Supa Piyajitti claims loss from rice scheme exceeds 600 billion baht

[rubl]

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....

No idea. but in the past some government official have been convicted and sentence to repay damage they brought to the State. The former BoT governor for instance, blamed for losing Thailand foreign reserve in the Battle of the Baht in 1997.

Surely you're able to find the law which can be applied. The fact I can't tell you makes me only as ignorant as you.

[tbthailand]

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.)

well, now you understood the point... sort of...

Halloween, however, still doesn't get it...

But what to expect from someone who's had the top of his head cut up and the inside hollowed out...

[tbthailand]

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....

No idea. but in the past some government official have been convicted and sentence to repay damage they brought to the State. The former BoT governor for instance, blamed for losing Thailand foreign reserve in the Battle of the Baht in 1997.

Surely you're able to find the law which can be applied. The fact I can't tell you makes me only as ignorant as you.

The fact I can't tell you makes me only as ignorant as you.

yeah, not really.

But false equivalence has always been a strong point of yours.

That you have not applicable law cuts the legs off your "applying the law" comment...

[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.)

well, now you understood the point... sort of...

Halloween, however, still doesn't get it...

But what to expect from someone who's had the top of his head cut up and the inside hollowed out...

Don't like the attitude, but that was pretty good sarcasm.

Re' Halloween, he does not actually look like that, it is only his avatar. Just like I don't really look like a plastic cow.

[rubl]

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....

No idea. but in the past some government official have been convicted and sentence to repay damage they brought to the State. The former BoT governor for instance, blamed for losing Thailand foreign reserve in the Battle of the Baht in 1997.

Surely you're able to find the law which can be applied. The fact I can't tell you makes me only as ignorant as you.

The fact I can't tell you makes me only as ignorant as you.

yeah, not really.

But false equivalence has always been a strong point of yours.

That you have not applicable law cuts the legs off your "applying the law" comment...

"No idea. but in the past some government official have been convicted and sentence to repay damage they brought to the State. The former BoT governor for instance, blamed for losing Thailand foreign reserve in the Battle of the Baht in 1997.

Surely you're able to find the law which can be applied."

[Thai at Heart]

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....

No idea. but in the past some government official have been convicted and sentence to repay damage they brought to the State. The former BoT governor for instance, blamed for losing Thailand foreign reserve in the Battle of the Baht in 1997.

Surely you're able to find the law which can be applied. The fact I can't tell you makes me only as ignorant as you.

And indeed that prosecution was a complete nonsense also. He implemented a policy. Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too.

Prosecuting someone for enacting a legal policy is a stupid strategy. Find criminality and prosecute all comers.

[halloween]

And indeed that prosecution was a complete nonsense also. He implemented a policy. Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too.

Prosecuting someone for enacting a legal policy is a stupid strategy. Find criminality and prosecute all comers.

Isn't that what they are doing, prosecuting those who formulated the policy? With your approval (and TB's)?

[Thai at Heart]

And indeed that prosecution was a complete nonsense also. He implemented a policy. Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too.

Prosecuting someone for enacting a legal policy is a stupid strategy. Find criminality and prosecute all comers.

Isn't that what they are doing, prosecuting those who formulated the policy? With your approval (and TB's)?

Well, if the cause is rotten product, shouldn't they be going after the warehouse owners who contracted to store it?

If it was smuggled shouldn't they be chasing the border police?

[tbthailand]

And indeed that prosecution was a complete nonsense also. He implemented a policy. Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too.

Prosecuting someone for enacting a legal policy is a stupid strategy. Find criminality and prosecute all comers.

Isn't that what they are doing, prosecuting those who formulated the policy? With your approval (and TB's)?

Well, if the cause is rotten product, shouldn't they be going after the warehouse owners who contracted to store it?

If it was smuggled shouldn't they be chasing the border police?

and if it is a purge, shouldn't they be prosecuting the opposition??

[halloween]

And indeed that prosecution was a complete nonsense also. He implemented a policy. Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too.

Prosecuting someone for enacting a legal policy is a stupid strategy. Find criminality and prosecute all comers.

Isn't that what they are doing, prosecuting those who formulated the policy? With your approval (and TB's)?

Well, if the cause is rotten product, shouldn't they be going after the warehouse owners who contracted to store it?

If it was smuggled shouldn't they be chasing the border police?

Is that your answer to my question, to throw in a couple of strawman arguments? You stated "Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too." and I asked "isn't that what they are doing?"

How does "going after" those implementing the policy fit in with your statement?

[Fat Haggis]

Pot calling the kettle black Halloween, you are every bit as guilty of answering questions with questions, without giving answers in the first place!!

[Thai at Heart]

And indeed that prosecution was a complete nonsense also. He implemented a policy. Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too.

Prosecuting someone for enacting a legal policy is a stupid strategy. Find criminality and prosecute all comers.

