Trial of Thailand's Yingluck fails to break Shinawatra machine

[Ricardo]

30 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

Just ask him post just one link somebody say rice off budget.

 

why not have any link!!!

 

 

 

If the rice-scheme was on-budget as you say, why did the government ever need to fund the scheme by borrowing B260-billion from BAAC, as shown by Smarter Than You already in post#22, why did they not just deposit the waiting funds into a BAAC-account from the Ministry of Finance ?

 

I think the point is, that the government hoped/believed that the scheme would be self-funding, so that it wouldn't need to be budgeted-for.  They would only ever need to guarantee the loan by the wholly-government-owned BAAC, which would eventually be fully-repaid (with or without other costs as has already been debated) at the end of the scheme.

 

Hence no budget was proposed, because no budget was necessary, because this was not ever supposed to be a subsidy.  It was a self-financing price-support scheme, up until it all went wrong.

 

Do you follow the logic of that ?  Maybe we accountants find it easier to think this way, it's normal for us.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Ricardo

[Pridilives]

2 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

 

If the rice-scheme was on-budget as you say, why did the government ever need to fund the scheme by borrowing B260-billion from BAAC, as shown by Smarter Than You already in post#22, why did they not just deposit the waiting funds into a BAAC-account from the Ministry of Finance ?

 

I think the point is, that the government hoped/believed that the scheme would be self-funding, so that it wouldn't need to be budgeted-for.  They would only ever need to guarantee the loan by the wholly-government-owned BAAC, which would eventually be fully-repaid (with or without other costs as has already been debated) at the end of the scheme.

 

Hence no budget was proposed, because no budget was necessary, because this was not ever supposed to be a subsidy.  It was a self-financing price-support scheme, up until it all went wrong.

 

Do you follow the logic of that ?  Maybe we accountants find it easier to think this way, it's normal for us.

You still not have link. funny funny stuff.

 

 

maybe we accountants just not good

[Ricardo]

 

No need to be offensive, is there ?

 

A source would be appreciated, please.

 

What you've just posted suggests that there is a loss expected, of  "up to Bt150 billion per year from 2013 onwards", as at 14th December 2012.

 

It also says  "Cost Bt376 billion in 2012",  I would take that as the amount disbursed up to that point, not necessarily a confirmed loss.

 

And if it were a confirmed-loss, on a scheme supposed to be self-financing, them the alarm-bells should have been ringing, little more than a year into the scheme.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Ricardo

[chainarong]

The people of Thailand can go and elect whoever they want, that's  if they had the chance , mind the junta has achieved SFA like the last coup , nothing has changed,  like China the supporters play close to their chest and  now gong underground , this is now a worry for the Junta., frankly Prayut has blown it big time  .............................................

[Artisi]

39 minutes ago, Becker said:

What's patently clear is that coup after coup after coup has not done anything at all for Thailand except change the faces at the trough. Time for the Generals to return to the golf courses and give civilian rule a chance.

A fair comment but whether it has or hadn't done anything for Thailand is really an unknown. All the coups may have improved things and them maybe they haven't -  something that cannot be quantified, the only thing that doesn't seem to have  changed is the trough. 

[YetAnother]

10 minutes ago, chainarong said:

The people of Thailand can go and elect whoever they want, that's  if they had the chance , mind the junta has achieved SFA like the last coup , nothing has changed,  like China the supporters play close to their chest and  now gong underground , this is now a worry for the Junta., frankly Prayut has blown it big time  .............................................

The shin Clan is a serpent head on top of true Grievances,

you can replace the head but the Grievances don't go away and the head grows back,

We will just have a new name to call it in the future

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, Artisi said:

A fair comment but whether it has or hadn't done anything for Thailand is really an unknown. All the coups may have improved things and them maybe they haven't -  something that cannot be quantified, the only thing that doesn't seem to have  changed is the trough. 

All empirical studies have shown that coups are disastrous to the economy, political stability, human right abuses and corruption. I praise you for staying local to the junta. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Why need to hide the 100B when the government can use many means to source for the funds. The government can draw from the reserve budget or trim other allocations to obtain funding. They can also borrow up to 3.5% as stipulated in the budget proposal or more if necessary to the debt to GDP legal ceiling. We don't know and neither do you. 

