Thai govt urged to sue over losses from rice scheme

[webfact]

Govt urged to sue over losses from rice scheme
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- FORMER Democrat MP Warong Dechgitvigrom yesterday urged Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam to file a civil suit over the Bt600-billion damage incurred from the rice pledging scheme.

He dismissed Wissanu's reason - that the court fees for this case would amount to billions of baht - as unjustified.

Warong said nobody would take Wissanu to task for filing the civil suit because it would set the norm for future governments with policies that cause damage to taxpayers.

Warong also responded to Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard's comment that 5.8 million tonnes of degraded rice stored under the rice-pledging scheme should be made into noodle flour and not ethanol.

He said the politician did not realise that degraded rice was not edible as it could make people ill.

He said the government must be decisive in tackling the price of rice, because the storage of so much rice has caused the price to hover at Bt8,400-Bt8,500 per tonne not higher.

"If the government does not manage this rice in a timely manner, the rice market will be destroyed," he warned.

"This degraded rice must not reach the hands of rice millers. If the government cannot control the stockpiles, it should allow bidding for all business operators to auction the degraded rice and let the market mechanism work."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Govt-urged-to-sue-over-losses-from-rice-scheme-30264072.html

-- The Nation 2015-07-09

[Reigntax]

Before they decide to sue they may want to calculate an exact and provable figure because it changes daily.

Government suing government. Now there is a good use of resources. Yes, the government won, the other government lost, the government pays the costs and the Thai people as always lose out.

In the case of Testosterone vs Egos....

[Robby nz]

Problem with that is who are you going to sue and on what grounds.

Better to go after the obvious corruption, prosecute the corrupt and upon a guilty verdict seize (all) their assets and use those assets along with the money from sales to go a small way to paying the huge debt.

No matter what is done from now on the loss will still be there. Incurring more costs on the chance that some may be recovered is only gambling and may be throwing more good money after bad. Only ones who would be sure to benefit would be the lawyers.

Get rid of the stockpiles as quickly as possible, particularly the bad stuff even for a minimal price for every month it is kept incurs more storage costs.

[rametindallas]

Warong also responded to Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard's comment that 5.8 million tonnes of degraded rice stored under the rice-pledging scheme should be made into noodle flour and not ethanol.

No more Khanom Jeen for me if they start this. Gooitiow bamee only.

It seems Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard could kill to birds with one stone with his plan. Get more money for the rice selling it to millers and, when people get sick, blame the Junta for not protecting the food stocks. Wow. Win, win... for PTP.

More proof (as if any was needed) that the greed of the PTP far outweighs any concerns for Thai people. First rob them blind then make them sick. PTP is sick.

Innovative Breakthrough Demonstrated for Biological Ethanol Production June 30, 2015 http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/innovative-breakthrough-demonstrated-biological-ethanol-production

Compared with a conventional yeast ethanol production, a preliminary evaluation showed that Microvi’s biocatalytic technology nearly doubled bio-ethanol productivity, increased conversion yields, and minimized microbial contaminants. The process showed increased productivity and efficiency, therefore increasing potential sustainability of biofuel production.

.

[halloween]

Before they decide to sue they may want to calculate an exact and provable figure because it changes daily.

Government suing government. Now there is a good use of resources. Yes, the government won, the other government lost, the government pays the costs and the Thai people as always lose out.

In the case of Testosterone vs Egos....

Why would it be necessary to and exact and provable figure, to make it impossible to proceed? A provable amount of loss, although lower than the actual total, would be acceptable to a court.

It's not a government suing a government, it's a government suing ex-government corrupt ministers who used their power to spend government money to buy votes and enrich themselves. The people will always lose out when they stare at the carrot and don't look at the person holding it out. Wishful belief in obvious lies (you will all be rich in 6 months, we'll corner the market for rice) has never worked out well.

[IamNoone88]

No body is going to sue any-one. This is just a waiting game until it dissappears from public eye. The general premise is that the public has a short memory and is powerless. And those behind this scheme know that very well.

[sammygood]

thailand, the country that likes to implode themselves and destroy the economy for the sake of GREED

[Manbing]

Fantastic.

