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

[binjalin]

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 you don't think they were negligent? anyway the point is far more profound. IN public office many leaders do negligent things and are protected by 'parliamentary privilege' and even MORE profound is they are scrutinized (you have ignored this very important point) by a FREE PRESS and unfettered public comment. What is going on at the moment is a witch-hunt unrelated to a 'war on corruption' and more to internal 'family business'.

[DaffyDuck]

More like a witch-hunt based on a family business who's family businesses was corruption - and much worse. There's nothing wrong with that if the end result benefits the whole country. The 'family business' clearly didn't.

[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?

So you don't think they were negligent? anyway the point is far more profound. IN public office many leaders do negligent things and are protected by 'parliamentary privilege' and even MORE profound is they are scrutinized (you have ignored this very important point) by a FREE PRESS and unfettered public comment. What is going on at the moment is a witch-hunt unrelated to a 'war on corruption' and more to internal 'family business'.

Correct, personally I believe the people behind the RPPS were criminal, not negligent.

[rubl]

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.

Again deflection where you always bring out your favorite topic. No doubt did Thaksin had his hand in this, but that was not the question was it?

The Junta cannot be seen as an objective party as they are knee-deep in this mess even direct involvement into another hot and running topic on another thread.

However if they would have investigated all the parties involved in this mess that would even have been acceptable despite from where the investigation is being led from. But they did not do that and Suthep was summoned to court yet declined the kind offer to show up. Still no response from the law on that one. And if we are not talking about complete transparency, how can anyone take these charges as anything but a frame-job?

So, the topic is the people behind the RPPS to be sued for losses. Now that would include Ms. Yingluck, a handful of Pheu Thai executives and of course the great thinker.

I see no indication at all that Suthep had anything to do with the RPPS and your replies do not give anything about that either.

Edited December 29, 2014 by rubl

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

Again deflection where you always bring out your favorite topic. No doubt did Thaksin had his hand in this, but that was not the question was it?

The Junta cannot be seen as an objective party as they are knee-deep in this mess even direct involvement into another hot and running topic on another thread.

However if they would have investigated all the parties involved in this mess that would even have been acceptable despite from where the investigation is being led from. But they did not do that and Suthep was summoned to court yet declined the kind offer to show up. Still no response from the law on that one. And if we are not talking about complete transparency, how can anyone take these charges as anything but a frame-job?

Quote from above: "Remember she stated the law didn't allow her to resign?"

To have a law which stated that she (a PM) cannot resign would be illegal because it would legally and totally clash with the human rights held by all human beings (as per the international declaration of human rights) that they have the personal and legal freedom to come and go, resign, remove themselves etc.

[jpeg]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

[metisdead]

Off-topic, insulting, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

Please stay on the topic of the thread. That means addressing the issues presented in the post, not in making comments to or about other posters. Doing so is off-topic and your post will be removed and you could face a suspension.

Digging through other member's posts and bringing them up on the forum can be considered stalking and it is against the forum rules.

You have every right to express your opinion about the topic. You may disagree, but it must be done in a civil manner.

[DaffyDuck]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

[Thai at Heart]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

Because they have yet to have a proven case?

[DaffyDuck]

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

[DaffyDuck]

So, who are they?

*crickets*

[Robby nz]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

Because they have yet to have a proven case?

In your enthusiasm to defend you have missed out a couple of proven cases which have gone before the courts and ended in guilty verdicts.

Both are small but give it time.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/733235-thai-rice-miller-gets-20-years-in-jail-for-rice-pledging-frauds/

BANGKOK: -- The Chaiyaphum Provincial Court has sentenced a rice miller to serve 20 years in prison and nine farmers six months after finding them in rice pledging fraud conspiracy involving the missing of 750 tonnes of paddy and rice from government stocks.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737022-rice-fraud-verdict-on-thaksins-aide-due-today/page-3

Posted 2014-06-24 17:21:57

Thaksin aide jailed for rice fraud

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Samut Prakarn provincial court Tuesday sentenced a close aide to ex-pm Thaksin Shinawatra to six years in jail and fined him Bt12,000 after finding him guilty of embezzlement and fraud for his failure to deliver a Bt200-million rice shipment to Iran.

It should be noted that the proven fraud by the "Thaksin Aid" has meant that since his fraud Iran which was once one of Thailand's biggest rice customers has refused to buy anymore Thai rice.

You should also note as you read the whole article the links between the companies involved.

It would also be nice to think that the sentence handed down in the first case mentioned would set a precedent for any future convictions, we can but hope.

[Thai at Heart]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

Because they have yet to have a proven case?