Eric, you lost your credibility on this topic... whatever your qualifications are they clearly are not accounting / finance related. At first you could not even find the specification of amount and now your talking about loans while budgets are about costs not liquidity.  You are trying to act like you know but you don't have a clue.

 

There are rules and obvious places where the amount should be mentioned, i checked and its not there 100 billion is an amount that would not be hidden away somewhere it would be visibly. If you take the figures of 2011 and compare its even more clear its nowhere to be seen.

 

I have years of experience and an education in this field.. you have nothing in this field as you have proven with your remarks. It is clear that they have not put the 100 billion in the budget and unless you can find it its a fact that they kept it off books. 

 

I don't know where your qualifications are im sure your good at whatever you do but finance and accounting are not your thing, give it a rest or find someone on your side to explain it to you that does have an education in the field. 

[Samui Bodoh]

12 minutes ago, Artisi said:

A fair comment but whether it has or hadn't done anything for Thailand is really an unknown. All the coups may have improved things and them maybe they haven't -  something that cannot be quantified, the only thing that doesn't seem to have  changed is the trough. 

 

What utter nonsense!

 

What the series of coups have done is install a political culture of "winner take all/ do whatever you want" and "destroy the opposition", a situation which haunts Thai politics to this day.

 

Thaksin and the current general are simply children of the political culture.

 

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Eric, you lost your credibility on this topic... whatever your qualifications are they clearly are not accounting / finance related. At first you could not even find the specification of amount and now your talking about loans while budgets are about costs not liquidity.  You are trying to act like you know but you don't have a clue.

 

There are rules and obvious places where the amount should be mentioned, i checked and its not there 100 billion is an amount that would not be hidden away somewhere it would be visibly. If you take the figures of 2011 and compare its even more clear its nowhere to be seen.

 

I have years of experience and an education in this field.. you have nothing in this field as you have proven with your remarks. It is clear that they have not put the 100 billion in the budget and unless you can find it its a fact that they kept it off books. 

 

I don't know where your qualifications are im sure your good at whatever you do but finance and accounting are not your thing, give it a rest or find someone on your side to explain it to you that does have an education in the field. 

So you really has got nothing to support but just semantic. And those unnecessary insults. You are losing it and becoming too emotional. Button up and take a rest.  

[Pridilives]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

You should not engage with that guy, its not worth it I just ignore him its much easier. He pretends not to be able to speak English but I know better. 

look here - world bank call Water resource management OFF BUDGET but not call paddy pledging off budget!

 

Public debt19 is estimated to be close to 50 percent of GDP in 2013. Much of the Government’s planned borrowing for FY2013 will be used to finance the off-budget water resource management projects under the Emergency Decree on Water Resource Management, as well as the Government’s other major policy programs. The former could amount up to Bt330 billion or around 2.8 percent of GDP20. Borrowing will also be used to finance the Government’s major policy programs which are estimated to cost around 2.4 percent of GDP in 2013, down from 5.5 percent in 2012. Given these commitments, public debt is estimated to rise to close to 50 percent of GDP from around 45 percent in end-2012. While this rise in debt level needs to be managed prudently, it is not excessive. Moreover, the structure of public debt in Thailand is such that over 90 percent comprise domestic and long term debt. However, because many of the programs, such as the paddy pledging scheme, are financed through the government’s specialized financial institutions ....

[LannaGuy]

Just now, Pridilives said:

look here - world bank call Water resource management OFF BUDGET but not call paddy pledging off budget!

 

Public debt19 is estimated to be close to 50 percent of GDP in 2013. Much of the Government’s planned borrowing for FY2013 will be used to finance the off-budget water resource management projects under the Emergency Decree on Water Resource Management, as well as the Government’s other major policy programs. The former could amount up to Bt330 billion or around 2.8 percent of GDP20. Borrowing will also be used to finance the Government’s major policy programs which are estimated to cost around 2.4 percent of GDP in 2013, down from 5.5 percent in 2012. Given these commitments, public debt is estimated to rise to close to 50 percent of GDP from around 45 percent in end-2012. While this rise in debt level needs to be managed prudently, it is not excessive. Moreover, the structure of public debt in Thailand is such that over 90 percent comprise domestic and long term debt. However, because many of the programs, such as the paddy pledging scheme, are financed through the government’s specialized financial institutions ....

