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

[animatic]

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?

Not doing it gives them Carte Blanche to pillage all.

Far from the lesser evil.

Any one that is punished is a plus,

No matter how many might replace them,

Or how hard ya gotta pee in the wind.

[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.

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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

[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?

Not doing it gives them Carte Blanche to pillage all.

Far from the lesser evil.

Any one that is punished is a plus,

No matter how many might replace them,

Or how hard ya gotta pee in the wind.

This is bad policy, not a pillaging.

[ratcatcher]

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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

The following is an example of one state's statute defining criminal negligence:

''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.''

[belg]

thainess, the world is watching

hope this story is covered by many foreign media

[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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

Edited September 7, 2014 by rubl

[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.

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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

She may have been negligent. Then there is criminal negligence which normally needs intent.

I am just wondering how they will prove it beyond pointing fingers.

[rubl]

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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

She may have been negligent. Then there is criminal negligence which normally needs intent.

I am just wondering how they will prove it beyond pointing fingers.

Well, as she told parliament she and only she was in charge, as earlier that year she told to have listened to NACC concerns and did whatever to address their issues, it would seem 'criminal negligent' or even just 'negligent' has been disproven by her own statements. That would bring us to her being an accessory to willful criminal action which cost the State 500 to 700++ billion Baht.

So, you may zig or zag around the issue, but you cannot convince that Ms. Yingluck didn't know. You can distract with what about other MPs, but none is relevant. This ex-PM stated to be in charge, explicitly, she run the show she said. Well, so be it.

[Old Man River]

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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

She may have been negligent. Then there is criminal negligence which normally needs intent.

I am just wondering how they will prove it beyond pointing fingers.

As far as I am aware, there are two issues. One relates to the cost to the Country and the other relates to corruption.

I am unclear which issue the NACC is focusing on, or both, as articles tend to discuss both. Also there may be other concerns. In any event, from what I understand, for malfeasance the questions would be did she know about it, if so did she know what to do, if so did she look the other way and if so was there some sort of benefit gained.

The rice scheme has often been described as a populist policy, so the benefit may be that it was a populist policy. This all, of course, is for the courts to decide.

TDRI, has a website in English where you can read their reports. It has been written that some of the info being used by the NACC has come from TDRI research. It is a think tank. They do not take sides, and in fact have disagreed with the price insurance rice policies of both the PTP and Democrats, opting instead for a crop insurance policy (against crop failures). Check out their website.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

She may have been negligent. Then there is criminal negligence which normally needs intent.

I am just wondering how they will prove it beyond pointing fingers.

Well, as she told parliament she and only she was in charge, as earlier that year she told to have listened to NACC concerns and did whatever to address their issues, it would seem 'criminal negligent' or even just 'negligent' has been disproven by her own statements. That would bring us to her being an accessory to willful criminal action which cost the State 500 to 700++ billion Baht.

So, you may zig or zag around the issue, but you cannot convince that Ms. Yingluck didn't know. You can distract with what about other MPs, but none is relevant. This ex-PM stated to be in charge, explicitly, she run the show she said. Well, so be it.

Its not up to me to convince anyone. So far, the case has been sent back to get more info. Apparently its such a slam dunk,it needs more research. And there is a world of difference in this case between someone being negligent or criminally negligence.

One you go to jail for, the other you get fired. So, now you see the point of the supposed zigzag on this issue because the devil.is most definitely going to be in the details of the accusation and the proof.

Just wait and watch. They are going to have to dig and dig to prove what she knew or didn't know.

[rubl]

Its not up to me to convince anyone. So far, the case has been sent back to get more info. Apparently its such a slam dunk,it needs more research. And there is a world of difference in this case between someone being negligent or criminally negligence.

One you go to jail for, the other you get fired. So, now you see the point of the supposed zigzag on this issue because the devil.is most definitely going to be in the details of the accusation and the proof.

Just wait and watch. They are going to have to dig and dig to prove what she knew or didn't know.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck, can you tell me who was in charge of your cabinet?

Ms.Y: Well, me, only me

Pros.: Thank you. No further questions.

Alternatively:

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck, can you tell me who was in charge of your cabinet?

Ms.Y: Well, uhm, what you mean, in charge?

Pros.: In charge as in ordering your cabinet

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, up to a point I, I think.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck during the last censure debate you clearly stated you, only you were in charge. Was that statement correct?

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, let me check that one first please.

Pros: Your Honour, the video now showing on the screen here is from the last censure debate. Please notice question and answer.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck was your statement the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, can I come back on this?

Pros: Your Honour, no further questions

Allegedly, in the near future, in theaters near you.

Edited September 7, 2014 by rubl

[Thai at Heart]

Its not up to me to convince anyone. So far, the case has been sent back to get more info. Apparently its such a slam dunk,it needs more research. And there is a world of difference in this case between someone being negligent or criminally negligence.

One you go to jail for, the other you get fired. So, now you see the point of the supposed zigzag on this issue because the devil.is most definitely going to be in the details of the accusation and the proof.

