Pheu Thai's white paper on rice scam sceptical

[rubl]

Of course Ms. Yingluck may have been ignorant. After all she only stated in parliament to be in charge. Furthermore the G2G debacle was prominently in the newspapers and in parliament, so how could she have known about it.

Still, all this seems to strengthen the case of 'negligence' against Ms. Yingluck.

I'm happy to agree on the charge of negligence. On the face of it, the YL administration was lax in oversight.

However, as to the charge of complicity in the G2G scam, I have seen no news articles which stated she knew about it beforehand or agreed to it, or anything like that. I'm open to evidence. I assume the NACC is also, but they have not recommended a criminal charge against YL specifically in the G2G case. They must have their reasons for that.

Well, it would seem the G2G deals were discussed in cabinet, Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament to be in charge and so it would seem Ms. Yingluck could be held just as guilty.

Now with all the conflicting data we've been given over the last years and Ms. Yingluck being better at smiling nicely and looking pretty than homework like accounting, I can only hope her legal team has some more consistent figures and data. It would really help her case.

Agreeing to a deal which ends up as a scam (here: rice re-sold in Thailand instead of being exported to China), doesn't necessarily mean the scam was known at the time of the deal agreement. It also doesn't mean the higher authorities involved (i.e. YL, the minister) have to check themselves the logistical details after the deal is implemented

In normal administrative systems (I mean in other countries, for example), there is a procedure for checking that the items have been effectively exported, i.e. collect and check export slips, consignment note, etc... If it doesn't fit with the deal requirement, the information is then transmitted up the hierarchical chain

- is such practice a usual one in Thailand (i.e.applied for similar deals before)?

- if these checks are part of the usual procedure and have been skipped, at which level did the decision to skip occur and who was informed of it?

- if the checks occured and were kept secret, at which level did the decision occur and who was informed of it?

Yes indeed. Ms. Yingluck as pretty little lady and newbie in politics and parliament was just ignorant of the evil her hand-picked cabinet could come up with.

Edited January 18, 2016 by rubl

[thelonius]

Yes indeed. Ms. Yingluck as pretty little lady and newbie in politics and parliament was just ignorant of the evil her hand-picked cabinet could come up with.

Evil??????? Really, rubl, aren't you ratcheting the hatespeak up just a tad too much?

[rubl]

Yes indeed. Ms. Yingluck as pretty little lady and newbie in politics and parliament was just ignorant of the evil her hand-picked cabinet could come up with.

Evil??????? Really, rubl, aren't you ratcheting the hatespeak up just a tad too much?

Hate speach? I just gave my interpretation of the attempts here to show Ms. Yingluck knew nothing about the G2G deals and shouldn't be judged by the (evil) crimes (possibly) committed by people she herself had trusted to be in her cabinet.

Myself I would say that in July 2011 Ms. Yingluck took her time to select the right people for her cabinet. She said a few times that she had defined criteria to judge people by in order to be able to select those right people. The criteria were aimed at getting the right 'knowledgeble', 'capable' people with 'potential'. After one or two reshuffles she also added 'suitability'. I'm still not quiet sure how to interpret that.

During the censure debate November 2013 Ms. Yingluck stated that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet. That seemed to imply both 'responsibility' and 'accountability'.

Her "I'm in charge" was more than 10 months after the G2G debacle had opened up.

Now to me it would seem Ms. Yingluck simply acknowledged that her cabinet had followed her orders.

So, Ms. Yingluck, what is your reply to this?

Edited January 18, 2016 by rubl

[candide]

Yes indeed. Ms. Yingluck as pretty little lady and newbie in politics and parliament was just ignorant of the evil her hand-picked cabinet could come up with.

Evil??????? Really, rubl, aren't you ratcheting the hatespeak up just a tad too much?

Hate speach? I just gave my interpretation of the attempts here to show Ms. Yingluck knew nothing about the G2G deals and shouldn't be judged by the (evil) crimes (possibly) committed by people she herself had trusted to be in her cabinet.

Myself I would say that in July 2011 Ms. Yingluck took her time to select the right people for her cabinet. She said a few times that she had defined criteria to judge people by in order to be able to select those right people. The criteria were aimed at getting the right 'knowledgeble', 'capable' people with 'potential'. After one or two reshuffles she also added 'suitability'. I'm still not quiet sure how to interpret that.

