Supa Piyajitti claims loss from rice scheme exceeds 600 billion baht

[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, ....

.

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.

No-one is asking them for their accounting for the last 15 months,

hmm, that is not what the English grammar in your post says, are you a native speaker?

AFAIK, the huge losses WRT the rice stocks - even after the junta investigations were well below 0.1% which in turn is well below the thresholds of 5% contained in the law. That sounds like a "huge loss" and "criminal negligence"...

Why do you not recognize the political vendetta in all of this?

[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.

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.

I will accept that you are not purposefully misconstruing my position.

My position has nothing to do with defending the RPPS. If you care, you could review my comments on this thread, and you will see that I am primarily questioning the 600 billion figure provided by NACC. It has been reported, but it is not a defensible number at this point.

My standards must be higher than you. I actually want to know important facts like: out of the 600 billion, how much resulted from market price declines? How much loss was the result of payments to farmers at prices above the prevailing market price? How much can be possibly recovered by the sale of rice still in storage?

Gee, it would be nice to have somebody answer questions like that, even if NACC can't be bothered. Maybe the news media could do that. Oh, I forgot, the Thai news media doesn't do that sort of thing. Nor do most TVF members seem to care.

[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.

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?

I agree with your points regarding the storage liability.

Some members here don't seem to have a solid understanding of commercial contracts.

[halloween]

No-one is asking them for their accounting for the last 15 months,

hmm, that is not what the English grammar in your post says, are you a native speaker?

AFAIK, the huge losses WRT the rice stocks - even after the junta investigations were well below 0.1% which in turn is well below the thresholds of 5% contained in the law. That sounds like a "huge loss" and "criminal negligence"...

Why do you not recognize the political vendetta in all of this?

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

Where is the problem with my grammar? I know you are often deliberately obtuse, but try to grasp that a government operating a multi-billion baht scheme over 3 years should have accurate accounting of every payment and all income during their period in office. It has very little to do with degrading of rice stocks, and every thing to do with explaining where a huge sum of money went. That the sum can't accurately be determined is due to the lack of adequate accounting, and yes, that is criminal negligence.

Prosecuting criminals is fine by me whichever side of politics they stand. OTOH you take the typical red view that "we done nuffink rong" even when the crimes are obvious. But you're not a PTP/Thaksin supporter, right?

[rubl]

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.

I will accept that you are not purposefully misconstruing my position.

My position has nothing to do with defending the RPPS. If you care, you could review my comments on this thread, and you will see that I am primarily questioning the 600 billion figure provided by NACC. It has been reported, but it is not a defensible number at this point.

My standards must be higher than you. I actually want to know important facts like: out of the 600 billion, how much resulted from market price declines? How much loss was the result of payments to farmers at prices above the prevailing market price? How much can be possibly recovered by the sale of rice still in storage?

Gee, it would be nice to have somebody answer questions like that, even if NACC can't be bothered. Maybe the news media could do that. Oh, I forgot, the Thai news media doesn't do that sort of thing. Nor do most TVF members seem to care.

Your standard of obfuscation is somewhat higher. With a few other posters here you move from 'it is legal to prosecute' to 'is it common in democratic countries', to 'is it really this, but not 5 Baht less' ?

"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."

The central issue in the RPPS which was presented as cost-neutral is the total lack of proper accounting by the Yingluck government. Between 2011-10-06 and 2014-05-22 the then government only came with obscure and conflicting figures. We're still waiting for Ms. Yingluck to hand over the proper accounting details. It's almost as if her more than two and a half years of RPPS accounting needs to be created from scratch because there is nothing. THat's criminally negligent. To blame the NAAC seems a bit hilarious.

PS did you also study the accounting details your government provides on it's National Budget of a few trillion US$ and did you personally check all to be proper?

[tbthailand]

No-one is asking them for their accounting for the last 15 months,

hmm, that is not what the English grammar in your post says, are you a native speaker?

AFAIK, the huge losses WRT the rice stocks - even after the junta investigations were well below 0.1% which in turn is well below the thresholds of 5% contained in the law. That sounds like a "huge loss" and "criminal negligence"...

Why do you not recognize the political vendetta in all of this?