Just wait and watch. They are going to have to dig and dig to prove what she knew or didn't know.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck, can you tell me who was in charge of your cabinet?

Ms.Y: Well, me, only me

Pros.: Thank you. No further questions.

Alternatively:

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck, can you tell me who was in charge of your cabinet?

Ms.Y: Well, uhm, what you mean, in charge?

Pros.: In charge as in ordering your cabinet

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, up to a point I, I think.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck during the last censure debate you clearly stated you, only you were in charge. Was that statement correct?

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, let me check that one first please.

Pros: Your Honour, the video now showing on the screen here is from the last censure debate. Please notice question and answer.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck was your statement the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, can I come back on this?

Pros: Your Honour, no further questions

Allegedly, in the near future, in theaters near you.

Did you get any reports from anyone in the commerce ministry that the system was not going to be self funding?

Yingluck: No. All the reports were positive.

When did you know there was a problem

Yingluck : when they told me there was no more money in the bank.

Who should have told you?

YS: pee somchai, pee Somsak and pee nok were supposed to keep an eye on it and report to me.

Where are somchai, Somsak and nok?

YS : All working in Dubai for KingPower.......

[animatic]

A hundred million here, a hundred million there,

Eventually it is bound to add up to real money....

[rubl]

Its not up to me to convince anyone. So far, the case has been sent back to get more info. Apparently its such a slam dunk,it needs more research. And there is a world of difference in this case between someone being negligent or criminally negligence.

One you go to jail for, the other you get fired. So, now you see the point of the supposed zigzag on this issue because the devil.is most definitely going to be in the details of the accusation and the proof.

Just wait and watch. They are going to have to dig and dig to prove what she knew or didn't know.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck, can you tell me who was in charge of your cabinet?

Ms.Y: Well, me, only me

Pros.: Thank you. No further questions.

Alternatively:

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck, can you tell me who was in charge of your cabinet?

Ms.Y: Well, uhm, what you mean, in charge?

Pros.: In charge as in ordering your cabinet

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, up to a point I, I think.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck during the last censure debate you clearly stated you, only you were in charge. Was that statement correct?

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, let me check that one first please.

Pros: Your Honour, the video now showing on the screen here is from the last censure debate. Please notice question and answer.

Pros.: Ms. Yingluck was your statement the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

Ms. Yingluck: Well, uhm, can I come back on this?

Pros: Your Honour, no further questions

Allegedly, in the near future, in theaters near you.

Did you get any reports from anyone in the commerce ministry that the system was not going to be self funding?

Yingluck: No. All the reports were positive.

When did you know there was a problem

Yingluck : when they told me there was no more money in the bank.

Who should have told you?

YS: pee somchai, pee Somsak and pee nok were supposed to keep an eye on it and report to me.

Where are somchai, Somsak and nok?

YS : All working in Dubai for KingPower.......

Ms. Yingluck, you are aware that you are charged with "negligence"?

BTW

"A DSI source said Ms Yingluck has assigned Mr Chalerm to oversee the government’s efforts in tackling irregularities in the crop subsidy programme.

Ms Yingluck’s order comes after the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) sent a letter to the government warning about loopholes in the crop pledging policy, the source said."

http://en.isnhotnews.com/?p=21605

"The prime minister also brushed aside the accusation of not heeding the advice of the NACC and accomodating corruption, saying the government had worked with all sectors to tackle corruption and made suppression of corruption an urgent national agenda, to be pursued along with the urgent issues of the economy and the well-being of the public."

http://thaifinancialpost.com/2013/11/27/pm-yingluck-says-at-censure-debate-nobody-manipulating-current-administration/

[pattayaorganic]

It should be noted that the ex commerce minister has already been charged. (Excerpt)

Former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and ex-deputy commerce minister Poom Sarapol were charged by the agency, together with 13 other persons including former director-general of the External Trade Department Manas Sroypol who was involved in negotiations to sell rice to two Chinese state enterprises on government-to-government contracts. http://pattayatoday.net/news/thailand-news/yingluck-to-be-probed-ex-ministers-charged-on-rice-scheme/

You posted a totally irrelevant extract. Has the case been indicted by the OAG or any courts have accepted the petition? Has the case gone through the judiciary process and accused convicted. The NACC is really not the poster boy of fair investigation.

What makes you think it is irrelevant that the former commerce minister has already been charged ?

This thread is about his former secretary now being charged, the fact that the minister who was his boss has been charged for the same fake deals shows that the secretary has not been charged in isolation.

Getting ahead of yourself talking about going through the courts and being found guilty, things are not at that stage as yet.

Still cant get it through your head that the NACC has been investigating the rice scheme for around 2 years and now have got to the stage where the evidence they have collected is leading to charges.

2 years sounds quite a long time to conduct an investigation but I suppose the scheme has been ongoing for most of that time with new evidence emerging all the time.

It would seem that in red eyes anything that shows up corruption or negligence in their beloved PT govt is unfair.