During the censure debate November 2013 Ms. Yingluck stated that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet. That seemed to imply both 'responsibility' and 'accountability'.

Her "I'm in charge" was more than 10 months after the G2G debacle had opened up.

Now to me it would seem Ms. Yingluck simply acknowledged that her cabinet had followed her orders.

So, Ms. Yingluck, what is your reply to this?

Apparently you benefit from exclusive information, as you seem to know everything already about this case that hasn't even been judged yet.

[rubl]

Yes indeed. Ms. Yingluck as pretty little lady and newbie in politics and parliament was just ignorant of the evil her hand-picked cabinet could come up with.

Evil??????? Really, rubl, aren't you ratcheting the hatespeak up just a tad too much?

Hate speach? I just gave my interpretation of the attempts here to show Ms. Yingluck knew nothing about the G2G deals and shouldn't be judged by the (evil) crimes (possibly) committed by people she herself had trusted to be in her cabinet.

Myself I would say that in July 2011 Ms. Yingluck took her time to select the right people for her cabinet. She said a few times that she had defined criteria to judge people by in order to be able to select those right people. The criteria were aimed at getting the right 'knowledgeble', 'capable' people with 'potential'. After one or two reshuffles she also added 'suitability'. I'm still not quiet sure how to interpret that.

During the censure debate November 2013 Ms. Yingluck stated that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet. That seemed to imply both 'responsibility' and 'accountability'.

Her "I'm in charge" was more than 10 months after the G2G debacle had opened up.

Now to me it would seem Ms. Yingluck simply acknowledged that her cabinet had followed her orders.

So, Ms. Yingluck, what is your reply to this?

Apparently you benefit from exclusive information, as you seem to know everything already about this case that hasn't even been judged yet.

Reading newspapers, informative websites (even TVF ), Pheu Thai statements, Ms. Yingluck's ever smiling interviews on television and the like. Not really exclusive, even you can find that. Also no judgment, only a list of evidence.

Of course what I wrote is just a very brief summary. Both OAG and Ms. Yingluck's legal team each have collected a few cupboards full of documentation already it is suggested at times.

Anyway, Ms. Yingluck asked for justice and she'll be able to explain her RPPS in court.

[halloween]

Agreeing to a deal which ends up as a scam (here: rice re-sold in Thailand instead of being exported to China), doesn't necessarily mean the scam was known at the time of the deal agreement. It also doesn't mean the higher authorities involved (i.e. YL, the minister) have to check themselves the logistical details after the deal is implemented

In normal administrative systems (I mean in other countries, for example), there is a procedure for checking that the items have been effectively exported, i.e. collect and check export slips, consignment note, etc... If it doesn't fit with the deal requirement, the information is then transmitted up the hierarchical chain

- is such practice a usual one in Thailand (i.e.applied for similar deals before)?

- if these checks are part of the usual procedure and have been skipped, at which level did the decision to skip occur and who was informed of it?

- if the checks occured and were kept secret, at which level did the decision occur and who was informed of it?

So no due diligence required? No checking if the buyer was actually a Chinese government company, or whether the funds to pay for the shipped commodity were available/guaranteed? A 5 minute phone call to the ambassador could have blown the whole scam.

In fact, no responsibility to look at the deal at all?

[rubl]

Yes indeed. Ms. Yingluck as pretty little lady and newbie in politics and parliament was just ignorant of the evil her hand-picked cabinet could come up with.

Evil??????? Really, rubl, aren't you ratcheting the hatespeak up just a tad too much?

Hate speach? I just gave my interpretation of the attempts here to show Ms. Yingluck knew nothing about the G2G deals and shouldn't be judged by the (evil) crimes (possibly) committed by people she herself had trusted to be in her cabinet.

Myself I would say that in July 2011 Ms. Yingluck took her time to select the right people for her cabinet. She said a few times that she had defined criteria to judge people by in order to be able to select those right people. The criteria were aimed at getting the right 'knowledgeble', 'capable' people with 'potential'. After one or two reshuffles she also added 'suitability'. I'm still not quiet sure how to interpret that.

During the censure debate November 2013 Ms. Yingluck stated that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet. That seemed to imply both 'responsibility' and 'accountability'.

