Supreme Court to choose panel for Yingluck case

[icare999]

OK, you bloodthirsty Yingluck haters...go for the jugular and stack the deck against her so you can show this country how reconciliation is working. Send her to jail so your blood lust for Thaksin will be slaked and then go home to bed and sleep like a baby knowing you have saved Thailand from a dirty rotten criminal.

RECONCILIATION! WHAT A FAIRYTALE!

you dont reconcile with a snake. What about Taksins attempt at reconciliation. Push a bill through at 4 am without debate to give amnesty to himself and all his evil clan.

Yes i will flout thank you and hope at last Karma comes back to YIngluk Taksin and rest of the disgusting pack

[TheDiva]

OK, you bloodthirsty Yingluck haters...go for the jugular and stack the deck against her so you can show this country how reconciliation is working. Send her to jail so your blood lust for Thaksin will be slaked and then go home to bed and sleep like a baby knowing you have saved Thailand from a dirty rotten criminal.

RECONCILIATION! WHAT A FAIRYTALE!

She didn't seem to have any problems sleeping (or shopping) when she ran out of money and couldn't pay the farmers. Nor when they protested and she lied and vowed to pay them next week and then did nothing. Nor when some succumbed to the pressure and gave their lives to despair. What a gal, all she was worried about was that whitewash of all her brothers crimes, along with making sure she couldn't be touched for anything in her 2 years of office,

Do they have judge Jefferies and Judge Parker available?

I believe Judge mental is the most apt description here - in both senses of the phrase,

[halloween]

TB it is a known fact that a (disputed) large amount of money was lost in a policy that abysmally failed to meet its stated aims. As this is hardly a good result for the people of Thailand, the claim is that as PM she was negligent in the management of this policy. The alternative, you probably won't like, is that she did so intentionally.

As the policy was a re-instatement of a known failed policy with low achievement and high levels of corruption, the latter has reasonable worth, IMHO.

I keep seeing this word 'lost'. What is lost? Nothing. It's sitting somewhere. Where? Why has the present Incumbent been unable to find it. With all his resources. Laughable.

I will tell you where it is not, in the government's bank account. Where did it go? That is up to the EX PM to tell us, not the incumbent (who has a pretty good idea, that's why she is being charged with negligence). It certainly didn't go to the poorest rice farmers it was SUPPOSED to help.

[TheDiva]

Am I missing something here?

At 06.14 hrs we have a report from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court will today hold a meeting with all judges to select a nine-member panel to hear the case on the rice-pledging scheme against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thanarerk Nitiserani, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said all 170 Supreme Court judges would get together to cast a secret vote to select nine judges for the panel.

Once the panel has been selected, Supreme Court secretary Theerathai Charoenwong will tell the press of the voting results and the name of the presiding judge. The list of names of the panel will be made public five days later so both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection.

Then at 14.16 hrs we have this from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Tuesday set up a panel of nine judges to be in charge of the rice-pledging dereliction of duty against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The nine judges are Salaiket Watanaphan, Wiroon Saengthien, Thanarirk Nitiserani, Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, Sirichai Watanayothin, Cheep Julamon, Weerapol Tungsuwan, Ubolrat Luiwikkai, and Thanit Kessawapithak.

Just how secret was that "secret vote"?????????????????

[halloween]

Am I missing something here?

snip

Just how secret was that "secret vote"?????????????????

Usually.

What has an early release of the judges names have to do with the secrecy of the vote? Does the list of those elected impart some knowledge of the voting patterns?

Edited February 24, 2015 by halloween

[tif]

TB it is a known fact that a (disputed) large amount of money was lost in a policy that abysmally failed to meet its stated aims. As this is hardly a good result for the people of Thailand, the claim is that as PM she was negligent in the management of this policy. The alternative, you probably won't like, is that she did so intentionally.

As the policy was a re-instatement of a known failed policy with low achievement and high levels of corruption, the latter has reasonable worth, IMHO.

I keep seeing this word 'lost'. What is lost? Nothing. It's sitting somewhere. Where? Why has the present Incumbent been unable to find it. With all his resources. Laughable.

I will tell you where it is not, in the government's bank account. Where did it go? That is up to the EX PM to tell us, not the incumbent (who has a pretty good idea, that's why she is being charged with negligence). It certainly didn't go to the poorest rice farmers it was SUPPOSED to help.