Isn't that what they are doing, prosecuting those who formulated the policy? With your approval (and TB's)?

Well, if the cause is rotten product, shouldn't they be going after the warehouse owners who contracted to store it?

If it was smuggled shouldn't they be chasing the border police?

Is that your answer to my question, to throw in a couple of strawman arguments? You stated "Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too." and I asked "isn't that what they are doing?"

How does "going after" those implementing the policy fit in with your statement?

Because the loss is caused by the product going rotten not because of the policy.

You have a confused causality. The policy fault is different from damages caused by something going rotten.

[phoenixdoglover]

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

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.

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.

Dear Rubl,

That's a nice collection of news reports. Unfortunately, just like NACC, you have not provided an accounting of the rice "scheme" that somehow supports the 600 billion "loss" figure.

Let me summarize the relevant accounting facts from the sources you so effectively cut & pasted.

1) In 2014, government debt to BACC was 750 billion

2) In 2013 Yingluck said the government would spend no more than 270 billion on the scheme in 2013-2014

3) In 2013, Kittaratt said the spending would be within 345 billion for the harvest year (year not specified)

4) In 2013, the government said it lost $4.4 billion in 2011-2012 growing season, and the program was supposed to be revenue neutral ($4.4 billion would be about THB 130 billion)

Now one might be tempted to simply take the numbers and add them together.Maybe 270+345+130=745 is a magic number, which is alluring, because it is so close to the 750 billion debt figure.

Of course, just doing that simple math could also be completely wrong ( and I suspect it is wrong). The original news reports, as is so typical for Thai news media, just don't contain enough information to judge what the numbers are telling us. Are these spending numbers separate from the revenue either acquired or anticipated? And what is the meaning of the debt number? After all, some debts can be the result of short term financing.

What is needed, of course, is a balance sheet on the program.

So my points regarding NACC and their 600 billion figure stand. It's a big number. It gets attention. And it is virtually impossible to give it credence.

Edited August 10, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[halloween]

Because the loss is caused by the product going rotten not because of the policy.

You have a confused causality. The policy fault is different from damages caused by something going rotten.

Oh right. So we'll totally disregard the policy which caused huge stockpiles of degradable product to be stored, far beyond the existing capacity for proper storage, for far longer than normal. And we should disregard the losses caused by the cost of that storage, and the culpability of the proposers to ensure that the rice WAS stored properly.

Because you really badly want to backtrack from your original question "Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too."

[halloween]

Dear Rubl,

That's a nice collection of news reports. Unfortunately, just like NACC, you have not provided an accounting of the rice "scheme" that somehow supports the 600 billion "loss" figure.

Let me summarize the relevant accounting facts from the sources you so effectively cut & pasted.

1) In 2014, government debt to BACC was 750 billion

2) In 2013 Yingluck said the government would spend no more than 270 billion on the scheme in 2013-2014

3) In 2013, Kittaratt said the spending would be within 345 billion for the harvest year (year not specified)

4) In 2013, the government said it lost $4.4 billion in 2011-2012 growing season, and the program was supposed to be revenue neutral ($4.4 billion would be about THB 130 billion)

Now one might be tempted to simply take the numbers and add them together.Maybe 270+345+130=745 is a magic number, which is alluring, because it is so close to the 750 billion debt figure.

Of course, just doing that simple math could also be completely wrong ( and I suspect it is wrong). The original news reports, as is so typical for Thai news media, just don't contain enough information to judge what the numbers are telling us. Are these spending numbers separate from the revenue either acquired or anticipated? And what is the meaning of the debt number? After all, some debts can be the result of short term financing.

What is needed, of course, is a balance sheet on the program.

So my points regarding NACC and their 600 billion figure stand. It's a big number. It gets attention. And it is virtually impossible to give it credence.

But shouldn't those administering the policy be able to present accurate accounts? If not, why not?

[Thai at Heart]

Because the loss is caused by the product going rotten not because of the policy.

You have a confused causality. The policy fault is different from damages caused by something going rotten.

Oh right. So we'll totally disregard the policy which caused huge stockpiles of degradable product to be stored, far beyond the existing capacity for proper storage, for far longer than normal. And we should disregard the losses caused by the cost of that storage, and the culpability of the proposers to ensure that the rice WAS stored properly.

Because you really badly want to backtrack from your original question "Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too."

That is a completely different issue.

If I pay someone to warehouse something and it goes mouldy, who is at fault?

The person paying or the person owning the warehouse? The product wasn't rotten when it went into the warehouse was it. So, the person who owned the warehouse is at fault.

There are issues about the policy that they may be able to hang on the politicians, but the damage caused by the storage is the warehouse owners, no matter how desperately try to say ying luck did it.

[halloween]

Because the loss is caused by the product going rotten not because of the policy.

