friends since the coup. Drop Imelda Marcos a note and she'll jump in too, along with the Ghost of Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro as escorts to join the little yellow tea party.

A Shinawatra government prosecuted this guy, who is allegedly a Shinawatra lacky .... um, the logic is astonishing, followed by 'root out the evil' and 'I hope the court does the right thing and goes after the rest of them' and the famously idiotic 'there go the last PTPs on earth.'

Thai law is designed to favor whoever is in power, and they are not killing that cash cow just for Thaksin Shinawatra, or any of us.

You're buying what they're selling and calling it a discount.

I know, I know, this must be a red post because it isn't a yellow post.

And only primary colors are real colors.

And on and on and on all the way to a point even satire cannot take seriously.

Rubbish.

It is not only possible, but likely, that most people dislike both sides. The extremists always hijack posts because of insecurity, and then end up name calling and issuing vaguely annoying paper tiger threats after that fails, and then getting entire threads removed from beligerant and self-indulgent arrogance.

Sorry to rant, but a government cannot prosecute a case, it is what courts do. What you and the other red posters mean is that the case started under PTP rule. Are you saying that the goverment had so much power over the courts that they could stop cases. If so then all the better they are disposed as there should be a division of the three powers.

I don't really get your point while my point is clear, its a Taksins aide who got a contract because of his close ties to Taksin. He is a prime example of what is wrong with Taksin. The fact that the case was initiated during the PTP rule as such does not mean a thing unless you are stating that the government had total control over the courts (should not in a democracy).

Thank you!

[Bernard Flint]

The tried-and-trusted trick to avoiding imprisonment: A hefty prison sentence to save the justice system's face. A token fine. Bail. Then appeal, don't turn up for the hearing - Repeat. A few bribes here and there. The case drags on for years, is swiftly forgotten about, expires.

But maybe the current government will discard the old ways and mete out justice to the parasites and snakes. A change for the better, hopefully.

Everybody forgets except the bored expats

[wandasloan]

Sorry to rant, but a government cannot prosecute a case, it is what courts do. What you and the other red posters mean is that the case started under PTP rule. Are you saying that the goverment had so much power over the courts that they could stop cases. If so then all the better they are disposed as there should be a division of the three powers.

I don't really get your point while my point is clear, its a Taksins aide who got a contract because of his close ties to Taksin. He is a prime example of what is wrong with Taksin. The fact that the case was initiated during the PTP rule as such does not mean a thing unless you are stating that the government had total control over the courts (should not in a democracy).

No, courts NEVER prosecute a case. Not ever. Courts cannot be prosecutor and jury, rather obviously.

The government or, now, the independent Office of the Attorney-General typically does that. (There are others, but none of the others are a court.)

Prosecution of this particular sub-case of the entire President Agri scandal began in late 2011. However, the entire case began in 2004. Thaksin has never been named in the case — not by the prosecutor, not by the 2006-7 anti-Thaksin witchhunt, not by the Abhisit team,not by the PTP team, and not by the Prayuth team. But his close crony Wattana Muangsook was the in-government crony involved and HAS been named, over and over. All of this is so public, and has been for so many years, that it's really a crime that you stay uninformed instead of simply looking it up to find out for yourself.

.

[robblok]

Sorry to rant, but a government cannot prosecute a case, it is what courts do. What you and the other red posters mean is that the case started under PTP rule. Are you saying that the goverment had so much power over the courts that they could stop cases. If so then all the better they are disposed as there should be a division of the three powers.

I don't really get your point while my point is clear, its a Taksins aide who got a contract because of his close ties to Taksin. He is a prime example of what is wrong with Taksin. The fact that the case was initiated during the PTP rule as such does not mean a thing unless you are stating that the government had total control over the courts (should not in a democracy).

No, courts NEVER prosecute a case. Not ever. Courts cannot be prosecutor and jury, rather obviously.

The government or, now, the independent Office of the Attorney-General typically does that. (There are others, but none of the others are a court.)

