PM: Pheu Thai must not mislead public on rice scheme
Play
Prayut says 'present your evidence in court instead of creating chaos'
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has urged former Pheu Thai MPs to stop using the previous government's rice-pledging scheme to mislead the public, suggesting they should legally contest the case by providing evidence in the courts.
His statement followed remarks by some former MPs attacking the government’s use of Article 44 of the interim charter to pursue wrongdoers in the controversial scheme, which led to a huge loss of taxpayer money.
Prayut said those accused in this scheme should present their evidence to defend themselves in the courts rather than misleading the public to create chaos.
The Pheu Thai Party yesterday also issued a statement charging Prayut in his capacity as head of National Council on Peace and Order (NCPO) of abusing his powers by resorting to use of Article 44 of the interim charter to provide legal protection to state officials responsible for managing the government's remaining rice stocks.
First, the party said, it was not necessary for the government to issue the special order under Article 44 because there were normal rules and regulations governing storage of rice stocks and their sales. There were also laws concerning legal action against former politicians who could face lawsuits for causing damage in the rice scheme.
Second, the party said, Article 44, which empowers one person to exercise executive, legislative and judicial powers, is against the rule of law so there was no legal basis for the order to protect state officials in this case.
Third, the party said, the order runs counter to the NCPO’s announcement No 63/2557, which states that the NCPO will ensure justice for people. Fourth, there is a “double-standard” practice in this case. Fifth, the court of law should be allowed to exercise its impartiality in considering the alleged wrongdoings.
Meanwhile, Korkaew Pikulthong, a former Pheu Thai MP, said the government had to answer key questions created by its legal action against former premier Yingluck Shinawatra, who implemented the rice-pledging scheme.
Korkaew said the government had suggested that rice stocks resulting from the scheme had turned bad, resulting in a low price when sold in the market. However, there was no clear evidence on the quality of rice stocks owned by the government, so some persons could have benefited financially from this situation.
Korkaew also raised questions about the government’s attempt to file civil lawsuits against former premier Yingluck to seek massive compensation for allegedly causing the loss of tax payers’ money in implementing the rice-pledging scheme.
In his opinion, such a move was unprecedented since every previous government had implemented rice-pledging or rice price insurance or related schemes to help farmers.
Korkaew also argued that it was not usual for this kind of scheme to face heavy losses since it was aimed at helping farmers and improving their livelihood.
