Yingluck plans to make her own closing statement

[LannaGuy]

She did nothing wrong and implemented (poorly)  a scheme that nearly every country on earth implements including the USA, Europe etc.  Did she gain anything personally?  if YES arrest her if NO stop the obvious witch-hunt. I do not believe Thais want to see her jailed and if they do so there will be international outcry for the obvious injustice.  

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

...intelligent on topic comment...

Post 110 for those that pretend it was not a subsidy. It was designed (but poorly managed) and did, to an extent, help poor farmers and shame on ANYONE who thinks helping Thailand poor is not a worthwhile endeavor.

 

Thais aren't stupid and Thais I talk to know that's what she tried to do and the current situation is pure vindictiveness by the Army who report to the Ammart.  

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, seajae said:

were you even here when it happened, it was not a subsidy at all, it was supposed to be totally self financing(try looking it up, there are a few references already posted) but it never worked, it becomes a total joke when those that were not even here at the time try to tell those that were what happened. All your so called facts are actually fallacies, you have not even got one statement correct,  what you are saying is simply pathetic, you really need to start reading other than the red hand book or take you hand out of your pants when you look at yl pics

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2016/11/04/everything-afraid-ask-thai-rice-subsidies/

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2016/10/24/fining-yingluck-rice-subsidy-grey-area-critic-policy-says/

[Grubster]

17 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

"Every farmer I know was paid a much higher price for their rice under the scheme than they are now,..."

 

Did you ever consider that the price they were paid under the yl scheme was way beyond sensible or sustainable?

Yes I have considered that as I do with all subsidies, only in this case the "poor small farmers" were not getting rich by any means, but were living a better life if not tempted by the banks to borrow on the come. Subsidies can be very sensible if it helps your people to live a little better, most subsidies are aimed at the rich people and are not complained about very much. All Thailand's competitors subsidize rice with the exception of Cambodia who's rice production is in total collapse and there is nothing to replace it short of another failed crop due to subsidies in other countries.

   Funny how many think of roads bridges, railroads, airports, military, etc. as a very essential part of the country and don't mind paying all the graft involved in these projects but something that effects more people than anything else in this country is a no can do. The scheme was a failure in that it failed to drive world prices up, but the graft was no different than the everyday graft here on any project.

[Eric Loh]

If she being charged for a subsidy program, so be it but we should expect all previous and current subsidy programs that caused loses for tax payers should also be taken to task. Ahbisit rice guarantee scheme lost 40-50 B and Prayut has been subsidizing for rice and rubber and loses are still mounting. Shouldnt we concern for fair dispensation of the law and not selective.

[ResandePohm]

Just now, Grubster said:

Yes I have considered that as I do with all subsidies, only in this case the "poor small farmers" were not getting rich by any means, but were living a better life if not tempted by the banks to borrow on the come. Subsidies can be very sensible if it helps your people to live a little better, most subsidies are aimed at the rich people and are not complained about very much. All Thailand's competitors subsidize rice with the exception of Cambodia who's rice production is in total collapse and there is nothing to replace it short of another failed crop due to subsidies in other countries.

   Funny how many think of roads bridges, railroads, airports, military, etc. as a very essential part of the country and don't mind paying all the graft involved in these projects but something that effects more people than anything else in this country is a no can do. The scheme was a failure in that it failed to drive world prices up, but the graft was no different than the everyday graft here on any project.

Grubster please give it a rest. This was never a subsidy. This was a scheme which from the outset was open to corruption, much more so than many of the infrastructure projects you mention. Even if it worked it would not have helped the poor farmers. If she was really intending to help the poor farmers it would have been better to subsidize seed and farming equipment which every small  poor farmer needs and which would have been much harder to be abused by corruption

[Grubster]

37 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

And because of that incompetent pricing the corrupt were buying rice in neighbouring Cambodia nd Vietnam and then selling it to the government under this rice scheme.

Yes this is called smuggling isn't it, cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, fabrics, clothing, and all manufactured goods suffer from this don't they. Cars are much cheaper elsewhere but the government is pretty good at keeping those out. The tariffs on these products that keep foreign goods out force the farmer to pay the higher Thai price don't they?

[ResandePohm]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

If she being charged for a subsidy program, so be it but we should expect all previous and current subsidy programs that caused loses for tax payers should also be taken to task. Ahbisit rice guarantee scheme lost 40-50 B and Prayut has been subsidizing for rice and rubber and loses are still mounting. Shouldnt we concern for fair dispensation of the law and not selective.

I agree with you totally. However as this was not a subsidy but a self financing scheme it was paramount that it was competently managed with proper accounts and control. It wasnt.

[Grubster]

4 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

Grubster please give it a rest. This was never a subsidy. This was a scheme which from the outset was open to corruption, much more so than many of the infrastructure projects you mention. Even if it worked it would not have helped the poor farmers. If she was really intending to help the poor farmers it would have been better to subsidize seed and farming equipment which every small  poor farmer needs and which would have been much harder to be abused by corruption

Read my post above and tell me what that price manipulation is, that amounts to ten times the rice scheme every year. You want the farmer to have to compete directly with the world market but expect them to pay the Thai price for every thing else. You are obviously to uneducated to understand what a subsidy is under any name.