Prosecution of this particular sub-case of the entire President Agri scandal began in late 2011. However, the entire case began in 2004. Thaksin has never been named in the case — not by the prosecutor, not by the 2006-7 anti-Thaksin witchhunt, not by the Abhisit team,not by the PTP team, and not by the Prayuth team. But his close crony Wattana Muangsook was the in-government crony involved and HAS been named, over and over. All of this is so public, and has been for so many years, that it's really a crime that you stay uninformed instead of simply looking it up to find out for yourself.

.

Semantics, you know exactly what I mean. Governments don't prosecute cases that is what the judiciary is for. It would be real bad if governments would also have power over the judiciary. Therefor you either admit its a good thing they were deposed (misuse of power doing the judiciary its job) or they had nothing to do with this case.

Taksin is named in this very article and even you are not that naive to think he was not awarded the trade because of his ties to Taksin. I never stated that Taksin got a cut I was making a point about cronyism during Taksin his rule. I did not state Taksin was actively involved taking his cut like a big capo. That would be hard to prove, but one would be blind not to admit he got this deal because of cronyism.

[metisdead]

Just another reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly.

[wandasloan]

Just another reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly.

But The Nation misspelled the proper English transliteration of the convicted criminal's name. (It is Apichat Chansakulporn). How come they can get away with it?

.

[wandasloan]

Semantics, you know exactly what I mean. Governments don't prosecute cases that is what the judiciary is for. It would be real bad if governments would also have power over the judiciary. Therefor you either admit its a good thing they were deposed (misuse of power doing the judiciary its job) or they had nothing to do with this case.

Taksin is named in this very article and even you are not that naive to think he was not awarded the trade because of his ties to Taksin. I never stated that Taksin got a cut I was making a point about cronyism during Taksin his rule. I did not state Taksin was actively involved taking his cut like a big capo. That would be hard to prove, but one would be blind not to admit he got this deal because of cronyism.

But it's not semantics, really. Governments almost always prosecute. They prosecute in every western country I can think of. They DID do almost all prosecutions in Thailand until very recently, when the independent OAG was formed. Before that, the attorney-general was — as in practically all countries — a member of the cabinet. (S)he still is in the US, Britain, etc. It is NOT control of the judiciary for the government to prosecute. It is the way the government (claims to) protect the people, by prosecuting people they believe to be criminals.

If you don't want to know about this President Agri case, you don't. I can't make you. I've given you all the names and all you lack is pasting three of them into Google simultaneously to be fabulously informed. At least you're on the vaguely correct track with "cronyism".

As I said, you have read two very short articles and from that you think you're informed about the case. You're not, not even about this small tangential Iran-deal case. Find out a bit about Apichat. Find out about President Agri. And for heaven's sake look up Wattana Muangsook. When you connect THOSE simple dots, you will know a couple of magnitudes more than you now know about this overall case, this tiny sub-case and about Thaksin's regime. President Agri is a BRILLIANT example of what was going on inside Thaksin's cabal.

If you just insist on hammering on "Thaksin's close aide Apichat" you're getting colder and colder and further from the juicy details.

p.s. and if you decide to inform yourself do NOT use the Nation's spelling for this most recent convict. Use this, correct one: Apichat Chansakulporn. Otherwise Google won't help you very much.

.

[northernjohn]

the chickens come home to roost, now lets see if thre courts will do the right thing here and throw his sorry arse in jail, this could be the start of a lot of the thaksin/ptp sucks going down, we can only hope.

Also a lot of people moving to Dubai.

Why does everyone ASS U ME that the exodus will be to Dubai just because Thaksin is supposed to be there? It's a shit hole, has more insane laws than Thailand, why not just move to Cambodia, or Singapore?

I think because that is where Thaksin calls home.

Who really cares as long as they go.

If I had my way they would all be banished to Antarctic along with a lot of people trying to force their religion on the world with violence. I would give them all the explosives and grenades they want.

