"Appreciate it's hard to defend this blatant negligence. "

So that is what she is on trial for - neglicence? She might very well be but that is not why an elected PM is put on trial. She is put on trial because the "wrong" people were elected by a majority of the population. Simple as that.

Wrong.

An elected PM removed from office by a court for abusing power is put on trial for negligence. Why, because she was negligent. Why because her brother was arrogant enough to believe he could railroad his and their total amnesty whitewash through, return, get his hands on the 2.2 trillion and this wouldn't matter.

Thaksin governments, and let's stop pretending PTP was Yingluck's government all fall down because of an arrogant expectation that they can bribe or intimidate their way out when caught breaking the rules. Remember the pastry boxes?

As such, regardless of the % of people who voted for them and which definition of "majority" you want to use, they leave themselves wide open. And the "establishment" take full advantage when it suits.

So Mzurf, do you think she was negligent in the way she chose to chair and manage this scheme?

Edited February 17, 201610 yr by Baerboxer

Unfortunately she can't send everybody to attitude adjustment who says she stole money from Thais

Oh Please try and catch up.

She is not on trial for stealing money from Thais. She is on trial for deraliction of duty caused by her utter incompetence.

Well hopefully the current government will be on trial too for the all the things they messing up after their legislation is over,but since they gave them self immunity ......

"...former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra standing trial for dereliction of duty."

I wonder what an army chief that has overthrown an elected government should stand trial for? Oh, wait a minute, he has given himself an amnesty!

But, but, but, but ............................

Best try and change the topic and deflect this discussion about Yingluck's very obvious negligence.

"Ms. Yingluck - please explain how as chair you never attended any of the meetings? Please provide copies of meeting minutes showing actions taken and follow ups to ensure everything was running correctly. Please provide audited accounts for the scheme?"

All she has to do is show she wasn't negligent, acted diligently and produce the financial accounts to support her wide assertions. Perhaps the 42 witnesses will do this?

You still don't get it do you ?

Justice should be equally applied to all persons regardless.

If people can get away with staging a coup, there is no reason to prosecute a PM of a democratically electeded government due to a failed policy.

The world over, people will reject any guilty verdict with the same reason as the Thaksin verdict was not taken seriously. It will be labeled as politically motivated and with very good reason (see before).

The militairy and elite think they are smart, but they really aren't, the rest of the world does hear the double standards loud and clear.

And eventually..... they will again be out of power, of course a new coup could always rectify this, with the exact same methods as are being deployed now.

"Appreciate it's hard to defend this blatant negligence. "

So that is what she is on trial for - neglicence? She might very well be but that is not why an elected PM is put on trial. She is put on trial because the "wrong" people were elected by a majority of the population. Simple as that.

Your argument is certainly simple. But if Yingluk and company were simply the "wrong" people, why did they think that they needed an amnesty?

You seem to be (allegedly) against amnesty, yet are against prosecuting the criminal acts it would have covered.

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

Off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed.

"Appreciate it's hard to defend this blatant negligence. "

So that is what she is on trial for - neglicence? She might very well be but that is not why an elected PM is put on trial. She is put on trial because the "wrong" people were elected by a majority of the population. Simple as that.

Your argument is certainly simple. But if Yingluk and company were simply the "wrong" people, why did they think that they needed an amnesty?

have covered.

You seem to be (allegedly) against amnesty, yet are against prosecuting the criminal acts it would

"Your argument is certainly simple."

Simple and true.

"But if Yingluk and company were simply the "wrong" people, why did they think that they needed an amnesty?"

What does that even mean?? My assertion is that this is a political trial, not a criminal trial. And she's on trial for the rice scheme, not the failed amnesty bid. Why do you keep bringing the amnesty bid up, especially when the junta gave themselves the mother of all amnesties? Calling it disingenuous is being kind.

"You seem to be (allegedly) against amnesty, yet are against prosecuting the criminal acts it would "

I'm for prosecuting all criminal acts, including (and especially) juntas who overthrow legitimate governments. Unfortunately, this is impossible in Thailand, where justice is not welcome.

But I understand that for someone like you who does not live here this can all be rather bewildering.

Corruption is a crime, we all know that.

But being a lousy leader and politician, isn't that the norm here?

being a lousy leader and politician

unless you are a general.......is he politian? Is he a leader?

The ultimate diversion - please comment on the actual thread subject.

"...former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra standing trial for dereliction of duty."

I wonder what an army chief that has overthrown an elected government should stand trial for? Oh, wait a minute, he has given himself an amnesty!

