Ex-commerce minister’s secretary faces charges over fake G-to-G rice deals

[Old Man River]

The clincher is if they can prove that she knew it was never going to be self financing or that she was told very clearly very early on that it wasn't going to be self financing and continued anyway.

I.e. that they can prove she knowingly lied to parliament.

How about increasing the limit of the revolving funds from 500 to 700 billion Baht, or was that just 'temporarily' as the Thai rice farmers were really at it and stocks couldn't be sold fast enough?

Even mid-2013 Ms. Yingluck indicated the RPPS only needed 270 billion and financing was secured, only to have her caretaking cabinet needed to borrow 130 billion Baht December 2013.

If Ms. Yingluck had been running a company it would be broke. As it is now the Thai population is left with a 500 to 700++ billion Baht debt at BAAC guranteed by the Yingluck government.

TDRI estimates that Thailand spent up to THB 985 billion buying 54.4 million tons over the two and a half year rice scheme program, with most of the estimated THB 560 billion producer surplus going to medium to large scale farmers. They also estimated that corruption from this rice scheme cost Thailand THB 111 billion.

I can certainly understand, given the scale of this fiasco. the OAG needing more time to get its hands around this.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

The clincher is if they can prove that she knew it was never going to be self financing or that she was told very clearly very early on that it wasn't going to be self financing and continued anyway.

I.e. that they can prove she knowingly lied to parliament.

How about increasing the limit of the revolving funds from 500 to 700 billion Baht, or was that just 'temporarily' as the Thai rice farmers were really at it and stocks couldn't be sold fast enough?

Even mid-2013 Ms. Yingluck indicated the RPPS only needed 270 billion and financing was secured, only to have her caretaking cabinet needed to borrow 130 billion Baht December 2013.

If Ms. Yingluck had been running a company it would be broke. As it is now the Thai population is left with a 500 to 700++ billion Baht debt at BAAC guranteed by the Yingluck government.

Subsidies are subsidies. It's about working out whether she knew it was never going of be self financing or not. That is the lie.

Governments are not run like companies.

There we go again. That was NOT a subsidy!

The Yingluck Administration positioned their RPPS as self-financing requiring a 500 billion Baht REVOLVING" funds only. With that reasoning they even got away with leaving the financing out of the National Budget.

'revolving' as in pay out from it, restore with revenue from rice sales.

"A revolving fund is a fund or account that remains available to finance an organization's continuing operations without any fiscal year limitation, because the organization replenishes the fund by repaying money used from the account. Revolving funds have been used to support both government and non-profit operations."

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

Yes? It was proposed as a revolving fund to overpay (subsidise) rice production.

The question is when did she know it was not self funding? If intervening into a market to pay beyond the market value isn't a subsidy then what is it?

The issue is not whether it is a subsidy but whether she knew it would never be self funding.

[animatic]

The clincher is if they can prove that she knew it was never going to be self financing or that she was told very clearly very early on that it wasn't going to be self financing and continued anyway.

I.e. that they can prove she knowingly lied to parliament.

Khun Minkwan made it very plain about the same scam when her brother was doing it. It can not work, it is a Ponzi styled scam. He lost his position and never really recovered from telling the truth. That this was not going to work was known three attempts ago. But the graft and quid pro quo always worked and that's the rub, they couldn't NOT do it. Edited September 6, 2014 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

The clincher is if they can prove that she knew it was never going to be self financing or that she was told very clearly very early on that it wasn't going to be self financing and continued anyway.

I.e. that they can prove she knowingly lied to parliament.

Khun Minkwan made it very plain about the same scam when her brother was doing it. It can not work, it is a Ponzi styled scam. He lost his position and never really recovered from telling the truth. That this was not going to work was known three attempts ago. But the graft and quid pro quo always worked and that's the rub, they couldn't NOT do it.

The moment the Indians entered the market and started selling, there was no shortage in the market.

That said, even if the marker had been shortened there was never any guarantee that the market would pay the premium. So it was never ever going to be 100% self financing.

So what was her committees opinion when the prices didn't rise? Did they deduce rather stupidly that they could force the price up?

