Fate of Yingluck pending with countdown for trial of rice scheme

**By APD Writer Chen Jiabao **

(Translated by Ma Qian)

Thailand’s Supreme Court is scheduled to deliver on August 25 its ruling against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on a charge of criminal negligence over a rice subsidy scheme. If convicted, Yingluck would face 10 years in jail.

In her closing statement to the court, Yingluck denied the charge of dereliction of duty for failing to stop corruption and irregularities stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme, saying that she was the victim of political persecution.

With trembling voice, Yingluck said that as an ordinary woman born in the provinces, she had the opportunity to learn and feel the severe hardships endured by farmers.

“But whatever the outcome, I take pride in the role that I played in giving farmers the better life which they deserve,” she said.

The rice subsidy scheme was carried out when Yingluck came into office on August 2011. The government bought rice from farmers at up to 50 percent above the market price, so as to stockpile it in an attempt to reduce global supply and drive up global prices.

However, as the move raised the prices of Thai rice, rice exports of neighboring countries, such as India and Vietnam, went up consequently. Thailand lost its agricultural advantage as the world’s largest rice exporter, which it had kept for nearly a century. What’s worse, while the scheme was under way, the Yingluck government failed to pay for it.

In May 2014, the Constitutional Court of Thailand ousted Yingluck over abuse of power and breach of law. Afterwards, the Thai military launched a coup to overturn the Yingluck administration.

On February 2015, the attorney general of Thailand brought a charge of criminal negligence against Yingluck over alleged mismanagement of the scheme and breach of criminal law as well as anti-corruption law, which incurred fiscal deficit and excessive rice hoarding in the country.

The trial of the rice scheme has last for two years, with a total of 26 courtroom investigations and 45 witnesses subpoenaed, causing great controversy and concern.

In the eyes of the Thai media and the country’s different factions, Thailand has been going through August with simmering tensions in the political fields. Some critics believe Thailand’s future political landscape hinges on the upcoming trial of the rice scheme.

As the day for trial approaches, what the Thai government and Yingluck have done? And what the two sides plan to do next?

Thai government on standby

Less than three days after the last court hearing of the rice scheme on July 21, Yingluck’s legal team confirmed that the Thai authorities had frozen seven bank accounts of Yingluck over a fine of 1 billion U.S. dollars that she faces for her administration’s controversial rice subsidy scheme.

In response, Yingluck posted a statement on her Facebook page, saying the move was a sign of the government’s abuse of power. She called on her supporters for encouragement. "I will look to the moral support from all of you as it will give me the much-needed strength and patience to fight on,” she wrote.

On July 27, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam told reporters that the authorities had frozen 16 bank accounts belonging to Yingluck. The Department of Legal Execution withdrew tens of thousands bahts in five of the 16 accounts, but did not submit the money to the finance ministry.

Wissanu also said the department already coordinated with the Lands Department to prevent her from selling or transferring 37 properties. "They have been temporarily frozen ... but they haven't been seized by the state," Wissanu said.

During Yingluck’s court appearance late last month, hundreds of her supporters came by bus or van to back her. Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha warned her supporters not to protest in front of the court, saying that a gathering of over five people would be illegal.

However, in Yingluck’s recent closing statement, more than 1,000 supporters showed up for her arrival at court. Pichit Tamoon, a leader of the red-shirt movement that supports the Shinawatras and is based in the northern city of Chiang Mai, said up to 3,000 people would head for Bangkok.

Thai police has recently fined three van operators whose vehicles were used to transport Yingluck’s supporters to the Supreme Court, and will subpoena 17 operators for involvement in ferrying the supporters that day. The police claimed their move was inappropriate and would disturb public order.

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), the country's broadcasting regulator, has also suspended the broadcast license held by Peace TV, a satellite-based television channel linked to the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, for a full month.

The NBTC said two of its programs were deemed to contain content “detrimental to national security” as well as public order and morals.

What’s more, Thailand’s interior ministry has ordered a probe into an allegation that the Office of the Auditor-General had embezzled local administration budgets.

The money was allegedly used to cover the expenses for transporting people from several provinces to support Yingluck in Bangkok on the day when she delivered the closing statement at the Supreme Court.

Observers said that those incidents are signals the government released to all sides of the political divide over the final trial of the rice subsidy scheme. The Thai administration will try as much as they can to nip in the bud anything possible to cause unrest.

Yingluck's smiles and tears

During the two years of the rice scheme case, Yingluck was required to attend every court hearing. Despite her court appearance, Yingluck frequently appeared among the public, which was all recorded by media and her supporters.

Her smile, confident and steadfast, was recently filmed in a close-up shot while she was walking, with her head up, into the Supreme Court to deliver a closing statement earlier this month.

She read a 19-page statement in court, denying all allegations and restated the most controversial part of her government’s dealing with the rice scheme.

