Panadda: Rice inspection for possible irregularities to be complete late August

[webfact]

Panadda: Rice inspection for possible irregularities to be complete late August
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, July 10 -- An ongoing inspection of rice bought from farmers by the now defunct previous government under its rice-pledging scheme at warehouses nationwide was expected to be complete in late August, said Panadda Diskul, permanent secretary for Prime Minister's Office on Thursday.

Speaking in his capacity as chief of the subcommittee tasked with government-owned rice quality inspection, Mr Panadda told journalists that all 100 rice inspection teams were putting in every effort in inspecting rice at all warehouses and silos.

The rice inspection is expected to complete late next month and its findings will be submitted to Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, army chief and leader of the National Council for Peace and Order, before being announced to the public, he said.

The in-depth inspection of rice quality was expected to be complete in September.

Mr Panadda said the Commerce Ministry would decide on selling rice from which warehouses to the public or traders because its quality could deteriorate if stored for too long.

Asked whether the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) could take legal action against cabinet ministers of the previous Yingluck Shinawatra government on charges of corruption, Mr Panadda said both the NACC and the Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission have the duty to take action, while his teams are responsible for inspecting rice quality.

He said the inspection has no duty to punish those involved with corruption in the rice-pledging programme. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2014-07-10

[Robby nz]

I hope that clarifies things for the several poster on these rice inspection topics.

It would seem with what they have found in the first few days it is now going to take longer than they first expected which is really not a big surprise.

That is good for they will be doing a thorough job and getting it right.

[Lite Beer]

NACC says information from rice checks can be used against Ms Yingluck

BANGKOK: -- Information from nationwide rice inspections which, so far, have shown missing and rotten rice at several warehouses can be used in the ongoing criminal litigation against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, said Mr Witthaya Arkhompitak, deputy secretary-general of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, today.

There is no need to wait for the final report about the rice inspection from the Prime Minister’s Office, he said, adding that only five percent of the pledged rice went missing from a warehouse was enough to say that there was irregularity in the rice storage and authorities concerned could lodge a complaint with the police.

Mr Witthaya cited the inspection of Sin Thongdee Parawood warehouse in Thung Song district of Nakhon Si Thammarat which saw rotten rice scatter on the floor of the warehouse and many rice sacks were strewn in disorderly manner and infested with weevils.

Also, the warehouse was struck by fire for three times since last year and yet no concerned authorities have ever visited the warehouse to investigate until last week the inspection team arrived to check the rice stock, he said.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nacc-says-information-rice-checks-can-used-ms-yingluck/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nacc-says-information-rice-checks-can-used-ms-yingluck

-- Thai PBS 2014-07-10

[Thai at Heart]

I hope that clarifies things for the several poster on these rice inspection topics.

It would seem with what they have found in the first few days it is now going to take longer than they first expected which is really not a big surprise.

That is good for they will be doing a thorough job and getting it right.

Good. I said at the very beginning that a month wouldn't be enough.

[Chang_paarp]

I wonder if they will cross check the warehouse paperwork with that from the farmers? Anyone willing to bet there will be some discrepancies there, the paperwork from the farmers will be in the government hands now they have been paid.

[Robby nz]

I wonder if they will cross check the warehouse paperwork with that from the farmers? Anyone willing to bet there will be some discrepancies there, the paperwork from the farmers will be in the government hands now they have been paid.

As there was only one bank involved in the payments as the Govt agent all the records will be with that bank.

[pookiki]

While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned, rotten rice indicates poor storage conditions which may or may not be linked to corruption with those officials who were responsible for the warehouse. The same goes for accepting or falsifying reports with respect to the quality of the rice. And who knows how many rice millers and those at the warehouse acted in collusion to process stored rice. Several reports on this already. While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

I AM happy that the farmers have been paid and it doesn't appear that the country is bankrupt. As for the alternatives being considered by the junta, such as lower costs for fertilizer, etc, how is this being accomplished? Is there going to be a subsidy? Will there be transparency in the costs? There's so much talk about reform but I have seen no concrete mechanisms to quantify the amount of money involved in any program that can be remotely considered as populist. Walk the walk and talk the talk. Reform isn't just about gambling, mafia motorcycle and taxi stands, and vendors on the beach.