Edited September 6, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[dcutman]

The clincher is if they can prove that she knew it was never going to be self financing or that she was told very clearly very early on that it wasn't going to be self financing and continued anyway.

I.e. that they can prove she knowingly lied to parliament.

Khun Minkwan made it very plain about the same scam when her brother was doing it. It can not work, it is a Ponzi styled scam. He lost his position and never really recovered from telling the truth. That this was not going to work was known three attempts ago. But the graft and quid pro quo always worked and that's the rub, they couldn't NOT do it.

The moment the Indians entered the market and started selling, there was no shortage in the market.

That said, even if the marker had been shortened there was never any guarantee that the market would pay the premium. So it was never ever going to be 100% self financing.

So what was her committees opinion when the prices didn't rise? Did they deduce rather stupidly that they could force the price up?

I vividly remember before she even became PM, many very smart, respected people and organizations warned and predicted the outcome of this scheme. In the end it turned out almost exactly as predicted, actually worse.

As Animatic points outs this scheme was tried and tested before and it didnt work then either.

I would call that malfeasance.

Edited September 6, 2014 by dcutman

[Thai at Heart]

The clincher is if they can prove that she knew it was never going to be self financing or that she was told very clearly very early on that it wasn't going to be self financing and continued anyway.

I.e. that they can prove she knowingly lied to parliament.

Khun Minkwan made it very plain about the same scam when her brother was doing it. It can not work, it is a Ponzi styled scam. He lost his position and never really recovered from telling the truth. That this was not going to work was known three attempts ago. But the graft and quid pro quo always worked and that's the rub, they couldn't NOT do it.

The moment the Indians entered the market and started selling, there was no shortage in the market.

That said, even if the marker had been shortened there was never any guarantee that the market would pay the premium. So it was never ever going to be 100% self financing.

So what was her committees opinion when the prices didn't rise? Did they deduce rather stupidly that they could force the price up?

I vividly remember before she even became PM, many very smart, respected people and organizations warned and predicted the outcome of this scheme. In the end it turned out almost exactly as predicted, actually worse.

As Animatic points outs this scheme was tried and tested before and it didnt work then either.

I would call that malfeasance.

Um. At the very beginning there was the whole discussion about a cartel and controlling prices etc.

That whole possibility was squished by India selling rice for the first time in many years.

As to whether she understood it would never be self financing. Don't why have minutes and reports for what is said and done in govt. Did she personally ever say it was going to be self financing ? I think proving her guilty with be quite hard.

Aside from anything it will make a massive rod for any other politicians following on to govern the country

[Robby nz]

Um. At the very beginning there was the whole discussion about a cartel and controlling prices etc.

That whole possibility was squished by India selling rice for the first time in many years.

As to whether she understood it would never be self financing. Don't why have minutes and reports for what is said and done in govt. Did she personally ever say it was going to be self financing ? I think proving her guilty with be quite hard.

Aside from anything it will make a massive rod for any other politicians following on to govern the country

You keep going on about whether she knew or didn't know, but to me it would seem that having put herself in the position of chair of the rice policy committee it was her duty to inform herself of all aspects of the scheme.

If someone says to you, me or the country that they will do a job then it should be expected that that person has the knowledge to do the job they take on, if they do not have that knowledge then they have lied that they are capable of doing the job they have taken on.

If her defense is going to be ignorance, that she didn't know what was going on, then that would, surely, immediately prove her negligence in not informing herself to the extent that she could do the job she had taken on.

[Thai at Heart]

Um. At the very beginning there was the whole discussion about a cartel and controlling prices etc.

That whole possibility was squished by India selling rice for the first time in many years.

As to whether she understood it would never be self financing. Don't why have minutes and reports for what is said and done in govt. Did she personally ever say it was going to be self financing ? I think proving her guilty with be quite hard.

Aside from anything it will make a massive rod for any other politicians following on to govern the country

You keep going on about whether she knew or didn't know, but to me it would seem that having put herself in the position of chair of the rice policy committee it was her duty to inform herself of all aspects of the scheme.

