Supa Piyajitti claims loss from rice scheme exceeds 600 billion baht

[halloween]

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

Same old, same old, start with a few insults, add a little "I know more than you!", follow up with a vague comparison without ever quoting numbers, and finish with a "But, but, Abhisit......."

Half a trillion baht, at least, has gone from Treasury or government banks. Some of it most certainly stolen by Boonsong, aided by Nattiwut and "close associates of Thaksin" and others, or was wasted in a senseless vote buying exercise, or went through corruption, or was wasted storing rice worth less than the storage costs. However it went, and the accounting may never be clear, the management of those funds was the duty of the PTP government acting in trust for the people of Thailand. And those people have every right to ask, via their anti-corruption agencies, where that money went, what measures were taken to prevent losses, and what have they got to show for it.

Now back to "I'm not a Yingluk apologist, but........."

[mikemac]

I was wondering how much actually got to the farmers : if 18% is correct it means Pheu-Thai STOLE nearly 500,000,000,000 baht.

Can you even comprehend a number like that Mr tbthailand ?. And you think the people they stole from (ie the taxpayer) should just forget about it ?. Exactly the kind of 'reconciliation' you people want.

Your post makes no sense at all. Keep up with your whining and nonsense statements you copied from something someone else told you : it just makes sure the rest of us know what kind of people we are talking about when we see the phrase "red-shirt".

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

You are equally tiresome tb, you told me recently that you were not a Shin or red supporter yet you spend so much of your valuable time defending their actions every time someone attacks them.

Every topic to do with the rice scam or the 2010 riots in Bangkok will feature you defending the reds and the Shins and attacking the Military and the current government.

Seems you are so busy trying to make your "quota" of posts that you forget what you posted previously. It happens to people who are as active as you.

if you look at my post, you will see that I have called out the military patsies at the NACC for a stupid position and accused them of political revenge.

You can explain to everyone how that is a defense of the PTP, the red shirts, or, lord forbid, Thaksin....

Perhaps you should read my last comment again, but slow-ly this time. I did not refer to the post you mentioned, but to your overall attitude towards your defense of the Shins and reds.

If that is indeed not one of the reasons you are posting on this forum, as well as slandering the present government, then you will not mind if I bring the subject up every time you post a comment defending your beloved Shins and their private army of paid protesters and rabble rousers.

We will see how long you last !

[Thai at Heart]

For the record, even the pro-industry TDRI states that 37% went to farmers.

It is true that industry preferred the Ahbhisit income guarantee plan and the farmers preferred the pledging plan.

The Abhisit Vejjajiva administration (Democrat Party, 2008-2011) abandoned the rice pledging scheme and instead implemented rice farmers’ income guarantee under which farmers received the difference between the market price and the price-guarantee (Jermsittiparsert et al., 2012, p. 23; Phakdeewanich, 2013, online). Research about the program’s benefit sharing structure is non-existent. Nonetheless, academics and exporters welcomed the new policy, in contrast to the rice farmers who preferred the rice pledging approach as they perceived it to be more beneficial to them than the farmer’s income guarantee (Jermsittiparsert et al., 2012, p. 23).

Such as it is, and was, the 2 plans were different and yet both incurred large losses...

So let's go back now and ask Mark for billions of Bhat for his own hair-brained rice scheme... well of course not, that would be a stupid idea... just as it is is a stupid idea to think about prosecuting PTP politicians to recoup funds for their rice program... That is my point...

A whole 37% - wow, that efficiency for you. Now, how much of that 37% went to the "poorest farmers" which was the declared aim? And what percentage of Abhisit's scheme went to farmers, more than 37?

Both schemes incurred large losses - that's nice, but you forgot to give us figures. You might say the Manly ferry is a big boat, while the QE 2 sits behind it.

Research about the split of benefits caused by Abhisits system is according to this report "non existant". Please note that any pledging system that involves stock piling products will benefit millers or storers of product irrespective of who implements it............

Surely you are well enough informed that Abhisit's scheme did not involve taking possession of the rice, but covering the gap difference in price. So who are you attempting to mislead?

That quote of "non existant" is pulled from the quoted report up the top in the quotes. There is no data about whether wealthy or poor farmers received it. If you bother to read the report, it will state that any type of government intervention policy of which there have been dozens of varients involves also paying for storage. So moaning about only 37% going to farmers is a little bit of a red herring if the govt also gets involved in paying for warehousing or milling costs, since of course these services have to be paid for. It would be impossible for 100% of the money to end up in the hands of the farmers, since mills and warehouses have to be paid.

Abhisit's system wouldn't have had those costs, but threre were many subsidy or direct finance systems in Thaialnd since the 60's which also delivered less than 37% of the total payment to farmers. This is also contained in the very same report quoted in the nested quotes, if you could be bothered to read it, instead of accusing me of misleading anyone. Thanks very much.

[ginjag]

So with yingluck being in office for 2 years 9 months and 2 days the losses equate to 26.8 million baht an hour lost on a scheme that helped everyone except the farmers.

I wonder if the ex PTP MP's will denounce and belittle her and have her investigated and sacked like last time when she has highlighted facts that went against their agenda.

I wonder why you never ,ever quote when there is a post that proves the junta is wrong,....

The main interest of the government should be governing and taking care of economic grow, the Dems nor the Junta will ever succeed in this, as it is not their goal .

But you Dj, I bet you have a photo of the Gen. above your bed..

Arn't you the bitter one---JUNTA junta junta--every day----The present PM had nothing to do with the 600 billion loss, DEMS dems, neither had they anything to do with it----OFF topic.

you do actually believe PTP governed well??? Yingluck was always present at home to care for Thailand and chaired all he meetings , and the rice and tablet for schools were a brilliant idea, so because of the vast losses Thaksin was not a good brainy manager of Yingluck was he, and recently he wanted to help the Thai government manage the economy

[phoenixdoglover]

I think the reason there is so much bickering, and so many unsubstantiated accusations flying around, is that there is an immense vacuum of credible information. Credible information would provide at least a small patch of common ground.

Alas, what we have instead is mostly bad information that achieves some solidity by sheer repetition. This applies to corruption allegations on both sides of the divide.

In the case of the OP above, we have NACC making some claims. On the one side, these claims are given credence, because similar claims have been repeated in many places, and there is the pillar of truth that a large sum of money was "lost" (but lost how and where?). On the other side, people are suggesting this is a political vendetta.

I am suggesting is that there is little basis to trust NACC. NACC shows a disturbing tendency to make bold accusations while withholding details. They never seem to "make their case" in a convincing way - these are the bad guys, this is what they did, this is the key evidence that warrants prosecution. The OP above is a clear example.

