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

[Robby nz]

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!

So you get your information from a movie which is made to entertain rather than inform.

Unfortunately it has led to your posts doing neither.

But it does show, I suppose, that you haven't just been making it up as you go along.

[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!

So you get your information from a movie which is made to entertain rather than inform.

Unfortunately it has led to your posts doing neither.

But it does show, I suppose, that you haven't just been making it up as you go along.

The movie is a documentary -- it is meant to inform and educate. But deciding to insult me is much easier instead of doing your research. There was a news article in TVF about the Thai Navy wanting to buy a submarine today. Who will decide if that is fiscally responsible? In the thread it was also pointed out that the Thai military had purchased an aircraft carrier in the past that was never used. That must have cost a few billions of baht that was completely removed from the economy. Checks and balances? Corruption? Who got paid off? And talking about accepting responsibility, has anyone in the Thai military ever acknowledged that the bomb detectors were a complete rip off? Did they join in the lawsuit by other countries to recoup there expenses or claim that they still work? And the blimp. Anyone take responsibility for what was a guffaw of epic proportions. Anyone accept responsibility or resign? The blimp and the aircraft carrier didn't help the farmers.

[rametindallas]

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.

The authorities need to check the capacity of each farmer to see if he has enough land to justify the amount of rice 'sold' to the government. If certain farmers were paid a small fee to claim much higher amounts of pledged rice than they could possibly grow, then this would be a convenient way to cover the paper trails of the rice mills. This might be where the three million tons of 'missing' rice are. Fake the invoices and then the corrupt officials and rice mills split the money from the taxpayer for rice that never existed.

[rametindallas]

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.

I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

It seems you don't understand how the corruption in Thailand works. The lower level dare not cheat the higher-ups of their share as they are being monitored by agents of the higher-ups. How else do Pol. Lt. Col.s become dollar millionaires? Thai society is very rigid in its rules of behavior.

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.

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme? (oh, right, you don't have any) The rest of us have been saying the exact same thing for longer than two years. One-sided, much?

[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

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

On paper she was the boss. Why on earth she took that position god only knows. But anyway, one would presume that out of the great and the good on this committee there would have been a few who might have had two clues about the rice business, and hopefully one or two of them might have understood the consequences of having this much rice in the warehouse for so long.

The thing is, realistically, once the product is in an enormous bloody stack, there is virtually nothing that can be done to change its condition than to ship it. The weather is the weather, the moisture is the moisture, the temperature is the temperature. The only thing that can help is to have as good a quality buildings as possible which can be sealed well when it rains to prevent the humidity going to high, and can keep the heat out as well as possible.

Short of that, how on earth to stop moisture going into the stacks and causing colouring and mould? Zero. Zip. I hope they have a piece of paper from someone that went past her nose which catalogued there was a massive fear of mould and damage. At least that proves she didn't do anything. Point is, there is virtually nothing that could have been done short of getting the stuff out of thaialnd to more temperate climate.

[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.

I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

It seems you don't understand how the corruption in Thailand works. The lower level dare not cheat the higher-ups of their share as they are being monitored by agents of the higher-ups. How else do Pol. Lt. Col.s become dollar millionaires? Thai society is very rigid in its rules of behavior.

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.

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme? (oh, right, you don't have any) The rest of us have been saying the exact same thing for longer than two years. One-sided, much?

This is a junta that has repeatedly stated that it purpose for existence is to enact reform. If there is no transparency, where is the reform? Is it wrong to demand accountability -- of anyone?

[rametindallas]

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.

I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

It seems you don't understand how the corruption in Thailand works. The lower level dare not cheat the higher-ups of their share as they are being monitored by agents of the higher-ups. How else do Pol. Lt. Col.s become dollar millionaires? Thai society is very rigid in its rules of behavior.

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.

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme? (oh, right, you don't have any) The rest of us have been saying the exact same thing for longer than two years. One-sided, much?

