Loss from rice pledging scheme higher than earlier estimates

[LannaGuy]

If the junta continues to pay for the storage of rotten rice, what sense does that make? Is is just to be able to say that the costs of the rice pledging scheme continue to mount? Or is someone benefiting from being paid to store it?

Dear 'pookiki', you, brilliant mind, please tell us what to do with the rotten rice till it's disposed of, when not storing it, and pay for storage...?

Could it eventually be all delivered to your place for you to keepit until then...?

You do realise, don't you, that there would not have been any rotten rice mountain, when it would not be because of the master's crazy vote-buying (and deep pockets' filling!) policy better known as the rice scam...!

And when that's all what you have found in the hope to divert our attention from the main issue of the 'vaporizing' (well, not for everybody...) of a pack of money now said to be a fair chunck bigger than the previous estimate of 680,000,000,000 Baht, you had better remained silent, as the whole tribe of Shins' fans here 'oddly' is till now on this topic...

If you would bother to do some research on this issue, ethanol can be produced from the rotten rice. Heaven forbid that anything be done that could be useful with this stored rice as it would not properly fit your tribal values.

Diversion alert.

yea, yea, yea, we really believe the non-political headline yea, yea, yea

SO funny anyone could believe this BS

[tbthailand]

I found this statement in the news article to be most significant:

"While affirming that no rice has gone missing from the scheme’s storage, Somchai said he could not yet reveal the details of the project’s total losses and costs. A report on the case is to be presented to the National Rice Policy Commission next week along with a proposal for management of leftover rice."

When NACC was pushing loss numbers in the the range of 500 to 600 billion, I complained that it was impossible to judge the meaning of the numbers without some sort of line item detail. That problem continues, this time with the Finance Ministry. They are not ready to reveal the detail.

Has anyone heard lately of the supposed administrative action against Yingluck to recover the "loss"? I'm thinking the committee may be stuck without sufficient information to proceed. Recall the government has said an administrative action can be challenged in court; a half baked action will likely get shot down (but, anything is possible in appeals courts).

I would also note some posters on TVF seem to equate this loss figure with corruption, implying that all this money was stolen somehow. Excepting the infamous G2G deal, this is not necessarily the case, as the current article mentions several elements of loss that are simply expected when you store large quantities. Indeed, it is likely the largest component of "loss" will turn out to be the price differential between the purchase and sales prices. "Buy high, sell low" was not the intent, but was clearly the result.

Anyway, this article doesn't shed any light; rice continues to rot, and storage warehouses continue to charge for storage.

Will the rice scheme "loss" detail ever be published? That probably depends on what it shows AND who is in power.

Precisely.

Whenever numbers of missing or rotten rice are produced, they turn out to be well below the limits set by the program from the outset.

Clearly, if there were a smoking gun on missing, rotten rice, then the current group of dinosaurs running the show would have pulled the trigger on Yingluck already....

So the loss number will continue to be whatever they want it to be...

In other places, you can read about the boost to the economy in Isaan when the program started and then the loss to the economy in Isaan after the coup...

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as the replies:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

The following examples are not valid supporting links:

The Nation 2014-07-28

The Nation 2014-07-29

[bangrak]

The loss figure may be used in the case against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and former Minister of Commerce Boonsong Teriyapirom.

in that case, expect the "loss" to get much, much larger....

680,000,000,000 Baht wouldn't already be more than enough to prove Yingluck's guilt in your eyes, is it...? Not any amount lost could, isn't it...?

No it wouldn't. Losses don't prove guilt. Government leaders all over the world come up with schemes that lose lots of money such as farm subsidies.

I don't now if Yingluck is guilty of a crime. The plan was sold as a way to take rice off the world market and drive the price up. That didn't happen as prices actually went way down. Down by about 1/2. Then it was announced that they would sit on the rice until the price came back up which it didn't.

There was some intermediate theft and selling of Cambodian and Laos rice to the scheme fraudulently but no one has ever told how Yingluck was involved in that. There was some selling of low grade rice at high grade prices, and some warehouses that were "hollow".

I have never seen any evidence that would be admissible in a Western court proving that Yingluck stole anything.

I'm not defending her or condemning her. I just don't know.

Thank you for the candid elements in your reaction!