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

Where is the problem with my grammar? I know you are often deliberately obtuse, but try to grasp that a government operating a multi-billion baht scheme over 3 years should have accurate accounting of every payment and all income during their period in office. It has very little to do with degrading of rice stocks, and every thing to do with explaining where a huge sum of money went. That the sum can't accurately be determined is due to the lack of adequate accounting, and yes, that is criminal negligence.

Prosecuting criminals is fine by me whichever side of politics they stand. OTOH you take the typical red view that "we done nuffink rong" even when the crimes are obvious. But you're not a PTP/Thaksin supporter, right?

the problem with your grammar is that you don't understand what YOU wrote.

none the less, do you think less than 0.1% is a HUGE loss?

do you think that there is no political vendetta being waged by the NACC and the junta?

I'm all for prosecuting corruption. I believe that I've said that a dozen times already. I'm also sure that there was corruption in the workings of the rice program under PTP. But that is more due to the fact that corruption is pervasive in Thailand.

I am also clear on who is on the NACC and who put them there and clear on why they do what they do now.

And recognizing that is not being a PTP supporter, it is being realistic about the morons who are running the show at the moment.

yeah, so never mind...

Edited August 11, 2015 by tbthailand

[halloween]

No-one is asking them for their accounting for the last 15 months,

hmm, that is not what the English grammar in your post says, are you a native speaker?

AFAIK, the huge losses WRT the rice stocks - even after the junta investigations were well below 0.1% which in turn is well below the thresholds of 5% contained in the law. That sounds like a "huge loss" and "criminal negligence"...

Why do you not recognize the political vendetta in all of this?

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

Where is the problem with my grammar? I know you are often deliberately obtuse, but try to grasp that a government operating a multi-billion baht scheme over 3 years should have accurate accounting of every payment and all income during their period in office. It has very little to do with degrading of rice stocks, and every thing to do with explaining where a huge sum of money went. That the sum can't accurately be determined is due to the lack of adequate accounting, and yes, that is criminal negligence.

Prosecuting criminals is fine by me whichever side of politics they stand. OTOH you take the typical red view that "we done nuffink rong" even when the crimes are obvious. But you're not a PTP/Thaksin supporter, right?

the problem with your grammar is that you don't understand what YOU wrote.

none the less, do you think less than 0.1% is a HUGE loss?

do you think that there is no political vendetta being waged by the NACC and the junta?

I'm all for prosecuting corruption. I believe that I've said that a dozen times already. I'm also sure that there was corruption in the workings of the rice program under PTP. But that is more due to the fact that corruption is pervasive in Thailand.

I am also clear on who is on the NACC and who put them there and clear on why they do what they do now.

And recognizing that is not being a PTP supporter, it is being realistic about the morons who are running the show at the moment.

yeah, so never mind...

Enlighten me. How do I not understand what I wrote?

[phoenixdoglover]

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.

I will accept that you are not purposefully misconstruing my position.

My position has nothing to do with defending the RPPS. If you care, you could review my comments on this thread, and you will see that I am primarily questioning the 600 billion figure provided by NACC. It has been reported, but it is not a defensible number at this point.

My standards must be higher than you. I actually want to know important facts like: out of the 600 billion, how much resulted from market price declines? How much loss was the result of payments to farmers at prices above the prevailing market price? How much can be possibly recovered by the sale of rice still in storage?

Gee, it would be nice to have somebody answer questions like that, even if NACC can't be bothered. Maybe the news media could do that. Oh, I forgot, the Thai news media doesn't do that sort of thing. Nor do most TVF members seem to care.

Your standard of obfuscation is somewhat higher. With a few other posters here you move from 'it is legal to prosecute' to 'is it common in democratic countries', to 'is it really this, but not 5 Baht less' ?

"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."

The central issue in the RPPS which was presented as cost-neutral is the total lack of proper accounting by the Yingluck government. Between 2011-10-06 and 2014-05-22 the then government only came with obscure and conflicting figures. We're still waiting for Ms. Yingluck to hand over the proper accounting details. It's almost as if her more than two and a half years of RPPS accounting needs to be created from scratch because there is nothing. THat's criminally negligent. To blame the NAAC seems a bit hilarious.

PS did you also study the accounting details your government provides on it's National Budget of a few trillion US$ and did you personally check all to be proper?