[Soutpeel]

Ah the red faithful comment

[tingtongteesood]

While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned, rotten rice indicates poor storage conditions which may or may not be linked to corruption with those officials who were responsible for the warehouse. The same goes for accepting or falsifying reports with respect to the quality of the rice. And who knows how many rice millers and those at the warehouse acted in collusion to process stored rice. Several reports on this already. While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

I AM happy that the farmers have been paid and it doesn't appear that the country is bankrupt. As for the alternatives being considered by the junta, such as lower costs for fertilizer, etc, how is this being accomplished? Is there going to be a subsidy? Will there be transparency in the costs? There's so much talk about reform but I have seen no concrete mechanisms to quantify the amount of money involved in any program that can be remotely considered as populist. Walk the walk and talk the talk. Reform isn't just about gambling, mafia motorcycle and taxi stands, and vendors on the beach.

Pookiki's spinning right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round - and all he will accomplish is to make himself very dizzy...

[Baerboxer]

While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned, rotten rice indicates poor storage conditions which may or may not be linked to corruption with those officials who were responsible for the warehouse. The same goes for accepting or falsifying reports with respect to the quality of the rice. And who knows how many rice millers and those at the warehouse acted in collusion to process stored rice. Several reports on this already. While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

I AM happy that the farmers have been paid and it doesn't appear that the country is bankrupt. As for the alternatives being considered by the junta, such as lower costs for fertilizer, etc, how is this being accomplished? Is there going to be a subsidy? Will there be transparency in the costs? There's so much talk about reform but I have seen no concrete mechanisms to quantify the amount of money involved in any program that can be remotely considered as populist. Walk the walk and talk the talk. Reform isn't just about gambling, mafia motorcycle and taxi stands, and vendors on the beach.

The warehouses should have been providing adequate storage at a fair market with appropriate stock rotations and actions to prevent as much stock deterioration as possible. If that proves to be the case then fine. If they have not been bothering and allowed false inventories, accounting and deliberate tricks to hide physical discrepancies, all at premium prices then it needs very detailed investigations to expose all involved and their connections.

Yingluck has repeatedly stated there is no corruption in this scheme, and indeed her whole administration, that there is no missing rice, that G2G sales were made and that the scheme didn't need more loans to finance it. Either she is lying, she is dumber than dumb or she is capable. Possibly 1 or more apply. You decide but don't claim she's an innocent mislead poor victim. She was responsible and chose to do bugger all and then lie and make false promises.

[mikemac]

.................."While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned".............................

And rightfully so, she deserves to be strung up. In most other countries she would at least be behind bars by now, as would her rotten to the core criminal brother.

[dcutman]

Ah the red faithful comment

This red faithful comment, was at best "wishy washy"

If one wants to try and defend a crappy, corrupt, nepotist govt, then grow a pair and do it.

[ballpoint]

If you were going to set up a scheme that required the long term storage of a perishable good in order to work properly, wouldn't you ensure that any licensed storage areas for the scheme would be of sufficient quality to keep losses as low as reasonably achievable, while keeping transparent records of all the rice received and how much was lost to mould and animal pests using regular audits? Wouldn't you, as the person responsible for selling and chairing the scheme, take measures to ensure that all was above board? You can go on all you like about how Yingluck didn't profit, the scheme was not a scam, the farmers benefitted, but the facts show that at best it was poorly planned and even more poorly managed. The buck stops at the leader, and it is the leader who takes the blame.

What would happen to a bank manager, however honest he happened to be, who left the safe and front door open every night and failed to keep track of exactly how much money was in the building, if it were found on an external audit that there was far less than reported, and much of the cash that was present was chewed up by mice and insects? What would happen to the president of a bank that employed hundreds of such managers, was told what was happening, but did nothing about it? To some here, he'd get a "well, not your fault that some external criminals stole the money, and the safe allowed vermin to enter. Be a bit more careful in future. Carry on old chap".

[Robert24]

While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

you really think lower level officials benefited more than senior officials from corruption in the rice scheme? The way corruption works is that the one with most power will get most of the money, not the other way around. Not just for the rice scheme but across the board wherever corruption is rampant.