But even more disturbing in my view is the evolution of NACC from that of "change agent" to "prosecutor". In the 2009-2010 time frame, NACC published a National Anti-Corruption Strategy, with NACC as the coordinating agency working to strengthen Thai institutions, to diminish corruption and especially decentralize anti-corruption efforts. Their role was to change the rules, systems, and mindset of citizens and the government officials. The strategy did not include NACC acting as a prosecuting attorney's office, or large scale corruption investigator.

Something happened. I think what happened is their absorption into a different game of cyclical retribution; a role that undercuts trust, and leaves them open to charges of political influence and bias.

Edited August 8, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[tbthailand]

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

Same old, same old, start with a few insults, add a little "I know more than you!", follow up with a vague comparison without ever quoting numbers, and finish with a "But, but, Abhisit......."

Half a trillion baht, at least, has gone from Treasury or government banks. Some of it most certainly stolen by Boonsong, aided by Nattiwut and "close associates of Thaksin" and others, or was wasted in a senseless vote buying exercise, or went through corruption, or was wasted storing rice worth less than the storage costs. However it went, and the accounting may never be clear, the management of those funds was the duty of the PTP government acting in trust for the people of Thailand. And those people have every right to ask, via their anti-corruption agencies, where that money went, what measures were taken to prevent losses, and what have they got to show for it.

Now back to "I'm not a Yingluk apologist, but........."

blah, blah, blah....

you never do run out of breath and still fail to get to the point that was made.

BTW, apropos the point I actually did make, do you think that it is a good idea to take politicians to court to recover from them personally compensation for government programs that lost money. Do you think that is a reasonable policy?

I think it's stupid. I think it is stupid in this case, and I think it would be stupid in other cases. Inside of Thailand and outside of Thailand.

[tbthailand]

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

You are equally tiresome tb, you told me recently that you were not a Shin or red supporter yet you spend so much of your valuable time defending their actions every time someone attacks them.

Every topic to do with the rice scam or the 2010 riots in Bangkok will feature you defending the reds and the Shins and attacking the Military and the current government.

Seems you are so busy trying to make your "quota" of posts that you forget what you posted previously. It happens to people who are as active as you.

if you look at my post, you will see that I have called out the military patsies at the NACC for a stupid position and accused them of political revenge.

You can explain to everyone how that is a defense of the PTP, the red shirts, or, lord forbid, Thaksin....

Perhaps you should read my last comment again, but slow-ly this time. I did not refer to the post you mentioned, but to your overall attitude towards your defense of the Shins and reds.

If that is indeed not one of the reasons you are posting on this forum, as well as slandering the present government, then you will not mind if I bring the subject up every time you post a comment defending your beloved Shins and their private army of paid protesters and rabble rousers.

We will see how long you last !

I read just fine.

Your comprehension is the problem. You don't know how to tell the difference between setting straight wild a$$ accusations and "defending someone". You don't know that criticising one side of the political divide is not supporting or defending their enemies.

As long as you and other posters don't have a clue about these simple facts, then you will continue to incorrectly label me and others as "Shin-supporters".

Doesn't bother me one bit.

[boomerangutang]

It's a simple formula for Thais. Some influential person talking loudly through a P.A. system (they think they have to shout to make the mic function), promises poor indebted farmers money. The farmers will vote for the person/party offering to give them money. That's the basic foundation upon which the whole rice scheme was built. Now we're seeing in technicolor how flawed the entire program was.

[phoenixdoglover]

It's a simple formula for Thais. Some influential person talking loudly through a P.A. system (they think they have to shout to make the mic function), promises poor indebted farmers money. The farmers will vote for the person/party offering to give them money. That's the basic foundation upon which the whole rice scheme was built. Now we're seeing in technicolor how flawed the entire program was.

The problem is not that the Thai electorate (people who vote) are unique.

The problem is not that some populist politicians promise farmers subsidies, handouts, or guaranteed prices. Many politicians do this worldwide, and it is up to the conservative politicians in each country to have a more compelling message about the disastrous consequences of unbridled spending. This conservative message plays very well in some countries.

The problem is not that farmers, or anybody else, votes in accordance with their self interest. This is human nature and accommodated well in representative democracies, because not everybody has the same interests.

The problem is not that we are "now" seeing the flaws of the rice pledging program. The flaws were evident from Day 1. It was a bonehead idea sure to lose money. Almost every government subsidy loses money, but serves some policy goal, good or bad Every representative government has examples of the same sort of thing on a smaller or larger scale.

The problem is that there are substantial allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and waste in the rice pledging program over and above the losses due to the bonehead nature of the program (buy low, sell high, unless the market goes lower, in which case, lose buckets of money).

It is likely that numerous laws were broken. To address that, the Thais should avoid the politics of the situation, and focus on the criminal aspects. Unfortunately, NACC seems to have adopted the "somebody must pay for all the losses" theory of law. Evidently, it is now "illegal" to be dumb if you are an elected official. This "standard" would not auger well for any government.

Edited August 8, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[rubl]

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

Same old, same old, start with a few insults, add a little "I know more than you!", follow up with a vague comparison without ever quoting numbers, and finish with a "But, but, Abhisit......."

Half a trillion baht, at least, has gone from Treasury or government banks. Some of it most certainly stolen by Boonsong, aided by Nattiwut and "close associates of Thaksin" and others, or was wasted in a senseless vote buying exercise, or went through corruption, or was wasted storing rice worth less than the storage costs. However it went, and the accounting may never be clear, the management of those funds was the duty of the PTP government acting in trust for the people of Thailand. And those people have every right to ask, via their anti-corruption agencies, where that money went, what measures were taken to prevent losses, and what have they got to show for it.

Now back to "I'm not a Yingluk apologist, but........."

blah, blah, blah....

you never do run out of breath and still fail to get to the point that was made.

BTW, apropos the point I actually did make, do you think that it is a good idea to take politicians to court to recover from them personally compensation for government programs that lost money. Do you think that is a reasonable policy?

I think it's stupid. I think it is stupid in this case, and I think it would be stupid in other cases. Inside of Thailand and outside of Thailand.

Ah, but it's not the application of a policy, it's just applying the law. That seems just, the more so as the previous government positioned their wonderful RPPS as 'self-financing' and kept on defending it. It's not as if the previous government made a reservation in the National Budget for a Rice Price Subsidy. Had they done that there wouldn't have been a problem. The previous government deliberately choose to position their scheme as 'self-financing'.

Now if you think that's stupid, the defending of the undefendable, I can only agree with you.

To allow it to continue and lose money is at least negligent and in my eyes criminally defrauding the state and taxpayers.

