Legal and political precedents will be forged by Yingluck verdict

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Legal and political precedents will be forged by Yingluck verdict

By Tulsathit Taptim 
The Nation

 

In two days, Prayut Chan-o-cha’s controversial reign will likely be marked by a “super irony”. No matter what the Supreme Court’s division for politicians rules in the rice-scheme case, his pledge to restore peace after a bloody era in Thai politics will be severely tested. But make no mistake, this a damned-if-you-damned-if-you-don’t situation.

So much has been said about the politics surrounding the case, so here’s a brief summary. 

 

Some refuse to accept a court case carried out under military rule, but others insist a democratically supervised trial is impossible. The whole country, therefore, is stuck in a great dilemma. Should the Yingluck government’s scandal-plagued rice-pledging programme come under legal scrutiny? Yes. Should that scrutiny take place while the military is in power? No.

Is fair scrutiny likely when politicians who launched the scheme return to power? No.

 

Friday’s ruling will stir more political turmoil, the magnitude of which remains to be seen and depends on several factors. So let’s look at some key legal aspects. Experts say the final verdict will hinge on how the judges handle the following points:

Was there a hidden agenda behind the rice project?

 

Recently, the court absolved former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat of abusing his power during a crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters by security forces, saying he had no “special motive” behind the government order. Similar reasoning may be applied in the Yingluck case, especially if the court decides that the rice scheme caused massive budgetary damage or rampant corruption.

 

Was the rice scheme cancellable?

 

A key defence argument is that the rice-price pledge had to be implemented and could not be suspended or terminated since the Pheu Thai Party was required to carry out its election promise which was later approved by Parliament. The judges will have to consider whether this claim is solid, or whether it is undermined by the many experts who warned that the rice scheme was causing massive financial damage and corruption.

 

Simply put, the judges will have to decide whether an election pledge is cancellable if there are signs or justified warnings of damage and/or graft.

 

(The supposed irrevocability of election-related policies is, understandably, meant to deter politicians from giving unrealistic pledges during their campaigns. This preventive measure, however, fails to address the issue of what a government should do if a policy triggers a flood of credible warnings, as in the case of the rice scheme.)

 

Were Yingluck’s responses to graft and budgetary warnings sufficient?

 

Her defence said they were. The prosecution said they were superficial at best. This issue is also related to the irrevocability question. The judges will need to decide whether her government was confident in its anti-graft measures and thus carried on with the rice programme, or if it was ignorant and stubborn, causing large-scale damage.

 

Here are the facts: Yingluck chaired the National Rice Policy Committee while she was prime minister. After the ambitious scheme was launched, the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Office of the Auditor General sent official warnings to the government, which were then forwarded to “related agencies”. The defence also said government auditors were assigned to investigate the concerns.

 

Was Yingluck responsible for the “G-to-G” debacle?

 

The answer rests on whom the judges believe had ultimate, inescapable responsibility to sell the rice bought from farmers – Yingluck or the Commerce Ministry.

 

How the judges treat this issue may also affect their ruling on charges of graft during attempts to sell the rice.

 

(There are video clips showing Yingluck speaking about an imminent “purchase” that wasn’t to be. The accusers say she intentionally lied. The court will have to determine if that was the case, or whether she was merely given the wrong information.

 

The ruling on Yingluck’s role in the “G-to-G” failure will be delivered on the same day as the verdict in a separate case against ex-commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom – a fact that many observers find highly significant.

 

Boonsong has been on trial for failing to resell rice “bought” from farmers. Other analysts believe people shouldn’t read too much into the fact that Yingluck’s and Boonsong’s verdicts are both scheduled for August 25, pointing out that their cases are related and that several of the same judges have sat through both trials, so it makes sense to deliver rulings on the same days.

 

Can any legal precedent be applied?

 

No, at least not for the aforementioned issues. Instead, Friday’s ruling will set precedents. This will be the first time the court has ruled on whether a state policy delivered on an election pledge is revocable. This is also the first time a prime minister is being held accountable by prosecutors for a state policy that allegedly went horribly wrong, a policy implemented under a national committee that she chaired.

 

But the precedents won’t just be legal. August 25, 2017 will also be a watershed for Thai politics. 

 

*With additional reporting by Nation senior reporter Opas Boomlom.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30324631

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-23

[ezzra]

To sums up all the questions and ambiguities about Yingluck's culpability

the answer would be a resounding YES! whether she knew about it or not,

she was the PM, the big boss, and all screw ups

and cock up should laid at her door's step, otherwise, what's the point of having

a PM at all?....

[Chang_paarp]

I thought precedent was not a thing in Thai law. Every case is judged as a lone interpretation of the law. This is what has caused some "interesting" judgements as previous judgements were not admissible for precedent to get a result.

