Ms Yingluck pleads for review of her civil liability over rice pledging scheme loss

[snoop1130]

Ms Yingluck pleads for review of her civil liability over rice pledging scheme loss

 

 

Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra has petitioned Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha to review the investigation process and decisions of the panels charged with determining the loss form the rice pledging scheme and the civil liability of those involved in implementing the scheme.

 

Ms Yingluck’s lawyer, Mr Noppadol Laothong, who submitted the petition to the prime minister on her behalf, claimed that the investigation process of the two panels with the ruling that Ms Yingluck should be held accountable for loss estimated at over 200 billion baht did not comply with Section 8 of the law regarding the liability of government officials for wrongful acts.

 

The rice pledging scheme is a government policy intended to help the farmers and has nothing to do with profit and loss as envisaged in normal business, said Mr Noppadol, adding that it is not right to hold Ms Yingluck accountable for the loss and to pay 35.7 billion baht in compensation to the state.

 

With Ms Yingluck’s status as a former state official, the lawyer insisted that the law on accountability for wrongful acts of state officials could not be applied with her and, hence, the entire investigation process is illegal.

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-09-28

[chainarong]

Now I don't care whether you like or don't like former PM Yingluck , this would have to be the biggest load of codswallop ever introduced , on one hand you have people who at the time consider that something is worthwhile trying , on the other hand if you are wrong you must pay out of your own pocket , not a great incentive to become a member of the Thai parliament , no wonder it can't attract good people, this will set a precedent, the main crux of this rice scheme, there was no risk assessment nor checks and balances, the way business is conducted by Thai administrations, it needs a complete overhaul, this is akin to asking the previous Presidents of the US who were involved in the Vietnam war to repay the costs because they never won , with these rules , one would need to be careful,  as what goes around may come around. ....................................................................

[trogers]

And now you are asking for civil liability when you yourself declared in Parliament, in front of the whole country, as Prime Minister, you are to take sole responsibility.

[Sarathi]

At roughly ONE BILLION dollars, this must be the biggest personal fine in history, by a long mark. 

I googled about and can't find anything like it. British Petroleum (BP) was fined 4 billion for spilling oil into the ocean. 

GlaxoSmithKline was fined 3b for marketing drugs and hiding research about them. 

Thailand is now the Hub of fines.

[jamesbrock]

Only a banana republic would even contemplate seizing the personal assets of an ex-official as compensation for losses incurred on a public project.

 

I have worked on several large projects, and never has the lead PM been made to personally pay for cost overruns - even though he is ultimately personally responsible. The very thought is ludicrous.

[performance]

Yes this regime PM included is illegal and also breaking every law known. In fact any former official is not responsible individually at any point. That's politics.

Prayut the old chestnut gave himself a ticket to take and prosper.  What a leader funny stuff 

[monkey4u]

14 hours ago, Sarathi said:

At roughly ONE BILLION dollars, this must be the biggest personal fine in history, by a long mark. 

I googled about and can't find anything like it. British Petroleum (BP) was fined 4 billion for spilling oil into the ocean. 

GlaxoSmithKline was fined 3b for marketing drugs and hiding research about them. 

Thailand is now the Hub of fines.

This is to cover some of big bro's fines also

[Lupatria]

I start wondering if she is Thai. She did not run the scene and did not claim she was drunk when it happened...

[Sharp]

Holding the  people involved personally liable financially or other even a custodial penalty seems correct to me (All parties be it red, yellow or other! 

[jamesbrock]

11 minutes ago, Sharp said:

Holding the  people involved personally liable financially or other even a custodial penalty seems correct to me (All parties be it red, yellow or other! 

 

Yes, it is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start!

 

As Atiya Achakulwisut wrote in an unnamed editorial a few days ago, no one can deny that the rice-pledging scheme was ill-conceived and recklessly implemented. As far as public policy goes, it was an outright disaster. But what this junta fails to realise is that the rice-pledging policy was, quite literally, a farm subsidy - and all subsidies by their very definition as a form of public investment run at a loss. The country has spent billions on subsidies, development schemes, and other social welfare policies for decades—all countries do—and the overwhelming majority of public investment projects in Thailand lose money to corruption. So why is only Yingluck being held personally accountable?

