PM insulated from order on Yingluck damages

[phoenixdoglover]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

That's nonsense. You apparently don't know anything about the practice of law before the Administrative Courts in Thailand. Therefore, you probably should qualify your post, admitting that you don't know whether accounting and loss calculations will be part of the evidence. Or, you could have just found the answer by use of google: http://www.admincourt.go.th/amc_eng/01-court/procedure/courtproceed.htm

The procedures, rules and law applied by the Administrative Court of Thailand are no different than the civil courts. Thailand has many specialty courts - the Labour Court, the Intellectual Property Court, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. These speciality courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, and sometimes they have some subtle procedural and evidentiary differences. For instance, the Labour Court can relieve workers of unconscionable employment rules and agreements, where the rule or agreement would not be the norm for the industry or unfair in light of the difference in bargaining power of the parties.

As far as evidence goes, the Civil Court and Administrative Court are identical. That means expert witnesses will take the stand and have to provide acceptable accounting and auditing evidence to show the losses or lack thereof. Yingluck should have all of this evidence, because part of her responsibility under the rice scheme was to monitor the financial condition of the warehouse stocks and the revenue being generated by sales against the outlays paid for the paddy. Strangely enough, she has never provided any of this accounting or audit evidence in prior hearings, including her impeachment. I'm sure everyone will be keenly anxious to see her rendition of the scheme's actual finances.

As far as the procedure chosen by Prayuth goes, he could have chosen either Civil Court or an Administrative Order to pursue reimbursement from Yingluck. The procedures are only significantly different with respect to the Court that will hear the case, and the alignment of parties. In the Administrative Court, Yingluck becomes a plaintiff, because she must file suit to contest the administrative penalty.

Try not to get too puffed up with your knowledge of legal proceedings.

I was referring to the current administrative order, not any subsequent court case, if one occurs. (That sort of depends on the follow-through, doesn't it?...a real question mark these days).

However, have you seen any arithmetic accounting of the losses? As a simple expectation, wouldn't you think an administrative decision, seeking recovery of a specific monetary figure by the Finance Ministry, would be based on some sort of financial program balance sheet?

[mikemac]

For the life of me I will never understand what is going on in this crazy country, and have given up even trying to wrap my head around it.

Also I will never understand why anyone with even a limited number of braincells, morals and ethics, would defend this woman and her failed rice scam.

If it is simply because she is being held accountable for her actions (or should that be in-actions ?) by the Military Junta, then it is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

"The International Monetary Fund called on Thailand to scrap its pricy scheme to support rice farmers and scale back some other fiscal stimulus measures in order to balance the budget and contain rising public debt."

"Pulling the plug on a rice price guarantee scheme for farmers might help stem the losses of billions of dollars of state funds, but Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would risk losing crucial rural support by doing so."

"The rice policy has been a disaster, however, with losses of 136 billion baht ($4.3 billion) in the 2011-2012 crop year. After that, the government ceased reporting the losses, although former central bank governor and finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula recently estimated the total at 425 billion baht."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112

[Thai at Heart]

I am still befuddled by the fact that someone who is part of govt, can be accused of this under the guise of doing so as a private individual......

[tuanku]

Seeking compensation from corrupt or negligent politicians is one thing but why be so selective about it ?

The democrats rice scheme also lost money so why is Abhisit not called to account ? What about Suthep and the police station scandal. Then there is the fake bomb detector approved of by the top military brass even when it was proven to be a worthless plastic box.

If there is going to be the rule of law surely the law should be applied to everyone.

As it is now , all those in power now are doing is guaranteeing that if ever there is another election Phua Thai will win by the biggest landslide ever.

yes that's a good point. However it's a political trial maintaining the ruling party or at least the attempt to do so. And you are right you can't supress people's power at the end.

When there is a period of bad governance, followed by a change in government (whether through an election or coup or revolution) the new party/leader will start with a high approval rating. The period of time this rating can be maintained is quite limited if the new governance turns out to be as bad or worse. This "Government" may have peaked already and the longer they continue, the worse the eventual beating will be. Unfortunately for them they cannot let go as something inevitable hasn't occurred yet. Genuine elections may be a long way off.