[Thai at Heart]

If you were going to set up a scheme that required the long term storage of a perishable good in order to work properly, wouldn't you ensure that any licensed storage areas for the scheme would be of sufficient quality to keep losses as low as reasonably achievable, while keeping transparent records of all the rice received and how much was lost to mould and animal pests using regular audits? Wouldn't you, as the person responsible for selling and chairing the scheme, take measures to ensure that all was above board? You can go on all you like about how Yingluck didn't profit, the scheme was not a scam, the farmers benefitted, but the facts show that at best it was poorly planned and even more poorly managed. The buck stops at the leader, and it is the leader who takes the blame.

What would happen to a bank manager, however honest he happened to be, who left the safe and front door open every night and failed to keep track of exactly how much money was in the building, if it were found on an external audit that there was far less than reported, and much of the cash that was present was chewed up by mice and insects? What would happen to the president of a bank that employed hundreds of such managers, was told what was happening, but did nothing about it? To some here, he'd get a "well, not your fault that some external criminals stole the money, and the safe allowed vermin to enter. Be a bit more careful in future. Carry on old chap".

The country had never stored this much processed rice before. They apparently have 19,000,000 mt on hand. Normally the rice would have been in and out and sold into the market.

[Soutpeel]

While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned, rotten rice indicates poor storage conditions which may or may not be linked to corruption with those officials who were responsible for the warehouse. The same goes for accepting or falsifying reports with respect to the quality of the rice. And who knows how many rice millers and those at the warehouse acted in collusion to process stored rice. Several reports on this already. While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

I AM happy that the farmers have been paid and it doesn't appear that the country is bankrupt. As for the alternatives being considered by the junta, such as lower costs for fertilizer, etc, how is this being accomplished? Is there going to be a subsidy? Will there be transparency in the costs? There's so much talk about reform but I have seen no concrete mechanisms to quantify the amount of money involved in any program that can be remotely considered as populist. Walk the walk and talk the talk. Reform isn't just about gambling, mafia motorcycle and taxi stands, and vendors on the beach.

Pookiki's spinning right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round - and all he will accomplish is to make himself very dizzy...

I am waiting for Fabby & PRBKK to say its all a big misunderstanding or its Suthep's fault if he hadn't grid locked all BKK with his fascist protest none of this rice would have spoiled Edited July 10, 2014 by Soutpeel

[pookiki]

While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

you really think lower level officials benefited more than senior officials from corruption in the rice scheme? The way corruption works is that the one with most power will get most of the money, not the other way around. Not just for the rice scheme but across the board wherever corruption is rampant.

Frankly, I don't think we will ever know what happened for sure. Your model for corruption does not always apply in my view. There are officials in powerful positions that will choose to keep their ill-gotten gains without sharing the money up the food chain. Happens all the time. Without knowing the facts -- and I don't think we ever will given the nature of the court system in Thailand -- the rest is conjecture and speculation. But as I said earlier, the farmers got their money and the country isn't bankrupt as so many people said would be the result. Even enough money left over for a free movie and some free football.

[Robby nz]

.................."While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned".............................

And rightfully so, she deserves to be strung up. In most other countries she would at least be behind bars by now, as would her rotten to the core criminal brother.

Don't know about that Mike but in most civilized democracies she would have resigned way back.

But hers is a special case for she has never really been in full charge, if at all. Thaksin thinks PT acts.

For a start her brother called her his clone and made no secret that he was in charge by his phone and Skype ins to cabinet meetings.

At one stage it was reliably reported that he threatened to withdraw the 'allowances' of PT MP's when so few turned up for a vote that a quorum was not reached.

There have been numerous documented (with photos) instances of MP's and cabinet ministers and wanna be cabinet ministers flying off to various parts of the world to meet with him.

More recently he likened himself to her caddy, someone who gives 'advice' on important decisions that they should not make on their own.

And more recently again, and pertaining to this topic he said publicly that the rice scheme should continue for 3 or 4 more years.

However saying all that she did agree to take on the job and did make herself chair of the rice policy committee actions which bring with them responsibility.

