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.

But as some have tried to explain to me 'everybody knows that subsidies are lost money'. Now pray tell how would you apply that concept to a 'self-financing scam' ?

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.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

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.

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

Are you serious?? Justice will prevail? You do know we're talking about Thailand, right??

"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.

No, simply wrong. As is your assertion. Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow.

But don't let that stop you. It seems to be the only defence their supporters have.

"...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.

Got a big agenda with new deformation for Xmas?

Case was dismissed as it was sent to the wrong court....

Defense appealed. Appeal court confirmed the case was sent to the wrong court and uphold the original verdict..

Biased much are we?

the case was dismissed because "good people".

Period.

Wrong court is an excuse they made up to fit the circumstances.

That is because they did not want the case to pass through the DSI but rather through the military junta lackeys at the NACC which have duly pretended to consider the case and found no grounds for charges...

Surprise.

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.

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

Are you serious?? Justice will prevail? You do know we're talking about Thailand, right??

Thai justice

"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.

No, simply wrong. As is your assertion. Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow.

But don't let that stop you. It seems to be the only defence their supporters have.

"Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow."

What has that got to do with my assertion that this case is political? Try for once to reply to what I wrote instead of...well, whatever goes on in your head. So I guess you believe that the junta are a benevolent group of people who only wants what's best for Thailand?

Sorry, I forgot. You are the guy that stated that you don't care who's in charge as long as it's not Thaksin. Says it all, really.

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.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Absolutely, a 'self-financing' scheme has it's merits especially when it's self-financing. When it goes wrong to the tune of 500++ billion Baht it's a criminal disaster.

The rest is just the usual distraction ignoring what a caretaker government is not able to do legally anymore. Ignoring the fact that Ms. Yingluck had stated that the 2013/2014 financing was secured. Ignoring as usual all that's inconvenient.

Edited February 18, 201610 yr by rubl

Yingluck just gave tv interview on CNN. Even though she was educated in the USA she spoke in Thai because her English skills are so poor. She acts like she has been victimized but claims she will not escape like Thaksin did.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7vf0s5q9akc

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.

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

Are you serious?? Justice will prevail? You do know we're talking about Thailand, right??

Excuses, I forgot that in Thailand Amply Rich people tend to be above the law and they even manage a "democracy died because some dare to take my words like "I'm in charge" serious".

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.

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

Are you serious?? Justice will prevail? You do know we're talking about Thailand, right??

Thai justice

Picture removed, no need to suggest the Criminal Court's ruling was incorrect and ignore forum rule #2

So, even Yingluck supporters seem to know Ms Amply Rich elite Yingluck is unlikely to have justice prevail against her.

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.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Absolutely, a 'self-financing' scheme has it's merits especially when it's self-financing. When it goes wrong to the tune of 500++ billion Baht it's a criminal disaster.

The rest is just the usual distraction ignoring what a caretaker government is not able to do legally anymore. Ignoring the fact that Ms. Yingluck had stated that the 2013/2014 financing was secured. Ignoring as usual all that's inconvenient.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

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.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Absolutely, a 'self-financing' scheme has it's merits especially when it's self-financing. When it goes wrong to the tune of 500++ billion Baht it's a criminal disaster.

The rest is just the usual distraction ignoring what a caretaker government is not able to do legally anymore. Ignoring the fact that Ms. Yingluck had stated that the 2013/2014 financing was secured. Ignoring as usual all that's inconvenient.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

And again, and again, and again your less than truthful, but that's seems to be par for the course for you and your ilk on this subject.

You deliberately / conveniently ignore / don't mention that various laws and regulations (all there for good reasons) prevented the banks from loaning.

In one case (no doubt you have conveniently forgotten and hoping everybody else will have forgotten) they tried to demand the government savings bank give deposits funds to the government to pay the farmers. The depositors yelled very loudly in fear that the bank would collapse and ensured their funds were not used for this purpose.