[jayboy]

For the life of me I will never understand what is going on in this crazy country, and have given up even trying to wrap my head around it.

Also I will never understand why anyone with even a limited number of braincells, morals and ethics, would defend this woman and her failed rice scam.

If it is simply because she is being held accountable for her actions (or should that be in-actions ?) by the Military Junta, then it is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

"The International Monetary Fund called on Thailand to scrap its pricy scheme to support rice farmers and scale back some other fiscal stimulus measures in order to balance the budget and contain rising public debt."

"Pulling the plug on a rice price guarantee scheme for farmers might help stem the losses of billions of dollars of state funds, but Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would risk losing crucial rural support by doing so."

"The rice policy has been a disaster, however, with losses of 136 billion baht ($4.3 billion) in the 2011-2012 crop year. After that, the government ceased reporting the losses, although former central bank governor and finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula recently estimated the total at 425 billion baht."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112

So anyone who takles a different view to yourself has limited braincells, morals and ethics.

The trouble is that there are various elements mixed up - including accusations of populism, maladministration and corruption.Clearly all involved in the latter need to be brought to account.Maladministration is different and can hardly be said to be unique to Thailand.Nevertheless I agree it needs careful investigation.

I am on record from the outset that the scheme was misguided and poorly implemented.

However your post does remind me to emphasize that a populist approach is perfectly legitimate and is practised by every government in every democratic country to some extent.Whether it is wise is a different matter but it is not a criminal undertaking as some of the sillier of Yingluck's critics suggest.

The following article written a year into the scheme makes some very valid points

http://irri.org/blogs/sam-s-rice-price-and-market-blog/why-does-everyone-hate-the-thai-rice-mortgage-scheme

My own view is that what we are seeing now is a politicised witch hunt.

Edited October 15, 2015 by jayboy

[Thai at Heart]

For the life of me I will never understand what is going on in this crazy country, and have given up even trying to wrap my head around it.

Also I will never understand why anyone with even a limited number of braincells, morals and ethics, would defend this woman and her failed rice scam.

If it is simply because she is being held accountable for her actions (or should that be in-actions ?) by the Military Junta, then it is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

"The International Monetary Fund called on Thailand to scrap its pricy scheme to support rice farmers and scale back some other fiscal stimulus measures in order to balance the budget and contain rising public debt."

"Pulling the plug on a rice price guarantee scheme for farmers might help stem the losses of billions of dollars of state funds, but Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would risk losing crucial rural support by doing so."

"The rice policy has been a disaster, however, with losses of 136 billion baht ($4.3 billion) in the 2011-2012 crop year. After that, the government ceased reporting the losses, although former central bank governor and finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula recently estimated the total at 425 billion baht."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112

So anyone who takles a different view to yourself has limited braincells, morals and ethics.

The trouble is that there are various elements mixed up - including accusations of populism, maladministration and corruption.Clearly all involved in the latter need to be brought to account.Maladministration is different and can hardly be said to be unique to Thailand.Nevertheless I agree it needs careful investigation.

I am on record from the outset that the scheme was misguided and poorly implemented.

However your post does remind me to emphasize that a populist approach is perfectly legitimate and is practised by every government in every democratic country to some extent.Whether it is wise is a different matter but it is not a criminal undertaking as some of the sillier of Yingluck's critics suggest.

The following article written a year into the scheme makes some very valid points

http://irri.org/blogs/sam-s-rice-price-and-market-blog/why-does-everyone-hate-the-thai-rice-mortgage-scheme

My own view is that what we are seeing now is a politicised witch hunt.

The issue for most on here is that it was supposed to cost X and cost 3X, as though politicians should be perosnally held accountable for bad budgeting.

Strewth, there wouldn't be many people in politics is this type of accountability was used.

[billd766]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

Strangely enough the PTP government REFUSED to show any of the books or figures on the rice scheme whatsoever. There was NO transparency or financial accountability for the entire 3 years plus lifetime of the scam.

The large figure presented IS real.

Simple mathematics will give you the amount of rice bought in millions of tonnes at the agreed price.

If you then add on to that amount the cost of transportation and storage you will reach a figure.

