Yingluck appears at first hearing of rice pledging scheme trial

[Valentine]

Yes, it was intended to be self-financing, but it didn't work out as expected. This was largely due to the rapid decline in rice prices after implementation

Capture.JPG

In the early 80's NZs National government implemented their 'Think Big' policies, touted to be self-financing due to the high price of oil. Unfortunately the oil price dropped substantially leaving the NZ taxpayer with a $7 billion debt. The party was voted out at the next election.

Try to understand that the charge of negligence is related to their lack of action in the 2.5 years AFTER the price of rice dropped.

BTW planning yo borrow trillions to prop up a failed policy doesn't count as a positive action.

They were in the process of adjusting the pledging price when the Suthep (& Prayuth) circus rolled into town.

They attempted to reduce the price paid, and caved in to political pressure not to do so. They were in the process of borrowing B2.3 trillion to prop ud their failed policy, and giving their criminal leader and themselves an amnesty.

I thought the 2.3 trillion was for the high speed rail project which they would then siphon off.

[waitforusalso]

Yes, it was intended to be self-financing, but it didn't work out as expected. This was largely due to the rapid decline in rice prices after implementation

Capture.JPG

In the early 80's NZs National government implemented their 'Think Big' policies, touted to be self-financing due to the high price of oil. Unfortunately the oil price dropped substantially leaving the NZ taxpayer with a $7 billion debt. The party was voted out at the next election.

Try to understand that the charge of negligence is related to their lack of action in the 2.5 years AFTER the price of rice dropped.

BTW planning yo borrow trillions to prop up a failed policy doesn't count as a positive action.

They were in the process of adjusting the pledging price when the Suthep (& Prayuth) circus rolled into town.

They attempted to reduce the price paid, and caved in to political pressure not to do so. They were in the process of borrowing B2.3 trillion to prop ud their failed policy, and giving their criminal leader and themselves an amnesty.

In a similar way that Prayuth's bogus administration just caved in to the rubber industry?

Just the fact that they were trying to (in the process of) reduce(ing) the pledging price shows they were monitoring the situation, thereby mitigating claims of negligence. Also, why would they reduce the price if the whole scheme was just a way for Thaksin to siphon off money into his personal coffers as so many here stupidly claim? Surely a lower price would mean he (& apparently all other PTP execs) would have less in the trough??

Edited January 17, 2016 by waitforusalso

[Bluespunk]

Actually the united states post office is "a self financing program" however this does not all happen. In 2012 the post office had to get $15.9 billion from the government to cover losses. Should Obama like Yingluck be tried on the same charges? I'm sure he did not go to any of the USPS meetings.

LOL, it's early 'saturday night fever' this week, but a quite high fever it is: bringing in the US Post to compare with the rice scam's trick-with-the-billions, oh my!

Yes it is "self financing" but it isn't working out that way so someone should be held to account!!!! This seems to be the logic on here! If not it should be privatized or called a subsidy. You can't make that your argument then to expect to have it both ways! Now the New Zealand government should be held to account too for their "think big" policies.

The rice scheme was "think stupidly" and it's operation was criminally negligent.

It was never going to be self financing, you can't buy above market rate and then expect to get your money back.

The corruption of those involved and cover ups it also engendered were criminal.

Those responsible for these crimes deserve all they get.

[waitforusalso]

Yes it is "self financing" but it isn't working out that way so someone should be held to account!!!! This seems to be the logic on here! If not it should be privatized or called a subsidy. You can't make that your argument then to expect to have it both ways! Now the New Zealand government should be held to account too for their "think big" policies.

The rice scheme was "think stupidly" and it's operation was criminally negligent.

It was never going to be self financing, you can't buy above market rate and then expect to get your money back.

The corruption of those involved and cover ups it also engendered were criminal.

Those responsible for these crimes deserve all they get.

It may have been 'stupid', but that 'stupidity' was chosen by the Thai voters. The PTP rice scheme was laid out very clearly for all to see prior to the 2011 general election. PTP's comprehensive victory shows that the people were happy for the scheme to go ahead. If PTP had reneged on their policy they could have been liable of election violations from the EC or NACC. So I guess you should shift your attacks from PTP to the 16 million or so Thais who voted for the scheme.

[SABloke]

Corruption may be happened like any other welfare schemes in the world. Even British and American wasting lot of money for Agricultural,Education and Health care subsidies.