Whatever... she doesn't deserve to be persecuted for policies when she was democratically elected!   and THAT is the founding principal globally - she has committed NO crime

 

this is NOT about rice

[robblok]

16 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

So you really has got nothing to support but just semantic. And those unnecessary insults. You are losing it and becoming too emotional. Button up and take a rest.  

No not emotional, if amateurs who can't even read the basic reports act like they know something and defy logic I get a bit testy. You should accept you can't even reports like this.  You have no credibility here. You act like you know but you don't. I proven beyond doubt that in the 2012 budget there was NO reservation for the rice program. You just can't accept it. If you look at the 2013 and 2014 budget you see an increase in the agricultural budget from around 100 billion (still not the 150 billion mentioned in the Pridillives link). But there was certainly nothing in the 2012 budget. 

 

Its a shame that you still pretend you know something or can do something when you can't and clearly did not take the time to study these things as I have. That is something that ticks me off an amateur pretending to know and spewing hot air but not coming up with any result where it is in the budget. You really did lose a lot of credibility here you don't even know the difference between costs and liquidity as you demonstrated by mentioning loans. 

[Artisi]

26 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

What utter nonsense!

 

What the series of coups have done is install a political culture of "winner take all/ do whatever you want" and "destroy the opposition", a situation which haunts Thai politics to this day.

 

Thaksin and the current general are simply children of the political culture.

 

Well it seems with any elected government in place, it's winner take all and do what ever you want -  so what is your point? 

[Ricardo]

I don't mean to amuse you,  "More funny" as you put it.

 

The best source would of course be accurate audited figures for the scheme, I've never seen any, certainly the government refused ever to produce any when asked in Parliament, and the junta have failed to produce a final-accounting for the scheme since then, perhaps they are still (even now ?) unable to, because they haven't yet succeeded in selling all the rotten-rice off ?

 

I ask (politely) again, you have quoted some sort of document, government-source or political-statement or whatever is unclear without your  (please once again)  quoting the source, which you seem reluctant to do, why not ?  I don't think it's made-up, I wish to clearly say that, but it would be helpful to know its provenance in order to judge its value.

 

I would also point out that the news-media in Thailand are restricted, in what they can report, as indeed we are ourselves on ThaiVisa.

 

I strongly deny your implication above that I have deliberately said  "something not true about Thai",  or that I am  "somebody talk more make not real claim".  If indeed that was directed at me ? 

 

If you believe that a poster is deliberately lying, or being generally insulting towards Thais, then you should please use the 'Report-button', as both those things are against forum-rules, the mods will take care of it.

 

If you believe that something has been said is inaccurate, then please feel free to post what you believe to be the correct information and a link, that interesting listing in #92 would make a good start.

 

In post #91, you attribute a chunk of text to  "world bank", but with no link, or further details.  

 

 It contains the interesting sentence  "Much of the Government’s planned borrowing for FY2013 will be used to finance the off-budget water resource management projects under the Emergency Decree on Water Resource Management, as well as the Government's other major policy programs."

 

If the phrase  "Government's other major policy programs"  includes the rice-scheme, which I don't know and cannot at present judge, then that sentence would perhaps suggest that the rice-scheme for other years than FY2013 might also have been off-budget too, wouldn't it ?

[Pridilives]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

No not emotional, if amateurs who can't even read the basic reports act like they know something and defy logic I get a bit testy. You should accept you can't even reports like this.  You have no credibility here. You act like you know but you don't. I proven beyond doubt that in the 2012 budget there was NO reservation for the rice program. You just can't accept it. If you look at the 2013 and 2014 budget you see an increase in the agricultural budget from around 100 billion (still not the 150 billion mentioned in the Pridillives link). But there was certainly nothing in the 2012 budget. 