If someone says to you, me or the country that they will do a job then it should be expected that that person has the knowledge to do the job they take on, if they do not have that knowledge then they have lied that they are capable of doing the job they have taken on.

If her defense is going to be ignorance, that she didn't know what was going on, then that would, surely, immediately prove her negligence in not informing herself to the extent that she could do the job she had taken on.

Are you joking?

There are 1000 issues that face a PM every week. And they are supposed to become expert in all of them in short notice.

That is hard enough to achieve in countries where ordinarily prime minister's have high quality degrees from high level universities and they make horrendous mistakes.

Did she have any inkling before it was implemented that the chances of it being self financing were essentially zero? If so, she lied to parliament. That is illegal.

Being stupid, or ill informed is not illegal, yet, and Gordon Brown still thanks the heavens for that every day. Being incompetent about the precise workings of a policy isn't illegal. It happens in our governments every day. One guy says this, another guy says something else.

This actually has all the perfect hallmarks of a typically story. The pooyai makes a policy and even though everyone knows it won't work, no one dares to say anything.

[The Deerhunter]

Personally, he said he felt sorry for the Office of the Attorney-General for its decision to demand more evidences from the NACC before deciding whether to indict Ms Yingluck or not because the OAG was still shaken following the abrupt removal of the attorney-general by the National Council for Peace and Order .

“Frankly speaking we at the NACC are praying everyday for the attorney-general so he is safe,” said Mr Vicha, adding that he would like the OAG to indict Ms Yingluck but if not the NACC would take the case to the court itself.

Hell hath no fury like a Vicha scorned.

This is his case against Yingluck;

"Based on our investigation, there are witnesses and documents indicating that Ms Yingluck, in her capacity as the prime minister and the chair of National Rice Committee, received a letter from the NACC involving corruption in the rice scheme. The NACC has grounds to believe she has failed to stop it and decided to press a formal charge of negligence of duty," he said.

http://www.thaitribune.org/en/health/112-english/breaking-news/1452-vicha-no-enemy-of-pm.html

Yes, Fab4. Half truths as usual. That letter could prove the negligence charges. The way that is written thouigh, makes me think they have other information which could bring charges of a different type. Which means she could have been better off with the negligence charges!!!!!! Oh well, personally, I found that news report quite optimistic, but you were only (as usual) looking for the worm holes in it (for the beautiful, heroic and victimised ex P.M.) to possibly crawl out.

[The Deerhunter]

The moment the Indians entered the market and started selling, there was no shortage in the market.

That said, even if the marker had been shortened there was never any guarantee that the market would pay the premium. So it was never ever going to be 100% self financing.

So what was her committees opinion when the prices didn't rise? Did they deduce rather stupidly that they could force the price up?

I vividly remember before she even became PM, many very smart, respected people and organizations warned and predicted the outcome of this scheme. In the end it turned out almost exactly as predicted, actually worse.

As Animatic points outs this scheme was tried and tested before and it didnt work then either.

I would call that malfeasance.

Um. At the very beginning there was the whole discussion about a cartel and controlling prices etc.

That whole possibility was squished by India selling rice for the first time in many years.

As to whether she understood it would never be self financing. Don't why have minutes and reports for what is said and done in govt. Did she personally ever say it was going to be self financing ? I think proving her guilty with be quite hard.

Aside from anything it will make a massive rod for any other politicians following on to govern the country

Aside from anything it will make a massive rod for any other politicians following on to govern the country. OMG! Accountability required from pollies? In Thailand? That will NOT do!!!!!

[rubl]

There we go again. That was NOT a subsidy!

The Yingluck Administration positioned their RPPS as self-financing requiring a 500 billion Baht REVOLVING" funds only. With that reasoning they even got away with leaving the financing out of the National Budget.

'revolving' as in pay out from it, restore with revenue from rice sales.

"A revolving fund is a fund or account that remains available to finance an organization's continuing operations without any fiscal year limitation, because the organization replenishes the fund by repaying money used from the account. Revolving funds have been used to support both government and non-profit operations."

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

Yes? It was proposed as a revolving fund to overpay (subsidise) rice production.

