I would like to quote the words of Professor Sanya Dharmasak, former president of both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, who said: "The police are the upstream of justice, the public prosecutor the midstream and the court the downstream."
"The upstream must be clear and clean if the downstream is to be clear and clean. If the upstream is muddy, the downstream will be, too. If so, justice may not be served."
After just 79 days of investigation the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) hastily filed a charge against me based on just 329 pages of evidence, even though corruption charges against others related to rice sales had not yet concluded. The NACC has asserted all along that the charge is not related to me.
During the pre-prosecution stage, the attorney general opined that the NACC's inquiry file contained incomplete grounds, and further investigation was needed. However, the attorney general decided to file charges against me even though no further investigation had been conducted as proposed.
The criminal charges against me are unfair and unlawful. They contain facts and grounds not included in the NACC's inquiry file, namely the deterioration of (pledged) rice and corruption in the scheme.
During the trial, the plaintiff suspiciously added new evidence that had never been heard in my case, such as a "rice stock auditing report". This was made by the Rice Stock Auditing Sub-committee, which was appointed after the coup.
Additionally, there were 60,000 pages of new evidence related to allegations of corruption in government-to-government rice sales (which were implemented as part of the scheme) that targeted other figures.
Adding new evidence in such a way is not only unfair but is tantamount to leading the trial and the public to believe that I am guilty.
The present government unlawfully issued an order requiring me to pay 35 billion baht in damages and ordered the seizure and total withdrawal of money from my bank accounts. Such action led the public to misunderstand me, and may unfairly affect the trial.
I believe that never before has anyone implementing public policy been so unfairly treated, with their assets seized before the criminal case has been decided. No one has ever suffered as harsh and unfair a fate as me.
I beg the court to grant me justice by not considering to my detriment those 60,000 pages of new evidence.
The rice-pledging scheme was a beneficial public policy. It was not aimed at making a profit from rice farmers but raising their income. It generated economic value and returns, both at a grass-roots level and a macro-economic level. It was implemented in good faith, in accordance with the constitution and the law.
I never neglected my duty. The agencies that were chiefly responsible, such as the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (ONESDB), the Budget Bureau, and the Council of State, as well as other operating agencies, never issued a warning against the scheme or called for its discontinuation or suspension.
The procedures and working process were set so each party could check and balance the performance and discharge their respective duties. I could not order the discontinuation or end of the scheme arbitrarily.
I could not exercise my power arbitrarily to interfere with, issue orders for or otherwise influence the operation of the scheme for anyone's benefit.
I did not cancel the scheme due to its benefits or because there was no damage caused as charged. In evaluating the value of this public project, not only the benefits calculable in monetary terms but also other benefits to society arising from the project must be taken into account. However, the NACC and the plaintiff have not taken these into account.
In June 2013, the National Rice Committee reported the economic and social benefits of the scheme amounted to 394 billion baht, which was 173 billion baht greater than the 220 billion baht claimed as accounting losses.
The ONESDB confirmed with me the necessity of continuing the scheme until Thailand fully entered the Asean Community in 2015.
The scheme was implemented within a legal framework, within the ceiling of the revolving 500-billion-baht fund set by the cabinet and within the public debt ceiling.
The NACC and the Office of the Attorney-General sent warning letters to my government about the scheme. [But] they had no legal duty or power to order the executive branch to discontinue or end implementation of this public policy. I never ignored their warnings or suggestions and passed them to the parties concerned.
I have never neglected (the alleged) corruption in rice sales. Wicha Mahakun, the plaintiff's witness, confirmed that I was never involved in, or consented to, any form of graft relating to the rice sales.
My cabinet exercised due care and passed a resolution setting more stringent criteria and measures to prevent corruption in the rice sales. If I had neglected or omitted to prevent corruption or damage as accused, why should the cabinet and I adopted such stringent criteria?
I ordered the commerce minister to investigate the rice sales, but the findings were not conclusive and the ministry did not report any officials as being wrongfully involved in the sales. Moreover, the NACC, having concluded its investigation, could only name those officials wrongfully involved in the rice sales in January 2015 -- almost a year after I had left office.
Selling rice stock is an operating procedure that has been followed by every government.
I replaced the (then) commerce minister with a new one to allow an investigation to take place and to stop any suspicious action during the NACC's inquiry. This showed I had no ulterior motive to conceal information relating to the rice sales, and that I have never consented to any graft in rice sales as charged.
I have duly exercised my power, discretion and due care over the above matters based on the prevailing facts during the time of my tenure.
I am aware I am a victim of an intricate political game. I have done nothing wrong.
This is a summary of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra's closing statement regarding the rice-pledging scheme as heard yesterday at the Supreme Court.