Thai talk: Corruption, Yingluck and rice scheme

[Thai at Heart]

Part quote: "The big, and highly controversial question, posed by the OAG was: Did the premier have the right to roll back a scheme that the Pheu Thai Party had pledged to the people before the election? In other words, can politicians renege on their election-platform promises once they are elected to run the country?"

.... the right..... is not the question.

What is relevant is that she had the duty on behalf of all Thai people to stop / adjust a scheme which is clearly lacking in many ways including, at least, theft of massive amounts of taxpayers funds.

How can it be any other way?

Which massive theft is this?

The thousand tons here and thousand tons there theft? Or 500 bn loss. Which is a loss not a theft. The farmers and others in between have been paid the loss.

[DrLom]

Everything in the Thai justice system takes sooooooo long. Like a snail going up hill in molasses. After two years of investigation, the NACC uses the TDRI report as a centerpiece to buttress their investigation? At this juncture, I would just ask for the evidence which shows that the pledging program actually cost the country 500 billion baht and how those figures were calculated.

At the same time, and in the name or transparency, the government should release the annual cost of all subsidies including the value of tax subsidies granted to international companies operating in the numerous industrial estates.

As an aside, has anyone read the TRDI report? What does it claim/allege?

The Nation, on August 23rd wrote an article about TDRI's report. In that article is states that TDRI found that the country had paid THB 985 billion to buy 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme, but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium to large scale farmers. The TDRI estimated total corruption of THB 111billion.

For more information from the article you can go to tdri.or.th

This is interesting viewing, very, from a Thai : http://www.cnbc.com/id/101360692

Edited September 11, 2014 by DrLom

[fab4]

Part quote: "The big, and highly controversial question, posed by the OAG was: Did the premier have the right to roll back a scheme that the Pheu Thai Party had pledged to the people before the election? In other words, can politicians renege on their election-platform promises once they are elected to run the country?"

.... the right..... is not the question.

What is relevant is that she had the duty on behalf of all Thai people to stop / adjust a scheme which is clearly lacking in many ways including, at least, theft of massive amounts of taxpayers funds.

How can it be any other way?

I agree.

What is also interesting is that YL has said she tried to lower the pledging amounts, but the farmers didn't let her. I never understood that comment.

They did lower the rice pledging price to 12,000 baht a ton in June 2013 but Thai Farmers Association President Wichian Phuanglamchiak threatened a convoy of farmers to descend on Bangkok to pressurise the government if they did not rescind the order. This being the same guy that was "knowingly" used by suthep in January 2014

Suthep promised Tuesday at a rally in Bangkok to compensate farmers for their losses under the rice scheme, but only if they backed his calls for an unelected council to replace the government.

Suthep claims this council is needed to introduce electoral reform to “re-boot” democracy before a general election can be held. The proposal has proven controversial as it overrides Yingluck's electoral mandate. Suthep contested the 2011 election as the deputy leader of a party that polled a distant second. His bid to enlist the support of rice farmers flies in the face of his constant criticism of Yingluck's pandering to the rural poor with subsidies and development aid.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0121/Thailand-declares-state-of-emergency-in-Bangkok-video

Edited September 11, 2014 by fab4

[halloween]

They did lower the rice pledging price to 12,000 baht a ton in June 2013 but Thai Farmers Association President Wichian Phuanglamchiak threatened a convoy of farmers to descend on Bangkok to pressurise the government if they did not rescind the order. This being the same guy that was "knowingly" used by suthep in January 2014

Suthep promised Tuesday at a rally in Bangkok to compensate farmers for their losses under the rice scheme, but only if they backed his calls for an unelected council to replace the government.

Suthep claims this council is needed to introduce electoral reform to “re-boot” democracy before a general election can be held. The proposal has proven controversial as it overrides Yingluck's electoral mandate. Suthep contested the 2011 election as the deputy leader of a party that polled a distant second. His bid to enlist the support of rice farmers flies in the face of his constant criticism of Yingluck's pandering to the rural poor with subsidies and development aid.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0121/Thailand-declares-state-of-emergency-in-Bangkok-video

And your point is? Why wouldn't the President of the Farmers' association be involved in both situations?