The question is when did she know it was not self funding? If intervening into a market to pay beyond the market value isn't a subsidy then what is it?

The issue is not whether it is a subsidy but whether she knew it would never be self funding.

The question when Ms. Yingluck could have known was answered 2012 when the BAAC warned the PM that the funds was running dry and more money would be required.

As for "the issue is not whether or not it is a subsidy' has been answers and the answer you do not seem to like as it is you who keeps calling the RPPS a subsidy. It is NOT a subsidy, it was described as a self-financing scheme.

[rubl]

You keep going on about whether she knew or didn't know, but to me it would seem that having put herself in the position of chair of the rice policy committee it was her duty to inform herself of all aspects of the scheme.

If someone says to you, me or the country that they will do a job then it should be expected that that person has the knowledge to do the job they take on, if they do not have that knowledge then they have lied that they are capable of doing the job they have taken on.

If her defense is going to be ignorance, that she didn't know what was going on, then that would, surely, immediately prove her negligence in not informing herself to the extent that she could do the job she had taken on.

Are you joking?

There are 1000 issues that face a PM every week. And they are supposed to become expert in all of them in short notice.

That is hard enough to achieve in countries where ordinarily prime minister's have high quality degrees from high level universities and they make horrendous mistakes.

Did she have any inkling before it was implemented that the chances of it being self financing were essentially zero? If so, she lied to parliament. That is illegal.

Being stupid, or ill informed is not illegal, yet, and Gordon Brown still thanks the heavens for that every day. Being incompetent about the precise workings of a policy isn't illegal. It happens in our governments every day. One guy says this, another guy says something else.

This actually has all the perfect hallmarks of a typically story. The pooyai makes a policy and even though everyone knows it won't work, no one dares to say anything.

Oh come on T2H, you start to sound desperate.

The Pheu Thai party and the Yingluck Administration had the RPPS as one of their flagship 'election' promises for the 'good of the Nation'. Don't tell me Ms. Yingluck had other things to do.

She defended the scheme, she defended the revolving funds selection, she defended that there was no need have this self-financing scheme in the NationalBudget since it was self-financing anyway.

Well, at least she started with the defend only to ask one of her capable ministers to continue. Might I expect she did listen when those gentlemen didn't answer questions asked, but obfuscated in parliament?

BTW your analogy goes wrong Both Pheu Thai and the Yingluck Administration were told frequenly this RPPS would go fatally wrong. In mid-2013 Ms. Yingluck even stated to have listened to the documented worries of the NACC and to have taken care of those.

[pattayaorganic]

Personally I can understand your barely suppressed anger. I mean, obviously Ms. Yingluck knew nothing,

She was only chairwoman of the National Rice Board, PM of her own, handpicked cabinet and as she stated during the last censure debate only she and no one else was in charge. How can she be 'only negligent' ? Between 500 and 700++billion Baht lost, but the PM obviously knowing nothing, being 'innocent as a babe', a cute one as well as some have it.

Anger, No. Resignation, Yes. Thailand has been through this before, except last time the organ grinders monkey was called the AEC.

You'll keep on posting about 500++ or 700++ billion baht lost but at the end of the day that is what the rice price pledging scheme cost the State. It was not lost but of course that sounds sexier and implies 500++ or whatever lost to corruption.

So if it's not lost, they should be able to tell the Thai people where it went.

No it doesn't work that way. The accounting for the rice scheme is a highly guarded national secret and public release of this information would damage the state and present a security threat to the Kingdom.

At least that is what the last elected government said when asked about the accounting...

[Robby nz]

Personally I can understand your barely suppressed anger. I mean, obviously Ms. Yingluck knew nothing,

She was only chairwoman of the National Rice Board, PM of her own, handpicked cabinet and as she stated during the last censure debate only she and no one else was in charge. How can she be 'only negligent' ? Between 500 and 700++billion Baht lost, but the PM obviously knowing nothing, being 'innocent as a babe', a cute one as well as some have it.

Anger, No. Resignation, Yes. Thailand has been through this before, except last time the organ grinders monkey was called the AEC.