Policies like this are going to cause the most concern to corrupt officials

Sue them for complete recovery of every missing baht.

I am sorry there is not a fine that accompanies recovery of embezzled funds.

[Eric Loh]

thailand, the country that likes to implode themselves and destroy the economy for the sake of GREED

History shown that Thailand has never been imploded due to money greed but has imploded 18 times due to power greed.

[FangFerang]

The only thing he said which was not self-serving, bombastic and mentally challenged (simultaneously) was

"This degraded rice must not reach the hands of rice millers. If the government cannot control the stockpiles, it should allow bidding for all business operators to auction the degraded rice and let the market mechanism work."

[Bannum opinions]

Just an anti-democrat posturing to demonize a previous Govt. they couldn't beat in an election.

Political posturing for political purposes, and not the self-righteous indignation he is trying to self-servingly project.

Lets' see an independent study to see if this Anti-democrat stuff has any merits.

This idiocy is apparent when one considers the basic premise.

Here we have an anti-democrat, Opposition guy wanting to sue using anti-democrat, Opposition innuendo's as a basis.

If an independent study and analysis shows this Opposition noise about an Ag. subsidy program to be valid, it would be another matter...They were afraid to take this thing to the electorate, so perhaps the same fear prevents them from facilitating a truly Independent analysis. Afraid it might expose their accusations as being mostly self-serving political posturing only.

They prefer to repetitively denounce this program in various forms as in this case, hoping repetitiveness makes it fact for some people.

And for the less discerning, that could happen.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[halloween]

Just an anti-democrat posturing to demonize a previous Govt. they couldn't beat in an election.

Political posturing for political purposes, and not the self-righteous indignation he is trying to self-servingly project.

Lets' see an independent study to see if this Anti-democrat stuff has any merits.

This idiocy is apparent when one considers the basic premise.

Here we have an anti-democrat, Opposition guy wanting to sue using anti-democrat, Opposition innuendo's as a basis.

If an independent study and analysis shows this Opposition noise about an Ag. subsidy program to be valid, it would be another matter...They were afraid to take this thing to the electorate, so perhaps the same fear prevents them from facilitating a truly Independent analysis. Afraid it might expose their accusations as being mostly self-serving political posturing only.

They prefer to repetitively denounce this program in various forms as in this case, hoping repetitiveness makes it fact for some people.

And for the less discerning, that could happen.

You don't know of ONE independent study or analysis that said the rice scam was an expensive failure? Do you know of ONE that said it wasn't?

Less discerning? Only the truly gormless would believe the crap you write.

Edited July 9, 2015 by halloween

[Bannum opinions]

Just an anti-democrat posturing to demonize a previous Govt. they couldn't beat in an election.

Political posturing for political purposes, and not the self-righteous indignation he is trying to self-servingly project.

Lets' see an independent study to see if this Anti-democrat stuff has any merits.

This idiocy is apparent when one considers the basic premise.

Here we have an anti-democrat, Opposition guy wanting to sue using anti-democrat, Opposition innuendo's as a basis.

If an independent study and analysis shows this Opposition noise about an Ag. subsidy program to be valid, it would be another matter...They were afraid to take this thing to the electorate, so perhaps the same fear prevents them from facilitating a truly Independent analysis. Afraid it might expose their accusations as being mostly self-serving political posturing only.

They prefer to repetitively denounce this program in various forms as in this case, hoping repetitiveness makes it fact for some people.

And for the less discerning, that could happen.

You don't know of ONE independent study or analysis that said the rice scam was an expensive failure? Do you know of ONE that said it wasn't?

Less discerning? Only the truly gormless would believe the crap you write.

Let's just have one....An independent study of the Rice subsidy program.

Opposition accusatory noise about this thing over and over with no substantiating data other than their own, is dismissed out-of-hand by most people, other than those who for self-serving reasons want to believe.

An election may have been the next best thing to an independent study, but the anti-democrats hurriedly cancelled it.

They knew that voters know about this stuff, and have shown themselves to be very good at cutting through political BS.

Cancelling that election is all one needs to know when contextualizing their repetitive assaults against this Ag. subsidy program.