Subtract from that figure the genuine sales in tonnage and the price it reached on the world market and you will get a lower cost of the scam.

Subtract again the lower storage costs or the difference between what you bought and what you sold and the figure that remains is the cost of the rice left over which will be a loss until ALL the rice is sold. If you get less than you paid for the rice is it called a loss no matter what spin is put on it.

The responsibility for the loss remains firmly with the person in charge of the scheme who just happens to be Yingluck Shinawatra, She could have cut the losses much earlier if she had listened to the advice of knowledgeable from with and outside Thailand. She didn't so the responsibility still remains with her.

Spin should not be confused with reality.

Yet, you do not present the figures.

Therefore, your argument is without merit, as it is merely a repetition of the unsubstantiated amount proffered by others.

Besides, you have lumped all causes for "loss" and asserted the former PM is responsible. This is the obvious weakness in the government's argument at this point, which you have readily adopted.

To cut to the chase: Is the former PM, for example, responsible for the sudden infusion of Indian Basmati rice into the world market coincident with the Thai decision to stockpile? This change in global supply was the proximate cause of market price declines, and a portion of the "loss" experienced by Thailand. Under what legal theory would the PM be responsible for changes in global market prices of a commodity? If the price had gone up, under this "responsibility" theory, would the PM then be entitled to take the profits?

Of course I have provided no figures.

The reason for that is that the PTP provided NO figures.

No figure for the amount of rice bought, no figure for the amount of transportation costs no figure for storage costs, no figure for the amount of rice sold legally, no amount for the cost of the rice sold illegally, no amount of the rice that had rotted in inadequate warehouse storage, no amount of "missing or lost, simply because over the period that the rice scam ran the PTP government REFUSED to publish any accounts at all.

I could of course have invented my own figures but you wouldn't have believed them and I would not have blamed you but why don't you just look up the PTP published figures and post them. That would give both of us a starting figure to work from and then together we could come up with a profit or loss figure to work with.

Al,l you need is the amount of rice bought by the government over the course of the scheme and at what cost, transportation costs, storage costs which will obviously decrease as the rice is sold, the actual amount of rice that was sold legally, the price at which it was sold, the difference in price whether profit or loss, the estimated value of the remaining stock at the current market price, the ongoing storage price and between you and I we should be able to come up with a profit or loss figure. Having achieved that figure we should be able to say if the scheme would have broken even as PM Yingluck Shinawatra predicted, made a profit or made a loss.

So if you can find all the information we can work together to come up with a figure that would be close enough to a profit or loss.

Does that work for you and if it does we could lay the lie that it was good for the country or not?

We know the starting figure for ordinary white rice was 15,000 thb per tonne, whether the rice farmers got paid that price or not is a different story, but there is your starting figure.

Off you go.

[billd766]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

Strangely enough the PTP government REFUSED to show any of the books or figures on the rice scheme whatsoever. There was NO transparency or financial accountability for the entire 3 years plus lifetime of the scam.

The large figure presented IS real.

Simple mathematics will give you the amount of rice bought in millions of tonnes at the agreed price.

If you then add on to that amount the cost of transportation and storage you will reach a figure.

Subtract from that figure the genuine sales in tonnage and the price it reached on the world market and you will get a lower cost of the scam.

Subtract again the lower storage costs or the difference between what you bought and what you sold and the figure that remains is the cost of the rice left over which will be a loss until ALL the rice is sold. If you get less than you paid for the rice is it called a loss no matter what spin is put on it.

The responsibility for the loss remains firmly with the person in charge of the scheme who just happens to be Yingluck Shinawatra, She could have cut the losses much earlier if she had listened to the advice of knowledgeable from with and outside Thailand. She didn't so the responsibility still remains with her.

Spin should not be confused with reality.

Yet, you do not present the figures.

Therefore, your argument is without merit, as it is merely a repetition of the unsubstantiated amount proffered by others.

Besides, you have lumped all causes for "loss" and asserted the former PM is responsible. This is the obvious weakness in the government's argument at this point, which you have readily adopted.