 

Its a shame that you still pretend you know something or can do something when you can't and clearly did not take the time to study these things as I have. That is something that ticks me off an amateur pretending to know and spewing hot air but not coming up with any result where it is in the budget. You really did lose a lot of credibility here you don't even know the difference between costs and liquidity as you demonstrated by mentioning loans. 

Still no link!

 

why nobody in the world say off budget! Just you.

 

how you can talk credibility how you can talk amateur if no link you be both not credibility and is amateur lik you call mr Eric loh

 

link link link

[Pridilives]

3 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

I don't mean to amuse you,  "More funny" as you put it.

 

The best source would of course be accurate audited figures for the scheme, I've never seen any, certainly the government refused ever to produce any when asked in Parliament, and the junta have failed to produce a final-accounting for the scheme since then, perhaps they are still (even now ?) unable to, because they haven't yet succeeded in selling all the rotten-rice off ?

 

I ask (politely) again, you have quoted some sort of document, government-source or political-statement or whatever is unclear without your  (please once again)  quoting the source, which you seem reluctant to do, why not ?  I don't think it's made-up, I wish to clearly say that, but it would be helpful to know its provenance in order to judge its value.

 

I would also point out that the news-media in Thailand are restricted, in what they can report, as indeed we are ourselves on ThaiVisa.

 

I strongly deny your implication above that I have deliberately said  "something not true about Thai",  or that I am  "somebody talk more make not real claim".  If indeed that was directed at me ? 

 

If you believe that a poster is deliberately lying, or being generally insulting towards Thais, then you should please use the 'Report-button', as both those things are against forum-rules, the mods will take care of it.

 

If you believe that something has been said is inaccurate, then please feel free to post what you believe to be the correct information and a link, that interesting listing in #92 would make a good start.

 

In post #91, you attribute a chunk of text to  "world bank", but with no link, or further details.  

 

 It contains the interesting sentence  "Much of the Government’s planned borrowing for FY2013 will be used to finance the off-budget water resource management projects under the Emergency Decree on Water Resource Management, as well as the Government's other major policy programs."

 

If the phrase  "Government's other major policy programs"  includes the rice-scheme, which I don't know and cannot at present judge, then that sentence would perhaps suggest that the rice-scheme for other years than FY2013 might also have been off-budget too, wouldn't it ?

Why you cannot give any link. Not even nation newspaper link. Why no link = because you wrong.

 

how come nobody in the world just you and robblok say off budget. If me and I not find any information support me I accept I wrong and learn something new

[baboon]

10 hours ago, Reigntax said:

 

And all the junta patsies will be rehashing the old rhetoric

....yep, you weren't wrong...

[Siamesecarper]

Robblok - you are a fisherman so can't be all bad but have you read this interesting analysis of the rice pledging scheme? Looks like the "budget" for it in 2012 was 359 billion (page 16).

 

https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/NCRJ/article/download/44289/37035 

 

 

[Pridilives]

22 minutes ago, robblok said:

No not emotional, if amateurs who can't even read the basic reports act like they know something and defy logic I get a bit testy. You should accept you can't even reports like this.  You have no credibility here. You act like you know but you don't. I proven beyond doubt that in the 2012 budget there was NO reservation for the rice program. You just can't accept it. If you look at the 2013 and 2014 budget you see an increase in the agricultural budget from around 100 billion (still not the 150 billion mentioned in the Pridillives link). But there was certainly nothing in the 2012 budget. 

 

Its a shame that you still pretend you know something or can do something when you can't and clearly did not take the time to study these things as I have. That is something that ticks me off an amateur pretending to know and spewing hot air but not coming up with any result where it is in the budget. You really did lose a lot of credibility here you don't even know the difference between costs and liquidity as you demonstrated by mentioning loans. 

