PM insulated from order on Yingluck damages

[webfact]

RICE-PLEDGING SCHEME
PM insulated from order on Yingluck damages
THE NATION



Wissanu say only endorsement from Finance minister needed to seek compensation over rice scheme

BANGKOK: -- PRIME MINISTER Prayut Chan-o-cha did not need to ink an administrative order to have ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra pay compensation for losses over the rice pledging scheme as only an endorsement of the Finance Minister was needed, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday.

Wissanu was speaking after Yingluck's lawyer argued that the PM's move to issue an administrative order to make Yingluck pay compensation might be deemed abuse of authority and motivated by politics.

Wissanu said legal specialists met half a month ago and resolved that the PM did not need to endorse the administrative order in the latter half of the legal procedures to make Yingluck pay compensation for damages incurred in the rice subsidy scheme.

"Article 5 of the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 stipulates that when state officials who committed a wrongful act are not under the jurisdiction of any agency, the Finance Ministry will be in charge of the case. Yingluck is not under the jurisdiction of any ministry, so her case will be under the responsibility of the Finance Ministry, Wissanu said.

Wissanu defended against criticism that legal specialists were resorting to a legal tactic to prevent Prayut from being sued for abuse of power.

"We are not trying to protect the PM. Look into the law. The PM co-signs with the ministers in charge of the case only in the first half of the procedure and not the latter half. If General Prayut must sign but he fails to do so, then the order will be invalid. The PM has announced that if there is anything wrong, he will take responsibility,'' Wissanu said.

Wissanu said the PM himself was taken by surprise when he learned he needed not to sign any more documentation.

He added that the government would continue with its decision to issue the administrative order in Yingluck's case because if the government does not take action before the two-year statute of limitations expires, the National Anti-Corruption Commission would sue the government and make it pay the compensation for the losses over the rice subsidy.

Norawit Lalaeng dismissed a statement made by Wissanu that the government had no alternative but to take recourse under the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 because Yingluck committed gross negligence over her handling of the rice pledging scheme.

He cited that the Charter Organic Law on Anti-Corruption Act 1999 did not specify which law must be applied to seek compensation.

Norawit also said that Wissanu could not compare Yingluck's case with that of former governor of the Bank of Thailand (BoT) Rerngchai Marakanond who was accused of violating the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 for his failed defence of the baht during the 1997 financial crisis. He cited that the BoT filed a civil suit against Rerngchai with the Civil Court and did not issue an administrative order.

He said the Civil Court and the Administrative Court had ruled in 2002 that Rerngchai's case was under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and not the Administrative Court. He said Yingluck's case should be filed with the Court of Justice and not Administrative Court.

Norawit said the PM must not issue an administrative order because the rice-pledging scheme was a public policy approved by Parliament. Yingluck did not directly manage the scheme but only oversaw the policy.

He said Prayut had negatively criticised the rice pledging scheme and this left him not neutral in making decision on the case. "He should let the Courts of Justice rule. His decision to issue an administrative court order in this case may be deemed an act of malfeasance,'' he said.

Jessada Anuree, director of the Lawyers Council of Thailand's Training Office said that Yingluck was putting up a tough fight for fear of being made to pay Bt500 billion in compensation for the losses. The PM as head of the executive branch could possibly order state agencies such as the Finance Ministry to make her pay Bt500 billion. If the case was filed with the court, the PM could not order the court to make Yingluck pay Bt500 billion or the court might make her pay less, he said.

"I must say that resorting to the court of justice is more graceful because Yingluck's case is political in nature and this makes people doubt if there is any harassment,'' he said

He said that even though an administrative order was issued for this case, the defendant could seek a court ruling to revoke the order, he said.

"They (Yingluck camp) may seek political advantage by trying to portray that the government was harassing them by issuing an administrative order,'' he said.

Pheu Thai Party caretaker deputy secretary-general Chavalit Wichay-asut said the Prayut government risked being accused of political harassment if it insisted on issuing an administrative order.

He warned the government not to violate the European Parliament's resolution on Thursday to follow the rule of law and resort to court procedures in the Yingluck case.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/PM-insulated-from-order-on-Yingluck-damages-30270926.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-15

[jesimps]

Methinks he's crapping himself, crap.

[ezzra]

" to make her pay Bt500 billion " Or, 1 year in Jail and a 10,000 baht fine.. such is Thai laws,

flowed and in most cases, unbalanced and insensible, any way you look at it....

The poor lady was only a puppet on a string, and EVERYBODY knew it, and by the look of it,

she's not going to see the

end of it for years to come....