This is a junta that has repeatedly stated that it purpose for existence is to enact reform. If there is no transparency, where is the reform? Is it wrong to demand accountability -- of anyone?

Since you didn't reply to the first request, I will post again. Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

What's the matter, can't answer?

[rametindallas]

The movie is a documentary -- it is meant to inform and educate. But deciding to insult me is much easier instead of doing your research. There was a news article in TVF about the Thai Navy wanting to buy a submarine today. Who will decide if that is fiscally responsible? In the thread it was also pointed out that the Thai military had purchased an aircraft carrier in the past that was never used. That must have cost a few billions of baht that was completely removed from the economy. Checks and balances? Corruption? Who got paid off? And talking about accepting responsibility, has anyone in the Thai military ever acknowledged that the bomb detectors were a complete rip off? Did they join in the lawsuit by other countries to recoup there expenses or claim that they still work? And the blimp. Anyone take responsibility for what was a guffaw of epic proportions. Anyone accept responsibility or resign? The blimp and the aircraft carrier didn't help the farmers.

Distract/divert from the OP, much?

[Artisi]

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

Well, that's true isn't it?

[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.

I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

It seems you don't understand how the corruption in Thailand works. The lower level dare not cheat the higher-ups of their share as they are being monitored by agents of the higher-ups. How else do Pol. Lt. Col.s become dollar millionaires? Thai society is very rigid in its rules of behavior.

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.

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme? (oh, right, you don't have any) The rest of us have been saying the exact same thing for longer than two years. One-sided, much?

This is a junta that has repeatedly stated that it purpose for existence is to enact reform. If there is no transparency, where is the reform? Is it wrong to demand accountability -- of anyone?

Since you didn't reply to the first request, I will post again. Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

What's the matter, can't answer?

I did answer. I said is it wrong to demand the accountability -- of anyone? 'Anyone' would certainly encompass Yingluck. I don't think your wrong to demand accountability. Are you demanding the same, now? Will you answer?

[Robby nz]

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

On paper she was the boss. Why on earth she took that position god only knows. But anyway, one would presume that out of the great and the good on this committee there would have been a few who might have had two clues about the rice business, and hopefully one or two of them might have understood the consequences of having this much rice in the warehouse for so long.

The thing is, realistically, once the product is in an enormous bloody stack, there is virtually nothing that can be done to change its condition than to ship it. The weather is the weather, the moisture is the moisture, the temperature is the temperature. The only thing that can help is to have as good a quality buildings as possible which can be sealed well when it rains to prevent the humidity going to high, and can keep the heat out as well as possible.

Short of that, how on earth to stop moisture going into the stacks and causing colouring and mould? Zero. Zip. I hope they have a piece of paper from someone that went past her nose which catalogued there was a massive fear of mould and damage. At least that proves she didn't do anything. Point is, there is virtually nothing that could have been done short of getting the stuff out of thaialnd to more temperate climate.

Yes indeed TaH there you have it :

" At least that proves she didn't do anything"

Negligence case proven beyond all doubt.

[rametindallas]

I would posit that a lot of it was by lower level officials who knew that they weren't being that closely watched.

It seems you don't understand how the corruption in Thailand works. The lower level dare not cheat the higher-ups of their share as they are being monitored by agents of the higher-ups. How else do Pol. Lt. Col.s become dollar millionaires? Thai society is very rigid in its rules of behavior.

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.

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme? (oh, right, you don't have any) The rest of us have been saying the exact same thing for longer than two years. One-sided, much?

This is a junta that has repeatedly stated that it purpose for existence is to enact reform. If there is no transparency, where is the reform? Is it wrong to demand accountability -- of anyone?

Since you didn't reply to the first request, I will post again.

What's the matter, can't answer?

I did answer. I said is it wrong to demand the accountability -- of anyone? 'Anyone' would certainly encompass Yingluck. I don't think your wrong to demand accountability. Are you demanding the same, now? Will you answer?

