Loss from Yingluck's rice pledging scheme jumps higher after latest update

[rubl]

Rice pledging scheme costs 700 billion baht in damages

BANGKOK, 26 February 2015, (NNT) - A preliminary report has disclosed that the subsidy program cost the Kingdom 700 billion baht since its inception nine years ago. The report by the sub-committee on closing the account of the rice pledging scheme also suggested that a majority of the losses, or 536 billion baht, were incurred under the Yingluck Shinawatra administration.

Permanent-Secretary of Finance and President of the Subcommittee Rangsan Sriworasat indicated that the remaining 163 billion baht was lost through 11 other rice pledging projects under the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration.

Mr. Rangsan commented that losses at the end of fiscal 2014 in September were rather small- an increase of 18 billion baht- compared to the one calculated at the end of May 2014. He explained that the higher price of grains at the end of September helped cushion the expense.

However, the Permanent-Secretary said there are significant differences between the reports of rice sales produced by the Department of Foreign Trade, the Department of Internal Trade, the Public Warehouse Organization, and Marketing Organization for Farmers.

He said these reports will be reviewed within the week. Mr. Rangsan added that once the figures are confirmed, a comprehensive report on the matter will be produced and forwarded to the Ministry of Commerce and the Prime Minister.

-- NNT 2015-02-26

Well now this is a corker.

Why is Yingluck impeached for her loss, while Abhisit isn't? In legal terms the issue is financially the same. Why is his loss a better loss than his?

Do you know the difference between a reservation in the National Budget for a subsidy and a 'self-financing' scheme kept outside the National Budget?

[rubl]

So is Mr Abhisit going to be sued by the Finance Ministry also for his 163 billion baht lost? We know the answer all ready it is written in Red blood in 2010.

Well, first we have to establish how you got to the 163 billion Baht you state here.

[rubl]

All figures relating to this issue are worthless unless audited by bodies without political affiliation, and that isn't going to happen.

In any case, as has been pointed out above, the money wasn't 'lost' but was ploughed back into the economy, surely doing a great deal to redistrubute wealth and reduce inequality - just what Thailand needs because without a degree of equality there will never be true stability. The YL government was apparently overzealous in this to the point of incompetence, but that's a matter for the population to judge on in the next election rather than a political witchhunt.

Oh boy, a new financial and economical genius in our midst.

BTW is overzealous to the point of incompetence over a 'self-financing' scheme similar to 'negligent' ? Maybe we should sue the electorate for electing such incompetent people ? Certainly letting them vote again wouldn't help much it would seem

[Robby nz]

So is Mr Abhisit going to be sued by the Finance Ministry also for his 163 billion baht lost? We know the answer all ready it is written in Red blood in 2010.

Well, first we have to establish how you got to the 163 billion Baht you state here.

Where he got it from Rubi was a wrong name put in one of the OP's it was in fact Thaksins scheme that lost 163 billion. So it is not really his fault other than that he is always gleefully in for a bash.

The truth of Abhisit's scheme is :

Abhisit scheme

Prior to the introduction of the rice pledging scheme by the coalition government of Yingluck Shinawatra, a support scheme already existed that included minimum prices for farmers. Accordingly, the government matched the difference between the market price and the minimum price. The maximum amount of rice that could be bought up by the government was capped. This practice was introduced by the government of Abhisit Vejjajiva (Democrat Party) as an income support scheme for rice farmers and did not interfere severely with market forces. Its costs amounted to about 60 billion baht.

What in fact this was, was a minimum price guarantee that was allowed for in the budget, the money from this went direct to the farmers with no middle men involved

As the amount that could be sold into the scheme by each farmer was capped it did not benefit the rich farmers more than others and all farmers were eligible for the scheme. The cost mentioned is the total cost over the full life of the scheme or around 20 billion a year.

Farmers have said they were better off under that scheme rather that the PT pledging scheme and of course it did not remove large amounts of rice from the market and store then in less than optimum conditions.