It is all part of their ideological aversion to other populist programs that benefit those not of their station...They hate to spread the nation's wealth beyond themselves.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[trogers]

I would sue those who voted in PTP as the first defendant , and PTP the 2nd defendant, with their coalition partners as the 3rd.

[mikemac]

I would sue those who voted in PTP as the first defendant , and PTP the 2nd defendant, with their coalition partners as the 3rd.

.........................."I would sue those who voted in PTP as the first defendant"..............................

Don't bother suing them, just take their 500 baht back !

[Robby nz]

Just an anti-democrat posturing to demonize a previous Govt. they couldn't beat in an election.

Political posturing for political purposes, and not the self-righteous indignation he is trying to self-servingly project.

Lets' see an independent study to see if this Anti-democrat stuff has any merits.

This idiocy is apparent when one considers the basic premise.

Here we have an anti-democrat, Opposition guy wanting to sue using anti-democrat, Opposition innuendo's as a basis.

If an independent study and analysis shows this Opposition noise about an Ag. subsidy program to be valid, it would be another matter...They were afraid to take this thing to the electorate, so perhaps the same fear prevents them from facilitating a truly Independent analysis. Afraid it might expose their accusations as being mostly self-serving political posturing only.

They prefer to repetitively denounce this program in various forms as in this case, hoping repetitiveness makes it fact for some people.

And for the less discerning, that could happen.

You don't know of ONE independent study or analysis that said the rice scam was an expensive failure? Do you know of ONE that said it wasn't?

Less discerning? Only the truly gormless would believe the crap you write.

Let's just have one....An independent study of the Rice subsidy program.

Opposition accusatory noise about this thing over and over with no substantiating data other than their own, is dismissed out-of-hand by most people, other than those who for self-serving reasons want to believe.

An election may have been the next best thing to an independent study, but the anti-democrats hurriedly cancelled it.

They knew that voters know about this stuff, and have shown themselves to be very good at cutting through political BS.

Cancelling that election is all one needs to know when contextualizing their repetitive assaults against this Ag. subsidy program.

It is all part of their ideological aversion to other populist programs that benefit those not of their station...They hate to spread the nation's wealth beyond themselves.

I can give you two. But as a confirmed PT supporter you wont believe either.

http://tdri.or.th/en/tdri-insight/tdri-details-apparent-costs-of-rice-pledging-programme-including-bt111-billion-in-corruption/

http://freedombarometer.org/assets/pdfs/Freedom-Barometer-Special-Report-Thailands-Agrarian-Policy.pdf

And incidentally it was never and was never touted as a subsidy but as a self financing scheme that would eventually run at a profit and was financed out of budget so there would be no accountability.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Robby nz

[mikemac]

Just an anti-democrat posturing to demonize a previous Govt. they couldn't beat in an election.

Political posturing for political purposes, and not the self-righteous indignation he is trying to self-servingly project.

Lets' see an independent study to see if this Anti-democrat stuff has any merits.

This idiocy is apparent when one considers the basic premise.

Here we have an anti-democrat, Opposition guy wanting to sue using anti-democrat, Opposition innuendo's as a basis.

If an independent study and analysis shows this Opposition noise about an Ag. subsidy program to be valid, it would be another matter...They were afraid to take this thing to the electorate, so perhaps the same fear prevents them from facilitating a truly Independent analysis. Afraid it might expose their accusations as being mostly self-serving political posturing only.

They prefer to repetitively denounce this program in various forms as in this case, hoping repetitiveness makes it fact for some people.

And for the less discerning, that could happen.

You don't know of ONE independent study or analysis that said the rice scam was an expensive failure? Do you know of ONE that said it wasn't?

Less discerning? Only the truly gormless would believe the crap you write.

Let's just have one....An independent study of the Rice subsidy program.

Opposition accusatory noise about this thing over and over with no substantiating data other than their own, is dismissed out-of-hand by most people, other than those who for self-serving reasons want to believe.

An election may have been the next best thing to an independent study, but the anti-democrats hurriedly cancelled it.

