Emotional Yingluck says she never neglected her duty
Yesterday, Yingluck delivered her closing argument before the Supreme Court in the case of the rice mortgage system, which has cost the Thai treasury the equivalent of $8 billion. As chairman of the National Rice Policy Committee, Yingluck is accused of ignoring warnings about corruption and doing nothing about rising costs.
Tuesday was the last day of the trial. There were not as expected thousands of supporters of Yingluck in front of the Supreme Court building, at most 400 sympathizers who gave her roses.
With tears in her eyes, Yingluck made her closing argument before the members of the Supreme Court. She stressed that she had never acted unfairly with the rice mortgage system: “I have not failed in my duty, nevertheless I am now the victim of a political game. I am being persecuted politically.”
According to her, there was nothing wrong with the setup of the rice mortgage system: “It has benefited the average Thai and it has proven to benefit the country. The program was fair and correct.”
Yingluck pointed out that application of the mortgage system was a cabinet decision based on the wishes of a majority in parliament. The government was obliged to implement it. The government departments responsible for the program never warned or demanded that the program be stopped.
The former prime minister concluded her plea with an emotional appeal to the Court to exercise reasonableness. “I have tried to do the best for my country. I am just an ordinary woman who was born in the province and who has faced the poverty and hardship of our farmers.”
If Yingluck is found guilty of dereliction of duty, she could receive a maximum prison term of 10 years. Her lawyers have already said they will appeal any conviction. In another procedure, she was held liable for part of the losses. Her bank accounts have since been blocked.
Source: Bangkok Post
Dereliction of duty? We do not know the underlying and unknown facts, is this a political process in which the balance of power has undergone strong shifts?
Should this contribute to tranquility, peace and prosperity of Thailand, beloved by many, including me?
Nico B
Whether Yingluck really neglected her duty should be decided by the judge, but I think that a large part of the Thai population (in retrospect) thinks differently than Yingluck herself. It is an interesting case in itself. Can a PM be prosecuted for dereliction of duty if the political decision she carried out was (each time) approved by the democratically elected parliament?
A few notes on this:
– Yingluck himself was very inexperienced, especially in the field of finance and politics;
– After all the warnings from national and international institutions about all kinds of irregularities and the burden of the measure for the country as a whole, she should have taken the reins herself and not left that to other ministers. Is that dereliction of duty? I don't know, but politically stupid.
– At the executive level, there should have been much more control and every effort should have been made to eliminate all sorts of intermediaries who wanted to make money from politics (the evidence was there and even the rumors should have been enough). To appoint a committee to study the matter is to continue the corruption.
– It is actually arrogant to still believe that the money has reached the farmers for whom it was intended. Everyone really knows better, but of course keeps his mouth shut.
The French saying Sois belle et toi applies to this lady. Completely incompetent to lead a government. Never answered any parliamentary questions. Economists and academics had warned in advance that the entire rice purchasing scheme would end disastrously. When a government official reported to her on the appalling corruption in an extensive and very detailed report, she not only ignored the report, but fired the official.
Besides, she has a few other lawsuits waiting for her, for corruption.
Her government was a government of scams. A good example of this was the free credit cards for farmers and taxi drivers with which they could buy fuel, and farmers could buy seeds and fertilizers. But these credit cards could only be used at participating companies. Coincidentally, these companies were 10 to 20% more expensive.
Yingluck has a bachelor's and master's degree in public administration, the latter from the not-so-reputable Kentucky State University. Almost everyone agrees that she was a successful businesswoman between 1993 and 2011. Her father was a member of parliament for Chiang Mai for eight years, and her brother, sister and brother-in-law were also in politics. Her mother is a descendant of the royal family of Chiang Mai. I think she was quite knowledgeable about money and politics.
I think that indeed too many intermediaries (traders, rice mills) got their share and that too little of the money spent went to the poorest farmers. It often lacked proper control.
Corruption in its rice mortgage system has never been demonstrated.
You can always blame a politician if a certain policy is not implemented properly. But it is nonsense to make a criminal case of it. Then most politicians would also disappear behind bars.
1. A BBA from a Thai university and an MBA from a bad university in the US by no means guarantee she has an understanding of money and administration. The evidence for this came later.
2. I believe that knowledge of politics and money are not embedded in a family's DNA
3. I don't believe you ever watched TV and/or talked to farmers in the days of the rice hypothetical system; otherwise you would swallow your words about no corruption being demonstrated. There were dozens of examples, all of which (with the party's democratic dictatorship) were referred to a committee of inquiry (which I don't think ever wrote a report);
4. the rice mortgage system was probably illegal in itself because it guaranteed farmers a price above market value, which could be regarded as market corruption and unfair competition (and that is against international trade rules);
5. the so-called country-to-country deals were not country-to-country deals at all, but deals with companies
6. if the policy does not work as promised while it costs a lot of money, you can demand from a politician that he/she ensures that tax money is well spent and that this is strictly monitored. And if not: then that is called (in this case serious) dereliction of duty as far as I am concerned.
7. Thaksin was a successful businessman and dictated everything. Under his wing, anyone can seem successful.
The Government has an executive task, Parliament has a monitoring task.
Shouldn't Parliament have intervened here with a parliamentary committee if it was all so clear?
No, Mrs Jingluck, as usual in situations like this, set up a Commission.
However, the Commission can be given major powers so that there is clarity as soon as possible and then intervene.
Simply intervening and immediately breaking down a running system can lead to major upheaval, which can lead to chaos in the country with particularly great damage, which does not serve anyone.
As soon as the Commission that has been set up comes up with results and recommendations, action can be taken as quickly as possible.
So, like I said, dereliction of duty?
Nico B
Well-known head of jut for the junta. Distracting from the real problems in Thailand: Which of the current military have taken more than a grain of the subsidies? Will never be known.
They are looking for a victim or to plead clean.