Meanwhile, back in Thai justiceland, a former PM an Deputy PM who ordered the army to crack down on protesters and cause 99 deaths, including foreign press, nurses and other civilians inside a wat, were cleared of wrongdoing by the Criminal Supreme Court on a technicality.

TV Anti-Thaksinistas OCDers (OCD: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) celebrate now, as they celebrated the2006 coup and this one.

meanwhile Ms. Yingluck got her day in court. She wanted the opportunity to explain how her wonderful RPPS should be seen.

"...former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra standing trial for dereliction of duty."

I wonder what an army chief that has overthrown an elected government should stand trial for? Oh, wait a minute, he has given himself an amnesty!

Can you "overthrow" a government no longer in office? Are you against all governments giving themselves amnesty, or do you reserve that for military government?

"Can you "overthrow" a government no longer in office?"

Yes, you can overthrow a caretaker government that was trying to hold elections. Is that difficult for you to grasp?

" Are you against all governments giving themselves amnesty, or do you reserve that for military government?"

Yes, are you?

Don't bother arguing with these geniuses.In their bizarro world the Thai military never grabs power illegally.They say the same thing about the coup which deposed Thaksin, ie there was no government in office at the time.

When challenged they regurgitate yet again the constitutional process with which we are all familiar.Difficult to know who they think their audience is since the rest of the world knows their silly and transparent games.I suppose - ignoring the dishonesty involved - it's the old story of the slug crawling across the mosaic without understanding the overall pattern.

When challenged they point out that here we have the topic of Ms. Yingluck having her day in court as she wanted the opportunity to explain how one should see her RPPS.

Still it would seem that many posters here no longer believe Ms. Yingluck to be innocent and that would explain all the distractions. Poor little Amply Rich lady.

What a Dog and Pony show Whether you like or Dislike Yingluk this charge of Dereliction of Duty is ridiculous . First if the charge stands who in their right mind is going to want to hold public office who has a good background NOBODY. Second I do not know any country where you can hold a member of an elected government for dereliction of duty. If that was the case you

would have had OBAMA in Jail a long long time ago\

Ms. Yingluck was full of 'responsibility' in statements. She and her hand-picked cabinet positioned the RPPS as self-financing. She and her hand-picked cabinet defended the RPPS, only slowly admitting that something might be rotten in the rice mountain. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge.

Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?

Not by any means a fan of the Shins. But are we to believe that she alone is responsible for this colossal mountain of dereliction?

It's hard to imagine that she had the energy or the intelligence to pull off all her crimes single-handedly.

And it's unlikely that while she was running amok everyone else in government was honestly hard at work doing good deeds on behalf of the people

So....where are her co-conspirators? Where all the other derelicts?

It would appear others are entitled to share the consequences of this malfeasance.

Like you I'm not a Shin's fan by any mean. Ms. Yingluck may not be the only one responsible in this RPPS scam, but she as PM was always telling all to be responsible, to value accountability and above all she stated that she and only she was in charge.

So, let's start at the top, the one in Thailand that is. Big brother hasn't come back yet.

What a Dog and Pony show Whether you like or Dislike Yingluk this charge of Dereliction of Duty is ridiculous . First if the charge stands who in their right mind is going to want to hold public office who has a good background NOBODY. Second I do not know any country where you can hold a member of an elected government for dereliction of duty. If that was the case you

would have had OBAMA in Jail a long long time ago\

Ms. Yingluck was full of 'responsibility' in statements. She and her hand-picked cabinet positioned the RPPS as self-financing. She and her hand-picked cabinet defended the RPPS, only slowly admitting that something might be rotten in the rice mountain. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge.

Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?

"Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?"

You mean, any objection to coup makers putting up a political show trial for the elected leaders they overthrew?

In one word; yes.

This has nothing to do with prosecuting a politician for any offenses while in office (which clearly is a good thing) and everything to do with the old boys network putting the upstarts in place (which clearly is not).

What a Dog and Pony show Whether you like or Dislike Yingluk this charge of Dereliction of Duty is ridiculous . First if the charge stands who in their right mind is going to want to hold public office who has a good background NOBODY. Second I do not know any country where you can hold a member of an elected government for dereliction of duty. If that was the case you

would have had OBAMA in Jail a long long time ago\

Ms. Yingluck was full of 'responsibility' in statements. She and her hand-picked cabinet positioned the RPPS as self-financing. She and her hand-picked cabinet defended the RPPS, only slowly admitting that something might be rotten in the rice mountain. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge.

Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?

"Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?"

You mean, any objection to coup makers putting up a political show trial for the elected leaders they overthrew?

In one word; yes.

This has nothing to do with prosecuting a politician for any offenses while in office (which clearly is a good thing) and everything to do with the old boys network putting the upstarts in place (which clearly is not).