And a recommendation from a TDRI report :

It was also recommended that independent reports be carried out on the impact of the rice-pledging policy, affected farmers should get help while an improved version of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government’s price-support programme should be adopted

[ddavidovsky]

BTW is overzealous to the point of incompetence over a 'self-financing' scheme similar to 'negligent' ? Maybe we should sue the electorate for electing such incompetent people ? Certainly letting them vote again wouldn't help much it would seem

Incompetence, negligence - why cavil? Drop the witchhunt and take a bigger perspective. The country needs to develop its democratic system - that takes time and experience which it is currently being denied. Only under that system is there accountability enough to move forward and do something about the endemic corruption, though it will take several successive governments and some economic development before that happens. If you think corruption can be eradicated by decree you have been misinformed.

Certainly the people need to vote again, and vote again, and vote again. Who are you to unilaterally suggest that the people's right to vote is removed?

Edited February 26, 2015 by ddavidovsky

[Robby nz]

BTW is overzealous to the point of incompetence over a 'self-financing' scheme similar to 'negligent' ? Maybe we should sue the electorate for electing such incompetent people ? Certainly letting them vote again wouldn't help much it would seem

Incompetence, negligence - why cavil? Drop the witchhunt and take a bigger perspective. The country needs to develop its democratic system - that takes time and experience which it is currently being denied. Only under that system is there accountability enough to move forward and do something about the endemic corruption, though it will take several successive governments and some economic development before that happens. If you think corruption can be eradicated by decree you have been misinformed.

Certainly the people need to vote again, and vote again, and vote again. Who are you to unilaterally suggest that the people's right to vote is removed?

I see, so right now there should be nothing done about corruption, anything done now can only be a witch hunt.

Well lets see what is being done, it has been shown that the democratic system in this country is flawed, is it preferable that we leave it that way and hold another election or make some changes to improve things before an election is held ?

What we see happening now is the time you elude to is being taken to have a close look at various laws and procedures to improve things before an election.

According to you there can be nothing done about corruption until the time of several governments has passed.

Well I don't agree with you there I believe that those suspected of corruption should be investigated now, if they have not been corrupt they have nothing to worry about.

But if corruption is proven against them then they should not only face the penalties prescribed by law but should be required to return the money and or goods they have gained by their corruption.

I don't see anyone anywhere on these pages suggesting that the right to vote should be removed, however I and many others believe that waiting till reforms are put in place so in the future a dictator can never take over the country or another coup can never take place.

I and everyone I see posting wants the Thai people to have a vote as soon as possible, but in my case I want that vote to be in a free and fair election where no candidate has a criminal record or record of corruption, where every candidate has an equal chance to campaign without threat or intimidation.

An election which will return a government that will work for the country and the people and not for the politicians themselves or some behind the scenes organization or individual.

[halloween]

BTW is overzealous to the point of incompetence over a 'self-financing' scheme similar to 'negligent' ? Maybe we should sue the electorate for electing such incompetent people ? Certainly letting them vote again wouldn't help much it would seem

Incompetence, negligence - why cavil? Drop the witchhunt and take a bigger perspective. The country needs to develop its democratic system - that takes time and experience which it is currently being denied. Only under that system is there accountability enough to move forward and do something about the endemic corruption, though it will take several successive governments and some economic development before that happens. If you think corruption can be eradicated by decree you have been misinformed.

Certainly the people need to vote again, and vote again, and vote again. Who are you to unilaterally suggest that the people's right to vote is removed?

Who are you to suggest that elected criminals are above the law?

The best way to stop endemic corruption is by example - removing their protection from prosecution and jailing them. Allowing elected criminals to remain in office encourages corruption.

[Thai at Heart]

Yingluck government alone accounted for 537 billion, or 19 billion baht higher from last estimate, he said.

And so why are they chasing a higher amount in a court case?