But this is one of the best schemes for Thailand to distribute the wealth the rural agricultural community never enjoyed same status as Bangkokians. It may be mismanaged, but helped Thailand to produce plenty of rice for the world. That made the less hungry world.

If this scheme is property implemented every Thai will economically benefit. I have seen many rural could able to buy pickup trucks of their own, and build their houses after this scheme is implemented.

Sad that it has been given political color and one of the good schemes is removed.

1) It was self financing.. not taken into the national budget but cost 800 billion.. around 200 billion per year (that is the same budget as the health budget for Thailand)

2) It did not help the small farmers at all.

3) Payments were not made and farmers killed themselves because the government could not payout because it had no money for it. They had hoped to pay it with a 2 trillion loan from China. (this was before the street protests)

4) when she stepped down she did not make any provisions for the farmers thus delaying payment even more (during the street protests)

5) there was no rotting rice according to YL.. now we know better

6) No corruption.. now know better as the commerce minister has been indited for fake G2G deals.

7) When the program blew up it helped drop the rice price even more hurting the farmers even more.

Guess it depends what kind of glasses you look through..

bla bla blqa

You look through the junta's glasses.

Good job, parrot man , you repeated it word by word ....

Do you forget the scaffolding piles? Commerce ministry checked out warehouse: ''All.good governor!!'' Same warehouse get rechecked: ''Blimey, there appears to be nothing i the middle of this pile''

[LannaGuy]

Actually the united states post office is "a self financing program" however this does not all happen. In 2012 the post office had to get $15.9 billion from the government to cover losses. Should Obama like Yingluck be tried on the same charges? I'm sure he did not go to any of the USPS meetings.

LOL, it's early 'saturday night fever' this week, but a quite high fever it is: bringing in the US Post to compare with the rice scam's trick-with-the-billions, oh my!

Yes it is "self financing" but it isn't working out that way so someone should be held to account!!!! This seems to be the logic on here! If not it should be privatized or called a subsidy. You can't make that your argument then to expect to have it both ways! Now the New Zealand government should be held to account too for their "think big" policies.

The rice scheme was "think stupidly" and it's operation was criminally negligent.

It was never going to be self financing, you can't buy above market rate and then expect to get your money back.

The corruption of those involved and cover ups it also engendered were criminal.

Those responsible for these crimes deserve all they get.

Normally agree with you but not on this one as I do not support hounding people when out of office. I think Iraq was 'stupididty' but I would not support hounding Blair and Bush. Elections are the right place for getting rid of those whom the electorate think acted 'stupidly' and your definition of 'criminal' is wrong. Was it a success? no of course not, was it mismanaged, yes of course it was, was it criminal? NO just ill thought out.

[Bluespunk]

Yes it is "self financing" but it isn't working out that way so someone should be held to account!!!! This seems to be the logic on here! If not it should be privatized or called a subsidy. You can't make that your argument then to expect to have it both ways! Now the New Zealand government should be held to account too for their "think big" policies.

The rice scheme was "think stupidly" and it's operation was criminally negligent.

It was never going to be self financing, you can't buy above market rate and then expect to get your money back.

The corruption of those involved and cover ups it also engendered were criminal.

Those responsible for these crimes deserve all they get.

It may have been 'stupid', but that 'stupidity' was chosen by the Thai voters. The PTP rice scheme was laid out very clearly for all to see prior to the 2011 general election. PTP's comprehensive victory shows that the people were happy for the scheme to go ahead. If PTP had reneged on their policy they could have been liable of election violations from the EC or NACC. So I guess you should shift your attacks from PTP to the 16 million or so Thais who voted for the scheme.

No I keep my attacks on those who created a policy that had no chance of success, a scheme of staggering stupidity, in order to gain power.

Yes parties are entitled to promote policies to help themselves into power, but they are obligated to ensure these schemes are feasible and not likely to bankrupt any industry they affect. PT must have known the scheme they offered could not work, I could see the flaws so I'm sure they could, yet they went ahead with it.

Then when it all started to go wrong they continued to take the farmers rice and did not pay for it.

The scheme had failed yet they continued with it, that is criminal.

Those who vote often do out of self interest and that is their right. That's what people do.

However political parties are obligated to rule for the country and ensure their policies are for the benefit of the country.

PT did not do this and the scheme was a criminally inept policy that they must have know could not work and would end in ruin for many.