[ChrisY1]

"Not trying to protect the PM"........sure.....!

Nothing but a witch hunt !

[LannaGuy]

The government now admits it was not illegal but 'negligent'

Think banking crisis, Iraq, Syria if ex PM's were chased like this NO leader in the history of mankind would be free from persecution and prosecution

This is NOT about rice

Edited October 15, 2015 by LannaGuy

[hgma]

I am connected to Y.S Facebook account.

shortcut to orchastrated scenario revelations.

[user82374298374]

Dog-eat-dog, Hobbesian, zero-sum - Asian politics in a nutshell.

[zaphod reborn]

The government now admits it was not illegal but 'negligent'

Think banking crisis, Iraq, Syria if ex PM's were chased like this NO leader in the history of mankind would be free from persecution and prosecution

This is NOT about rice

Correct, it's not about rice, it's about abuse of authority and negligently administering a legislated act, so that the scheme exceeded its permissible scope in terms of financial losses. In real democratic countries, the courts would have issued an injunction and put a halt to the scheme, as the way the scheme was administered was unconstitutional. The administrative order, and the probable court case, will be about negligence and not criminal conduct. I believe there is no evidence that Yingluck, herself, acted illegally with respect to the rice scheme, although others, particularly millers, warehouse operators, and traders of foreign paddy, did act illegally with respect to the scheme.

The other irrelevant flawed policies you mention (but fail to provide specifics as to who you think was at fault) were the result of policies of governments whose leaders have immunity from prosecution. Thailand's leaders have no such immunity, and its constitutions never granted such immunity. All parties have had a hand in drafting those constitutions and none of them have so much given a thought to inserting an immunity clause into a draft. Typical lack of foresight, planning and thoughtfulness which have plagued Thailand's democratic institutions from their outset. It's no surprise that constitutions and governments are ripped up every few years, because no one is willing to provide a lasting framework. Everyone just cares about their own short-term gains.

Yingluck herself has conceded she failed to provide that immunity, although she had the opportunity, as now she is just asking for fairness in the process. If PTP had actually tried to honestly and properly reform the constitution, instead of bringing home their fearless leader, maybe she wouldn't be facing loss of some of her family's ill-gotten gains. She will not be poor. Please don't cry.

Edited October 15, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[Denim]

Seeking compensation from corrupt or negligent politicians is one thing but why be so selective about it ?

The democrats rice scheme also lost money so why is Abhisit not called to account ? What about Suthep and the police station scandal. Then there is the fake bomb detector approved of by the top military brass even when it was proven to be a worthless plastic box.

If there is going to be the rule of law surely the law should be applied to everyone.

As it is now , all those in power now are doing is guaranteeing that if ever there is another election Phua Thai will win by the biggest landslide ever.

[LannaGuy]

The government now admits it was not illegal but 'negligent'

Think banking crisis, Iraq, Syria if ex PM's were chased like this NO leader in the history of mankind would be free from persecution and prosecution

This is NOT about rice

Correct, it's not about rice, it's about abuse of authority and negligently administering a legislated act, so that the scheme exceeded its permissible scope in terms of financial losses. In real democratic countries, the courts would have issued an injunction and put a halt to the scheme, as the way the scheme was administered was unconstitutional. The administrative order, and the probable court case, will be about negligence and not criminal conduct. I believe there is no evidence that Yingluck, herself, acted illegally with respect to the rice scheme, although others, particularly millers, warehouse operators, and traders of foreign paddy, did act illegally with respect to the scheme.

The other irrelevant flawed policies you mention (but fail to provide specifics as to who you think was at fault) were the result of policies of governments whose leaders have immunity from prosecution. Thailand's leaders have no such immunity, and its constitutions never granted such immunity. All parties have had a hand in drafting those constitutions and none of them have so much given a thought to inserting an immunity clause into a draft. Typical lack of foresight, planning and thoughtfulness which have plagued Thailand's democratic institutions from their outset. It's no surprise that constitutions and governments are ripped up every few years, because no one is willing to provide a lasting framework. Everyone just cares about their own short-term gains.

Yingluck herself has conceded she failed to provide that immunity, although she had the opportunity, as now she is just asking for fairness in the process. If PTP had actually tried to honestly and properly reform the constitution, instead of bringing home their fearless leader, maybe she wouldn't be facing loss of some of her family's ill-gotten gains. She will not be poor. Please don't cry.

