webfact Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Niwatthamrong defends Ms Yingluck over rice pledging schemeBANGKOK: -- Former deputy prime minister and commerce minister Niwatthamrong Bunsongpaisarn defended former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra over the rice pledging scheme before the fact-finding panel today (Monday).Emerging from a meeting with the panel, Mr Niwatthamrong said he told the panel that Ms Yingluck was not negligent in overseeing the rice scheme as charged by the National Anti-Corruption Commission as the scheme was implemented in compliance with the B.E. 2546 Royal Decree about good national administration which stipulates that assessment of the worthiness of a public project which is of public interest must taken into account the overall benefits of the project rather than the issue of profit and loss.He insisted that both the National Economic and Social Development Board and the Budget Bureau had assessed the rice pledging project and found it to be worthy of implementation.Mr Niwatthamrong claimed that farmers had earned over 10,000 baht for each kwien of paddy they sold under the scheme instead of just 7,000 baht and, overall, farmers throughout the country earned 140 billion baht/year from their rice crops.On top of that, he claimed that farmers’ spending from their increased earnings had generated an addition of 350 -357 billion baht/annum in circulation in the economic system hence contributing to one percent increase of the GDP per year.Last but not least, he claimed that the Finance Ministry managed to collect an addition of 100 billion baht annually in VAT and corporate income taxes. Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/niwatthamrong-defends-ms-yingluck-over-rice-pledging-scheme -- Thai PBS 2015-11-09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishJohn Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 What on Earth is he going on about ?. I thought the charge was gross negligence for failing to stop corruption. Not whether the scheme was worth doing or not. Fine him for wasting the courts time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 And as always the main point is ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishJohn Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage I wonder how he voted during the amnesty disgrace. Not many ethics floating around there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Nice use of sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage I wonder how he voted during the amnesty disgrace. Not many ethics floating around there I'll give you one guess ... "The bill passed by 310 votes to 0 in Thailand's lower house on Friday after the opposition Democrat Party boycotted the vote." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannaGuy Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Nice use of sarcasm lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
than Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Always in denial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 What on Earth is he going on about ?. I thought the charge was gross negligence for failing to stop corruption. Not whether the scheme was worth doing or not. Fine him for wasting the courts time. Obviously they aren't asking the right questions...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 A post of a defamatory nature has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worgeordie Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 If the farmers earned a lot of money from the scheme,why are they still up to their eyes in debt,the people who did benefit,middle men, rice mills,and warehouses did very nicely,thank you,even now the cost to store the millions of tons still in stock,must be tremendous. regards worgeordie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
from the home of CC Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 he just doesn't want to swing beside her.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod reborn Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Nice use of sarcasm lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days Did any MP ever vote to spend 600 billion baht on the program? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just give the farmers the money? Less than 2% of the debt piled up under the scheme actually got to the farmers. I forgot. You and your red friends, the rice millers, the smugglers and the warehouse operators were the true beneficiaries of the program. It wasn't intended to help the farmers at all, but rather to line the pockets of the red supporters to reward them for electing an unaccountable government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Nice use of sarcasm lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days Did anyone in his sound mind not expect him to come up for Yingluck? A Shins' pawn, a former commerce min. and dep. PM, in Yingluck's 'government', who was in the first row to witness the cataclysm, to 'probably'(see what the Courts will say) participate in the scam, and when/if he had not his arm deep in the honeyjar(?), then at least helped covering up some 're-distribution of wealth', not to any of the poor farmers I mean, the, fake 'G-to-G' rice sales f.i. ... So isn't it 'normal' for him to lie, cheat, deny, turn, twist? When you are able to call him: 'obviously a man of principal and courage', my guess is you're doing the exact same, except it does not make you rich(er), and we didn't expect anything else from you either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chainarong Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 The whole case sets a president that can come back to Haunt Prayut- O or anyone else for that matter and in it's basic format looks like a witch hunt against the Shinawatra family , however one notes Niwatthamrong comment on the National Economic , Social Development Board and Budget Bureau, are these the real deal , what about finance and treasury modeling and the export commission what did they say , did they have any say , the crux of this argument there was more than Ms Yingluck involved, it was passed by the executive ,nothing short of a proper enquiry will find this out.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) The whole case sets a president that can come back to Haunt Prayut- O or anyone else for that matter and in it's basic format looks like a witch hunt against the Shinawatra family , however one notes Niwatthamrong comment on the National Economic , Social Development Board and Budget Bureau, are these the real deal , what about finance and treasury modeling and the export commission what did they say , did they have any say , the crux of this argument there was more than Ms Yingluck involved, it was passed by the executive ,nothing short of a proper enquiry will find this out.................. 'The whole case sets a president that can come back to Haunt Prayut- O...', hmm, 'chainarong', you really mean 'a president', like Thaksin then, like he called himself, not long before the 2006 coup? Naah, you wouldn't want to remind us of that 'faux pas', you must have meant 'precedent', but, as the word is so deep inside many a Shins' fan memory, you just automatically wrote 'president', am I correct? Edited November 9, 2015 by bangrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuchulainn Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Just earning Brownie Points from the Sandman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anon467848 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 If Yingluck's party was still in office, some of the farmers would still be waiting for their money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsailor35 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Nice use of sarcasm lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days Did any MP ever vote to spend 600 billion baht on the program? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just give the farmers the money? Less than 2% of the debt piled up under the scheme actually got to the farmers. I forgot. You and your red friends, the rice millers, the smugglers and the warehouse operators were the true beneficiaries of the program. It wasn't intended to help the farmers at all, but rather to line the pockets of the red supporters to reward them for electing an unaccountable government. Is this why the present PM is dishing out subsidies right now. Not to help the farmers on 'struggle street' but for the benefit of the Rice Barn owners and the buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsailor35 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 If Yingluck's party was still in office, some of the farmers would still be waiting for their money... Yes we all know that, because the banks were forbidden to allow the Yingluck government access to the money to pay them. As soon as she was got rid of, the junta instructed the banks to pay out. So please do not expect all of us to be so naive as yourself in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinediscoking Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I keep hearing how corrupt this scheme was by all the usual posters. Why after a year of Junta control have they not named "key people" involved and a link to the money trial where it ended up? All they can come up are PTP supporters, rice warehouses, middle men and rice from cambodia without specific names of people. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 If Yingluck's party was still in office, some of the farmers would still be waiting for their money... Yes we all know that, because the banks were forbidden to allow the Yingluck government access to the money to pay them. As soon as she was got rid of, the junta instructed the banks to pay out. So please do not expect all of us to be so naive as yourself in this matter. What is naive about obeying the laws of the country? NO caretaker government of any colour is allowed to borrow money to support any program whilst they are merely caretaking. The reason is that they may NOT be re-elected and then the incoming government of whatever colour would be responsible for and HAVE to repay the debt that was incurred by the previous government. Do you not understand the rule of law or are you happy that an outgoing government of whatever colour can rack up trillions of baht of debts, spend it on whatever they want, even to the extent of emptying the Treasury, and just walk away without a care in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Nice use of sarcasm lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days And you try, again, to make sure that the punters don't see the real reason why she is on trial. You should be shamed, your ethics are seriously wanting, but that's become very very obvious already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 If Yingluck's party was still in office, some of the farmers would still be waiting for their money... Yes we all know that, because the banks were forbidden to allow the Yingluck government access to the money to pay them. As soon as she was got rid of, the junta instructed the banks to pay out. So please do not expect all of us to be so naive as yourself in this matter. What is naive about obeying the laws of the country? NO caretaker government of any colour is allowed to borrow money to support any program whilst they are merely caretaking. The reason is that they may NOT be re-elected and then the incoming government of whatever colour would be responsible for and HAVE to repay the debt that was incurred by the previous government. Do you not understand the rule of law or are you happy that an outgoing government of whatever colour can rack up trillions of baht of debts, spend it on whatever they want, even to the extent of emptying the Treasury, and just walk away without a care in the world? From oldsailor: ...Yes we all know that, because the banks were forbidden to allow the Yingluck government access to the money to pay them. As soon as she was got rid of, the junta instructed the banks to pay out. So please do not expect all of us to be so naive as yourself in this matter. ... You should be totally ashamed of yourself, you post attempted diversions which are simply untruthful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Nice use of sarcasm lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days And you try, again, to make sure that the punters don't see the real reason why she is on trial. You should be shamed, your ethics are seriously wanting, but that's become very very obvious already. If the crime is that it failed to be self financing then she's guilty. Those pesky competitors boosting production into a free market. Dastardly. Fact is 500bn wasn't lost, it was borrowed and spent into the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I keep hearing how corrupt this scheme was by all the usual posters. Why after a year of Junta control have they not named "key people" involved and a link to the money trial where it ended up? All they can come up are PTP supporters, rice warehouses, middle men and rice from cambodia without specific names of people. Am I missing something? Yes, you are, but nothing new there, take off your red shades at last, and start looking at the reality of facts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangrak Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days And you try, again, to make sure that the punters don't see the real reason why she is on trial. You should be shamed, your ethics are seriously wanting, but that's become very very obvious already. If the crime is that it failed to be self financing then she's guilty. Those pesky competitors boosting production into a free market. Dastardly. Fact is 500bn wasn't lost, it was borrowed and spent into the economy. Who said 500Billion were lost, no, they disappeared in the wrong pockets, but borrowed for sure, and the taxpayers will have to pay back every penny of it...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 lol nice try... he is obviously a man of principal and courage to point out that the scheme was FULLY agreed and it's not at all unusual for a government to subsidize farmers as they do in the EU and US etc. This is NOT about RICE Nice to see someone stand up and be counted in these Dark Days And you try, again, to make sure that the punters don't see the real reason why she is on trial. You should be shamed, your ethics are seriously wanting, but that's become very very obvious already. If the crime is that it failed to be self financing then she's guilty. Those pesky competitors boosting production into a free market. Dastardly.Fact is 500bn wasn't lost, it was borrowed and spent into the economy. Who said 500Billion were lost, no, they disappeared in the wrong pockets, but borrowed for sure, and the taxpayers will have to pay back every penny of it...! Maybe but not you, but there are plenty in here screaming periodically that the accusation is that 500bn was stolen. There isn't even an accusation that it ended up in the wrong pockets. Some went to farmers, some went to trucks, warehousing, fumigation, shipping etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Thank you for having ethics and courage Who you thanking? Surely not one of PTP's ministers? Courage to lie maybe, but absolutely no ethics. Did he prove any of his claims with audited accounts perhaps? Did he explain how a non attending chair can be anything other than negligent in her duties? More little white lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now