Niwatthamrong defends Ms Yingluck over rice pledging scheme

[Baerboxer]

It's gone to warehouses and the such. You think if there was a hole the size of 500bn unaccounted they would be holding off prosecuting people and her for theft as opposed to negligence.

Or are they holding that one back for later?

I've no idea - and neither do you. Without accounts being revealed we can only guess.

If they are revealed then the payments to Millers, Warehouses, Hauliers can be audited to ensure they were not unduly high, contracted appropriately, and that contract terms were performed.

I'd guess they'd find more holes than in a sieve. But, that's just a guess.

[Eric Loh]

But, but, but. Nobody robbed a bank. Analogy invalid. Nobody said it was ok for anyone. How many US politicians are prosecuted for negligence, even for starting a war in Iraq based on lies?(WMD) Lies which resulted in many deaths and loads of money. How many British politicians were prosecuted for the expenses scandal? This seems to be simply a witch hunt to me to pave the way for the preferred next government, if there is to be one.

Let's stay within the country. How did Ahbisit got away with his Thai Khem Khaeg (Strong Thailand) and the laundry list of subsidies and not Yingluck. His subsidies included capping the price of diesel, LPG cooking gas and electricity which cast tax revenue lost to a tune of 8.5 B Baht per month. His free electricity burdened the government with another 12 B Baht annual. He even handed out cash to people who make less than 15,000B per month. That's the social contract each government must keep and I have no issue with AV giving subsidies or welfare as called in some countries to the poor. But why is one person allow to have subsidy programs (even the current government), while other has been pursued and punished not once by the NACC but again by the Supreme Court.

Which bit of "It's not about the rice scheme, it's about the massive corruption and the blind eye Yingluck turned to it even after being warned" are you obviously unable to understand ?.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Sounds like Abhisit did a lot more to try and help the poor than the dirty cronies ever did - thanks for listing them for us.

You seem to know the verdict before the Supreme Court hearings and ruling. Right now, it stand as negligence. <deleted>

[Baerboxer]

Another tentative (but failed) disinformation.

The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".

The main reason given is that the poor farmers mainly grow rice for their own consumption and seldom sell it.

If poor farmers don't sell their rice, why did the PTP government promote a price boosting scheme to increase their income? That was the stated intent, and by your claim, an obvious lie.

Would not modifying a scheme that was a 96% waste of money not be mismanagement?

The choice made was to subsidize rice sold. So it's not surprising that the farmers who sell more rice get more than the ones who sell only a little rice.

Other choices could have been made, and I personnaly think that there could have been better ways to spend this money (in particular after knowing now the market price of rice during previous years).

Nevertheless it remains that the continuous allegations of the anti-shins squad that the money went massively into the wrong pokets (i.e. the Shins, PTP politicians, etc...) are groundless.

No one, including you, knows where the 96% of the money spent went. Accounts have never been revealed. So we don't really know whose pockets that money finished up in.

That's 96% of all the money spent on the scheme. Quite a tidy sum. Normally one would expect management accounts to be reviewed at the policy meetings. But seeing as the chair never even bothered to attend, even after warnings things were awry, it's not really a surprising result.

Yingluck has not been charged with thieving, She's being charged with negligence. Unless she can explain where that 96% went, and that it was wisely spent, in accordance with policy and procedure, then she is up DELETED creek without a paddle.

[seedy]

Posts Edited for Language

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

[candide]

Another tentative (but failed) disinformation.

The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".

The main reason given is that the poor farmers mainly grow rice for their own consumption and seldom sell it.

If poor farmers don't sell their rice, why did the PTP government promote a price boosting scheme to increase their income? That was the stated intent, and by your claim, an obvious lie.

Would not modifying a scheme that was a 96% waste of money not be mismanagement?

The choice made was to subsidize rice sold. So it's not surprising that the farmers who sell more rice get more than the ones who sell only a little rice.

Other choices could have been made, and I personnaly think that there could have been better ways to spend this money (in particular after knowing now the market price of rice during previous years).

Nevertheless it remains that the continuous allegations of the anti-shins squad that the money went massively into the wrong pokets (i.e. the Shins, PTP politicians, etc...) are groundless.