As for you not knowing, imagine you have a degree from a US university, and have occupied a high position in a large company (AIS), it gives anyone all reasons to suppose you to be a mature, intelligent, responsible person, with high management skills, isn't it?

Imagine you are then offered, and accept, a political (you didn't have a clue about politics till then) career making you a MP in the next election, then you decide to accept (for your first steps in politics) to become the PM of the country, and, later, also, you choose to preside over it's (newly re-introduced) hugely important and financilly lead-heavy rice scheme.

Well then, seen like that, could you possibly imagine to claim 'not to be responsible', for the huge, mega, losses it generated, after disdainingly brushing aside all warnings, and alarm calls (cum catastrophic figures and prognoses), not only local ones, but also from highly esteemed international organisations?

Oh, I forgot: and, on the, himalayan, top of it, you decide not to be present at one, single, of the meetings of that super-important commitee, you had chosen to chair...!

When you're still not convinced, providing you're not self-imployed, imagine what could have been the consequences for yourself when my story would not be about politics in a country, but would be 'translated' to management in a top-concern, say of the same size as the whole of Thailand...?

[bangrak]

We only have the government's word on this and why are they dragging their feet when it comes to selling off this rice? Are the rulers also playing the fiddle because all government institutions, both now and in the past, have walked hand in hand with corruption.

Aah, it's the present government's fault, is it? Yeah, sure... I knew about the very focussed vision of hawks, but didn't know they were actually seeing the world in red...

[Baerboxer]

The loss figure may be used in the case against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and former Minister of Commerce Boonsong Teriyapirom.

in that case, expect the "loss" to get much, much larger....

680,000,000,000 Baht wouldn't already be more than enough to prove Yingluck's guilt in your eyes, is it...? Not any amount lost could, isn't it...?

No it wouldn't. Losses don't prove guilt. Government leaders all over the world come up with schemes that lose lots of money such as farm subsidies.

I don't now if Yingluck is guilty of a crime. The plan was sold as a way to take rice off the world market and drive the price up. That didn't happen as prices actually went way down. Down by about 1/2. Then it was announced that they would sit on the rice until the price came back up which it didn't.

There was some intermediate theft and selling of Cambodian and Laos rice to the scheme fraudulently but no one has ever told how Yingluck was involved in that. There was some selling of low grade rice at high grade prices, and some warehouses that were "hollow".

I have never seen any evidence that would be admissible in a Western court proving that Yingluck stole anything.

I'm not defending her or condemning her. I just don't know.

I don't think she's been charged with corruption has she? Not part of the fake fraudulent G2G scams so far. Although she did announce some with appropriate glee so something may pop out yet.

She has been charged with negligence in her role as PM and as the self appointed Chair of the Rice Policy Committee. Do you remember - she never bothered to actually turn up and chair any of the meetings; or produce any audited accounts; or follow up on the warning of international bodies and internal financial controllers. She did have people threatened and removed from their jobs for daring to make their concerns public.

Now, whilst other government leaders all over the world and their governments implement subsidies, I don't know of many, discounting the likes of Mugabe and other tin pot dictators, who don't bother turning up.

Theft - no idea if she benefited directly from any of the corruption associated with this scam. Arguable she and her clan benefited indirectly by turning a blind eye to the activities of others who benefited from the corruption as some sort of reward for services rendered and/or required. But that's speculative.

However, it's not speculation that she never turned up to chair the meetings, took little or no actions, lied repeatedly and has so far never produced any certified audited accounts, so can't demonstrate financial management. If bona fide country government leaders acted like that, I think they'd be in trouble too.

[Baerboxer]

Diversion alert.

yea, yea, yea, we really believe the non-political headline yea, yea, yea

SO funny anyone could believe this BS

What's really funny is anyone who could believe Yingluck wasn't negligent.

The decision not to attend any meetings, take any actions and show any accountability was probably taken for her by her trusted caddy. Deniable plausibility and all that. Keep her away from everything and she can deny it: "not me, didn't know, wasn't there, how shocking, you'll all be paid next week, there are no problems, it benefited the country, there's no corruption" etc etc

She just repeated what she was told to say. Having taken on the role of PM, sworn oaths and appointed herself head of the rice committee she really is going to have a hard time explaining how she acted other than negligently.