With a few other posters here ...If you want to quibble about my posts, fine. However, try not conflating me with other posters. I try to maintain an independent train of thought.

"making unbudgeted deficit spending a crime, if applied in many democracies, would result in a majority of PMs and Presidents going to jail. This is a true statement. Would you care to refute it?

The central issue in the RPPS which was presented as cost-neutral is the total lack of proper accounting by the Yingluck government. I'm sorry, I tend to believe the central issue is whether, and to what degree, there was graft or other corruption in the disbursement of funds. Proper accounting would certainly help clarify that. But if the only accusation were improper accounting, and it turned out there was no improper disbursement of funds or other corrupt acts, then we wouldn't be having this online debate.

We're still waiting for Ms. Yingluck to hand over the proper accounting details You're never going to get them from Yingluck. She's a deposed PM who no longer has any official standing in the government. Besides, she was the PM, not the Finance Minister; what makes you think she ever had a set of books? You're going to have to rely on others. Maybe an investigative team. Oh, wait, that's what NACC is all about.

To blame the NAAC seems a bit hilarious. Not blame; just a reasonable expectation. Do you have any concept about criminal prosecution? Normally, the prosecutors deploy investigators, then they compile the evidence, then they share it with the defense (if compelled by law), then they use it in court to try to obtain a conviction. Of course NACC has to do this, or at least the up front part. That's their role.

PS did you also study the accounting details your government provides on it's National Budget of a few trillion US$ False equivalence. A common debating mistake. We're not discussing knowledge of national budgets. We're discussing the standard of evidence for accusing and prosecuting someone for "losing" 600 billion baht.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

I will accept that you are not purposefully misconstruing my position.

My position has nothing to do with defending the RPPS. If you care, you could review my comments on this thread, and you will see that I am primarily questioning the 600 billion figure provided by NACC. It has been reported, but it is not a defensible number at this point.

My standards must be higher than you. I actually want to know important facts like: out of the 600 billion, how much resulted from market price declines? How much loss was the result of payments to farmers at prices above the prevailing market price? How much can be possibly recovered by the sale of rice still in storage?

Gee, it would be nice to have somebody answer questions like that, even if NACC can't be bothered. Maybe the news media could do that. Oh, I forgot, the Thai news media doesn't do that sort of thing. Nor do most TVF members seem to care.

Your standard of obfuscation is somewhat higher. With a few other posters here you move from 'it is legal to prosecute' to 'is it common in democratic countries', to 'is it really this, but not 5 Baht less' ?

"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."

The central issue in the RPPS which was presented as cost-neutral is the total lack of proper accounting by the Yingluck government. Between 2011-10-06 and 2014-05-22 the then government only came with obscure and conflicting figures. We're still waiting for Ms. Yingluck to hand over the proper accounting details. It's almost as if her more than two and a half years of RPPS accounting needs to be created from scratch because there is nothing. THat's criminally negligent. To blame the NAAC seems a bit hilarious.

PS did you also study the accounting details your government provides on it's National Budget of a few trillion US$ and did you personally check all to be proper?

With a few other posters here ...If you want to quibble about my posts, fine. However, try not conflating me with other posters. I try to maintain an independent train of thought.

"making unbudgeted deficit spending a crime, if applied in many democracies, would result in a majority of PMs and Presidents going to jail. This is a true statement. Would you care to refute it?

The central issue in the RPPS which was presented as cost-neutral is the total lack of proper accounting by the Yingluck government. I'm sorry, I tend to believe the central issue is whether, and to what degree, there was graft or other corruption in the disbursement of funds. Proper accounting would certainly help clarify that. But if the only accusation were improper accounting, and it turned out there was no improper disbursement of funds or other corrupt acts, then we wouldn't be having this online debate.

We're still waiting for Ms. Yingluck to hand over the proper accounting details You're never going to get them from Yingluck. She's a deposed PM who no longer has any official standing in the government. Besides, she was the PM, not the Finance Minister; what makes you think she ever had a set of books? You're going to have to rely on others. Maybe an investigative team. Oh, wait, that's what NACC is all about.

To blame the NAAC seems a bit hilarious. Not blame; just a reasonable expectation. Do you have any concept about criminal prosecution? Normally, the prosecutors deploy investigators, then they compile the evidence, then they share it with the defense (if compelled by law), then they use it in court to try to obtain a conviction. Of course NACC has to do this, or at least the up front part. That's their role.