No, it wasn't 'supposed to go to the poorest rice farmers whom it was supposed to help' , it went exactly where it was supposed to go, in the offshore bank accounts of the Taksin/Yingluck maladministration.

That having been said, the current lot have no real interest in this other than it serves their purpose of making their opponents look bad. As if that were necessary. Imagine this country in 10 or 20 years' time? Horrifying, isn't it.

[Robby nz]

Am I missing something here?

At 06.14 hrs we have a report from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court will today hold a meeting with all judges to select a nine-member panel to hear the case on the rice-pledging scheme against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thanarerk Nitiserani, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said all 170 Supreme Court judges would get together to cast a secret vote to select nine judges for the panel.

Once the panel has been selected, Supreme Court secretary Theerathai Charoenwong will tell the press of the voting results and the name of the presiding judge. The list of names of the panel will be made public five days later so both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection.

Then at 14.16 hrs we have this from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Tuesday set up a panel of nine judges to be in charge of the rice-pledging dereliction of duty against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The nine judges are Salaiket Watanaphan, Wiroon Saengthien, Thanarirk Nitiserani, Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, Sirichai Watanayothin, Cheep Julamon, Weerapol Tungsuwan, Ubolrat Luiwikkai, and Thanit Kessawapithak.

Just how secret was that "secret vote"?????????????????

Oh dear, yea of little understanding.

What you see is the result of a secret vote between the 170 judges.

[TheDiva]

Am I missing something here?

At 06.14 hrs we have a report from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court will today hold a meeting with all judges to select a nine-member panel to hear the case on the rice-pledging scheme against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thanarerk Nitiserani, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said all 170 Supreme Court judges would get together to cast a secret vote to select nine judges for the panel.

Once the panel has been selected, Supreme Court secretary Theerathai Charoenwong will tell the press of the voting results and the name of the presiding judge. The list of names of the panel will be made public five days later so both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection.

Then at 14.16 hrs we have this from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Tuesday set up a panel of nine judges to be in charge of the rice-pledging dereliction of duty against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The nine judges are Salaiket Watanaphan, Wiroon Saengthien, Thanarirk Nitiserani, Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, Sirichai Watanayothin, Cheep Julamon, Weerapol Tungsuwan, Ubolrat Luiwikkai, and Thanit Kessawapithak.

Just how secret was that "secret vote"?????????????????

Oh dear, yea of little understanding.

What you see is the result of a secret vote between the 170 judges.

Well spotted, Sherlock.

Now if you applied that razor sharp mind just a little more you might understand what I was querying. The first report this morning was about a secret vote that was to take place between 170 judges to pick the panel to sit on the panel to judge Yingluck (or not). Then they explain that the results of that secret vote would not be made public for 5 days, whilst simultaneously declaring they would declare the results and the name of the presiding judge . Now if they tell the press (which somebody obviously did) that same day that would appear to be at odds with the declaration that those names would not be made public for 5 days. So the vote that was to have remained secret for 5 days didn't.

Comprende?

(and that goes for halloween as well)

Edited February 24, 2015 by TheDiva

[halloween]

Am I missing something here?

At 06.14 hrs we have a report from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court will today hold a meeting with all judges to select a nine-member panel to hear the case on the rice-pledging scheme against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thanarerk Nitiserani, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said all 170 Supreme Court judges would get together to cast a secret vote to select nine judges for the panel.

Once the panel has been selected, Supreme Court secretary Theerathai Charoenwong will tell the press of the voting results and the name of the presiding judge. The list of names of the panel will be made public five days later so both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection.

Then at 14.16 hrs we have this from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Tuesday set up a panel of nine judges to be in charge of the rice-pledging dereliction of duty against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The nine judges are Salaiket Watanaphan, Wiroon Saengthien, Thanarirk Nitiserani, Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, Sirichai Watanayothin, Cheep Julamon, Weerapol Tungsuwan, Ubolrat Luiwikkai, and Thanit Kessawapithak.

Just how secret was that "secret vote"?????????????????

Oh dear, yea of little understanding.

What you see is the result of a secret vote between the 170 judges.

Well spotted, Sherlock.

Now if you applied that razor sharp mind just a little more you might understand what I was querying. The first report this morning was about a secret vote that was to take place between 170 judges to pick the panel to sit on the panel to judge Yingluck (or not). Then they explain that the results of that secret vote would not be made public for 5 days, whilst simultaneously declaring they would declare the results and the name of the presiding judge . Now if they tell the press (which somebody obviously did) that same day that would appear to be at odds with the declaration that those names would not be made public for 5 days. So the vote that was to have remained secret for 5 days didn't.

