Some essential points in today’s Ex-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s closing statement to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) on her impeachment case by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC): 

“I ask to be unbiasedly judged, in accordance to the principle of the rule of law, and I hope the NLA members will give an impartial consideration on my case and listen to my arguments.  The public then will decide whether I was treated fairly.”

“In the opening statement, I have given all the details on the Rice Pledging Scheme.  The reason I ask the NLA to consider listening to my representatives in the question and answer session was because the cabinet ministers present were the ones directly responsible for the project.  As Prime Minister, I oversaw the policy level but the ministers were overseeing the implementation of the project. They were hands-on and thus have the relevant in-depth information to clarify NLA’s questions.  I have no intention to avoid or offend the NLA by not being at the Q&A session.”

“The NACC’s legitimacy in sending the impeachment case for NLA’s consideration is questionable since the Constitution of 2007 has been revoked (with the coup d’etat on May 22, 2014).  In addition, I am no longer Prime Minister since the constitutional court has already removed me, thus there is essentially no ‘position’ to impeach me from.  The legal grounds claimed by the NACC were also invalid, as the target of impeaching me is to ban me from holding any political positions for five years, which is a clear violation of my fundamental rights and liberties.”

“The impeachment process was rushed and due process skipped.  For instance, it took NACC only 21 days to indict me, not 1 year and 10 months as claimed by NACC.  The NACC never gave me enough time to prepare against the charges.”

“In a related matter, there is a false claim about the case of the ‘missing rice’ from barns. But, unfortunately, the NACC ignored my testimony the provided evidence that contradicts the lies.”

“In addition, the NACC refused to hear testimony from key witnesses on my side, especially experts that would be able to give testimonies for the Rice Pledging Scheme and shed light on the disputed numbers involved.  On the other hand, the NACC allowed members of the opposition party (Opposition Leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Democrat MP Varong Dejvikrom; Niphon Puapongskorn of TDRI who advocated Abhisit’s Rice Guarantee Scheme and researcher of the paper commissioned by NACC; etc.) to testify against me.” 

“Throughout my term as Prime Minister, I never did anything wrong, never involved in any corruption, never abuse any power, nor did I neglect to deal with allegations of wrong doing and corruption in the Rice Pledging Scheme. My government have implemented measures to enhance efficiency of the project and to prevent any chance of wrong doing at every step of the scheme.  We have set committees to investigate any allegations and more than 260 cases were sent to the police for legal actions.  I have begun this project with good intentions and with no intent of designing a scheme to corrupt.  There is no conspiracy as being alleged by NACC”  

“The Rice Pledging Scheme generated significant income to the rice farmers, who before this were poor, debt ridden, and taken advantage of by middlemen in the rice business.  And as rice farmers’ income increased, other sectors of the economy also benefited as the multiplier effect took off.  This contributed greatly to GDP growth.  Taken as a whole the Rice Pledging Scheme was not a loss to taxpayers or a burden to national debt as was accused.” 

“When compared to the government’s budget as a whole, the expenditure used in the Rice Pledging Scheme was not a burden at all since it adheres to the principles of fiscal and monetary responsibility as I have shown that the public debt during my tenure was considerably lower than the official set debt ceiling, and fiscal discipline in terms of the annual national expenditure budget has been strictly observed.” 

“I insist that I have acted properly and was not negligence in performing my duties.  I listened to all suggestions even from NACC or the Office of General Auditor (OGA), and even with information form the Opposition Party in the no confidence debars and questions & answers sessions in Parliament.  Appropriate actions were considered by the cabinet and instructions sent out to relevant agencies for implementation.”

“I therefore have the right to question the process taken in this impeachment.  It is blatantly political motivated with a hidden agenda to take me out of office when I was Prime Minister, and later to incapacitate me in future political participation. 

“I always have the nation’s best interest on my mind.”