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

I must have missed it in your answer. Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

The question is WHERE?

It appears you only demand transparency and accountability from non-Thaksin governments.

Double standards, much?

[pookiki]

I did answer. I said is it wrong to demand the accountability -- of anyone? 'Anyone' would certainly encompass Yingluck. I don't think your wrong to demand accountability. Are you demanding the same, now? Will you answer?

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

I must have missed it in your answer. Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

The question is WHERE?

It appears you only demand transparency and accountability from non-Thaksin governments.

Double standards, much?

Do your research, you will find them. Now to my question. Will you answer or not?

[rametindallas]

I did answer. I said is it wrong to demand the accountability -- of anyone? 'Anyone' would certainly encompass Yingluck. I don't think your wrong to demand accountability. Are you demanding the same, now? Will you answer?

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

I must have missed it in your answer. Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

The question is WHERE?

It appears you only demand transparency and accountability from non-Thaksin governments.

Double standards, much?

Do your research, you will find them. Now to my question. Will you answer or not?

Do your research, you will find them? I've been reading your posts since you began posting and you are a Thaksin apologist, exclusively. I would have remembered it, as being very unusual, if you had posted a neutral, non-propaganda post.

Now to my question. Can you answer or not? I asked you first.

[lostsoul49]

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!

You have talked nothing but pure <deleted> all the way through this thread from your very first post.

You know Yingluck and most of those cabinet cronies are involved right up to there eyeballs.... you know it for fact and you are just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

You are up against the wall on this conversation and you are lying like a toad to try to get yourself to look good.

Your argument is so flawed it is untrue.

Have some respect for the intelligence of TVF members, they are not stupid you know. You lose lots of respect the way you suppose this and that and then try to call up stupid hollywood fiction to strengthen your argument.

I have read some crap on this forum in my time, but your little campaign takes the biscuit.

FACT!!!!

Yingluck was told time and again by not only Thai based organizations, auditers etc etc etc... but also from very credible sources outside of Thailand such as the World Bank, IMF etc... that this scheme was corrupt from start to end and all she did was deny it, she even tried to delay the NACC investigation by inviting them to check all the rice and that she has had it checked and all is present and in good condition.... These were obviously lies after lies.

Just that fact alone should constitute at least a 10 year prison sentence.

Ask her where the money has gone from the commerce ministry... The 700 Billion plus....

The money missing is on top of the missing and messed up rice stock corruption and a separate issue altogether. These questions are also going to be asked IN A CRIMINAL COURT!

It warms my heart to see all this widespread corruption in the rice scam.... why does it warm my heart??? Because it is going to put literally hundreds (if not THOUSANDS) of people in the interrogation room, and they will be offered leniency for information. They will squeal like stuck pigs to save their <deleted>, and that is how more arrests are going to be made as it all cascades upwards.

It is no secret that the Junta are there to end the Thaksin regime once and for all (and rightly so), and do you seriously think they are going to let Yingluck just walk away from all this??? You are gravely mistaken.

I would suspect that everyone at the top knows full well that Yingluck and the top cabinet ministers will have literally syphoned off tens of billions for themselves, and all it takes it for one to crap and reign the lot of them in.

It will happen, and I am praying that life sentences are handed down left, right and centre to this rabble.

They are a curse... If you can't get the money back, then take away their ability to enjoy it forever.

[Old Man River]

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

On paper she was the boss. Why on earth she took that position god only knows. But anyway, one would presume that out of the great and the good on this committee there would have been a few who might have had two clues about the rice business, and hopefully one or two of them might have understood the consequences of having this much rice in the warehouse for so long.

The thing is, realistically, once the product is in an enormous bloody stack, there is virtually nothing that can be done to change its condition than to ship it. The weather is the weather, the moisture is the moisture, the temperature is the temperature. The only thing that can help is to have as good a quality buildings as possible which can be sealed well when it rains to prevent the humidity going to high, and can keep the heat out as well as possible.