They knew that voters know about this stuff, and have shown themselves to be very good at cutting through political BS.

Cancelling that election is all one needs to know when contextualizing their repetitive assaults against this Ag. subsidy program.

It is all part of their ideological aversion to other populist programs that benefit those not of their station...They hate to spread the nation's wealth beyond themselves.

I can give you two. But as a confirmed PT supporter you wont believe either.

http://tdri.or.th/en/tdri-insight/tdri-details-apparent-costs-of-rice-pledging-programme-including-bt111-billion-in-corruption/

http://freedombarometer.org/assets/pdfs/Freedom-Barometer-Special-Report-Thailands-Agrarian-Policy.pdf

And incidentally it was never and was never touted as a subsidy but as a self financing scheme that would eventually run at a profit and was financed out of budget so there would be no accountability.

I doubt he will even click on the links Robby, for fear of what he will see.

If that is the case here is a taste of what he is missing, from the second link you posted -

"In 2011, the government of Thailand enacted a program for the unlimited purchase of unmilled rice using a fixed price far above market value. Various adverse effects have emerged due to this program, putting Thailand's status as the leading global rice exporter at risk.

These effects include, amongst others, the distortion of competition and factor allocation, the transformation of the degree of intensiveness and of crop rotation, increasing rental costs, storage issues, the emigration of export businesses and increasing corruption. As the Thai government monopolizes the rice market, market participants become dependent on politics.

The program's predicted fiscal losses are out of proportion when compared with its potential benefits.

Although the policy officially intends to reduce Thailand's social injustice, its biggest gainers are farmers with large areas of land, owners of rice mills, rice traders, smugglers and a few exporters."

[Bannum opinions]

Just an anti-democrat posturing to demonize a previous Govt. they couldn't beat in an election.

Political posturing for political purposes, and not the self-righteous indignation he is trying to self-servingly project.

Lets' see an independent study to see if this Anti-democrat stuff has any merits.

This idiocy is apparent when one considers the basic premise.

Here we have an anti-democrat, Opposition guy wanting to sue using anti-democrat, Opposition innuendo's as a basis.

If an independent study and analysis shows this Opposition noise about an Ag. subsidy program to be valid, it would be another matter...They were afraid to take this thing to the electorate, so perhaps the same fear prevents them from facilitating a truly Independent analysis. Afraid it might expose their accusations as being mostly self-serving political posturing only.

They prefer to repetitively denounce this program in various forms as in this case, hoping repetitiveness makes it fact for some people.

And for the less discerning, that could happen.

You don't know of ONE independent study or analysis that said the rice scam was an expensive failure? Do you know of ONE that said it wasn't?

Less discerning? Only the truly gormless would believe the crap you write.

Let's just have one....An independent study of the Rice subsidy program.

Opposition accusatory noise about this thing over and over with no substantiating data other than their own, is dismissed out-of-hand by most people, other than those who for self-serving reasons want to believe.

An election may have been the next best thing to an independent study, but the anti-democrats hurriedly cancelled it.

They knew that voters know about this stuff, and have shown themselves to be very good at cutting through political BS.

Cancelling that election is all one needs to know when contextualizing their repetitive assaults against this Ag. subsidy program.

It is all part of their ideological aversion to other populist programs that benefit those not of their station...They hate to spread the nation's wealth beyond themselves.

I can give you two. But as a confirmed PT supporter you wont believe either.

http://tdri.or.th/en/tdri-insight/tdri-details-apparent-costs-of-rice-pledging-programme-including-bt111-billion-in-corruption/

http://freedombarometer.org/assets/pdfs/Freedom-Barometer-Special-Report-Thailands-Agrarian-Policy.pdf

And incidentally it was never and was never touted as a subsidy but as a self financing scheme that would eventually run at a profit and was financed out of budget so there would be no accountability.

The operative term...Independent analysis . Taking into account political and economic objectives.

A research study and analysis with terms of reference agreed to by both sides of the political divide.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[Srikcir]

The rice pledge scheme started with the Abhisit regime who took credit to help farmers with its operation. When the PTP came to power and adopted the scheme on a larger scale, the Democrats became sudden opponents of the scheme.