You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?

500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?

What a Dog and Pony show Whether you like or Dislike Yingluk this charge of Dereliction of Duty is ridiculous . First if the charge stands who in their right mind is going to want to hold public office who has a good background NOBODY. Second I do not know any country where you can hold a member of an elected government for dereliction of duty. If that was the case you

would have had OBAMA in Jail a long long time ago\

Ms. Yingluck was full of 'responsibility' in statements. She and her hand-picked cabinet positioned the RPPS as self-financing. She and her hand-picked cabinet defended the RPPS, only slowly admitting that something might be rotten in the rice mountain. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge.

Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?

"Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?"

You mean, any objection to coup makers putting up a political show trial for the elected leaders they overthrew?

In one word; yes.

This has nothing to do with prosecuting a politician for any offenses while in office (which clearly is a good thing) and everything to do with the old boys network putting the upstarts in place (which clearly is not).

You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?

500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?

"You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?"

I don't think there is any need to cast further doubt on these politically driven "legal" proceedings.

"500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?"

You misunderstand (again). I'm not in the least surprised by anything the junta has done after the coup.

What a Dog and Pony show Whether you like or Dislike Yingluk this charge of Dereliction of Duty is ridiculous . First if the charge stands who in their right mind is going to want to hold public office who has a good background NOBODY. Second I do not know any country where you can hold a member of an elected government for dereliction of duty. If that was the case you

would have had OBAMA in Jail a long long time ago\

Ms. Yingluck was full of 'responsibility' in statements. She and her hand-picked cabinet positioned the RPPS as self-financing. She and her hand-picked cabinet defended the RPPS, only slowly admitting that something might be rotten in the rice mountain. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge.

Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?

"Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?"

You mean, any objection to coup makers putting up a political show trial for the elected leaders they overthrew?

In one word; yes.

This has nothing to do with prosecuting a politician for any offenses while in office (which clearly is a good thing) and everything to do with the old boys network putting the upstarts in place (which clearly is not).

You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?

500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?

You mean it's ok to subsidize rubber but not rice, it's ok to give yourself and your army buddies amnesty in the future? You mean it's ok to sell land worth 600 million and just say "it's private" when asked? You mean you made up the 500++ Billion figure? You mean you are clueless?

What a Dog and Pony show Whether you like or Dislike Yingluk this charge of Dereliction of Duty is ridiculous . First if the charge stands who in their right mind is going to want to hold public office who has a good background NOBODY. Second I do not know any country where you can hold a member of an elected government for dereliction of duty. If that was the case you

would have had OBAMA in Jail a long long time ago\

well, you nailed it. But the junta needs a scapegoat just to show who is responsible for all the failsures in Thailand.

(Yingluck is not respunsible for falling rice prices....)

Ms. Yingluck was full of 'responsibility' in statements. She and her hand-picked cabinet positioned the RPPS as self-financing. She and her hand-picked cabinet defended the RPPS, only slowly admitting that something might be rotten in the rice mountain. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge.

Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?

"Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?"

You mean, any objection to coup makers putting up a political show trial for the elected leaders they overthrew?

In one word; yes.

This has nothing to do with prosecuting a politician for any offenses while in office (which clearly is a good thing) and everything to do with the old boys network putting the upstarts in place (which clearly is not).

You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?

500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?

"You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?"

I don't think there is any need to cast further doubt on these politically driven "legal" proceedings.

"500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?"

You misunderstand (again). I'm not in the least surprised by anything the junta has done after the coup.

Of course I understand that this Amply Rich lady needs to be defended. With legal arguments, not with emotional exclamations like "democracy died', 'junta', 'old boys network', 'political driven', etc., etc.

All the rubbish just shows that the number of people who really believe Ms. Yingluck is innocent seems down to single numbers (assuming we may call zero a number).

Ms. Yingluck was full of 'responsibility' in statements. She and her hand-picked cabinet positioned the RPPS as self-financing. She and her hand-picked cabinet defended the RPPS, only slowly admitting that something might be rotten in the rice mountain. Ms. Yingluck stated in parliament that she and only she was in charge.

Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?

"Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?"

You mean, any objection to coup makers putting up a political show trial for the elected leaders they overthrew?

In one word; yes.

This has nothing to do with prosecuting a politician for any offenses while in office (which clearly is a good thing) and everything to do with the old boys network putting the upstarts in place (which clearly is not).

You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?

500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?

You mean it's ok to subsidize rubber but not rice, it's ok to give yourself and your army buddies amnesty in the future? You mean it's ok to sell land worth 600 million and just say "it's private" when asked? You mean you made up the 500++ Billion figure? You mean you are clueless?

and again the not so subtle suggestion that the 'self-financing' scam was a subsidy with the implication 'subsidies lose money as all know'.