No one, including you, knows where the 96% of the money spent went. Accounts have never been revealed. So we don't really know whose pockets that money finished up in.

That's 96% of all the money spent on the scheme. Quite a tidy sum. Normally one would expect management accounts to be reviewed at the policy meetings. But seeing as the chair never even bothered to attend, even after warnings things were awry, it's not really a surprising result.

Yingluck has not been charged with thieving, She's being charged with negligence. Unless she can explain where that 96% went, and that it was wisely spent, in accordance with policy and procedure, then she is up DELETED creek without a paddle.

It's you who cited the world Bank. They never wrote nobody knows where the other 96% went. If you consider the 4% is a reliable figure, look at their report and check how they estimate the rest of the money was spent.

[Nobb]

Who really cares about what he thinks. The cold hard facts say she is a guilty as hell. But they still pay her supporters to rally for her. Mostly unschooled farmers and laborers from northern Thailand. As long as they get paid these people will always back her. Guilty or not!

[candide]

The choice made was to subsidize rice sold. So it's not surprising that the farmers who sell more rice get more than the ones who sell only a little rice.

Other choices could have been made, and I personnaly think that there could have been better ways to spend this money (in particular after knowing now the market price of rice during previous years).

Nevertheless it remains that the continuous allegations of the anti-shins squad that the money went massively into the wrong pokets (i.e. the Shins, PTP politicians, etc...) are groundless.

No one, including you, knows where the 96% of the money spent went. Accounts have never been revealed. So we don't really know whose pockets that money finished up in.

That's 96% of all the money spent on the scheme. Quite a tidy sum. Normally one would expect management accounts to be reviewed at the policy meetings. But seeing as the chair never even bothered to attend, even after warnings things were awry, it's not really a surprising result.

Yingluck has not been charged with thieving, She's being charged with negligence. Unless she can explain where that 96% went, and that it was wisely spent, in accordance with policy and procedure, then she is up DELETED creek without a paddle.

It's you who cited the world Bank. They never wrote nobody knows where the other 96% went. If you consider the 4% is a reliable figure, look at their report and check how they estimate the rest of the money was spent.

Additionnaly I searched in the world bank reports and did not find this magic 4% figure. That's all I found:

“Around a third of farming households have joined the 2011/2012 Pledging Program. Out of the 3.6 million rice farming households in Thailand, data from the BAAC shows that 1.3 million households have joined the 2011/2012 Paddy Pledging Program. Of those who join the Program, the majority are small and medium-size farmers27. They have benefitted from the Program as the price that they receive under the Paddy Pledging Program is higher than that of market prices and above their production and transportation cost. However the very poor farmers in Thailand are subsistence farmers who do not have excess rice to sell and therefore do not benefit from this Program.

27According to the BAAC’s definition, small farming households are those with incomes of no more than Bt100, 000 per year. Large farming households are those with incomes of more than Bt500, 000. Of the 1.3 million households that participate in the Program, only a little more than 10,000 household are large households”

[Equalizer]

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.

hahahaha sorry old chap all the millers and middle men are not REDS. Ask Suthep!!!!

[Thai at Heart]

It's gone to warehouses and the such. You think if there was a hole the size of 500bn unaccounted they would be holding off prosecuting people and her for theft as opposed to negligence.

Or are they holding that one back for later?

I've no idea - and neither do you. Without accounts being revealed we can only guess.

If they are revealed then the payments to Millers, Warehouses, Hauliers can be audited to ensure they were not unduly high, contracted appropriately, and that contract terms were performed.

I'd guess they'd find more holes than in a sieve. But, that's just a guess.

Maybe, but the money's have been paid out against a given volume which has been agreed to be correct.

[The Deerhunter]

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

I realize that for many folk, as you say, "This is NOT about Rice." A very patriotic statement from you, I am sure, LannaGuy However, I am sorry to advise you that the world is not going to be wound back over 100 years for anyone.

[than]

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.

It was, as well you know, touted as a self financing scheme and deliberately kept off budget, so avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

The World Bank estimated 4% actually went to farmers. All she or her minions need to do is produce actual audited certified accounts that show where the other 96% went. Simple. Oh, and perhaps she should explain how not attending the meetings she was supposed to chair, and ignoring all warnings, was not negligent.