[rubl]

It's a simple formula for Thais. Some influential person talking loudly through a P.A. system (they think they have to shout to make the mic function), promises poor indebted farmers money. The farmers will vote for the person/party offering to give them money. That's the basic foundation upon which the whole rice scheme was built. Now we're seeing in technicolor how flawed the entire program was.

The problem is not that the Thai electorate (people who vote) are unique.

The problem is not that some populist politicians promise farmers subsidies, handouts, or guaranteed prices. Many politicians do this worldwide, and it is up to the conservative politicians in each country to have a more compelling message about the disastrous consequences of unbridled spending. This conservative message plays very well in some countries.

The problem is not that farmers, or anybody else, votes in accordance with their self interest. This is human nature and accommodated well in representative democracies, because not everybody has the same interests.

The problem is not that we are "now" seeing the flaws of the rice pledging program. The flaws were evident from Day 1. It was a bonehead idea sure to lose money. Almost every government subsidy loses money, but serves some policy goal, good or bad Every representative government has examples of the same sort of thing on a smaller or larger scale.

The problem is that there are substantial allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and waste in the rice pledging program over and above the losses due to the bonehead nature of the program (buy low, sell high, unless the market goes lower, in which case, lose buckets of money).

It is likely that numerous laws were broken. To address that, the Thais should avoid the politics of the situation, and focus on the criminal aspects. Unfortunately, NACC seems to have adopted the "somebody must pay for all the losses" theory of law. Evidently, it is now "illegal" to be dumb if you are an elected official. This "standard" would not auger well for any government.

Being dumb is no problem. The problem is a 'self-financing' RPPS which managed to lose 600 billion Baht or more. The scheme was positioned so on purpose, defended with advise ignored, belittled, and only slowly the admission of possibly some losses, but a great scheme none the less. That's close to criminally defrauding the state and taxpayers of 600 billion Baht. The PM and her cabinet were ful of responsibility and accountability and now you tell us they didn't mean that?

[phoenixdoglover]

It's a simple formula for Thais. Some influential person talking loudly through a P.A. system (they think they have to shout to make the mic function), promises poor indebted farmers money. The farmers will vote for the person/party offering to give them money. That's the basic foundation upon which the whole rice scheme was built. Now we're seeing in technicolor how flawed the entire program was.

The problem is not that the Thai electorate (people who vote) are unique.

The problem is not that some populist politicians promise farmers subsidies, handouts, or guaranteed prices. Many politicians do this worldwide, and it is up to the conservative politicians in each country to have a more compelling message about the disastrous consequences of unbridled spending. This conservative message plays very well in some countries.

The problem is not that farmers, or anybody else, votes in accordance with their self interest. This is human nature and accommodated well in representative democracies, because not everybody has the same interests.

The problem is not that we are "now" seeing the flaws of the rice pledging program. The flaws were evident from Day 1. It was a bonehead idea sure to lose money. Almost every government subsidy loses money, but serves some policy goal, good or bad Every representative government has examples of the same sort of thing on a smaller or larger scale.

The problem is that there are substantial allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and waste in the rice pledging program over and above the losses due to the bonehead nature of the program (buy low, sell high, unless the market goes lower, in which case, lose buckets of money).

It is likely that numerous laws were broken. To address that, the Thais should avoid the politics of the situation, and focus on the criminal aspects. Unfortunately, NACC seems to have adopted the "somebody must pay for all the losses" theory of law. Evidently, it is now "illegal" to be dumb if you are an elected official. This "standard" would not auger well for any government.

Being dumb is no problem. The problem is a 'self-financing' RPPS which managed to lose 600 billion Baht or more. The scheme was positioned so on purpose, defended with advise ignored, belittled, and only slowly the admission of possibly some losses, but a great scheme none the less. That's close to criminally defrauding the state and taxpayers of 600 billion Baht. The PM and her cabinet were ful of responsibility and accountability and now you tell us they didn't mean that?

The difference between you and me is I don't swallow the 600 billion figure, "hook, line and sinker".

My threshold for being convinced is higher.

Consider that in March 2013, the NACC announced that the unrecovered amount in the rice pledging program was US $9 billion, or roughly THB 250 billion.

I would like to learn how NACC managed to get from 250 to 600 in 18 months.

But I'm not holding my breath. An explanation seems unlikely.

[mikemac]

Perhaps you should read my last comment again, but slow-ly this time. I did not refer to the post you mentioned, but to your overall attitude towards your defense of the Shins and reds.

If that is indeed not one of the reasons you are posting on this forum, as well as slandering the present government, then you will not mind if I bring the subject up every time you post a comment defending your beloved Shins and their private army of paid protesters and rabble rousers.

We will see how long you last !

I read just fine.

Your comprehension is the problem. You don't know how to tell the difference between setting straight wild <deleted> accusations and "defending someone". You don't know that criticising one side of the political divide is not supporting or defending their enemies.

As long as you and other posters don't have a clue about these simple facts, then you will continue to incorrectly label me and others as "Shin-supporters".

Doesn't bother me one bit.

Well then it won't bother you one bit if every time you post a comment blatantly defending their actions I remind you that you are not a Shin supporter.

I can hardly wait !

[mikemac]

It's a simple formula for Thais. Some influential person talking loudly through a P.A. system (they think they have to shout to make the mic function), promises poor indebted farmers money. The farmers will vote for the person/party offering to give them money. That's the basic foundation upon which the whole rice scheme was built. Now we're seeing in technicolor how flawed the entire program was.

The problem is not that the Thai electorate (people who vote) are unique.

The problem is not that some populist politicians promise farmers subsidies, handouts, or guaranteed prices. Many politicians do this worldwide, and it is up to the conservative politicians in each country to have a more compelling message about the disastrous consequences of unbridled spending. This conservative message plays very well in some countries.

The problem is not that farmers, or anybody else, votes in accordance with their self interest. This is human nature and accommodated well in representative democracies, because not everybody has the same interests.

The problem is not that we are "now" seeing the flaws of the rice pledging program. The flaws were evident from Day 1. It was a bonehead idea sure to lose money. Almost every government subsidy loses money, but serves some policy goal, good or bad Every representative government has examples of the same sort of thing on a smaller or larger scale.

The problem is that there are substantial allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and waste in the rice pledging program over and above the losses due to the bonehead nature of the program (buy low, sell high, unless the market goes lower, in which case, lose buckets of money).

It is likely that numerous laws were broken. To address that, the Thais should avoid the politics of the situation, and focus on the criminal aspects. Unfortunately, NACC seems to have adopted the "somebody must pay for all the losses" theory of law. Evidently, it is now "illegal" to be dumb if you are an elected official. This "standard" would not auger well for any government.