Comprende?

(and that goes for halloween as well)

Well I see. You wrote "Just how secret was that "secret vote"?" when you actually meant "results of that secret vote", which has been released ahead of the 5 day delay, which nobody seems to know why it was necessary.

Huge mystery, must be some sort of right-reducing conspiracy.

[Gunna]

TB it is a known fact that a (disputed) large amount of money was lost in a policy that abysmally failed to meet its stated aims. As this is hardly a good result for the people of Thailand, the claim is that as PM she was negligent in the management of this policy. The alternative, you probably won't like, is that she did so intentionally.

As the policy was a re-instatement of a known failed policy with low achievement and high levels of corruption, the latter has reasonable worth, IMHO.

I keep seeing this word 'lost'. What is lost? Nothing. It's sitting somewhere. Where? Why has the present Incumbent been unable to find it. With all his resources. Laughable.

Try this

Buy some blocks of ice for $100

Pay some one to keep it in a refrigerator $2 a month to store it

Don't check that it is being kept cold enough to stop it melting

Don't check that some of it isn't being removed from the refrigerator

After a year sell what is left for $70

You have lost $54 ie $30 plus $24 for storage

The $54 isn't hidden anywhere, it's been wasted through incompetence

Now multiply this by a few million and you have the rice scam

[Gunna]

so what she is facing is:

If found guilty on the charge of negligence, she could be jailed for up to 10 years.

The anti-corruption agency has also called for her to be personally liable for losses to state coffers.

First, it is clear - she's toast.

Second, in the US, like Thailand, we have political corruption. Good old fashion corruption - taking money, gifts, and bribes for favors. That kind of a charge and conviction is pretty concrete. Businessman bribes politician, receives favor, goes to court, guilty/not guilty, appeals, blah, blah, done... we just convicted the governor of Virginia and his wife - their in the appeal process now, but if it stands, they will both see the inside of a prison.

Negligence is (conveniently?) basically an opinion conviction. In this case, it will be relatively simple for the Thai court to put on a show, wave their hands, pretend to deliberate and then drop an opinion that justifies the conviction.

Like I said, she's toast.

The problem is that the courts over the last decade have become so politicized that they are more a tool for political revenge than justice. Even the recent high-profile, good-old-fashion, convict-them-at-the-speed-of-light, CIB corruption cases weren't about rooting out corruption or "justice".

I think that if Yingluck or any other politician, businessperson, general, or police chief does something illegal and provable that they should have their day in court.

What gets my goat is that real justice is so seldom pursued, yet political "justice" is so often at a feverish pace in Thailand.

Adios Yingluck.

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

absolutely,

the 700 billion bhat seems real in your own mind. but of course you know that comes from the TDRI estimate of the losses.

As for self-financing, I never saw where making such a claim was illegal. Same for the fact that a government program loses money. is that illegal?

Shall we convict her because of what you think and how you feel about it?

I thought she was being charged with dereliction of duty of the rice-pledging scheme

She never attended a meeting of the rice committee even though she was chairwoman

she was warned by many organisations before it was even implemented that it was bad.

She was warned so many times it was full of corruption, rice was missing, rice was rotting and not only ignored the warnings, made out that everything was OK, removed whistle blowers and derided parliamentary opposition.

Pretty hard to defend the charge of dereliction of duty.

[Plowman]

TB it is a known fact that a (disputed) large amount of money was lost in a policy that abysmally failed to meet its stated aims. As this is hardly a good result for the people of Thailand, the claim is that as PM she was negligent in the management of this policy. The alternative, you probably won't like, is that she did so intentionally.

As the policy was a re-instatement of a known failed policy with low achievement and high levels of corruption, the latter has reasonable worth, IMHO.

I keep seeing this word 'lost'. What is lost? Nothing. It's sitting somewhere. Where? Why has the present Incumbent been unable to find it. With all his resources. Laughable.