[casualbiker]

"long-running and complex case" lol, I think the PTP rice scam only kicked off about 2 years ago. In the grand scheme of all things judicial, it's but a split-second.The case may seem "complex" to you, fortunately you are not the prosecutor.

This case has NOTHING to do with the PTP/Yingluck rice-purchase scheme. Nothing. This case goes back to the awarding of export licences in 2004. Obviously you didn't take my advice on how to start preliminary and informative research. You should have.

It's now very obvious you would be surprised how many corruption cases are under investigation surrounding this whole President Agri company, its founder, his cronies, and political and bureaucratic pooyai — none of whom or which have anything to do with any PTP rice programmes including the one you single out for reasons you know.

.

No it has nothing to do with PTP/Yingluck but a lot to do with Thaksin and rice pledging.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118573964.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Former-head-of-troubled-Agri-Trading-stands-to-gai-30192330.html

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited June 24, 2014 by casualbiker

[wandasloan]

No it has nothing to do with PTP/Yingluck but a lot to do with Thaksin and rice pledging.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118573964.html

Well, I'll be.... someone actual did a bit of research. Good on you!! From a three-paragraph story intro, you know 10 times more than you knew before. And you even have a fourth name to pursue: Siam Thanyarak Silo

Don't stop!! If you're going to comment, at least inform yourself. Hint: It's actually not much about rice-price intervention, but about rice exports. But keep going. I hope everyone follows you. You'd think there was an award for stubbornly refusing to investigate anything and this on is so easy to be actually informed about.

Here, just for you, for free: April, 2003: ... Mr Apichat, also managing director of Siam Kasikij Silo, yesterday signed loans of 1.03 billion baht with Thai Military Bank to finance the construction of new silos, touted as the largest in Asia.....

.

Edited June 24, 2014 by wandasloan

[FritsSikkink]

This has got nothing to do with the Shinawatra's. The guy won a contract. Cheated. Got caught by an international organisation. And will pay the penalty. Good. Are we all guilty because we breath the same air.

The defendant, Apichat Chansakunporn, alias Sia Pieng, managing director of President Agri Co Ltd, and a close aide to ex- Premier Thaksin

Its amazing how red sighted some people are. They let him make a profit while the government took the hit. Because he was close to Thaksin. Again clear evidence of fraud in the rice case.

You didn't read the story and clearly have not followed the case: he was prosecuted BY Yingluck's govt. This is not something that has happened since May 25th. This is the end of a long process.

The story doesn't say he was prosecuted by the Yingluck government but it took place during the Yingluck government

[casualbiker]

No it has nothing to do with PTP/Yingluck but a lot to do with Thaksin and rice pledging.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118573964.html

Well, I'll be.... someone actual did a bit of research. Good on you!! From a three-paragraph story intro, you know 10 times more than you knew before. And you even have a fourth name to pursue: Siam Thanyarak Silo

Don't stop!! If you're going to comment, at least inform yourself. Hint: It's actually not much about rice-price intervention, but about rice exports. But keep going. I hope everyone follows you. You'd think there was an award for stubbornly refusing to investigate anything and this on is so easy to be actually informed about.

.

You know everything! Hail to the guru!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[robblok]

Semantics, you know exactly what I mean. Governments don't prosecute cases that is what the judiciary is for. It would be real bad if governments would also have power over the judiciary. Therefor you either admit its a good thing they were deposed (misuse of power doing the judiciary its job) or they had nothing to do with this case.

Taksin is named in this very article and even you are not that naive to think he was not awarded the trade because of his ties to Taksin. I never stated that Taksin got a cut I was making a point about cronyism during Taksin his rule. I did not state Taksin was actively involved taking his cut like a big capo. That would be hard to prove, but one would be blind not to admit he got this deal because of cronyism.

But it's not semantics, really. Governments almost always prosecute. They prosecute in every western country I can think of. They DID do almost all prosecutions in Thailand until very recently, when the independent OAG was formed. Before that, the attorney-general was — as in practically all countries — a member of the cabinet. (S)he still is in the US, Britain, etc. It is NOT control of the judiciary for the government to prosecute. It is the way the government (claims to) protect the people, by prosecuting people they believe to be criminals.

