People behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses, Prayut says

[rubl]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

The tax payer got scammed, the electorate got scammed. A government trying to be clever positions a scheme as 'self-financing' to justify a non-parliamentary budget. Following it defends the scheme as a great success. Slowly some doubts, but minor losses only. All under control, financing arranged. Then farmers not paid, need to borrow yet another 130 bililon Baht.

If not a scam, surely a criminal project by the Yingluck government.

Now if they had called the RPPS a subsidy, they would have needed to make reservations within the National Budget. Also they would have needed some more 'administration' to justify that budget as there was already a 300 billion Baht deficit in the National Budget.

As for semantics, does that explain 700 billion Baht lost where no loss was meant to be ?

[smutcakes]

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

The tax payer got scammed, the electorate got scammed. A government trying to be clever positions a scheme as 'self-financing' to justify a non-parliamentary budget. Following it defends the scheme as a great success. Slowly some doubts, but minor losses only. All under control, financing arranged. Then farmers not paid, need to borrow yet another 130 bililon Baht.

If not a scam, surely a criminal project by the Yingluck government.

Now if they had called the RPPS a subsidy, they would have needed to make reservations within the National Budget. Also they would have needed some more 'administration' to justify that budget as there was already a 300 billion Baht deficit in the National Budget.

As for semantics, does that explain 700 billion Baht lost where no loss was meant to be ?

You telling the whole story Rubl? I cannot believe a Dutchman, who traditionally are very opinionated and questioning would role over and have his tummy scratched as much as you.

Would the Govt of been better of just giving the money to people? ala Prayuth shelling out 40 billion? If they had given 700 billion would you be whining?

[rubl]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

There is no evidence anyone profited ilegallt other than some petty theft and stuff

They paid 12,000 baht for it, they milled it stored it and whaterver and now its on the books for 25,000 or something similar.

The sale price is 14,000, so they have a massive loss.

Who profited? Rice millers warehouse people and farmers.

No theft, no scam necessary. They over paid for an agriculture product. Happens all over the world. Europe spends 48bn a year on it.

There is evidence that the 'self-financing' scheme lost the country 700 billion Baht. That money as guaranteed by the Yingluck Administration will need to be repaid by the succeeding administration (current government and following). That means 'we the tax payer' are asked to foot the bill.

Who profited? At least middleman, warehouse owners, large land owners, some farmers. Most will be just normal business revenue assuming government oversight of the RPPS was sufficient. Does this explain all costs ? Insufficient data to tell.

The 'overpaid' is just a simple part of the scheme which made it clear from the very beginning that the scheme could not be 'self-financing'. You are excused if you tell me the government lied.

BTW Europe spends money as budgeted, it's administrated, audited, and the reason for spending money is as fully detailed in the initial request for budget. The EU doesn't do in extra parliamentary budgets for 'self-financing' projects. There are laws against approving 'self-financing' projects based on wishful thinking.

So, do you want to accept 'negligence' or do you want us to dig a bit deeper into the possible criminal aspects ?

[longway]

^ After they used up 500 billion of the 'revolving' fund, they had to partly finance the rest from the economic activities section of the national budget, this means items like infrastructure spending have to be cut to meet the requirements of the scam. The 700 billion losses are just the most visible part of the losses to Thailand as a whole.

It is criminal negligence to continue with the scam in the face of astronomical losses like these.

There is no evidence anyone profited ilegallt other than some petty theft and stuff

They paid 12,000 baht for it, they milled it stored it and whaterver and now its on the books for 25,000 or something similar.

The sale price is 14,000, so they have a massive loss.

Who profited? Rice millers warehouse people and farmers.

No theft, no scam necessary. They over paid for an agriculture product. Happens all over the world. Europe spends 48bn a year on it

They could have changed the structure of the scam so that they only paid the difference between the market price and the targeted price, this would have been a loss of 3,000 per unmilled tonne at most. Now its at least 4 times as high, and this has not even been sold yet, they will get less than 14,000 per tonne for most of it too, and incur the warehousing losses too.

Edited December 22, 2014 by longway

[Robby nz]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

You are going to have to get it through your head that it was not a subsidy and was never touted as a subsidy.

As Rubi has said over and over again it was said to be a revolving fund that would pay for itself, indeed run at a profit in time.

