Guess what caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra will do Monday?
Will she show up to meet the National Anti-Corruption Commission as required to defend herself against the accusation of negligence of duty in the rice pledging scheme?
Or will she assign one of her lawyers to submit a written defence against the accusation to the NACC on her behalf?
The official seal of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Most political pundits believe that Ms Yingluck will choose the second option for a number of good reasons, including the one that she has no legal background and to defend herself on a legal case before the legal experts will make her look like a sacrificial lamb.
But that does not mean she can be easily cowed. Or she will not put up a good fight.
Last week, the prime minister posted a long message on her Facebook page complaining she was treated unfairly by the NACC and questioned what she implied were the NACC’s double-standard practices.
She pointed out that the normal practice of the NACC when approaching cases of alleged corruption, a fact-finding subcommittee is first established to probe the case and its findings are later submitted to the “big committee” or the commission. In her case, the subcommittee was bypassed and her case landed straight with the “big committee”.
Ms Yingluck suggested the NACC was hasty in concluding case in just 21 days whereas the probe against the other political office holders apparently referring to former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva over the rice price guarantee scheme took over four years and the case is still pending.
She said her legal team was given only a 49-page file from the NACC during the 21-day period and was granted 15 more days until yesterday to prepare the defence. The team asked for more documents from the NACC and was given a 280-page file which her lawyers would have just three days to study but the lawyers would need more time to study and asked for a 45-day extension of the March 31 deadline which was rejected by the NACC.
Did the NACC take just 21 days to investigate the case against the prime minister and to decide by unanimous vote to accuse her of negligence of duty regarding the rice pledging scheme as alleged by the prime minister?
The following is a timeline of the activities pertaining to the rice scheme which will help answer the above question.
- Oct 15, 2012, the Mai (New) party asked the NACC to probe the rice pledging scheme.
- Nov 6, 2012, the private sector’s anti-corruption organisation asked the NACC to probe suspected corruption in the rice pledging scheme.
- Dec 3, 2012, then-Democrat MP Warong Dejkitvikrom of Phitsanuloke petitioned the NACC to investigate alleged corruption in the rice scheme and the government-to-government rice deal with China which was eventually proven to be non-existent.
- June 5, 2013, Dr Warong asked the NACC to investigate alleged corruption in the government’s offloading of the 2011-12 rice crops from the rice stockpiles.
- Dec 3, 2013, NACC spokesman Vicha Mahakhun announced that allegations of corruption in the rice scheme were found and the investigation was expanded.
- Jan 16, 2014, the NACC resolved unanimously to indict former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyaphirom and 14 other officials and businessmen of corruption concerning the G-to-G rice deal with China. The NACC also decided by unanimous vote to conduct an inquiry on the prime minister for alleged negligence of duty in connection with the rice scheme.
Having seen that timeline, it is totally untrue that the NACC took only 21 days to probe the alleged corruption in the rice pledging scheme which, in fact, started over a year ago.
The prime minister is not facing an investigation of a corruption case which is different from Mr Boonsong and 14 other officials and businessmen. She is facing an accusation of negligence of duty for not properly overseeing the rice pledging scheme in her capacity as chair of the National Rice Policy Committee and the conduct of the officials under her supervision.
In other words, she does not need to defend herself on the corruption case and does not need to know every detail of the alleged corruption probe against Mr Boonsong and his gang. She needs to know the information about her alleged negligence of duty and needs to defend herself on the grounds that she did not ignore her duty nor the warnings voiced by the Office of the Auditor-General and Ms Supa Piyajitti, deputy permanent secretary of finance.
Her suggestion that the NACC is biased against her or has adopted double-standard practices is after all part of the campaign strategy of the Pheu Thai party to discredit the NACC ahead of its ruling on whether to officially indict her or not.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post