"governments whose leaders have immunity from prosecution"

and there you have it... those developed first world nations have, in place, safeguards against this type of scenario and why's that Einstein? it's NOT about RICE

open your mind, ears, eyes to the obvious that we cannot discuss here

[phoenixdoglover]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

[sawadee1947]

Seeking compensation from corrupt or negligent politicians is one thing but why be so selective about it ?

The democrats rice scheme also lost money so why is Abhisit not called to account ? What about Suthep and the police station scandal. Then there is the fake bomb detector approved of by the top military brass even when it was proven to be a worthless plastic box.

If there is going to be the rule of law surely the law should be applied to everyone.

As it is now , all those in power now are doing is guaranteeing that if ever there is another election Phua Thai will win by the biggest landslide ever.

yes that's a good point. However it's a political trial maintaining the ruling party or at least the attempt to do so. And you are right you can't supress people's power at the end.

[hugh2121]

The government now admits it was not illegal but 'negligent'

Unlike the current administration.

[springheeled jack]

it is up to the courts to decide whether yingluk should pay the 500billion baht this is nothing to do with the junta or the present prime minister or the finance minister for that matter .

[MZurf]

The government now admits it was not illegal but 'negligent'

Unlike the current administration.

Wait for it, wait for it.....

[jayboy]

Not very convincing and all evidence points to officials scurrying around to prevent the PM from being directly involved by way of signing the document.Yet there is a puzzle here leaving aside the possible concern at the local and international reaction to vindictive politicking.If the administrative order is so very clear cut and without legal shortcomings, what exactly is it that prevents the Dear Leader from signing it off?

[davehowden]

"The PM has announced that if there is anything wrong, he will take responsibility"

Sorry, say that again !!!

[oldsailor35]

Really this is wrong ! For example, If she had bought one hundred Chinese trucks for the government and they all turned out to be "lemons" should she be expected to pay for them. If she made governmental decisions which turn out not to be good, unless she made those decisions for personal gain, such as Suthep did, then being PM., she should not have to pay for it

[Prbkk]

" to make her pay Bt500 billion " Or, 1 year in Jail and a 10,000 baht fine.. such is Thai laws,

flowed and in most cases, unbalanced and insensible, any way you look at it....

The poor lady was only a puppet on a string, and EVERYBODY knew it, and by the look of it,

she's not going to see the

end of it for years to come....

2 KG of mushrooms and a handshake photo op would be more than sufficient.

[MZurf]

The junta leader is insulated from everything he and his junta is doing as he graciously has awarded himself and amnesty for any past, present or future crimes, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

[AGareth2]

you know what they say about the gamekeeper

[candide]

"The PM has announced that if there is anything wrong, he will take responsibility"

Sorry, say that again !!!

How can he take responsibility as he already amnestied himself of everything in advance?

[billd766]

Methinks he's crapping himself, crap.

Rubbish

[realenglish1]

I am really tired of the BS on both sides Its a show and nothing else

[billd766]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

Strangely enough the PTP government REFUSED to show any of the books or figures on the rice scheme whatsoever. There was NO transparency or financial accountability for the entire 3 years plus lifetime of the scam.

The large figure presented IS real.

Simple mathematics will give you the amount of rice bought in millions of tonnes at the agreed price.

If you then add on to that amount the cost of transportation and storage you will reach a figure.

Subtract from that figure the genuine sales in tonnage and the price it reached on the world market and you will get a lower cost of the scam.

Subtract again the lower storage costs or the difference between what you bought and what you sold and the figure that remains is the cost of the rice left over which will be a loss until ALL the rice is sold. If you get less than you paid for the rice is it called a loss no matter what spin is put on it.

The responsibility for the loss remains firmly with the person in charge of the scheme who just happens to be Yingluck Shinawatra, She could have cut the losses much earlier if she had listened to the advice of knowledgeable from with and outside Thailand. She didn't so the responsibility still remains with her.

Spin should not be confused with reality.

[billd766]

Seeking compensation from corrupt or negligent politicians is one thing but why be so selective about it ?

The democrats rice scheme also lost money so why is Abhisit not called to account ? What about Suthep and the police station scandal. Then there is the fake bomb detector approved of by the top military brass even when it was proven to be a worthless plastic box.

If there is going to be the rule of law surely the law should be applied to everyone.

As it is now , all those in power now are doing is guaranteeing that if ever there is another election Phua Thai will win by the biggest landslide ever.

yes that's a good point. However it's a political trial maintaining the ruling party or at least the attempt to do so. And you are right you can't supress people's power at the end.

Of course it is a political trial.