 

Public investment projects need not be profitable as losses to, or spending by, the state are gains for the economy as a whole. While I agree that it is reasonable to pursue cases against Yingluck and others involved for alleged corruption or dereliction of duty regarding the scheme, trying to seize her personal assets to pay for alleged losses is simply ridiculous.

 

Even DPM Wissanu is on record as stating that "the guilt wasn't caused by corruption, but by dereliction of duty."

 

The policy was announced and approved by parliament. She undertook it in her capacity as prime minister so she should take responsibility for it politically, not as a private citizen. If they succeed in forcing Yingluck to personally pay for state losses for an unprofitable policy, what of other losses caused by dereliction of duty? The Bangkok Mass Transit Authority and State Railway of Thailand continue to amass losses of hundreds of billion baht. Who personally reimburses the state for those?

 

Will Prayut compensate the state out of his own pocket if the junta's high-speed train projects fail? How about the billions of baht that have been spent failing to bring peace to the far South? Have those policies become failures yet? Who should take personal responsibility for these losses?

 

The whole issue is so obviously a witch hunt.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Please don't take all the money me and my brother stole from the country.

[williamgeorgeallen]

fines should be issued for

1 - not granting herself an amnesty for the scheme while she was in power.

2 - not moving he assets out of thailand when she had the chance. (if she has not already)

3 - for not getting the hell out of thailand while she had the chance.

Edited September 29, 2016 by williamgeorgeallen

[elgordo38]

The time has long past for you to do a cut and run which would have been your best option. You chose to stay and face the music so quit crying. You knew the enemy was lying in wait yet you still chose to walk into their trap. They are having a field day at your expense. Thainess.

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by elgordo38

[Grubster]

3 hours ago, Sharp said:

Holding the  people involved personally liable financially or other even a custodial penalty seems correct to me (All parties be it red, yellow or other! 

When you were working were you held personally liable for any mistake you might have made. I don't think so other than the fact you may get fired as she did.

[Baerboxer]

20 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

Only a banana republic would even contemplate seizing the personal assets of an ex-official as compensation for losses incurred on a public project.

 

I have worked on several large projects, and never has the lead PM been made to personally pay for cost overruns - even though he is ultimately personally responsible. The very thought is ludicrous.

 

Had it been a public project, budgeted as a subsidy, and not deliberately kept off the books and presented as a self financing scheme then you would have a point. Had she tried hard to manage the scheme, diligently chaired the meetings she appointed herself too instead of never attending, diligently investigated all the warnings of corruptions and scams in the scheme; not lied about G2G deals, or vowed to pay farmers and then ignored them, and actually presented real management accounts then you would have a point.

 

Only a banana republic would allow a fugitive criminal to own a political party, install his totally inexperienced sister as PM with numerous relatives and cronies put into key positions and then implement such a scheme and do nothing to stop the obvious rampant corruption that became more and more apparent.

 

Let crooks get in a position to thieve - then don't be surprised they do.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

When you were working were you held personally liable for any mistake you might have made. I don't think so other than the fact you may get fired as she did.

 

True. But if I acted negligently and lied I might well be sued as well as being fired.

[Grubster]

26 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

True. But if I acted negligently and lied I might well be sued as well as being fired.

Not knowing that others under you are corrupt would not fit the negligence required for that.

[jamesbrock]

40 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Had it been a public project, budgeted as a subsidy, and not deliberately kept off the books and presented as a self financing scheme then you would have a point. Had she tried hard to manage the scheme, diligently chaired the meetings she appointed herself too instead of never attending, diligently investigated all the warnings of corruptions and scams in the scheme; not lied about G2G deals, or vowed to pay farmers and then ignored them, and actually presented real management accounts then you would have a point.

 

Only a banana republic would allow a fugitive criminal to own a political party, install his totally inexperienced sister as PM with numerous relatives and cronies put into key positions and then implement such a scheme and do nothing to stop the obvious rampant corruption that became more and more apparent.

 

Let crooks get in a position to thieve - then don't be surprised they do.

 

So we agree it's a banana republic. 

[JAG]

4 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

fines should be issued for

1 - not granting herself an amnesty for the scheme while she was in power.