Try this

Buy some blocks of ice for $100

Pay some one to keep it in a refrigerator $2 a month to store it

Don't check that it is being kept cold enough to stop it melting

Don't check that some of it isn't being removed from the refrigerator

After a year sell what is left for $70

You have lost $54 ie $30 plus $24 for storage

The $54 isn't hidden anywhere, it's been wasted through incompetence

Now multiply this by a few million and you have the rice scam

In the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy, circulating in the economy and multiplying as it circulates - perhaps producing enough economic activity to have grown the economy by an extra $55, enough to pay off your $54 bill and have $1 left over for future investments (even if it doesn't generate the full $54 it has still raised the level of economic activity in the targeted areas which was the governments aim with the policy in the first place). All national governments operate this way, why should Thailand be any different?

[rubl]

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

absolutely,

the 700 billion bhat seems real in your own mind. but of course you know that comes from the TDRI estimate of the losses.

As for self-financing, I never saw where making such a claim was illegal. Same for the fact that a government program loses money. is that illegal?

Shall we convict her because of what you think and how you feel about it?

So you think there's no problem when a government positions a scheme as 'self-financing', keeps it out of the National Budget because of that, get's one of the State Banks to set up a 440 billion Baht revolving Funds and promptly has to extend it with a few hundred billion more and then wants to borrow a bit more again.

A self-financing program may lose a lot of money? No need to have someone to be responsible?

Of course if Ms. Yingluck is convicted it is not because of me. Stupid idea you pose. It would be because she could not explain how her wonderful scheme managed to lose that much money and why she didn't heed warnings which came as early as before the elections and then started again begin of 2012 after the scheme had run three months.

2013-09-25

"Luck Wajananawat, president of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), which funds the scheme, said the government had spent 667 billion baht ($21.3 billion) on buying rice since the scheme began.

The Commerce Ministry, which manages the rice scheme, has repaid only 139 billion baht to the BAAC, Luck was quoted as telling Thai newspapers on Wednesday, well short of the 220 billion the government aims to pay back by the end of the year."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-thailand-rice-idUSBRE98O06Q20130925

2014-09-17

"Luck estimated the government still owed BAAC about 750 billion baht in debt related to the scheme.

"The government plans to set aside money from the central budget and the money it gets from selling rice stocks to repay the bank, but it could take around seven years for the government to pay it all back," he said.

The 750 billion baht was the money the government had borrowed from the bank to buy rice from farmers at 15,000 baht per tonne, about 60 percent above market rates, from October 2011 to February 2014."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-thailand-rice-debt-idUSKBN0HC10Q20140917

The 'self-financing' angle is a poor argument that has been repeated ad nauseam by Rubi. Yes, the plan was for it to be self-financing, but market conditions changed drastically for the worse, meaning it wasn't successful. In the early 80's New Zealand's National party borrowed $7 billion to finance its 'Think Big' projects to combat high oil prices. The idea was for the scheme to be 'self-financing' in the medium term. Shortly after, the oil price dropped significantly & the projects (natural gas, etc) were not financially viable. Even though huge losses were made on the intended 'self-financing' scheme, the PM was not impeached or imprisoned, but voted out by the public in the next election.

Totally agree, the self-financing angle was a poor argument but helped the Yingluck Government to avoid needing a reservation in the National Budget. In their first year 2011/2012 they already had a 12% deficit, even without reservations for the RPPS, reservations which would bring the deficit to close to 20%.

Now with market conditions changed the Yingluck Gamble was laid bare for all to see. Except the Yigluck government itself of course as even a few weeks ago Ms. Yingluck stated her RPPS had been a success.

As for what NZealanders did, well that's up to them. Doesn't have anything to do with the scheme here, neither with what the scheme was, how it was positioned and how its losses were defended.

[TheDiva]

Am I missing something here?

At 06.14 hrs we have a report from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court will today hold a meeting with all judges to select a nine-member panel to hear the case on the rice-pledging scheme against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thanarerk Nitiserani, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said all 170 Supreme Court judges would get together to cast a secret vote to select nine judges for the panel.

Once the panel has been selected, Supreme Court secretary Theerathai Charoenwong will tell the press of the voting results and the name of the presiding judge. The list of names of the panel will be made public five days later so both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection.

Then at 14.16 hrs we have this from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Tuesday set up a panel of nine judges to be in charge of the rice-pledging dereliction of duty against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The nine judges are Salaiket Watanaphan, Wiroon Saengthien, Thanarirk Nitiserani, Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, Sirichai Watanayothin, Cheep Julamon, Weerapol Tungsuwan, Ubolrat Luiwikkai, and Thanit Kessawapithak.

Just how secret was that "secret vote"?????????????????