PT won the right to power through the electoral process and that is as it should be. Equally they were obliged to rule in a logical and proper manner, this they failed to do so. I did not support suthep or the election boycott but when a party is responsible for such a clearly unworkable policy they deserve to be brought to book for it through the courts.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Bluespunk

[waitforusalso]

Yes it is "self financing" but it isn't working out that way so someone should be held to account!!!! This seems to be the logic on here! If not it should be privatized or called a subsidy. You can't make that your argument then to expect to have it both ways! Now the New Zealand government should be held to account too for their "think big" policies.

The rice scheme was "think stupidly" and it's operation was criminally negligent.

It was never going to be self financing, you can't buy above market rate and then expect to get your money back.

The corruption of those involved and cover ups it also engendered were criminal.

Those responsible for these crimes deserve all they get.

It may have been 'stupid', but that 'stupidity' was chosen by the Thai voters. The PTP rice scheme was laid out very clearly for all to see prior to the 2011 general election. PTP's comprehensive victory shows that the people were happy for the scheme to go ahead. If PTP had reneged on their policy they could have been liable of election violations from the EC or NACC. So I guess you should shift your attacks from PTP to the 16 million or so Thais who voted for the scheme.

No I keep my attacks on those who created a policy that had no chance of success, a scheme of staggering stupidity, in order to gain power.

Yes parties are entitled to promote policies to help themselves into power, but they are obligated to ensure these schemes are feasible and not likely to bankrupt any industry they affect. PT must have known the scheme they offered could not work, I could see the flaws so I'm sure they could, yet they went ahead with it.

Then when it all started to go wrong they continued to take the farmers rice and did not pay for it.

The scheme had failed yet they continued with it, that is criminal.

Those who vote often do out of self interest and that is their right. That's what people do.

However political parties are obligated to rule for the country and ensure their policies are for the benefit of the country.

PT did not do this and the scheme was a criminally inept policy that they must have know could not work and would end in ruin for many.

PT won the right to power through the electoral process and that is as it should be. Equally they were obliged to rule in a logical and proper manner, this they failed to do so. I did not support suthep or the election boycott but when a party is responsible for such a clearly unworkable policy they deserve to be brought to book for it through the courts.

There was nothing 'criminal' about the policy. Price floors on agricultural products are common the world over. The extent of the price floor is up to the government/voting public to decide. Subsidies to Japanese farmers are incredibly high, but have been ongoing through many different Japanese governments. The reason for such a high cost of the Thai rice scheme, & the reason why it was never close to achieving its goal of being self-financing, was due to the unfortunate decline in world rice price coinciding with its implementation.

I agree that those involved in criminal actions related to the scheme, if true, should be prosecuted, but the implementation & continuation of the policy itself is not criminal, as you claim. It, as with the Japanese policy, was a policy choice by the government, which could then have been approved or rejected by the voting public at the next election.

Edited January 17, 2016 by waitforusalso

[Bluespunk]

Keep telling yourself that. It won't make you right but it might comfort you.

[Baerboxer]

lovely to see that so many decent people are not intimidated and come out to wish her well...

for one who is intelligent, often well balanced, and I dare say a decent person, I find it odd that you defend the pretty of a very dubious clan who was no more than her criminal brother's latest stooge.

An actress, and a pretty good one on occasion, those crocodile tears; but prone to gaffaws like being caught bursting out laughing after crying without realizing the camera was still on. An accomplished liar who probably does believe their own PR that she's never ever done anything wrong ever. Had she achieved the slight of hand and got her brother back whitewashed of all convictions, outstanding court cases and charges associated with bail jumping, I dread to think what would have happened.

You also said that she will fled like her brother and that didn't happen. Guess that puts what you wrote in the category of BS.

Would you like to show where I said she would flee Eric; or is this another figment of your imagination?

I always thought Thaksin would quite happily sacrifice her, even if that meant massive face loss and imprisonment. Doesn't suit his purpose to let her flee, much more useful as a potential sacrifice.

From the way you constantly support the criminal Shin family with your posts, one must assume you wouldn't recognize BS if you fell in it.

[Baerboxer]

TIt may have been 'stupid', but that 'stupidity' was chosen by the Thai voters. The PTP rice scheme was laid out very clearly for all to see prior to the 2011 general election. PTP's comprehensive victory shows that the people were happy for the scheme to go ahead. If PTP had reneged on their policy they could have been liable of election violations from the EC or NACC. So I guess you should shift your attacks from PTP to the 16 million or so Thais who voted for the scheme.

