Supa Piyajitti claims loss from rice scheme exceeds 600 billion baht

[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.......

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

First time. After that, it's his responsibility. If he touts for business to store stuff, HE HAS responsibility not me.

[Baerboxer]

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

The ones who managed the program have never publicly produced a profit & loss account or balance sheet. Whether they can't because of sloppy financial controls, or don't want to for whatever reasons is speculative. But, they haven't. Normally, the chair of the committee responsible for managing the scheme would ensure that was done, was done correctly and timely, and was available for scrutiny. But as we know the chair never bothered turning up and has never produced any accounts so far. Maybe she has all this information ready to present to the Supreme Court. Or, as before, maybe she can't or has been instructed not to present this?

Either way, without real accounts, that have been duly audited, suspicion, rumor, conjecture and accusation will fill the information gap.

All that seems certain is a very large amount of money seems to be unaccounted for and real accounts never produced, (ever discussed a budget/expenditure here and got straight sensible answers?); very little of the money spent actually reached the poor farmers who were supposed to benefit (according to the World Bank); there appears to have been numerous scams going on at all levels and all aspects of the scheme and few in reality are being brought to face justice.

[Baerboxer]

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.......

Wow - bet your risk manager, lawyers and head of procurement just loved your 1960"s approach.

"Let the buyer beware" - not in your case eh?

[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?

First time. After that, it's his responsibility. If he touts for business to store stuff, HE HAS responsibility not me.

Well as it was quite clear that due to overwhelming volume rice was being stored in unsuitable locations, I guess we get right back to PTP and Yingluk.

Do I remember aircraft hangars at DM suggested?

[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.......

Wow - bet your risk manager, lawyers and head of procurement just loved your 1960"s approach.

"Let the buyer beware" - not in your case eh?

He signed a contract to provide storage to a certain level. If the stuff went off, it was his problem.

Never once had a problem. One roof blew off a warehouse, insurance sorted it out.

I fail to see why the buyer has to make sure the supplier does his job properly. He has to do it to the level of the contract.

[Baerboxer]

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?

Think about it. They didn't due any due diligence or supplier selection. All selected on nepotism, family and the good ol'boys network. That works great, until the shit hits the fan, like this. Now it's hard to sue your relative or mate whose giving you considerable backhanders etc.

The warehouse owners should have known how to minimize losses, store appropriately etc. Some seem to have been thieving inventory, swapping inventory and playing with matches.

[Fat Haggis]

Well the Junta could have stored it in the Royal Thai Navy Submarine base, as that's been empty for 40 plus odd years!!

[Baerboxer]

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?

Any comment Smut on the Forbes revelation of the fantastic massive increase in Shin family wealth, confirmed by Thaksin himself. 450% during his sister's tenure as PM and his political party's term in government.

What a spectacular result!

[Thai at Heart]

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?

Think about it. They didn't due any due diligence or supplier selection. All selected on nepotism, family and the good ol'boys network. That works great, until the shit hits the fan, like this. Now it's hard to sue your relative or mate whose giving you considerable backhanders etc.

The warehouse owners should have known how to minimize losses, store appropriately etc. Some seem to have been thieving inventory, swapping inventory and playing with matches.

So here we are. Prove no one did any due diligence. These are mainly rice warehouses, but not set up to store for many years. This is the obligation of the warehouse owners to inform.

The supplier have failed to supply their service are at fault not the buyers.

[halloween]

So here we are. Prove no one did any due diligence. These are mainly rice warehouses, but not set up to store for many years. This is the obligation of the warehouse owners to inform.

The supplier have failed to supply their service are at fault not the buyers.

Of course they are not set up to store for many years. Rice degrades, and nobody wants vintage rice. Whose fault is it that the rice was left there for many years, even after the storage costs exceeded the value of the stored commodity?

[Thai at Heart]

So here we are. Prove no one did any due diligence. These are mainly rice warehouses, but not set up to store for many years. This is the obligation of the warehouse owners to inform.

The supplier have failed to supply their service are at fault not the buyers.