These idiots still don't get it. It was not lost. It was borrowed and paid into the economy. It has been banked into the GDP figures from previous years. It isn't an absolute loss because it will have generated activity and thus money turns in the economy to give taxes back.

But alas, velocity of money discussion is for reasoned discussion not Thai politics.

if they wanted a stimulus package and said "we'll hand out B700 billion to our rich mates" they would have been thrown out of office. Instead they lied, and said "we'll give it to the poorest farmers" to get into office.

Other countries have stimulus packages where they build things, like dams, hospitals, schools. Remember the New Deal? After spending B700 billion what has Thailand got to show for it? Warehouses full of rotting rice, and proven corrupt government ministers. Makes you feel proud, doesn't it.

They paid 15000 per tonne to lots of very poor people in the coubtryside. Some got less but it was still a lot more than the previous price, and the rice is slowly rotting away.

It didn't all end up in the wealthy hands , the vast majority ended up in the countryside. If they had announced 30k pee farmer to halve their production it would have been the optimal result.

Proud of what? It fed a lot of genuinely poor people. Why would I care to be proud or not of a silly messed up agriculture policy in a 2nd world country.

Go live in an is a an village for a week and tell me if you would care which party gave u a subsidy....

Govt purchased around 84 million tons according to this article. Multiply that by 1000 to 4000 baht difference per ton that millers pay the farmers and tell me that it does not make some wealthy folks (such as millers and politicians) very very rich. Yes we know farmers have a hard life, that does not mean the government should continue with such policy that was proven to be a total failure and full of corruption.

That has been that way forever. The farmers on the whole got a better price. The millers are of all political persuasions, not just PTP.

The issue is not that its a failure or not, its whether it was legal to do so, if not why not, and if it was illegal, why is the Democrat system immune? losses are losses.

[Thai at Heart]

Rice pledging scheme costs 700 billion baht in damages

BANGKOK, 26 February 2015, (NNT) - A preliminary report has disclosed that the subsidy program cost the Kingdom 700 billion baht since its inception nine years ago. The report by the sub-committee on closing the account of the rice pledging scheme also suggested that a majority of the losses, or 536 billion baht, were incurred under the Yingluck Shinawatra administration.

Permanent-Secretary of Finance and President of the Subcommittee Rangsan Sriworasat indicated that the remaining 163 billion baht was lost through 11 other rice pledging projects under the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration.

Mr. Rangsan commented that losses at the end of fiscal 2014 in September were rather small- an increase of 18 billion baht- compared to the one calculated at the end of May 2014. He explained that the higher price of grains at the end of September helped cushion the expense.

However, the Permanent-Secretary said there are significant differences between the reports of rice sales produced by the Department of Foreign Trade, the Department of Internal Trade, the Public Warehouse Organization, and Marketing Organization for Farmers.

He said these reports will be reviewed within the week. Mr. Rangsan added that once the figures are confirmed, a comprehensive report on the matter will be produced and forwarded to the Ministry of Commerce and the Prime Minister.

-- NNT 2015-02-26

Well now this is a corker.

Why is Yingluck impeached for her loss, while Abhisit isn't? In legal terms the issue is financially the same. Why is his loss a better loss than his?

Do you know the difference between a reservation in the National Budget for a subsidy and a 'self-financing' scheme kept outside the National Budget?

Yes I do. Not sure why Yinglucks system can be deemed illegal. She is in court, not about to get a little smack on the wrist.

[rubl]

if they wanted a stimulus package and said "we'll hand out B700 billion to our rich mates" they would have been thrown out of office. Instead they lied, and said "we'll give it to the poorest farmers" to get into office.

Other countries have stimulus packages where they build things, like dams, hospitals, schools. Remember the New Deal? After spending B700 billion what has Thailand got to show for it? Warehouses full of rotting rice, and proven corrupt government ministers. Makes you feel proud, doesn't it.

They paid 15000 per tonne to lots of very poor people in the coubtryside. Some got less but it was still a lot more than the previous price, and the rice is slowly rotting away.