So, do you think she acted in a professional and competent manner in the way she managed this scheme?

[bangrak]

I found this statement in the news article to be most significant:

"While affirming that no rice has gone missing from the scheme’s storage, Somchai said he could not yet reveal the details of the project’s total losses and costs. A report on the case is to be presented to the National Rice Policy Commission next week along with a proposal for management of leftover rice."

When NACC was pushing loss numbers in the the range of 500 to 600 billion, I complained that it was impossible to judge the meaning of the numbers without some sort of line item detail. That problem continues, this time with the Finance Ministry. They are not ready to reveal the detail.

Has anyone heard lately of the supposed administrative action against Yingluck to recover the "loss"? I'm thinking the committee may be stuck without sufficient information to proceed. Recall the government has said an administrative action can be challenged in court; a half baked action will likely get shot down (but, anything is possible in appeals courts).

I would also note some posters on TVF seem to equate this loss figure with corruption, implying that all this money was stolen somehow. Excepting the infamous G2G deal, this is not necessarily the case, as the current article mentions several elements of loss that are simply expected when you store large quantities. Indeed, it is likely the largest component of "loss" will turn out to be the price differential between the purchase and sales prices. "Buy high, sell low" was not the intent, but was clearly the result.

Anyway, this article doesn't shed any light; rice continues to rot, and storage warehouses continue to charge for storage.

Will the rice scheme "loss" detail ever be published? That probably depends on what it shows AND who is in power.

Precisely.

Whenever numbers of missing or rotten rice are produced, they turn out to be well below the limits set by the program from the outset.

Clearly, if there were a smoking gun on missing, rotten rice, then the current group of dinosaurs running the show would have pulled the trigger on Yingluck already....

So the loss number will continue to be whatever they want it to be...

In other places, you can read about the boost to the economy in Isaan when the program started and then the loss to the economy in Isaan after the coup...

A) Rice became rotten because of the gigantic failure of the scheme/scam (remember TS's 'brilliant' idea to manipulate the price of rice on the world market by creating a shortage hoarding it...?).

The NACC has 'pulled the trigger on Yingluck', quite a while ago actually, and was heavily criticized about it then by... guess who!

C) As for your 'current group of dinosaurs running the show', this bitter and vindictive personal vision of yours is anyway out of place, as this is a judicial matter, not an executive one (Do you remember? Division of powers? Judiciary, Legislative and Executive?).

P.S.: attempted twice to have the second letter of the alphabet bet after my A) and before , big and small caps, but get a silly emoticon instead, sorry.

Edited March 8, 2016 by bangrak

[bangrak]

The loss figure may be used in the case against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and former Minister of Commerce Boonsong Teriyapirom.

in that case, expect the "loss" to get much, much larger....

680,000,000,000 Baht wouldn't already be more than enough to prove Yingluck's guilt in your eyes, is it...? Not any amount lost could, isn't it...?

I recognize the situation for what it is...

These guys have only ever pulled the numbers out their backsides.

With that in mind, any number will do, right?

For sure any number of with 11(eleven) zeros (can you just imagine!) behind will be enough to make her not only guilty of it, but responsible for it, yes...!

[Transporter]

So at 10 baht a KG that means 68 million tonnes of rice is stored does it?

How many tonnes of rice does Thailand produce annually?

Just curious to understand this story not having read it from the start.

Maybe someone who knows the truth could explain it.

[NeverSure]

680,000,000,000 Baht wouldn't already be more than enough to prove Yingluck's guilt in your eyes, is it...? Not any amount lost could, isn't it...?

No it wouldn't. Losses don't prove guilt. Government leaders all over the world come up with schemes that lose lots of money such as farm subsidies.

I don't now if Yingluck is guilty of a crime. The plan was sold as a way to take rice off the world market and drive the price up. That didn't happen as prices actually went way down. Down by about 1/2. Then it was announced that they would sit on the rice until the price came back up which it didn't.

There was some intermediate theft and selling of Cambodian and Laos rice to the scheme fraudulently but no one has ever told how Yingluck was involved in that. There was some selling of low grade rice at high grade prices, and some warehouses that were "hollow".

I have never seen any evidence that would be admissible in a Western court proving that Yingluck stole anything.