You have a confused causality. The policy fault is different from damages caused by something going rotten.

Oh right. So we'll totally disregard the policy which caused huge stockpiles of degradable product to be stored, far beyond the existing capacity for proper storage, for far longer than normal. And we should disregard the losses caused by the cost of that storage, and the culpability of the proposers to ensure that the rice WAS stored properly.

Because you really badly want to backtrack from your original question "Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too."

That is a completely different issue.

If I pay someone to warehouse something and it goes mouldy, who is at fault?

The person paying or the person owning the warehouse? The product wasn't rotten when it went into the warehouse was it. So, the person who owned the warehouse is at fault.

There are issues about the policy that they may be able to hang on the politicians, but the damage caused by the storage is the warehouse owners, no matter how desperately try to say ying luck did it.

So you are saying that those issuing rice storage tenders have no culpability if the tenderer doesn't have sufficient capacity, or suitable storage? The country was swamped with rice because of the policy. They couldn't sell it, and forced to store it for far longer than normal because of the policy.

And they made huge losses on the storage costs because of the policy.

Desperate indeed, getting your foot back out of your mouth.

[Thai at Heart]

Because the loss is caused by the product going rotten not because of the policy.

You have a confused causality. The policy fault is different from damages caused by something going rotten.

Oh right. So we'll totally disregard the policy which caused huge stockpiles of degradable product to be stored, far beyond the existing capacity for proper storage, for far longer than normal. And we should disregard the losses caused by the cost of that storage, and the culpability of the proposers to ensure that the rice WAS stored properly.

Because you really badly want to backtrack from your original question "Why didn't whichever committee which approved the policy carry the can too."

That is a completely different issue.

If I pay someone to warehouse something and it goes mouldy, who is at fault?

The person paying or the person owning the warehouse? The product wasn't rotten when it went into the warehouse was it. So, the person who owned the warehouse is at fault.

There are issues about the policy that they may be able to hang on the politicians, but the damage caused by the storage is the warehouse owners, no matter how desperately try to say ying luck did it.

So you are saying that those issuing rice storage tenders have no culpability if the tenderer doesn't have sufficient capacity, or suitable storage? The country was swamped with rice because of the policy. They couldn't sell it, and forced to store it for far longer than normal because of the policy.

And they made huge losses on the storage costs because of the policy.

Desperate indeed, getting your foot back out of your mouth.

You never signed many contracts have u. If the owner of the warehouse didn't tell anyone it isn't right to keep rice in for a long period of time, why would anyone assume it wasn't.

[tbthailand]

notice that the people doing the accounting for the "losses" are not the ones who managed the program.

[halloween]

notice that the people doing the accounting for the "losses" are not the ones who managed the program.

And why aren't the people who managed the program able to present an accurate accounting? Isn't that THEIR responsibility?

[halloween]

You never signed many contracts have u. If the owner of the warehouse didn't tell anyone it isn't right to keep rice in for a long period of time, why would anyone assume it wasn't.

Right. Governments ALWAYS accept tenders without due diligence to check the tenderer is able to do the job. They are managing other peoples money (though you would never know it) and their is a DUTY OF CARE.

[Fat Haggis]

notice that the people doing the accounting for the "losses" are not the ones who managed the program.

And why aren't the people who managed the program able to present an accurate accounting? Isn't that THEIR responsibility?

They sure as held should be able to but they won't, and as sure as there is shit in a dog, neither will there be any logistical accounting either, I agree with your points about the scheme being a piss take, but no more a loss take than storing it, and letting it go rotten.

Perhaps the storage was deliberately allowed to go rotten ? This accumulating even greater loses, after the junta stock take, they should have been pushing that rice out by any means necessary so that the newer crops could be stored.

Blame the PTP for the failed scheme deffo, but the junta have had 15 months in which to regulate and inspect these storage facilities, someone in authority had to have signed on on what is currently in stock. If I sold a car to a garage and it sat outside in the pouring rain, and began to rust, it's not my fault is it?

I've no problems with the PTP leadership being held accountable, but as of yet, where is this missing money and missing rice? For such a huge debt, the focus and resources SHOULD be about solving this rice mountain, that's rotting away, but instead, stripping thaksin of a Police rank that means nothing to him seems to be a much higher priority!!

Where are all the thieving scum bags from the PTP who many here have stated numerous times stole the money and yet none have been incarcerated or even been put on trial, but pursuing a dissident student group also seem more important than this huge loss.

Where house owners have shown David Copperfield how to do magic on a grand scale making thousands of tonnes of rice disappear without a single trace being found, but hey, pursuing Facebook users for article 112 is far more important than solving the rice scam issue! ???

Priorities indeed!!

Some people need to stop confusing anti junta comments and assuming it's an endorsement of The PTP and Thaksin, that is the biggest straw man argument that's abused daily on this forum.

