Make no mistake, the rice-pledging scheme run by former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was a public policy disaster. It was ill-conceived and recklessly implemented. Still, to force Ms Yingluck to pay for losses allegedly incurred by her government's policy seems unfair.
If Ms Yingluck has to take personal responsibility for the policy failure, there is a chance all public investment programmes may come to an end. No politician or official would dare run anything for the public if they are inherently held responsible for the state.
The rice-pledging policy is a farm subsidy and all farm subsidies run at a loss. The country has lost billions to these programmes which were basically implemented by every government in the past. Why is only Ms Yingluck held accountable? The controversy followed a decision by the committee pursuing civil liability claims against state officials to impose a fine of 35.7 billion baht against Ms Yingluck for her negligence in overseeing the rice-pledging scheme.
The panel, chaired by director-general of the Comptroller-General's Department Manas Jamveha, proposed the prime minister and finance minister sign an administrative order for Ms Yingluck to pay the fine. If she disagrees with the order, she can appeal. Otherwise, her assets will be seized.
Atiya Achakulwisut is Contributing Editor, Bangkok Post.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha insisted the 1996 Prime Minister's Office's Order under which Ms Yingluck will be charged has been applied to more than 5,000 cases. However, using it to seek such a hefty fine from a former prime minister is unprecedented.
The move is likely to cause an unprecedented level of selective treatment and double standards if it is effective. The figures involved in alleged damages to the state and compensation sought were problematic from the start.
The Manas panel came up with the 35.7 billion baht amount because it figured Ms Yingluck was responsible for losses of 178 billion baht incurred during the 2013-2014 rice crops.
This is not consistent with an earlier finding by another committee, chaired by the deputy permanent secretary at the Prime Minister's Office Jirachai Moonthongroy, probing Ms Yingluck's alleged negligence. The Jirachai panel determined Ms Yingluck was responsible for losses incurred across four rice crops, from 2011 to 2014, and had to pay a fine of 286.6 billion baht.
The Manas panel has good reason to focus on the last two pledging seasons. It said while Ms Yingluck tried to improve the scheme during the first year, she neglected to do so during the second when financial damages from rice stockpiling had become evident and several agencies, including the Office of the Auditor-General and National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), formally warned her about financial losses.
Its resolution to fine her 20% of the second year's losses still seems haphazard. The Manas panel said it had arrived at the amount because the 1996 order said compensation sought must reflect the severity of the offence, must be fair to the official accused and must be proportionately distributed in a case where several offenders are involved.
But on what basis can it calculate that Ms Yingluck contributed 20% of the damage? She was prime minister and the highest authority. Shouldn't her role account for 100%? Besides, why should a 20% fine be considered fair for her?
While it is acceptable for the NACC to pursue cases against Ms Yingluck for alleged corruption or dereliction of duty regarding the rice-pledging scheme, trying to seize her assets to pay for alleged losses will be problematic.
Did Ms Yingluck have a legal and political right to pursue it? She definitely did. The policy was announced and approved by parliament. She pursued it in her capacity as prime minister and she was supposed to take responsibility for it politically, not as a private citizen.
The regime must not forget that despite its flaws, the rice-pledging scheme is a form of public investment. It need not be profitable as losses to the state are gains for farmers, which benefited the economy as a whole. If Ms Yingluck has to pay the state for losses, what of other unprofitable schemes? The Bangkok Mass Transit Authority or State Railway of Thailand have amassed losses of hundreds of billion baht.
Would Gen Prayut compensate the state out of his own pocket if his regime's high-speed train projects fail to attract passengers? How about the billions of baht that have been spent to bring peace to the far South? Has the policy become a failure yet? Who should take personal responsibility for these losses?