I'm not defending her or condemning her. I just don't know.

Thank you for the candid elements in your reaction!

As for you not knowing, imagine you have a degree from a US university, and have occupied a high position in a large company (AIS), it gives anyone all reasons to suppose you to be a mature, intelligent, responsible person, with high management skills, isn't it?

Imagine you are then offered, and accept, a political (you didn't have a clue about politics till then) career making you a MP in the next election, then you decide to accept (for your first steps in politics) to become the PM of the country, and, later, also, you choose to preside over it's (newly re-introduced) hugely important and financilly lead-heavy rice scheme.

Well then, seen like that, could you possibly imagine to claim 'not to be responsible', for the huge, mega, losses it generated, after disdainingly brushing aside all warnings, and alarm calls (cum catastrophic figures and prognoses), not only local ones, but also from highly esteemed international organisations?

Oh, I forgot: and, on the, himalayan, top of it, you decide not to be present at one, single, of the meetings of that super-important commitee, you had chosen to chair...!

When you're still not convinced, providing you're not self-imployed, imagine what could have been the consequences for yourself when my story would not be about politics in a country, but would be 'translated' to management in a top-concern, say of the same size as the whole of Thailand...?

Nothing you mentioned would be a crime. A person who did that would be fired as CEO for being incompetent.

[NeverSure]

680,000,000,000 Baht wouldn't already be more than enough to prove Yingluck's guilt in your eyes, is it...? Not any amount lost could, isn't it...?

No it wouldn't. Losses don't prove guilt. Government leaders all over the world come up with schemes that lose lots of money such as farm subsidies.

I don't now if Yingluck is guilty of a crime. The plan was sold as a way to take rice off the world market and drive the price up. That didn't happen as prices actually went way down. Down by about 1/2. Then it was announced that they would sit on the rice until the price came back up which it didn't.

There was some intermediate theft and selling of Cambodian and Laos rice to the scheme fraudulently but no one has ever told how Yingluck was involved in that. There was some selling of low grade rice at high grade prices, and some warehouses that were "hollow".

I have never seen any evidence that would be admissible in a Western court proving that Yingluck stole anything.

I'm not defending her or condemning her. I just don't know.

I don't think she's been charged with corruption has she? Not part of the fake fraudulent G2G scams so far. Although she did announce some with appropriate glee so something may pop out yet.

She has been charged with negligence in her role as PM and as the self appointed Chair of the Rice Policy Committee. Do you remember - she never bothered to actually turn up and chair any of the meetings; or produce any audited accounts; or follow up on the warning of international bodies and internal financial controllers. She did have people threatened and removed from their jobs for daring to make their concerns public.

Now, whilst other government leaders all over the world and their governments implement subsidies, I don't know of many, discounting the likes of Mugabe and other tin pot dictators, who don't bother turning up.

Theft - no idea if she benefited directly from any of the corruption associated with this scam. Arguable she and her clan benefited indirectly by turning a blind eye to the activities of others who benefited from the corruption as some sort of reward for services rendered and/or required. But that's speculative.

However, it's not speculation that she never turned up to chair the meetings, took little or no actions, lied repeatedly and has so far never produced any certified audited accounts, so can't demonstrate financial management. If bona fide country government leaders acted like that, I think they'd be in trouble too.

In a civilized country such negligence isn't a crime. A leader might be impeached or whatever "No Confidence" or other process you have in your country, but being lazy and incompetent doesn't draw jail time anywhere I know of.

[NeverSure]

Diversion alert.

yea, yea, yea, we really believe the non-political headline yea, yea, yea

SO funny anyone could believe this BS

What's really funny is anyone who could believe Yingluck wasn't negligent.

The decision not to attend any meetings, take any actions and show any accountability was probably taken for her by her trusted caddy. Deniable plausibility and all that. Keep her away from everything and she can deny it: "not me, didn't know, wasn't there, how shocking, you'll all be paid next week, there are no problems, it benefited the country, there's no corruption" etc etc

She just repeated what she was told to say. Having taken on the role of PM, sworn oaths and appointed herself head of the rice committee she really is going to have a hard time explaining how she acted other than negligently.

So, do you think she acted in a professional and competent manner in the way she managed this scheme?