It didn't all end up in the wealthy hands , the vast majority ended up in the countryside. If they had announced 30k pee farmer to halve their production it would have been the optimal result.

Proud of what? It fed a lot of genuinely poor people. Why would I care to be proud or not of a silly messed up agriculture policy in a 2nd world country.

Go live in an is a an village for a week and tell me if you would care which party gave u a subsidy....

Govt purchased around 84 million tons according to this article. Multiply that by 1000 to 4000 baht difference per ton that millers pay the farmers and tell me that it does not make some wealthy folks (such as millers and politicians) very very rich. Yes we know farmers have a hard life, that does not mean the government should continue with such policy that was proven to be a total failure and full of corruption.

That has been that way forever. The farmers on the whole got a better price. The millers are of all political persuasions, not just PTP.

The issue is not that its a failure or not, its whether it was legal to do so, if not why not, and if it was illegal, why is the Democrat system immune? losses are losses.

Precisely, losses are losses. Applies to self-financing schemes gone wrong.

Of course schemes which are positioned as subsidies with budget reservations within the National Budget are not losses. They are planned and agreed upon and documented, accounted.

[rubl]

Well now this is a corker.

Why is Yingluck impeached for her loss, while Abhisit isn't? In legal terms the issue is financially the same. Why is his loss a better loss than his?

Do you know the difference between a reservation in the National Budget for a subsidy and a 'self-financing' scheme kept outside the National Budget?

Yes I do. Not sure why Yinglucks system can be deemed illegal. She is in court, not about to get a little smack on the wrist.

My dear T@H, however much info is provided you seem to ask the same questions over and over again and ignore answers.

Let's try again, shall we?

Yingluck was impeached for failing to stop the enormous losses in her 'self-financing' scheme. Abhisit has a subsidy with planned reservation in the National Budget and therefor staying within the budget didn't even exceed planned costs.

The Yingluck scheme wasn't illegal as scheme, only Ms. Yingluck positioned it as 'self-financing' and failed in that. She failed to stop enormous losses and was deemed 'negligent'. Personally I'd rather describe the situation as a disaster for Thailand with 'intent to deceive and defraud' as more accurate charge. Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently stated for the records all to be rosy-peachy, no real problems, nothing unexpected, the 'right' people reached, and oh by the way can we borrow some more. Ms. Yingluck stated she was in charge of her government. So, BAAC still waiting for a government to start repaying 700++ billion Baht which is not covered by revenue on rice sold. That's criminal and criminal activities are illegal.

[rubl]

BTW is overzealous to the point of incompetence over a 'self-financing' scheme similar to 'negligent' ? Maybe we should sue the electorate for electing such incompetent people ? Certainly letting them vote again wouldn't help much it would seem

Incompetence, negligence - why cavil? Drop the witchhunt and take a bigger perspective. The country needs to develop its democratic system - that takes time and experience which it is currently being denied. Only under that system is there accountability enough to move forward and do something about the endemic corruption, though it will take several successive governments and some economic development before that happens. If you think corruption can be eradicated by decree you have been misinformed.

Certainly the people need to vote again, and vote again, and vote again. Who are you to unilaterally suggest that the people's right to vote is removed?

Witch hunt? My dear chap, I must protest you mention witch hunt in relation to Ms. Yingluck. She a nice, intelligent person with a warm heart and loved by many.

Furthermore you ask for accountability, but seem to protest against Ms. Yingluck possibly being charged for 'negligence'. Don't you want Ms. Yingluck to explain all about her RPPS? She did state in parliament that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet and government. Asking her to take the responsibility which goes with it seems normal, legal practice, even in democratic countries.

BTW 'unilateral suggest'? You suggested that the Yingluck government might be incompetent. As you might remember the electorate 'overwhelmingly' voted for Ms. Yingluck. It would seem the electorate was stupid in doing so. IMHO.