[Samui Bodoh]

42 minutes ago, ezzra said:

To sums up all the questions and ambiguities about Yingluck's culpability

the answer would be a resounding YES! whether she knew about it or not,

she was the PM, the big boss, and all screw ups

and cock up should laid at her door's step, otherwise, what's the point of having

a PM at all?....

 

There is a great deal of truth to Ezzra's post above, but (respectfully!) I think he misses the point.

 

The main issue for me is whether this is a political or legal matter.

 

The scheme was announced during an election, debated in Parliament, and implemented by the government. I will happily stipulate that it was a stupid policy and very badly implemented. And yes, there was corruption. Where there was corruption, my view is that the perpetrators should be tried,and tossed into the slammer for a long time.

 

However, stupidity and bad implementation aren't really criminal matters, but rather one of politics.

 

The best outcome of this would have been the voters voting the 'red' party out of power for incompetence. And if I had had a vote, I would have certainly done so!

 

Putting a PM on trial who was forced out by a coup is the textbook definition of an unfair trial.

 

The whole matter is a cock up. Period.

 

 

 

[halloween]

40 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

There is a great deal of truth to Ezzra's post above, but (respectfully!) I think he misses the point.

 

The main issue for me is whether this is a political or legal matter.

 

The scheme was announced during an election, debated in Parliament, and implemented by the government. I will happily stipulate that it was a stupid policy and very badly implemented. And yes, there was corruption. Where there was corruption, my view is that the perpetrators should be tried,and tossed into the slammer for a long time.

 

However, stupidity and bad implementation aren't really criminal matters, but rather one of politics.

 

The best outcome of this would have been the voters voting the 'red' party out of power for incompetence. And if I had had a vote, I would have certainly done so!

 

Putting a PM on trial who was forced out by a coup is the textbook definition of an unfair trial.

 

The whole matter is a cock up. Period.

 

 

 

I think you are missing more than one point. Why do you grant an ex-PM some special status, aren't we all supposed to be equal before the law? You would jail the corrupt, but won't assign responsibility to those who accepted it with the job. It wasn't only the fake G2G deals than were corrupt, the legal deals involving huge agency fees paid to family cronies reek of it as well.

The stated aim of the policy was to help the poorest farmers, later amended to poor, both terms dropped by her defence. In that aim it was a total failure and at great expense. if that was some sort of sacred promise, why wasn't the policy amended to more accurately implement its goals?

Stupidity and bad implementation aren't really criminal matters, but negligence is, and THAT is the charge. Failure to carry out her duties with due diligence, and the attendance records for the rice policy committee and parliament prove that easily.

You claim the trial is unfair, I assume to her. Is no trial fair to the people of Thailand? Should politicians be allowed to squander vast sums of the money they are supposed to manage responsibly, ignore repeated warnings their policy will fail and that it is accumulating huge losses, without any repercussion?

 

[binjalin]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

To sums up all the questions and ambiguities about Yingluck's culpability

the answer would be a resounding YES! whether she knew about it or not,

she was the PM, the big boss, and all screw ups

and cock up should laid at her door's step, otherwise, what's the point of having

a PM at all?....

So Blair for Iraq?  Bush for Afghanistan? what else? it's unprecedented political nonsense to hound an ex-PM for decisions made whilst in ELECTED office. BTW she's innocent.

[binjalin]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

I think you are missing more than one point. Why do you grant an ex-PM some special status, aren't we all supposed to be equal before the law? You would jail the corrupt, but won't assign responsibility to those who accepted it with the job. It wasn't only the fake G2G deals than were corrupt, the legal deals involving huge agency fees paid to family cronies reek of it as well.

The stated aim of the policy was to help the poorest farmers, later amended to poor, both terms dropped by her defence. In that aim it was a total failure and at great expense. if that was some sort of sacred promise, why wasn't the policy amended to more accurately implement its goals?

Stupidity and bad implementation aren't really criminal matters, but negligence is, and THAT is the charge. Failure to carry out her duties with due diligence, and the attendance records for the rice policy committee and parliament prove that easily.

You claim the trial is unfair, I assume to her. Is no trial fair to the people of Thailand? Should politicians be allowed to squander vast sums of the money they are supposed to manage responsibly, ignore repeated warnings their policy will fail and that it is accumulating huge losses, without any repercussion?

 

Yes if elected. The counter to that is un-elect them but, then, you don't believe in elections or the people's right to choose their own government. 

[halloween]

22 minutes ago, binjalin said:

Yes if elected. The counter to that is un-elect them but, then, you don't believe in elections or the people's right to choose their own government. 

The simplistic democracy model, election is all, and popularity over-rides the law.

[halloween]

26 minutes ago, binjalin said:

So Blair for Iraq?  Bush for Afghanistan? what else? it's unprecedented political nonsense to hound an ex-PM for decisions made whilst in ELECTED office. BTW she's innocent.

She is being prosecuted for failing to carry out the duties of office, not for her decisions. Your opinion of guilt/innocence is both worthless and irrelevant.