I agree with you. I've just never before heard of that kind of behavior drawing jail time. I've never seen it be a crime.

[Usual Suspect]

Then at the end of last year..(despite the multi-million baht 'losses' that have been 'creamed' out of this pledging-scheme)..the powers-that-be

go & give the green-light do the same-same for all the rubber farmers!

Those in power not involved in the agricultural sector..please wait, your lottery-win is coming..in the form of nationwide high speed rail-links.

[bangrak]

If the junta continues to pay for the storage of rotten rice, what sense does that make? Is is just to be able to say that the costs of the rice pledging scheme continue to mount? Or is someone benefiting from being paid to store it?

Dear 'pookiki', you, brilliant mind, please tell us what to do with the rotten rice till it's disposed of, when not storing it, and pay for storage...?

Could it eventually be all delivered to your place for you to keepit until then...?

You do realise, don't you, that there would not have been any rotten rice mountain, when it would not be because of the master's crazy vote-buying (and deep pockets' filling!) policy better known as the rice scam...!

And when that's all what you have found in the hope to divert our attention from the main issue of the 'vaporizing' (well, not for everybody...) of a pack of money now said to be a fair chunck bigger than the previous estimate of 680,000,000,000 Baht, you had better remained silent, as the whole tribe of Shins' fans here 'oddly' is till now on this topic...

If you would bother to do some research on this issue, ethanol can be produced from the rotten rice. Heaven forbid that anything be done that could be useful with this stored rice as it would not properly fit your tribal values.

Funny you, 'tribal values', is it? LOL, first time I got this one... I don't know about your 'values', but let me go quite 'basic' with you.

Diversion or not, I'm in a good mood today.

The ethanol market is quite stable (small variations in quantity and price, growing slowly). For the distillation of ethanol, the raw materials used are crops, such as sugercane and corn f.i.. Ethanol producers and crop producers, ...farmers(!), mostly have long term commercial relationships with one another. Like all the rest of the economical activities, these are governed by the law of 'offer and demand'. The profit margins on both sides are also far from glorious...

Now, what you have in mind, to save more storage costs from the rotten rice, would be to throw these hundreds of thousands of tons of rotten rice on the market for ethanol production for nothing, or an extremely low price. Which would be the consequences?

Would the ethanol producers lower the sale price for their product? No! It would be the raw material producers, ...farmers(!), which would be hit in full, as the ethanol producer would reduce their purchase volume of crops, while switching to 'your' dirt cheap rotten rice as long as it lasts, and when it's gone try to keep the price of the regular crops, which will have fallen as a consequence, at that lower level.

What to do then for the crop farmers? Subsidise them for their losses and inactivity...?

[bangrak]

Then at the end of last year..(despite the multi-million baht 'losses' that have been 'creamed' out of this pledging-scheme)..the powers-that-be

go & give the green-light do the same-same for all the rubber farmers!

Those in power not involved in the agricultural sector..please wait, your lottery-win is coming..in the form of nationwide high speed rail-links.

Diversion!

[bangrak]

'NeverSure' doesn't know but says it's not a crime... And the lights went out, goodnight all! LOL

[tbthailand]

The loss figure may be used in the case against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and former Minister of Commerce Boonsong Teriyapirom.

in that case, expect the "loss" to get much, much larger....

680,000,000,000 Baht wouldn't already be more than enough to prove Yingluck's guilt in your eyes, is it...? Not any amount lost could, isn't it...?

No it wouldn't. Losses don't prove guilt. Government leaders all over the world come up with schemes that lose lots of money such as farm subsidies.

I don't now if Yingluck is guilty of a crime. The plan was sold as a way to take rice off the world market and drive the price up. That didn't happen as prices actually went way down. Down by about 1/2. Then it was announced that they would sit on the rice until the price came back up which it didn't.

There was some intermediate theft and selling of Cambodian and Laos rice to the scheme fraudulently but no one has ever told how Yingluck was involved in that. There was some selling of low grade rice at high grade prices, and some warehouses that were "hollow".

I have never seen any evidence that would be admissible in a Western court proving that Yingluck stole anything.

I'm not defending her or condemning her. I just don't know.

Thank you for the candid elements in your reaction!