[rubl]

So is Mr Abhisit going to be sued by the Finance Ministry also for his 163 billion baht lost? We know the answer all ready it is written in Red blood in 2010.

Well, first we have to establish how you got to the 163 billion Baht you state here.

Where he got it from Rubi was a wrong name put in one of the OP's it was in fact Thaksins scheme that lost 163 billion. So it is not really his fault other than that he is always gleefully in for a bash.

The truth of Abhisit's scheme is :

Abhisit scheme

Prior to the introduction of the rice pledging scheme by the coalition government of Yingluck Shinawatra, a support scheme already existed that included minimum prices for farmers. Accordingly, the government matched the difference between the market price and the minimum price. The maximum amount of rice that could be bought up by the government was capped. This practice was introduced by the government of Abhisit Vejjajiva (Democrat Party) as an income support scheme for rice farmers and did not interfere severely with market forces. Its costs amounted to about 60 billion baht.

What in fact this was, was a minimum price guarantee that was allowed for in the budget, the money from this went direct to the farmers with no middle men involved

As the amount that could be sold into the scheme by each farmer was capped it did not benefit the rich farmers more than others and all farmers were eligible for the scheme. The cost mentioned is the total cost over the full life of the scheme or around 20 billion a year.

Farmers have said they were better off under that scheme rather that the PT pledging scheme and of course it did not remove large amounts of rice from the market and store then in less than optimum conditions.

And a recommendation from a TDRI report :

It was also recommended that independent reports be carried out on the impact of the rice-pledging policy, affected farmers should get help while an improved version of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government’s price-support programme should be adopted

Interesting is that just before Ms. Yingluck started with her wonderful 'self-financing' scheme many farmers complained that the Abhisit subsidy was too little, not enough.

[Thai at Heart]

Well now this is a corker.

Why is Yingluck impeached for her loss, while Abhisit isn't? In legal terms the issue is financially the same. Why is his loss a better loss than his?

Do you know the difference between a reservation in the National Budget for a subsidy and a 'self-financing' scheme kept outside the National Budget?

Yes I do. Not sure why Yinglucks system can be deemed illegal. She is in court, not about to get a little smack on the wrist.

My dear T@H, however much info is provided you seem to ask the same questions over and over again and ignore answers.

Let's try again, shall we?

Yingluck was impeached for failing to stop the enormous losses in her 'self-financing' scheme. Abhisit has a subsidy with planned reservation in the National Budget and therefor staying within the budget didn't even exceed planned costs.

The Yingluck scheme wasn't illegal as scheme, only Ms. Yingluck positioned it as 'self-financing' and failed in that. She failed to stop enormous losses and was deemed 'negligent'. Personally I'd rather describe the situation as a disaster for Thailand with 'intent to deceive and defraud' as more accurate charge. Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently stated for the records all to be rosy-peachy, no real problems, nothing unexpected, the 'right' people reached, and oh by the way can we borrow some more. Ms. Yingluck stated she was in charge of her government. So, BAAC still waiting for a government to start repaying 700++ billion Baht which is not covered by revenue on rice sold. That's criminal and criminal activities are illegal.

This is semantics from a legal perspective. How many policies or political plans from all typesnof political parties lose more money than is planned?

Just about all of them. From a legal perspective the issue is then that she misrepresented something, not that it made a loss.

Don't patronise me either. It isn't smart.

[rubl]

Do you know the difference between a reservation in the National Budget for a subsidy and a 'self-financing' scheme kept outside the National Budget?

Yes I do. Not sure why Yinglucks system can be deemed illegal. She is in court, not about to get a little smack on the wrist.

My dear T@H, however much info is provided you seem to ask the same questions over and over again and ignore answers.

Let's try again, shall we?

Yingluck was impeached for failing to stop the enormous losses in her 'self-financing' scheme. Abhisit has a subsidy with planned reservation in the National Budget and therefor staying within the budget didn't even exceed planned costs.