You'll keep on posting about 500++ or 700++ billion baht lost but at the end of the day that is what the rice price pledging scheme cost the State. It was not lost but of course that sounds sexier and implies 500++ or whatever lost to corruption.

So if it's not lost, they should be able to tell the Thai people where it went.

No it doesn't work that way. The accounting for the rice scheme is a highly guarded national secret and public release of this information would damage the state and present a security threat to the Kingdom.

At least that is what the last elected government said when asked about the accounting...

Same thing as the price paid for the rice the previous Govt was supposed to have sold was confidential because the buyers didn't want it known.

[PS2]

They? Shouldn't that information have been made available by the 'they' that bought and stored it? Of course such transparency and accountability may have precluded some of the games 'they' have played, and now face prosecution for.

I don't care who they are.

Until someone points out that grade A went in, and Grade F is really what they have and it has cost xxxxxbaht, the whole thing is just smoke and mirrors.

This could all be a scam to sell grade B at grade F prices for all we know.

They know what they have ended up with, but, who knows, maybe some of the records about what went in were in those unexplained fires.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

They have taken 1700 samples and this is never going to be enough to accurately grade what they have in the 17mn sacks. Even less so if the con goes beyond deterioration and refers to deliberately misgrading the product.

Why don't they release a statement of exactly what they have in the warehouse with the grades attached versus the current sale prices?

So you claim that more than 2,000 inspection groups only managed to get 1,700 samples.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/panadda-says-78-rice-inspected-inferior-quality/

[Nickymaster]

And another reason why Thailand is better of without those PT crooks.

[animatic]

Um. At the very beginning there was the whole discussion about a cartel and controlling prices etc.

That whole possibility was squished by India selling rice for the first time in many years.

As to whether she understood it would never be self financing. Don't why have minutes and reports for what is said and done in govt. Did she personally ever say it was going to be self financing ? I think proving her guilty with be quite hard.

Aside from anything it will make a massive rod for any other politicians following on to govern the country

You keep going on about whether she knew or didn't know, but to me it would seem that having put herself in the position of chair of the rice policy committee it was her duty to inform herself of all aspects of the scheme.

If someone says to you, me or the country that they will do a job then it should be expected that that person has the knowledge to do the job they take on, if they do not have that knowledge then they have lied that they are capable of doing the job they have taken on.

If her defense is going to be ignorance, that she didn't know what was going on, then that would, surely, immediately prove her negligence in not informing herself to the extent that she could do the job she had taken on.

Are you joking?

There are 1000 issues that face a PM every week. And they are supposed to become expert in all of them in short notice.

That is hard enough to achieve in countries where ordinarily prime minister's have high quality degrees from high level universities and they make horrendous mistakes.

Did she have any inkling before it was implemented that the chances of it being self financing were essentially zero? If so, she lied to parliament. That is illegal.

Being stupid, or ill informed is not illegal, yet, and Gordon Brown still thanks the heavens for that every day. Being incompetent about the precise workings of a policy isn't illegal. It happens in our governments every day. One guy says this, another guy says something else.

This actually has all the perfect hallmarks of a typically story. The pooyai makes a policy and even though everyone knows it won't work, no one dares to say anything.

Gotta say a Committee Chair MUST know what is going on, and have a clue about the positives and negatives. Otherwise it is hard to see them as NOT being incompetent and negligent. She took the job as Committee Chair and this was on top of her PM duties.

Yes the PM has lots to deal with, but during those Committee meetings there is only one subject on the table,

the entire data stream and subordinate structure is, in theory, geared to providing the Committee and Chair

with the data about the subject, and making that data clear to those making the decisions.

If they were deceived by their underlings, while those outside, were publicly stating there were obvious problems,

then it was negligence by the committee to not find 'alternate sources of unbiased info' and find out the truth.

If they were NOT deceived by their underlings, or willingly ignored valid studies showing it was not working,

then that shows incompetence as clearly, for either utterly mis-reading the data, or willingly continuing what was clearly not working.

If they were fundamentally unable to make those decisions, then that is incompetence.