As for you not knowing, imagine you have a degree from a US university, and have occupied a high position in a large company (AIS), it gives anyone all reasons to suppose you to be a mature, intelligent, responsible person, with high management skills, isn't it?

Imagine you are then offered, and accept, a political (you didn't have a clue about politics till then) career making you a MP in the next election, then you decide to accept (for your first steps in politics) to become the PM of the country, and, later, also, you choose to preside over it's (newly re-introduced) hugely important and financilly lead-heavy rice scheme.

Well then, seen like that, could you possibly imagine to claim 'not to be responsible', for the huge, mega, losses it generated, after disdainingly brushing aside all warnings, and alarm calls (cum catastrophic figures and prognoses), not only local ones, but also from highly esteemed international organisations?

Oh, I forgot: and, on the, himalayan, top of it, you decide not to be present at one, single, of the meetings of that super-important commitee, you had chosen to chair...!

When you're still not convinced, providing you're not self-imployed, imagine what could have been the consequences for yourself when my story would not be about politics in a country, but would be 'translated' to management in a top-concern, say of the same size as the whole of Thailand...?

one man's losses are another man's subsidies....

the Dems also had a rice program with huge "losses"

Edited March 8, 2016 by tbthailand

[webfact]

Panel says loss from rice pledging scheme for last year is within 100 billion baht



BANGKOK: -- Financial loss from the Yingluck government’s rice pledging scheme for last year was less than 100 billion baht and no rice has gone missing, according to the latest findings of the rice accounting panel led by finance permanent secretary Somchai Sajjapong.

Mr Somchai said Tuesday that he would report the panel’s findings to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha today in his capacity as the chairman of the Rice Policy Committee.

Although the financial loss from the rice scheme was higher last year due to depreciation of rice held in storage, low selling prices and storage fees, he said that the loss did not exceed 100 billion baht.

The panel, said Mr Somchai, would recommend the Rice Policy Committee to set up an ad hoc unit to be responsible for the management of all the information relevant to rice scheme so that the rice accounting for this year could be done quickly.

The panel also proposed the government to set aside a budget to compensate the loss from the rice scheme within four years.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/154140


-- Thai PBS 2016-03-09

[shirtless]

They created a new Hub, Thailand the hub of rotten rice

[halloween]

one man's losses are another man's subsidies....

the Dems also had a rice program with huge "losses"

Could you ballpark-figure quantify "huge"? Would they be "huge" at 10% of PTP's rice scam losses, or closer to 1%?

[pookiki]

If the junta continues to pay for the storage of rotten rice, what sense does that make? Is is just to be able to say that the costs of the rice pledging scheme continue to mount? Or is someone benefiting from being paid to store it?

Dear 'pookiki', you, brilliant mind, please tell us what to do with the rotten rice till it's disposed of, when not storing it, and pay for storage...?

Could it eventually be all delivered to your place for you to keepit until then...?

You do realise, don't you, that there would not have been any rotten rice mountain, when it would not be because of the master's crazy vote-buying (and deep pockets' filling!) policy better known as the rice scam...!

And when that's all what you have found in the hope to divert our attention from the main issue of the 'vaporizing' (well, not for everybody...) of a pack of money now said to be a fair chunck bigger than the previous estimate of 680,000,000,000 Baht, you had better remained silent, as the whole tribe of Shins' fans here 'oddly' is till now on this topic...

If you would bother to do some research on this issue, ethanol can be produced from the rotten rice. Heaven forbid that anything be done that could be useful with this stored rice as it would not properly fit your tribal values.

Funny you, 'tribal values', is it? LOL, first time I got this one... I don't know about your 'values', but let me go quite 'basic' with you.

Diversion or not, I'm in a good mood today.

The ethanol market is quite stable (small variations in quantity and price, growing slowly). For the distillation of ethanol, the raw materials used are crops, such as sugercane and corn f.i.. Ethanol producers and crop producers, ...farmers(!), mostly have long term commercial relationships with one another. Like all the rest of the economical activities, these are governed by the law of 'offer and demand'. The profit margins on both sides are also far from glorious...

Now, what you have in mind, to save more storage costs from the rotten rice, would be to throw these hundreds of thousands of tons of rotten rice on the market for ethanol production for nothing, or an extremely low price. Which would be the consequences?

