Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra has denied all charges against her in connection with the rice-pledging programme, saying "I have no position left to be impeached from".
'I'm ready for checks and balances so long as they are fair,' Ms Yingluck told the NLA on Jan 9, 2015. (Photo by Chanat Katanyu)
At parliament on Friday, Ms Yingluck gave testimony to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), which will vote on whether to impeach her. The NLA acted after the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) found the case in which she had been accused of dereliction of duty involving the rice scheme had ground.
Ms Yingluck started by questioning the necessity of her impeachment, saying it was redundant, not to mention unfair.
"I was removed from office — the equivalent of being impeached — three times already. I have no position left to be impeached from. The impeachment today will affect policies aimed at helping farmers in the future," she said.
She was referring to the Constitutional Court rulings to that effect involving her role in holding the later annulled Feb 2, 2014 election and the transfer of former National Security Council chief Thawil Pliensri. She subequently stayed on as caretaker prime minister before being ousted by the May 22, 2014 coup.
Ms Yingluck denied all charges against her by the NACC and the opposition Democrat party.
"I denied all charges by both the NACC and the Democrat party and I insist I ran the programme correctly and transparently.
"The programme was well received by people. It's a social contract that my government was bound to implement. My party understands farmers...how they are perennially plagued with debts, meagre incomes and low rice prices. The rice-pledging scheme would change that. It would allow farmers to stand on their feet. And pledging is the best way to do it, not the guarantee method of the TDRI [Thailand Development Research Institute].
"A government must take care of its low-income people. Besides, rice pledging is not new. It's been used for 33 years," she said.
Ms Yingluck said further farmers never had real bargaining power. Guaranteeing the grain — the method championed by the TDRI and the opposition Democrat party — doesn't help and is more corruption-prone since rice was not accounted for. The quantities could easily be manipulated and market prices will not increase.
"Subsidising farmers is nothing new. Every country helps its bread winner. It's a burden of a government. Japan subsidises $3.3 billion a year for its farmers, Thailand $2 billion. Every country helps its farmers. It's not the matter of running a balance sheet.
"Figures of lost grain of the subcommittee closing the programme's accounts are not correct. Both the Marketing Organisation for Farmers and the Public Warehouse Organsation insisted the grain was still there. There are discrepancies in inventory numbers. If they are reconciled the way I suggested, the losses could be 250 billion baht from 330 billion. I did tell them this but the NACC chose to listen to the subcommittee."
Defending the programme, she said: "Rice pledging creates the multiplier effect and therefore more production, investment and gross domestic product. The government can then collect more taxes. The programme did not affect fiscal discipline either. The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperative borrowed at 20% of the expenditure budget, guaranteed by the Finance Ministry. The cabinet also resolved to manage the programme's liquidity by gradually selling the stockpile so the programme could finally run on its own. Selling 19 million tonnes of the stock is not necessary. There's no need to issue bonds.
"Selling 70 billion baht worth of the stock... borrowing the balance from the contingency budget to get a total of 90 billion baht to repay farmers. Eventually, this government did what I had laid the groundwork for.
On the charge her government had caused Thailand to lose its title as the world's largest rice exporter, Ms Yingluck said it was an unfair accusation since the grain under the programme was gradually sold at the world prices of rice, not of paddy, the currency of the rice-pledging scheme.
The price slump at the time was due to dumping by some countries.
"It depends on world rice prices. India changed its policy to competing in terms of price. It had nothing to do with corruption.
"My proof is that our title was restored in 2014 and all the grain that made it happen came from the scheme."
Ms Yingluck also denied the charge she had allowed corruption and failed to stop it.
"The charge has a political agenda. I issued strict warnings against corruption time and again. My cabinet and I did not ignore the warnings and suggestions of the NACC and the Auditor General's Office either. Competent ministers were assigned to consider the advice and coordinate with the NACC. We even became stricter with other projects. Corruption-preventive mechanisms were also laid down at all levels to avoid damage."
The ex-PM also claimed the NACC's investigation process was unfair.
"No fact-finding subcommittee was set up and the probe took a mere 21 days. My witness list was also cut. Furthermore, the NACC used old data from the TDRI to charge me. It only based its decision on the information given by TDRI and the Democrat party. This was not a usual investigation.
"I'm ready for checks and balances so long as they are fair."
Although Ms Yingluck is no longer the premier, her impeachment can change Thailand's political landscape.
Under the scrapped constitution, an impeached politician cannot run in elections over the next five years, or even more if the new charter further extended the embargo or make it for life.
Although the 2007 constitution was annulled by the coup, the NACC claimed it could still act based on an organic law linked to the old charter, an argument some lawmakers do not agree.