2012 budget brief

 

1.8 Programme on raising prices of agricultural commodities
and assisting people to gain access to sources of capital
The amount of 93,948.8 million baht will be allocated to make the agricultural

sector a production base, which generates security in livelihood and income for farmers and other sectors. This will be implemented by raising farmers’ income, developing an agricultural household registration system and setting up an agricultural commodity for collateral system. Credits for agricultural production will be provided to farmers along with the promotion of credit cards for agricultural purposes and rectifying farmers’ debt problems. Potentials and development capability at a grass root level of villages and communities will be strengthened. People will be encouraged to adopt the economic suf ciency phi- losophy in developing communities while village and town community funds will be urged to play a role in development at an individual and collective level. 

[Rimmer]

A personal attack on another member has been removed

[candide]

It seems that accountancy technicalities are taking us away from the key issue.

 

Some posters have argued that rice scheme spending being off-budget is an element defining a crime (as opposed to true subsidies that are included in the budget and therefore are not considered as criminal). Then followed a technical debate about the rice scheme expenses being off-budget or not.

 

Focusing on those accountancy technicalities takes us away from the key issue: was the way this budget was accounted (wether technically off-budget or not) illegal and therefore criminal? Did the government cheat about it?

 

From several sources shown in this thread it is obvious that the amount was communicated in several official budget documents. As far as I remember (correct me if I'm wrong), nobody (i.e. constitutional court or other) raised the issue that this way of accounting was illegal or criminal. As far as I remember, she is also not accused of it in the current process.

 

So if it is not illegal, why is it considered by some as an element defining a crime?

 

 

[Becker]

2 hours ago, Artisi said:

A fair comment but whether it has or hadn't done anything for Thailand is really an unknown. All the coups may have improved things and them maybe they haven't -  something that cannot be quantified, the only thing that doesn't seem to have  changed is the trough. 

What is known without a doubt is that Thailand is rife with corruption, cronyism and inequality, and in dire need of a complete reform of the judiciary, police and armed forces. Because without this in place it really is impossible for Thailand to move forward in a meaningful manner. 

How to achieve this? Well, one thing that has been tried time and time again is military/old elite interference in the form of coups, and I think it's more than fair to say they've had not a great deal of success.

So here is a radical idea; why not try something new? Why not let democracy (with all its flaws) have a go at it?

[Ricardo]

Apologies, you're quite right candide, this has drifted way off-topic, and I apologise for my own part in that.

 

The difference between a  properly-authorised/budgeted subsidy, and loans being guaranteed to cover the temporary-cashflow involved in a revolving-fund scheme which turns out to be not-so-revolving, do interest some of us  ...  perhaps I ought to get out more ?

 

The failure of the PM to attend or monitor the rice-scheme committee, of which she was the chair, is IMO definitely a question of negligence if-proven, but I've not (I think) ever claimed that it was criminal. 

 

 However Yingluck, in the OP, does claim it is a criminal case, rather than negligence, in her written  reply to Reuters ?

 

My own interest is more that yet-another Shinawatra family-member may emerge as the next PTP-leader, and that the party's appeal   appears to remain firmly linked to that family, rather than having them evolving into a democratic populist party, which can win support without the Shinawatras heading it.

 

 

 

[Artisi]

59 minutes ago, Becker said:

What is known without a doubt is that Thailand is rife with corruption, cronyism and inequality, and in dire need of a complete reform of the judiciary, police and armed forces. Because without this in place it really is impossible for Thailand to move forward in a meaningful manner. 

How to achieve this? Well, one thing that has been tried time and time again is military/old elite interference in the form of coups, and I think it's more than fair to say they've had not a great deal of success.

So here is a radical idea; why not try something new? Why not let democracy (with all its flaws) have a go at it?

Do you really think that any move to democracy will ensure that corruption, cronyism, inequality, and a complete reform of the judiciary, police and armed forces will actually happen with the like of the politicians currently lining up to get their snouts back into the trough. If you think that is likely to happen, you must have a lot of faith in the Thai political system. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Artisi]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

All empirical studies have shown that coups are disastrous to the economy, political stability, human right abuses and corruption. I praise you for staying local to the junta. 

So what you are saying in effect is that no Thai coup has had any benefit in advancing Thailand. Now, if that is actually the case, I suggest a little research on your part starting with the first coup in 1932 could enlighten you. 

