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

[whybother]

I looked. I can't find any evidence that the democrats or the current government are responsible for any of the losses of the rice scheme, therefore it is solely the responsibility of the Yingluck government.

And the evidence is based on that either you don't know who was behind it, or a nimcompoop trying to pull a fast one?

From everything I've seen, the Yingluck government were behind it. They came up with the idea. They implemented the idea. They kept it going when it started showing that it was going to lose money. They kept it going when there was suspicion that people were rorting the system.

Do you have evidence that someone else was behind all the losses? I'd like to see that.

Without seeing any shred of evidence of their guilt, yet demand evidence from posters that they are not guilty.

What is the weather like on your planet?

I see that you're having reading problems.

Where have I demanded evidence that "they" (who?) are not guilty?

There is plenty of evidence that PTP were behind the losses. It was their idea. They implemented it. They continued it. Who else could be at fault?

Do you have evidence someone else is at fault? That isn't a demand. That is a question. I know you're not very good at answering questions, but it's a simple yes / no answer, maybe followed up with some comments as to why you answered yes or no.

btw, the weather on Earth is quite varied. What's it like where you are?

[Thai at Heart]

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.

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.

Interesting - do you have a source of this information? I always thought that the North East was rather too arid for rubber production, with rubber trees needing a higher rainfall of more than 1200 mm per year. I haven't seen any rubber plantations in the Isan - most I have seen are down south.

Nongkhai and the surrounding areas running along the Mehkhong are now covered in rubber as far south as Udon.

The yields are good. The plantations in the south are getting old and they have terrorists.

There are at least 3 if not 4 new processing plants around Udon and one in Nongkhai. The companies don't care where it comes from, but if the choice is to get killed cutting rubber or move to Isaan, what would u like.

Isaan will supplant the south as the biggest area on natural attrition. Rayong also has rubber production

Thanks for that - interesting. Never having seen any rubber plantations on visits to the Isan, I always thought it was because the Isan was too dry, but stand corrected.

Udon and North get good rain, but it is actually out of the cutting season so cutting days are increased.

In time the north east will supplant the south because they would prefer to grow palm down there. How do I know? The family management of one of the rubber processors is a mate.

[DaffyDuck]

Isn't Google and Wikipedia easy and simple to use for most people?

Well, people who have all the answers eschew such 'biased' sources.

Dunning-Kruger. ;-)

[maxme]

Nope it was related to the deal made in 2012 that eventually went south. However I'm still searching. Unlike you I have better things to do than to click like on posts made by morons that have absolutely nothing to do than post inane posts.

Now, let's go back to you finding sources for those Russian subs you claim Thailand bought - you made the claim, so support it. No moving the goalposts, or changing the subject, or attempting to brush this under the table.

Of course, you could just admit that you were wrong - if you're capable of doing that.

Actually I have done that on a few occasions. I don't answer a question with a new question like your co-conspirator.

But since my original post none of you quacks, even you Daffy, has been able to answer MY question and you have just ridden along the show to score a brownie point with your friends there.

So excuse me for not giving a hoot what you have to say.

[Ted57]

checking here http://www.thainr.com/en/index.php?detail=stat-thai there is a PDF on

" Tapping Area Production Production/Rai Year 2012-2014 (Year 2014 Q3-Forecast, September 2014)"

http://www.thainr.com/uploadfile/20141024112319.pdf

In size NorthEast about a quarter of South, in Production/Area also about a quarter less productive.

That refutes the claims made by Thai at Heart.

The failure of Thaksin's rubber tree planting scam also refutes the erroneous claims.

[DaffyDuck]

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.

Seems consistent with every other Shinawatra acolyte in this thread

Another sheep joins the herd. This one even learned a few new words.

Which new words are those that you learned, maxme? Tell us, please.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about submarines have been removed.

[Thai at Heart]

checking here http://www.thainr.com/en/index.php?detail=stat-thai there is a PDF on

" Tapping Area Production Production/Rai Year 2012-2014 (Year 2014 Q3-Forecast, September 2014)"

http://www.thainr.com/uploadfile/20141024112319.pdf

In size NorthEast about a quarter of South, in Production/Area also about a quarter less productive.

That refutes the claims made by Thai at Heart.

The failure of Thaksin's rubber tree planting scam also refutes the erroneous claims.