No I keep my attacks on those who created a policy that had no chance of success, a scheme of staggering stupidity, in order to gain power.

Yes parties are entitled to promote policies to help themselves into power, but they are obligated to ensure these schemes are feasible and not likely to bankrupt any industry they affect. PT must have known the scheme they offered could not work, I could see the flaws so I'm sure they could, yet they went ahead with it.

Then when it all started to go wrong they continued to take the farmers rice and did not pay for it.

The scheme had failed yet they continued with it, that is criminal.

Those who vote often do out of self interest and that is their right. That's what people do.

However political parties are obligated to rule for the country and ensure their policies are for the benefit of the country.

PT did not do this and the scheme was a criminally inept policy that they must have know could not work and would end in ruin for many.

PT won the right to power through the electoral process and that is as it should be. Equally they were obliged to rule in a logical and proper manner, this they failed to do so. I did not support suthep or the election boycott but when a party is responsible for such a clearly unworkable policy they deserve to be brought to book for it through the courts.

There was nothing 'criminal' about the policy. Price floors on agricultural products are common the world over. The extent of the price floor is up to the government/voting public to decide. Subsidies to Japanese farmers are incredibly high, but have been ongoing through many different Japanese governments. The reason for such a high cost of the Thai rice scheme, & the reason why it was never close to achieving its goal of being self-financing, was due to the unfortunate decline in world rice price coinciding with its implementation.

I agree that those involved in criminal actions related to the scheme, if true, should be prosecuted, but the implementation & continuation of the policy itself is not criminal, as you claim. It, as with the Japanese policy, was a policy choice by the government, which could then have been approved or rejected by the voting public at the next election.

Only it wasn't a subsidy budgeted for by the government. It was supposedly a self financing scheme.

And no one has yet produced any accounts or shown where all the money went.

There does appear to have mean considerable mismanagement and fraud within the scheme. The Chair needs to show what measures were taken to correct those, bring the people responsible to justice, and produce the real accounts.

Can she do that - don't know. Will she do that - not on your nelly.

[ginjag]

The rice scheme was "think stupidly" and it's operation was criminally negligent.

It was never going to be self financing, you can't buy above market rate and then expect to get your money back.

The corruption of those involved and cover ups it also engendered were criminal.

Those responsible for these crimes deserve all they get.

Normally agree with you but not on this one as I do not support hounding people when out of office. I think Iraq was 'stupididty' but I would not support hounding Blair and Bush. Elections are the right place for getting rid of those whom the electorate think acted 'stupidly' and your definition of 'criminal' is wrong. Was it a success? no of course not, was it mismanaged, yes of course it was, was it criminal? NO just ill thought out.

Just saying--If you robbed a bank and it went so wrong, would it be a crime or Just Quote "ill thought out" ????

[Baerboxer]

The rice scheme was "think stupidly" and it's operation was criminally negligent.

Yes it is "self financing" but it isn't working out that way so someone should be held to account!!!! This seems to be the logic on here! If not it should be privatized or called a subsidy. You can't make that your argument then to expect to have it both ways! Now the New Zealand government should be held to account too for their "think big" policies.

It was never going to be self financing, you can't buy above market rate and then expect to get your money back.

The corruption of those involved and cover ups it also engendered were criminal.

Those responsible for these crimes deserve all they get.

Normally agree with you but not on this one as I do not support hounding people when out of office. I think Iraq was 'stupididty' but I would not support hounding Blair and Bush. Elections are the right place for getting rid of those whom the electorate think acted 'stupidly' and your definition of 'criminal' is wrong. Was it a success? no of course not, was it mismanaged, yes of course it was, was it criminal? NO just ill thought out.

So a political party, lets say PTP, can win an election, do whatever they want until the next election and then be voted out. But never face any actions when they lie, deceive or break laws in between elections? Or when things subsequently come to light?

The scheme was kept away from open transparency and scrutiny for reasons. Any ideas why?

If they had been able to control market prices, all could be covered up. If they had been able to get the 2.2 trillion baht off budget off parliamentary scrutiny loan, things also could've been covered up. But they didn't. Now there in the and have so far offered no real explanation or produced real accounts.

Do you really think some people have fraudulently and criminally benefited from this?