Her "I'm in charge" was more than 10 months after the G2G debacle had opened up.

Now to me it would seem Ms. Yingluck simply acknowledged that her cabinet had followed her orders.

So, Ms. Yingluck, what is your reply to this?

Apparently you benefit from exclusive information, as you seem to know everything already about this case that hasn't even been judged yet.

The most interesting part of your post is "this case that hasn't even been judged yet". Together with your remarks on 'exclusive info' it's almost as if you want to suggest that such information and especially if against Ms. Yingluck should be kept from people till after the case has been concluded. All the information I listed from publicly available websites to be kept from view, stamped 'Top Secret Pheu Thai', transparently, for the sake of justice and democracy.

[candide]

Yes indeed. Ms. Yingluck as pretty little lady and newbie in politics and parliament was just ignorant of the evil her hand-picked cabinet could come up with.

Evil??????? Really, rubl, aren't you ratcheting the hatespeak up just a tad too much?

Hate speach? I just gave my interpretation of the attempts here to show Ms. Yingluck knew nothing about the G2G deals and shouldn't be judged by the (evil) crimes (possibly) committed by people she herself had trusted to be in her cabinet.

Myself I would say that in July 2011 Ms. Yingluck took her time to select the right people for her cabinet. She said a few times that she had defined criteria to judge people by in order to be able to select those right people. The criteria were aimed at getting the right 'knowledgeble', 'capable' people with 'potential'. After one or two reshuffles she also added 'suitability'. I'm still not quiet sure how to interpret that.

During the censure debate November 2013 Ms. Yingluck stated that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet. That seemed to imply both 'responsibility' and 'accountability'.

Her "I'm in charge" was more than 10 months after the G2G debacle had opened up.

Now to me it would seem Ms. Yingluck simply acknowledged that her cabinet had followed her orders.

So, Ms. Yingluck, what is your reply to this?

Apparently you benefit from exclusive information, as you seem to know everything already about this case that hasn't even been judged yet.

The most interesting part of your post is "this case that hasn't even been judged yet". Together with your remarks on 'exclusive info' it's almost as if you want to suggest that such information and especially if against Ms. Yingluck should be kept from people till after the case has been concluded. All the information I listed from publicly available websites to be kept from view, stamped 'Top Secret Pheu Thai', transparently, for the sake of justice and democracy.

You just take very general statements and then deduce that she must have given orders on this matter, knowing that the rice would be re-sold in Thailand. You are showing nothing but indirect allegations.

Edited January 19, 2016 by candide

[rubl]

Hate speach? I just gave my interpretation of the attempts here to show Ms. Yingluck knew nothing about the G2G deals and shouldn't be judged by the (evil) crimes (possibly) committed by people she herself had trusted to be in her cabinet.

Myself I would say that in July 2011 Ms. Yingluck took her time to select the right people for her cabinet. She said a few times that she had defined criteria to judge people by in order to be able to select those right people. The criteria were aimed at getting the right 'knowledgeble', 'capable' people with 'potential'. After one or two reshuffles she also added 'suitability'. I'm still not quiet sure how to interpret that.

During the censure debate November 2013 Ms. Yingluck stated that she and only she was in charge of her cabinet. That seemed to imply both 'responsibility' and 'accountability'.

Her "I'm in charge" was more than 10 months after the G2G debacle had opened up.

Now to me it would seem Ms. Yingluck simply acknowledged that her cabinet had followed her orders.

So, Ms. Yingluck, what is your reply to this?

Apparently you benefit from exclusive information, as you seem to know everything already about this case that hasn't even been judged yet.

The most interesting part of your post is "this case that hasn't even been judged yet". Together with your remarks on 'exclusive info' it's almost as if you want to suggest that such information and especially if against Ms. Yingluck should be kept from people till after the case has been concluded. All the information I listed from publicly available websites to be kept from view, stamped 'Top Secret Pheu Thai', transparently, for the sake of justice and democracy.

You just take very general statements and then deduce that she must have given orders on this matter, knowing that the rice would be re-sold in Thailand. You are showing nothing but indirect allegations.

My dear chap, i'm not the OAG prosecutor. I'm a private person with my very own opinion which I try to base on information freely available. That includes statements made by Ms. Yingluck herself.