Short of that, how on earth to stop moisture going into the stacks and causing colouring and mould? Zero. Zip. I hope they have a piece of paper from someone that went past her nose which catalogued there was a massive fear of mould and damage. At least that proves she didn't do anything. Point is, there is virtually nothing that could have been done short of getting the stuff out of thaialnd to more temperate climate.

Yes indeed TaH there you have it :

" At least that proves she didn't do anything"

Negligence case proven beyond all doubt.

What remains to be seen is whether prosecutors go for criminal negligence and if so, what the outcome will be.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[robblok]

The movie is a documentary -- it is meant to inform and educate. But deciding to insult me is much easier instead of doing your research. There was a news article in TVF about the Thai Navy wanting to buy a submarine today. Who will decide if that is fiscally responsible? In the thread it was also pointed out that the Thai military had purchased an aircraft carrier in the past that was never used. That must have cost a few billions of baht that was completely removed from the economy. Checks and balances? Corruption? Who got paid off? And talking about accepting responsibility, has anyone in the Thai military ever acknowledged that the bomb detectors were a complete rip off? Did they join in the lawsuit by other countries to recoup there expenses or claim that they still work? And the blimp. Anyone take responsibility for what was a guffaw of epic proportions. Anyone accept responsibility or resign? The blimp and the aircraft carrier didn't help the farmers.

Yes I will insult you again because what you are now doing is one of the lowest forms of debating..

Look mom they are bad too so its ok if I am bad too. (two wrongs don't make a right)

No both are bad and yes I am against that nuclear sub and against the idiots who bought those stupid detectors.

As far as I know its the governments task to monitor the army too, but I grant you that is hard here.

[pookiki]

I did answer. I said is it wrong to demand the accountability -- of anyone? 'Anyone' would certainly encompass Yingluck. I don't think your wrong to demand accountability. Are you demanding the same, now? Will you answer?

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

I must have missed it in your answer. Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

The question is WHERE?

It appears you only demand transparency and accountability from non-Thaksin governments.

Double standards, much?

Do your research, you will find them. Now to my question. Will you answer or not?

Do your research, you will find them? I've been reading your posts since you began posting and you are a Thaksin apologist, exclusively. I would have remembered it, as being very unusual, if you had posted a neutral, non-propaganda post.

Now to my question. Can you answer or not? I asked you first.

I did post opinions questioning the viability of the rice program. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. Obviously, you don't want to answer my question.

[Thai at Heart]

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

On paper she was the boss. Why on earth she took that position god only knows. But anyway, one would presume that out of the great and the good on this committee there would have been a few who might have had two clues about the rice business, and hopefully one or two of them might have understood the consequences of having this much rice in the warehouse for so long.

The thing is, realistically, once the product is in an enormous bloody stack, there is virtually nothing that can be done to change its condition than to ship it. The weather is the weather, the moisture is the moisture, the temperature is the temperature. The only thing that can help is to have as good a quality buildings as possible which can be sealed well when it rains to prevent the humidity going to high, and can keep the heat out as well as possible.

Short of that, how on earth to stop moisture going into the stacks and causing colouring and mould? Zero. Zip. I hope they have a piece of paper from someone that went past her nose which catalogued there was a massive fear of mould and damage. At least that proves she didn't do anything. Point is, there is virtually nothing that could have been done short of getting the stuff out of thaialnd to more temperate climate.

Yes indeed TaH there you have it :

" At least that proves she didn't do anything"

Negligence case proven beyond all doubt.

They might try. I am not sure they will be able to prove it. She wouldn't have had a clue what to do whatsoever.

Here the country was with however many million tonnes under roof and absolutely nothing to be done about it but to hope that it didnt rain too much. The correct thing to do, was actually to sit still and do nothing, because there was nothing else to do, and hope the stuff could be sold. They were handcuffed from the beginning.