To cut to the chase: Is the former PM, for example, responsible for the sudden infusion of Indian Basmati rice into the world market coincident with the Thai decision to stockpile? This change in global supply was the proximate cause of market price declines, and a portion of the "loss" experienced by Thailand. Under what legal theory would the PM be responsible for changes in global market prices of a commodity? If the price had gone up, under this "responsibility" theory, would the PM then be entitled to take the profits?

Yes I agree that she should agree that she should take the profits always assuming that you accept that she would accept the losses as well.

Would you agree that that is fair also that she would be responsible for the losses if any?

[Bender]

its really time to remove these bonkers and restore democracy...

[billd766]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

That's nonsense. You apparently don't know anything about the practice of law before the Administrative Courts in Thailand. Therefore, you probably should qualify your post, admitting that you don't know whether accounting and loss calculations will be part of the evidence. Or, you could have just found the answer by use of google: http://www.admincourt.go.th/amc_eng/01-court/procedure/courtproceed.htm

The procedures, rules and law applied by the Administrative Court of Thailand are no different than the civil courts. Thailand has many specialty courts - the Labour Court, the Intellectual Property Court, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. These speciality courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, and sometimes they have some subtle procedural and evidentiary differences. For instance, the Labour Court can relieve workers of unconscionable employment rules and agreements, where the rule or agreement would not be the norm for the industry or unfair in light of the difference in bargaining power of the parties.

As far as evidence goes, the Civil Court and Administrative Court are identical. That means expert witnesses will take the stand and have to provide acceptable accounting and auditing evidence to show the losses or lack thereof. Yingluck should have all of this evidence, because part of her responsibility under the rice scheme was to monitor the financial condition of the warehouse stocks and the revenue being generated by sales against the outlays paid for the paddy. Strangely enough, she has never provided any of this accounting or audit evidence in prior hearings, including her impeachment. I'm sure everyone will be keenly anxious to see her rendition of the scheme's actual finances.

As far as the procedure chosen by Prayuth goes, he could have chosen either Civil Court or an Administrative Order to pursue reimbursement from Yingluck. The procedures are only significantly different with respect to the Court that will hear the case, and the alignment of parties. In the Administrative Court, Yingluck becomes a plaintiff, because she must file suit to contest the administrative penalty.

Try not to get too puffed up with your knowledge of legal proceedings.

I was referring to the current administrative order, not any subsequent court case, if one occurs. (That sort of depends on the follow-through, doesn't it?...a real question mark these days).

However, have you seen any arithmetic accounting of the losses? As a simple expectation, wouldn't you think an administrative decision, seeking recovery of a specific monetary figure by the Finance Ministry, would be based on some sort of financial program balance sheet?

Absolutely.

BTW have you actually seen the PTP program balance sheet yet, even for the first year which would ahve been for the accounting year 2011/2012?

Edited October 15, 2015 by billd766

[billd766]

For the life of me I will never understand what is going on in this crazy country, and have given up even trying to wrap my head around it.

Also I will never understand why anyone with even a limited number of braincells, morals and ethics, would defend this woman and her failed rice scam.

If it is simply because she is being held accountable for her actions (or should that be in-actions ?) by the Military Junta, then it is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

"The International Monetary Fund called on Thailand to scrap its pricy scheme to support rice farmers and scale back some other fiscal stimulus measures in order to balance the budget and contain rising public debt."

"Pulling the plug on a rice price guarantee scheme for farmers might help stem the losses of billions of dollars of state funds, but Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would risk losing crucial rural support by doing so."

"The rice policy has been a disaster, however, with losses of 136 billion baht ($4.3 billion) in the 2011-2012 crop year. After that, the government ceased reporting the losses, although former central bank governor and finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula recently estimated the total at 425 billion baht."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112

So anyone who takles a different view to yourself has limited braincells, morals and ethics.

The trouble is that there are various elements mixed up - including accusations of populism, maladministration and corruption.Clearly all involved in the latter need to be brought to account.Maladministration is different and can hardly be said to be unique to Thailand.Nevertheless I agree it needs careful investigation.

I am on record from the outset that the scheme was misguided and poorly implemented.

However your post does remind me to emphasize that a populist approach is perfectly legitimate and is practised by every government in every democratic country to some extent.Whether it is wise is a different matter but it is not a criminal undertaking as some of the sillier of Yingluck's critics suggest.