In your enthusiasm to defend you have missed out a couple of proven cases which have gone before the courts and ended in guilty verdicts.

Both are small but give it time.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/733235-thai-rice-miller-gets-20-years-in-jail-for-rice-pledging-frauds/

BANGKOK: -- The Chaiyaphum Provincial Court has sentenced a rice miller to serve 20 years in prison and nine farmers six months after finding them in rice pledging fraud conspiracy involving the missing of 750 tonnes of paddy and rice from government stocks.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737022-rice-fraud-verdict-on-thaksins-aide-due-today/page-3

Posted 2014-06-24 17:21:57

Thaksin aide jailed for rice fraud

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Samut Prakarn provincial court Tuesday sentenced a close aide to ex-pm Thaksin Shinawatra to six years in jail and fined him Bt12,000 after finding him guilty of embezzlement and fraud for his failure to deliver a Bt200-million rice shipment to Iran.

It should be noted that the proven fraud by the "Thaksin Aid" has meant that since his fraud Iran which was once one of Thailand's biggest rice customers has refused to buy anymore Thai rice.

You should also note as you read the whole article the links between the companies involved.

It would also be nice to think that the sentence handed down in the first case mentioned would set a precedent for any future convictions, we can but hope.

These guys got caught. That proves that the legal justice system worked. I fail to see how this implicates Yingluck or her crew? Unless, someone has been sitting on a bunch of evidence for a rainy day, which would be a perversion of justice.

The second story is just plain fraud, and the first one, well, I am sure some rice guy from Chaiyaphum is on first name terms with all the honchos.

What they need to prove is systematic falsification of documents and money flowing to PTP syatematically. Or hundreds of cases where corruption was reported and they did nothing.

The poor guy getting 20 years for 750 tonnes. The other guy with 10,000 must get 200 years for it.

[Robby nz]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

Because they have yet to have a proven case?

In your enthusiasm to defend you have missed out a couple of proven cases which have gone before the courts and ended in guilty verdicts.

Both are small but give it time.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/733235-thai-rice-miller-gets-20-years-in-jail-for-rice-pledging-frauds/

BANGKOK: -- The Chaiyaphum Provincial Court has sentenced a rice miller to serve 20 years in prison and nine farmers six months after finding them in rice pledging fraud conspiracy involving the missing of 750 tonnes of paddy and rice from government stocks.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737022-rice-fraud-verdict-on-thaksins-aide-due-today/page-3

Posted 2014-06-24 17:21:57

Thaksin aide jailed for rice fraud

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Samut Prakarn provincial court Tuesday sentenced a close aide to ex-pm Thaksin Shinawatra to six years in jail and fined him Bt12,000 after finding him guilty of embezzlement and fraud for his failure to deliver a Bt200-million rice shipment to Iran.

It should be noted that the proven fraud by the "Thaksin Aid" has meant that since his fraud Iran which was once one of Thailand's biggest rice customers has refused to buy anymore Thai rice.

You should also note as you read the whole article the links between the companies involved.

It would also be nice to think that the sentence handed down in the first case mentioned would set a precedent for any future convictions, we can but hope.

These guys got caught. That proves that the legal justice system worked. I fail to see how this implicates Yingluck or her crew? Unless, someone has been sitting on a bunch of evidence for a rainy day, which would be a perversion of justice.

The second story is just plain fraud, and the first one, well, I am sure some rice guy from Chaiyaphum is on first name terms with all the honchos.

What they need to prove is systematic falsification of documents and money flowing to PTP syatematically. Or hundreds of cases where corruption was reported and they did nothing.

The poor guy getting 20 years for 750 tonnes. The other guy with 10,000 must get 200 years for it.

Come on TaH get real, perversion of justice, you got to be kidding.

They are still in the process of investigating and bringing charges against Yingluck, the previous ministers and their cohorts, you know this as well as I do so surely I don't have to post links to it again.

These things take time to do properly and the NACC has been hampered up until recently by working under the very people they were investigation and having their budget cut to make it more difficult for them to work.

As to your last sentence, yes we hope that will be the case and add to that restitution being ordered. There needs to be a serious example set so nothing like this can ever happen again.

Politicians must be accountable to the people.

That incidentally is one of the principals of democracy that some like to rant on about.

[Thai at Heart]

To Robbie. These cases were concluded ages ago. There is zero indication that the top of PTP profited personalky from either of these cases.

[DaffyDuck]

... isn't that what an investigation is all about, to ascertain culpability (or lack thereof)? It makes you wonder why the likes of TaH are so staunchly opposed to even the act of investigating - and yet he's unable to answer who the people involved in the rice scheme were.