If you don't want to know about this President Agri case, you don't. I can't make you. I've given you all the names and all you lack is pasting three of them into Google simultaneously to be fabulously informed. At least you're on the vaguely correct track with "cronyism".

As I said, you have read two very short articles and from that you think you're informed about the case. You're not, not even about this small tangential Iran-deal case. Find out a bit about Apichat. Find out about President Agri. And for heaven's sake look up Wattana Muangsook. When you connect THOSE simple dots, you will know a couple of magnitudes more than you now know about this overall case, this tiny sub-case and about Thaksin's regime. President Agri is a BRILLIANT example of what was going on inside Thaksin's cabal.

If you just insist on hammering on "Thaksin's close aide Apichat" you're getting colder and colder and further from the juicy details.

p.s. and if you decide to inform yourself do NOT use the Nation's spelling for this most recent convict. Use this, correct one: Apichat Chansakulporn. Otherwise Google won't help you very much.

.

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

Its the same in other countries, what I am stating is that people like YL and the rest of the PTP should not be able to influence the judiciary to tell them what to do. Its this way in every country. Sure the judiciary is part of the government but independent from the MP president and such, I cant think of a country out of the top of my head where a president could tell the judiciary who to prosecute.

Its the same in the US (think you are from there) Now in the news is the case of the BNP (trade with countries that were on the US list of non trade). The French president asked Obama to help who said that this was not his job and he could not (and should not) influence the judiciary.

Anyway I am sure you understood what I meant but wanted to go on on semantics. In reality its a bad thing if a MP or PM can tell the judiciary what to do.

[wandasloan]

The story doesn't say he was prosecuted by the Yingluck government but it took place during the Yingluck government

The superb irony is that this Iran embezzlement/theft/double-dealing/cronyism deal for which he was convicted took place in 2007, while the fortunate nation was under the wise leadership of the Royal Thai Army.

But yes, the Thai government no longer is a (major) prosecutor. As said, the independent Office of the Attorney-General does it. The OAG, after penetrating the RTA's corruption wall, finally got a handle on this case and brought charges in 2011.

.

[casualbiker]

The story doesn't say he was prosecuted by the Yingluck government but it took place during the Yingluck government

The superb irony is that this Iran embezzlement/theft/double-dealing/cronyism deal for which he was convicted took place in 2007, while the fortunate nation was under the wise leadership of the Royal Thai Army.

But yes, the Thai government no longer is a (major) prosecutor. As said, the independent Office of the Attorney-General does it. The OAG, after penetrating the RTA's corruption wall, finally got a handle on this case and brought charges in 2011.

.

Any links to " The superb irony is that this Iran embezzlement/theft/double-dealing/cronyism deal for which he was convicted took place in 2007,"

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[wandasloan]

Its the same in other countries, what I am stating is that people like YL and the rest of the PTP should not be able to influence the judiciary to tell them what to do. Its this way in every country. Sure the judiciary is part of the government but independent from the MP president and such, I cant think of a country out of the top of my head where a president could tell the judiciary who to prosecute.

Its the same in the US (think you are from there) Now in the news is the case of the BNP (trade with countries that were on the US list of non trade). The French president asked Obama to help who said that this was not his job and he could not (and should not) influence the judiciary.

Anyway I am sure you understood what I meant but wanted to go on on semantics. In reality its a bad thing if a MP or PM can tell the judiciary what to do.

I now see your error. "The judiciary" is judges. It is not law enforcement. Law enforcement is the government - it consists of police and prosecutors.

"The judiciary" is the courts, and (supposed to be) separate and independent. It is NOT part of government. Here's the error:

I cant think of a country out of the top of my head where a president could tell the judiciary who to prosecute.

That is garbled.

On one hand, yes, the judiciary can't be told who to prosecute. But that is because the judiciary doesn't prosecute anyone, under any circumstance.