If they stayed in the job knowing they can't do the job, but following orders to keep the scheme rolling along,

then that is without a doubt malfeasance in office.

Extra work load is not an excuse for not doing the job at hand.

if it was too much work, she should never have taken the rice board chair.

Edited September 7, 2014 by animatic

[Dogmatix]

Was watching a documentary about the disappointment of Africans over the corruption of post-colonial governments. A Botswanan described the political set up as a series of "It's my turn to eat governments". That also describes Thailand very well and Thaksin took it to new heights with his collection of human detritus packed into Thai Rak Thai, Pheua Thai and etc.

[Dogmatix]

Um. At the very beginning there was the whole discussion about a cartel and controlling prices etc.

That whole possibility was squished by India selling rice for the first time in many years.

As to whether she understood it would never be self financing. Don't why have minutes and reports for what is said and done in govt. Did she personally ever say it was going to be self financing ? I think proving her guilty with be quite hard.

Aside from anything it will make a massive rod for any other politicians following on to govern the country

You keep going on about whether she knew or didn't know, but to me it would seem that having put herself in the position of chair of the rice policy committee it was her duty to inform herself of all aspects of the scheme.

If someone says to you, me or the country that they will do a job then it should be expected that that person has the knowledge to do the job they take on, if they do not have that knowledge then they have lied that they are capable of doing the job they have taken on.

If her defense is going to be ignorance, that she didn't know what was going on, then that would, surely, immediately prove her negligence in not informing herself to the extent that she could do the job she had taken on.

Are you joking?

There are 1000 issues that face a PM every week. And they are supposed to become expert in all of them in short notice.

That is hard enough to achieve in countries where ordinarily prime minister's have high quality degrees from high level universities and they make horrendous mistakes.

Did she have any inkling before it was implemented that the chances of it being self financing were essentially zero? If so, she lied to parliament. That is illegal.

Being stupid, or ill informed is not illegal, yet, and Gordon Brown still thanks the heavens for that every day. Being incompetent about the precise workings of a policy isn't illegal. It happens in our governments every day. One guy says this, another guy says something else.

This actually has all the perfect hallmarks of a typically story. The pooyai makes a policy and even though everyone knows it won't work, no one dares to say anything.

Gotta say a Committee Chair MUST know what is going on, and have a clue about the positives and negatives. Otherwise it is hard to see them as NOT being incompetent and negligent. She took the job as Committee Chair and this was on top of her PM duties.

Yes the PM has lots to deal with, but during those Committee meetings there is only one subject on the table,

the entire data stream and subordinate structure is, in theory, geared to providing the Committee and Chair

with the data about the subject, and making that data clear to those making the decisions.

If they were deceived by their underlings, while those outside, were publicly stating there were obvious problems,

then it was negligence by the committee to not find 'alternate sources of unbiased info' and find out the truth.

If they were NOT deceived by their underlings, or willingly ignored valid studies showing it was not working,

then that shows incompetence as clearly, for either utterly mis-reading the data, or willingly continuing what was clearly not working.

If they were fundamentally unable to make those decisions, then that is incompetence.

If they stayed in the job knowing they can't do the job, but following orders to keep the scheme rolling along,

then that is without a doubt malfeasance in office.

Extra work load is not an excuse for not doing the job at hand.

if it was too much work, she should never have taken the rice board chair.

The concept of Yingluck chairing those rice committee meetings she bothered to attend, listening like a nodding dog on the back shelf of a car to her corrupt big brother appointed subordinates telling her all was well, while outside there was a maelstrom of criticism, is absolutely hilarious. The only way she could get off would be with an entire jumbo load of donut boxes Fedexed from Dubai.

[billd766]

Personally I can understand your barely suppressed anger. I mean, obviously Ms. Yingluck knew nothing,

She was only chairwoman of the National Rice Board, PM of her own, handpicked cabinet and as she stated during the last censure debate only she and no one else was in charge. How can she be 'only negligent' ? Between 500 and 700++billion Baht lost, but the PM obviously knowing nothing, being 'innocent as a babe', a cute one as well as some have it.