Ignorant yes. Negligent? Not sure. The handling losses alone from picking it up, restacking it and the such would be 1% of volume. Add in teh cost, etc etc.

[pookiki]

The movie is a documentary -- it is meant to inform and educate. But deciding to insult me is much easier instead of doing your research. There was a news article in TVF about the Thai Navy wanting to buy a submarine today. Who will decide if that is fiscally responsible? In the thread it was also pointed out that the Thai military had purchased an aircraft carrier in the past that was never used. That must have cost a few billions of baht that was completely removed from the economy. Checks and balances? Corruption? Who got paid off? And talking about accepting responsibility, has anyone in the Thai military ever acknowledged that the bomb detectors were a complete rip off? Did they join in the lawsuit by other countries to recoup there expenses or claim that they still work? And the blimp. Anyone take responsibility for what was a guffaw of epic proportions. Anyone accept responsibility or resign? The blimp and the aircraft carrier didn't help the farmers.

Yes I will insult you again because what you are now doing is one of the lowest forms of debating..

Look mom they are bad too so its ok if I am bad too. (two wrongs don't make a right)

No both are bad and yes I am against that nuclear sub and against the idiots who bought those stupid detectors.

As far as I know its the governments task to monitor the army too, but I grant you that is hard here.

OK, we've found some common ground. All I want to see is due process. The military gets a free pass while everyone else 'might' get caught. If there is a paper trail that shows that Yingluck was on the take, so be it. I can live with that. But I have never seen any transparency in the courts where the public has access to the evidence presented. And I would like to see things a bit more even handed than they are now. The whole police station fiasco didn't happen on Yingluck's watch but I don't see any effort to investigate it further to determine culpability and corruption. Instead, the project is going to be completed. As I said, the junta has said over and over, again, that it's mission is to rid the country of corruption. But I have still yet to see the transparency. The flood project is still going through and so is the rail project as I understand it. The taxi and motorcycle mafia is under control, but I still pay the same price for a taxi or a motorcycle. The beaches in Phuket are getting cleaned, a band aid has been put on the problem with migrant workers and forest encroachment and illegal loggers are in the cross hairs -- but what about institutional reform? I guess the interim and 'new' constitution subject to unilateral implementation will give us an idea whether Thailand will flourish or falter.

[rametindallas]

Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

I must have missed it in your answer. Where are your similar comments regarding the Yingluck (Thaksin) government's handling of the Rice Support Scheme?

The question is WHERE?

It appears you only demand transparency and accountability from non-Thaksin governments.

Double standards, much?

Do your research, you will find them. Now to my question. Will you answer or not?

Do your research, you will find them? I've been reading your posts since you began posting and you are a Thaksin apologist, exclusively. I would have remembered it, as being very unusual, if you had posted a neutral, non-propaganda post.

Now to my question. Can you answer or not? I asked you first.

I did post opinions questioning the viability of the rice program. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. Obviously, you don't want to answer my question.

Somehow, taking your 'word' for it doesn't work for me. Good day/night.

[Dap]

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.

No, probably not, But it will make me immensely happy

[Old Man River]

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

On paper she was the boss. Why on earth she took that position god only knows. But anyway, one would presume that out of the great and the good on this committee there would have been a few who might have had two clues about the rice business, and hopefully one or two of them might have understood the consequences of having this much rice in the warehouse for so long.

The thing is, realistically, once the product is in an enormous bloody stack, there is virtually nothing that can be done to change its condition than to ship it. The weather is the weather, the moisture is the moisture, the temperature is the temperature. The only thing that can help is to have as good a quality buildings as possible which can be sealed well when it rains to prevent the humidity going to high, and can keep the heat out as well as possible.

Short of that, how on earth to stop moisture going into the stacks and causing colouring and mould? Zero. Zip. I hope they have a piece of paper from someone that went past her nose which catalogued there was a massive fear of mould and damage. At least that proves she didn't do anything. Point is, there is virtually nothing that could have been done short of getting the stuff out of thaialnd to more temperate climate.