Is it negligent, when in spite of being warned of all the problems, the self appointed Chair of the Scheme, who happens to also be PM and self appointed DM doesn't actually attend any meetings?

[waitforusalso]

There was nothing 'criminal' about the policy. Price floors on agricultural products are common the world over. The extent of the price floor is up to the government/voting public to decide. Subsidies to Japanese farmers are incredibly high, but have been ongoing through many different Japanese governments. The reason for such a high cost of the Thai rice scheme, & the reason why it was never close to achieving its goal of being self-financing, was due to the unfortunate decline in world rice price coinciding with its implementation.

I agree that those involved in criminal actions related to the scheme, if true, should be prosecuted, but the implementation & continuation of the policy itself is not criminal, as you claim. It, as with the Japanese policy, was a policy choice by the government, which could then have been approved or rejected by the voting public at the next election.

Only it wasn't a subsidy budgeted for by the government. It was supposedly a self financing scheme.

And no one has yet produced any accounts or shown where all the money went.

There does appear to have mean considerable mismanagement and fraud within the scheme. The Chair needs to show what measures were taken to correct those, bring the people responsible to justice, and produce the real accounts.

Can she do that - don't know. Will she do that - not on your nelly.

The self-financing argument repeated here, ad nauseam, is really very tiresome. Yes, it was supposed to be, but didn't work out. PTP aren't responsible for the world rice price.

If there is proof of corruption, convict the guilty. The negligence can't be about the scheme itself making losses, as that was simply a function of the pledging price VS the market price, which was the stated policy of the government.

Socialist policies have bankrupted many governments/countries, but the leaders of those governments were not made personally liable for the losses. That (This) is just ridiculous!

[rubl]

Actually Ms. Yingluck is in court to explain how come she let her 'self-financing' RPPS lose 500++ billion Baht.

What is with your absolute infatuation with the 'self financing' bit? Self financing or not, what affect does that have on anything? Would it all of been okay if it was called a subsidy?

I've stated a few times that if Ms. Yingluck had positioned her RPPS as subsidy with a reservation of upto 100 billion Baht in the National Budget, she could have lost the reservation without there being serious problems. As I'm told anyone knows subsidies cost money. The 100 billion Baht is my guestimate.

As is was Ms. Yingluck positioned her RPPS as 'self-financing' and the day before the scheme activated her Minister of Finance even stated that only a resolving funds of 430 bililon Baht was required. First to pay out from and later to replenish from rice sales. With the scam paying double the market price of rice on paddy no one believed the 'self-financing' part except the government which kept on defending it. Only very reluctantly they slowly admitted to 'no real problems', 'small losses', 'not more than 60, 80, 120 billion Baht a year' till mid-2013 'less than 340 billion losses'. Of course the statement a month or so later of 270 bililon needed and reserved for 2013/2014 and rumours of non-payment escalated in a 'can we borrow 130 billion Baht'.

The charge of 'negligence' seems correct although with all warnings and obfuscation trying to ignore them might have justified 'intend-to-deceive' or 'intend-to-defraud'.

Yes, but what does that all mean at the end of the day? I have not even seen it mentioned in any of the Thai news, it does not even seem to be a consideration in this case. The only place you even see it mentioned is here.

Now why am i not surprised that suddenly 'subsidies' are okay.......

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but subsidies have always been OK. Lots of posters here still trying desperately to position Ms. Yingluck's self-financing scam as subsidy followed by statements that of course subsidies cost money.

So, Ms. Yingluck was in court. Did I miss the news on what was actually going on in court that day?

[rubl]

Actually Ms. Yingluck is in court to explain how come she let her 'self-financing' RPPS lose 500++ billion Baht.

What is with your absolute infatuation with the 'self financing' bit? Self financing or not, what affect does that have on anything? Would it all of been okay if it was called a subsidy?

I've stated a few times that if Ms. Yingluck had positioned her RPPS as subsidy with a reservation of upto 100 billion Baht in the National Budget, she could have lost the reservation without there being serious problems. As I'm told anyone knows subsidies cost money. The 100 billion Baht is my guestimate.