Anger, No. Resignation, Yes. Thailand has been through this before, except last time the organ grinders monkey was called the AEC.

You'll keep on posting about 500++ or 700++ billion baht lost but at the end of the day that is what the rice price pledging scheme cost the State. It was not lost but of course that sounds sexier and implies 500++ or whatever lost to corruption.

Sadly for the state of Thailand it is STILL costing in storage fees which when added to the cost of purchasing the rice is still ongoing.

By the time the rice is sold (if they can actually sell it) at the market price the loss to the state will be even more enormous.

If it is not a loss to the state what do YOU call it?

[billd766]

Anger, No. Resignation, Yes. Thailand has been through this before, except last time the organ grinders monkey was called the AEC.

You'll keep on posting about 500++ or 700++ billion baht lost but at the end of the day that is what the rice price pledging scheme cost the State. It was not lost but of course that sounds sexier and implies 500++ or whatever lost to corruption.

OK, lets check your numbers if you say the cost is 700 billion baht.

First they bought the rice at 40% overprice, 20 % to farmers, 20 % to red shirt politicians = Loss 280 billion.

10 % of rice in warehouses gone mysteriously = Loss 42 Billion.

78% of rice in warehouses is inferior quality= Loss 295 Billion.

Thai rice quality down the drain for a generation = Priceless.

Total loss so far = 617 Billion

Not so sexy, just sad, 8800 baht / Thai.

You forgot to add on the storage and transportation costs so the loss is actually much higher.

[Thai at Heart]

There we go again. That was NOT a subsidy!

The Yingluck Administration positioned their RPPS as self-financing requiring a 500 billion Baht REVOLVING" funds only. With that reasoning they even got away with leaving the financing out of the National Budget.

'revolving' as in pay out from it, restore with revenue from rice sales.

"A revolving fund is a fund or account that remains available to finance an organization's continuing operations without any fiscal year limitation, because the organization replenishes the fund by repaying money used from the account. Revolving funds have been used to support both government and non-profit operations."

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

Yes? It was proposed as a revolving fund to overpay (subsidise) rice production.

The question is when did she know it was not self funding? If intervening into a market to pay beyond the market value isn't a subsidy then what is it?

The issue is not whether it is a subsidy but whether she knew it would never be self funding.

The question when Ms. Yingluck could have known was answered 2012 when the BAAC warned the PM that the funds was running dry and more money would be required.

As for "the issue is not whether or not it is a subsidy' has been answers and the answer you do not seem to like as it is you who keeps calling the RPPS a subsidy. It is NOT a subsidy, it was described as a self-financing scheme.

A subsidy in definition stands separate in economics from how it is financed. Subsidies can be financed in many different ways. A revolving fund being one of many different ways.

[animatic]

There we go again. That was NOT a subsidy!

The Yingluck Administration positioned their RPPS as self-financing requiring a 500 billion Baht REVOLVING" funds only. With that reasoning they even got away with leaving the financing out of the National Budget.

'revolving' as in pay out from it, restore with revenue from rice sales.

"A revolving fund is a fund or account that remains available to finance an organization's continuing operations without any fiscal year limitation, because the organization replenishes the fund by repaying money used from the account. Revolving funds have been used to support both government and non-profit operations."

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

Yes? It was proposed as a revolving fund to overpay (subsidise) rice production.

The question is when did she know it was not self funding? If intervening into a market to pay beyond the market value isn't a subsidy then what is it?

The issue is not whether it is a subsidy but whether she knew it would never be self funding.

The question when Ms. Yingluck could have known was answered 2012 when the BAAC warned the PM that the funds was running dry and more money would be required.

As for "the issue is not whether or not it is a subsidy' has been answers and the answer you do not seem to like as it is you who keeps calling the RPPS a subsidy. It is NOT a subsidy, it was described as a self-financing scheme.

A subsidy in definition stands separate in economics from how it is financed. Subsidies can be financed in many different ways. A revolving fund being one of many different ways.

True, but it must be a subsidy within the abilities of the nation to finance without national penury and suffering.