Which made it a scheme to make money (a business venture) while returning a better price to the (poor) farmers.

That it failed miserably in all objectives can only be likened to a business that goes bankrupt using someone else's money.

In this case the someone else is the tax payer and they have every right to ask where the money went and attempt to reclaim the loss from the management of the scheme (business).

[rubl]

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

The tax payer got scammed, the electorate got scammed. A government trying to be clever positions a scheme as 'self-financing' to justify a non-parliamentary budget. Following it defends the scheme as a great success. Slowly some doubts, but minor losses only. All under control, financing arranged. Then farmers not paid, need to borrow yet another 130 bililon Baht.

If not a scam, surely a criminal project by the Yingluck government.

Now if they had called the RPPS a subsidy, they would have needed to make reservations within the National Budget. Also they would have needed some more 'administration' to justify that budget as there was already a 300 billion Baht deficit in the National Budget.

As for semantics, does that explain 700 billion Baht lost where no loss was meant to be ?

You telling the whole story Rubl? I cannot believe a Dutchman, who traditionally are very opinionated and questioning would role over and have his tummy scratched as much as you.

Would the Govt of been better of just giving the money to people? ala Prayuth shelling out 40 billion? If they had given 700 billion would you be whining?

What's the whole story? The details left us by the Yingluck administration are minimal. We only seem to know that a 'self-financing' scheme originated in the brain of a golf caddy has cost the tax payer 700 billion Baht.

As for your question, ignored as attempt to distract with a silly hypothetical case with incorrect data included as well.

Edited December 22, 2014 by rubl

[maxme]

I would think the fact that she won the last election qualified her to be PMIn a democracy that is all that is required. The general is therefore not qualified.

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

Which in your world, outside the western hemisphere, justifies a coup.

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Leekpai's legacy has moved on to Suthep who continued in the same tradition long before Yingluck came into the picture. No complaints there but that wouldn't fit the Anti-Thaksin thumping brigade's M.O now would it?

[maxme]

No, you keep hi-jacking the posts as that question wasn't directed at you but at ramet. Once he bugged out, the pro-coup supporters started to surface and circle the thread.

You can spin it all you want and if you don't want to answer that question, you don't have to. But I will take one question at a time because if I get into this with you, you will pull your usual spin on this and ask what Thaksin has done better when I'm not remotely interested in that topic nor was it aimed at that topic either.

You made a statement. I asked you to back it up with evidence. If you don't want other posters to comment on your posts, maybe you should use PMs instead.

I am not spinning anything. Since I didn't compare this government to previous governments I don't need to back anything up.

And you go and deflect again! Where did I ask you what Thaksin had done better?

It seems you will take one question at a time and keep avoiding it.

If you can't back up a statement, maybe you shouldn't say it.

This coming from one who hasn't backed up a single one of his statements when asked to do so. Nice deflection, I take it you can't answer the question then

What statement have I made? Link to where I have made a statement and I will back it up.

Here's a statement. Anyone who sides with the PT in the rice scam is someone who has reached into his skull and twisted his brain into the shape of a pretzel and then repeatedly stabbed it with a fork. To back it up I can use any post of maxme.

Oh is that right? Good luck on that little master.

I don't need luck I just need you to keep on posting.

Whatever you say son

[rubl]

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

Which in your world, outside the western hemisphere, justifies a coup.

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Leekpai's legacy has moved on to Suthep who continued in the same tradition long before Yingluck came into the picture. No complaints there but that wouldn't fit the Anti-Thaksin thumping brigade's M.O now would it?

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic which is "people behind rice scheme will be sued for losses".

[whybother]

Leekpai's legacy has moved on to Suthep who continued in the same tradition long before Yingluck came into the picture. No complaints there but that wouldn't fit the Anti-Thaksin thumping brigade's M.O now would it?

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic which is "people behind rice scheme will be sued for losses".

He doesn't want to back up his statements with evidence either.

[Mosha]

If they can actually nail someone for corruption and put an amount on it, i think they should try and recover it.

However bad the scheme is though, or money lost, it is just inconceivable that you could make people compensate for a poor scheme.

Not a poor scheme, but rather an effective and huge scam, at least for those at the top.