Then she's home free - if she can do it of course.

Another tentative (but failed) disinformation.

The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".

The main reason given is that the poor farmers mainly grow rice for their own consumption and seldom sell it.

Source The Nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Farmers-to-sue-govt-for-rice-money-30226654.html) :

"World Bank says pledging scheme poorly implemented, tainted by corruption"

"Now there are some 1.2 million farmers who have not yet been paid their money due under the rice-pledging scheme."

"The World Bank said the rice subsidy scheme was a good idea to help stabilise farmers' income, but added that it had been badly implemented and that corruption was another big problem."

Source IMF (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112) :

"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.

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.

The IMF said the government's agreement to pay about 40 percent above market prices for rice would make losses "inevitable," and a 410 billion fund to pay for the rice scheme was unlikely to contain all the losses."

Edited November 10, 2015 by than

[bangrak]

But, but, but. Nobody robbed a bank. Analogy invalid. Nobody said it was ok for anyone. How many US politicians are prosecuted for negligence, even for starting a war in Iraq based on lies?(WMD) Lies which resulted in many deaths and loads of money. How many British politicians were prosecuted for the expenses scandal? This seems to be simply a witch hunt to me to pave the way for the preferred next government, if there is to be one.

Let's stay within the country. How did Ahbisit got away with his Thai Khem Khaeg (Strong Thailand) and the laundry list of subsidies and not Yingluck. His subsidies included capping the price of diesel, LPG cooking gas and electricity which cast tax revenue lost to a tune of 8.5 B Baht per month. His free electricity burdened the government with another 12 B Baht annual. He even handed out cash to people who make less than 15,000B per month. That's the social contract each government must keep and I have no issue with AV giving subsidies or welfare as called in some countries to the poor. But why is one person allow to have subsidy programs (even the current government), while other has been pursued and punished not once by the NACC but again by the Supreme Court.

So, Khun Eric, you are telling us here that, in an effective and straight way, also documented by clear figures, the AV Government in fact was spending big money to, really, help the poor Thais, from all over Thailand... Thank you for being so genuine, the more so you do realize this even more exposes the wrongs of Yingluck, PTP, the family and clan, you seem to make a business of defending...

[candide]

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.

It was, as well you know, touted as a self financing scheme and deliberately kept off budget, so avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

The World Bank estimated 4% actually went to farmers. All she or her minions need to do is produce actual audited certified accounts that show where the other 96% went. Simple. Oh, and perhaps she should explain how not attending the meetings she was supposed to chair, and ignoring all warnings, was not negligent.

Then she's home free - if she can do it of course.

Another tentative (but failed) disinformation.

The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".

The main reason given is that the poor farmers mainly grow rice for their own consumption and seldom sell it.

Source The Nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Farmers-to-sue-govt-for-rice-money-30226654.html) :

"World Bank says pledging scheme poorly implemented, tainted by corruption"

"Now there are some 1.2 million farmers who have not yet been paid their money due under the rice-pledging scheme."

"The World Bank said the rice subsidy scheme was a good idea to help stabilise farmers' income, but added that it had been badly implemented and that corruption was another big problem."

Source IMF (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112) :

"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.

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.

The IMF said the government's agreement to pay about 40 percent above market prices for rice would make losses "inevitable," and a 410 billion fund to pay for the rice scheme was unlikely to contain all the losses."

So what? I never wrote that there was no loss in the rice scheme and that it was a very good scheme. Don't pretend you are not able to read what I post.

All I wrote is that there is no evidence of massive amounts of money diverted to corruption, as alledged by several posters in this forum. Initially in response to Baerboxer pretending that only 4% of the money actually went to farmers, quite erronously citing the World Bank for this figure.

[Baerboxer]

The choice made was to subsidize rice sold. So it's not surprising that the farmers who sell more rice get more than the ones who sell only a little rice.

Other choices could have been made, and I personnaly think that there could have been better ways to spend this money (in particular after knowing now the market price of rice during previous years).