Now that we *know* that cases were brought previously in front of judges, and that the guilty were penalized, it will be indeed interesting how this investigation, which TaH opposes, proceeds.

[MaxLee]

Anyone in jail yet for that <deleted!> Scam, anyone???

[whybother]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

Because they have yet to have a proven case?

Don't you sue them and then prove your case in court? If you prove it before you sue them, you don't need the court.

[Thai at Heart]

... isn't that what an investigation is all about, to ascertain culpability (or lack thereof)? It makes you wonder why the likes of TaH are so staunchly opposed to even the act of investigating - and yet he's unable to answer who the people involved in the rice scheme were.

Now that we *know* that cases were brought previously in front of judges, and that the guilty were penalized, it will be indeed interesting how this investigation, which TaH opposes, proceeds.

Who said I am opposed to investigating?

I think the premise of investigating politicians for policy failure and trying to prosecute it, is however fraut with problems for future precedent.

I am surprised that if this policy was so riven with corruption and the such that they can't find it very simply. As for Yinglucks negligence.

If the act of saying that some thing will be cost neutral and it isn't, is so clearly an impeachable offence, then really what is there to investigate. The thing cost 700bn, its hardly as though that can be denied.

So what is everyone waiting for? Why are they waiting? Isn't anything minuted anywhere in the government? How hard can this be to prove if the premise is negligwnce because of the loss?

[Thai at Heart]

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

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

Because they have yet to have a proven case?

Don't you sue them and then prove your case in court? If you prove it before you sue them, you don't need the court.

Well, shouldnt you bother to get some evidence first? They claim to have a boatload of evidence but as yet it appears not enough to get a formal charge together.

[mikemac]

Perhaps "they" are as slow gathering the evidence as Yingluck's team are as slow gathering their defense.

[Robby nz]

Perhaps "they" are as slow gathering the evidence as Yingluck's team are as slow gathering their defense.

I don't know about slow Mike probably careful would be a better word.

After all they started the investigation back in 2012 when they received the evidence the Democrats presented at the no confidence debate. If you read the link I will provide the evidence is pretty comprehensive even including bank accounts cash transfers were made to and from.

You must also have to remember that at that time they were working in a hostile environment as the ones they were investigating were the then Govt who were running and defending the scheme and they were also hampered by having their budget cut. You may remember the defense of the scheme included intimidation and threats to NACC members and if I remember correctly grenade attacks and bullet holes by....Errr 'persons unknown'.

There is also the factor of the pending amnesty bill which would have forgiven any corruption involved with the scheme and made any investigation done by the NACC redundant. They have only really been able to get stuck into this since they have known that the amnesty was off and the specter of threats removed along with the previous administration.

Posted 2012-11-27 05:30:59 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/600926-rice-deals-with-china-fake-thai-democrats/ NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE

Rice deals with China fake : opposition

[Robby nz]

... isn't that what an investigation is all about, to ascertain culpability (or lack thereof)? It makes you wonder why the likes of TaH are so staunchly opposed to even the act of investigating - and yet he's unable to answer who the people involved in the rice scheme were.

Now that we *know* that cases were brought previously in front of judges, and that the guilty were penalized, it will be indeed interesting how this investigation, which TaH opposes, proceeds.

Who said I am opposed to investigating?

I think the premise of investigating politicians for policy failure and trying to prosecute it, is however fraut with problems for future precedent.

I am surprised that if this policy was so riven with corruption and the such that they can't find it very simply. As for Yinglucks negligence.

If the act of saying that some thing will be cost neutral and it isn't, is so clearly an impeachable offence, then really what is there to investigate. The thing cost 700bn, its hardly as though that can be denied.

So what is everyone waiting for? Why are they waiting? Isn't anything minuted anywhere in the government? How hard can this be to prove if the premise is negligwnce because of the loss?

You are still ducking and weaving around this T a H.

It is nothing to do with failed policy.

It is initially, in Yinglucks case, about failure to manage the policy from the position of chair of the rice policy committee which she took upon herself, that is where the negligence comes in.

From there we go to corruption within the scheme which again is not about failed policy but about crooked people ripping off the scheme.

These it could be argued are factors which contributed to the failure of the scheme.

Oh, and have patience all in good time.

[DaffyDuck]

You must also have to remember that at that time they were working in a hostile environment as the ones they were investigating were the then Govt who were running and defending the scheme and they were also hampered by having their budget cut. You may remember the defense of the scheme included intimidation and threats to NACC members and if I remember correctly grenade attacks and bullet holes by....Errr 'persons unknown'.