The Yingluck scheme wasn't illegal as scheme, only Ms. Yingluck positioned it as 'self-financing' and failed in that. She failed to stop enormous losses and was deemed 'negligent'. Personally I'd rather describe the situation as a disaster for Thailand with 'intent to deceive and defraud' as more accurate charge. Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently stated for the records all to be rosy-peachy, no real problems, nothing unexpected, the 'right' people reached, and oh by the way can we borrow some more. Ms. Yingluck stated she was in charge of her government. So, BAAC still waiting for a government to start repaying 700++ billion Baht which is not covered by revenue on rice sold. That's criminal and criminal activities are illegal.

This is semantics from a legal perspective. How many policies or political plans from all typesnof political parties lose more money than is planned?

Just about all of them. From a legal perspective the issue is then that she misrepresented something, not that it made a loss.

Don't patronise me either. It isn't smart.

Since Ms. Yingluck may be charge in the Supreme Court assuming the OAG indictment is accepted, it would seem we are talking about legal issues. Not about politics or streetside wisdom on losses. The issue is twofold, one the representing of the RPPS as 'self-financing' scheme and two the negligence in preventing losses or even further losses where there were stated not to be losses.

BTW as far as I know no political plans are supposed to lose money. They may cost some and ceertainly overspent, but never ever lose some. Allegedly that is.

As for the RPPS it wasn't even supposed to cost. 'self-financing' you know?

Anyway, the Supreme Court doesn't deal in politics, it relates to legal issues. Understood?

Edited February 27, 2015 by rubl

[Thai at Heart]

Do you know the difference between a reservation in the National Budget for a subsidy and a 'self-financing' scheme kept outside the National Budget?

Yes I do. Not sure why Yinglucks system can be deemed illegal. She is in court, not about to get a little smack on the wrist.

My dear T@H, however much info is provided you seem to ask the same questions over and over again and ignore answers.

Let's try again, shall we?

Yingluck was impeached for failing to stop the enormous losses in her 'self-financing' scheme. Abhisit has a subsidy with planned reservation in the National Budget and therefor staying within the budget didn't even exceed planned costs.

The Yingluck scheme wasn't illegal as scheme, only Ms. Yingluck positioned it as 'self-financing' and failed in that. She failed to stop enormous losses and was deemed 'negligent'. Personally I'd rather describe the situation as a disaster for Thailand with 'intent to deceive and defraud' as more accurate charge. Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently stated for the records all to be rosy-peachy, no real problems, nothing unexpected, the 'right' people reached, and oh by the way can we borrow some more. Ms. Yingluck stated she was in charge of her government. So, BAAC still waiting for a government to start repaying 700++ billion Baht which is not covered by revenue on rice sold. That's criminal and criminal activities are illegal.

This is semantics from a legal perspective. How many policies or political plans from all typesnof political parties lose more money than is planned?

Just about all of them. From a legal perspective the issue is then that she misrepresented something, not that it made a loss.

Don't patronise me either. It isn't smart.

Since Ms. Yingluck may be charge in the Supreme Court assuming the OAG indictment is accepted, it would seem we are talking about legal issues. Not about politics or streetside wisdom on losses. The issue is twofold, one the representing of the RPPS as 'self-financing' scheme and two the negligence in preventing losses or even further losses where there were stated not to be losses.

BTW as far as I know no political plans are supposed to lose money. They may cost some and ceertainly overspent, but never ever lose some. Allegedly that is.

As for the RPPS it wasn't even supposed to cost. 'self-financing' you know?

Anyway, the Supreme Court doesn't deal in politics, it relates to legal issues. Understood?

So we are debating the difference between a loss and a negative profit.

Its legal to make a govt budget that shows a loss, even makes an increasing loss and say it was a mistake. But make a policy that you state will make no loss and have it make a loss is illegal.

This crime is lying to parliament not negligence. All they have to prove is that she knew it would make a loss when she proposed the policy. Thus, if she had stated it will make a loss at the beginning, she would still have got elected.