Of course they are not set up to store for many years. Rice degrades, and nobody wants vintage rice. Whose fault is it that the rice was left there for many years, even after the storage costs exceeded the value of the stored commodity?

The warehouses have to prove they told the buyers that they couldn't store for several years and that they tried to prevent degradation and that it failed.

Otherwise they took business under false pretence.

[Rancid]

There will never be a serious court case as it sets a very bad precident. If former governments could be sued for incompetence and/or corruption then that removes any reason for people to want to be in upcoming governments. I doubt many countries would countenance such blasphemy. The political class knows it needs to be be (largely) immune from litigation.

[halloween]

So here we are. Prove no one did any due diligence. These are mainly rice warehouses, but not set up to store for many years. This is the obligation of the warehouse owners to inform.

The supplier have failed to supply their service are at fault not the buyers.

Of course they are not set up to store for many years. Rice degrades, and nobody wants vintage rice. Whose fault is it that the rice was left there for many years, even after the storage costs exceeded the value of the stored commodity?

The warehouses have to prove they told the buyers that they couldn't store for several years and that they tried to prevent degradation and that it failed.

Otherwise they took business under false pretence.

So as a rice buyer you are not expected to know your business. Well that's got a grain of truth, the government had no business buying rice, let alone paying far more than it was worth.

[Thai at Heart]

So here we are. Prove no one did any due diligence. These are mainly rice warehouses, but not set up to store for many years. This is the obligation of the warehouse owners to inform.

The supplier have failed to supply their service are at fault not the buyers.

Of course they are not set up to store for many years. Rice degrades, and nobody wants vintage rice. Whose fault is it that the rice was left there for many years, even after the storage costs exceeded the value of the stored commodity?

The warehouses have to prove they told the buyers that they couldn't store for several years and that they tried to prevent degradation and that it failed.

Otherwise they took business under false pretence.

So as a rice buyer you are not expected to know your business. Well that's got a grain of truth, the government had no business buying rice, let alone paying far more than it was worth.

Um yes.. And most of the building used have at some point been used before for warehousing. The fact is it was virtually impossible to store all this stuff for 5 years and keep it in perfect order.

Losses were to be expected. So, to a degree, the chasing of damages is bogus. But, chasing the policy makers first is nonsense. They should chasethe warehouses first and they have to prove they told the client/govt they couldn't store without some spoilage.

Did they do this or just take the money and keep quiet.....

[phoenixdoglover]

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?

Yes, of course. And so should NACC.

[phoenixdoglover]

While you are arguing about contracts and spoilage...

Consider the major causes of loss for the rice scheme:

1) paying a price above market

2) assuming the market price will rise if Thai rice is withheld

3) watching the Indians flood the market with non-basmati rice

4) watching the market price fall

5) selling at a significant loss

Now you might blame this on mismanagement, but I blame a bad idea (Buy high. Sell higher) and the Indians

Edited August 10, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[Thai at Heart]

While you are arguing about contracts and spoilage...

Consider the major causes of loss for the rice scheme:

1) paying a price above market

2) assuming the market price will rise if Thai rice is withheld

3) watching the Indians flood the market with non-basmati rice

4) watching the market price fall

5) selling at a significant loss

Now you might blame this on mismanagement, but I blame a bad idea (Buy high. Sell higher) and the Indians

Exactly. They need to pursue this as a criminal act since knowingly deliberately incurring an unbudgeted loss should be illegal for a public servant.

Chasing losses on spoilage as though it's the politicians fault is a legal nonsense.

[Thai at Heart]

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?

Think about it. They didn't due any due diligence or supplier selection. All selected on nepotism, family and the good ol'boys network. That works great, until the shit hits the fan, like this. Now it's hard to sue your relative or mate whose giving you considerable backhanders etc.

The warehouse owners should have known how to minimize losses, store appropriately etc. Some seem to have been thieving inventory, swapping inventory and playing with matches.

Now this is where you are entering the realms of your opinion, pure and simple. You have no idea who the people who provided these warehouses were do you. Most of them have been providing warehouse storage for donkeys years. You can say they were relatives or mates as much as you like, but that is just your opinion. What I did see, whilst driving up and around Korat driving to Bangkok was existing rice millers builidng loads of new warehouses.