It was never meant to help the poor. How many rich topped themselves over this scam?

[maxme]

Leekpai's legacy has moved on to Suthep who continued in the same tradition long before Yingluck came into the picture. No complaints there but that wouldn't fit the Anti-Thaksin thumping brigade's M.O now would it?

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic which is "people behind rice scheme will be sued for losses".

He doesn't want to back up his statements with evidence either.

Neither do you. You avoid questions by attacking the previoud administration instead. So are you you suggesting we should start our own club?

[whybother]

Neither do you. You avoid questions by attacking the previoud administration instead. So are you you suggesting we should start our own club?

We're not in the same club. We are not even in the same league.

You keep asking me to back up things that I haven't stated. As I said before, please point me to a statement that I have made that I haven't backed up with evidence.

You haven't even been able to answer that question.

[maxme]

and since during the last censure debate Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet, and her government came up with the RPPS, I guess that the topic "people behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses" means Ms. Yingluck will be asked for a donation.

Which in your world, outside the western hemisphere, justifies a coup.

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Leekpai's legacy has moved on to Suthep who continued in the same tradition long before Yingluck came into the picture. No complaints there but that wouldn't fit the Anti-Thaksin thumping brigade's M.O now would it?

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic which is "people behind rice scheme will be sued for losses".

The point got lost several pages ago yet it remains that a lot of the kanbon and ampeurs that gladly accepted and swindled this money were partly democrats.

Yet you head a 'blame only PTP' march and tbh those kind of tirades are not only boring but quite uninformative as you don't have evidence to back those statements up.

All involved in this mess should be prosecuted but you know as well as I do that won't happen

[rubl]

Obviously you don't want to discuss the topic which is "people behind rice scheme will be sued for losses".

The point got lost several pages ago yet it remains that a lot of the kanbon and ampeurs that gladly accepted and swindled this money were partly democrats.

Yet you head a 'blame only PTP' march and tbh those kind of tirades are not only boring but quite uninformative as you don't have evidence to back those statements up.

All involved in this mess should be prosecuted but you know as well as I do that won't happen

Obviously with the RPPS promoted by Pheu Thai and introduced by the Pheu Thai led Yingluck government, we blame the Pheu Thai led Yingluck government for a 'self-financing' scheme which lost 700 billion Baht.

Seems logical, doesn't it?

PS try not to screw up the quotes. Just remove the oldest one or two posts if the limit it reached.

Edited December 22, 2014 by rubl

[smutcakes]

What's the whole story? The details left us by the Yingluck administration are minimal. We only seem to know that a 'self-financing' scheme originated in the brain of a golf caddy has cost the tax payer 700 billion Baht.

As for your question, ignored as attempt to distract with a silly hypothetical case with incorrect data included as well.

Okay Rubl,

I will make it easy for you. Please give me any evidence the "self financing" scheme cost the tax payer 700 billion baht?

The way you write its an open and shut case, so where is your proof?

[Thai at Heart]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

You are going to have to get it through your head that it was not a subsidy and was never touted as a subsidy.

As Rubi has said over and over again it was said to be a revolving fund that would pay for itself, indeed run at a profit in time.

Which made it a scheme to make money (a business venture) while returning a better price to the (poor) farmers.

That it failed miserably in all objectives can only be likened to a business that goes bankrupt using someone else's money.

In this case the someone else is the tax payer and they have every right to ask where the money went and attempt to reclaim the loss from the management of the scheme (business).

So the Thai population got scammed into giving money to Thai people. Sorry, but actually, what they should do is get it repaid from the miller as farmers then.

As such, this can be called many things including duplicitous or incompetent, but not a scam

[dbrenn]

Which in my view justifies the suing of people involved in the rice scam the moment the administrative or criminal court has ruled on either negligence or more criminal charges.

Where is the scam? The losses are accounted for in the system. They overpaid and the loss got made without anyone profiting illegally for a baht.

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

You are going to have to get it through your head that it was not a subsidy and was never touted as a subsidy.

As Rubi has said over and over again it was said to be a revolving fund that would pay for itself, indeed run at a profit in time.

Which made it a scheme to make money (a business venture) while returning a better price to the (poor) farmers.

That it failed miserably in all objectives can only be likened to a business that goes bankrupt using someone else's money.