Yes indeed TaH there you have it :

" At least that proves she didn't do anything"

Negligence case proven beyond all doubt.

They might try. I am not sure they will be able to prove it. She wouldn't have had a clue what to do whatsoever.

Here the country was with however many million tonnes under roof and absolutely nothing to be done about it but to hope that it didnt rain too much. The correct thing to do, was actually to sit still and do nothing, because there was nothing else to do, and hope the stuff could be sold. They were handcuffed from the beginning.

Ignorant yes. Negligent? Not sure. The handling losses alone from picking it up, restacking it and the such would be 1% of volume. Add in teh cost, etc etc.

TaH, as it relates to negligence, instead of focusing on the sale/non-sale of rice, think about that the program was repeated several times, despite the alleged warnings that it was damaging the country. Now was that being negligent?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[robblok]

The movie is a documentary -- it is meant to inform and educate. But deciding to insult me is much easier instead of doing your research. There was a news article in TVF about the Thai Navy wanting to buy a submarine today. Who will decide if that is fiscally responsible? In the thread it was also pointed out that the Thai military had purchased an aircraft carrier in the past that was never used. That must have cost a few billions of baht that was completely removed from the economy. Checks and balances? Corruption? Who got paid off? And talking about accepting responsibility, has anyone in the Thai military ever acknowledged that the bomb detectors were a complete rip off? Did they join in the lawsuit by other countries to recoup there expenses or claim that they still work? And the blimp. Anyone take responsibility for what was a guffaw of epic proportions. Anyone accept responsibility or resign? The blimp and the aircraft carrier didn't help the farmers.

Yes I will insult you again because what you are now doing is one of the lowest forms of debating..

Look mom they are bad too so its ok if I am bad too. (two wrongs don't make a right)

No both are bad and yes I am against that nuclear sub and against the idiots who bought those stupid detectors.

As far as I know its the governments task to monitor the army too, but I grant you that is hard here.

OK, we've found some common ground. All I want to see is due process. The military gets a free pass while everyone else 'might' get caught. If there is a paper trail that shows that Yingluck was on the take, so be it. I can live with that. But I have never seen any transparency in the courts where the public has access to the evidence presented. And I would like to see things a bit more even handed than they are now. The whole police station fiasco didn't happen on Yingluck's watch but I don't see any effort to investigate it further to determine culpability and corruption. Instead, the project is going to be completed. As I said, the junta has said over and over, again, that it's mission is to rid the country of corruption. But I have still yet to see the transparency. The flood project is still going through and so is the rail project as I understand it. The taxi and motorcycle mafia is under control, but I still pay the same price for a taxi or a motorcycle. The beaches in Phuket are getting cleaned, a band aid has been put on the problem with migrant workers and forest encroachment and illegal loggers are in the cross hairs -- but what about institutional reform? I guess the interim and 'new' constitution subject to unilateral implementation will give us an idea whether Thailand will flourish or falter.

I never said the military is perfect.. they are what is needed now and as you post they do a lot of good. But its only been 2 months.

That being said the military itself needs to be checked too for corruption.

Those programs were needed even I agreed but not off budget like PTP wanted and without checks and balances. It still is too early to say anything about the new checks and balances.

However I agree 100% that the army should be corrupt free too, that however does not mean that they cant go after others right now. So far a lot is done but not everything. But I share your fears about not getting checked.

[Thai at Heart]

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

On paper she was the boss. Why on earth she took that position god only knows. But anyway, one would presume that out of the great and the good on this committee there would have been a few who might have had two clues about the rice business, and hopefully one or two of them might have understood the consequences of having this much rice in the warehouse for so long.

The thing is, realistically, once the product is in an enormous bloody stack, there is virtually nothing that can be done to change its condition than to ship it. The weather is the weather, the moisture is the moisture, the temperature is the temperature. The only thing that can help is to have as good a quality buildings as possible which can be sealed well when it rains to prevent the humidity going to high, and can keep the heat out as well as possible.