Edited February 18, 201610 yr by scorecard

Yingluck just gave tv interview on CNN. Even though she was educated in the USA she spoke in Thai because her English skills are so poor. She acts like she has been victimized but claims she will not escape like Thaksin did.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7vf0s5q9akc

God she is so hot. I know she is married so I say it respectfully. Hard to hear anything she says unfortunately being so attractive

"It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend. "

Good try but the farmers hadnt been paid for several months before they quit, when they quit govt they were supposed to make sure they set up the money for the farmers before hand but never did, after they left govt they were no longer allowed to get money by the laws of Thailand which more than likely was the plan all along so she and her lackeys could then try to blame everyone else which is what you are now doing. You seem to forget the truth all the way through and use innuendo instead as you are well aware that she did the wrong thing from the start but cant admit it without making a fool of yourself for supporting her. Same with all her apologists in here, they are all avoiding the truth and trying to twist the truth around to suit themselves , desperation, have to wonder what you will all do when her a*se is well and truly in the sling for her bullsh*t corrupt govts action

Edited February 18, 201610 yr by seajae

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.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Absolutely, a 'self-financing' scheme has it's merits especially when it's self-financing. When it goes wrong to the tune of 500++ billion Baht it's a criminal disaster.

The rest is just the usual distraction ignoring what a caretaker government is not able to do legally anymore. Ignoring the fact that Ms. Yingluck had stated that the 2013/2014 financing was secured. Ignoring as usual all that's inconvenient.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Mid-2013 the Yingluck administration already admitted to losses less than 300 billion Baht.

Now waiting for the next 'inaccuracy', the next 'I think', 'I didn't check yet, but'.

I can only hope that Ms. Yingluck and her legal team can come with more solid, legal arguments and proof. If Ms. Yingluck had to rely of some of her admirers here, I would really start to pity her.

FYI:

2013-06-20

"Earlier this week the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra admitted that its rice scheme had lost $4.4 billion

for the 2011-12 growing season, a huge sum for a program sold as cost-neutral.""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557050631839748.html

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.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Absolutely, a 'self-financing' scheme has it's merits especially when it's self-financing. When it goes wrong to the tune of 500++ billion Baht it's a criminal disaster.

The rest is just the usual distraction ignoring what a caretaker government is not able to do legally anymore. Ignoring the fact that Ms. Yingluck had stated that the 2013/2014 financing was secured. Ignoring as usual all that's inconvenient.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Mid-2013 the Yingluck administration already admitted to losses less than 300 billion Baht.

Now waiting for the next 'inaccuracy', the next 'I think', 'I didn't check yet, but'.

I can only hope that Ms. Yingluck and her legal team can come with more solid, legal arguments and proof. If Ms. Yingluck had to rely of some of her admirers here, I would really start to pity her.

FYI:

2013-06-20

"Earlier this week the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra admitted that its rice scheme had lost $4.4 billion

for the 2011-12 growing season, a huge sum for a program sold as cost-neutral.""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557050631839748.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-21429

If only the Chinese had kept up it's end of the bargain.

"...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.

Inequality is something that the Ammart can live with for eons to come.

Slavery was formally "banned" in Thailand back in the 1920s.

HOWEVER, that gave rise to a new form of indenture: Kohn Chai. A person who works for someone without the benefit of payment.

Thais have had the same lopsided system of "justice" for hundreds of years. Something that the rabid anti-Thaksinistas refuse to accept in their OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and will always connect and revert any topic to the evil souls of the Shinawatras. As if the likes of Sarit, Pibhun and Suthep had never existed. They refuse to take their meds and such posts are the result.

Without a Yingluck and a Thaksin they would have no life.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Ask yourself why a self-financing scheme is hundreds of billions of baht in debt and needs further loans.

"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.

No, simply wrong. As is your assertion. Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow.

But don't let that stop you. It seems to be the only defence their supporters have.

"Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow."

What has that got to do with my assertion that this case is political? Try for once to reply to what I wrote instead of...well, whatever goes on in your head. So I guess you believe that the junta are a benevolent group of people who only wants what's best for Thailand?

Sorry, I forgot. You are the guy that stated that you don't care who's in charge as long as it's not Thaksin. Says it all, really.

I realise you are being deliberately (or otherwise) obtuse, but try to grasp that trying for an amnesty is an admission that there are crimes to be absolved. The amnesty attempt overwhelmingly failed, and those crimes are now being prosecuted.

You claim political motivation, but the motivation is irrelevant to the court if the case is proven. Why don't you try offering a defence rather than spouting irrelevant distraction, such as the nature of the current government and my views of it?

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?

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.

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

Are you serious?? Justice will prevail? You do know we're talking about Thailand, right??

Excuses, I forgot that in Thailand Amply Rich people tend to be above the law and they even manage a "democracy died because some dare to take my words like "I'm in charge" serious".

Oh, so it's only the Shins that are above the law in Thailand? If that's your perception then you don't know much about this place.