The RPPS was 'self-financing', and heavily defended as such. Till even Ms. Yingluck conceeded to about less than 300 billion Baht loss around September 2013. At that time she also still defended only to need 260 or 270 billion Baht for 2013/2014 and to have financing arranged, only to ask for 130 billion Baht in December after she had dissolved the House.

So, poor little Amply Rich lady who was so proud every time she could state on television to be in charge, she was responsible, she took care of corruption. Pity she forgot about accountability.

the rice scheme...enough said...
Her brother bailed the country out of debt by killing hundreds in a war againts drugs, then as retaliation puts the country back into debt with a rice scheme scam... oh the irony...
And lets not mention the fake flood that killed many more, how many people got rich from that? see how quick he stepped in with a few billion baht permanent cure to save the country?

What a Dog and Pony show Whether you like or Dislike Yingluk this charge of Dereliction of Duty is ridiculous . First if the charge stands who in their right mind is going to want to hold public office who has a good background NOBODY. Second I do not know any country where you can hold a member of an elected government for dereliction of duty. If that was the case you

would have had OBAMA in Jail a long long time ago\

well, you nailed it. But the junta needs a scapegoat just to show who is responsible for all the failsures in Thailand.

(Yingluck is not respunsible for falling rice prices....)

Absolutely, Yingluck is not responsible for falling rice prices.

Yingluck is only negligent in not conceding in time that her 'self-financing' scam was losing money like water, her long time defense of the wonderful 'self-financing' scam, her reluctance to admit that when she states in parliament to be in charge she acknowledges to be responsible and needs to be accountable.

The scapegoat bit is just the usual distraction.

"...former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra standing trial for dereliction of duty."

I wonder what an army chief that has overthrown an elected government should stand trial for? Oh, wait a minute, he has given himself an amnesty!

Although I agree with you in principle, you may be accused of using the ."......but,but Prayuth.." refrain, as many do when the subject is Suthep, Abhisit and others.

If Prayuth has done wrong, there will come a time when that subject can be discussed. As of now, the subject is Yingluck and her trial.

"If Prayuth has done wrong, there will come a time when that subject can be discussed."

Unless the supreme court decides otherwise as with Abhisit and Sutthep.

"Any objection to ask Ms. Yingluck to show the accountability which goes with responsibility?"

You mean, any objection to coup makers putting up a political show trial for the elected leaders they overthrew?

In one word; yes.

This has nothing to do with prosecuting a politician for any offenses while in office (which clearly is a good thing) and everything to do with the old boys network putting the upstarts in place (which clearly is not).

You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?

500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?

"You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?"

I don't think there is any need to cast further doubt on these politically driven "legal" proceedings.

"500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?"

You misunderstand (again). I'm not in the least surprised by anything the junta has done after the coup.

Of course I understand that this Amply Rich lady needs to be defended. With legal arguments, not with emotional exclamations like "democracy died', 'junta', 'old boys network', 'political driven', etc., etc.

All the rubbish just shows that the number of people who really believe Ms. Yingluck is innocent seems down to single numbers (assuming we may call zero a number).

"Of course I understand that this Amply Rich lady needs to be defended. With legal arguments, not with emotional exclamations like "democracy died', 'junta', 'old boys network', 'political driven', etc., etc."

Emotional arguments? That this is a politically driven trial that is just another step in the attempt to drive the Shins away from the trough forever is a very rational observation, an opinion shared by many. And they're not doing this for any other reason than to ensure their place at the trough. Do you disagree?

"All the rubbish just shows that the number of people who really believe Ms. Yingluck is innocent seems down to single numbers (assuming we may call zero a number)."

-What rubbish?

-How does that show anything?

-Zero? I see you're fond of claiming universal support for your arguments, just like your heroes who idiotically claim that 99.3 % of the population are satisfied with their work. Are you one of the 0.00000000001 % that actually believe them??

Edited February 18, 201610 yr by MZurf

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

No.

"You mean any attempt to throw doubt on the legal proceedings? Poor Amply Rich girl needs distractions?"

I don't think there is any need to cast further doubt on these politically driven "legal" proceedings.

"500++ billion Baht lost on a heavily defended 'self-financing' scam, no explanation and people surprised a PM is asked to explain in court?"

You misunderstand (again). I'm not in the least surprised by anything the junta has done after the coup.

Of course I understand that this Amply Rich lady needs to be defended. With legal arguments, not with emotional exclamations like "democracy died', 'junta', 'old boys network', 'political driven', etc., etc.