Did you expect that those being grossly overpaid for their rice (and votes) would enjoy a reduction in benefits?

[pookiki]

Everything in the Thai justice system takes sooooooo long. Like a snail going up hill in molasses. After two years of investigation, the NACC uses the TDRI report as a centerpiece to buttress their investigation? At this juncture, I would just ask for the evidence which shows that the pledging program actually cost the country 500 billion baht and how those figures were calculated.

At the same time, and in the name or transparency, the government should release the annual cost of all subsidies including the value of tax subsidies granted to international companies operating in the numerous industrial estates.

As an aside, has anyone read the TRDI report? What does it claim/allege?

The Nation, on August 23rd wrote an article about TDRI's report. In that article is states that TDRI found that the country had paid THB 985 billion to buy 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme, but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium to large scale farmers. The TDRI estimated total corruption of THB 111billion.

For more information from the article you can go to tdri.or.th

Thanks for the link.

I went to this website before just to check on the scope of the Institute's activities but did not read the summary of the report on the rice pledging. While the report appears to be very comprehensive in scope, I can certainly understand the OAG's office reluctance to use the report as 'evidence' to establish guilt. For one, the amount of alleged corruption involved is based on an 'economic model'. If the TRDI actually uncovered corruption during its interviews, then it would have to be willing to share this underlying research with the NACC and the OAG -- and it isn't clear whether either agency has requested that information. The interviews could have also been arranged on the condition of anonymity. All that info should be included in the report and detailed in the methods used for the research, the developments of the economic models, etc.

It seems very strange to me that if the NACC has been doing its own investigation for the past two years, why would it need to rely on a TRDI report released just several months ago? The NACC and the OAG must base their case against YL and others on facts uncovered in their own investigation that detail who, when, where, what, and how.

[Old Man River]

One thing that hasn't been questioned as to whether Surapong and all the other cabinet ministers and their secretary's, the advisers , the whole PTP administration , did anyone come forward and ask the question , is there corruption and if there is what are we going to do about it , don't place all the blame on one person if corruption is evident, it is the duty of care to inform and act.

Google supa piyajitti and draw your own conclusions.

[EnglishJohn]

This is Thailand. Whatever the reason the office of the OAG gave, you can be pretty sure it is not the full story. Anything political which happens here is heavily tainted with somebody else's best interest and is the reason everything eventually turns to sh*t (can I say 'shit' on here ?)

Nothing is going to change because when the General starts going off the rails and appoints voodoo dolls to the cabinet, he will be pressured out and it will be back to same-old same-old for Thai politics.

[mataleo]

The Country lost 500 million....Isn't that about the same amount of money Thaksin borrowed off the Russians, for that construction project in Dubai that went belly up and the investors lost everything.

The Russians would still want to be payed back plus interest of course.

Just throwing it out there what do you think?

500, 000 = 500 billions mate

Edited September 11, 2014 by mataleo

[whybother]

They did lower the rice pledging price to 12,000 baht a ton in June 2013 but Thai Farmers Association President Wichian Phuanglamchiak threatened a convoy of farmers to descend on Bangkok to pressurise the government if they did not rescind the order. This being the same guy that was "knowingly" used by suthep in January 2014

Suthep promised Tuesday at a rally in Bangkok to compensate farmers for their losses under the rice scheme, but only if they backed his calls for an unelected council to replace the government.

Suthep claims this council is needed to introduce electoral reform to “re-boot” democracy before a general election can be held. The proposal has proven controversial as it overrides Yingluck's electoral mandate. Suthep contested the 2011 election as the deputy leader of a party that polled a distant second. His bid to enlist the support of rice farmers flies in the face of his constant criticism of Yingluck's pandering to the rural poor with subsidies and development aid.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0121/Thailand-declares-state-of-emergency-in-Bangkok-video

And your point is? Why wouldn't the President of the Farmers' association be involved in both situations?