The following article written a year into the scheme makes some very valid points

http://irri.org/blogs/sam-s-rice-price-and-market-blog/why-does-everyone-hate-the-thai-rice-mortgage-scheme

My own view is that what we are seeing now is a politicised witch hunt.

The issue for most on here is that it was supposed to cost X and cost 3X, as though politicians should be perosnally held accountable for bad budgeting.

Strewth, there wouldn't be many people in politics is this type of accountability was used.

That might not be a bad idea. At least it may limit the cost to the taxpayers and the country.

[Thai at Heart]

For the life of me I will never understand what is going on in this crazy country, and have given up even trying to wrap my head around it.

Also I will never understand why anyone with even a limited number of braincells, morals and ethics, would defend this woman and her failed rice scam.

If it is simply because she is being held accountable for her actions (or should that be in-actions ?) by the Military Junta, then it is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

"The International Monetary Fund called on Thailand to scrap its pricy scheme to support rice farmers and scale back some other fiscal stimulus measures in order to balance the budget and contain rising public debt."

"Pulling the plug on a rice price guarantee scheme for farmers might help stem the losses of billions of dollars of state funds, but Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would risk losing crucial rural support by doing so."

"The rice policy has been a disaster, however, with losses of 136 billion baht ($4.3 billion) in the 2011-2012 crop year. After that, the government ceased reporting the losses, although former central bank governor and finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula recently estimated the total at 425 billion baht."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112

So anyone who takles a different view to yourself has limited braincells, morals and ethics.

The trouble is that there are various elements mixed up - including accusations of populism, maladministration and corruption.Clearly all involved in the latter need to be brought to account.Maladministration is different and can hardly be said to be unique to Thailand.Nevertheless I agree it needs careful investigation.

I am on record from the outset that the scheme was misguided and poorly implemented.

However your post does remind me to emphasize that a populist approach is perfectly legitimate and is practised by every government in every democratic country to some extent.Whether it is wise is a different matter but it is not a criminal undertaking as some of the sillier of Yingluck's critics suggest.

The following article written a year into the scheme makes some very valid points

http://irri.org/blogs/sam-s-rice-price-and-market-blog/why-does-everyone-hate-the-thai-rice-mortgage-scheme

My own view is that what we are seeing now is a politicised witch hunt.

The issue for most on here is that it was supposed to cost X and cost 3X, as though politicians should be perosnally held accountable for bad budgeting.

Strewth, there wouldn't be many people in politics is this type of accountability was used.

That might not be a bad idea. At least it may limit the cost to the taxpayers and the country.

Very little that any government does is revenue let alone profit positive.

[phoenixdoglover]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

Strangely enough the PTP government REFUSED to show any of the books or figures on the rice scheme whatsoever. There was NO transparency or financial accountability for the entire 3 years plus lifetime of the scam.

The large figure presented IS real.

Simple mathematics will give you the amount of rice bought in millions of tonnes at the agreed price.

If you then add on to that amount the cost of transportation and storage you will reach a figure.

Subtract from that figure the genuine sales in tonnage and the price it reached on the world market and you will get a lower cost of the scam.

Subtract again the lower storage costs or the difference between what you bought and what you sold and the figure that remains is the cost of the rice left over which will be a loss until ALL the rice is sold. If you get less than you paid for the rice is it called a loss no matter what spin is put on it.

The responsibility for the loss remains firmly with the person in charge of the scheme who just happens to be Yingluck Shinawatra, She could have cut the losses much earlier if she had listened to the advice of knowledgeable from with and outside Thailand. She didn't so the responsibility still remains with her.

Spin should not be confused with reality.

Yet, you do not present the figures.

Therefore, your argument is without merit, as it is merely a repetition of the unsubstantiated amount proffered by others.

Besides, you have lumped all causes for "loss" and asserted the former PM is responsible. This is the obvious weakness in the government's argument at this point, which you have readily adopted.

