All about rice: NACC can't afford to get it wrong again

But the saga is full of twists, the latest concerning the decision by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to defer taking the case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra to court.

During the anti-government protests, the scheme was frequently highlighted as an example of the party’s policy corruption.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) also appears to have believed this. After taking on an investigation into possible corruption in the scheme in December 2012, it acted swiftly this year.

In January, a subcommittee ruled to file charges against former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and 15 accomplices. Two months later, in the first twist of the saga, the anti-graft agency moved to file charges against Yingluck for negligence.

One of the reasons prosecutors gave for deferring the NACC case was that evidence was incomplete. One example cited was research into the rice scheme by Thailand Development Research Institute – only the cover page of that research was submitted, it said.

That sparked another twist. A Pheu Thai member shouted that as the TDRI research was released before Yingluck took power, how it could be used against her?

However, NACC chairman Panthep Klanarongran hit back, saying that the research was just a reference. As such, the release date did not matter. In the background, some supporters claimed that there was some kind of interference to block the OAG taking the case against Yingluck. The former prime minister later insisted there was no such thing.

Another twist followed. Nipon Poapongsakorn, a distinguished fellow at TDRI, issued a statement to clarify that the particular research covering the rice-pledging scheme for the 2005/2006 harvest year under the Thaksin era. As such, it should not be used to back the NACC’s case against Yingluck. 

“Academic research is not about finding wrongdoers, which is the duty of government officers. Academics’ duty is to find the root of corruption, aimed at preventing losses to the country. Please use academic research appropriately,” he said.

Another twist will follow soon. The NACC has apparently conceded that it has to work harder to convince state prosecutors that the case against Yingluck carries some weight. So, a 10-member team has been appointed to work with the prosecutors.

Looking back, it seems inconceivable that the prosecutors could have decided differently. The NACC’s case against Boonsong and accomplices has not yet reached court. They are not yet proven guilty of falsifying a government-to-government rice deal with China. So it may be stretching things to say that Yingluck should be held responsible for unproven wrongdoing, despite the schemes massive losses. 

To Pheu Thai’s supporters, it would be better if both cases go to the court at the same time, rather than proceeding with Yingluck’s case alone.

The NACC would be a hero if wrongdoers are proved guilty. But its reputation would be badly tarnished if it fails. It already had several high-profile failures in its graft-fighting history.

In April, its cases against former commerce minister Watana and former Bangkok governor Apirak Kosayothin were dropped, relieving the two from paying compensation to Bangkok Metropolitan Administration in regard to a fire-truck purchase deal. 

In June, the Appeal Court also reversed the lower court’s ruling against Amaret Sila-on, former chairman of the dissolved Financial Sector Restructuring Authority (FRA), over charges of negligence.

Notably, several cases have been delayed, including one against former Tourism Authority of Thailand governor Juthamas Siriwan.

The NACC has made the right moves to prove that wrongdoers will eventually be punished. But as we have seen from the rice-pledging case, poor preparation and politicking could reduce confidence in its work. And this could bring about losses to the state.