Nevertheless it remains that the continuous allegations of the anti-shins squad that the money went massively into the wrong pokets (i.e. the Shins, PTP politicians, etc...) are groundless.

No one, including you, knows where the 96% of the money spent went. Accounts have never been revealed. So we don't really know whose pockets that money finished up in.

That's 96% of all the money spent on the scheme. Quite a tidy sum. Normally one would expect management accounts to be reviewed at the policy meetings. But seeing as the chair never even bothered to attend, even after warnings things were awry, it's not really a surprising result.

Yingluck has not been charged with thieving, She's being charged with negligence. Unless she can explain where that 96% went, and that it was wisely spent, in accordance with policy and procedure, then she is up DELETED creek without a paddle.

It's you who cited the world Bank. They never wrote nobody knows where the other 96% went. If you consider the 4% is a reliable figure, look at their report and check how they estimate the rest of the money was spent.

Additionnaly I searched in the world bank reports and did not find this magic 4% figure. That's all I found:

“Around a third of farming households have joined the 2011/2012 Pledging Program. Out of the 3.6 million rice farming households in Thailand, data from the BAAC shows that 1.3 million households have joined the 2011/2012 Paddy Pledging Program. Of those who join the Program, the majority are small and medium-size farmers27. They have benefitted from the Program as the price that they receive under the Paddy Pledging Program is higher than that of market prices and above their production and transportation cost. However the very poor farmers in Thailand are subsistence farmers who do not have excess rice to sell and therefore do not benefit from this Program.

27According to the BAAC’s definition, small farming households are those with incomes of no more than Bt100, 000 per year. Large farming households are those with incomes of more than Bt500, 000. Of the 1.3 million households that participate in the Program, only a little more than 10,000 household are large households”

" The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".

"Additionnaly I searched in the world bank reports and did not find this magic 4% figure"

Both quotes from your posts Mr. Candide. Somewhat contradictory.

Still, if PTP actually produced accounts, no one would need to estimate where the money went. Audit those accounts could be very interesting.

[than]

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.

It was, as well you know, touted as a self financing scheme and deliberately kept off budget, so avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

The World Bank estimated 4% actually went to farmers. All she or her minions need to do is produce actual audited certified accounts that show where the other 96% went. Simple. Oh, and perhaps she should explain how not attending the meetings she was supposed to chair, and ignoring all warnings, was not negligent.

Then she's home free - if she can do it of course.

Another tentative (but failed) disinformation.

The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".

The main reason given is that the poor farmers mainly grow rice for their own consumption and seldom sell it.

Source The Nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Farmers-to-sue-govt-for-rice-money-30226654.html) :

"World Bank says pledging scheme poorly implemented, tainted by corruption"

"Now there are some 1.2 million farmers who have not yet been paid their money due under the rice-pledging scheme."

"The World Bank said the rice subsidy scheme was a good idea to help stabilise farmers' income, but added that it had been badly implemented and that corruption was another big problem."

Source IMF (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112) :

"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.

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.

The IMF said the government's agreement to pay about 40 percent above market prices for rice would make losses "inevitable," and a 410 billion fund to pay for the rice scheme was unlikely to contain all the losses."

So what? I never wrote that there was no loss in the rice scheme and that it was a very good scheme. Don't pretend you are not able to read what I post.

All I wrote is that there is no evidence of massive amounts of money diverted to corruption, as alledged by several posters in this forum. Initially in response to Baerboxer pretending that only 4% of the money actually went to farmers, quite erronously citing the World Bank for this figure.

World bank and IMf claim there was massive corruption in scheme, They aware YL government since 2012

[Thai at Heart]

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.

It was, as well you know, touted as a self financing scheme and deliberately kept off budget, so avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

The World Bank estimated 4% actually went to farmers. All she or her minions need to do is produce actual audited certified accounts that show where the other 96% went. Simple. Oh, and perhaps she should explain how not attending the meetings she was supposed to chair, and ignoring all warnings, was not negligent.

Then she's home free - if she can do it of course.

Another tentative (but failed) disinformation.

The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".
The main reason given is that the poor farmers mainly grow rice for their own consumption and seldom sell it.