All the rubbish just shows that the number of people who really believe Ms. Yingluck is innocent seems down to single numbers (assuming we may call zero a number).

"Of course I understand that this Amply Rich lady needs to be defended. With legal arguments, not with emotional exclamations like "democracy died', 'junta', 'old boys network', 'political driven', etc., etc."

Emotional arguments? That this is a politically driven trial that is just another step in the attempt to drive the Shins away from the trough forever is a very rational observation, an opinion shared by many. And they're not doing this for any other reason than to ensure their place at the trough. Do you disagree?

"All the rubbish just shows that the number of people who really believe Ms. Yingluck is innocent seems down to single numbers (assuming we may call zero a number)."

-What rubbish?

-How does that show anything?

-Zero? I see you're fond of claiming universal support for your arguments, just like your heroes who idiotically claim that 99.3 % of the population are satisfied with their work. Are you one of the 0.00000000001 % that actually believe them??

Till now the arguments provided to 'protect' Ms. Yingluck seem so feeble, so constructed, so lacking in logic, and at times so full of suggestions, insinuations and little white lies.

One might also think that all protestations here only seem to be aimed at depriving Ms. Yingluck of justice, depriving her of the opportunity to legally explain the workings of her RPPS and why her 'self-financing' scheme was allowed to lose 500++ billion Baht.

From figures provided by her government, (ex-)ministers and Pheu Thai party we know that 800 billion Baht was paid out directly to rice farming families, the scheme was aimed at 3.7 million rice farming families, 3.2 million who registered/ eligeble and 1.4 million who really participated. All of that in hardly more than TWO years. Ms. Yingluck as PM admitted to a bit less than 300 billion Baht loss and still defended her wonderful 'self-financing' scheme.

I guess it's time she opens her books and let others have a look in them.

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

No.

Yes. The 3 to 5 billion Baht budget for rubber is part of the National Budget and a subsidy.

Ms. Yingluck's wonderful RPPS was 'self-financing' and managed to lose 500 billion Baht.

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

No.

Yes. The 3 to 5 billion Baht budget for rubber is part of the National Budget and a subsidy.

Ms. Yingluck's wonderful RPPS was 'self-financing' and managed to lose 500 billion Baht.

Are you saying that subsidy is better than self-financing in general? Your thoughts Rubi.

"...former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra standing trial for dereliction of duty."

I wonder what an army chief that has overthrown an elected government should stand trial for? Oh, wait a minute, he has given himself an amnesty!

Although I agree with you in principle, you may be accused of using the ."......but,but Prayuth.." refrain, as many do when the subject is Suthep, Abhisit and others.

If Prayuth has done wrong, there will come a time when that subject can be discussed. As of now, the subject is Yingluck and her trial.

"If Prayuth has done wrong, there will come a time when that subject can be discussed."

Unless the supreme court decides otherwise as with Abhisit and Sutthep.

Well said Mr Hugh.

I think we can wrap this whole charade up by commenting that until Thailand gets a court and justice and police system that is independent of the Yellow movement and independent of the Red movement, Thailand will not solve any of its root problems, the main one of which is inequality.

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

No.

Yes. The 3 to 5 billion Baht budget for rubber is part of the National Budget and a subsidy.

Ms. Yingluck's wonderful RPPS was 'self-financing' and managed to lose 500 billion Baht.

I should not rise to the obvious baiting.

Money lost through subsidy and money lost through a self financing scheme is money lost in both cases.

The subsidy paid to the rubber farmers is paid for by the tax take. Every time rice farmer makes any significant purchase VAT is added and then given to the rubber farmer. That is simple politics, it is not necessarily right versus wrong. Please do not reply by saying the rice farmers do not pay VAT because that would be patently incorrect.

Is this any different to the excessive payments for rubber?

No.

Yes. The 3 to 5 billion Baht budget for rubber is part of the National Budget and a subsidy.

Ms. Yingluck's wonderful RPPS was 'self-financing' and managed to lose 500 billion Baht.

Are you saying that subsidy is better than self-financing in general? Your thoughts Rubi.

I'm just saying that Ms. Yingluck's RPPS was positioned as 'self-financing' with her then Minister of Commerce Kittirat stating a day before the 'scheme' started that only a 'revolving fund' of 430 billion Baht was required to make initial payments and money would come back from rice sold.

The scheme was allowed to run up massive losses, losses predicted before, losses pointed out, but denied, ridiculed, slowly acknowledge as 'minimal', etc., etc. There seems to be a case of 'negligence'.

Of course Ms. Yingluck gets her chance to explain all in court. Justice will prevail.