Basic politics between a party thrown out of power and a coup-suppressed party taking power.

For whatever it was worth at the time the PTP determined that reducing the world supply would drive prices beyond its pledged price. There was no independent, professional economic study to contravene that supposition except in hindsight. Hindsight was perfectly accurate to see that Thailand could not control rice production especially from India and Vietnam that produced a substantial OVERSUPPLY that crashed the market price for rice. Further, the PDRC anti-government protests drove potential buyers away.

So yes, the Yingluck regime miscalculated the result, albeit with sincere intent to substantially raise farmers income. Political mistakes are the bane of every government, whether it be an elected democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy or JUNTA.

Nations have governments to provide national leadership on behalf of its citizens for large scale programs that cannot be accomplished on a local level. The economics are too broad-based, costly and complex.

Institute a system of suing governments past and present (the military coup cost Thailand more than 20% GDP-who pays for that) for poor or ill-conceived policies and national sovereignty as a whole is hobbled. Like people, nations mature through experiences.

LEARN THAILAND and MOVE FORWARD

[Ulic]

I have often thought that politicians should be able to be sued for hair brained public schemes

that cost the public purse. But I think that is a pipe dream of mine. Still there are plenty of

people to go after in this scam, with corruption charges. May as well go after them first.

[halloween]

The rice pledge scheme started with the Abhisit regime who took credit to help farmers with its operation. When the PTP came to power and adopted the scheme on a larger scale, the Democrats became sudden opponents of the scheme.

Basic politics between a party thrown out of power and a coup-suppressed party taking power.

For whatever it was worth at the time the PTP determined that reducing the world supply would drive prices beyond its pledged price. There was no independent, professional economic study to contravene that supposition except in hindsight. Hindsight was perfectly accurate to see that Thailand could not control rice production especially from India and Vietnam that produced a substantial OVERSUPPLY that crashed the market price for rice. Further, the PDRC anti-government protests drove potential buyers away.

So yes, the Yingluck regime miscalculated the result, albeit with sincere intent to substantially raise farmers income. Political mistakes are the bane of every government, whether it be an elected democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy or JUNTA.

Nations have governments to provide national leadership on behalf of its citizens for large scale programs that cannot be accomplished on a local level. The economics are too broad-based, costly and complex.

Institute a system of suing governments past and present (the military coup cost Thailand more than 20% GDP-who pays for that) for poor or ill-conceived policies and national sovereignty as a whole is hobbled. Like people, nations mature through experiences.

LEARN THAILAND and MOVE FORWARD

Is it really necessary to post obvious lies? The rice PLEDGING scam was introduced by Thaksin. The Democrats cancelled it because it was expensive and rife with corruption, and replaced it with a simpler, and far less expensive scheme, of price guarantee. There is very little similarity in the 2 schemes.

Yingluk re-instated rice pledging with no attempt to change, despite there being many reports if its inefficacy and corruption. Financial press that reported on the scheme stated it was doomed to fail, as did the Opposition. But the "world's smartest businessman" thought it would work, and he owns PTP, so what choice did they have. And it was a great vote-buying policy to get elected, even if Yingluk opened her mouth at a rally and arbitrarily kicked up the buying price.

I guess those foretelling the result had 20/20 foresight, while somebody had their head firmly planted elsewhere, or just didn't care as long as they got the keys to the Treasury again.

BTW how much hindsight was needed for the reviews of the policy? Surely a policy involving such huge volumes of state money was reviewed regularly, or that would be negligence.

[candide]

Just an anti-democrat posturing to demonize a previous Govt. they couldn't beat in an election.

Political posturing for political purposes, and not the self-righteous indignation he is trying to self-servingly project.

Lets' see an independent study to see if this Anti-democrat stuff has any merits.

This idiocy is apparent when one considers the basic premise.

Here we have an anti-democrat, Opposition guy wanting to sue using anti-democrat, Opposition innuendo's as a basis.

If an independent study and analysis shows this Opposition noise about an Ag. subsidy program to be valid, it would be another matter...They were afraid to take this thing to the electorate, so perhaps the same fear prevents them from facilitating a truly Independent analysis. Afraid it might expose their accusations as being mostly self-serving political posturing only.