Source The Nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Farmers-to-sue-govt-for-rice-money-30226654.html) :

"World Bank says pledging scheme poorly implemented, tainted by corruption"
"Now there are some 1.2 million farmers who have not yet been paid their money due under the rice-pledging scheme."
"The World Bank said the rice subsidy scheme was a good idea to help stabilise farmers' income, but added that it had been badly implemented and that corruption was another big problem."


Source IMF (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/uk-imf-thailand-idUKBRE9AB02B20131112) :

"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.

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.
The IMF said the government's agreement to pay about 40 percent above market prices for rice would make losses "inevitable," and a 410 billion fund to pay for the rice scheme was unlikely to contain all the losses."

So what? I never wrote that there was no loss in the rice scheme and that it was a very good scheme. Don't pretend you are not able to read what I post.

All I wrote is that there is no evidence of massive amounts of money diverted to corruption, as alledged by several posters in this forum. Initially in response to Baerboxer pretending that only 4% of the money actually went to farmers, quite erronously citing the World Bank for this figure.

World bank and IMf claim there was massive corruption in scheme, They aware YL government since 2012

Links please....

[metisdead]

An off topic deflection post has been removed as well as the quoted replies.

[candide]

The choice made was to subsidize rice sold. So it's not surprising that the farmers who sell more rice get more than the ones who sell only a little rice.
Other choices could have been made, and I personnaly think that there could have been better ways to spend this money (in particular after knowing now the market price of rice during previous years).

Nevertheless it remains that the continuous allegations of the anti-shins squad that the money went massively into the wrong pokets (i.e. the Shins, PTP politicians, etc...) are groundless.

No one, including you, knows where the 96% of the money spent went. Accounts have never been revealed. So we don't really know whose pockets that money finished up in.

That's 96% of all the money spent on the scheme. Quite a tidy sum. Normally one would expect management accounts to be reviewed at the policy meetings. But seeing as the chair never even bothered to attend, even after warnings things were awry, it's not really a surprising result.

Yingluck has not been charged with thieving, She's being charged with negligence. Unless she can explain where that 96% went, and that it was wisely spent, in accordance with policy and procedure, then she is up DELETED creek without a paddle.

It's you who cited the world Bank. They never wrote nobody knows where the other 96% went. If you consider the 4% is a reliable figure, look at their report and check how they estimate the rest of the money was spent.

Additionnaly I searched in the world bank reports and did not find this magic 4% figure. That's all I found:


Around a third of farming households have joined the 2011/2012 Pledging Program. Out of the 3.6 million rice farming households in Thailand, data from the BAAC shows that 1.3 million households have joined the 2011/2012 Paddy Pledging Program. Of those who join the Program, the majority are small and medium-size farmers27. They have benefitted from the Program as the price that they receive under the Paddy Pledging Program is higher than that of market prices and above their production and transportation cost. However the very poor farmers in Thailand are subsistence farmers who do not have excess rice to sell and therefore do not benefit from this Program.

27According to the BAACs definition, small farming households are those with incomes of no more than Bt100, 000 per year. Large farming households are those with incomes of more than Bt500, 000. Of the 1.3 million households that participate in the Program, only a little more than 10,000 household are large households

" The World Bank never wrote that only 4% actually went to farmers. It wrote only 4% went to the specific category of "poor farmers".

"Additionnaly I searched in the world bank reports and did not find this magic 4% figure"

Both quotes from your posts Mr. Candide. Somewhat contradictory.

Still, if PTP actually produced accounts, no one would need to estimate where the money went. Audit those accounts could be very interesting.

I remembered that in the WB report there were indications about what went to the different categories of farmers and that they did not write that nobody knew where a massive share of the money went. I naively believed that your 4% figure was accurate and that it was in the report so I re-used it.

Then when I had more time I checked on the WEB report and checked that my memories were accurate. And also did not find your 4% figure.

So I apologise to TV members for believing your 4% figure was accurate and not checking it before answering.

However it remains that it is not true that the WB wrote that nobody knows where 96% of the money went (or just simply were the money went), which was your argument.
It also remains that your 4% figure seems to come from a magic hat (unless you can indicate a WB source for it. In this case I would of course apologise for not finding it).

