Rice scheme was worthy, well-planned, Kittiratt says

By The Nation

FORMER MINISTER TELLS COURT THERE WAS NO MISMANAGEMENT BY YINGLUCK

 

FORMER Finance minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong has strongly defended former premier Yingluck Shinawatra’s implementation of the controversial rice-pledging scheme before the Supreme Court’s criminal division for holders of political office.

 

Kittiratt told the court the scheme was well-planned in terms of its economic worthiness and there was no fiscal mismanagement as alleged by the public |prosecutors.

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30305643

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-02-04

 

So it was good procedure to import a lot of rice from neighbouring countries? And have hollow piles of ricebags in the warehouses? And to not pay the farmers in time? And who cares about the missing ricebags in the warehouses?

Rice scheme was worthy, well-planned, Kittiratt says

There may be some that disagree.

Is this another one of Kittiratt's "white lies" LOL

36 minutes ago, Thian said:

So it was good procedure to import a lot of rice from neighbouring countries? And have hollow piles of ricebags in the warehouses? And to not pay the farmers in time? And who cares about the missing ricebags in the warehouses?

I guess what Kittirat meant by "economic worthiness" was that the rice scheme was "economically worthy" for quite a lot of people - just not the ones who should've reaped the benefits.

 

Kittirat has disseminated "white lies" before. As they say: Once a liar, always a liar. 

Every economist I've spoken to says it was a terrible idea. I take their word over K's, because they have no links to Thailand and don't lean either way politically.

Rephrasing Clausewitz, plans rarely survive the first contact with the opposition.

Rice scheme was worthy, well-planned, Kittiratt says

 

History has shown that this is true.

 

Not?

Edited February 4, 20179 yr by sweatalot

"He would say that, wouldn't he"

<  Kittiratt told the court the scheme was well-planned in terms of its economic worthiness ... > 

 

Sure it was, with that really minor glitch that it did't work out from A to Z ...

 

Another oxygen-thief, plain and simple.

Thanks for publishing this item TV. 

 

Its going to keep me me laughing all weekend. 

 

 

who stole the cookie from the cookie jar ?

 

being caught sometimes is a bitch.

 

It would appear focus is directed to one warehouse with a hollow pile? One prosecution for importing rice into the scheme? One allegedly fake govt to govt deal?

 

Not the millions of farmers who gained real benefit from the higher margins, not the associated workforce that made money as farmers improved the quality of their dwellings, not the other associated industries and the economy which also benefitted from farmers having more spending power.

 

Although the scheme cannot be described as a self financing success, as a subsidy, there was real benefit to the economy.

He should be done for perjury,lying to the court in such 

a blatant manner, well planned,yes to syphon funds to 

the rice millers,those in power,that's why it was a complete

cock up and lost so much money for the Thai taxpayer.

someone needs to be punished for this,in the hope that in

the future Politicians will think twice before robbing the 

public again .

regards Worgeordie

Who Owns those rice mills then? answer that and you will have the scammers, many are connected to one source

When I see this great man I hear ancient music

.

1 hour ago, 473geo said:

It would appear focus is directed to one warehouse with a hollow pile? One prosecution for importing rice into the scheme? One allegedly fake govt to govt deal?

 

Not the millions of farmers who gained real benefit from the higher margins, not the associated workforce that made money as farmers improved the quality of their dwellings, not the other associated industries and the economy which also benefitted from farmers having more spending power.

 

Although the scheme cannot be described as a self financing success, as a subsidy, there was real benefit to the economy.

It was a catastrophic failure. 

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It was a catastrophic failure. 

Was a success if the fact that the government did not recover it's outlay is set aside

So if it was well planned, and failed so badly, then it must have been the execution and management of the plan at fault.

2 minutes ago, gabruce said:

So if it was well planned, and failed so badly, then it must have been the execution and management of the plan at fault.

You need to read up more on the external influences

 

12 minutes ago, 473geo said:

Was a success if the fact that the government did not recover it's outlay is set aside

Buying at a loss?

 

Failing to pay the farmers for their rice after taking it away?

 

Allowing a lot of it to rot because there was nowhere to store it?

 

Complete failure.

 

Except of course it did get the puppet elected and gave her a chance to enforce PT's number one policy goal - give thaksin whatever he wants...

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Buying at a loss?

 

Failing to pay the farmers for their rice after taking it away?

 

Allowing a lot of it to rot because there was nowhere to store it?

 

Complete failure.

 

Except of course it did get the puppet elected and gave her a chance to enforce PT's number one policy goal - give thaksin whatever he wants...

