Yingluck is politically victimised: Boonsong

In his post on personal Facebook page, Boonsong said he was sadden to see Yingluck defend herself in the court.

He said that Yingluck had no direct responsibility in the scheme. Though it was a government policy, it was carried out by a sub-committee.

He insisted that Guangdong Stationary & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corp and Hainan Grain and Oil Industrial Trading Co, which purchased rice under government-government deals, were considered part of the Chinese government as they were 100 per cent owned by the government. They enjoy the same status as Guangxi Mingyang Biochemical Science & Technology which bought tapioca flour under a G2G deal with the Abhisit government in 2000 and China Hainan Rubber Industry Group Co which struck a similar deal for Thai rubber during the Prayut administration.

The tapioca flour and rubber deals "were conducted in the same way as the rice deals struck during the Yingluck administration. The only difference is the deals did not face collusion charges from the NACC (National Anti-Corruption Commission)", Boonsong said.

Boonsong also countered the charges that the stockpiles were slowly released/or released below cost, leading to huge losses. "Rice is the commodity that naturally degrades. As such, selling the commodity below the price paid out to farmers is normal. This is also normal during the Abhisit or Prayut governments."

He also noted that warehouse operators are legally responsible for missing stockpiles or degradation. Demanding Yingluck or others to take responsibility is thus politically motivated, he said.

"The exercise of Article 44 to protect all individuals and organisations tasked to handle this matter is a proof that the rice-pledging scheme is used as a political tool to ruin Yingluck and Pheu Thai Party."

Boonsong now stands trial against charges that while in office, he sold rice to ghost companies.