[scorecard]

The choice made was to subsidize rice sold. So it's not surprising that the farmers who sell more rice get more than the ones who sell only a little rice.

Other choices could have been made, and I personnaly think that there could have been better ways to spend this money (in particular after knowing now the market price of rice during previous years).

Nevertheless it remains that the continuous allegations of the anti-shins squad that the money went massively into the wrong pokets (i.e. the Shins, PTP politicians, etc...) are groundless.

No one, including you, knows where the 96% of the money spent went. Accounts have never been revealed. So we don't really know whose pockets that money finished up in.

That's 96% of all the money spent on the scheme. Quite a tidy sum. Normally one would expect management accounts to be reviewed at the policy meetings. But seeing as the chair never even bothered to attend, even after warnings things were awry, it's not really a surprising result.

Yingluck has not been charged with thieving, She's being charged with negligence. Unless she can explain where that 96% went, and that it was wisely spent, in accordance with policy and procedure, then she is up DELETED creek without a paddle.

It's you who cited the world Bank. They never wrote nobody knows where the other 96% went. If you consider the 4% is a reliable figure, look at their report and check how they estimate the rest of the money was spent.

Additionnaly I searched in the world bank reports and did not find this magic 4% figure. That's all I found:

“Around a third of farming households have joined the 2011/2012 Pledging Program. Out of the 3.6 million rice farming households in Thailand, data from the BAAC shows that 1.3 million households have joined the 2011/2012 Paddy Pledging Program. Of those who join the Program, the majority are small and medium-size farmers27. They have benefitted from the Program as the price that they receive under the Paddy Pledging Program is higher than that of market prices and above their production and transportation cost. However the very poor farmers in Thailand are subsistence farmers who do not have excess rice to sell and therefore do not benefit from this Program.

27According to the BAAC’s definition, small farming households are those with incomes of no more than Bt100, 000 per year. Large farming households are those with incomes of more than Bt500, 000. Of the 1.3 million households that participate in the Program, only a little more than 10,000 household are large households”

Wonderful, but you just make further attempts to derail the main point which is; massive, criminal dereliction of duty as the incumbent PM. (Sorry change that to incumbent puppet, incumbent clone, incumbent servant of big brother and the owner of the gang of immoral thieves, or fake pm, whichever takes your fancy. All three would be a good description.)

Edited November 10, 2015 by scorecard

[candide]

So checking and correcting inaccurate figures and facts posted in a topic means derailing the topic? It seems to be a quite personal interpretation....

[Wombat6]

Thank you for having ethics and courage

What has that got to do with Yingluck ?? He didn't mention any reason why she didn't attend any meetings of the Committee

[Wombat6]

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.

No wonder the banks weren't allowed to give any money to the Yingluck Government. Their track record showed that they couldn't manage anything...epecially anything to do with money. I would suggest you are the only naive person on this matter

[scorecard]

Thank you for having ethics and courage

What has that got to do with Yingluck ?? He didn't mention any reason why she didn't attend any meetings of the Committee

Well said, right on the point!

[LannaGuy]

Thank you for having ethics and courage

What has that got to do with Yingluck ?? He didn't mention any reason why she didn't attend any meetings of the Committee

Well said, right on the point!

I see you guys have never held positions.... at all? maybe in your jobs you were pretty junior? you think all PMs attend all meetings under their command? why would she? she was PRIME MINISTER you *****s

why don't you and Wombat go try DO something with your miserable lives than just be keyboards warriors? "well said"? God I despair! go and and have another Chang! this is a SET-UP you ******s

[than]

Thank you for having ethics and courage

What has that got to do with Yingluck ?? He didn't mention any reason why she didn't attend any meetings of the Committee

Well said, right on the point!

I see you guys have never held positions.... at all? maybe in your jobs you were pretty junior? you think all PMs attend all meetings under their command? why would she? she was PRIME MINISTER you *****s

why don't you and Wombat go try DO something with your miserable lives than just be keyboards warriors? "well said"? God I despair! go and and have another Chang! this is a SET-UP you ******s

The insult is the last resort of those who have no more argument

[dru2]

Thank you for having ethics and courage

What has that got to do with Yingluck ?? He didn't mention any reason why she didn't attend any meetings of the Committee

Well said, right on the point!