As is was Ms. Yingluck positioned her RPPS as 'self-financing' and the day before the scheme activated her Minister of Finance even stated that only a resolving funds of 430 bililon Baht was required. First to pay out from and later to replenish from rice sales. With the scam paying double the market price of rice on paddy no one believed the 'self-financing' part except the government which kept on defending it. Only very reluctantly they slowly admitted to 'no real problems', 'small losses', 'not more than 60, 80, 120 billion Baht a year' till mid-2013 'less than 340 billion losses'. Of course the statement a month or so later of 270 bililon needed and reserved for 2013/2014 and rumours of non-payment escalated in a 'can we borrow 130 billion Baht'.

The charge of 'negligence' seems correct although with all warnings and obfuscation trying to ignore them might have justified 'intend-to-deceive' or 'intend-to-defraud'.

Yes, it was intended to be self-financing, but it didn't work out as expected. This was largely due to the rapid decline in rice prices after implementation

Capture.JPG

In the early 80's NZs National government implemented their 'Think Big' policies, touted to be self-financing due to the high price of oil. Unfortunately the oil price dropped substantially leaving the NZ taxpayer with a $7 billion debt. The party was voted out at the next election.

Actually the scam could only be 'self-financing' if the price had seen a dramatic increase as the Yingluck administration paid near double market price of rice for plain paddy.

As for what the NZ government did in the 80sh and how philosophical the NZ population took their loss, that's nice. I will refrain from referring to sheep.

[rubl]

What is with your absolute infatuation with the 'self financing' bit? Self financing or not, what affect does that have on anything? Would it all of been okay if it was called a subsidy?

I've stated a few times that if Ms. Yingluck had positioned her RPPS as subsidy with a reservation of upto 100 billion Baht in the National Budget, she could have lost the reservation without there being serious problems. As I'm told anyone knows subsidies cost money. The 100 billion Baht is my guestimate.

As is was Ms. Yingluck positioned her RPPS as 'self-financing' and the day before the scheme activated her Minister of Finance even stated that only a resolving funds of 430 bililon Baht was required. First to pay out from and later to replenish from rice sales. With the scam paying double the market price of rice on paddy no one believed the 'self-financing' part except the government which kept on defending it. Only very reluctantly they slowly admitted to 'no real problems', 'small losses', 'not more than 60, 80, 120 billion Baht a year' till mid-2013 'less than 340 billion losses'. Of course the statement a month or so later of 270 bililon needed and reserved for 2013/2014 and rumours of non-payment escalated in a 'can we borrow 130 billion Baht'.

The charge of 'negligence' seems correct although with all warnings and obfuscation trying to ignore them might have justified 'intend-to-deceive' or 'intend-to-defraud'.

Yes, it was intended to be self-financing, but it didn't work out as expected. This was largely due to the rapid decline in rice prices after implementation

Capture.JPG

In the early 80's NZs National government implemented their 'Think Big' policies, touted to be self-financing due to the high price of oil. Unfortunately the oil price dropped substantially leaving the NZ taxpayer with a $7 billion debt. The party was voted out at the next election.

Wasnt it a nice touch that the people got to decide to vote them in or out after consideration of the performance whilst in office.

Thats how it is supposed to work. Govt governs, opposition points out the failures and the voters determine who they want.

Its a quite simple concept. Apparently.

Beautiful in it's simplicity. Speech well, get elected, squander away money and all that happens is you may not get re-elected.

Seems like 'responsibility' and 'accountability' is not part of a real and truth democracy.

At least some here seem to try to tell us that.

[baboon]

Beautiful in its simplicity. Don't like the government? Barge in, seize control of the state, grant yourself immunity for anything you do and systematically arrest and/or threaten any opposition.

And some on here who support that like to harp on about responsibility and accountability when it comes to others.

Edited January 17, 2016 by baboon

[rubl]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

[baboon]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

[rubl]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

Absolutely!

Still wondering what happened inside the courtroom this first hearing in the RPPS related case with charge of 'negligence'

[thelonius]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

Absolutely!

Still wondering what happened inside the courtroom this first hearing in the RPPS related case with charge of 'negligence'

Do you even care? As far as I can see you, like others on here, have already made your mind up about the outcome of this case and just use posts about the Rice Scheme as an excuse to repeat your never ending mantra about 500 - 700 Billion Baht losses and rants about self financing claims. Have you anything new to say?

Edited January 17, 2016 by thelonius

[ginjag]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

When you have hundreds of billions unaccounted for ??? go against the law passing a bill illegally at 4am, being managed from Dubai--and a PM that rarely chaired a meeting-------This to me is not governing as sworn in to do so---total neglect of duty---YOU will ALWAYS get intervention. ( and especially when a red army is mobilizing ) You think an election is possible to solve this ?? because you cannot have a party guilty of the diabolical governing standing again--because it has to be brought to account.