I never said the northeast was bigger yet than the south for rubber. Someone else co-opted a quote into mine. However, the north east has been moved into rubber production.

Newin, CP and Thaksin almost got convicted for selling dodgy seedlings up there.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-sapling-verdict-D-day-for-Newin-30109910.html

[DaffyDuck]

Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please.

You consistently claimed that the was no false askance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme. No need to even go back - it's plain to see. Edited December 25, 2014 by DaffyDuck

[maxme]

Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please.

You consistently claimed that the was no false askance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme. No need to even go back - it's plain to see.

Poor boy gone desperate now, like his sidekick, Sideshow Longway. Well first of all, Merry Xmas and second wasn't it you who said one need to back up statements with evidence.?

If you don't wanna be taken for the no 1 hypocrite on the forum, I suggest you follow your own rules.

Edited December 25, 2014 by maxme

[longway]

^ Yes its actually even worse, you are trying to say that anyone could have been responsible for the rice scam, and that its unfair to blame the PT.

[DaffyDuck]

Just show my dislike for hypocrits and bigots.

Shaving must be an ordeal every morning.

[DaffyDuck]

To correct the earlier typos in my reply to maxme:

maxme, on 24 Dec 2014 - 03:48, said:

"Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please."

You consistently claimed that the was no malfeasance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme.

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

[spidermike007]

I do not think this country has enough honest prosecutors or judges to actually get sentences handed down. The unfortunate part of the equation is that most of the people who were involved with this incredibly dumb, dishonest, ill advised pledging scheme have very deep pockets. The kind of money that can get the courts to overlook cases like this, and avoid a conviction. So, while it might be a good idea, the chances of it working are minimal, to nil.

[maxme]

To correct the earlier typos in my reply to maxme:

maxme, on 24 Dec 2014 - 03:48, said:

"Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please."

You consistently claimed that the was no malfeasance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme.

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

God the tenacity. So you took the quote where I asked you to prove in which post I defended the rice scheme, yet you failed to produce the posts or quotes where I supposedly said that. Interesting logic, are you going to continue this one man crusade, just yapping or are you gonna come up with this undeniable evidence you talk so much about... Just wondering.

Edited December 25, 2014 by maxme

[DaffyDuck]

"Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?"

[Ulic]

Include all those who benefited illegally as well. Not just the ones who came up with the plan. Also

include the economists who thought the plan was viable. Go after hidden family money as well as

family assets. Bring in the forensic accountants and follow the money.

[maxme]

I'm waiting Daffy

[longway]

^ the little fella has wandered back again; seems lost as usual.

[DaffyDuck]

Yes, he does, doesn't he?

I'm waiting Daffy

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

[maxme]

^ the little fella has wandered back again; seems lost as usual.

Did you find the posts? Didn't think so. You're not special Daffy, just another lost sycophant trying to establish something you will never have... An opinion of your own.

Keep reciting the ramblings of longway and djjamie. That will surely help your cause. Done you good in the past, right?

[maxme]

^ the little fella has wandered back again; seems lost as usual.

Are you Daffy's siamese twin on TVF because you too have a nag of running away from debate and not backing up your statements.

And I'm sure this is your attempt trying to make a name for yourself before you reach your 1000 post, so not so little compared to you my color-tainted friend.

Edited December 26, 2014 by maxme

[maxme]

Yes, he does, doesn't he?

I'm waiting Daffy

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

First post is obviously meant for you. Try to find the posts this time or stay clear as you don't provide any valid information whatsoever.

[longway]

^ the little fella has wandered back again; seems lost as usual.

Are you Daffy's siamese twin on TVF because you too have a nag of running away from debate and not backing up your statements.

And I'm sure this is your attempt trying to make a name for yourself before you reach your 1000 post, so not so little compared to you my color-tainted friend.

What on earth are you babbling about now?

Anyway don't you fret about me little fella; I am not laughing at you, I am laughing with you.

[maxme]

To correct the earlier typos in my reply to maxme:

maxme, on 24 Dec 2014 - 03:48, said:

"Where were I defending the rice scheme. Point me to the post. Even better show me previous posts where I've defended that, do go back a few months if you have to and don't take words out of context, the whole posts please."

You consistently claimed that the was no malfeasance or fiduciary abuse or failure in Yingluk's support of the Rice Scheme. This amounts, for all practical purposes, to a defense of the Rice Scheme.

Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

You didn't ask anything of the sort. You hitchhiked whybother's post. Then you have been spinning every post in order to score some brownie points. If we going to continue this charade read your quote above and answer me first, no quacking, where did I defend the scheme (in other threads I've said some had good intentions about it but in general was a bad idea)?

Also defending PTP when I said there are more political parties involved in this would suggest that I don't think the former party is totally innocent but there are others involved and it is ridiculous that Yingluck should take the whole blame for this mess.

This government isn't even elected and so on a deception level how are they in any position to judge who or how. If we had an independent judiciary that investigated while PTP was still in power, this would have been fine.

But there are more than one party in cohoots with the current regime and that makes this case moot and will just start up another vendetta. Because why should PTP take the sole blame when there are others involved.

[whybother]

You didn't ask anything of the sort. You hitchhiked whybother's post. Then you have been spinning every post in order to score some brownie points. If we going to continue this charade read your quote above and answer me first, no quacking, where did I defend the scheme (in other threads I've said some had good intentions about it but in general was a bad idea)?

Also defending PTP when I said there are more political parties involved in this would suggest that I don't think the former party is totally innocent but there are others involved and it is ridiculous that Yingluck should take the whole blame for this mess.

This government isn't even elected and so on a deception level how are they in any position to judge who or how. If we had an independent judiciary that investigated while PTP was still in power, this would have been fine.

But there are more than one party in cohoots with the current regime and that makes this case moot and will just start up another vendetta. Because why should PTP take the sole blame when there are others involved.

"there are more political parties involved in this"

The rice scheme was PTP's policy. PTP were in control of the government. PTP were in control of the ministry in charge of the rice scheme. Yingluck was the head of the government AND the rice committee.

What other political parties are involved in this? Who else should take the blame for this mess?

[DaffyDuck]

Maxme - Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

[rubl]

Maxme - Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

do you think Bush and Blair's decision about WMD was a responsible and fine decision? if not you think they should be sued? or do you think people in public office should OPENLY be scrutinized and criticized by the public and the press without restraint and censorship? also people in public office should get protection after their service has ended? if all people who serve in governments are open to law suits after their term finished NO ONE would serve. wise up this is a Thai witchhunt

So, either sue all of them or sue not one of them? What has the (alleged) lies of some foreign leaders to do with the negligence of Ms. Yingluck?

BTW Ms. Yingluck was already under investigation BEFORE her office ended in February or March 2014. Remember she stated the law didn't allow her to resign?

[maxme]

Maxme - Do you now say that Yingluk's pushing for, and maintaining the Rice Scheme, against all signs of financial losses, was responsible and a fine decision?

do you think Bush and Blair's decision about WMD was a responsible and fine decision? if not you think they should be sued? or do you think people in public office should OPENLY be scrutinized and criticized by the public and the press without restraint and censorship? also people in public office should get protection after their service has ended? if all people who serve in governments are open to law suits after their term finished NO ONE would serve. wise up this is a Thai witchhunt

So, either sue all of them or sue not one of them? What has the (alleged) lies of some foreign leaders to do with the negligence of Ms. Yingluck?

BTW Ms. Yingluck was already under investigation BEFORE her office ended in February or March 2014. Remember she stated the law didn't allow her to resign?

So was Suthep, has the court reached a verdict yet?

Was Suthep involved in the Rice Price Pledging Scheme?

So no fairness for all. As long it doesn't involve co-conspirators of the coup it's open season you mean. I see...

[rubl]

So, either sue all of them or sue not one of them? What has the (alleged) lies of some foreign leaders to do with the negligence of Ms. Yingluck?

BTW Ms. Yingluck was already under investigation BEFORE her office ended in February or March 2014. Remember she stated the law didn't allow her to resign?

So was Suthep, has the court reached a verdict yet?

Was Suthep involved in the Rice Price Pledging Scheme?

So no fairness for all. As long it doesn't involve co-conspirators of the coup it's open season you mean. I see...

So, since we are discussing the RPPS and people behind it to be sued to cover the losses and since Suthep was not involved in the RPPS I don't think there's a need to discuss Suthep here.

Now if you wanted to mention Thaksin, that would be a completely different matter. He stated in a September 2012 interview that the RPPS was good for Thailand, profitable and should be continued for a few more years. That apart from the fact that he regularly skyped-in into his cabinet meetings to tell his government how to run his country.