Jump to content

Are We Missing Lessons From The Rice-Pledging Fiasco?


Flashermac
 Share

Recommended Posts

by Attayuth Bootsripoom

 

 

Tomorrow is "judgement day" for former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra's political future. She is accused by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of negligence of duty leading to corruption, in connection with her government's rice-pledging scheme. That project is part of her Pheu Thai Party's campaign promise in the run-up to the 2011 general election.

 

After Pheu Thai won a landslide victory, the Yingluck-led government went ahead with the rice-pledging scheme, despite protests that it was fraught with flaws open to irregularities and losses.

 

Yingluck's administration ignored the critics, arguing that they had to continue with the project because it was part of the ruling party's campaign promise to the voters. They explained the project was aimed at providing state subsidies to farmers and therefore concerns of possible loss should not be taken into account.

 

As time went by, the "wound" stemming from the rice scheme became "infected" and the "pain" could be felt. Many people pointed out that the project had problems. Yingluck's government appeared to agree that was the case and started to make some adjustments to the scheme.

 

However, before the rice scheme's "abscess" would explode, there came a political crisis and chaos before the coup took place in May last year. The NACC went full steam in dealing with the case. It requested that the Senate impeach Yingluck for negligence in connection with the corruption-plagued and loss-making rice scheme.

 

The unusual speed of the case led to a question as to whether the case was politically motivated. There are many other cases in the NACC's care that have failed to progress so rapidly.

 

The NACC came up with the accusation that Yingluck was negligent about irregularities involving the rice scheme even before the anti-graft agency indicted anyone of corruption. This fact led to an assertion that "when nobody has been found to be corrupt, how can Yingluck be accused of being negligent?"

 

When Yingluck's case was referred to the post-coup National Legislative Assembly for an impeachment process, there came a question as to whether the NLA actually had the authority to impeach her. Some people asked if there existed a law for impeachment of public office holders, as the constitution of 2007, which cited this matter, had already been scrapped after the coup.

 

However, this argument was countered by the fact that the anti-corruption law, which empowered the NACC to seek impeachment of public-office holders, still existed after the coup. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has also supported the view that the NACC had the power to seek impeachment.

 

During the NLA's inquiry session involving the impeachment process against Yingluck, she opted not to show up. And the NLA resolved not to allow her representatives to answer the questions from the assembly's members on her behalf, although the meeting regulations did not forbid that. Finally, the session became a one-sided attack against the ex-PM.

 

Although Yingluck may finally be impeached by the NLA, this society will end up having learned nothing from the rice scheme scandal. It is because the justice process has been rushed and has become incomplete.

 

Some politicians will not miss the chance to point out to their supporters that a decision to impeach Yingluck is politically motivated. However, under its political shroud, the rice scheme really was flawed with loss and damage.

 

Because the rice scheme's "abscess" was not allowed to burst naturally, Thai society has missed the chance to learn some lessons about the bane of expensive populist policies.

 

If society and voters were allowed to learn the lesson by themselves, we might in the future come up with some kind of penalty for political parties that cause severe damage to the country in exchange for popular support. Such a penalty also would teach politicians that they should avoid expensive populist policies like this in the future.

 

 

http://www.nationmul...s-30252421.html

 

 

This is what Fly had been arguing all along. Of course, it presumes the people would finally realise what Thaksin was up to - and would actually care. Surveys have usually shown that most Thais don't mind corruption, as long as they benefit a little from it themselves. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" So the constitution is suspended and parliament dissolved. How do you impeach a private citizen with no laws in place ?"

 

There is martial law ..... government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" So the constitution is suspended and parliament dissolved. How do you impeach a private citizen with no laws in place? "

 

I think you do it like this .....

 

" The National Legislative Assembly on Friday voted overwhelmingly by 190 votes out of a possible 220 to impeach former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra in the rice-pledging case."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...