They prefer to repetitively denounce this program in various forms as in this case, hoping repetitiveness makes it fact for some people.

And for the less discerning, that could happen.

You don't know of ONE independent study or analysis that said the rice scam was an expensive failure? Do you know of ONE that said it wasn't?

Less discerning? Only the truly gormless would believe the crap you write.

Let's just have one....An independent study of the Rice subsidy program.

Opposition accusatory noise about this thing over and over with no substantiating data other than their own, is dismissed out-of-hand by most people, other than those who for self-serving reasons want to believe.

An election may have been the next best thing to an independent study, but the anti-democrats hurriedly cancelled it.

They knew that voters know about this stuff, and have shown themselves to be very good at cutting through political BS.

Cancelling that election is all one needs to know when contextualizing their repetitive assaults against this Ag. subsidy program.

It is all part of their ideological aversion to other populist programs that benefit those not of their station...They hate to spread the nation's wealth beyond themselves.

I can give you two. But as a confirmed PT supporter you wont believe either.

http://tdri.or.th/en/tdri-insight/tdri-details-apparent-costs-of-rice-pledging-programme-including-bt111-billion-in-corruption/

http://freedombarometer.org/assets/pdfs/Freedom-Barometer-Special-Report-Thailands-Agrarian-Policy.pdf

And incidentally it was never and was never touted as a subsidy but as a self financing scheme that would eventually run at a profit and was financed out of budget so there would be no accountability.

There is no doubt yet (in particular after knowing the price of rice on the world market in previous years) that the rice scheme has not been successful, and that the money could have been better spent in a different way for similar objectives.

Now about an independent study assessing the whole scheme using reliable data (not estimates), we haven't seen one yet!

The organisation publishing the freedombarometer is yet independent (you will not like their next 2015 barometer on the period under junta government), with a clearly expressed political liberal orientation. Their analysis is more a general policy analysis based on data publicly available up to 2013, from a liberal point of view.

The TDRI has a long history of close links with the dems and can be considered as one of their think tanks. Their report has been published in august 2014, so before the main judicial investigations on the rice scheme have been concluded. They provide apparently over-inflated estimates without explaining how they calculate them, in particular how they collect data. I noticed, for example, that their estimate for corruption cost related to GtoG rice deals was Bt45.09 billion, while the current "loss" estimate by the NACC (which cannot be suspected of underestimating it ) is 20 billion (I don't know how the NACC calculates it, i.e. comparing with market price or with pledged price, and if it can be equated with corruption). They also stress the negative macro effect, but completely forget the positive one: the effect of public spending on GDP growth (i.e. Keyneysian multiplier effect).

So independent and neutral? Clearly no!

[khunken]

The rice pledge scheme started with the Abhisit regime who took credit to help farmers with its operation. When the PTP came to power and adopted the scheme on a larger scale, the Democrats became sudden opponents of the scheme.

Basic politics between a party thrown out of power and a coup-suppressed party taking power.

For whatever it was worth at the time the PTP determined that reducing the world supply would drive prices beyond its pledged price. There was no independent, professional economic study to contravene that supposition except in hindsight. Hindsight was perfectly accurate to see that Thailand could not control rice production especially from India and Vietnam that produced a substantial OVERSUPPLY that crashed the market price for rice. Further, the PDRC anti-government protests drove potential buyers away.

So yes, the Yingluck regime miscalculated the result, albeit with sincere intent to substantially raise farmers income. Political mistakes are the bane of every government, whether it be an elected democracy, constitutional monarchy, oligarchy or JUNTA.

Nations have governments to provide national leadership on behalf of its citizens for large scale programs that cannot be accomplished on a local level. The economics are too broad-based, costly and complex.

Institute a system of suing governments past and present (the military coup cost Thailand more than 20% GDP-who pays for that) for poor or ill-conceived policies and national sovereignty as a whole is hobbled. Like people, nations mature through experiences.