Being dumb is no problem. The problem is a 'self-financing' RPPS which managed to lose 600 billion Baht or more. The scheme was positioned so on purpose, defended with advise ignored, belittled, and only slowly the admission of possibly some losses, but a great scheme none the less. That's close to criminally defrauding the state and taxpayers of 600 billion Baht. The PM and her cabinet were ful of responsibility and accountability and now you tell us they didn't mean that?

The difference between you and me is I don't swallow the 600 billion figure, "hook, line and sinker".

My threshold for being convinced is higher.

Consider that in March 2013, the NACC announced that the unrecovered amount in the rice pledging program was US $9 billion, or roughly THB 250 billion.

I would like to learn how NACC managed to get from 250 to 600 in 18 months.

But I'm not holding my breath. An explanation seems unlikely.

It's all very well that TVF posters are arguing the point about how much money was unrecovered/lost/squandered etc, but what have the people who were responsible for the rice pledging scheme said about it ? Have they themselves put a figure on it ? Or don't they know ?

And are you describing the rice pledging scheme as a "subsidy" ?

Edited August 9, 2015 by mikemac

[tbthailand]

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

Same old, same old, start with a few insults, add a little "I know more than you!", follow up with a vague comparison without ever quoting numbers, and finish with a "But, but, Abhisit......."

Half a trillion baht, at least, has gone from Treasury or government banks. Some of it most certainly stolen by Boonsong, aided by Nattiwut and "close associates of Thaksin" and others, or was wasted in a senseless vote buying exercise, or went through corruption, or was wasted storing rice worth less than the storage costs. However it went, and the accounting may never be clear, the management of those funds was the duty of the PTP government acting in trust for the people of Thailand. And those people have every right to ask, via their anti-corruption agencies, where that money went, what measures were taken to prevent losses, and what have they got to show for it.

Now back to "I'm not a Yingluk apologist, but........."

blah, blah, blah....

you never do run out of breath and still fail to get to the point that was made.

BTW, apropos the point I actually did make, do you think that it is a good idea to take politicians to court to recover from them personally compensation for government programs that lost money. Do you think that is a reasonable policy?

I think it's stupid. I think it is stupid in this case, and I think it would be stupid in other cases. Inside of Thailand and outside of Thailand.

Ah, but it's not the application of a policy, it's just applying the law. That seems just, the more so as the previous government positioned their wonderful RPPS as 'self-financing' and kept on defending it. It's not as if the previous government made a reservation in the National Budget for a Rice Price Subsidy. Had they done that there wouldn't have been a problem. The previous government deliberately choose to position their scheme as 'self-financing'.

Now if you think that's stupid, the defending of the undefendable, I can only agree with you.

To allow it to continue and lose money is at least negligent and in my eyes criminally defrauding the state and taxpayers.

yawn, if this is application of a law, then...

Which law allows prosecution and recovery of government funds spent on government projects from former politicians....

Edited August 9, 2015 by tbthailand

[halloween]

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

Same old, same old, start with a few insults, add a little "I know more than you!", follow up with a vague comparison without ever quoting numbers, and finish with a "But, but, Abhisit......."

Half a trillion baht, at least, has gone from Treasury or government banks. Some of it most certainly stolen by Boonsong, aided by Nattiwut and "close associates of Thaksin" and others, or was wasted in a senseless vote buying exercise, or went through corruption, or was wasted storing rice worth less than the storage costs. However it went, and the accounting may never be clear, the management of those funds was the duty of the PTP government acting in trust for the people of Thailand. And those people have every right to ask, via their anti-corruption agencies, where that money went, what measures were taken to prevent losses, and what have they got to show for it.

Now back to "I'm not a Yingluk apologist, but........."

blah, blah, blah....

you never do run out of breath and still fail to get to the point that was made.

BTW, apropos the point I actually did make, do you think that it is a good idea to take politicians to court to recover from them personally compensation for government programs that lost money. Do you think that is a reasonable policy?

I think it's stupid. I think it is stupid in this case, and I think it would be stupid in other cases. Inside of Thailand and outside of Thailand.

Yes I do. It is a government's job to manage the finances of the people of Thailand, and it should be done by a budget presented to the people in parliament and open to scrutiny of all. Why should anybody be allowed to manage the money of others without a clear statement of where the money was going and how losses were incurred, and what steps were taken to minimise those losses? Because they were elected? Are governments anywhere not held to account?

You think it is stupid. If a large chunk of your wealth suddenly disappeared, and cheques your had written were paid to the wrong party, as in not those you promised to pay, would you not complain? If your bank suddenly has no money to cover your cheques, would you be happy with that bank?

The rice scam was a re-introduced policy known to have failed. No attempts were made to improve its known faults, no attempts were made to limit its scope to those allegedly intended to benefit, no attempt was made to stop market moves which would reduce its effectiveness (such as a rent freeze on farm land), no periodic reports were made to parliament, no attempts were made to limit its huge losses which became apparent during its implementation, and lies were told about true cost.

If you are looking for a law, try criminal negligence, misuse of public funds, abuse of office, and corruption arising from conflicts of interest. Hope your attention span manages the long sentences.

Edited August 9, 2015 by halloween

[tbthailand]

Perhaps you should read my last comment again, but slow-ly this time. I did not refer to the post you mentioned, but to your overall attitude towards your defense of the Shins and reds.

If that is indeed not one of the reasons you are posting on this forum, as well as slandering the present government, then you will not mind if I bring the subject up every time you post a comment defending your beloved Shins and their private army of paid protesters and rabble rousers.

We will see how long you last !

I read just fine.

Your comprehension is the problem. You don't know how to tell the difference between setting straight wild <deleted> accusations and "defending someone". You don't know that criticising one side of the political divide is not supporting or defending their enemies.

As long as you and other posters don't have a clue about these simple facts, then you will continue to incorrectly label me and others as "Shin-supporters".

Doesn't bother me one bit.

Well then it won't bother you one bit if every time you post a comment blatantly defending their actions I remind you that you are not a Shin supporter.

I can hardly wait !

please do that.

maybe between the two of us we'll help you and other posters understand the difference between anti-junta and pro-Thaksin.

[tbthailand]

EnglishJohn, you are incredibly tiresome, not because I disagree with you but because you don't think before you post ... ever, it seems.

Please go educate yourself about the rice production pipeline, just nominally. Then read a tiny tiny bit about how support programs work in general. Then get your numbers straight - at least as far is possible... Then you won't make stupid comments like PTP stole half a trillion bhat and then ask me if I ever thought about that...

Same old, same old, start with a few insults, add a little "I know more than you!", follow up with a vague comparison without ever quoting numbers, and finish with a "But, but, Abhisit......."

