The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) on Tuesday voted unanimously to recommend prosecutors indict former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, former deputy commerce minister Poom Sarapol, and 19 senior government officials and business executives for their roles in fake government-to-government (G-to-G) rice deals with two Chinese companies.
Mr Boonsong was also implicated by the NACC in more dubious government-to-government rice deals with four Chinese firms involving a total of 14 million tonnes of milled rice.
NACC spokesman Vicha Mahakhun said on Tuesday that although the exact amount of damages from the rice-pledging scheme remains unknown, the scheme's audit committee had estimated the loss incurred at about 600 billion baht.
At this stage, the incriminating information against the 21 defendants in particular and the government of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra in general for its failure to stop the rice-pledging scheme is yet to be proven in court.
There are, however, some hard facts about the rice scheme which stand as a testimony to its failure.
The Yingluck government spent more than 700 billion baht to "pledge" 26.75 million tonnes of paddy from farmers from 2011, but only managed to sell 12.75 million tonnes worth about 139.4 billion baht. That represents just 18% of the amount the government spent.
The Commerce Ministry has predicted that it will take thee or four more years for the leftover pledged rice to be sold — at a loss, of course, because the quality will decline the longer the stocks are kept in storage. The sale has to be done carefully; otherwise it will affect the price of newly harvested crops.
The case against Mr Boonsong and the 20 others is a straightforward graft one, although the timing of the NACC's ruling is suspicious, as pointed out by the Pheu Thai Party and its supporters. TRhe party believes that it is linked and timed to the impending impeachment decision by the NLA tomorrow.
Whether the timing of the charge is suspicious or politically motivated does not dilute the fact that the scheme, as it was implemented, failed and contained flaws with possible massive corruption.
Given the scale of the alleged corruption in the fake G-to-G rice deals, it is unbelievable that the Pheu Thai-led government did not detect any sign of wrongdoing. Even Ms Yingluck herself, in her defence statement, said there was no corruption, and her government was transparent in implementing the scheme.
It is true that the rice-pledging scheme might have been beneficial to farmers if it had been implemented honestly. But the truth is it was not. Hence, arguments that loss or damage from the scheme — regardless of how much, or whether the losses were the result of corruption — should not be taken into consideration are unacceptable.
The corrupt, be they politicians, officials or business people, must be dealt with in accordance with the letter of the law. And they must be held accountable for losses or damages. Otherwise the law is a joke, and efforts to eradicate corruption are pointless.
Alleged corruption in the rice-pledging scheme is a separate issue from reconciliation, and neither should be mixed. Reconciliation will have a slim chance if those found guilty of robbing spoils from taxpayers are allowed to walk free.