So, existing rice mills, which had been in business for decades, provifing more storage. What you categorise as theft, inventory swaps and fires represents, if you read the reports a piffling amount of the loss. The vast majority is on paper loss because of the amount paid up front, and damages.

[phoenixdoglover]

While you are arguing about contracts and spoilage...

Consider the major causes of loss for the rice scheme:

1) paying a price above market

2) assuming the market price will rise if Thai rice is withheld

3) watching the Indians flood the market with non-basmati rice

4) watching the market price fall

5) selling at a significant loss

Now you might blame this on mismanagement, but I blame a bad idea (Buy high. Sell higher) and the Indians

Exactly. They need to pursue this as a criminal act since knowingly deliberately incurring an unbudgeted loss should be illegal for a public servant.

Chasing losses on spoilage as though it's the politicians fault is a legal nonsense.

Well, I see two problems with that point of view:

- proving the "knowingly and deliberately" part would be difficult; especially since the prevailing theory was that the bad idea was a good idea, and thus we may be talking about incompetence rather than premeditation.

- making unbudgeted deficit spending a crime, if applied in many democracies, would result in a majority of PMs and Presidents going to jail. Now this observation could lead us to a philosophical discussion about government deficit spending (pros and cons) but I think we would be far from the central issues in the Thai rice scheme.

Edited August 10, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[Thai at Heart]

While you are arguing about contracts and spoilage...

Consider the major causes of loss for the rice scheme:

1) paying a price above market

2) assuming the market price will rise if Thai rice is withheld

3) watching the Indians flood the market with non-basmati rice

4) watching the market price fall

5) selling at a significant loss

Now you might blame this on mismanagement, but I blame a bad idea (Buy high. Sell higher) and the Indians

Exactly. They need to pursue this as a criminal act since knowingly deliberately incurring an unbudgeted loss should be illegal for a public servant.

Chasing losses on spoilage as though it's the politicians fault is a legal nonsense.

Well, I see two problems with that point of view:

- proving the "knowingly and deliberately" part would be difficult; especially since the prevailing theory was that the bad idea was a good idea, and thus we may be talking about incompetence rather than premeditation.

- making unbudgeted deficit spending a crime, if applied in many democracies, would result in a majority of PMs and Presidents going to jail. Now this observation could lead us to a philosophical discussion about government deficit spending (pros and cons) but I think we would be far from the central issues in the Thai rice scheme.

Exactly. But chasing them because the stuff went rotten in the warehouse is even harder. If u pay someone to warehouse something and it goes bad, why is it the buyers responsibility?

[smutcakes]

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?

Any comment Smut on the Forbes revelation of the fantastic massive increase in Shin family wealth, confirmed by Thaksin himself. 450% during his sister's tenure as PM and his political party's term in government.

What a spectacular result!

Sorry missed this. I did do a google search and all i could find was a link to a forbes ranking and a thai visa thread. The Thai visa thread was discussing it, but i could not see the article where it said it, in any of the links or through google searches. You could just speed it up by sending the link, it would be much easier.

[Thai at Heart]

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?

Any comment Smut on the Forbes revelation of the fantastic massive increase in Shin family wealth, confirmed by Thaksin himself. 450% during his sister's tenure as PM and his political party's term in government.

What a spectacular result!

Sorry missed this. I did do a google search and all i could find was a link to a forbes ranking and a thai visa thread. The Thai visa thread was discussing it, but i could not see the article where it said it, in any of the links or through google searches. You could just speed it up by sending the link, it would be much easier.

Considering that the whole stockmarket is barely up. 450% since 1997, I call this figure as at least open to discussion if not nonsense. Lest we forget the whole stock market went up a few hundred percent since 98 anyway.. He wasn't if I remember made u usually wealthy beyond the average of the market anyway.

[rubl]

The same nonsense still ongoing in this thread. Anyone to be blamed but not those who thought out this 'self-financing' RPPS which lost loads of money. Heaven forbid people are held accountable or even responsible.