Half a trillion baht, at least, has gone from Treasury or government banks. Some of it most certainly stolen by Boonsong, aided by Nattiwut and "close associates of Thaksin" and others, or was wasted in a senseless vote buying exercise, or went through corruption, or was wasted storing rice worth less than the storage costs. However it went, and the accounting may never be clear, the management of those funds was the duty of the PTP government acting in trust for the people of Thailand. And those people have every right to ask, via their anti-corruption agencies, where that money went, what measures were taken to prevent losses, and what have they got to show for it.

Now back to "I'm not a Yingluk apologist, but........."

blah, blah, blah....

you never do run out of breath and still fail to get to the point that was made.

BTW, apropos the point I actually did make, do you think that it is a good idea to take politicians to court to recover from them personally compensation for government programs that lost money. Do you think that is a reasonable policy?

I think it's stupid. I think it is stupid in this case, and I think it would be stupid in other cases. Inside of Thailand and outside of Thailand.

Yes I do. It is a government's job to manage the finances of the people of Thailand, and it should be done by a budget presented to the people in parliament and open to scrutiny of all. Why should anybody be allowed to manage the money of others without a clear statement of where the money was going and how losses were incurred, and what steps were taken to minimise those losses? Because they were elected? Are governments anywhere not held to account?

You think it is stupid. If a large chunk of your wealth suddenly disappeared, and cheques your had written were paid to the wrong party, as in not those you promised to pay, would you not complain? If your bank suddenly has no money to cover your cheques, would you be happy with that bank?

The rice scam was a re-introduced policy known to have failed. No attempts were made to improve its known faults, no attempts were made to limit its scope to those allegedly intended to benefit, no attempt was made to stop market moves which would reduce its effectiveness (such as a rent freeze on farm land), no periodic reports were made to parliament, no attempts were made to limit its huge losses which became apparent during its implementation, and lies were told about true cost.

If you are looking for a law, try criminal negligence, misuse of public funds, abuse of office, and corruption arising from conflicts of interest. Hope your attention span manages the long sentences.

Yes I do.

so let's be explicitly clear here. You think that Yingluck and possibly other politicians should be made to reimburse the current "government" for the costs; in this case, currently claimed to be 600 billion Bhat, of the previous government's rice program, correct?

[halloween]

Yes I do. It is a government's job to manage the finances of the people of Thailand, and it should be done by a budget presented to the people in parliament and open to scrutiny of all. Why should anybody be allowed to manage the money of others without a clear statement of where the money was going and how losses were incurred, and what steps were taken to minimise those losses? Because they were elected? Are governments anywhere not held to account?

You think it is stupid. If a large chunk of your wealth suddenly disappeared, and cheques your had written were paid to the wrong party, as in not those you promised to pay, would you not complain? If your bank suddenly has no money to cover your cheques, would you be happy with that bank?

The rice scam was a re-introduced policy known to have failed. No attempts were made to improve its known faults, no attempts were made to limit its scope to those allegedly intended to benefit, no attempt was made to stop market moves which would reduce its effectiveness (such as a rent freeze on farm land), no periodic reports were made to parliament, no attempts were made to limit its huge losses which became apparent during its implementation, and lies were told about true cost.

If you are looking for a law, try criminal negligence, misuse of public funds, abuse of office, and corruption arising from conflicts of interest. Hope your attention span manages the long sentences.

Yes I do.

so let's be explicitly clear here. You think that Yingluck and possibly other politicians should be made to reimburse the current "government" for the costs; in this case, currently claimed to be 600 billion Bhat, of the previous government's rice program, correct?

If their actions are proven to be criminal, and I have no doubt that they will being blatantly so, yes.

Which part of "yes" do you fail to comprehend?

[tbthailand]

Yes I do. It is a government's job to manage the finances of the people of Thailand, and it should be done by a budget presented to the people in parliament and open to scrutiny of all. Why should anybody be allowed to manage the money of others without a clear statement of where the money was going and how losses were incurred, and what steps were taken to minimise those losses? Because they were elected? Are governments anywhere not held to account?

You think it is stupid. If a large chunk of your wealth suddenly disappeared, and cheques your had written were paid to the wrong party, as in not those you promised to pay, would you not complain? If your bank suddenly has no money to cover your cheques, would you be happy with that bank?

The rice scam was a re-introduced policy known to have failed. No attempts were made to improve its known faults, no attempts were made to limit its scope to those allegedly intended to benefit, no attempt was made to stop market moves which would reduce its effectiveness (such as a rent freeze on farm land), no periodic reports were made to parliament, no attempts were made to limit its huge losses which became apparent during its implementation, and lies were told about true cost.

If you are looking for a law, try criminal negligence, misuse of public funds, abuse of office, and corruption arising from conflicts of interest. Hope your attention span manages the long sentences.

Yes I do.

so let's be explicitly clear here. You think that Yingluck and possibly other politicians should be made to reimburse the current "government" for the costs; in this case, currently claimed to be 600 billion Bhat, of the previous government's rice program, correct?

If their actions are proven to be criminal, and I have no doubt that they will being blatantly so, yes.

Which part of "yes" do you fail to comprehend?

Thank you.

we agree that criminal actions should be punished.

If a politician, for example in the US or some other country, accepts bribes and is caught and convicted, then they may need to cough up that money. That is normal. If a politician or any other citizen inside or outside of government is found to have broken the law, then they receive a punishment according to that law.

There is no law in Thailand or else where for that matter which makes a politician responsible for costs incurred in a government program... that I am aware of.

I await my legal training from "Halloween"...

ps: while you prepare your instructional lessons for me, please address the issue why the NACC should not go after Abhisit for the estimated 150 billion Bhat 'lost' (eg: spent) under his rice program.

[Baerboxer]

If the former government had a policy to pay subsidies to rice farmers, that would be one thing, and arguably within the normal realm of government actions here.

But instead, what happened in this case at hand was a mountain of double-dealing and behind the scenes deals with connected and influential people that largely benefited those parties, and left a lot of the farmers without much of the benefit they were supposed to receive, not to mention, millions and millions of tons of unsold rice sitting and rotting.

The former is one thing. The latter is something entirely different and not within the realm of normal, legal government policies.

You may be right, but why don't you show everyone your working and proof on this matter, i addition to providing to those desperately trying to prosecute them, i am sure they would be very pleased to have some caste iron proof to show the world.....

No no, the Shins never ever do anything wrong. Thaksin and Yingluck said so. What more proof do you want? They would never ever lie.

They thought up a brilliant scheme to benefit the poor impoverished farmers who they care so dearly about. But, alas world markets proved to be outside their powers to influence, incredible as it may seem.

Yingluck was so sure of the scheme and trusting of all those involved she felt no need to attend any meetings, take any actions, or heed the numerous warnings.

