THURSDAY, March 28, 2024
nationthailand

Rice scheme accounting questioned

Rice scheme accounting questioned

Yingluck cheered by supporters; Democrat Warong points to 'fake govt-to-govt deals'

THE PREVIOUS government’s rice-pledging scheme did not have a proper accounting system, resulting in loopholes on disbursements of the state budget and a lack of the project’s clear financial status, according to a certified public accountant testifying before the Supreme Court against former premier Yingluck Shinawatra.
Yingluck also attended yesterday’s testimony by state witnesses at the Supreme Court, which held a second hearing on alleged wrongdoing by the ex-premier. Public prosecutors have accused Yingluck of negligence in implementing the rice-pledging scheme, resulting in a loss of more than Bt500 billion, even though many farmers benefited from the scheme.
Yingluck had earlier said she would fight the case in court and denied any wrongdoing. The former premier was cheered by a large number of supporters and former Cabinet members who gathered at the court building.
Warong Dejkitvikom, a former opposition Democrat MP, said Yingluck’s Pheu Thai party has tried to convince the public that if the rice-pledging scheme was a good policy, then how could the ex-premier be guilty in executing such a policy.
According to Warong, there were fake government-to-government rice deals under the scheme, as the Yingluck government was unsuccessful in trying to sell a large quantity of rice purchased from farmers. The Yingluck government spent as much as Bt990 billion on the scheme, buying rice from farmers nationwide at a price of Bt15,000 per tonne compared to the prevailing market price of only Bt9,000, resulting in a huge loss of more than Bt500 billion.
According to Nangnoi Charerntaweesub, an accounting expert, who served as a state witness, the rice-pledging scheme should have had a proper accounting system to keep financial records on the disbursement of taxpayers’ money. In general, there should be periodical accounting of the scheme, be it every three months or six months or at the very least on a yearly basis.
This will allow auditors to have a clear picture of the project’s financial status at a given time. She said there were only accounts prepared separately by some state agencies concerned with the scheme such as the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives or Public Warehouse Organisation so the big picture was not available, resulting in loopholes on budget disbursement.
Nangnoi also told the court that those who were responsible for this project should have ordered an audit of all accounts on rice pledging, payment and other financial information to show the scheme’s financial status. In addition, it was wrong to argue that the scheme was still running at that time so the accounts could not be audited.
 

 

RELATED
nationthailand