Yingluck urged to answer NLA's questions in person

Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would help her case considerably by personally answering questions and delivering her closing statement at her impeachment hearing related to her administration’s rice-pledging scheme, a key National Legislative Assembly member advised yesterday.
Kittisak Rattanawaraha, a member of the NLA committee in charge of the questioning procedure against Yingluck, said yesterday that while the law doesn’t require Yingluck to do this in person, it would not be as convincing if she sent a representative to do it on her behalf.
More than 20 questions for Yingluck have already been submitted by NLA members with the deadline coming up tomorrow. Yingluck or her representative will have to answer them and then present closing arguments on Friday.
Some NLA members want her to explain why she couldn’t stop the rice-pledging scheme after she had been warned and to explain why data used by both sides regarding the loss stemming from the scheme were conflicting.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked questions like how Yingluck could be impeached when the Constitution of 2007 has been abrogated, he said.
Bowornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, has said it is possible.
Kittisak said that while no one else can answer to Yingluck’s satisfaction the allegations but her, if she fails to perform well under examination, it could hurt her case.
Jate Siratranont, spokesman for NLA whips, said that since Yingluck came in person last week to defend herself, it would be more appropriate that she answer the questions and give the closing statement herself.
Suriyasai Katasila, a lecturer at Rangsit University’s College of Social Innovation, said the NLA should not fear upsetting reconcilement of the country by impeaching Yingluck, as this was a matter of corruption and not politics.
Udomdej Ratanasatien, a former Pheu Thai MP and government whip, warned that any move by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to ban impeached political office holders from politics for life could face rejection by the public and fuel further social disunity.
The CDC had floated the idea of a majority vote, instead of a two-thirds vote, by both the upper and lower houses to approve a lifetime political ban for disgraced politicians.
 Udomdej said such an alteration would make elected governments more insecure and bringing down an elected government easier.
Impeaching politicians who no longer hold a political position reflects the desire to see elected politicians disqualified from running for office again, he said.