Right now the Junta, 15 months at the helm are showing themselves up as being out of their depth, anyone who thinks they're steering the country into calmer and more luxurious waters needs to get into a life raft now, and make their own way there as this ship is foundering, and it's perhaps it's a simple crew change that's needed.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Fat Haggis

[Thai at Heart]

notice that the people doing the accounting for the "losses" are not the ones who managed the program.

And why aren't the people who managed the program able to present an accurate accounting? Isn't that THEIR responsibility?

Accurate accounting has nothing to do with someone telling someone that their building isn't suitable for storage.

[halloween]

notice that the people doing the accounting for the "losses" are not the ones who managed the program.

And why aren't the people who managed the program able to present an accurate accounting? Isn't that THEIR responsibility?

Accurate accounting has nothing to do with someone telling someone that their building isn't suitable for storage.

Did anyone suggest that it was?

[Thai at Heart]

notice that the people doing the accounting for the "losses" are not the ones who managed the program.

And why aren't the people who managed the program able to present an accurate accounting? Isn't that THEIR responsibility?

Accurate accounting has nothing to do with someone telling someone that their building isn't suitable for storage.

Did anyone suggest that it was?

Guesstimating the value of the product is down to product experts not accountants.....

[Baerboxer]

So you are saying that those issuing rice storage tenders have no culpability if the tenderer doesn't have sufficient capacity, or suitable storage? The country was swamped with rice because of the policy. They couldn't sell it, and forced to store it for far longer than normal because of the policy.

And they made huge losses on the storage costs because of the policy.

Desperate indeed, getting your foot back out of your mouth.

You never signed many contracts have u. If the owner of the warehouse didn't tell anyone it isn't right to keep rice in for a long period of time, why would anyone assume it wasn't.

I hope you haven't signed many either. In a normal professional operation providers of goods and services would be qualified prior to being allowed to bid i.e. they would have to provide information and possibly be inspected and evaluated. Only competent providers would be allowed to quote and receive contracts; and those contracts would contain relevant clauses on performance, quality etc.Here, more likely evaluated and chosen based on whose relation they are or how thick the brown envelope is.

As a major, in fact often the biggest exporter of rice, there is some expertise on the subject in this country. Not beyond the wit of the committee running the scheme to ensure suitable advice was taken and duly noted from such experts. Especially as the committee was chaired by no less a person than the PM herself. Presumably she appointed herself due to her experience in chairing similar committees? Or maybe the role was a good little earner as Arthur Daley would say.

[halloween]

Guesstimating the value of the product is down to product experts not accountants.....

Are you suggesting that somebody running a multi-billion baht scheme has no responsibility to be able to produce an accurate accounting?

Edited August 10, 2015 by halloween

[Thai at Heart]

So you are saying that those issuing rice storage tenders have no culpability if the tenderer doesn't have sufficient capacity, or suitable storage? The country was swamped with rice because of the policy. They couldn't sell it, and forced to store it for far longer than normal because of the policy.

And they made huge losses on the storage costs because of the policy.

Desperate indeed, getting your foot back out of your mouth.

You never signed many contracts have u. If the owner of the warehouse didn't tell anyone it isn't right to keep rice in for a long period of time, why would anyone assume it wasn't.

I hope you haven't signed many either. In a normal professional operation providers of goods and services would be qualified prior to being allowed to bid i.e. they would have to provide information and possibly be inspected and evaluated. Only competent providers would be allowed to quote and receive contracts; and those contracts would contain relevant clauses on performance, quality etc.Here, more likely evaluated and chosen based on whose relation they are or how thick the brown envelope is.

As a major, in fact often the biggest exporter of rice, there is some expertise on the subject in this country. Not beyond the wit of the committee running the scheme to ensure suitable advice was taken and duly noted from such experts. Especially as the committee was chaired by no less a person than the PM herself. Presumably she appointed herself due to her experience in chairing similar committees? Or maybe the role was a good little earner as Arthur Daley would say.

Exactly. So, if they are so expert, and the product went mouldy in their warehouse, why aren't they suing the warehouse owners for the damages to the rice? Presumably, these warehouse owners know how to store product to minimise losses as much as possible..

If they didn't do so, why not?

[Thai at Heart]

Funny this, because I stored millions of tonnes of perishable product, some in company warehouses, and some in private storage.

If I was paying the private storage to store it, it was his problem to make sure the building stayed fit and proper.

He would bill me for services to move and clean and if stuff went bad due to his fault, HE PAID.......

[halloween]

Funny this, because I stored millions of tonnes of perishable product, some in company warehouses, and some in private storage.

If I was paying the private storage to store it, it was his problem to make sure the building stayed fit and proper.

He would bill me for services to move and clean and if stuff went bad due to his fault, HE PAID.......

And you never bothered to check that he actually had a suitable warehouse?