As for general, well it would seem Ms. Yingluck and Pheu Thai were good at fencing with figures giving an impression of 'good news' details without really being detailed or clear.

All this seems to give evidence for either 'negligence' or even 'on purpose obfuscation to hide fraudulent activities leading to 500++ billion losses for the State'.

Edited January 19, 2016 by rubl

[scorecard]

Is the statement from Pheu THai available online (and preferably in English) ?

I'm still looking for more info on their October/November statement to have aimed for 3.7 million rice farming households representing 23% of the Thai population, having 1.4 million households participate and having paid out directly to those 870 billion Baht, all the while managing to lose 500++ billion Baht.

Skepticism is good.

I would be skeptical of both the 870 number from PTP and the 500 number being tossed around in the YL case. Both seem to be lacking an accounting.

Is hypocrisy good too? Why was all of the accounting (when there was ever any serious one) about the rice scam kept away from public scrutiny, as if it was a State secret, by the PTP 'government' (the price rice was sold in, eventually totally fake, 'G-2-G' 'deals', only a small example)? Let's ask the person who was at the helm of the operation, Ms Yingluck, or shoudn't she know that either?

This is Thailand. Detailed accounting on so many matters is not released because the details revealed would be bad news for somebody in power. This cuts across most institutions, present and past. The word "transparency" is used; but in practice the transparency is superficial.

My assumption regarding the fake G2G sale is that it was a scam perpetrated by the Commerce Minister and various underlings and business cronies. These are the people who have been implicated and indicted. If the Commerce Minister was running a scam, why would he share that with YL?

I'm happy to change my view if there are more revelations to be had.

Nice try to make YS look clean, you failed.

You say it's your assumption that it was a scam perpetrated by the commerce minister...

Let's look at that:

- You wrote saying that it's 'your assumption' which does not mean it's fact, unless of course you have some specific facts / details to support your 'assumption'. Please share.

- If in fact the commerce minister did concoct the idea to develop a scam using G2G deals as the core of the scam then how come this was not detected through some form of oversight checking, analysis, etc. In a wider sense surely the commerce ministers scam (your assumption) would be very difficult to hide and would become known to many many folks in senior public service positions and wider very quickly, many serious documents would have needed to cross many senior desks, and gossip travels fast.

I suggest we would all expect that such sales (G2G sales) surely needed some form of 'sign-off' from the top of the tree. Countries don't execute big deals G2G like this without sign-off from several very high level players. Just two possible examples: the interior ministry, and very senior officials who have responsibility to comment in terms of the wider political implications supported / didn't support such trading in the best interests of Thailand from a political standpoint (same comment for any country).

I'll say it again, I don't / cannot accept that the commerce minister concocted this scam and nobody noticed it, nobody spoke up to YL.

- All of the above still highlights the very serious responsibility of the PM to ensure ministers are not working outside of their scope and authority and are not involved in developing, implementing major & massive scams or corruption.

All comes right back to criminal dereliction of duty.

Do you have any proof or testimonial to show about your claim on the role of the commerce minister? Unless I have missed an important press article on it, the only thing I have read is a short description of the scam (rice re-sold in Thailand). I haven't read anything about a proof or testimony that, when he signed the contract, he knew in advance the rice would be re-sold in Thailand.

It may be possible that he knew, I don't know. But without any proof he cannot be convicted (well, in theory).

I didn't make this suggestion about the commerce minister, phoenixdoglover did.

Sorry about my misunderstanding. I understood that your claim was that YL was involved in the scam and not only the commerce minister, and not that the commerce minister was not involved in the scam.

Well let's put your last comment into perspective:

- I didn't claim she was involved in the scam.

- Suddenly there's a claim (an assumption was what the poster wrote) that it was a scam concocted personally by the commerce minister.

IMHO this is just another silly attempt to say that YL didn't know about the G2G deal / she wasn't involved etc.

In other words just try again to throw in a red herring to try to pull attention away from YS.

- Readers here ain't that stupid.

I add more;

I have some further doubts about the commerce minister concocting / implementing this scam alone.

In fact I guess he would be too frightened to do just that, in fact my guess is that he (like many others) just obeyed orders along with a big Yes Sir!