In this case the someone else is the tax payer and they have every right to ask where the money went and attempt to reclaim the loss from the management of the scheme (business).

Can't you guys just call a truce?

They are ALL at it with their populist subsidy schemes. Diesel under Thaksin, train travel under Abhisit, rice under Yingluck, and most recently rubber under Prayuth.

Rice comes mainly from the north east, rubber from the south. Easy to see where the loyalties lie.

Pathetic all of them, these people who claim to know better.

[whybother]

What's the whole story? The details left us by the Yingluck administration are minimal. We only seem to know that a 'self-financing' scheme originated in the brain of a golf caddy has cost the tax payer 700 billion Baht.

As for your question, ignored as attempt to distract with a silly hypothetical case with incorrect data included as well.

Okay Rubl,

I will make it easy for you. Please give me any evidence the "self financing" scheme cost the tax payer 700 billion baht?

The way you write its an open and shut case, so where is your proof?

It is pretty open and shut as far as it costing nearly 700 billion baht, since that's what many news reports are stating that it cost (680 billion baht to be more precise).

It's also pretty open and shut as far as it's aim to be self financing, since that's what they campaigned on in 2011.

I'm surprised you're asking for proof, considering all of the news threads that you've commented on where it's main point was the cost of the rice scheme.

[rubl]

The scam is in the positioning a scheme as 'self-financing' and to help poor farmers and succeeding in losing the 500 billion Baht 'non-revolving funds and even much more while the poor farmers are still poor.

So, either some profited legally to the mark of 700++ billion Baht, or some profited illegally, but the money is gone and the tax payers have to foot the bill which the government assured us wouldn't be there.

So that makes a scam? Who got scammed?

In a way, they would have been better just to state that it was like a normal subsidy then. So the scam is semantics as opposed to say a subsidy which just spends money.

You are going to have to get it through your head that it was not a subsidy and was never touted as a subsidy.

As Rubi has said over and over again it was said to be a revolving fund that would pay for itself, indeed run at a profit in time.

Which made it a scheme to make money (a business venture) while returning a better price to the (poor) farmers.

That it failed miserably in all objectives can only be likened to a business that goes bankrupt using someone else's money.

In this case the someone else is the tax payer and they have every right to ask where the money went and attempt to reclaim the loss from the management of the scheme (business).

So the Thai population got scammed into giving money to Thai people. Sorry, but actually, what they should do is get it repaid from the miller as farmers then.

As such, this can be called many things including duplicitous or incompetent, but not a scam

Scam = an attempt to defraud after gaining confidence

Duplicitous = Charge described two different offences

Incompetent = not being competent

So, with that highly succesful businessman Thaksin having pushed the RPPS via his Pheu Thai Yingluck government I think 'scam' fits. That's my opinion.

The millers and farmers who got paid were paid legally. As such you cannot simply tell them to give back the money apart from the fact that farmers provided paddy for that money and millers did the effort to turn the paddy into rice.

If some cheated, sure charge them and if convicted try to get some money back.

That's just part of the story though. The Thai people got scammed by the government as the 'self-financing' scheme made enormous losses which the Thai people have to pay. So we're back at pointing to the Yingluck government for these losses.

[rubl]

What's the whole story? The details left us by the Yingluck administration are minimal. We only seem to know that a 'self-financing' scheme originated in the brain of a golf caddy has cost the tax payer 700 billion Baht.

As for your question, ignored as attempt to distract with a silly hypothetical case with incorrect data included as well.

Okay Rubl,

I will make it easy for you. Please give me any evidence the "self financing" scheme cost the tax payer 700 billion baht?

The way you write its an open and shut case, so where is your proof?

Do you accept the statements from the BAAC, various government officials and so, or should I scribble it on vellum with a quill and stamp it with a pendent dangling from a silk cord?

[rubl]

Can't you guys just call a truce?

They are ALL at it with their populist subsidy schemes. Diesel under Thaksin, train travel under Abhisit, rice under Yingluck, and most recently rubber under Prayuth.

Rice comes mainly from the north east, rubber from the south. Easy to see where the loyalties lie.

Pathetic all of them, these people who claim to know better.

Populist Subsidy schemes, but why do you list the Yingluck RPPS amongst them?