To cut to the chase: Is the former PM, for example, responsible for the sudden infusion of Indian Basmati rice into the world market coincident with the Thai decision to stockpile? This change in global supply was the proximate cause of market price declines, and a portion of the "loss" experienced by Thailand. Under what legal theory would the PM be responsible for changes in global market prices of a commodity? If the price had gone up, under this "responsibility" theory, would the PM then be entitled to take the profits?

Yes I agree that she should agree that she should take the profits always assuming that you accept that she would accept the losses as well.

Would you agree that that is fair also that she would be responsible for the losses if any?

Absolutely not. It was bait for you, and you took it, hook, line and sinker.

[phoenixdoglover]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

That's nonsense. You apparently don't know anything about the practice of law before the Administrative Courts in Thailand. Therefore, you probably should qualify your post, admitting that you don't know whether accounting and loss calculations will be part of the evidence. Or, you could have just found the answer by use of google: http://www.admincourt.go.th/amc_eng/01-court/procedure/courtproceed.htm

The procedures, rules and law applied by the Administrative Court of Thailand are no different than the civil courts. Thailand has many specialty courts - the Labour Court, the Intellectual Property Court, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. These speciality courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, and sometimes they have some subtle procedural and evidentiary differences. For instance, the Labour Court can relieve workers of unconscionable employment rules and agreements, where the rule or agreement would not be the norm for the industry or unfair in light of the difference in bargaining power of the parties.

As far as evidence goes, the Civil Court and Administrative Court are identical. That means expert witnesses will take the stand and have to provide acceptable accounting and auditing evidence to show the losses or lack thereof. Yingluck should have all of this evidence, because part of her responsibility under the rice scheme was to monitor the financial condition of the warehouse stocks and the revenue being generated by sales against the outlays paid for the paddy. Strangely enough, she has never provided any of this accounting or audit evidence in prior hearings, including her impeachment. I'm sure everyone will be keenly anxious to see her rendition of the scheme's actual finances.

As far as the procedure chosen by Prayuth goes, he could have chosen either Civil Court or an Administrative Order to pursue reimbursement from Yingluck. The procedures are only significantly different with respect to the Court that will hear the case, and the alignment of parties. In the Administrative Court, Yingluck becomes a plaintiff, because she must file suit to contest the administrative penalty.

Try not to get too puffed up with your knowledge of legal proceedings.

I was referring to the current administrative order, not any subsequent court case, if one occurs. (That sort of depends on the follow-through, doesn't it?...a real question mark these days).

However, have you seen any arithmetic accounting of the losses? As a simple expectation, wouldn't you think an administrative decision, seeking recovery of a specific monetary figure by the Finance Ministry, would be based on some sort of financial program balance sheet?

Absolutely.

BTW have you actually seen the PTP program balance sheet yet, even for the first year which would ahve been for the accounting year 2011/2012?

Thank you for proving my point.

If PTP did not produce the figures (and I'll accept that for sake of argument), where did the present 500 billion figure come from, or the previous NACC figure of 600 to 700 billion?

You can't have it both ways. Either somebody has done a proper accounting or not.

You seem to agree with me: a proper accounting has not been done (or has not been shared with the press).

[Denim]

The Nation is not known for being a lover of Yingluk. Here is its front page cartoon today which expresses what a lot of people are thinking. :

[billd766]

That's nonsense. You apparently don't know anything about the practice of law before the Administrative Courts in Thailand. Therefore, you probably should qualify your post, admitting that you don't know whether accounting and loss calculations will be part of the evidence. Or, you could have just found the answer by use of google: http://www.admincourt.go.th/amc_eng/01-court/procedure/courtproceed.htm

The procedures, rules and law applied by the Administrative Court of Thailand are no different than the civil courts. Thailand has many specialty courts - the Labour Court, the Intellectual Property Court, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. These speciality courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, and sometimes they have some subtle procedural and evidentiary differences. For instance, the Labour Court can relieve workers of unconscionable employment rules and agreements, where the rule or agreement would not be the norm for the industry or unfair in light of the difference in bargaining power of the parties.

