Pheu Thai Defends Yingluck Rice Scheme in Thailand Court
The past, as they say, is never really past. In Thailand, this is particularly true when it comes to the legacy of Yingluck Shinawatra and her ambitious, ultimately disastrous, rice-pledging scheme. Now, more than a decade later, the ruling Pheu Thai Party, led by her niece Paetongtarn Shinawatra, is grappling with the fallout, specifically a court order requiring Yingluck to pay 10 billion baht in compensation for the losses incurred. As reported by the Bangkok Post, the Pheu Thai party has come to the defence of Yingluck Shinawatra, signaling a complex political calculation.
The situation highlights a number of intertwined factors that go beyond simple economics. The rice-pledging scheme, launched in 2011, aimed to boost farmers' incomes by buying rice at above-market prices. While initially popular, the scheme quickly ran into problems, resulting in massive stockpiles, corruption allegations, and significant financial losses. The 2014 military coup, which ousted Yingluck’s government, used the scheme’s failures as a justification, and the subsequent investigation was conducted under the auspices of the military regime. This casts a long shadow over the present legal battle.
The Pheu Thai Party’s decision to challenge the court order is not just about protecting a former prime minister, but also about navigating the deeply polarized political landscape and maintaining its support base in rural areas where the rice-pledging scheme was once incredibly popular. Their strategy appears to be two-pronged: contesting the legal basis of the ruling, and framing the case as politically motivated.
Several factors contribute to the ongoing complexity of this case:
- The Shadow of the Coup: The fact that the investigation and initial ruling occurred under military rule raises questions about due process and potential political interference.
- Economic Consequences: The sheer scale of the financial losses involved makes it difficult to simply dismiss the case as political persecution. The money has to come from somewhere, and taxpayers are understandably concerned.
- Political Polarization: The case is deeply intertwined with Thailand’s broader political divides, with supporters and opponents of the Shinawatra family holding diametrically opposed views.
- The “New Evidence”: The party’s planned invocation of Section 75 of the Administrative Court and Procedures Act to present “new evidence” regarding the sale of rice left over from the scheme underscores the difficulty in untangling what actually happened and the value of the rice sold.
Danuporn Punnakanta, the Pheu Thai spokesman, claims that the party is exploring all remaining legal channels to contest the order, including presenting evidence of rice sales conducted last year under Commerce Minister Phumtham Wechayachai. Whether this new evidence will be sufficient to overturn or further reduce the compensation order remains to be seen. The original compensation sought by the Finance Ministry was 35.7 billion baht, but the court has reduced it to 10 billion baht, indicating a degree of nuance in the legal considerations.
“The core question isn’t just about whether Yingluck is personally liable, but about the accountability of political leaders for the consequences of their policies, particularly those involving significant financial risks to the state.”
Meanwhile, critics like Thai Pakdee Party leader Warong Dechgitvigrom argue that Yingluck’s allies are distorting facts and portraying her as a victim. He points to evidence of corruption and artificially inflated rice prices during the scheme’s implementation. He also draws attention to government-to-government schemes to sell rice at prices benefitting parties close to the ruling Pheu Thai Party. These are accusations that add to the complicated landscape.
Ultimately, the Pheu Thai Party’s defense of Yingluck Shinawatra is more than just a legal maneuver. It’s a strategic decision with far-reaching implications for Thailand’s political stability and the party’s own future. The case highlights the challenges of reconciling political loyalty with economic realities and navigating the persistent shadow of past political upheavals. How they, and Thai society, grapple with this will offer insight into the nation’s path forward.