On the other hand, in almost every country the head of government (president or prime minister) not only CAN tell authorities who to prosecute, but frequently does. Thailand is an outlier with this independent OAG. The Thai government rarely prosecutes. But as in all countries, the judiciary (courts and judges) never prosecutes.

It's not really semantics. We really can't have a discussion without speaking the same language here.

Your last line is right. No MP or PM or bloated tinpot soldier-dictator should be able to tell courts what to do. It is a VERY bad thing if they do, because it means citizens have absolutely no defence except to take up arms and start killing their oppressors.

Dictatorships and oligarchies and cronyism are terrible, awful forms of government, but with a reasonably honest judiciary, there is hope. If people cannot trust courts and judges (the judiciary), then their only recourse is bloody revolution. This is the key error the RTA makes over and over and over again in railroading justice and ignoring ALL accountability. It's depressing that the Official Thai Visa Committee On Summary Justice has such a powerful voice.

Let me ask you, honestly. If someone filed a lawsuit at the Constitutional Court pointing out that El Jefe has removed dedicated, career public servants in order to put his brother in a key position, do you think the Constitutional Court would hear the case? Do you think the judges would carefully weigh the evidence? If they decide against El Jefe and order him out of his position, do you think he would be accountable and leave gracefully leave that afternoon?

Do you think any single one of those could happen? All three? I mean, it DID happen when the judiciary was still largely trusted. How about this week?

.

[casualbiker]

Any links to " The superb irony is that this Iran embezzlement/theft/double-dealing/cronyism deal for which he was convicted took place in 2007,"

http://goo.gl/WS9K4k

.

Helpful .. you keep banging on about everyone else having to learn more .. but when someone asks for a link you don't bother .. ok. Talk to your self, you probably enjoy it more!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[wandasloan]

Any links to " The superb irony is that this Iran embezzlement/theft/double-dealing/cronyism deal for which he was convicted took place in 2007,"

http://goo.gl/WS9K4k

.

Helpful .. you keep banging on about everyone else having to learn more .. but when someone asks for a link you don't bother .. ok. Talk to your self, you probably enjoy it more!

Excuse me? That's a link. It goes to (for me) 183 separate sources, exactly as you asked.

.

Edited June 24, 2014 by wandasloan

[cmm]

This case begin march 2007 after coup in 2006
Apichat Chansakunporn alias Sia Pieng sign contact with thai gov (military junta) in april 2007
rebuild rice 10% to iran ""sep 2007 thai gov filed legal case against him ....

<<<< Links to Thai language news sites have been removed. This is an English language forum, English is the only acceptable language, except in the Thai language forum where Thai language is allowed. >>>>

Edited June 24, 2014 by metisdead
Thai language edited out of post. This is an English language forum, English is the only acceptable language, except in the Thai language forum where Thai language is allowed.

[Morch]

Any links to " The superb irony is that this Iran embezzlement/theft/double-dealing/cronyism deal for which he was convicted took place in 2007,"

http://goo.gl/WS9K4k

.

Helpful .. you keep banging on about everyone else having to learn more .. but when someone asks for a link you don't bother .. ok. Talk to your self, you probably enjoy it more!

Excuse me? That's a link. It goes to (for me) 183 separate sources, exactly as you asked.

.

Thanks, name sort of rang a bell, but can't say I really followed up on that since it was it made headlines back when.

Well worth spending some time reading up, a reminder that corruption and cronyism in this country are color blind.

[brianP]

This has got nothing to do with the Shinawatra's. The guy won a contract. Cheated. Got caught by an international organisation. And will pay the penalty. Good. Are we all guilty because we breath the same air.

Sure, the Sins are probably as shocked as you. Reminds me of that great song by Supertramp "dreamer', great song.

[Trouble]

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

This has got nothing to do with the Shinawatra's. The guy won a contract. Cheated. Got caught by an international organisation. And will pay the penalty. Good. Are we all guilty because we breath the same air.