Did you expect that those being grossly overpaid for their rice (and votes) would enjoy a reduction in benefits?

He doesn't have a point. He just wanted to mention Suthep.

[Old Man River]

Everything in the Thai justice system takes sooooooo long. Like a snail going up hill in molasses. After two years of investigation, the NACC uses the TDRI report as a centerpiece to buttress their investigation? At this juncture, I would just ask for the evidence which shows that the pledging program actually cost the country 500 billion baht and how those figures were calculated.

At the same time, and in the name or transparency, the government should release the annual cost of all subsidies including the value of tax subsidies granted to international companies operating in the numerous industrial estates.

As an aside, has anyone read the TRDI report? What does it claim/allege?

The Nation, on August 23rd wrote an article about TDRI's report. In that article is states that TDRI found that the country had paid THB 985 billion to buy 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme, but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium to large scale farmers. The TDRI estimated total corruption of THB 111billion.

For more information from the article you can go to tdri.or.th

Thanks for the link.

I went to this website before just to check on the scope of the Institute's activities but did not read the summary of the report on the rice pledging. While the report appears to be very comprehensive in scope, I can certainly understand the OAG's office reluctance to use the report as 'evidence' to establish guilt. For one, the amount of alleged corruption involved is based on an 'economic model'. If the TRDI actually uncovered corruption during its interviews, then it would have to be willing to share this underlying research with the NACC and the OAG -- and it isn't clear whether either agency has requested that information. The interviews could have also been arranged on the condition of anonymity. All that info should be included in the report and detailed in the methods used for the research, the developments of the economic models, etc.

It seems very strange to me that if the NACC has been doing its own investigation for the past two years, why would it need to rely on a TRDI report released just several months ago? The NACC and the OAG must base their case against YL and others on facts uncovered in their own investigation that detail who, when, where, what, and how.

I agree.

Since TDRI is a think tank and not a group of investigative reporters, I would be surprised if they found anything specific.

Then there is the question of whether anything specific needs to be proven.

IMHO, the NACC has other sources. Let's wait and see.

[Ridercnx808]

The gov paid twice the market rate for rice.

There is no good reason for this, except to buy votes from farmers.

Period.

[Thai at Heart]

Everything in the Thai justice system takes sooooooo long. Like a snail going up hill in molasses. After two years of investigation, the NACC uses the TDRI report as a centerpiece to buttress their investigation? At this juncture, I would just ask for the evidence which shows that the pledging program actually cost the country 500 billion baht and how those figures were calculated.

At the same time, and in the name or transparency, the government should release the annual cost of all subsidies including the value of tax subsidies granted to international companies operating in the numerous industrial estates.

As an aside, has anyone read the TRDI report? What does it claim/allege?

The Nation, on August 23rd wrote an article about TDRI's report. In that article is states that TDRI found that the country had paid THB 985 billion to buy 54.4 million tones of paddy in two and half years under the scrapped rice pledging scheme, but most of the THB 560 billion producer surplus went to medium to large scale farmers. The TDRI estimated total corruption of THB 111billion.

For more information from the article you can go to tdri.or.th

Thanks for the link.

I went to this website before just to check on the scope of the Institute's activities but did not read the summary of the report on the rice pledging. While the report appears to be very comprehensive in scope, I can certainly understand the OAG's office reluctance to use the report as 'evidence' to establish guilt. For one, the amount of alleged corruption involved is based on an 'economic model'. If the TRDI actually uncovered corruption during its interviews, then it would have to be willing to share this underlying research with the NACC and the OAG -- and it isn't clear whether either agency has requested that information. The interviews could have also been arranged on the condition of anonymity. All that info should be included in the report and detailed in the methods used for the research, the developments of the economic models, etc.