Thus it is semantics.

[halloween]

So we are debating the difference between a loss and a negative profit.

Its legal to make a govt budget that shows a loss, even makes an increasing loss and say it was a mistake. But make a policy that you state will make no loss and have it make a loss is illegal.

This crime is lying to parliament not negligence. All they have to prove is that she knew it would make a loss when she proposed the policy. Thus, if she had stated it will make a loss at the beginning, she would still have got elected.

Thus it is semantics.

Actually, it is BS. A PM has the duty of care of the nation's finances. After she knew it was making a huge loss and that loss was actually increasing, she did nothing to reduce or stop the losses, ignored or tried to silence those publicising the losses, lied to the people of Thailand, and tried to limit her culpability by refusing to attend meetings on the issue even though she has accepted the chairmanship. How is that not criminal negligence?

[rubl]

Do you know the difference between a reservation in the National Budget for a subsidy and a 'self-financing' scheme kept outside the National Budget?

Yes I do. Not sure why Yinglucks system can be deemed illegal. She is in court, not about to get a little smack on the wrist.

My dear T@H, however much info is provided you seem to ask the same questions over and over again and ignore answers.

Let's try again, shall we?

Yingluck was impeached for failing to stop the enormous losses in her 'self-financing' scheme. Abhisit has a subsidy with planned reservation in the National Budget and therefor staying within the budget didn't even exceed planned costs.

The Yingluck scheme wasn't illegal as scheme, only Ms. Yingluck positioned it as 'self-financing' and failed in that. She failed to stop enormous losses and was deemed 'negligent'. Personally I'd rather describe the situation as a disaster for Thailand with 'intent to deceive and defraud' as more accurate charge. Ms. Yingluck and her cabinet frequently stated for the records all to be rosy-peachy, no real problems, nothing unexpected, the 'right' people reached, and oh by the way can we borrow some more. Ms. Yingluck stated she was in charge of her government. So, BAAC still waiting for a government to start repaying 700++ billion Baht which is not covered by revenue on rice sold. That's criminal and criminal activities are illegal.

This is semantics from a legal perspective. How many policies or political plans from all typesnof political parties lose more money than is planned?

Just about all of them. From a legal perspective the issue is then that she misrepresented something, not that it made a loss.

Don't patronise me either. It isn't smart.

Since Ms. Yingluck may be charge in the Supreme Court assuming the OAG indictment is accepted, it would seem we are talking about legal issues. Not about politics or streetside wisdom on losses. The issue is twofold, one the representing of the RPPS as 'self-financing' scheme and two the negligence in preventing losses or even further losses where there were stated not to be losses.

BTW as far as I know no political plans are supposed to lose money. They may cost some and ceertainly overspent, but never ever lose some. Allegedly that is.

As for the RPPS it wasn't even supposed to cost. 'self-financing' you know?

Anyway, the Supreme Court doesn't deal in politics, it relates to legal issues. Understood?

So we are debating the difference between a loss and a negative profit.

Its legal to make a govt budget that shows a loss, even makes an increasing loss and say it was a mistake. But make a policy that you state will make no loss and have it make a loss is illegal.

This crime is lying to parliament not negligence. All they have to prove is that she knew it would make a loss when she proposed the policy. Thus, if she had stated it will make a loss at the beginning, she would still have got elected.

Thus it is semantics.

You ever owned a business yourself?

I'm not debating the difference between a loss and negative profit. It would seem you are, or at least you're trying.

Here we have the loss generated by the RPPS which was positioned and defended as 'self-financing' scheme. No need to reserve a budget as for subsidies, no not at all. Only a 440 billion Baht revolving funds to initially pay from and to deposit back revenue from the sale of rice. Nothing about losses or negative profits. 'self-financing', pure and simple.