So, if we are to listen to Thai at Heart, then these intimidation tactics, and systematic efforts to interfere with an investigation, and direct indications of corruption are just 'business as usual' and politicians should be forgiven for any of those..? Right?

[Thai at Heart]

... isn't that what an investigation is all about, to ascertain culpability (or lack thereof)? It makes you wonder why the likes of TaH are so staunchly opposed to even the act of investigating - and yet he's unable to answer who the people involved in the rice scheme were.

Now that we *know* that cases were brought previously in front of judges, and that the guilty were penalized, it will be indeed interesting how this investigation, which TaH opposes, proceeds.

Who said I am opposed to investigating?

I think the premise of investigating politicians for policy failure and trying to prosecute it, is however fraut with problems for future precedent.

I am surprised that if this policy was so riven with corruption and the such that they can't find it very simply. As for Yinglucks negligence.

If the act of saying that some thing will be cost neutral and it isn't, is so clearly an impeachable offence, then really what is there to investigate. The thing cost 700bn, its hardly as though that can be denied.

So what is everyone waiting for? Why are they waiting? Isn't anything minuted anywhere in the government? How hard can this be to prove if the premise is negligwnce because of the loss?

You are still ducking and weaving around this T a H.

It is nothing to do with failed policy.

It is initially, in Yinglucks case, about failure to manage the policy from the position of chair of the rice policy committee which she took upon herself, that is where the negligence comes in.

From there we go to corruption within the scheme which again is not about failed policy but about crooked people ripping off the scheme.

These it could be argued are factors which contributed to the failure of the scheme.

Oh, and have patience all in good time.

I don't think they will any institutiinalised corruption because the losses are simply explained by the system itself and the yield. Fraud in the system over buying 70,000,000 tonnes of product will be shown to be no more than normal. U think they invented all these tricks because yinglucks policy was in place. This stuff has been going on for donkeys years.

If the g to g deals had corruption who knows. Someone has already been done for the Iran deal. I believe most of the g to g deals were to make the market feel it was being sold.

Lots of MOU and nothing final.

Managing the system negligently. Many a lawyer would argue there was no way to manage it in a cost neutral manner. Would be interesting to see if she claims it wasn't her policy, but the party's or committees.

[Thai at Heart]

You must also have to remember that at that time they were working in a hostile environment as the ones they were investigating were the then Govt who were running and defending the scheme and they were also hampered by having their budget cut. You may remember the defense of the scheme included intimidation and threats to NACC members and if I remember correctly grenade attacks and bullet holes by....Errr 'persons unknown'.

So, if we are to listen to Thai at Heart, then these intimidation tactics, and systematic efforts to interfere with an investigation, and direct indications of corruption are just 'business as usual' and politicians should be forgiven for any of those..? Right?

In Thailand, yup, they are very normal, or don't you read the news. Catch these people for personal corruption before finding them negligent would be preferable. Suing for negligence brings very serious precedent problems for the future.

This case is all about what someone can PROVE. All the talking under the sun won't get the case prosecuted successfully. Until they start producing serious evidence, I believe they won't succeed .

[MaxLee]

You must also have to remember that at that time they were working in a hostile environment as the ones they were investigating were the then Govt who were running and defending the scheme and they were also hampered by having their budget cut. You may remember the defense of the scheme included intimidation and threats to NACC members and if I remember correctly grenade attacks and bullet holes by....Errr 'persons unknown'.

So, if we are to listen to Thai at Heart, then these intimidation tactics, and systematic efforts to interfere with an investigation, and direct indications of corruption are just 'business as usual' and politicians should be forgiven for any of those..? Right?

In Thailand, yup, they are very normal, or don't you read the news. Catch these people for personal corruption before finding them negligent would be preferable. Suing for negligence brings very serious precedent problems for the future.

This case is all about what someone can PROVE. All the talking under the sun won't get the case prosecuted successfully. Until they start producing serious evidence, I believe they won't succeed .

The ruling opposition couldn't care less, they just need a monthly headliner indicating "they are actually doing sth.", when in reality as we know,.... nothing will ever be done,....

.... Mai pen Rai,... Brainwashing the nation and censoring knowledge has priority...

[Robby nz]

Who said I am opposed to investigating?

I think the premise of investigating politicians for policy failure and trying to prosecute it, is however fraut with problems for future precedent.

I am surprised that if this policy was so riven with corruption and the such that they can't find it very simply. As for Yinglucks negligence.

If the act of saying that some thing will be cost neutral and it isn't, is so clearly an impeachable offence, then really what is there to investigate. The thing cost 700bn, its hardly as though that can be denied.