It seems very strange to me that if the NACC has been doing its own investigation for the past two years, why would it need to rely on a TRDI report released just several months ago? The NACC and the OAG must base their case against YL and others on facts uncovered in their own investigation that detail who, when, where, what, and how.

Precisely. Arguing about the economic merits of the system is not the debate in this case. The debate is legal wrongdoing on the part of Yingluck and her government.

A report claiming the theoretical corruption of the system because it doesn't deliver the most optimal economic outcome from a pure market perspective is not evidence of anything. They need hard evidence from the horses mouth to show malfeasance and negligence, not a theory based on an economic model. Because all other things being equal, we should all be loaded by now.

[Jeremy50]

The Country lost 500 million....Isn't that about the same amount of money Thaksin borrowed off the Russians, for that construction project in Dubai that went belly up and the investors lost everything.

The Russians would still want to be payed back plus interest of course.

Just throwing it out there what do you think?

I think you are confused.

[rickirs]

"Did the premier have the right to roll back a scheme that the Pheu Thai Party had pledged to the people before the election? In other words, can politicians renege on their election-platform promises once they are elected to run the country?"

As a practical matter, no politician who makes campaign promises knows exactly what and how legislation will affect the reality of a promise into law. The promise is only a thought, an idea. Will there now be "thought" police to judge whether ideas can even be spoken? If, for the sake of argument, Yingluck was not selected PM or her proposed legislation was struck down by the Parliament, would she still be culpable because her promise did not come to fruitation?

Another question might be : Can legislation offered by the PM to the Parliament be retracted or overturned unilaterally by the PM after the Parliament approves the legislation that makes it legal? While Gen. Prayuth has the power to do so under Article 44 of the Provisinal Constitution, Yingluck did not have such power under the 2007 Constitution. Furthermore, just because the PTP Parliament majority passed the legislation over any supposed challenge by the Democrats, the Democrats could have immediately sued the government to continue a challenge against the law all the way to the Constitutional Court and/or filed a complaint with the NACC. During such judicial process, the new law would be tabled pendng the outcome of the court's decision. Maybe the Democrats then contributed to the subsequent alleged corruption of the rice program and they too should be under investigation.

If Thailand wants to encourage the fight against corruption, the State must not allow the corruption of its judicial process to allow the appearance of political slander and bias. Such nuetrality may be difficult when State organizations involved in investigations of public officials have their own existence rooted in the heal of a military coup. An independent prosecutor with investigatory powers drawn from nonpolitical venues might better serve Thailand.

[khunken]

A few points. The TDRI report is very unlikely to be the sole source of the NACC findings. They have what the whistleblowing lady (who was fired by PTP) reported and are already pursuing a parallel charge against the commerce minister and his secretary (among others). That is far more along the lines of 'did she know or not' than the scheme itself which seems like a red herring to me.

BTW anyone who is wondering where the B500bn loss came from - that is the current amount that the government owes to the BAaC and the new finance minister is currently tackling (recent thread). The old rice in storage is worth something but the storage bills may well offset the low value.

[tullynagardy]

The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind when you look at how the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) view the NACC. They see the NACC as simply a front to amend laws in order to target certain political factions, as does anyone with an ounce of sense.The have beaten off some stiff competition to finish bottom of that pile!

[halloween]

"Did the premier have the right to roll back a scheme that the Pheu Thai Party had pledged to the people before the election? In other words, can politicians renege on their election-platform promises once they are elected to run the country?"

As a practical matter, no politician who makes campaign promises knows exactly what and how legislation will affect the reality of a promise into law. The promise is only a thought, an idea. Will there now be "thought" police to judge whether ideas can even be spoken? If, for the sake of argument, Yingluck was not selected PM or her proposed legislation was struck down by the Parliament, would she still be culpable because her promise did not come to fruitation?