"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.

No, simply wrong. As is your assertion. Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow.

But don't let that stop you. It seems to be the only defence their supporters have.

"Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow."

What has that got to do with my assertion that this case is political? Try for once to reply to what I wrote instead of...well, whatever goes on in your head. So I guess you believe that the junta are a benevolent group of people who only wants what's best for Thailand?

Sorry, I forgot. You are the guy that stated that you don't care who's in charge as long as it's not Thaksin. Says it all, really.

I realise you are being deliberately (or otherwise) obtuse, but try to grasp that trying for an amnesty is an admission that there are crimes to be absolved. The amnesty attempt overwhelmingly failed, and those crimes are now being prosecuted.

You claim political motivation, but the motivation is irrelevant to the court if the case is proven. Why don't you try offering a defence rather than spouting irrelevant distraction, such as the nature of the current government and my views of it?

"I realise you are being deliberately (or otherwise) obtuse..."

Now that's the mother of all pot, kettle, black comments. Well done, Sir!

"You claim political motivation, but the motivation is irrelevant to the court if the case is proven. "

Here you show your ignorance again. Only a person with very limited knowledge of Thailand and its judicial system could claim that political considerations are irrelevant to a judiciary that's so politically lopsided.

"Why don't you try offering a defence rather than spouting irrelevant distraction..."

Why should I offer a defense? I'm sure the rice scheme was riddled with corruption, just like any other public project probably is. But to think that this trial is about bringing leaders to justice is breathtakingly ignorant. This trial is about continuing the efforts to chase the Shins away from the trough so that the cozy old boys network can continue to gorge themselves without having to share with uppity upstarts, who even have the temerity to lead the unwashed masses to believe they actually could have a say in who runs this country.

Tell me, are you still of the opinion that you don't care who runs this country as long as it's not Thaksin? Because if you are then I'm wasting my time debating with an extremist.

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.

I'm not sharing your opinion. But I can live with your's. Just to think.....would it been a "loss" with "normal" or even rising rice prices? I'm not sure, but I think it would have worked. If you consider that, then what was the reason for a coup? Definetely not a lack of diligence??

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Ask yourself why a self-financing scheme is hundreds of billions of baht in debt and needs further loans.

It is a pay and sell scheme. You pay the farmers first and sell subsequently. There will always be a gap whereby loans are needed. Common in the business world. What's so hard to understand.

"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.

No, simply wrong. As is your assertion. Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow.

But don't let that stop you. It seems to be the only defence their supporters have.

"Yingluk needed an amnesty to cover the criminal actions of herself, her government and her brother's blatant plundering. Being elected doesn't absolve one of all crimes, and the Shinawatras are certainly not saints, so your bleating claims of political persecution ring rather hollow."

What has that got to do with my assertion that this case is political? Try for once to reply to what I wrote instead of...well, whatever goes on in your head. So I guess you believe that the junta are a benevolent group of people who only wants what's best for Thailand?

Sorry, I forgot. You are the guy that stated that you don't care who's in charge as long as it's not Thaksin. Says it all, really.

I realise you are being deliberately (or otherwise) obtuse, but try to grasp that trying for an amnesty is an admission that there are crimes to be absolved. The amnesty attempt overwhelmingly failed, and those crimes are now being prosecuted.

You claim political motivation, but the motivation is irrelevant to the court if the case is proven. Why don't you try offering a defence rather than spouting irrelevant distraction, such as the nature of the current government and my views of it?

Something I have alluded to a dozen times Halloween but court cases are not proven in Thailand, the judge's decision is purchased, usually payment in advance. This peculiar system allows for military takeover at regular intervals, instability and a total wariness amongst foreign investors. The system is actually as rotten as the rice is and if you are unaware then I say come Thailand and see for yourself. As I have said many times before the inherent corruption in Thailand was put in place several generations before Yingluck's parents were even born.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Ask yourself why a self-financing scheme is hundreds of billions of baht in debt and needs further loans.

It is a pay and sell scheme. You pay the farmers first and sell subsequently. There will always be a gap whereby loans are needed. Common in the business world. What's so hard to understand.

You mean "pay and don't sell" right? How does that lead to your "self-financing" description? How many billions in debt should accrue before you stop calling it that, and admit it is a huge failure and a scam?