2 - not moving he assets out of thailand when she had the chance. (if she has not already)

3 - for not getting the hell out of thailand while she had the chance.

Ever wondered why she stays?

 

Who is the alternative to the Junta when the people eventually have had enough?

 

It's called playing the long game.

 

Political novice she may be, but I think she is cleverer and more ambitious  than many realise.

 

I doubt she is really bothered about the money, that is taken care of. I doubt whether she is that bothered about being sent to prison, if anything that would be in her favourite. 

 

Must drive the little general mad!

 

[jamesbrock]

7 minutes ago, JAG said:

Ever wondered why she stays?

 

Who is the alternative to the Junta when the people eventually have had enough?

 

It's called playing the long game.

 

Political novice she may be, but I think she is cleverer and more ambitious  than many realise.

 

I doubt she is really bothered about the money, that is taken care of. I doubt whether she is that bothered about being sent to prison, if anything that would be in her favourite. 

 

Must drive the little general mad!

 

I often wonder just how hard they would try if they did decide to take her in. I mean the money laundering monk had a few "followers," and that case has faded into oblivion - how many "followers would" YL have when it came to the crunch? And would the authorities just meekly back away? Would she compliantly surrender herself?

[Squeegee]

11 minutes ago, JAG said:

Ever wondered why she stays?

 

Who is the alternative to the Junta when the people eventually have had enough?

 

It's called playing the long game.

 

Political novice she may be, but I think she is cleverer and more ambitious  than many realise.

 

I doubt she is really bothered about the money, that is taken care of. I doubt whether she is that bothered about being sent to prison, if anything that would be in her favourite. 

 

Must drive the little general mad!

 

 

Exactly how she dealt with Suthep's mob. That's why it fizzled out and forced the hand of their military buddies. She remains smarter than her political adversaries.

[williamgeorgeallen]

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

Ever wondered why she stays?

 

Who is the alternative to the Junta when the people eventually have had enough?

 

It's called playing the long game.

 

Political novice she may be, but I think she is cleverer and more ambitious  than many realise.

 

I doubt she is really bothered about the money, that is taken care of. I doubt whether she is that bothered about being sent to prison, if anything that would be in her favourite. 

 

Must drive the little general mad!

 

well she is still very popular and i would say it is her brothers political ambitions more than her own. the army must get frustrated when she goes overseas and actually return. will be interesting to see what the armies next move against her is.  

[Sharp]

3 hours ago, Grubster said:

When you were working were you held personally liable for any mistake you might have made. I don't think so other than the fact you may get fired as she did.

Actually I was they were my Companies so YES I was liable Financially...and come on 'MISTAKE '... That's being polite my friend.... 

[Grubster]

38 minutes ago, Sharp said:

Actually I was they were my Companies so YES I was liable Financially...and come on 'MISTAKE '... That's being polite my friend.... 

You must know more than I do, from what I have seen she has not been implicated in stealing any rice or money from rice to date. Have I missed something? Farm subsidies have never been a crime in the west that I know of.

[Grubster]

45 minutes ago, Sharp said:

Actually I was they were my Companies so YES I was liable Financially...and come on 'MISTAKE '... That's being polite my friend.... 

And no you could not have been convicted of a crime that one of your employees committed, unless they proved you knew about it and did nothing about it.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

Maybe it should come with the usual small print warning:

Reviews can increase as well as decrease figures.

I bet she wouldn't be so keen then, they might include her Cayman Islands and Swiss accounts...

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Grubster said:

You must know more than I do, from what I have seen she has not been implicated in stealing any rice or money from rice to date. Have I missed something? Farm subsidies have never been a crime in the west that I know of.

 

Farm subsidies certainly not a crime. Only this wasn't a subsidy. It wasn't part of the government budget. Accounts have never been presented.

It was touted as a self financing scheme - only it lost a vast amount of money of which no one is really sure how much or where it went. The self appointed chair never bothered attending any meetings, ignored external warnings and removed, threatened and intimidated internal ones. I don't think anything like that happened in the West.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

Ever wondered why she stays?

 

Who is the alternative to the Junta when the people eventually have had enough?

 

It's called playing the long game.