As far as evidence goes, the Civil Court and Administrative Court are identical. That means expert witnesses will take the stand and have to provide acceptable accounting and auditing evidence to show the losses or lack thereof. Yingluck should have all of this evidence, because part of her responsibility under the rice scheme was to monitor the financial condition of the warehouse stocks and the revenue being generated by sales against the outlays paid for the paddy. Strangely enough, she has never provided any of this accounting or audit evidence in prior hearings, including her impeachment. I'm sure everyone will be keenly anxious to see her rendition of the scheme's actual finances.

As far as the procedure chosen by Prayuth goes, he could have chosen either Civil Court or an Administrative Order to pursue reimbursement from Yingluck. The procedures are only significantly different with respect to the Court that will hear the case, and the alignment of parties. In the Administrative Court, Yingluck becomes a plaintiff, because she must file suit to contest the administrative penalty.

Try not to get too puffed up with your knowledge of legal proceedings.

I was referring to the current administrative order, not any subsequent court case, if one occurs. (That sort of depends on the follow-through, doesn't it?...a real question mark these days).

However, have you seen any arithmetic accounting of the losses? As a simple expectation, wouldn't you think an administrative decision, seeking recovery of a specific monetary figure by the Finance Ministry, would be based on some sort of financial program balance sheet?

Absolutely.

BTW have you actually seen the PTP program balance sheet yet, even for the first year which would ahve been for the accounting year 2011/2012?

Thank you for proving my point.

If PTP did not produce the figures (and I'll accept that for sake of argument), where did the present 500 billion figure come from, or the previous NACC figure of 600 to 700 billion?

You can't have it both ways. Either somebody has done a proper accounting or not.

You seem to agree with me: a proper accounting has not been done (or has not been shared with the press).

What I said was that the PTP did not or would not produce ANT accounts at all.

It was generally accepted that the price charged to the PTP government was 15,000 thb/ton ( thought that was probably not what the farmers were paid).

There are many references quoting the amount in tonnage of rice bought.

There are few references for the amount spent on transportation and storage which of course increases the cost of the rice (the PTP called it a state secret).

There are fewer references as to the amount of rice "actually and genuinely" sold, not in tonnage or market prices, (another PTP state secret).

There are quite a few reference of fake G2G schemes where no rice was actually sold.

PM Yingluck actually ordered a stock check of all the rice in store which took less than a week and said that there was no rotten or missing rice at all. She was only parroting the figures given to her anyway.

Now if you REALLY want to show how smart and clever you are, why don't you come up with figures and an explanation?

[mikemac]

For the life of me I will never understand what is going on in this crazy country, and have given up even trying to wrap my head around it.

Also I will never understand why anyone with even a limited number of braincells, morals and ethics, would defend this woman and her failed rice scam.

If it is simply because she is being held accountable for her actions (or should that be in-actions ?) by the Military Junta, then it is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

"The International Monetary Fund called on Thailand to scrap its pricy scheme to support rice farmers and scale back some other fiscal stimulus measures in order to balance the budget and contain rising public debt."

"Pulling the plug on a rice price guarantee scheme for farmers might help stem the losses of billions of dollars of state funds, but Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would risk losing crucial rural support by doing so."

"The rice policy has been a disaster, however, with losses of 136 billion baht ($4.3 billion) in the 2011-2012 crop year. After that, the government ceased reporting the losses, although former central bank governor and finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula recently estimated the total at 425 billion baht."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112

So anyone who takles a different view to yourself has limited braincells, morals and ethics.

The trouble is that there are various elements mixed up - including accusations of populism, maladministration and corruption.Clearly all involved in the latter need to be brought to account.Maladministration is different and can hardly be said to be unique to Thailand.Nevertheless I agree it needs careful investigation.

I am on record from the outset that the scheme was misguided and poorly implemented.

However your post does remind me to emphasize that a populist approach is perfectly legitimate and is practised by every government in every democratic country to some extent.Whether it is wise is a different matter but it is not a criminal undertaking as some of the sillier of Yingluck's critics suggest.

The following article written a year into the scheme makes some very valid points

http://irri.org/blogs/sam-s-rice-price-and-market-blog/why-does-everyone-hate-the-thai-rice-mortgage-scheme

My own view is that what we are seeing now is a politicised witch hunt.

"So anyone who takles a different view to yourself has limited braincells, morals and ethics."