The crime is described as 'negligence', failure to stem the tremendous losses, some even from corruption. Ms. Yingluck and cabinet members have frequently stated before parliament and on television that the scheme was 'self-financing', gave reasoning why that was so, pushed the RPPS through parliament using their majority.

BTW no idea why you wrote 'she would still be elected' as that has nothing to do with and no relevance to the discussion here. Here we discuss the losses of Ms. Yingluck's self-financing scheme. It would seem we really need a court case in order to get answers on what happened and why it was allowed to continue fro so long even with all warnings 'listened to' and 'taken into account'. At least that's what Ms. Yingluck c.s. frequently stated. All these statements before parliament and on television can and will be used of course.

[Gunna]

Yingluck government alone accounted for 537 billion, or 19 billion baht higher from last estimate, he said.

And so why are they chasing a higher amount in a court case?

These idiots still don't get it. It was not lost. It was borrowed and paid into the economy. It has been banked into the GDP figures from previous years. It isn't an absolute loss because it will have generated activity and thus money turns in the economy to give taxes back.

But alas, velocity of money discussion is for reasoned discussion not Thai politics.

if they wanted a stimulus package and said "we'll hand out B700 billion to our rich mates" they would have been thrown out of office. Instead they lied, and said "we'll give it to the poorest farmers" to get into office.

Other countries have stimulus packages where they build things, like dams, hospitals, schools. Remember the New Deal? After spending B700 billion what has Thailand got to show for it? Warehouses full of rotting rice, and proven corrupt government ministers. Makes you feel proud, doesn't it.

They paid 15000 per tonne to lots of very poor people in the coubtryside. Some got less but it was still a lot more than the previous price, and the rice is slowly rotting away.

It didn't all end up in the wealthy hands , the vast majority ended up in the countryside. If they had announced 30k pee farmer to halve their production it would have been the optimal result.

Proud of what? It fed a lot of genuinely poor people. Why would I care to be proud or not of a silly messed up agriculture policy in a 2nd world country.

Go live in an is a an village for a week and tell me if you would care which party gave u a subsidy....

It was proven by a university or the Thai Rice Institute that about 80% of the money went to rich and well off farmers. Only 20% went to the real poor farmers and many more were left out and didn't profit at all because of the rules they couldn't take part. And most of the "extra income" was sucked up by increased rents for farmland and increased prices for fertilizer etc.

Plus

"They paid 15000 per tonne to lots of very poor people in the coubtryside"

The very poor didn't get one baht from this scam. They ate all the rice they grow

That's why so many poor farmers got nothing from this scam, and many actually went backwards because they had to pay more rent for the land they grow the rice on and more for fertalizer.

Rich absentee landowners made lots from higher rents

[issanaus]

So we are debating the difference between a loss and a negative profit.

Its legal to make a govt budget that shows a loss, even makes an increasing loss and say it was a mistake. But make a policy that you state will make no loss and have it make a loss is illegal.

This crime is lying to parliament not negligence. All they have to prove is that she knew it would make a loss when she proposed the policy. Thus, if she had stated it will make a loss at the beginning, she would still have got elected.

Thus it is semantics.

Actually, it is BS. A PM has the duty of care of the nation's finances. After she knew it was making a huge loss and that loss was actually increasing, she did nothing to reduce or stop the losses, ignored or tried to silence those publicising the losses, lied to the people of Thailand, and tried to limit her culpability by refusing to attend meetings on the issue even though she has accepted the chairmanship. How is that not criminal negligence?

Regardless of what ever the original intent of the program (scam) might have been the losses were adding a liability to the public purse - an appropriation of the public purse. Failure to recognise the non-self-financing nature of the program ensured that the public expenditure being incurred did to receive the scrutiny it required at the time. Then we have the proposed 22 Trillion loan that would have buried the losses from the public view.

Was it negligence or fraud - either way what happened was wrong and whoever is responsible should be held liable and accountable in the courts.

[Stradavarius37]

Yingluck the sock puppet - time to go join your brother...