There seems little doubt that her brother is prepared to let her take the fall for this and probably other things as well and with his publicity machine will probably try to turn it to his advantage by using as her as some sort of an example of what his enemies will do to get at him.

Unfortunately there are still enough believers out there to swallow this, simply because they want to believe and are prepared to ignore truth.

So what should happen to her ?

When it comes to any charges they should be fair and reasonable and completely open and transparent.

She should be given every chance to defend herself, not including a chance to abscond.

Should there be any sentences they should be fair with serious financial penalties rather than long jail terms.

[MarkmBha]

The rice stores have been corrupted for decades.

Nothing new - but a good start to clean it up.

[Thai at Heart]

While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

you really think lower level officials benefited more than senior officials from corruption in the rice scheme? The way corruption works is that the one with most power will get most of the money, not the other way around. Not just for the rice scheme but across the board wherever corruption is rampant.

The farmers got paid their money. Do you really think its feasible to make a funnel from farming villages to cabinet level with cash in teh country? Bearing in mind the banks are either government or democrat controlled, the amount of people viewing any such thing would be enormous.

do you thinkn a farmer would fancy giving Yingluck 500 baht?

[Thai at Heart]

.................."While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned".............................

And rightfully so, she deserves to be strung up. In most other countries she would at least be behind bars by now, as would her rotten to the core criminal brother.

Don't know about that Mike but in most civilized democracies she would have resigned way back.

But hers is a special case for she has never really been in full charge, if at all. Thaksin thinks PT acts.

For a start her brother called her his clone and made no secret that he was in charge by his phone and Skype ins to cabinet meetings.

At one stage it was reliably reported that he threatened to withdraw the 'allowances' of PT MP's when so few turned up for a vote that a quorum was not reached.

There have been numerous documented (with photos) instances of MP's and cabinet ministers and wanna be cabinet ministers flying off to various parts of the world to meet with him.

More recently he likened himself to her caddy, someone who gives 'advice' on important decisions that they should not make on their own.

And more recently again, and pertaining to this topic he said publicly that the rice scheme should continue for 3 or 4 more years.

However saying all that she did agree to take on the job and did make herself chair of the rice policy committee actions which bring with them responsibility.

There seems little doubt that her brother is prepared to let her take the fall for this and probably other things as well and with his publicity machine will probably try to turn it to his advantage by using as her as some sort of an example of what his enemies will do to get at him.

Unfortunately there are still enough believers out there to swallow this, simply because they want to believe and are prepared to ignore truth.

So what should happen to her ?

When it comes to any charges they should be fair and reasonable and completely open and transparent.

She should be given every chance to defend herself, not including a chance to abscond.

Should there be any sentences they should be fair with serious financial penalties rather than long jail terms.

They might get her for incompetenece or negligence, however, what she was supposed to personally do to sell the rice to get revenue back in the system to pay out, and to empty the warehouse, , I am not quite sure

[robblok]

While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

you really think lower level officials benefited more than senior officials from corruption in the rice scheme? The way corruption works is that the one with most power will get most of the money, not the other way around. Not just for the rice scheme but across the board wherever corruption is rampant.

Frankly, I don't think we will ever know what happened for sure. Your model for corruption does not always apply in my view. There are officials in powerful positions that will choose to keep their ill-gotten gains without sharing the money up the food chain. Happens all the time. Without knowing the facts -- and I don't think we ever will given the nature of the court system in Thailand -- the rest is conjecture and speculation. But as I said earlier, the farmers got their money and the country isn't bankrupt as so many people said would be the result. Even enough money left over for a free movie and some free football.

Facts are fact, YL always at first said no losses, claimed no rice missing, claimed good storage. So she claimed all those things and they all were not true. That is gross negligence costing billions of baht. This is easy to prove.

The harder things to prove but not impossible are the G2G contracts that are forged (fraud)

Now if we can prove that rice millers that are friends of Big T were getting paid to store and the storage was not up to spec then its corruption. Probably went money back from those guys to Big T but that is hard to prove but not unlikely.