I see you guys have never held positions.... at all? maybe in your jobs you were pretty junior? you think all PMs attend all meetings under their command? why would she? she was PRIME MINISTER you *****s

why don't you and Wombat go try DO something with your miserable lives than just be keyboards warriors? "well said"? God I despair! go and and have another Chang! this is a SET-UP you ******s

Well that's charming and most convincing.

Are you drunk, or do you just want to appear uncouth and ignorant?

[musiclover]

Thank you for having ethics and courage

What has that got to do with Yingluck ?? He didn't mention any reason why she didn't attend any meetings of the Committee

Well said, right on the point!

I see you guys have never held positions.... at all? maybe in your jobs you were pretty junior? you think all PMs attend all meetings under their command? why would she? she was PRIME MINISTER you *****s

why don't you and Wombat go try DO something with your miserable lives than just be keyboards warriors? "well said"? God I despair! go and and have another Chang! this is a SET-UP you ******s

Well that's charming and most convincing.

Are you drunk, or do you just want to appear uncouth and ignorant?

He is neither !!!!! Ok, a 'little over the top' in his reply, granted......BUT absolutely accurate in his summary of what actually happened ....and anyone who can't see what this is really all about has little knowledge of Thai politics..... So many posters here it seems !!!!!!

[scorecard]

Thank you for having ethics and courage

What has that got to do with Yingluck ?? He didn't mention any reason why she didn't attend any meetings of the Committee

Well said, right on the point!

I see you guys have never held positions.... at all? maybe in your jobs you were pretty junior? you think all PMs attend all meetings under their command? why would she? she was PRIME MINISTER you *****s

why don't you and Wombat go try DO something with your miserable lives than just be keyboards warriors? "well said"? God I despair! go and and have another Chang! this is a SET-UP you ******s

Actually lanna guy you are completely wrong. I held several internal regional director positions in two very large multinationals with responsibility to monitor (and scold or remove if needed) country CEOs who were responsible to achieve very large: revenue, margin, growth and sustainability goals.

If I had discovered that any one of these CEOs were not very active, partly meaning regularly chairing senior meetings to review goal progress and if needed chairing remedial action discussions and actively monitoring their implementation they would have been sacked instantly.

If the company is listed on the stock exchange then the CEO (and other executives) is automatically the representative of the shareholders.

Imagine lanna guy a shareholders meeting where the CEO said 'no I don't attend any or more than say 80% of the said meetings', and especially where there is regular and serious criticism being voiced about either business results or lack of / serious lack of management activity, in most cases the shareholders would explode and demand / vote quickly for the CEO to be sacked on the spot.

In some countries a lot of the above is embedded in the law.

By the way lanna guy, you assumption that posters here are lacking in knowledge, experience etc., is bordering on insulting. You mention keyboard warriors well your the perfect example!

You seem to think that insults and abuse will make your adversaries go quiet. Think again.

Your intent is obvious. No matter how you try to divert the fact remains that she was extremely derelict / criminally derelict in her duties and there should be some investigation and if appropriate some form of punishment. You might like to remember that punishment has two purposes:

- Punishment for the personal actions of the accused.

- A serious deterrent to others, to know and understand that the actions committed are unacceptable to a civil society and will be investigated and if proven punished.

[lvr181]

he claimed....

he claimed....

he claimed....

Sounds like an under pressure broken record!

[halloween]

I see you guys have never held positions.... at all? maybe in your jobs you were pretty junior? you think all PMs attend all meetings under their command? why would she? she was PRIME MINISTER you *****s

why don't you and Wombat go try DO something with your miserable lives than just be keyboards warriors? "well said"? God I despair! go and and have another Chang! this is a SET-UP you ******s

Other PMs manage to attend committees they elect to head. Most even attend parliament more often than not, while leading countries with far larger economies and international presence than Thailand.

So why did she elect to head the Rice Policy committee if she was too busy on her free world tour? Was there nobody else so stupid they would accept responsibility for an obvious scam?