Why would it not be especially as Yingluck Shinawatra was a politician and PM.

If she wasn't a politician then she wouldn't be on trial.

Do you find that too hard to understand.

If she was the CEO of a company and was being sued for 500 million baht it wouldn't be political, it would be a civil trial.

[FangFerang]

it is up to the courts to decide whether yingluk should pay the 500billion baht this is nothing to do with the junta or the present prime minister or the finance minister for that matter .

Courts are the enforcement arm of whoever is in charge this week.

[zaphod reborn]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

That's nonsense. You apparently don't know anything about the practice of law before the Administrative Courts in Thailand. Therefore, you probably should qualify your post, admitting that you don't know whether accounting and loss calculations will be part of the evidence. Or, you could have just found the answer by use of google: http://www.admincourt.go.th/amc_eng/01-court/procedure/courtproceed.htm

The procedures, rules and law applied by the Administrative Court of Thailand are no different than the civil courts. Thailand has many specialty courts - the Labour Court, the Intellectual Property Court, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. These speciality courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, and sometimes they have some subtle procedural and evidentiary differences. For instance, the Labour Court can relieve workers of unconscionable employment rules and agreements, where the rule or agreement would not be the norm for the industry or unfair in light of the difference in bargaining power of the parties.

As far as evidence goes, the Civil Court and Administrative Court are identical. That means expert witnesses will take the stand and have to provide acceptable accounting and auditing evidence to show the losses or lack thereof. Yingluck should have all of this evidence, because part of her responsibility under the rice scheme was to monitor the financial condition of the warehouse stocks and the revenue being generated by sales against the outlays paid for the paddy. Strangely enough, she has never provided any of this accounting or audit evidence in prior hearings, including her impeachment. I'm sure everyone will be keenly anxious to see her rendition of the scheme's actual finances.

As far as the procedure chosen by Prayuth goes, he could have chosen either Civil Court or an Administrative Order to pursue reimbursement from Yingluck. The procedures are only significantly different with respect to the Court that will hear the case, and the alignment of parties. In the Administrative Court, Yingluck becomes a plaintiff, because she must file suit to contest the administrative penalty.

Edited October 15, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[metisdead]

A post containing a paid to post allegation has been removed.

[phoenixdoglover]

The government has asserted that 500 to 800 billion was lost. The NACC advertised a similar figure.

In a court proceeding there might have been a requirement to actually account for the "loss"; to demonstrate, for example, the part that was not just the result of changing market prices. Arithmetic would be involved.

In the current administrative proceeding, there does not appear to be any requirement for that sort of accounting. A large figure can be presented as if it is real. This is convenient and expeditious for the government. No arithmetic required.

Now the government players are covering themselves with justifications for this approach. And the PM is not involved, they say. In the end, no one will be responsible. It will just happen, with minimal human intervention.

Amazing.

Strangely enough the PTP government REFUSED to show any of the books or figures on the rice scheme whatsoever. There was NO transparency or financial accountability for the entire 3 years plus lifetime of the scam.

The large figure presented IS real.

Simple mathematics will give you the amount of rice bought in millions of tonnes at the agreed price.

If you then add on to that amount the cost of transportation and storage you will reach a figure.

Subtract from that figure the genuine sales in tonnage and the price it reached on the world market and you will get a lower cost of the scam.

Subtract again the lower storage costs or the difference between what you bought and what you sold and the figure that remains is the cost of the rice left over which will be a loss until ALL the rice is sold. If you get less than you paid for the rice is it called a loss no matter what spin is put on it.

The responsibility for the loss remains firmly with the person in charge of the scheme who just happens to be Yingluck Shinawatra, She could have cut the losses much earlier if she had listened to the advice of knowledgeable from with and outside Thailand. She didn't so the responsibility still remains with her.

Spin should not be confused with reality.

Yet, you do not present the figures.

Therefore, your argument is without merit, as it is merely a repetition of the unsubstantiated amount proffered by others.

Besides, you have lumped all causes for "loss" and asserted the former PM is responsible. This is the obvious weakness in the government's argument at this point, which you have readily adopted.

To cut to the chase: Is the former PM, for example, responsible for the sudden infusion of Indian Basmati rice into the world market coincident with the Thai decision to stockpile? This change in global supply was the proximate cause of market price declines, and a portion of the "loss" experienced by Thailand. Under what legal theory would the PM be responsible for changes in global market prices of a commodity? If the price had gone up, under this "responsibility" theory, would the PM then be entitled to take the profits?