So, four ministers from the ousted government of Yingluck Shinawatra have taken to YouTube to answer, in her defence, the questions about the rice-pledging scheme raised by members of the National Legislative Assembly last Friday. They took this action to offset the assembly's refusal to let them speak on her behalf.
What the four — former deputy prime ministers Kittiratt Na-Ranong and Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan, former PM's Office minister Varathep Rattanakorn and former deputy commerce minister Yanyong Phuangrach — said can be roughly summed up as follows:
The rice-pledging scheme was good and designed with the intention of the Pheu Thai-led government to benefit rice farmers. The pledging price set at 40% above market price (or 15,000 baht per tonne of paddy) was not unusual because other governments such as Japan, Switzerland and South Korea did the same when subsidising their own farmers.
Their rationale was that a financial loss from the rice pledging scheme should not be taken into consideration in a populist scheme. Mr Kittiratt maintains the scheme did not cause any damage to the economy. Instead, he insists it improved the quality of life of farmers, and it increased public spending, which helped to stimulate the economy
He added that any government which did not have the courage to implement policies deemed beneficial to the grassroots people, even at a cost to the taxpayer, would do more harm to the country.
Regarding the suicides of 20 or so farmers, Mr Kittiratt said there was no solid evidence to prove that all were related to the rice scheme. His information indicated there were only two such cases that related to the scheme.
Mr Yanyong, meanwhile, said millions of Thais had a misunderstanding about the pledging price being about 40% higher than market prices. High prices were not the real issue, he said, because rice prices fluctuate, which means that what goes up can come down. And the rice pledged as a guarantee could be redeemed by farmers.
Also, he added, there was no mass corruption as alleged by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and the 600 billion baht or so loss from the scheme was just the imagination of an accounting committee.
To put it in a few words, the Yingluck government was clean and it did everything for the good of farmers. There was no massive corruption.
The rice scheme stimulated the economy and farmers benefited from the scheme. Any loss of taxpayer money was insignificant. Also, the government's failure to pay farmers on time was not due to its own mistake but the anti-government protesters who blocked the government's efforts to secure fresh funding to help the farmers.
I believe many people who have read their defence superficially and without questioning might get carried away and believe they are all innocent and should be praised for their good hearts and deeds on behalf of farmers.
I will not get too involved with their defence at this stage. But there are a few nagging questions — that is why they are speaking out now. But where were they when they were still in power and we wanted to know everything about the rice scheme?
Why the silence then and why were we kept in the dark about what went on with the rice scheme, such as how much rice was sold, to whom and at what prices? The standard answer then was, "the information is confidential and it would be damaging to the country if it was revealed".
Do we still remember the awkward scene at a press conference by then-commerce minister Boonsong Teriyaphirom and his deputy, Natthawut Saikua? Mr Natthawut was seen anxiously sipping water from a bottle every now and then because he was caught with his pants down, unable to answer any questions about the rice scheme raised by reporters.
The four ex-ministers' defence of Ms Yingluck on YouTube, and their aborted attempt to defend Ms Yingluck in the NLA last Friday, are typical Pheu Thai Party tactics to shield the Shinawatra clan from being grilled in parliament.
Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra never faced a grilling during his four-year tenure because he was heavily protected by his guardians in the parliament.
It is not known whether the YouTube defence will have any effect on NLA members when they meet on Friday to cast votes for impeachment. But Ms Yingluck missed a good chance last Friday, not just to make a defence, but more importantly, to earn sympathy from the assembly.
She has another chance when she presents her closing statement on Thursday. I hope she does not waste it.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.