The result, hard to tell really, because no one thought to bother with any real accounting. Certainly a considerable number of poor farmers are now poorer, not the ones driven to suicide of course, the Shins are massively richer, the total cost to the treasury remains a mystery and Yingluck still says it was a success, probably with the same sincerity she vowed protesting farmers would be paid within a week.

All an honest mistake.

For the result being hard to tell, you certainly seem to think you know a lot about it. Anyone can make baseless accusations, as I could about anyone in previous or current Governments, but it means nothing really because its just an allegation without fact.

Your whole post is full of just wild assumptions which you have no way of backing up, so its literally complete rubbish.

If you want me to, i can go through your post and illustrate it to you? If you can then back up your claims, would you?. Would you like me to do that?

Yes, why not. Your stories are usually wonderful works of fiction, ignoring simple facts and previous articles and attempting to twist events to your suiting. Always good for a laugh.

Let's ignore Supa, the Dems, the World Bank, the IMF, Bloomberg, all those farmers who were promised several times and lied to several times about being paid, the inventory issues that Chalerm's son's mate checked and assured there were no issues after his intense 2 day audit, the frauds in the fictitious not real G2G export sales, and the fact that the commerce and finance ministers and their minions kept issuing different and conflicting figures that seemed to have no basis in accounting or mathematics. Let's pretend this was a subsidy to help the poor, not a clever self financing scheme which didn't need be included in the budget and subject controls.

We can ignore and pretend if it makes you happy.

But, you know no more about the figures than me. Certainly not more than the World Bank and IMF. Or do you believe you actually do know more than them? Perhaps you'd like to share this detailed information and its source with us?

You have no way of backing up most of your posts, which are usually nonsense and drivel that simply supports the Shins view. Like Yingluck you make glib statements that lack any foundation in reality.

So rather than try to divert, twist and lobby, why don't you tell us exactly what you think the true situation was in the self financing rice subsidy scheme? What was the true cost to the taxpayer, if any, and how much of the money spent on the scheme actually reached the poor farmers? And of course support it with referenced sources.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Baerboxer

[halloween]

Yes I do. It is a government's job to manage the finances of the people of Thailand, and it should be done by a budget presented to the people in parliament and open to scrutiny of all. Why should anybody be allowed to manage the money of others without a clear statement of where the money was going and how losses were incurred, and what steps were taken to minimise those losses? Because they were elected? Are governments anywhere not held to account?

You think it is stupid. If a large chunk of your wealth suddenly disappeared, and cheques your had written were paid to the wrong party, as in not those you promised to pay, would you not complain? If your bank suddenly has no money to cover your cheques, would you be happy with that bank?

The rice scam was a re-introduced policy known to have failed. No attempts were made to improve its known faults, no attempts were made to limit its scope to those allegedly intended to benefit, no attempt was made to stop market moves which would reduce its effectiveness (such as a rent freeze on farm land), no periodic reports were made to parliament, no attempts were made to limit its huge losses which became apparent during its implementation, and lies were told about true cost.

If you are looking for a law, try criminal negligence, misuse of public funds, abuse of office, and corruption arising from conflicts of interest. Hope your attention span manages the long sentences.

Yes I do.

so let's be explicitly clear here. You think that Yingluck and possibly other politicians should be made to reimburse the current "government" for the costs; in this case, currently claimed to be 600 billion Bhat, of the previous government's rice program, correct?

If their actions are proven to be criminal, and I have no doubt that they will being blatantly so, yes.

Which part of "yes" do you fail to comprehend?

Thank you.

we agree that criminal actions should be punished.

If a politician, for example in the US or some other country, accepts bribes and is caught and convicted, then they may need to cough up that money. That is normal. If a politician or any other citizen inside or outside of government is found to have broken the law, then they receive a punishment according to that law.

There is no law in Thailand or else where for that matter which makes a politician responsible for costs incurred in a government program... that I am aware of.

I await my legal training from "Halloween"...

ps: while you prepare your instructional lessons for me, please address the issue why the NACC should not go after Abhisit for the estimated 150 billion Bhat 'lost' (eg: spent) under his rice program.

Despite your denial (you seem to revel in it) many countries have laws prohibiting voting on an issue where a conflict of interest arises. i have no doubt that a thorough investigation will reveal that almost every member of the PTP government benefited financially from the scam. Besides that, there is no doubt the party on a whole benefited electorally from a scheme known to be both ineffective in its goals and horrendously expensive.

When a government policy is taken off-budget, even more accountability is needed. The lack of management in controlling spiraling debt, ever-increasing storage costs, and corruption, the total lack of remedial action, and the deliberate misleading of the public of the policy's performance, all equate to criminal negligence in my book. I'm not a lawyer. OTOH, AFAIK neither are you, but that doesn't stop you denigrating the actions of those who know far more than yourself, specialists in the field of corruption.

But, but Abhisit..........................without a shred of evidence that any of the above criteria apply to the Democrat scheme.

[Baerboxer]

Only 600 billion, well that's down from 700 billion...

The NACC are just the Junta's attack dogs ... this idea of theirs that they will 'go after' politicians to 'pay back' the government is just political vengeance... It would be like going after GWB to payback American taxpayers for the Iraq war...

But while they're at it, why not go after Abhisit for the losses incurred under his rice scheme? Oh wait, ... that's right... I forgot, this is all about purging, er reconciliation.

These people are just nutters...

I read that both Shin's (and possibly the entire "mob") wealth increased greatly while the rice "adventure" was underway. HUMNNNNN if $ was from ill gotten gains then is "payback" appropriate?

Here's hopin.....jpg

Well it did i presume, as did probably 99% of politicians wealth over time, even if the money is just sitting in the bank, not just PTP but all politicians. i believe YS increased her wealth at below 3% per annum over the course of her tenure, which by most standards would be seen as poor investments.

Now can you show us TS wealth increase as well? he has not declared any assets.

I wonder where you 'read' all this?

Try Forbes Smutty. That seems a good source. Dr.Thaksin bragged himself to them that the Shin "family" wealth increased 450% during the years of his PTP government.

Now, you would need access to how the family wealth is structured between family members, trusts and all their offshore investments and accounts to know which individuals benefited and by how much. I would imagine a great deal is out of Thailand.

You need to widen your research capabilities. Google is so hard to use.

Are you going to comment Smut?

Or is it more convenient to ignore?

You should read the article, Thaksin seemed very happy with the PTP performance at the time he commented, and of course that gigantic increase in the personal family wealth. You'd probably love it.

Wonder how much the wealth of the poor farmers, or teachers, or professional went up over the same period?

[Orac]

I think the reason there is so much bickering, and so many unsubstantiated accusations flying around, is that there is an immense vacuum of credible information. Credible information would provide at least a small patch of common ground.