Another question might be : Can legislation offered by the PM to the Parliament be retracted or overturned unilaterally by the PM after the Parliament approves the legislation that makes it legal? While Gen. Prayuth has the power to do so under Article 44 of the Provisinal Constitution, Yingluck did not have such power under the 2007 Constitution. Furthermore, just because the PTP Parliament majority passed the legislation over any supposed challenge by the Democrats, the Democrats could have immediately sued the government to continue a challenge against the law all the way to the Constitutional Court and/or filed a complaint with the NACC. During such judicial process, the new law would be tabled pendng the outcome of the court's decision. Maybe the Democrats then contributed to the subsequent alleged corruption of the rice program and they too should be under investigation.

If Thailand wants to encourage the fight against corruption, the State must not allow the corruption of its judicial process to allow the appearance of political slander and bias. Such nuetrality may be difficult when State organizations involved in investigations of public officials have their own existence rooted in the heal of a military coup. An independent prosecutor with investigatory powers drawn from nonpolitical venues might better serve Thailand.

Let me get this clear. A (any) government that embarks on a disastrous policy, election promise or not, that threatens to bankrupt the country, doesn't have the right to use their majority to change it? and the Opposition which has fought it tooth and nail since inception, will likely take them to court to stop the policy being changed?

Round objects!

Edited September 11, 2014 by halloween

[ratcatcher]

This is Thailand. Whatever the reason the office of the OAG gave, you can be pretty sure it is not the full story. Anything political which happens here is heavily tainted with somebody else's best interest and is the reason everything eventually turns to sh*t (can I say 'shit' on here ?)

Nothing is going to change because when the General starts going off the rails and appoints voodoo dolls to the cabinet, he will be pressured out and it will be back to same-old same-old for Thai politics.

"can I say 'shit' on here ? You got away with tit yesterday so why not this one today. You could of course be polite and use the word ordure, poop, doodoo or even excrement, all of which as you rightly point out eventually hits the fan.

[Ulic]

I understand Yingluck is incompetent, after all many politicians are. What I want to know is did she personally benefit from the rice scheme.

I am sure many government ministers and underlings did. If you look at the corruption and maleficence that went on at banks, and investment

companies on Wall Street and nobody has gone to jail. I don't see incompetence as a reason for jail, corruption is.

The rice scheme loss is not even chump change in relation to the losses because of corruption, on Wall Street, yet who has gone to jail in the

USA. Forensic accountants should be brought in to go over the books. Follow the money and jail the guilty.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Ulic

[Thai at Heart]

"Did the premier have the right to roll back a scheme that the Pheu Thai Party had pledged to the people before the election? In other words, can politicians renege on their election-platform promises once they are elected to run the country?"

As a practical matter, no politician who makes campaign promises knows exactly what and how legislation will affect the reality of a promise into law. The promise is only a thought, an idea. Will there now be "thought" police to judge whether ideas can even be spoken? If, for the sake of argument, Yingluck was not selected PM or her proposed legislation was struck down by the Parliament, would she still be culpable because her promise did not come to fruitation?

Another question might be : Can legislation offered by the PM to the Parliament be retracted or overturned unilaterally by the PM after the Parliament approves the legislation that makes it legal? While Gen. Prayuth has the power to do so under Article 44 of the Provisinal Constitution, Yingluck did not have such power under the 2007 Constitution. Furthermore, just because the PTP Parliament majority passed the legislation over any supposed challenge by the Democrats, the Democrats could have immediately sued the government to continue a challenge against the law all the way to the Constitutional Court and/or filed a complaint with the NACC. During such judicial process, the new law would be tabled pendng the outcome of the court's decision. Maybe the Democrats then contributed to the subsequent alleged corruption of the rice program and they too should be under investigation.

If Thailand wants to encourage the fight against corruption, the State must not allow the corruption of its judicial process to allow the appearance of political slander and bias. Such nuetrality may be difficult when State organizations involved in investigations of public officials have their own existence rooted in the heal of a military coup. An independent prosecutor with investigatory powers drawn from nonpolitical venues might better serve Thailand.