The RPPS was presented as a 'self-financing' scheme which didn't need to be budgeted as a debit in the National Budget. A 'revolving funds' to make payments and store back from sales would suffice.

BTW most rice comes from the Central Plains I think. Most rubber still from Down South, but NorthEast has a larger areal planted with rubber trees by now.

[smutcakes]

What's the whole story? The details left us by the Yingluck administration are minimal. We only seem to know that a 'self-financing' scheme originated in the brain of a golf caddy has cost the tax payer 700 billion Baht.

As for your question, ignored as attempt to distract with a silly hypothetical case with incorrect data included as well.

Okay Rubl,

I will make it easy for you. Please give me any evidence the "self financing" scheme cost the tax payer 700 billion baht?

The way you write its an open and shut case, so where is your proof?

It is pretty open and shut as far as it costing nearly 700 billion baht, since that's what many news reports are stating that it cost (680 billion baht to be more precise).

It's also pretty open and shut as far as it's aim to be self financing, since that's what they campaigned on in 2011.

I'm surprised you're asking for proof, considering all of the news threads that you've commented on where it's main point was the cost of the rice scheme.

If its open and shut then charge them, no? provide the evidence, not very difficult given its open and shut?

Or is it not quite open and shut?

Come on, give everyone the proof they need.

[maxme]

Neither do you. You avoid questions by attacking the previoud administration instead. So are you you suggesting we should start our own club?

We're not in the same club. We are not even in the same league.

You keep asking me to back up things that I haven't stated. As I said before, please point me to a statement that I have made that I haven't backed up with evidence.

You haven't even been able to answer that question.

Continue that loop. Has done you well in the past. I take this as, like Ramet, you don't wish to continue this discussion. Ok then.

Sorry about before rubl. Iphone does make a holy mess of the quotes.

Edited December 22, 2014 by maxme

[whybother]

Okay Rubl,

I will make it easy for you. Please give me any evidence the "self financing" scheme cost the tax payer 700 billion baht?

The way you write its an open and shut case, so where is your proof?

It is pretty open and shut as far as it costing nearly 700 billion baht, since that's what many news reports are stating that it cost (680 billion baht to be more precise).

It's also pretty open and shut as far as it's aim to be self financing, since that's what they campaigned on in 2011.

I'm surprised you're asking for proof, considering all of the news threads that you've commented on where it's main point was the cost of the rice scheme.

If its open and shut then charge them, no? provide the evidence, not very difficult given its open and shut?

Or is it not quite open and shut?

Come on, give everyone the proof they need.

I didn't say it was open and shut that there was a crime or negligence committed.

You asked where was the proof that it was self financing and cost the tax payer 700 billion baht. As far as those two points are concerned, I believe it is an open and shut case.

Personally, I have no doubt that there was corruption in the scheme. With that much money being thrown around in Thailand, you'd have to be pretty stupid to suggest that there wasn't.

I also think that there was negligence involved. From very early on there was suggestion of corruption in certain areas of the scheme, but the government denied that there was any there right up until the end.

Also, the idea that it was going to be self financing was pretty fanciful ... basically gambling on a possible future increase in the rice price. That's pretty negligent.

Where I think there was high level corruption involved was very early on with Yingluck having a secret "no meeting / private meeting / government meeting (with no records taken)" with the land developers. The sort of land developers that could make a fortune building warehouses and renting them out for rice storage.

Whether there is enough to actually charge Yingluck with a crime, I doubt it. To impeach her for negligence, once again I doubt it, unless they have some smoking gun that shows that there was corruption that she directly knew about.

[whybother]

Neither do you. You avoid questions by attacking the previoud administration instead. So are you you suggesting we should start our own club?

We're not in the same club. We are not even in the same league.

You keep asking me to back up things that I haven't stated. As I said before, please point me to a statement that I have made that I haven't backed up with evidence.

You haven't even been able to answer that question.

Continue that loop. Has done you well in the past. I take this as, like Ramet, you don't wish to continue this discussion. Ok then.

Sorry about before rubl. Iphone does make a holy mess of the quotes.

And once again both avoiding answering my first question to provide evidence that this government is more corrupt than the previous one, and showing any of my statements that I haven't backed up.

I want to continue, but you just keep side stepping.