And what has a comment on previous coups got to do with the current junta -  bugger all, so It seems you are so anal regarding the current junta your reasoning is locked into one line of thinking . 

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Artisi said:

Well the alternate would have meant that Thaksin would now be in the chair looking after Thaksin with all crimes forgiven -  so be honest, which would be the worse. 

 

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Thaksin, Yingluck, and the PTP could have been voted out in July 2014 had the military allowed the election to take place.

 

But I will take your fantasy response as support for unrestricted military rule.

 

5 hours ago, Artisi said:

Crystal ball gazing or do you know something everyone else doesn't. 

I'm sorry, is English not your first language?  I stated the possibility that the PTP could have been voted out of office (unlike the junta).  You are the one with the crystal ball that allowed you to make a definite prediction about the future of Thailand had there not been a coup.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

Apologies, you're quite right candide, this has drifted way off-topic, and I apologise for my own part in that.

 

The difference between a  properly-authorised/budgeted subsidy, and loans being guaranteed to cover the temporary-cashflow involved in a revolving-fund scheme which turns out to be not-so-revolving, do interest some of us  ...  perhaps I ought to get out more ?

 

The failure of the PM to attend or monitor the rice-scheme committee, of which she was the chair, is IMO definitely a question of negligence if-proven, but I've not (I think) ever claimed that it was criminal. 

 

 However Yingluck, in the OP, does claim it is a criminal case, rather than negligence, in her written  reply to Reuters ?

 

My own interest is more that yet-another Shinawatra family-member may emerge as the next PTP-leader, and that the party's appeal   appears to remain firmly linked to that family, rather than having them evolving into a democratic populist party, which can win support without the Shinawatras heading it.

 

 

 

Don't misunderstand me. The discussion was actually very interesting, and has allowed showing some quite interesting facts.

[Eric Loh]

21 minutes ago, Artisi said:

So what you are saying in effect is that no Thai coup has had any benefit in advancing Thailand. Now, if that is actually the case, I suggest a little research on your part starting with the first coup in 1932 could enlighten you. 

And what has a comment on previous coups got to do with the current junta -  bugger all, so It seems you are so anal regarding the current junta your reasoning is locked into one line of thinking . 

The 1932 revolution; correct you on that. Not even an elected government. You need history lesson. 

 

Did this coup seized power from an elected government like rest of the coups. Yes same and all destructive and brought Thailand backwards. Contribute nothing constructive. Your love for the junta is worthy of admiration but sadly pathetic. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Artisi said:

A fair comment but whether it has or hadn't done anything for Thailand is really an unknown. All the coups may have improved things and them maybe they haven't -  something that cannot be quantified, the only thing that doesn't seem to have  changed is the trough. 

 

3 hours ago, Artisi said:

Well it seems with any elected government in place, it's winner take all and do what ever you want -  so what is your point? 

 

34 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Do you really think that any move to democracy will ensure that corruption, cronyism, inequality, and a complete reform of the judiciary, police and armed forces will actually happen with the like of the politicians currently lining up to get their snouts back into the trough. If you think that is likely to happen, you must have a lot of faith in the Thai political system.

Let's go to the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  By that definition Thailand's history of coups is definitely insane.

 

Immediately post-coup there were some people posting their belief that this coup would definitely lead to a "real democracy" in Thailand.  I wonder what happened to those people.

 

So coup after coup hasn't led to a stable democracy.  How about trying something different:  Let an elected PM finish his term in elected office (this has only happened once in Thailand) then allowing another election so he can be re-elected or replaced democratically.  This has never happened in Thailand.

 

When corrupt authoritarian rule is replace by democracy the democracy usually goes through a period of corruption, which is tolerated by the people who are initially happy just to have democracy.  Eventually they raise their standards and insist on democracy without corruption.  That is what is happening in Central and South America, most prominently Brazil.  Democracy has never been allowed in Thailand long enough for this to happen here.

 

Thailand's generals and the groups they support do very well with corrupt authoritarian rule.  They have shown themselves willing to experiment with democracy, but routinely stage a coup whenever the elected government, or just democracy itself, threatens the established order.