Don't get too hung up on this. Just a few short months ago, there were complaints/ arguments that the case was "too rushed".

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/yinglucks-lawyer-asks-nacc-rush-case/

(Note the URL is a bit misleading. The actual sub-heading reads:

Apparently unperturbed by the latest rejection of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s lawyer asked the graft-busting body not to rush the case and to allow eight more defence witnesses to testify regarding the rice pledging scheme.

Now in true Red Logic fashion, they are complaining that the case is taking too long.

Never mind about truth and logic when you argue with such species.

[pattayaorganic]

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.

In true "FABulous" logic, as long as the government was elected, truth doesn't matter. Keeping the country solvent doesn't matter. Keeping the largest populist scheme in the history of the nation transparent (with no "national secrets") doesn't matter. The fact that the scheme was alleged not to cost the public anything and the fact that it ended up costing the public a massive 5.6% of GDP means nothing. Just a small accounting error. Nothing to see here. Move on.

[Old Man River]

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?

Well what is the commonpunishment for an elected member of govt being negligent ?

Surely not a criminal charge?

What if the elected member of parliament is PM and party list #1 of the political party which pushed the RPPS ? What if in addition said member kept telling everything was under control ? And additionally claims not to know anything? And additionally lost the Nation 500 to 700++ billion Baht by not knowing anything about the RPPS she herself introduced? And additionally having had her state in parliament to be in charge, only she being in charge?

Plus a few more of these.

Give it up, T2H. Either Ms. Yingluck was negligent or an accomplice. Thai taxpayers want to know where their tax money went. 500,000,000,000 to 700,000,000,000++ Baht. We could have a high-speed rail link from Bangkok to ChiangMai with that type of money.

She may have been negligent. Then there is criminal negligence which normally needs intent.

I am just wondering how they will prove it beyond pointing fingers.

Well, as she told parliament she and only she was in charge, as earlier that year she told to have listened to NACC concerns and did whatever to address their issues, it would seem 'criminal negligent' or even just 'negligent' has been disproven by her own statements. That would bring us to her being an accessory to willful criminal action which cost the State 500 to 700++ billion Baht.

So, you may zig or zag around the issue, but you cannot convince that Ms. Yingluck didn't know. You can distract with what about other MPs, but none is relevant. This ex-PM stated to be in charge, explicitly, she run the show she said. Well, so be it.

Its not up to me to convince anyone. So far, the case has been sent back to get more info. Apparently its such a slam dunk,it needs more research. And there is a world of difference in this case between someone being negligent or criminally negligence.

One you go to jail for, the other you get fired. So, now you see the point of the supposed zigzag on this issue because the devil.is most definitely going to be in the details of the accusation and the proof.

Just wait and watch. They are going to have to dig and dig to prove what she knew or didn't know.

Which case?

The one about the cost to the country or the one about corruption? Note: Both led to costs to the country.

So, which case?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Old Man River]

While you decide if this case has merit, remember:

The TDRI's research shows that "the country spent up to THB 985 billion buying 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and a half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium-large scale farmers." "The research also found that the schemes' accounting cost as of April (2014) was estimated at THB 519.5 billion."

TDRI estimated total corruption at THB 111Billion. They show the different ways corruption took place and estimated how much was attributable in each way in order to come up with the amount of corruption.

"Last, the government failed to disclose vital data to the public, causing losses to stack up."

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[kimamey]

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.

I seem to remember her sister being brought in to help her as she was so overworked. Then she took the job of Defence Minister.

Perhaps Yingluck could help the general now he's PM. He's clearly not got a grip on his responsibilities as I've not heard any statements about not knowing about something because someone else is dealing with that, whilst heading off on a foreign trip.

[animatic]

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.

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.

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.

I seem to remember her sister being brought in to help her as she was so overworked. Then she took the job of Defence Minister.

Perhaps Yingluck could help the general now he's PM. He's clearly not got a grip on his responsibilities as I've not heard any statements about not knowing about something because someone else is dealing with that, whilst heading off on a foreign trip.

I remember her older sister coming in as the heavy weight, behind the scenes, fixer / enforcer.

Yowawapa never will be a good choice as a front person, but as an arm twister she fits the bill.

Though we may still see her put forward. It's either her or Payup (or else)... not much choice there.

She took the Defence Chair to put a thumb in the generals face or 3rd eye blinder, and, theoretically,

make it harder to do a coup, but that strategy only made them pissed off at a total amateur as their titular boss.

Any PM MUST delegate responsibilities, there is too much to do for any one person to be micromanaging.

The thing is most PM's, unlike Yingluck, actually DO take on several responsibilities,

rather than act as a scripted front face for a covert group of her brothers doers.

When she went off script it was always a train wreck.

That's why Thaksin's government went off the rails, he was an obsessive micro-manager.

To the point he said when he lost a cabinet member;

" It doesn't matter if he is gone, no one does any work here except me."

Edited September 8, 2014 by animatic