LEARN THAILAND and MOVE FORWARD

Is it really necessary to post obvious lies? The rice PLEDGING scam was introduced by Thaksin. The Democrats cancelled it because it was expensive and rife with corruption, and replaced it with a simpler, and far less expensive scheme, of price guarantee. There is very little similarity in the 2 schemes.

Yingluk re-instated rice pledging with no attempt to change, despite there being many reports if its inefficacy and corruption. Financial press that reported on the scheme stated it was doomed to fail, as did the Opposition. But the "world's smartest businessman" thought it would work, and he owns PTP, so what choice did they have. And it was a great vote-buying policy to get elected, even if Yingluk opened her mouth at a rally and arbitrarily kicked up the buying price.

I guess those foretelling the result had 20/20 foresight, while somebody had their head firmly planted elsewhere, or just didn't care as long as they got the keys to the Treasury again.

BTW how much hindsight was needed for the reviews of the policy? Surely a policy involving such huge volumes of state money was reviewed regularly, or that would be negligence.

Yes, You're not going to get the truth from a PT supporter.

I just love this twisted statement: For whatever it was worth at the time the PTP determined that reducing the world supply would drive prices beyond its pledged price. There was no independent, professional economic study to contravene that supposition except in hindsight.

The truth was that Thaksin - possessor of infinite 'wisdom' - never even tried to find any economic study in support of the stupid idea that Thailand could control rice market prices.

Yingluck didn't 'miscalculate' anything, she, clueless as always, followed her brother's instructions and lied about the scheme being 'self financing'.

Lastly it is another blatant lie to say that the PDRC protesters drove potential buyers away. Buyers for the local market were not driven anywhere, buyers for export had no one to sell ridiculously overpriced rice to.

However I don't think it is a good idea to try & recover the lost money for the same reasons as outlined by Robby NZ.

[ramrod711]

The operative term...Independent analysis . Taking into account political and economic objectives.

A research study and analysis with terms of reference agreed to by both sides of the political divide.

Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard's comment that 5.8 million tonnes of degraded rice stored under the rice-pledging scheme should be made into noodle flour and not ethanol. A PTP party spokesman admitting that there are millions of tonnes of degrade rice. Probably the first time the guy ever told the truth. Is an admission from PTP good enough for you, or not independent enough?

[Baerboxer]

Let's just have one....An independent study of the Rice subsidy program.

Opposition accusatory noise about this thing over and over with no substantiating data other than their own, is dismissed out-of-hand by most people, other than those who for self-serving reasons want to believe.

An election may have been the next best thing to an independent study, but the anti-democrats hurriedly cancelled it.

They knew that voters know about this stuff, and have shown themselves to be very good at cutting through political BS.

Cancelling that election is all one needs to know when contextualizing their repetitive assaults against this Ag. subsidy program.

It is all part of their ideological aversion to other populist programs that benefit those not of their station...They hate to spread the nation's wealth beyond themselves.

I can give you two. But as a confirmed PT supporter you wont believe either.

http://tdri.or.th/en/tdri-insight/tdri-details-apparent-costs-of-rice-pledging-programme-including-bt111-billion-in-corruption/

http://freedombarometer.org/assets/pdfs/Freedom-Barometer-Special-Report-Thailands-Agrarian-Policy.pdf

And incidentally it was never and was never touted as a subsidy but as a self financing scheme that would eventually run at a profit and was financed out of budget so there would be no accountability.

The operative term...Independent analysis . Taking into account political and economic objectives.

A research study and analysis with terms of reference agreed to by both sides of the political divide.

Try the World Bank. They even had a notion of how much the poor really benefited from this self financing non accountable scheme.

Yingluck still makes silly comments that it helped the poor, there was no corruption, there were no losses. How does she know when they apparently kept no financial records and cannot account for any quality or quantity inventory discrepancies. Why did she fire and intimidate finance people who tried to bring the issues to light?

PTP would never ever co-operate on any report - unless they could write the report themselves. Like court decisions - they only support the "right" decisions which find in their favor.

Is it really surprising? A government that was openly owned, remunerated and dictated to by a non elected crook. Sure, you can believe everything they say. They never ever did anything wrong, never ever.