Oh dear, yea of little understanding.

What you see is the result of a secret vote between the 170 judges.

Well spotted, Sherlock.

Now if you applied that razor sharp mind just a little more you might understand what I was querying. The first report this morning was about a secret vote that was to take place between 170 judges to pick the panel to sit on the panel to judge Yingluck (or not). Then they explain that the results of that secret vote would not be made public for 5 days, whilst simultaneously declaring they would declare the results and the name of the presiding judge . Now if they tell the press (which somebody obviously did) that same day that would appear to be at odds with the declaration that those names would not be made public for 5 days. So the vote that was to have remained secret for 5 days didn't.

Comprende?

(and that goes for halloween as well)

Well I see. You wrote "Just how secret was that "secret vote"?" when you actually meant "results of that secret vote", which has been released ahead of the 5 day delay, which nobody seems to know why it was necessary.

Huge mystery, must be some sort of right-reducing conspiracy.

Sorry, I know a little intelligence is needed when reading my posts but I'll dumb it down if you want.

[rubl]

Absolutely.

Negligence is just a state of mind. All of us have such moments. 700 billion Baht lost seems real though and on a self-financing scheme that needs some explanation. Waiting for Yingluck to give that explanation. She didn't want to give it to the Thai population till now, neither to the NLA, but maybe the Supreme Court will get lucky.

absolutely,

the 700 billion bhat seems real in your own mind. but of course you know that comes from the TDRI estimate of the losses.

As for self-financing, I never saw where making such a claim was illegal. Same for the fact that a government program loses money. is that illegal?

Shall we convict her because of what you think and how you feel about it?

So you think there's no problem when a government positions a scheme as 'self-financing', keeps it out of the National Budget because of that, get's one of the State Banks to set up a 440 billion Baht revolving Funds and promptly has to extend it with a few hundred billion more and then wants to borrow a bit more again.

A self-financing program may lose a lot of money? No need to have someone to be responsible?

Of course if Ms. Yingluck is convicted it is not because of me. Stupid idea you pose. It would be because she could not explain how her wonderful scheme managed to lose that much money and why she didn't heed warnings which came as early as before the elections and then started again begin of 2012 after the scheme had run three months.

2013-09-25

"Luck Wajananawat, president of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), which funds the scheme, said the government had spent 667 billion baht ($21.3 billion) on buying rice since the scheme began.

The Commerce Ministry, which manages the rice scheme, has repaid only 139 billion baht to the BAAC, Luck was quoted as telling Thai newspapers on Wednesday, well short of the 220 billion the government aims to pay back by the end of the year."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-thailand-rice-idUSBRE98O06Q20130925

2014-09-17

"Luck estimated the government still owed BAAC about 750 billion baht in debt related to the scheme.

"The government plans to set aside money from the central budget and the money it gets from selling rice stocks to repay the bank, but it could take around seven years for the government to pay it all back," he said.

The 750 billion baht was the money the government had borrowed from the bank to buy rice from farmers at 15,000 baht per tonne, about 60 percent above market rates, from October 2011 to February 2014."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-thailand-rice-debt-idUSKBN0HC10Q20140917

So you think...

well for a long time, I have thought that you are just a troll.

But go ahead, point out which part of your post is about something illegal

Please excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for an actual reply with substance...

IIlegal? losing 700 billion Baht on a self-financing scheme illegal? Having been lost by an Amply rich lady who stated to be in charge illegal?

The impeachment on grounds of 'negligence' points to that direction. The OAG indicting a step further. Next we have to wait till the Supreme Court either accepts the case or not and if not what their reasons are. If they accept they would agree there are grounds to assume something illegal.

As for me, my opinion is 'criminally negligent with intentional deceiving and defrauding'. I'm willing to believe though Ms. Yingluck didn't profit financially in a direct sense.

So, we'll wait and see. You may drink your tea but no toast yet to go with it.

[rubl]

TB it is a known fact that a (disputed) large amount of money was lost in a policy that abysmally failed to meet its stated aims. As this is hardly a good result for the people of Thailand, the claim is that as PM she was negligent in the management of this policy. The alternative, you probably won't like, is that she did so intentionally.

As the policy was a re-instatement of a known failed policy with low achievement and high levels of corruption, the latter has reasonable worth, IMHO.

I keep seeing this word 'lost'. What is lost? Nothing. It's sitting somewhere. Where? Why has the present Incumbent been unable to find it. With all his resources. Laughable.