[maxme]

Neither do you. You avoid questions by attacking the previoud administration instead. So are you you suggesting we should start our own club?

We're not in the same club. We are not even in the same league.

You keep asking me to back up things that I haven't stated. As I said before, please point me to a statement that I have made that I haven't backed up with evidence.

You haven't even been able to answer that question.

Continue that loop. Has done you well in the past. I take this as, like Ramet, you don't wish to continue this discussion. Ok then.

Sorry about before rubl. Iphone does make a holy mess of the quotes.

And once again both avoiding answering my first question to provide evidence that this government is more corrupt than the previous one, and showing any of my statements that I haven't backed up.

I want to continue, but you just keep side stepping.

No, it's as usual a deflection and misinterpretation of my post. Either answer the question of my original post or move forward. If you wisely decide to answer my question, I will give you my response whybother.

[smutcakes]

I didn't say it was open and shut that there was a crime or negligence committed.

You asked where was the proof that it was self financing and cost the tax payer 700 billion baht. As far as those two points are concerned, I believe it is an open and shut case.

Personally, I have no doubt that there was corruption in the scheme. With that much money being thrown around in Thailand, you'd have to be pretty stupid to suggest that there wasn't.

I also think that there was negligence involved. From very early on there was suggestion of corruption in certain areas of the scheme, but the government denied that there was any there right up until the end.

Also, the idea that it was going to be self financing was pretty fanciful ... basically gambling on a possible future increase in the rice price. That's pretty negligent.

Where I think there was high level corruption involved was very early on with Yingluck having a secret "no meeting / private meeting / government meeting (with no records taken)" with the land developers. The sort of land developers that could make a fortune building warehouses and renting them out for rice storage.

Whether there is enough to actually charge Yingluck with a crime, I doubt it. To impeach her for negligence, once again I doubt it, unless they have some smoking gun that shows that there was corruption that she directly knew about.

So Sansiri are now renting out sheds The meeting with Yingluck and a high level person in Sansiri now means that. I thought she was a brainless drone?

You do know the biggest landowners in the country are and who they support?

Govt officials meet private sector people everyday of the week. Can i deduct that Prayuth's meeting with the head of a Chinese industrial company on Saturday means he is having an affair and renting out all the land in Bangkok? Stop being ridiculous. Or Prayuth selling his land to who he did?

Yes it goes on, of course it does, there are many sticks to beat YS, but that is a pretty silly one.

[whybother]

God Mikemac, I took you for a smarter one. Read through my posts. Where did I defend her and stop deflecting. The current administration is as corrupt if not worse than the previous one. I hate to think any westerner that have enjoyed the freedom and privilegies of democracy would support autocracy.

What evidence is there that the current administration is worse than the previous one?

No, it's as usual a deflection and misinterpretation of my post. Either answer the question of my original post or move forward. If you wisely decide to answer my question, I will give you my response whybother.

Above is the first post that I asked the question of you. There is no question from you in that post. Only later did you ask questions about things that I never stated in the first place. And I have responded to those questions already.

"I have never said this administration deserves a medal. Just as I have never said the current administration did anything to top the previous administration. I also never said the previous administration is the worst to date."

So, to assist me, please tell me what question I should answer.

[whybother]

So Sansiri are now renting out sheds The meeting with Yingluck and a high level person in Sansiri now means that. I thought she was a brainless drone?

You do know the biggest landowners in the country are and who they support?

Govt officials meet private sector people everyday of the week. Can i deduct that Prayuth's meeting with the head of a Chinese industrial company on Saturday means he is having an affair and renting out all the land in Bangkok? Stop being ridiculous. Or Prayuth selling his land to who he did?

Yes it goes on, of course it does, there are many sticks to beat YS, but that is a pretty silly one.

The meeting wasn't just with one person. There were 4 or 5 people there. All land developers. And what does the biggest land owner have to do with anything. There is a lot of land that they don't own.

Government people meet private sector people, but they don't try and keep the meeting a secret. Prayuth didn't deny he had a meeting, then say it was a private meeting and then say it was a government meeting but not tell who was there. That's what Yingluck did. There is still no official account of what happened at that meeting.

Maybe it didn't have anything to do with the rice storage, but with the secrecy of the meeting, it looks suspicious anyway.