I am also amazed that you think that the normal corruption model is invalid.. usually those lower up dont benefit as much as the higher ups and now all of a sudden it does not work that way. I think ppl need to be pretty powerful to remove rice and put in inferior quality and keep it a secret without paying kickbacks higher up.

[pookiki]

In many corporations and financial institutions, the person who wields the most power would be those who handle the flow of the money and internal audits. Banks and other institutions are fleeced all the time. The President or the CEO wouldn't necessarily know there was a discrepancy until an external audit. The person who is going to be held legally responsible is the person who engaged in the illegal act unless it can be shown that others were complicit. And, there is a distinction between criminal negligence and just plain negligence (stupidity). Just read an article not too long ago where Greenpeace lost millions of dollars because one of their accountants got caught up in a poorly designed investment program in currencies. Fiscally irresponsible but no evidence of criminal intent. The guy was fired. The Executive Director of Greenpeace didn't resign.

Whether or not a head of an institution/organization/government wants to take responsibility for the wrongdoing of their subordinates is a matter of personal choice. In my estimation, the right thing to do is to accept responsibility. It's not any different that the current controversy about the SRT and the tragic rape and death of a young girl. Is the head of the SRT responsible for the acts of one of the SRT's deranged employees. No, I don't think so. But, to repair the damage, he should resign. Is Yingluck guilty of criminal negligence or stupidity. I think it is the latter. But she has already been removed from office. If the junta is serious about healing the political divide in the country, the continued prosecution of Yingluck will serve no useful purpose.

[Old Man River]

While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

you really think lower level officials benefited more than senior officials from corruption in the rice scheme? The way corruption works is that the one with most power will get most of the money, not the other way around. Not just for the rice scheme but across the board wherever corruption is rampant.

Frankly, I don't think we will ever know what happened for sure. Your model for corruption does not always apply in my view. There are officials in powerful positions that will choose to keep their ill-gotten gains without sharing the money up the food chain. Happens all the time. Without knowing the facts -- and I don't think we ever will given the nature of the court system in Thailand -- the rest is conjecture and speculation. But as I said earlier, the farmers got their money and the country isn't bankrupt as so many people said would be the result. Even enough money left over for a free movie and some free football.

Specifically, I agree on never knowing for sure what happened, but with M.R. Pridiyathon in his capacity as a NCPO's economic advisor and M.L. Panadda Diskul leading the investigation, I believe they will be able to uncover and put together a great deal of info.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Robby nz]

While I'm sure that graft and corruption was rampant, I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

you really think lower level officials benefited more than senior officials from corruption in the rice scheme? The way corruption works is that the one with most power will get most of the money, not the other way around. Not just for the rice scheme but across the board wherever corruption is rampant.

Frankly, I don't think we will ever know what happened for sure. Your model for corruption does not always apply in my view. There are officials in powerful positions that will choose to keep their ill-gotten gains without sharing the money up the food chain. Happens all the time. Without knowing the facts -- and I don't think we ever will given the nature of the court system in Thailand -- the rest is conjecture and speculation. But as I said earlier, the farmers got their money and the country isn't bankrupt as so many people said would be the result. Even enough money left over for a free movie and some free football.

I will take issue with your post on several points.

How long do you think officials would keep their position if they did not , as you say, share the money up the food chain ?

You say it happens all the time, you have personal knowledge of this and proof ?

What has it got to do with the nature of courts ?

Evidence will be gathered by the appropriate agencies, NACC, PSACC and will be made public, as are the results of the inspections. Transparency, right.

These will then be passed on to the various agencies to decide which charges, if any, should be laid against who, it will then be up to the relevant courts to hear these charges and I have no doubt there will be sufficient public interest for the proceedings to me well publicized.

And all this after a reform of the justice system.

The farmers all got paid, yes many several months late. How would you feel if your boss said to you after you had worked for 4 months, "I will pay you some time might be next week or next month" ?

They also got more debt than ever before, enough to drive at least 18 to suicide, they have now got lower ongoing rice prices than ever before and higher input costs.

A free movie for those close to a cinema, not the farmers, and free football on TV are little solace for the, at last estimate, 720 billion loss the country has suffered from this scheme.