PS did you also study the accounting details your government provides on it's National Budget of a few trillion US$ False equivalence. A common debating mistake. We're not discussing knowledge of national budgets. We're discussing the standard of evidence for accusing and prosecuting someone for "losing" 600 billion baht.

Actually the vast majority of the loss sits between the purchase price whenever and the sale price today.

That should be very simple to ascertain.

[phoenixdoglover]

Actually the vast majority of the loss sits between the purchase price whenever and the sale price today.

That should be very simple to ascertain.

Yes.

I have read the government paid a premium of 40 to 60% above market.

If the market price was US $500 at the time of purchase, then maybe the purchase price was 700 to 800 per metric ton.

Then, when the Indians flooded the market, the market price fell to US $370-$400 per ton.

So we have a loss just based on buy/sell price disparity of US $300-430 per ton (!).

At 10 million tons per year for 3 years...let's say half of the rice got stuck in this (at one time, rice in stock was reported as almost 18 million tons). Loss applied to 15 million tons would be US $4.5 to $6.5 billion, or THB 160 to 230 billion.

The scheme was doomed from the start.

Edited August 11, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[Thai at Heart]

Actually the vast majority of the loss sits between the purchase price whenever and the sale price today.

That should be very simple to ascertain.

Yes.

I have read the government paid a premium of 40 to 60% above market.

If the market price was US $500 at the time of purchase, then maybe the purchase price was 700 to 800 per metric ton.

Then, when the Indians flooded the market, the market price fell to US $370-$400 per ton.

So we have a loss just based on buy/sell price disparity of US $300-430 per ton (!).

At 10 million tons per year for 3 years...let's say half of the rice got stuck in this (at one time, rice in stock was reported as almost 18 million tons). Loss applied to 15 million tons would be US $4.5 to $6.5 billion, or THB 160 to 230 billion.

The scheme was doomed from the start.

It's worse than that, because that 15000 per tonne referred to paddy rice. 45% is reduced by yield.

I. E 15,000 becomes 23000 just on yield loss.

[jaywalker]

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...

The very real faults of the PT rice scheme were well known years ago. Here's an article detailing them back in 2011.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Rice-industry-backs-income-guarantee-plan-of-Democ-30158034.html

With the Dems scheme the majority of the money was actually paid to the farmers whereas only about 18% of the PT scheme found it's way to the farmers.

it would appear to me that worthless rotting rice was placed in these storage locations, shipped in from around the borders, this whole thing as predicted by me a couple of years ago on TVF will end up being the biggest deception/theft/heist in Thai history - maybe even in Asian history

I read somewhere that the Gov't claims to hold $170 billion USD in foreign reserves.

600 billion baht = $17 billion+ USD, so they managed to screw up 10% of the piggy bank.

[rubl]

What losses ? What figures ?

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

2013-06-19

PM Yingluck: Rice pledge scheme a boon to economy, farmers

“It is a losing scheme in terms of accounting but, in reality, farmers take the benefit. It’s in accord with the government’s policy,” she said.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647625-pm-yingluck-rice-pledge-scheme-a-boon-to-economy-farmers/

2013-06-18

Bt136 billion losses from rice subsidy in 2011/2012 crop

The Finance Ministry reported losses from the rice pledging scheme in the 2011/2012 harvest season at Bt136 billion, according to Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office Varathep Rattanakorn.

According to the sub-committee, the government spent Bt352 billion to buy 21.7 million tonnes of rice in the 2011/2012 crop while Bt156 billion worth of rice remains in the stockpiles and the sold volume was Bt59 billion, leaving net losses of Bt136.908 billion.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647379-bt136-billion-losses-from-rice-subsidy-in-20112012-crop/

2013-06-15

Varathep defends Commerce Ministry on losses from rice pledging scheme

BANGKOK, Jun 15 - Minister of the Prime Minister's Office Varathep Ratanakorn insisted that losses from the government's rice pledging scheme was not as high as Bt260 billion as widely reported.

He said the Finance Ministry's accounting assessment sub-committee and the Commerce Ministry had different calculation methodologies for the losses from rice purchases over the past three harvest seasons.