Come off it jayboy, that is not what I said. Don't twist my comment to suit yourself.

So you scoured the web and stumbled across a blog that suited your agenda. I read that article and noticed a couple of interesting points -

.................."There is no disagreement that this is a populist policy and has been brought back to appease rural voters."............................

........................."The Thai government may also want to think about direct cash transfers to farmers that are not linked to current production. Japan and South Korea have recently moved away from price support to direct payments, and the government of India is pondering converting subsidies for food, petroleum, and fertilizer to direct cash transfers to beneficiaries."...........................

That article was written back in 2012, I wonder what he would have said about the rice payment scheme when the farmers went to Bangkok to protest about not being paid for their rice.

By the end of 2013 the IMF were telling Thailand to "ditch" the rice scheme -

"The International Monetary Fund called on Thailand to scrap its pricy scheme to support rice farmers and scale back some other fiscal stimulus measures in order to balance the budget and contain rising public debt."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112

You may see it as "a politicised witch hunt", but a lot of other people see it as a turning point in the war against corrupt families like the Shinawatras using Thailand like their own private money making machine.

I hope to see the day when whole dang lot of them are living in self imposed exile.

[Thai at Heart]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

That's nonsense. You apparently don't know anything about the practice of law before the Administrative Courts in Thailand. Therefore, you probably should qualify your post, admitting that you don't know whether accounting and loss calculations will be part of the evidence. Or, you could have just found the answer by use of google: http://www.admincourt.go.th/amc_eng/01-court/procedure/courtproceed.htm

The procedures, rules and law applied by the Administrative Court of Thailand are no different than the civil courts. Thailand has many specialty courts - the Labour Court, the Intellectual Property Court, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. These speciality courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, and sometimes they have some subtle procedural and evidentiary differences. For instance, the Labour Court can relieve workers of unconscionable employment rules and agreements, where the rule or agreement would not be the norm for the industry or unfair in light of the difference in bargaining power of the parties.

As far as evidence goes, the Civil Court and Administrative Court are identical. That means expert witnesses will take the stand and have to provide acceptable accounting and auditing evidence to show the losses or lack thereof. Yingluck should have all of this evidence, because part of her responsibility under the rice scheme was to monitor the financial condition of the warehouse stocks and the revenue being generated by sales against the outlays paid for the paddy. Strangely enough, she has never provided any of this accounting or audit evidence in prior hearings, including her impeachment. I'm sure everyone will be keenly anxious to see her rendition of the scheme's actual finances.

As far as the procedure chosen by Prayuth goes, he could have chosen either Civil Court or an Administrative Order to pursue reimbursement from Yingluck. The procedures are only significantly different with respect to the Court that will hear the case, and the alignment of parties. In the Administrative Court, Yingluck becomes a plaintiff, because she must file suit to contest the administrative penalty.

Try not to get too puffed up with your knowledge of legal proceedings.

I was referring to the current administrative order, not any subsequent court case, if one occurs. (That sort of depends on the follow-through, doesn't it?...a real question mark these days).

However, have you seen any arithmetic accounting of the losses? As a simple expectation, wouldn't you think an administrative decision, seeking recovery of a specific monetary figure by the Finance Ministry, would be based on some sort of financial program balance sheet?

Absolutely.

BTW have you actually seen the PTP program balance sheet yet, even for the first year which would ahve been for the accounting year 2011/2012?

Thank you for proving my point.

If PTP did not produce the figures (and I'll accept that for sake of argument), where did the present 500 billion figure come from, or the previous NACC figure of 600 to 700 billion?

You can't have it both ways. Either somebody has done a proper accounting or not.

You seem to agree with me: a proper accounting has not been done (or has not been shared with the press).

Well on another thread, there is a quoted cost of 24k per tonne which has to be wrong if the quoted loss is 500bn.

Or if it's right, (which I doubt it), then the loss has to be much less than 500bn.

Or, they have never done a proper audit and are pulling numbers out of their backside.

[mikemac]

Or, they have never done a proper audit and are pulling numbers out of their backside.

I was going to ask, jokingly, if they can do that. Then I realized my wife has been doing that since the day we met.