Alas, what we have instead is mostly bad information that achieves some solidity by sheer repetition. This applies to corruption allegations on both sides of the divide.

In the case of the OP above, we have NACC making some claims. On the one side, these claims are given credence, because similar claims have been repeated in many places, and there is the pillar of truth that a large sum of money was "lost" (but lost how and where?). On the other side, people are suggesting this is a political vendetta.

I am suggesting is that there is little basis to trust NACC. NACC shows a disturbing tendency to make bold accusations while withholding details. They never seem to "make their case" in a convincing way - these are the bad guys, this is what they did, this is the key evidence that warrants prosecution. The OP above is a clear example.

But even more disturbing in my view is the evolution of NACC from that of "change agent" to "prosecutor". In the 2009-2010 time frame, NACC published a National Anti-Corruption Strategy, with NACC as the coordinating agency working to strengthen Thai institutions, to diminish corruption and especially decentralize anti-corruption efforts. Their role was to change the rules, systems, and mindset of citizens and the government officials. The strategy did not include NACC acting as a prosecuting attorney's office, or large scale corruption investigator.

Something happened. I think what happened is their absorption into a different game of cyclical retribution; a role that undercuts trust, and leaves them open to charges of political influence and bias.

There is clearly a problem with the Yingluck rice scheme but, until the NACC can demonstrate itself to be apolitical and credible, much of what it comes out with will be open to question. The very fact that two of its commissioners, including the one in this article, are under investigation for corruption by the NACC and were when they were appointed to it is absolutely ridiculous.

[tbthailand]

Yes I do.

so let's be explicitly clear here. You think that Yingluck and possibly other politicians should be made to reimburse the current "government" for the costs; in this case, currently claimed to be 600 billion Bhat, of the previous government's rice program, correct?

If their actions are proven to be criminal, and I have no doubt that they will being blatantly so, yes.

Which part of "yes" do you fail to comprehend?

Thank you.

we agree that criminal actions should be punished.

If a politician, for example in the US or some other country, accepts bribes and is caught and convicted, then they may need to cough up that money. That is normal. If a politician or any other citizen inside or outside of government is found to have broken the law, then they receive a punishment according to that law.

There is no law in Thailand or else where for that matter which makes a politician responsible for costs incurred in a government program... that I am aware of.

I await my legal training from "Halloween"...

ps: while you prepare your instructional lessons for me, please address the issue why the NACC should not go after Abhisit for the estimated 150 billion Bhat 'lost' (eg: spent) under his rice program.

Despite your denial (you seem to revel in it) many countries have laws prohibiting voting on an issue where a conflict of interest arises. i have no doubt that a thorough investigation will reveal that almost every member of the PTP government benefited financially from the scam. Besides that, there is no doubt the party on a whole benefited electorally from a scheme known to be both ineffective in its goals and horrendously expensive.

When a government policy is taken off-budget, even more accountability is needed. The lack of management in controlling spiraling debt, ever-increasing storage costs, and corruption, the total lack of remedial action, and the deliberate misleading of the public of the policy's performance, all equate to criminal negligence in my book. I'm not a lawyer. OTOH, AFAIK neither are you, but that doesn't stop you denigrating the actions of those who know far more than yourself, specialists in the field of corruption.

But, but Abhisit..........................without a shred of evidence that any of the above criteria apply to the Democrat scheme.

many countries have laws prohibiting voting on an issue where a conflict of interest arises.

no doubt, but since you begin there and since that has nothing to do with my point, we can stop now.

[halloween]

Despite your denial (you seem to revel in it) many countries have laws prohibiting voting on an issue where a conflict of interest arises. i have no doubt that a thorough investigation will reveal that almost every member of the PTP government benefited financially from the scam. Besides that, there is no doubt the party on a whole benefited electorally from a scheme known to be both ineffective in its goals and horrendously expensive.

When a government policy is taken off-budget, even more accountability is needed. The lack of management in controlling spiraling debt, ever-increasing storage costs, and corruption, the total lack of remedial action, and the deliberate misleading of the public of the policy's performance, all equate to criminal negligence in my book. I'm not a lawyer. OTOH, AFAIK neither are you, but that doesn't stop you denigrating the actions of those who know far more than yourself, specialists in the field of corruption.

But, but Abhisit..........................without a shred of evidence that any of the above criteria apply to the Democrat scheme.

many countries have laws prohibiting voting on an issue where a conflict of interest arises.

no doubt, but since you begin there and since that has nothing to do with my point, we can stop now.

You don't have a point. You try to claim members of a government shouldn't be held personally responsible for government policy, while ignoring that the Yingluk government was a criminal conspiracy implementing, and completely failing to responsibly manage, policy from which they directly benefited.

[Thai at Heart]

Yes I do. It is a government's job to manage the finances of the people of Thailand, and it should be done by a budget presented to the people in parliament and open to scrutiny of all. Why should anybody be allowed to manage the money of others without a clear statement of where the money was going and how losses were incurred, and what steps were taken to minimise those losses? Because they were elected? Are governments anywhere not held to account?

You think it is stupid. If a large chunk of your wealth suddenly disappeared, and cheques your had written were paid to the wrong party, as in not those you promised to pay, would you not complain? If your bank suddenly has no money to cover your cheques, would you be happy with that bank?

The rice scam was a re-introduced policy known to have failed. No attempts were made to improve its known faults, no attempts were made to limit its scope to those allegedly intended to benefit, no attempt was made to stop market moves which would reduce its effectiveness (such as a rent freeze on farm land), no periodic reports were made to parliament, no attempts were made to limit its huge losses which became apparent during its implementation, and lies were told about true cost.

If you are looking for a law, try criminal negligence, misuse of public funds, abuse of office, and corruption arising from conflicts of interest. Hope your attention span manages the long sentences.

Yes I do.

so let's be explicitly clear here. You think that Yingluck and possibly other politicians should be made to reimburse the current "government" for the costs; in this case, currently claimed to be 600 billion Bhat, of the previous government's rice program, correct?

If their actions are proven to be criminal, and I have no doubt that they will being blatantly so, yes.

Which part of "yes" do you fail to comprehend?

You reckon it will be proven to be blatantly criminal.

[mikemac]

ps: while you prepare your instructional lessons for me, please address the issue why the NACC should not go after Abhisit for the estimated 150 billion Bhat 'lost' (eg: spent) under his rice program.

.........................."why the NACC should not go after Abhisit for the estimated 150 billion Bhat 'lost' (eg: spent) under his rice program.".............................

????????????????????

For exactly the same reasons you have given for the NACC not going after Yingluck for an estimated loss of 500+ billion baht.