Something I have alluded to a dozen times Halloween but court cases are not proven in Thailand, the judge's decision is purchased, usually payment in advance. This peculiar system allows for military takeover at regular intervals, instability and a total wariness amongst foreign investors. The system is actually as rotten as the rice is and if you are unaware then I say come Thailand and see for yourself. As I have said many times before the inherent corruption in Thailand was put in place several generations before Yingluck's parents were even born.

I realise you are being deliberately (or otherwise) obtuse, but try to grasp that trying for an amnesty is an admission that there are crimes to be absolved. The amnesty attempt overwhelmingly failed, and those crimes are now being prosecuted.

You claim political motivation, but the motivation is irrelevant to the court if the case is proven. Why don't you try offering a defence rather than spouting irrelevant distraction, such as the nature of the current government and my views of it?

And yet today we see news reports of a case where a CC judge refused and reported a million dollar bribe, offered by the usual suspects. While I have no illusions about the Thai justice system, I doubt it is bad as habitual criminals like to paint it simply because they are prosecuted for their crimes.

And yes, corruption is endemic in my adopted country. Given that, I see no reason to ignore the blatant flaunting of it, and the manipulation of the electoral system, practised by the Shinawatras.

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.

So the self-financing is a sell and pay scheme while the subsidy is straight tax payer lost. Seem the former is a much accountable scheme until the government was not allowed to borrow due to the EC rejecting 130 B Bt loan to help finance the scheme. Soon after, other banks stop extending loan due to PDRC intimidation. Just how much will be the eventual loss is still unknown. The self-financing scheme does have its merits.

Absolutely, a 'self-financing' scheme has it's merits especially when it's self-financing. When it goes wrong to the tune of 500++ billion Baht it's a criminal disaster.

The rest is just the usual distraction ignoring what a caretaker government is not able to do legally anymore. Ignoring the fact that Ms. Yingluck had stated that the 2013/2014 financing was secured. Ignoring as usual all that's inconvenient.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

And again, and again, and again your less than truthful, but that's seems to be par for the course for you and your ilk on this subject.

You deliberately / conveniently ignore / don't mention that various laws and regulations (all there for good reasons) prevented the banks from loaning.

In one case (no doubt you have conveniently forgotten and hoping everybody else will have forgotten) they tried to demand the government savings bank give deposits funds to the government to pay the farmers. The depositors yelled very loudly in fear that the bank would collapse and ensured their funds were not used for this purpose.

I'm sorry but it's you that are being less than truthful.Whether deliberately or through ignorance is not for me to speculate.

In summary you are denying that there was no very heavy political pressure (from the non elected elements bitterly hostile to the Yingluck Government) on lending institutions to halt payments.To maintain that position is dishonest.

I am incidentally very familiar with the GSB and your comments are woefully in error with regard to that institution.

Please do not lecture others on the need for honesty when your own posts are so manifestly riddled with lies.

It's self financing until the banks decided not to extend loans. Thought we clear on this. The payment to farmers are done by BACC through loans from various financial institutions until they were intimidated by the PDRC mob visits. The farmers were the victims falling to political gamesmanship and held hostage by the banks scared stiff to lend.

Ask yourself why a self-financing scheme is hundreds of billions of baht in debt and needs further loans.

It is a pay and sell scheme. You pay the farmers first and sell subsequently. There will always be a gap whereby loans are needed. Common in the business world. What's so hard to understand.

As I understand things if you buy low and sell high you make a profit which enables your business to expand.

If you buy high and sell low you make a loss and eventually your business will crash and you will be bankrupt.

If you buy high, sell low and borrow money to pay for your losses and still cannot make a profit then your debt will be higher and you will go bust quicker and owe more money.

That is a real world scenario.

Now what Eric says is that you buy your rice first at a a high price, store it until you can sell it at a higher price and then make a profit.

The bit that confuses me is having borrowed all that money (and paying interest on it) what happens when you can only sell it at a low price which doesn't cover the cost of buying the rice in the beginning, paying for the loans plus interest, plus storage.

You then end up with not enough money to pay your bills and break even. Where I come from that is called a loss and no company or business can run at a loss for long without going bust.

I haven't bothered to add into the cost that unless the product is stored correctly it will deteriorate and be worth less when you try to sell it, nor the cost of transport which unless the customers pays for it becomes another loss to your company, nor the natural wastage, corruption etc.

In the end I don't understand why buying high, borrowing money to pay your bills and selling at a loss is a good thing. I am sure that Eric will come along with a perfectly plausible explanation which we will all be asked to accept as gospel.