Would the ethanol producers lower the sale price for their product? No! It would be the raw material producers, ...farmers(!), which would be hit in full, as the ethanol producer would reduce their purchase volume of crops, while switching to 'your' dirt cheap rotten rice as long as it lasts, and when it's gone try to keep the price of the regular crops, which will have fallen as a consequence, at that lower level.

What to do then for the crop farmers? Subsidise them for their losses and inactivity...?

I feel sorry for those people that are so myopic or transfixed with Thaksin that they can't look at the issue presented in this article. If there is nothing that can be done with the rotten rice, isn't it better to destroy it than keep paying for its storage? Who benefits from spending money on storing rotten rice?

[halloween]

I feel sorry for those people that are so myopic or transfixed with Thaksin that they can't look at the issue presented in this article. If there is nothing that can be done with the rotten rice, isn't it better to destroy it than keep paying for its storage? Who benefits from spending money on storing rotten rice?

Just at a guess, the same people who have been benefiting since Thaksin started stockpiling in 2006(?). You are correct in that there is little economic sense in paying storage fees on a low value depreciating commodity, but that was equally true when it was bought for inflated prices many years ago.

OTOH the cost of the scheme was immaterial as it bought a lot of votes, with other people's money.

[clockman]

As there is no transparency in sector. Just pick a figure.!

[pookiki]

I feel sorry for those people that are so myopic or transfixed with Thaksin that they can't look at the issue presented in this article. If there is nothing that can be done with the rotten rice, isn't it better to destroy it than keep paying for its storage? Who benefits from spending money on storing rotten rice?

Just at a guess, the same people who have been benefiting since Thaksin started stockpiling in 2006(?). You are correct in that there is little economic sense in paying storage fees on a low value depreciating commodity, but that was equally true when it was bought for inflated prices many years ago.

OTOH the cost of the scheme was immaterial as it bought a lot of votes, with other people's money.

I must note that the article is about the escalating costs of the rice-pledging scheme due to the storage of 'rotten rice'. If the same people are benefiting from the storage of the rotten rice as were under YL, then the junta has been negligent is not rectifying this problem. For argument's sake, if one assumes that the rice pledging scheme was bad policy, it makes no sense to continue the impact of a bad policy by storing rice that is worthless. Wouldn't you agree?

[halloween]

I feel sorry for those people that are so myopic or transfixed with Thaksin that they can't look at the issue presented in this article. If there is nothing that can be done with the rotten rice, isn't it better to destroy it than keep paying for its storage? Who benefits from spending money on storing rotten rice?

Just at a guess, the same people who have been benefiting since Thaksin started stockpiling in 2006(?). You are correct in that there is little economic sense in paying storage fees on a low value depreciating commodity, but that was equally true when it was bought for inflated prices many years ago.

OTOH the cost of the scheme was immaterial as it bought a lot of votes, with other people's money.

I must note that the article is about the escalating costs of the rice-pledging scheme due to the storage of 'rotten rice'. If the same people are benefiting from the storage of the rotten rice as were under YL, then the junta has been negligent is not rectifying this problem. For argument's sake, if one assumes that the rice pledging scheme was bad policy, it makes no sense to continue the impact of a bad policy by storing rice that is worthless. Wouldn't you agree?

What do you suggest as an alternative? It has already been explained there is a limited market as ethanol stock, should it be burned, dumped at sea, buried? Will the total loss thus incurred be claimed as inflating the losses of the scam as the rotten rice had some economic value?

When you hand somebody a major problem, don't act surprised when it is not solved quickly.

[pookiki]

I feel sorry for those people that are so myopic or transfixed with Thaksin that they can't look at the issue presented in this article. If there is nothing that can be done with the rotten rice, isn't it better to destroy it than keep paying for its storage? Who benefits from spending money on storing rotten rice?

Just at a guess, the same people who have been benefiting since Thaksin started stockpiling in 2006(?). You are correct in that there is little economic sense in paying storage fees on a low value depreciating commodity, but that was equally true when it was bought for inflated prices many years ago.

OTOH the cost of the scheme was immaterial as it bought a lot of votes, with other people's money.