[Local Drunk]

In many corporations and financial institutions, the person who wields the most power would be those who handle the flow of the money and internal audits. Banks and other institutions are fleeced all the time. The President or the CEO wouldn't necessarily know there was a discrepancy until an external audit. The person who is going to be held legally responsible is the person who engaged in the illegal act unless it can be shown that others were complicit. And, there is a distinction between criminal negligence and just plain negligence (stupidity). Just read an article not too long ago where Greenpeace lost millions of dollars because one of their accountants got caught up in a poorly designed investment program in currencies. Fiscally irresponsible but no evidence of criminal intent. The guy was fired. The Executive Director of Greenpeace didn't resign.

Whether or not a head of an institution/organization/government wants to take responsibility for the wrongdoing of their subordinates is a matter of personal choice. In my estimation, the right thing to do is to accept responsibility. It's not any different that the current controversy about the SRT and the tragic rape and death of a young girl. Is the head of the SRT responsible for the acts of one of the SRT's deranged employees. No, I don't think so. But, to repair the damage, he should resign. Is Yingluck guilty of criminal negligence or stupidity. I think it is the latter. But she has already been removed from office. If the junta is serious about healing the political divide in the country, the continued prosecution of Yingluck will serve no useful purpose.

I don't see how they are persecuting as an individual at all. It's a bit more lack her lack of individualism (read individualism as the ability of one to take charge of their own life) has led her and this country into this nasty little mess.

[BillyBobThai]

Everybody keeps talking about the proper way the government should have run this scheme. The government never, had the intent to do the right thing to keep spoilage at a minimum and be transparent. I firmly believe that Yingluck and company, read that as Thaksin, planed from the start for this to be nothing more than another way to steal money from the Thai treasury. The only good thing that I see in all of this, is that they were so complacent, as they thought that this was going to go on forever, they were sloppy with records.

Al Capone was not convicted for all his whiskey running and murders, the government got him on tax fraud. I suspect that something like this might be what brings down the good folks of the Sinawatra clan.

Edited July 10, 2014 by BillyBobThai

[robblok]

In many corporations and financial institutions, the person who wields the most power would be those who handle the flow of the money and internal audits. Banks and other institutions are fleeced all the time. The President or the CEO wouldn't necessarily know there was a discrepancy until an external audit. The person who is going to be held legally responsible is the person who engaged in the illegal act unless it can be shown that others were complicit. And, there is a distinction between criminal negligence and just plain negligence (stupidity). Just read an article not too long ago where Greenpeace lost millions of dollars because one of their accountants got caught up in a poorly designed investment program in currencies. Fiscally irresponsible but no evidence of criminal intent. The guy was fired. The Executive Director of Greenpeace didn't resign.

Whether or not a head of an institution/organization/government wants to take responsibility for the wrongdoing of their subordinates is a matter of personal choice. In my estimation, the right thing to do is to accept responsibility. It's not any different that the current controversy about the SRT and the tragic rape and death of a young girl. Is the head of the SRT responsible for the acts of one of the SRT's deranged employees. No, I don't think so. But, to repair the damage, he should resign. Is Yingluck guilty of criminal negligence or stupidity. I think it is the latter. But she has already been removed from office. If the junta is serious about healing the political divide in the country, the continued prosecution of Yingluck will serve no useful purpose.

Redsighted.

Every organisation told them that this was a bad Idea they were independent (even foreign ones)

They did not listen and did not check their stocks

That is totally different from someone not knowing some facts about the company he / she is leading.

This is not WANTING to know and not WANTING to act.

Its one thing if something is brought up during an audit that was not known its an other thing if almost everyone is warning you not to do something and telling you to check your stocks and you still don't do it.

I wonder how bias you must be not to see the difference.

(isn't it fun how the red crowd still tries to deny the undeniable they are making great fools out of themselves)

[pookiki]

In many corporations and financial institutions, the person who wields the most power would be those who handle the flow of the money and internal audits. Banks and other institutions are fleeced all the time. The President or the CEO wouldn't necessarily know there was a discrepancy until an external audit. The person who is going to be held legally responsible is the person who engaged in the illegal act unless it can be shown that others were complicit. And, there is a distinction between criminal negligence and just plain negligence (stupidity). Just read an article not too long ago where Greenpeace lost millions of dollars because one of their accountants got caught up in a poorly designed investment program in currencies. Fiscally irresponsible but no evidence of criminal intent. The guy was fired. The Executive Director of Greenpeace didn't resign.