The government spent Bt118.655 billion to purchase 6.92 million tonnes of paddy from the 2011/12 crop, he said, adding that the Commerce Ministry and the Finance Minister reported losses at Bt31 billion and Bt42 billion respectively.

In the 2011/12 second harvest, the minister said 14.6 million tonnes of paddy were bought at Bt218 billion and losses as reported by the Commerce Ministry and the Finance MInistry were Bt18 billion and Bt93 billion respectively.

He said Bt155 billion was spent to buy 9.9 million tonnes of rice in the 2012/13 harvest season but the final calculations have yet to be completed. (MCOT online news)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/646745-varathep-defends-commerce-ministry-on-losses-from-rice-pledging-scheme/

2013-06-14

Calling in favours doesn't always work: Thai govt's rice-pledging scheme

Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom is still unable to say exactly how much money has been lost in the government's rice-pledging scheme, even though he dismissed the Bt260-billion estimate produced by the Finance Ministry's post-audit committee.

The first document was a letter dated October 3, 2012, in which Deputy Finance Minister Tanusak Lek-uthai warns the Commerce Ministry that the project could result in a debt of Bt224.5 billion per annum and increase the government's financial burden. He advised the ministry to sell the rice in the government stockpiles as soon as possible in order to settle the debt.

The second document showed that farmers were unable to sell their rice at the pledged price and earned almost Bt5,000 less per tonne.

The third document showed that as of May 15, the government's Bank for Agri-culture and Agricultural Cooperatives spent Bt591.9 billion on the project, but only got about Bt83.8 billion from the sale of rice, which is about seven times less than the cost of the project.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/646478-calling-in-favours-doesnt-always-work-thai-govts-rice-pledging-scheme/

2013-06-08

Thai Govt Rebuts Rice Report

Supat Eauchai, vice president of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), said the government had spent a combined Bt614 billion for the pledging from 2011 to 2013. The pledging had added about 39.5 million to 40 million tonnes of paddy (25 million tonnes of rice) to the government stocks.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/645065-thai-govt-rebuts-rice-report/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/645065-thai-govt-rebuts-rice-report/ #83 2013-06-12

"BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra declined to comment whether Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom would be included in the new list of ministers.

Boonsong is expected to lose his job following the reported huge loss of the rice-pledging scheme.

Asked to confirm this, Yingluck said "I’d rather keep quiet on this". She noted that much of the issue at hand depends on the compilation of the loss figures from PM’s Office Minister Varathep Rattanakorn."

2013-06-07

Cumulative Losses From Thaksin Govts' Farm Schemes Touch Almost Bt400 Billion

The Finance Ministry's Post-Audit Committee on the Rice Pledging Scheme revealed yesterday that the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had overspent the budget for the rice-pledging project - Bt661.22 billion, well in excess of the Bt500 billion earmarked for the project.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/644807-cumulative-losses-from-thaksin-govts-farm-schemes-touch-almost-bt400-billion/

2013-06-06

Commerce minister: Rice pledging scheme continues, losses lower than Bt260 billion

The Commerce Ministry has managed the rice subsidy programme with a Bt410 billion revolving fund plus Bt90 billion fund from the Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), he said, adding that Bt120 billion was already returned to the BAAC.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/644674-commerce-minister-rice-pledging-scheme-continues-losses-lower-than-bt260-billion/?p=6479401

2013-06-05

Rice-Pledging Scheme: How Much Have We Lost, Yingluck Asks

During the Cabinet meeting yesterday, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra instructed Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom to reveal the details of the scheme's operating costs, now reportedly a massive loss of Bt260 billion.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/644328-rice-pledging-scheme-how-much-have-we-lost-yingluck-asks/

2013-04-01

Thai Cabinet Backs Rice Budget, Other Projects

"The mobile Cabinet yesterday approved the rice pledging scheme for the 2012/2013 fiscal year, worth Bt105 billion in total, proposed by the Commerce Ministry.