Don't you read your own gobbledygook ?

(gobbledygook - language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.)

[rubl]

It's a simple formula for Thais. Some influential person talking loudly through a P.A. system (they think they have to shout to make the mic function), promises poor indebted farmers money. The farmers will vote for the person/party offering to give them money. That's the basic foundation upon which the whole rice scheme was built. Now we're seeing in technicolor how flawed the entire program was.

The problem is not that the Thai electorate (people who vote) are unique.

The problem is not that some populist politicians promise farmers subsidies, handouts, or guaranteed prices. Many politicians do this worldwide, and it is up to the conservative politicians in each country to have a more compelling message about the disastrous consequences of unbridled spending. This conservative message plays very well in some countries.

The problem is not that farmers, or anybody else, votes in accordance with their self interest. This is human nature and accommodated well in representative democracies, because not everybody has the same interests.

The problem is not that we are "now" seeing the flaws of the rice pledging program. The flaws were evident from Day 1. It was a bonehead idea sure to lose money. Almost every government subsidy loses money, but serves some policy goal, good or bad Every representative government has examples of the same sort of thing on a smaller or larger scale.

The problem is that there are substantial allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and waste in the rice pledging program over and above the losses due to the bonehead nature of the program (buy low, sell high, unless the market goes lower, in which case, lose buckets of money).

It is likely that numerous laws were broken. To address that, the Thais should avoid the politics of the situation, and focus on the criminal aspects. Unfortunately, NACC seems to have adopted the "somebody must pay for all the losses" theory of law. Evidently, it is now "illegal" to be dumb if you are an elected official. This "standard" would not auger well for any government.

Being dumb is no problem. The problem is a 'self-financing' RPPS which managed to lose 600 billion Baht or more. The scheme was positioned so on purpose, defended with advise ignored, belittled, and only slowly the admission of possibly some losses, but a great scheme none the less. That's close to criminally defrauding the state and taxpayers of 600 billion Baht. The PM and her cabinet were ful of responsibility and accountability and now you tell us they didn't mean that?

The difference between you and me is I don't swallow the 600 billion figure, "hook, line and sinker".

My threshold for being convinced is higher.

Consider that in March 2013, the NACC announced that the unrecovered amount in the rice pledging program was US $9 billion, or roughly THB 250 billion.

I would like to learn how NACC managed to get from 250 to 600 in 18 months.

But I'm not holding my breath. An explanation seems unlikely.

well, the main problem seems to inability of the previous government to do administration. Maybe Ms. Yingluck with present the info with her soon to be presence in a Supreme Court session?

So, where to begin?

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

2013-09-25

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has said the government was not considering further loans because it would have enough money from selling rice from its stocks to fund the scheme.

The cabinet has said it would spend no more than 270 billion baht for the scheme in the year from October 2013 to September 2014.

Early this month, Commerce Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongphaisan said, "Since the cabinet has approved the budget of 270 billion baht for the scheme, it is the duty of the Finance Ministry to figure out how to get the money."

The BAAC source, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, "The Finance Ministry will need to guarantee another loan (from the BAAC) by the end of this month.""

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

2013-07-02

Kittiratt said yesterday there was a room to accommodate the change based on Agriculture Ministry data that the second-crop output is only 2.9 million tonnes. Plus, based on a talk between Niwatthamrong, his deputy Yanyong Phuangrach, plus Foreign Trade and Rice Department officials and exporters, stockpile releases should improve in the second half of this year and the proceeds would support the current price without hurting fiscal discipline. Even with the old price, the cost of the pledging scheme, which involves some 22 million tonnes of rice, would be within the Bt345 billion target for the harvest year.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/650597-rice-back-at-bt15000/

2013-06-20

Thailand's Ruinous Rice Subsidy

"On Wednesday Thailand agreed to cut the price it pays for farmers' rice crops by 20%, in what may be the first step in unwinding a disastrous rice subsidy program. This retreat won't undo the fiscal damage already done by the two-year-old scheme, which saw the government buy local rice harvests for as much as 50% above market rates and then fail to engineer a similar price hike globally. But it does provide a good lesson in the dangers of meddling with markets.

Earlier this week the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra admitted that its rice scheme had lost $4.4 billion for the 2011-12 growing season, a huge sum for a program sold as cost-neutral."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557050631839748.html

Oh by the way, the 18 months is probably a typo. From March 2013 to August 2015 is about 28 months.

[rubl]

Yes I do. It is a government's job to manage the finances of the people of Thailand, and it should be done by a budget presented to the people in parliament and open to scrutiny of all. Why should anybody be allowed to manage the money of others without a clear statement of where the money was going and how losses were incurred, and what steps were taken to minimise those losses? Because they were elected? Are governments anywhere not held to account?

You think it is stupid. If a large chunk of your wealth suddenly disappeared, and cheques your had written were paid to the wrong party, as in not those you promised to pay, would you not complain? If your bank suddenly has no money to cover your cheques, would you be happy with that bank?

The rice scam was a re-introduced policy known to have failed. No attempts were made to improve its known faults, no attempts were made to limit its scope to those allegedly intended to benefit, no attempt was made to stop market moves which would reduce its effectiveness (such as a rent freeze on farm land), no periodic reports were made to parliament, no attempts were made to limit its huge losses which became apparent during its implementation, and lies were told about true cost.

If you are looking for a law, try criminal negligence, misuse of public funds, abuse of office, and corruption arising from conflicts of interest. Hope your attention span manages the long sentences.

Yes I do.

so let's be explicitly clear here. You think that Yingluck and possibly other politicians should be made to reimburse the current "government" for the costs; in this case, currently claimed to be 600 billion Bhat, of the previous government's rice program, correct?

If their actions are proven to be criminal, and I have no doubt that they will being blatantly so, yes.

Which part of "yes" do you fail to comprehend?

Thank you.

we agree that criminal actions should be punished.

If a politician, for example in the US or some other country, accepts bribes and is caught and convicted, then they may need to cough up that money. That is normal. If a politician or any other citizen inside or outside of government is found to have broken the law, then they receive a punishment according to that law.

There is no law in Thailand or else where for that matter which makes a politician responsible for costs incurred in a government program... that I am aware of.

I await my legal training from "Halloween"...

ps: while you prepare your instructional lessons for me, please address the issue why the NACC should not go after Abhisit for the estimated 150 billion Bhat 'lost' (eg: spent) under his rice program.

Apples and oranges.

The Abhisit government has a Rice minimum price guaranty SUBSIDY with reservations in the National Budget.

The Yingluck government sold the RPPS as cost neutral.

Don't worry though, next time you seem to have forgotten some details I'll remind you again. I have no problem helping people with a short memory.