The defendant, Apichat Chansakunporn, alias Sia Pieng, managing director of President Agri Co Ltd, and a close aide to ex- Premier Thaksin

Its amazing how red sighted some people are. They let him make a profit while the government took the hit. Because he was close to Thaksin. Again clear evidence of fraud in the rice case.

Thaksin was deposed in 2006. Eight years have past. Why do you suggest it is red sightedness when one suggests this guy and Thaksin are two separate issues?

[Cake Monster]

If he,s found guilty, then good.

Maybe he will get 20 years in the "Bangkok Hilton" - but me thinks not

[siampolee]

Trouble post # 84.

Thaksin was deposed in 2006. Eight years have past. Why do you suggest it is red sightedness when one suggests this guy and Thaksin are two separate issues?

Try the links below, then you will indeed find that there are not two separate issues. Thaksin was not overtly in control but he was covertly in control.

Thaksin described Yingluck as “not my nominee but my clone,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-15

*************************************************************************************************

Yingluck is politically inexperienced and many in Thailand feel her nomination as the opposition candidate for premier confirms Thaksin's central role in the kingdom's political landscape despite living in exile.

​http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/8546865

[MaxLee]

The court then sentenced him to three years in prison for each charge and a fine of 6,000 baht each.

Only 6 years??? That's really amazing Thailand

[wandasloan]

Try the links below, then you will indeed find that there are not two separate issues. Thaksin was not overtly in control but he was covertly in control.

Try the OP.

This crime was committed in 2007. It had nothing to do with Yingluck or the PTP, where by "nothing" I mean absolutely nothing. This 2007 crime was overseen by the patriotic Royal Thai Army, which was protecting the country from Thaksin, although (rather obviously) not from corruption - monetary and moral. Yingluck wasn't on the scene at all.

There are thousands of links, er, linking Thaksin, Yingluck and President Agri, but not in THIS case. There's not one, which I guess is the reason you didn't pretend to provide one.

.

[animatic]

"his company was granted right to “rebuild” 10% broken rice to 5% broken rice"

Rebuild? ... Don't they mean cut it in half?

"his company was granted right to “rebuild” 10% broken rice to 5% broken rice"

The 'higher' the %% of "broken" with regards to rice-quality, the 'lower' the value/price of the rice. Therefore; by stating "to re-build", they mean, in fact, to defraud, because they were aiming to receive the (substantially) higher price for the (substantially) lower quality of rice.

It's much the same as selling someone a Benz C-300, but sending him a Benz C-180 . . . . . . . . . .

Actually believe it means

milling out 5% of the broken rice, till it is only has 5% broken total,

And then making up the difference with 5% more unbroken rice.

And then tacking a premium on, the client shouldn't know the amount and state of the original rice.

Some where the 5% broken goes into glue or some other product for a lesser profit! but not a loss.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Edited June 25, 2014 by animatic

[jaidam]

Try the links below, then you will indeed find that there are not two separate issues. Thaksin was not overtly in control but he was covertly in control.

Try the OP.

This crime was committed in 2007. It had nothing to do with Yingluck or the PTP, where by "nothing" I mean absolutely nothing. This 2007 crime was overseen by the patriotic Royal Thai Army, which was protecting the country from Thaksin, although (rather obviously) not from corruption - monetary and moral. Yingluck wasn't on the scene at all.

There are thousands of links, er, linking Thaksin, Yingluck and President Agri, but not in THIS case. There's not one, which I guess is the reason you didn't pretend to provide one.

.

IF PTP was not a re-incarnation of TRT. IF Yingluck was not Thaksin's clone. IF Thaksin had not stated that he was the only member of his govt that made any decisions. IF the 2006 coup cancelled every deal and contract signed and in the wings made previous to the coup day. IF the headline of this thread was not about "Thaksin's aide". You might just have a point worth being made. As it is, your frantic and ever more grasping denials are not convincing anybody, in fact, I'd say it's as if you are stuck in quicksand. Relax, think it through, use some logic, less emotion. It's really not so difficult to see what has been going on.