Mind this has been said so many times you minority agenda people wish to overlook this and are out just PM bashing on a daily basis.

Nothing is going to happen here until some mega sort out has happened. Do not bash other posters bash the shins for putting Thailand in this position.

[baboon]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

Absolutely!

Then why waste everyone's time by posting?

[baboon]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

When you have hundreds of billions unaccounted for ??? go against the law passing a bill illegally at 4am, being managed from Dubai--and a PM that rarely chaired a meeting-------This to me is not governing as sworn in to do so---total neglect of duty---YOU will ALWAYS get intervention. ( and especially when a red army is mobilizing ) You think an election is possible to solve this ?? because you cannot have a party guilty of the diabolical governing standing again--because it has to be brought to account.

Mind this has been said so many times you minority agenda people wish to overlook this and are out just PM bashing on a daily basis.

Nothing is going to happen here until some mega sort out has happened. Do not bash other posters bash the shins for putting Thailand in this position.

Still waiting on this mega sort out.

Are you not posting with an "agenda"? 'Opinion' is in fact a more accurate term, certainly in my case.

[waitforusalso]

[Skywalker69]

Corruption may be happened like any other welfare schemes in the world. Even British and American wasting lot of money for Agricultural,Education and Health care subsidies.

But this is one of the best schemes for Thailand to distribute the wealth the rural agricultural community never enjoyed same status as Bangkokians. It may be mismanaged, but helped Thailand to produce plenty of rice for the world. That made the less hungry world.

If this scheme is property implemented every Thai will economically benefit. I have seen many rural could able to buy pickup trucks of their own, and build their houses after this scheme is implemented.

Sad that it has been given political color and one of the good schemes is removed.

1) It was self financing.. not taken into the national budget but cost 800 billion.. around 200 billion per year (that is the same budget as the health budget for Thailand)

2) It did not help the small farmers at all.

3) Payments were not made and farmers killed themselves because the government could not payout because it had no money for it. They had hoped to pay it with a 2 trillion loan from China. (this was before the street protests)

4) when she stepped down she did not make any provisions for the farmers thus delaying payment even more (during the street protests)

5) there was no rotting rice according to YL.. now we know better

6) No corruption.. now know better as the commerce minister has been indited for fake G2G deals.

7) When the program blew up it helped drop the rice price even more hurting the farmers even more.

Guess it depends what kind of glasses you look through..

bla bla blqa

You look through the junta's glasses.

Good job, parrot man , you repeated it word by word ....

Do you forget the scaffolding piles? Commerce ministry checked out warehouse: ''All.good governor!!'' Same warehouse get rechecked: ''Blimey, there appears to be nothing i the middle of this pile''

And if the cared about the rice they woulden´t store it like this.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Skywalker69

[scorecard]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

Absolutely!

Still wondering what happened inside the courtroom this first hearing in the RPPS related case with charge of 'negligence'

Do you even care? As far as I can see you, like others on here, have already made your mind up about the outcome of this case and just use posts about the Rice Scheme as an excuse to repeat your never ending mantra about 500 - 700 Billion Baht losses and rants about self financing claims. Have you anything new to say?

'Repeat your never ending mantra....'

That's the silliest thing you have sprouted on this site, or perhaps you were really trying to comment on your own posts.

'Have you anything new to say'. As is the style of your ilk, try to attach the poster.

Edited January 17, 2016 by scorecard

[scorecard]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

Absolutely!

Then why waste everyone's time by posting?

Take your own medicine.

[rubl]

... and in the mean tine we want to ensure justice for all and for Ms. Yingluck the change to explain her 'self-financing' RPPS in court.

Which is of course nothing to do with my post above. What a surprise.

Absolutely!

Still wondering what happened inside the courtroom this first hearing in the RPPS related case with charge of 'negligence'

Do you even care? As far as I can see you, like others on here, have already made your mind up about the outcome of this case and just use posts about the Rice Scheme as an excuse to repeat your never ending mantra about 500 - 700 Billion Baht losses and rants about self financing claims. Have you anything new to say?

Absolutely! It seems to hurt that a nice lady from up North is held responsible and accountable same she always stated to be, on television and in parliament. "I'm in charge, only I".

So, any info on the first day in court?