Try this

Buy some blocks of ice for $100

Pay some one to keep it in a refrigerator $2 a month to store it

Don't check that it is being kept cold enough to stop it melting

Don't check that some of it isn't being removed from the refrigerator

After a year sell what is left for $70

You have lost $54 ie $30 plus $24 for storage

The $54 isn't hidden anywhere, it's been wasted through incompetence

Now multiply this by a few million and you have the rice scam

In the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy, circulating in the economy and multiplying as it circulates - perhaps producing enough economic activity to have grown the economy by an extra $55, enough to pay off your $54 bill and have $1 left over for future investments (even if it doesn't generate the full $54 it has still raised the level of economic activity in the targeted areas which was the governments aim with the policy in the first place). All national governments operate this way, why should Thailand be any different?

Ah, the needy have so much ice that they can earn 100$ with it and that money will then trickle up to other needy till it reaches the top.

Other governments could learn from that. Most seem to believe in trickle down effects.

[Plowman]

Try this

Buy some blocks of ice for $100

Pay some one to keep it in a refrigerator $2 a month to store it

Don't check that it is being kept cold enough to stop it melting

Don't check that some of it isn't being removed from the refrigerator

After a year sell what is left for $70

You have lost $54 ie $30 plus $24 for storage

The $54 isn't hidden anywhere, it's been wasted through incompetence

Now multiply this by a few million and you have the rice scam

In the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy, circulating in the economy and multiplying as it circulates - perhaps producing enough economic activity to have grown the economy by an extra $55, enough to pay off your $54 bill and have $1 left over for future investments (even if it doesn't generate the full $54 it has still raised the level of economic activity in the targeted areas which was the governments aim with the policy in the first place). All national governments operate this way, why should Thailand be any different?

Ah, the needy have so much ice that they can earn 100$ with it and that money will then trickle up to other needy till it reaches the top.

Other governments could learn from that. Most seem to believe in trickle down effects.

You've gone and got yourself all confused. The needy have the same amount of ice they've always had, the government subsidy just gives them more money for that ice and that money then circulates in their community generating an increase in economic activity and yes, growth.

[rubl]

Try this

Buy some blocks of ice for $100

Pay some one to keep it in a refrigerator $2 a month to store it

Don't check that it is being kept cold enough to stop it melting

Don't check that some of it isn't being removed from the refrigerator

After a year sell what is left for $70

You have lost $54 ie $30 plus $24 for storage

The $54 isn't hidden anywhere, it's been wasted through incompetence

Now multiply this by a few million and you have the rice scam

In the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy, circulating in the economy and multiplying as it circulates - perhaps producing enough economic activity to have grown the economy by an extra $55, enough to pay off your $54 bill and have $1 left over for future investments (even if it doesn't generate the full $54 it has still raised the level of economic activity in the targeted areas which was the governments aim with the policy in the first place). All national governments operate this way, why should Thailand be any different?

Ah, the needy have so much ice that they can earn 100$ with it and that money will then trickle up to other needy till it reaches the top.

Other governments could learn from that. Most seem to believe in trickle down effects.

You've gone and got yourself all confused. The needy have the same amount of ice they've always had, the government subsidy just gives them more money for that ice and that money then circulates in their community generating an increase in economic activity and yes, growth.

Ah, but the RPPS wasn't a subsidy. It was a self-financing scheme aimed at and missing the poor and in doing so lost 700 billion Baht. Very negligent of Ms. Yingluck, but most likely the Supreme Court will give her a chance to explain her actions. All the answers she didn't want to give yet she'll be able to give then and be seen for what she really is. A saintly, selfless figure, allegedly that is.

[Plowman]

n the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy, circulating in the economy and multiplying as it circulates - perhaps producing enough economic activity to have grown the economy by an extra $55, enough to pay off your $54 bill and have $1 left over for future investments (even if it doesn't generate the full $54 it has still raised the level of economic activity in the targeted areas which was the governments aim with the policy in the first place). All national governments operate this way, why should Thailand be any different?

Ah, the needy have so much ice that they can earn 100$ with it and that money will then trickle up to other needy till it reaches the top.

Other governments could learn from that. Most seem to believe in trickle down effects.

You've gone and got yourself all confused. The needy have the same amount of ice they've always had, the government subsidy just gives them more money for that ice and that money then circulates in their community generating an increase in economic activity and yes, growth.