Not being able to judge what the nation can practically support is also incompetence, malfeasance or corruption. Or all of the above.

[metisdead]

A post that has exceeded the nested quote limit has been removed because it was too messed up to make head or tail of who said what. Please try to minimize nested quotes to the one or two that you are actually replying to. Thanks.

[Thai at Heart]

To Animatic

There are thousands of interventions that cost the country money every day, so the paying of the money to the rice farmers isn't the issue.

It was a large total value but there are many farmers. Issue to me is did she knowingly lie to parliament about how it was to be funded. Being the boss on station during the loss is hardly reason for criminal investigation. She's been fired. That's a lot more than most western politicians or business people suffer during losses like this.

[animatic]

Lying to parliament while bad is not the only benchmark that should be used, though it is the one that concerns you most.

Edited September 7, 2014 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

Lying to parliament while bad is not the only benchmark that should be used, though it is the one that concerns you most.

Well sending politicians to court for losing money is a peeing up a waterfall don't u think?

[rubl]

To Animatic

There are thousands of interventions that cost the country money every day, so the paying of the money to the rice farmers isn't the issue.

It was a large total value but there are many farmers. Issue to me is did she knowingly lie to parliament about how it was to be funded. Being the boss on station during the loss is hardly reason for criminal investigation. She's been fired. That's a lot more than most western politicians or business people suffer during losses like this.

In August 2011 PM Yingluck as part of urgent policies to be implemented the first year

"Implement a crop insurance scheme in order to provide income security for farmers, beginning with long grain rice and fragrant Hom Mali rice with moisture not exceeding 15% at 15,000 Baht and 20,000 Baht per cart, respectively."

Following the government decided on a revolving funds to be setup by the BAAC and guaranteed by the government, to have the cashflow for this self-financing scheme. No reservations were deemed necessary in the 2011/2012 National Budget. Still no financial reserves in the 2012/2013 or 2013/2014 National Budgets. In the meantime the revolving funds was expanded to 700 billion Baht and the government issued a statement that for 2013/2014 only 270 billion was needed and taken care off. Then the caretaker government wanted to borrow 130 billion Baht in December 2013 and in total about 200 billion extra had to be paid out to cover outstanding obligations to farmers.

Ms. Yingluck didn't lie to parliament in how the RPPS was funded and till now no one even suggested that. It's you who comes with this distraction. The issue is if Ms. Yingluck was negligent or criminal, with till now the NACC only pushing the 'negligent' charge'.

Ms. Yingluck and her (brothers) Pheu Thai party had this election promise. PM Yingluck had this RPPS and suddenly she knows nothing? She's innocent? It's unfair to blame her? 500 to 700++ billion Baht down the drain and Ms. Yingluck shouldn't be blamed because she didn't know?

[rubl]

Lying to parliament while bad is not the only benchmark that should be used, though it is the one that concerns you most.

Well sending politicians to court for losing money is a peeing up a waterfall don't u think?

Shouldn't stop one from trying though. PM Yingluck pledged transparency and good governance in her government.

Anyway according to dear Fabs there is no loss, it only 'cost' the country.

[khunken]

To Animatic

There are thousands of interventions that cost the country money every day, so the paying of the money to the rice farmers isn't the issue.

It was a large total value but there are many farmers. Issue to me is did she knowingly lie to parliament about how it was to be funded. Being the boss on station during the loss is hardly reason for criminal investigation. She's been fired. That's a lot more than most western politicians or business people suffer during losses like this.

Paying the money to the rice farmers certainly isn't the issue. I don't think the 'lie to parliament' is an issue either. Surely she wasn't totally stupid enough to think or say that the scheme was self funding.

Being the boss when your subordinates are committing fraud is very much grounds for a criminal investigation. Plus she wasn't fired for anything to do with the rice scheme so that's rather irrelevant.

If she didn't know about her 'underlings' corruption then that is incompetence or deliberately turning a blind eye. If she did know then she is an accessory.

The main point is that we don't yet know what evidence the NACC has on Yingluck but I suspect that the evidence against the commerce minister's secretary is a lot stronger and may well be a part of the case against Yingluck.