Under the scheme, about seven million tonnes of rice will be bought from farmers, down from 9.2 million tonnes previously anticipated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, as yields have been hit by drought in some areas."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/629956-thai-cabinet-backs-rice-budget-other-projects/

2013-03-04

Commerce Ministry needs Bt320 billion for new round of rice subsidy

The Commerce Ministry made Bt180 billion for the government-to-government rice deals, she said.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623381-commerce-ministry-needs-bt320-billion-for-new-round-of-rice-subsidy/

2013-01-10

Thai finance minister rejects extra loans for rice pledging scheme

"Deputy Prime Minister/Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong has stood firm that the government’s loan ceiling of Bt150 billion for the highly-criticised rice pledging scheme and the Bt480 billion loan limits for state enterprises will not be expanded

Urging a speedy release of rice under the plan to enable cash flow, Mr Kittirat said government agencies responsible for the rice pledging scheme should effectively manage revenue and expense under the government-approved Bt240 billion fund for the 2012/2013 harvest year.

2012-11-23

Additional Bt70-billion borrowing needed for rice-pledging scheme: TDRI

"The Finance Ministry plans to ask the government to allow additional borrowing of Bt70 billion to support the rice-pledging scheme, according to the Thailand Development Research Institute"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/600027-additional-bt70-billion-borrowing-needed-for-thai-rice-pledging-scheme/

2012-10-16

Thai Government To Pledge Rice From Second Crop

"The Thai cabinet approved an additional Bt20.85 billion budget to pledge more rice from this year’s second crop, compelling the rice pledging scheme to totally incorporate 14.7 million tonnes of rice in the 2012/2013 harvest, according to government spokeswoman Sansaee Nakpong."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/591541-thai-government-to-pledge-rice-from-second-crop/

2012-10-16

Yingluck Hits Back At Charges Of Bankruptcy Resulting From Rice Scheme

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra reasserted today that her government’s financial spending for the rice pledging scheme is strictly disciplined under the Bt400 billion budget earlier approved by the cabinet."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/591489-yingluck-hits-back-at-charges-of-bankruptcy-resulting-from-rice-scheme/

2012-10-06

"State bank BAAC finances the government's rice-pledging scheme. The bank has borrowed Bt269 billion to finance the pledging policy for the 2012-13 harvest season, which started this month."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589262-thailands-rice-policy-meets-aim-of-raising-prices-for-farmers-minister/

2012-09-25

"The government has spent Bt282.5 billion since October buying about 18 million metric tonnes of unmilled rice from 2.45 million farmers at above-market rates, according to the Ministry of Commerce. Spending may increase by a further Bt405 billion in the fiscal year starting October 1, as the government wants to buy as much as 34 million tonnes, Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom said last Friday.

"I don't think we have much because we keep selling," Thaksin said, referring to the stockpile next year."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/586760-thaksin-defends-controversial-rice-pledging-programme/

[halloween]

If you look at and understand how much was paid out on unmilled rice, yield it up for provcessing, estimate the storage costs etc, you can see, that the loss is virtually all encompassed inside the system.

Thus screaming about billions of corruption is all a bit stupid as far as I am concerend. As though Yingluck personally put rice in a truck and drove it out trhough Mukdahan.

She didn't have to, did she? Are you claiming that the Shinawatra family doesn't own rice farms, or rent land for rice farming, or didn't otherwise profit from her scam? Or did they and their PTP MPs exclude themselves from receiving payments as to avoid a conflict of interest?

[Thai at Heart]

If you look at and understand how much was paid out on unmilled rice, yield it up for provcessing, estimate the storage costs etc, you can see, that the loss is virtually all encompassed inside the system.

Thus screaming about billions of corruption is all a bit stupid as far as I am concerend. As though Yingluck personally put rice in a truck and drove it out trhough Mukdahan.

She didn't have to, did she? Are you claiming that the Shinawatra family doesn't own rice farms, or rent land for rice farming, or didn't otherwise profit from her scam? Or did they and their PTP MPs exclude themselves from receiving payments as to avoid a conflict of interest?

They own a lot of land. Don't know if they have rice land. I know some cohorts of theirs who have rubber and oranges.

As a calculation, it would be interesting to work out how many raised of rice one would have to have to generate an extra 100mn through the subsidy.

There isn't much rice in the north is there?

I think u will find it to be quite a lot of rice and required. So, now you are saying it wouldn't be corrupt because they own land.

Well, by extension, if I remember when there was a flood a few years before the major one, a major land owner sacrificed hundreds of thousands of rai of rice land near Ayutthaya to save Bangkok.

Safe to say, he was and still is the largest land owner the country.