Cost neutral? To the amount of 600 or 700 billion Baht? Seems like a ponzi scheme which in many countries will get you in jail.

[rubl]

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.

Here I must agree with you, it's unbelievable especially that some people still defend this scam and come with all kinds of distractions.

Would you be more happy if the accountants came with the total loss of only 598,998,998,999.99 Baht ?

BTW the Minister of finance 'little white lies' Kittirat stated the day before the scam started that the money would come back. In 2013 the hot potato was passed from Ministry of Commerce to Ministry of Finance to BAAC and back. In September 2013 BAAC already warned the government a few times again that their credit limit was exceeded and 'someone' needed to guarantee for a few hundred billion Baht more. The government was busy with their (and others) own amnesty so only in January 2014 the loan of a mere 130 billion Baht extra was approved by the cabinet which in caretaker mode couldn't legally commit such burdens next governments would need to honour.

[rubl]

While you are arguing about contracts and spoilage...

Consider the major causes of loss for the rice scheme:

1) paying a price above market

2) assuming the market price will rise if Thai rice is withheld

3) watching the Indians flood the market with non-basmati rice

4) watching the market price fall

5) selling at a significant loss

Now you might blame this on mismanagement, but I blame a bad idea (Buy high. Sell higher) and the Indians

Exactly. They need to pursue this as a criminal act since knowingly deliberately incurring an unbudgeted loss should be illegal for a public servant.

Chasing losses on spoilage as though it's the politicians fault is a legal nonsense.

Well, I see two problems with that point of view:

- proving the "knowingly and deliberately" part would be difficult; especially since the prevailing theory was that the bad idea was a good idea, and thus we may be talking about incompetence rather than premeditation.

- making unbudgeted deficit spending a crime, if applied in many democracies, would result in a majority of PMs and Presidents going to jail. Now this observation could lead us to a philosophical discussion about government deficit spending (pros and cons) but I think we would be far from the central issues in the Thai rice scheme.

Oh, positioning and defending a scam as 'cost neutral' without need for reservations in the National Budget, without proper accounting and leading to 600 or 700 billion Baht losses is not illegal?

Everybody accepts that their government lies and steals and throws away taxpayers money by the bucket full ?

Interesting defence for the RPPS, that marvellous self-financing, cost neutral scam.

[tbthailand]

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?

... since they were forcibly thrown out of office 15 months ago, ....

[rubl]

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?

... since they were forcibly thrown out of office 15 months ago, ....

Don't worry, I'm sure that when Ms. Yingluck finally finds the time to be present at her trial at the Supreme Court she'll hand over a few dozen boxes with all details AND be able to present the figures without even having to look at her notes.

[halloween]

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

Yes, of course. And so should NACC.

Why is that? If someone is being charged with negligence for NOT keeping accurate records, why should the prosecution have to know every detail?

Why should the NACC be held to a higher level of knowledge than the tax office in your country?

[halloween]

Well, I see two problems with that point of view:

- proving the "knowingly and deliberately" part would be difficult; especially since the prevailing theory was that the bad idea was a good idea, and thus we may be talking about incompetence rather than premeditation.

- making unbudgeted deficit spending a crime, if applied in many democracies, would result in a majority of PMs and Presidents going to jail. Now this observation could lead us to a philosophical discussion about government deficit spending (pros and cons) but I think we would be far from the central issues in the Thai rice scheme.

When ever was "the prevailing theory was that the bad idea was a good idea"? Just who these "prevailing" supporters?

The only people who thought it was a good idea was Thaksin and his sycophants - who were much more interested in their own benefit than that of the country.

[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?

... since they were forcibly thrown out of office 15 months ago, ....

.

No-one is asking them for their accounting for the last 15 months, What is wanted is the accounting for their term of office, which they had a duty of care to maintain. Failing to keep accurate records when a huge loss is involved, is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. When it is proved that part of that loss is in their pocket, the charges get much more serious.

And all the PTP sycophants want to do is quibble about the amount, and try to push blame down the line. Good luck with that.