I must note that the article is about the escalating costs of the rice-pledging scheme due to the storage of 'rotten rice'. If the same people are benefiting from the storage of the rotten rice as were under YL, then the junta has been negligent is not rectifying this problem. For argument's sake, if one assumes that the rice pledging scheme was bad policy, it makes no sense to continue the impact of a bad policy by storing rice that is worthless. Wouldn't you agree?

What do you suggest as an alternative? It has already been explained there is a limited market as ethanol stock, should it be burned, dumped at sea, buried? Will the total loss thus incurred be claimed as inflating the losses of the scam as the rotten rice had some economic value?

When you hand somebody a major problem, don't act surprised when it is not solved quickly.

If the people that are benefiting from the storage are the same as those who benefited under YL, how can you condone the continued storage of rotten rice? That's one issue. The second issue is the matter of 'diminishing returns'. One has to consider the cost of the storage of the rotten rice to date and the estimated cost of future storage until there is a 'suitable' value for the 'rotten' rice. If the figures were available, I would posit that the prudent and economic thing to do would be to destroy the rice. Whether this is added to the 'loss' of the rice pledging scheme has no bearing in considering the prudent course of action to take at this point in time. Those who can't learn lessons from mistakes made in the past are bound to repeat them.

[billd766]

We only have the government's word on this and why are they dragging their feet when it comes to selling off this rice? Are the rulers also playing the fiddle because all government institutions, both now and in the past, have walked hand in hand with corruption.

Previously we only had the PTP governments word that everything was fine and dandy, there was no corruption, no rotten or missing rice.

What was missing was the accounts and AFAIK they are still on the missing list.

So I have to ask you, if you don't believe this government, did you believe the PTP government announcements and why?

[Dap]

"They" have readjusted the numbers so many times that I have lost

all faith and their credibility continues to suffer by leaps and bounds.

[bangrak]

680,000,000,000 Baht wouldn't already be more than enough to prove Yingluck's guilt in your eyes, is it...? Not any amount lost could, isn't it...?

No it wouldn't. Losses don't prove guilt. Government leaders all over the world come up with schemes that lose lots of money such as farm subsidies.

I don't now if Yingluck is guilty of a crime. The plan was sold as a way to take rice off the world market and drive the price up. That didn't happen as prices actually went way down. Down by about 1/2. Then it was announced that they would sit on the rice until the price came back up which it didn't.

There was some intermediate theft and selling of Cambodian and Laos rice to the scheme fraudulently but no one has ever told how Yingluck was involved in that. There was some selling of low grade rice at high grade prices, and some warehouses that were "hollow".

I have never seen any evidence that would be admissible in a Western court proving that Yingluck stole anything.

I'm not defending her or condemning her. I just don't know.

Thank you for the candid elements in your reaction!

As for you not knowing, imagine you have a degree from a US university, and have occupied a high position in a large company (AIS), it gives anyone all reasons to suppose you to be a mature, intelligent, responsible person, with high management skills, isn't it?

Imagine you are then offered, and accept, a political (you didn't have a clue about politics till then) career making you a MP in the next election, then you decide to accept (for your first steps in politics) to become the PM of the country, and, later, also, you choose to preside over it's (newly re-introduced) hugely important and financilly lead-heavy rice scheme.

Well then, seen like that, could you possibly imagine to claim 'not to be responsible', for the huge, mega, losses it generated, after disdainingly brushing aside all warnings, and alarm calls (cum catastrophic figures and prognoses), not only local ones, but also from highly esteemed international organisations?

Oh, I forgot: and, on the, himalayan, top of it, you decide not to be present at one, single, of the meetings of that super-important commitee, you had chosen to chair...!

When you're still not convinced, providing you're not self-imployed, imagine what could have been the consequences for yourself when my story would not be about politics in a country, but would be 'translated' to management in a top-concern, say of the same size as the whole of Thailand...?

Nothing you mentioned would be a crime. A person who did that would be fired as CEO for being incompetent.

Nope, the CEO would be behind bars, because of emptying the company's bank accounts and contracting huge loans, all outside of the company's budgets his mandate made him responsible for, and members of the board would be in jail too for cautioning/hiding/not stopping this abuse for nearly three years, the more so all had been warned several times by local and international credible experts...

The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, etc. would thrive on such a huge story for quite a long time too... And the shareholders (here the taxpayers) would be crying their eyes out for the money they lost...