She stressed that the policy to purchase rice was co-decided by the cabinet and was reported to congress. Yet now, prosecutors have passed the buck to her, which goes against the spirit of the constitution, which requires the cabinet to shoulder responsibilities together. Relevant departments also acted unjustly and were suspected of framing her up.

She criticized the Thai government’s decision to freeze her bank accounts before she is convicted, which was an act of presumption of guilt and contradicted the spirit of the criminal law.

After the closing statement, Yingluck returned with her son to her hometown Chiang Mai and only occasionally showed up in public, just to prove her promise that she will not flee.

After his attendance in the opening ceremony of Beijing’s Olympic Games in 2008, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck’s brother, fled to escape from a two-year jail sentence, which he would get if he was convicted of abuse of power by the Supreme Court.

Compared with her brother, Yingluck, risking a 10-year jail sentence, told media that she did not plan to flee, when she attended the last court hearing before her final trial.

"I am a Thai citizen who should have rights and freedoms like any other Thais. I want to reassure you that I will not abandon my fellow Thais and I'm ready to come back to Thailand," she said.

Over the last two years, a tearful Yingluck always reminds people that the female leader is weak and innocent. Her tears have been shed onto the roses given by her supporters. With tearful eyes, Yingluck shook hands with her backers outside the Supreme Court. It often took Yingluck nearly 20 minutes to walk through the less than 20-meter path outside the courtroom.

The Thai government also made Yingluck cry. In 2015, the authorities issued an executive order to confiscate her assets as compensation for 530 billion bahts (15.9 billion U.S. dollars) of the losses arising from her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

In October 2016, the finance ministry issued an executive order holding Yingluck responsible for 35.7 billion bahts (one billion U.S. dollars) of the losses.

At the time, to reverse the downfall of rice price, Yingluck went to southeast Thailand and bought rice from local farmers with her own money. She even tried to peddle the rice she bought on the street.

When asked by farmers about how to pay for the thumping compensation due to the failing rice scheme, Yingluck said in tears that she didn’t know what to do, because the amount of compensation was too large.

Military junta's conundrum

Different sides explained the rice subsidy scheme in their own ways. However, it is no doubt that the case has exerted significant influence on Thailand’s judicial system and politics.

A column published by Bangkok Post stated that the loss, caused by the rice-pledging scheme, was a normal risk that this kind of subsidy program would take. The authorities cannot justify its decision to confiscate her assets, unless Yingluck did commit corruption in the case.

There have been countless government-led programs in Thailand that caused losses. It is unfair to only punish Yingluck with severe penalty, which also ran counter to the spirit of the country’s criminal law.

If Yingluck becomes a precedent in which an individual pays for the mistakes of government policies, the future administration will flinch from carrying out policies for fear of faults and indemnities.

A former Thai judge told local media that there is still some possibility for Yingluck to be acquitted over the rice scheme case. Prosecutors charged Yingluck with dereliction of duty and connivance of corruption.

But whether she will be convicted depends on whether she caused the loss of the project on purpose.

Yingluck’s cabinet will also make the decision to strengthen supervision over rice purchase. What’s critical is that how the court will view the measures that the Yingluck government implemented to prevent and punish corruption.

Yingluck reiterated that she had exercised her power provided by the constitution as well as laws and regulations. During the implementation of the rice scheme, her government appointed officials to take charge and demanded different departments and state-owned enterprises to coordinate and promote the project together. Efforts were also made to prevent corruption through various measures.

However, the opposition and experts of The Thailand Development Research Institute pointed out that many think tanks had elaborated on the weaknesses of the policy and the loss it might cause to the Yingluck government. But the government shrugged them off.

They held that Yingluck, as the general supervisor of the rice scheme, did not know the corruption that occurred during its implementation.

For example, former Thai Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom allegedly facilitated bogus government-to-government deals to allow some private companies to get the rice bought by the government at a low price.

Then, they re-exported the rice at a high price to get massive profits. However, her government let loose of it, resulting in a financial damage of over 20 billion bahts (6 million U.S. dollars).

More experts stated that no matter how the final trial of the case would be, it would prick the country’s old scar of a split society.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun, an associate professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies of Kyoto University, held that should Yingluck be convicted of negligence over her role in the scheme, street protests and political violence would become inevitable.

In his article published on the Japan Times on August 3, he pointed out that Yingluck had gained wide support from the grass roots, which helped her win a landslide victory in the 2011 election.

Some of Yingluck’s supporters have compared her with Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. They think that imprisonment would bring Yingluck the title of “a democratic icon.”

He also said if the courts choose to let Yingluck go, it would call into question the reasoning behind the coup that overturned the Yingluck administration. After all, a corruption-plagued rice scheme was the main justification that the junta used to oust Yingluck.

He held that “without an independent judicial system, Thailand’s road toward peace and reconciliation will be rocky.”

Chen Jiabao is fellow of APD Institute, and the Thailand correspondent for APD news. Major in Thai, she's also a writer on Thailand issues with Xinhua News Agency.

(ASIA PACIFIC DAILY)