Whether or not a head of an institution/organization/government wants to take responsibility for the wrongdoing of their subordinates is a matter of personal choice. In my estimation, the right thing to do is to accept responsibility. It's not any different that the current controversy about the SRT and the tragic rape and death of a young girl. Is the head of the SRT responsible for the acts of one of the SRT's deranged employees. No, I don't think so. But, to repair the damage, he should resign. Is Yingluck guilty of criminal negligence or stupidity. I think it is the latter. But she has already been removed from office. If the junta is serious about healing the political divide in the country, the continued prosecution of Yingluck will serve no useful purpose.

Redsighted.

Every organisation told them that this was a bad Idea they were independent (even foreign ones)

They did not listen and did not check their stocks

That is totally different from someone not knowing some facts about the company he / she is leading.

This is not WANTING to know and not WANTING to act.

Its one thing if something is brought up during an audit that was not known its an other thing if almost everyone is warning you not to do something and telling you to check your stocks and you still don't do it.

I wonder how bias you must be not to see the difference.

(isn't it fun how the red crowd still tries to deny the undeniable they are making great fools out of themselves)

Ever see the movie "Inside Job"? Take a look and see how corruption really works!

[Robby nz]

.................."While many on TVF harbor a lynch mob mentality on this issue as far as Yingluck is concerned".............................

And rightfully so, she deserves to be strung up. In most other countries she would at least be behind bars by now, as would her rotten to the core criminal brother.

Don't know about that Mike but in most civilized democracies she would have resigned way back.

But hers is a special case for she has never really been in full charge, if at all. Thaksin thinks PT acts.

For a start her brother called her his clone and made no secret that he was in charge by his phone and Skype ins to cabinet meetings.

At one stage it was reliably reported that he threatened to withdraw the 'allowances' of PT MP's when so few turned up for a vote that a quorum was not reached.

There have been numerous documented (with photos) instances of MP's and cabinet ministers and wanna be cabinet ministers flying off to various parts of the world to meet with him.

More recently he likened himself to her caddy, someone who gives 'advice' on important decisions that they should not make on their own.

And more recently again, and pertaining to this topic he said publicly that the rice scheme should continue for 3 or 4 more years.

However saying all that she did agree to take on the job and did make herself chair of the rice policy committee actions which bring with them responsibility.

There seems little doubt that her brother is prepared to let her take the fall for this and probably other things as well and with his publicity machine will probably try to turn it to his advantage by using as her as some sort of an example of what his enemies will do to get at him.

Unfortunately there are still enough believers out there to swallow this, simply because they want to believe and are prepared to ignore truth.

So what should happen to her ?

When it comes to any charges they should be fair and reasonable and completely open and transparent.

She should be given every chance to defend herself, not including a chance to abscond.

Should there be any sentences they should be fair with serious financial penalties rather than long jail terms.

They might get her for incompetenece or negligence, however, what she was supposed to personally do to sell the rice to get revenue back in the system to pay out, and to empty the warehouse, , I am not quite sure

You started of on this topic with a very reasonable post you are back to your usual ineffective and frankly silly defense.

She was supposed to be in charge of the whole rice pledging scheme in her role as chair of the policy committee.

That role put her in the position where she should have known, through delegating various tasks to committee members and getting them to report back, of knowing what was right and what was wrong with the scheme and making sure all the wrongs were corrected.

In other words she put herself in the position of being responsible for the good governance of the scheme.

She was supposed to have a handle on every aspect of the scheme, which as a flagship policy should have been of supreme importance.

She was supposed to be in charge of enacting policy which should have mitigated all the problems we now see emerging, it is very obvious after less than a week of inspections that this was not done.

She was supposed to be in charge of the policies that would seen money available to pay the farmers before parliament was dissolved, she said this had been done but as it turned out it was not.

It was said that she never attended a single meeting of the policy committee, if this is true that alone is dereliction of duty