 

Political novice she may be, but I think she is cleverer and more ambitious  than many realise.

 

I doubt she is really bothered about the money, that is taken care of. I doubt whether she is that bothered about being sent to prison, if anything that would be in her favourite. 

 

Must drive the little general mad!

 

 

Gordon Bennett! You really believe that. 

 

She must be a very accomplished actress indeed. All that smiling, frowning or crying as brother commands. And all that acting dumb, ludicrous unintelligible TV interviews and conference presentations, and inability to debate in parliament - all an act and she's really as sharp as a razor, ambitious and just waiting her opportunity. 

If you say so. 

[Baerboxer]

11 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

Yes, it is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start!

 

As Atiya Achakulwisut wrote in an unnamed editorial a few days ago, no one can deny that the rice-pledging scheme was ill-conceived and recklessly implemented. As far as public policy goes, it was an outright disaster. But what this junta fails to realise is that the rice-pledging policy was, quite literally, a farm subsidy - and all subsidies by their very definition as a form of public investment run at a loss. The country has spent billions on subsidies, development schemes, and other social welfare policies for decades—all countries do—and the overwhelming majority of public investment projects in Thailand lose money to corruption. So why is only Yingluck being held personally accountable?

 

Public investment projects need not be profitable as losses to, or spending by, the state are gains for the economy as a whole. While I agree that it is reasonable to pursue cases against Yingluck and others involved for alleged corruption or dereliction of duty regarding the scheme, trying to seize her personal assets to pay for alleged losses is simply ridiculous.

 

Even DPM Wissanu is on record as stating that "the guilt wasn't caused by corruption, but by dereliction of duty."

 

The policy was announced and approved by parliament. She undertook it in her capacity as prime minister so she should take responsibility for it politically, not as a private citizen. If they succeed in forcing Yingluck to personally pay for state losses for an unprofitable policy, what of other losses caused by dereliction of duty? The Bangkok Mass Transit Authority and State Railway of Thailand continue to amass losses of hundreds of billion baht. Who personally reimburses the state for those?

 

Will Prayut compensate the state out of his own pocket if the junta's high-speed train projects fail? How about the billions of baht that have been spent failing to bring peace to the far South? Have those policies become failures yet? Who should take personal responsibility for these losses?

 

The whole issue is so obviously a witch hunt.

 

A witch hunt is where people are randomly unjustly accused of something. She appointed herself chair of this scheme which her brother and his government touted as self financing and insisted it was not a subsidy included in the budget and subject to parliament's scrutiny. 

 

As Chair did she attend any meetings?

Did she act on the warnings from the World Bank, Bloomberg or IMF?

Did she act positively on warnings from internal people?

Did she ensure allegations of corruption and fraud in the scheme were thoroughly investigated and that procedures were robust?

Did she ensure management accounts were produced?

Did she lie about G2G deals which she allegedly negotiated?

Did she lie to farmers when vowing to pay them "next week"?

Did she say she and she alone was in charge?

 

Now ask yourself why?  Her brother thought he could wangle his Amnesty and cover her as well, get back free and active and get his hands on the 2.2 trillion baht loan. Then all of this could have been swept under the carpet and plenty of dosh to make sure the family stayed in power for generations. All came unstuck because he misjudged the Thai peoples reaction to his crude whitewash attempt.

[Grubster]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Farm subsidies certainly not a crime. Only this wasn't a subsidy. It wasn't part of the government budget. Accounts have never been presented.

It was touted as a self financing scheme - only it lost a vast amount of money of which no one is really sure how much or where it went. The self appointed chair never bothered attending any meetings, ignored external warnings and removed, threatened and intimidated internal ones. I don't think anything like that happened in the West.

Maybe not but I do know that Argentina sued the US for paying subsidies to cotton farmers giving US cotton farmers an advantage in world sales, So now the US also subsidizes Argentina's cotton farmers, Man are we smart. The US also subsidizes corn big time, and they force you to use 15% ethanol in your gas as it is made at a cost of $10 per gallon from corn. Ethanol is not good for your engine. I can tell you where a lot of the money from the scheme went, into the pockets of the poor farmers up here in the jungle where I live, and they have been starving ever since.