[ResandePohm]

Just now, Grubster said:

Yes this is called smuggling isn't it, cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, fabrics, clothing, and all manufactured goods suffer from this don't they. Cars are much cheaper elsewhere but the government is pretty good at keeping those out. The tariffs on these products that keep foreign goods out force the farmer to pay the higher Thai price don't they?

Certainly is smuggling if Thailand has an import duty on rice. I am uncertain if that is the case. We all know that the land borders are full of holes.. The real illegality is to sell that cheap imported rice and fraudulently claim it to be Thai rice just to get a higher price and make a profit at the Governments expense through a incompetently run rice scheme because of Criminal Negligence

[bheard]

Tears or no tears? A sad song could do the trick; no twerking though.

Give the lady a chance!
3 twerks is the regulated number . . .
At least she would keep the big boss happy, if not the judges.

[bheard]

But but every governments past and current have rice subsidies scheme. 

And all the other price support schemes current - rubber, oil, corn etc.

[Grubster]

3 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

Certainly is smuggling if Thailand has an import duty on rice. I am uncertain if that is the case. We all know that the land borders are full of holes.. The real illegality is to sell that cheap imported rice and fraudulently claim it to be Thai rice just to get a higher price and make a profit at the Governments expense through a incompetently run rice scheme because of Criminal Negligence

And how is that different from any of the other commodities that get smuggled in to take advantage of Thailand's higher prices? 

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

I agree with you totally. However as this was not a subsidy but a self financing scheme it was paramount that it was competently managed with proper accounts and control. It wasnt.

Can't see your point. Surely a self financing scheme whereby it generate its own growth capital from its own income is much better than budgeting for a loss. She bet against market forces and didn't expect India who has been a nett importer to have surplus rice for export and drove the price down. Vietnam with their bumper rice production also throw a spanner in the scheme. If these situation never happen; the self financing scheme will be justified as rice price will rise. She was still hopping that price will turn around but it didn't and loses accumulated. Poorly thought out scheme but not deserving of any charges.  

[ResandePohm]

Just now, Grubster said:

Read my post above and tell me what that price manipulation is, that amounts to ten times the rice scheme every year. You want the farmer to have to compete directly with the world market but expect them to pay the Thai price for every thing else. You are obviously to uneducated to understand what a subsidy is under any name.

I have read your post several times and it is still very apparent that the lack of knowledge is on your part. A bail out is not a subsidy. You need to check your facts.

 

Where have I stated that the Thai farmers should not have subsidies. I believe strongly in farming subsidies for all the reasons previously stated. However this was not a subsidy but an incompetently run scheme even if the Governments intentions were good.

 

My education is quite adequate. It is you that seems to be struggling with the definition of a subsidy

[ResandePohm]

Just now, Grubster said:

And how is that different from any of the other commodities that get smuggled in to take advantage of Thailand's higher prices? 

If it has import duty then it is illegal to bring it into the country without paying that duty ie smuggling. If it is free of import duty and free to import then it is legal to do so. What was illegal was to sell it to the Government fraudulently claim it to be produced in Thailand.

[Grubster]

1 minute ago, ResandePohm said:

I have read your post several times and it is still very apparent that the lack of knowledge is on your part. A bail out is not a subsidy. You need to check your facts.

 

Where have I stated that the Thai farmers should not have subsidies. I believe strongly in farming subsidies for all the reasons previously stated. However this was not a subsidy but an incompetently run scheme even if the Governments intentions were good.

 

My education is quite adequate. It is you that seems to be struggling with the definition of a subsidy

Then please give us another name for the government giving a higher price to a farmer than the world market price.

[ResandePohm]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Can't see your point. Surely a self financing scheme whereby it generate its own growth capital from its own income is much better than budgeting for a loss. She bet against market forces and didn't expect India who has been a nett importer to have surplus rice for export and drove the price down. Vietnam with their bumper rice production also throw a spanner in the scheme. If these situation never happen; the self financing scheme will be justified as rice price will rise. She was still hopping that price will turn around but it didn't and loses accumulated. Poorly thought out scheme but not deserving of any charges.  

The scheme was intended to be self financing therefore there was no budget for loss or profit for that matter.

 

I agree the intentions of the Government may initially have been good. I am not saying that there shouldnt have been a scheme although I can think better ways to help poor farmers. However it was obvious that the scheme needed proper management, particularly after so many red flags were raised. It was still possible at this stage to cancelor modify the scheme before such enormous losses were made. Nothing was done. Therfore, Yingluck was definitely incompetent in her management and the case against her is about her being Criminally Negligent

[metisdead]

Some posts containing off topic trolling comments have been removed. 

[ResandePohm]

Just now, greenchair said:

When the skytrain project was first initiated there dozens of protests and red flags against it. The government ignored it and pushed it through. Turns out, it was a resounding success to country and people.

Listening to red flags is not always the best option. 

Try as they might, they could not pin corruption to her resume. So, the best they could do was prosecute her for the corruption of others. 

Call a spade a spade. 