It is an odd one this.

Was the subsidy scheme enshrined into law? By what mandate was it enforced? Was it voted on by parliament as part of policy and as such, to undo it would have needed a vote.

In which case a prime minister cannot arbitrarily enforce or unenforce law. In which case, the policy change should have been proposed by the opposition and challenged.

If it passed again, it should not be yingluck individually on the line. To take this tack means that the courts are judging on the legality of the judgement of parliament.

[Thai at Heart]

I understand Yingluck is incompetent, after all many politicians are. What I want to know is did she personally benefit from the rice scheme.

I am sure many government ministers and underlings did. If you look at the corruption and maleficence that went on at banks, and investment

companies on Wall Street and nobody has gone to jail. I don't see incompetence as a reason for jail, corruption is.

The rice scheme loss is not even chump change in relation to the losses because of corruption, on Wall Street, yet who has gone to jail in the

USA. Forensic accountants should be brought in to go over the books. Follow the money and jail the guilty.

I doubt she did personally and saying "I am sure" proves nothing .

The accusation is that she knowingly turned a blind eye to known corruption. By that measure every senior tessaban man in Thailand is guilty.

A very difficult thing to prove. Someone up country gets a clip and the PM is supposed to know? Has anyone who provably got dodgy cash out of this not been convicted?

[greenchair]

Corruption and failed policy, money loses due to poor planning are very different things.

One is a crime and the other is not.

They must prove what the actual corruption was first. Then prove that she knew about it. Or go the other path and prove she did not attempt to fix or halt a badly planned policy. At the moment they hop between the two scenarios with no clear proof of either.

[greenchair]

Corruption and failed policy, money loses due to poor planning are very different things.

One is a crime and the other is not.

They must prove what the actual corruption was first. Then prove that she knew about it. Or go the other path and prove she did not attempt to fix or halt a badly planned policy. At the moment they hop between the two scenarios with no clear proof of either.

[Thanet]

The widespread corruption in the implementation of the project was the last straw - and no matter how Yingluck tried to distance herself from the fraudulent practices, it's hard to see how she can avoid being held responsible for such a major political debacle on a national scale.

She should be held responsible, the problem is that she would be the first. Breaking new ground is always more difficult.

So you say, but where is the evidence?

There doesn't seem to be any, does there?

[halloween]

I understand Yingluck is incompetent, after all many politicians are. What I want to know is did she personally benefit from the rice scheme.

I am sure many government ministers and underlings did. If you look at the corruption and maleficence that went on at banks, and investment

companies on Wall Street and nobody has gone to jail. I don't see incompetence as a reason for jail, corruption is.

The rice scheme loss is not even chump change in relation to the losses because of corruption, on Wall Street, yet who has gone to jail in the

USA. Forensic accountants should be brought in to go over the books. Follow the money and jail the guilty.

For starters, she was elected as PM using the rice scam as a vote buyer, personally increasing the amount to be paid, and hence the subsequent loss.

Nobody from Wall St has gone to jail? Try google.

[Thai at Heart]

I understand Yingluck is incompetent, after all many politicians are. What I want to know is did she personally benefit from the rice scheme.

I am sure many government ministers and underlings did. If you look at the corruption and maleficence that went on at banks, and investment

companies on Wall Street and nobody has gone to jail. I don't see incompetence as a reason for jail, corruption is.

The rice scheme loss is not even chump change in relation to the losses because of corruption, on Wall Street, yet who has gone to jail in the

USA. Forensic accountants should be brought in to go over the books. Follow the money and jail the guilty.

For starters, she was elected as PM using the rice scam as a vote buyer, personally increasing the amount to be paid, and hence the subsequent loss.

Nobody from Wall St has gone to jail? Try google.

That is a tired old record. She's going on trial.

Prove it.