So what is everyone waiting for? Why are they waiting? Isn't anything minuted anywhere in the government? How hard can this be to prove if the premise is negligwnce because of the loss?

You are still ducking and weaving around this T a H.

It is nothing to do with failed policy.

It is initially, in Yinglucks case, about failure to manage the policy from the position of chair of the rice policy committee which she took upon herself, that is where the negligence comes in.

From there we go to corruption within the scheme which again is not about failed policy but about crooked people ripping off the scheme.

These it could be argued are factors which contributed to the failure of the scheme.

Oh, and have patience all in good time.

I don't think they will any institutiinalised corruption because the losses are simply explained by the system itself and the yield. Fraud in the system over buying 70,000,000 tonnes of product will be shown to be no more than normal. U think they invented all these tricks because yinglucks policy was in place. This stuff has been going on for donkeys years.

If the g to g deals had corruption who knows. Someone has already been done for the Iran deal. I believe most of the g to g deals were to make the market feel it was being sold.

Lots of MOU and nothing final.

Managing the system negligently. Many a lawyer would argue there was no way to manage it in a cost neutral manner. Would be interesting to see if she claims it wasn't her policy, but the party's or committees.

It would appear that the NACC does not agree with you on that one for they are already (as I posted already) looking seriously at corruption charges against former commerce ministers, but then again you may just have done a more thorough investigation than them.

If you had read the link I provided to the no confidence debate then you would know there is an very good chance of corruption regarding the G 2 G deals which by your post you consign to the same basket as the former finance minister telling lies about the economy to make investors feel good.

And telling lies about things while in government is fine.....right ?

It is not about managing it in a cost neutral way ( although it was supposed to be cost neutral) it is about managing it in a responsible way so costs were minimized and proper checks were kept on what was actually going on within the scheme, she was told over and over again that things were not right and ignored all warnings and did nothing except deny anything was wrong, she reportedly not even attending meetings she was supposed to chair.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[Thai at Heart]

Who said I am opposed to investigating?

I think the premise of investigating politicians for policy failure and trying to prosecute it, is however fraut with problems for future precedent.

I am surprised that if this policy was so riven with corruption and the such that they can't find it very simply. As for Yinglucks negligence.

If the act of saying that some thing will be cost neutral and it isn't, is so clearly an impeachable offence, then really what is there to investigate. The thing cost 700bn, its hardly as though that can be denied.

So what is everyone waiting for? Why are they waiting? Isn't anything minuted anywhere in the government? How hard can this be to prove if the premise is negligwnce because of the loss?

You are still ducking and weaving around this T a H.

It is nothing to do with failed policy.

It is initially, in Yinglucks case, about failure to manage the policy from the position of chair of the rice policy committee which she took upon herself, that is where the negligence comes in.

From there we go to corruption within the scheme which again is not about failed policy but about crooked people ripping off the scheme.

These it could be argued are factors which contributed to the failure of the scheme.

Oh, and have patience all in good time.

I don't think they will any institutiinalised corruption because the losses are simply explained by the system itself and the yield. Fraud in the system over buying 70,000,000 tonnes of product will be shown to be no more than normal. U think they invented all these tricks because yinglucks policy was in place. This stuff has been going on for donkeys years.

If the g to g deals had corruption who knows. Someone has already been done for the Iran deal. I believe most of the g to g deals were to make the market feel it was being sold.

Lots of MOU and nothing final.

Managing the system negligently. Many a lawyer would argue there was no way to manage it in a cost neutral manner. Would be interesting to see if she claims it wasn't her policy, but the party's or committees.

It would appear that the NACC does not agree with you on that one for they are already (as I posted already) looking seriously at corruption charges against former commerce ministers, but then again you may just have done a more thorough investigation than them.

If you had read the link I provided to the no confidence debate then you would know there is an very good chance of corruption regarding the G 2 G deals which by your post you consign to the same basket as the former finance minister telling lies about the economy to make investors feel good.

And telling lies about things while in government is fine.....right ?

It is not about managing it in a cost neutral way ( although it was supposed to be cost neutral) it is about managing it in a responsible way so costs were minimized and proper checks were kept on what was actually going on within the scheme, she was told over and over again that things were not right and ignored all warnings and did nothing except deny anything was wrong, she reportedly not even attending meetings she was supposed to chair.

There is nothing to show it wasn't managed responsibly and to the best they could do. The reduction in quality is normal in storage.

Yes, I reckon they told a white lie about the g to g stuff, because the actual story was always that it was an MOU not a contract. Repeatedly.

If the g to g stuff was fundamentally corrupt so be it. Should be a walk in the park to prove. That idiot who didn't deliver to Iran, is in the clink right?