Obviously this scheme was properly managed.I am sure any red flags were checked and taken into consideration. The rice scheme was not. The chairperson didnt even attend meetings let alone ensure that no corruption occured. So you are comparing apples and pears.

[billd766]

On 07/07/2017 at 2:14 PM, Grubster said:

None of the farmers around me got stiffed on the rice scheme, they all got paid good money for their rice and it improved their lives dramatically.  Many of those higher up scum bags stole the rice from the government and also imported cheaper rice over borders to sell to the scheme. I can't fault her for trying to help farmers but if she was aware of the graft then punish her. I think they better cover up the kick backs on big military purchases, as they are setting the bar on punishing one of the Nations leaders.

 

She WAS warned both internally in Thailand and also by the world bank system and the IMF but she ignored why was said externally and had the lady whistleblower within Thailand moved and sacked.

 

It has been posted many times and I suppose it is still out there on the internet if you want to research for it.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Can't see your point. Surely a self financing scheme whereby it generate its own growth capital from its own income is much better than budgeting for a loss. She bet against market forces and didn't expect India who has been a nett importer to have surplus rice for export and drove the price down. Vietnam with their bumper rice production also throw a spanner in the scheme. If these situation never happen; the self financing scheme will be justified as rice price will rise. She was still hopping that price will turn around but it didn't and loses accumulated. Poorly thought out scheme but not deserving of any charges.  

 My brother's grand plan is a huge failure, costing the country hundreds of billions. What should I do? Hey, it's not my money, I'll just ignore it.

Meanwhile my brother's little mate keeps making a fortune acting as an "agent" selling the rice, because there's nobody in the PS could do that for free.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Then please give us another name for the government giving a higher price to a farmer than the world market price.

But you left out ".......and paying storage fees until it rots because they can't sell it."

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

But you left out ".......and paying storage fees until it rots because they can't sell it."

Who promised to sell all the rice but failed resulting in storage fees and quality deterioration. 

[billd766]

On 08/07/2017 at 8:55 PM, Grubster said:

As far as I know all the farmers got paid for their rice until and maybe after the coup. The west has big subsidies and they are at 100% loss to the taxpayer every time, nobody going to jail for that.

 

Actually the farmers stopped getting paid for their rice about September 2013 as the BAAC had no money left to pay the farmers, no other bank would lend to them, as they in turn would not be paid.

 

Not enough rice had been sold even to cover the current payments to farmers.

 

Yingluck was promising every week that the money would be there "next week" but it never was. In December 2013 she dissolved parliament. Once again the government went cap in hand to the banks to borrow more money only to be told that under the laws of Thailand that as a caretaker government they were not allowed to borrow money in case they were not re-elected and the new government refused to repay the loans.

 

There is a long story on Wikipedia about it and far too much to quote under the fair use rule of TVF.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013–2014_Thai_political_crisis

 

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Who promised to sell all the rice but failed resulting in storage fees and quality deterioration. 

Now you are getting silly. Who do you blame for a huge stockpile of rice, those trying to clear it, or those who bought it at inflated prices with no hope of selling the majority of it?

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Now you are getting silly. Who do you blame for a huge stockpile of rice, those trying to clear it, or those who bought it at inflated prices with no hope of selling the majority of it?

Why no hope of selling? We never know since her government not able to serve the full term. In fact she had a better chance of selling as an elected government than the current post coup government who has less friendly countries to freely negotiate deals. Who really can tell if she able to work out a special pricing arrangement with friendly countries and dispose the stockpile. Who can argue with that because she never had the chance. Anyway, the junta love coup and the stockpile is now under their watch. So stop blaming the past. The blame falls flatly on the current government. 

 

[Grubster]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

But you left out ".......and paying storage fees until it rots because they can't sell it."

Yes I think we all know it was a bad idea to think they could control the market like that,  they should have taken their lumps and sold it while it was still good, They would have been so much better off just selling it for what they could get from the start after paying the farmer for it. The Hunt brothers tried this with silver and lost a few billion of their own money. None of this explains why a crime was committed by the PM. Although I would guess many things that could be deemed crimes have been and are committed by every leader of every nation in the world, but proof is still needed to convict in a democracy. Oh I forgot this is no longer a democracy.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed, this is not about ethanol production in the USA.

[halloween]

21 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Yes I think we all know it was a bad idea to think they could control the market like that,  they should have taken their lumps and sold it while it was still good, They would have been so much better off just selling it for what they could get from the start after paying the farmer for it. The Hunt brothers tried this with silver and lost a few billion of their own money. None of this explains why a crime was committed by the PM. Although I would guess many things that could be deemed crimes have been and are committed by every leader of every nation in the world, but proof is still needed to convict in a democracy. Oh I forgot this is no longer a democracy.

What you forgot are the dumping rules. If a country subsidises a commodity and then sells it for less than they paid for it, it is called dumping, which leads to international trade sanctions. So your little plan is not viable.

It has been explained repeatedly that failing to take measures to stem the losses is negligence in office, which is the crime she is charged with. The Hunt bros did it with their own money, Yingluk did it with money she was supposed to manage for the nation.