1) you need to understand the mechanism of the BAAC buying rice

2) you need to be honest with yourself about the timing and reasons for non payment

3) You are concentrating only at the down side and totally ignoring the upside

 

 Conclusion you are presenting a totally unbalanced view

Edited February 4, 20179 yr by 473geo
spelling

Just now, 473geo said:

1) you need to understand the mechanism of the BAAC buying rice

2) you need to be honest with yourself about the timing and reason s for non payment

3) You are concentrating only at the down side and totally ignoring the upside

 

 Conclusion you are presenting a totally unbalanced view

Nah, just the truth...

10 minutes ago, 473geo said:

1) you need to understand the mechanism of the BAAC buying rice

2) you need to be honest with yourself about the timing and reasons for non payment

3) You are concentrating only at the down side and totally ignoring the upside

 

 Conclusion you are presenting a totally unbalanced view

Item #3

I and many others have searched for an upside for Thailand, but we can't find one.

But it did make many people very rich. Unfortunately none of them were individual rice farmers

2 minutes ago, Gunna said:

Item #3

I and many others have searched for an upside for Thailand, but we can't find one.

But it did make many people very rich. Unfortunately none of them were individual rice farmers

Well how strange is that, because I saw with my own eyes the benefit to the rice farmers in my area

 

How come you guys didn't experience this?

2 hours ago, 473geo said:

It would appear focus is directed to one warehouse with a hollow pile? One prosecution for importing rice into the scheme? One allegedly fake govt to govt deal?

 

Not the millions of farmers who gained real benefit from the higher margins, not the associated workforce that made money as farmers improved the quality of their dwellings, not the other associated industries and the economy which also benefitted from farmers having more spending power.

 

Although the scheme cannot be described as a self financing success, as a subsidy, there was real benefit to the economy.

So you believe the self admitted white lies teller?

 

Fair enough, that's your judgement. Perhaps he will release the detailed financial and management accounts for the scheme that so far have been kept ultra secret. Then everyone would no. Like who benefited from the transport contracts, warehouse contracts, etc - all the "costs" of the scheme should be transparent if, has he claims, the fiscal management was prudent.

1 hour ago, 473geo said:

Was a success if the fact that the government did not recover it's outlay is set aside

 

Surely, you'd only know that if you knew how much money it cost the taxpayer, and where that money went to? 

 

Do you know?

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Surely, you'd only know that if you knew how much money it cost the taxpayer, and where that money went to? 

 

Do you know?

Well let us start with the circa 25 baht a kg for Jasmine paid by the BAAC direct to the rice farmers

 

You guys can't even grasp the simple mechanics of these transactions - when you can, you have a starting point - but of course it totally undermines the rather ridiculous statements that the producers did not benefit!!

43 minutes ago, 473geo said:

1) you need to understand the mechanism of the BAAC buying rice

2) you need to be honest with yourself about the timing and reasons for non payment

3) You are concentrating only at the down side and totally ignoring the upside

 

 Conclusion you are presenting a totally unbalanced view

ref your point 2):

 

PTP got into cash flow difficulties some 2-3 months before the Amnesty Bill fiasco cause mass protests. Yingluck, having promised never to dissolve parliament, then did exactly that. PTP hadn't bothered to ensure they had secured additional loans to meet their obligations under the rice scheme payments due before dissolving parliament and then discovered that caretaker governments cannot do that. 

Of course they preferred to say the banks and protesters all ganged up against them - only that doesn't explain why the were defaulting several months earlier; or why they needed more loans when Yingluck and the gentleman assured they didn't a few week before they tried; or why they didn't secure the loans before dissolving parliament.

 

Their real plan was to obtain the 2.2 trillion ThB off budget loan and use some of that. When that was blocked they were in stuck.

 

 

Just now, 473geo said:

Well let us start with the circa 25 baht a kg for Jasmine paid by the BAAC direct to the rice farmers

 

You guys can't even grasp the simple mechanics of these transactions - when you can, you have a starting point - but of course it totally undermines the rather ridiculous statements that the producers did not benefit!!

 

So clever cloggs, let's see your detailed guess at what the profit and loss and balance sheet of the scheme looks like then?

 

Next you'll be claiming as Yingluck once did that it was a social scheme. She forgot about the self financing bit. But there again, as she never bothered actually attending the meetings she appointed herself to chair, that's hardly surprising. 

 

You can't seem to grasp the fact that they are known, self admitting liars who have produced absolutely no figures to explain anything.