Short of that, how on earth to stop moisture going into the stacks and causing colouring and mould? Zero. Zip. I hope they have a piece of paper from someone that went past her nose which catalogued there was a massive fear of mould and damage. At least that proves she didn't do anything. Point is, there is virtually nothing that could have been done short of getting the stuff out of thaialnd to more temperate climate.

Yes indeed TaH there you have it :

" At least that proves she didn't do anything"

Negligence case proven beyond all doubt.

They might try. I am not sure they will be able to prove it. She wouldn't have had a clue what to do whatsoever.

Here the country was with however many million tonnes under roof and absolutely nothing to be done about it but to hope that it didnt rain too much. The correct thing to do, was actually to sit still and do nothing, because there was nothing else to do, and hope the stuff could be sold. They were handcuffed from the beginning.

Ignorant yes. Negligent? Not sure. The handling losses alone from picking it up, restacking it and the such would be 1% of volume. Add in teh cost, etc etc.

TaH, as it relates to negligence, instead of focusing on the sale/non-sale of rice, think about that the program was repeated several times, despite the alleged warnings that it was damaging the country. Now was that being negligent?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Damaging the country. Now that is a very very general statement. Farmers got paid. Rice didn't sell. Who got damaged? All subsidies cost money.

[moe666]

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.

It was the great rice scam to keep that wonderful Thai rice off the market to drive up the price and control world markets. They forgot about India and Vietnam who jumped on the Thais to capture the world market. This was thought up by Big T but not a lot of thought went into it it would appear.

[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.

It was the great rice scam to keep that wonderful Thai rice off the market to drive up the price and control world markets. They forgot about India and Vietnam who jumped on the Thais to capture the world market. This was thought up by Big T but not a lot of thought went into it it would appear.

It is the ultimate dumb idea from the pooyai that no one had the balls to stand up and stop.

[mikemac]

The movie is a documentary -- it is meant to inform and educate. But deciding to insult me is much easier instead of doing your research. There was a news article in TVF about the Thai Navy wanting to buy a submarine today. Who will decide if that is fiscally responsible? In the thread it was also pointed out that the Thai military had purchased an aircraft carrier in the past that was never used. That must have cost a few billions of baht that was completely removed from the economy. Checks and balances? Corruption? Who got paid off? And talking about accepting responsibility, has anyone in the Thai military ever acknowledged that the bomb detectors were a complete rip off? Did they join in the lawsuit by other countries to recoup there expenses or claim that they still work? And the blimp. Anyone take responsibility for what was a guffaw of epic proportions. Anyone accept responsibility or resign? The blimp and the aircraft carrier didn't help the farmers.

Distract/divert from the OP, much?

Beautiful distracting and diverting, with a bit of dodging and weaving thrown in as well !

Fabio ? Is that you ?

[pookiki]

The movie is a documentary -- it is meant to inform and educate. But deciding to insult me is much easier instead of doing your research. There was a news article in TVF about the Thai Navy wanting to buy a submarine today. Who will decide if that is fiscally responsible? In the thread it was also pointed out that the Thai military had purchased an aircraft carrier in the past that was never used. That must have cost a few billions of baht that was completely removed from the economy. Checks and balances? Corruption? Who got paid off? And talking about accepting responsibility, has anyone in the Thai military ever acknowledged that the bomb detectors were a complete rip off? Did they join in the lawsuit by other countries to recoup there expenses or claim that they still work? And the blimp. Anyone take responsibility for what was a guffaw of epic proportions. Anyone accept responsibility or resign? The blimp and the aircraft carrier didn't help the farmers.

Distract/divert from the OP, much?

Beautiful distracting and diverting, with a bit of dodging and weaving thrown in as well !

Fabio ? Is that you ?

Dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee! Mohammed, here!