Ah, but the RPPS wasn't a subsidy. It was a self-financing scheme aimed at and missing the poor and in doing so lost 700 billion Baht. Very negligent of Ms. Yingluck, but most likely the Supreme Court will give her a chance to explain her actions. All the answers she didn't want to give yet she'll be able to give then and be seen for what she really is. A saintly, selfless figure, allegedly that is.

Can't argue against the kool aid, enjoy your evening.

[smutcakes]

What Rubl has taught us is that if you included the words 'self financing' and it was not then you are in big trouble.

May as well of just given the money away ala Prayuth.

[rubl]

n the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy, circulating in the economy and multiplying as it circulates - perhaps producing enough economic activity to have grown the economy by an extra $55, enough to pay off your $54 bill and have $1 left over for future investments (even if it doesn't generate the full $54 it has still raised the level of economic activity in the targeted areas which was the governments aim with the policy in the first place). All national governments operate this way, why should Thailand be any different?

-- something wrong with the quotes, removed --

Can't argue against the kool aid, enjoy your evening.

I'm very confident Ms. Yingluck will have better answers to explain why her self-financing scheme lost 700 billion Baht than your poor attempt to distract. Mind you, she'll have the best legal team money can buy.

As for "kool aid", wrong term. it's self-financing scheme.

Anyway, I enjoy my evening with a nice, hot cup of coffee,

uncle rubl

[halloween]

What Rubl has taught us is that if you included the words 'self financing' and it was not then you are in big trouble.

May as well of just given the money away ala Prayuth.

The thing with giving money away is you can be pretty sure who is getting it. OTOH you could have a "grand scheme" to fool people into voting for you even though they will get very little or be excluded altogether.

[halloween]

In the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy, circulating in the economy and multiplying as it circulates - perhaps producing enough economic activity to have grown the economy by an extra $55, enough to pay off your $54 bill and have $1 left over for future investments (even if it doesn't generate the full $54 it has still raised the level of economic activity in the targeted areas which was the governments aim with the policy in the first place). All national governments operate this way, why should Thailand be any different?

"In the meantime the initial $100 you paid out is in the hands of the needy............"

Do you know what you call a theory based on BS? All the evidence indicates that the "needy" saw very little of the rice scam money, it went to the landlords who increased rents, to storage operators, to wealthy farmers who were not excluded, to conmen selling imported rice, and to government ministers with fake G2G deals and dodgy trucking companies.

But at least giving it to the rich makes your economic activity theory more sensible.

[Robby nz]

Am I missing something here?

At 06.14 hrs we have a report from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court will today hold a meeting with all judges to select a nine-member panel to hear the case on the rice-pledging scheme against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thanarerk Nitiserani, chairman of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, said all 170 Supreme Court judges would get together to cast a secret vote to select nine judges for the panel.

Once the panel has been selected, Supreme Court secretary Theerathai Charoenwong will tell the press of the voting results and the name of the presiding judge. The list of names of the panel will be made public five days later so both plaintiffs and the defendant can say if they object to the selection.

Then at 14.16 hrs we have this from The Nation;

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Tuesday set up a panel of nine judges to be in charge of the rice-pledging dereliction of duty against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The nine judges are Salaiket Watanaphan, Wiroon Saengthien, Thanarirk Nitiserani, Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, Sirichai Watanayothin, Cheep Julamon, Weerapol Tungsuwan, Ubolrat Luiwikkai, and Thanit Kessawapithak.

Just how secret was that "secret vote"?????????????????

Oh dear, yea of little understanding.

What you see is the result of a secret vote between the 170 judges.

Well spotted, Sherlock.

Now if you applied that razor sharp mind just a little more you might understand what I was querying. The first report this morning was about a secret vote that was to take place between 170 judges to pick the panel to sit on the panel to judge Yingluck (or not). Then they explain that the results of that secret vote would not be made public for 5 days, whilst simultaneously declaring they would declare the results and the name of the presiding judge . Now if they tell the press (which somebody obviously did) that same day that would appear to be at odds with the declaration that those names would not be made public for 5 days. So the vote that was to have remained secret for 5 days didn't.

Comprende?

(and that goes for halloween as well)

Yes lack of understanding on your part sunshine ;

The list of the nine judges will be posted at the count for five days, during which time both sides can object to any of the jurists.

Will be posted FOR 5 days not in 5 days and do you see the reason.