Headline: What about Preecha’s son, Yingluck asks PM PRAYUT HAS NO OBJECTION TO NACC PROBE INTO NEPHEW’S CONTRACTS AS EX-PREMIER URGES HIM TO AVOID DOUBLE STANDARDS
Ref. THE NATION Issued date 26 September 2016 by ANAPAT DEECHUAY
FORMER PREMIER Yingluck Shinawatra has urged Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to enforce the law fairly and avoid double standards in treating cases against her and those against a son of General Preecha Chan-o-cha, the premier’s younger brother.
Yingluck earlier said there were 15 criminal and civil liability lawsuits against her, including those concerning her government’s ricepledging scheme.
Preecha’s son is facing corruption allegations concerning a number of construction contracts awarded by the Army.
On this issue, Prayut said yesterday that solid evidence was needed to back up the accusation against his younger brother, the outgoing permanent secretary for defence, after the National AntiCorruption Commission (NACC)received a petition concerning Preecha and other officials over the awarding of seven contracts worth Bt97.65 million to a company owned by Preecha’s son,Prathompol.
Preecha’s wife, Pongphan, also faced stirred a controversy after social media shared photos of her presiding over the opening of a dyke named after her. She also appeared to travel on an Air Force plane, triggering criticism over her privileges and her connection with the Armed Forces.
“Have those stories already proved him [Preecha] to be guilty?” Prayut said on his return from the US yesterday, after attending the UN General Assembly. “We don’t know yet if [those actions] are inappropriate,especially the company’s business transactions.”
Prayut also suggested that it was fine for the NACC to probe the allegations against Preecha.
“I don’t think he [Preecha] is stupid but I won’t guarantee him on my behalf,” Prayut said “He has to be responsible by himself.”
Preecha will retire as permanent secretary at the end of this month but will remain a member of the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly.
On Yingluck’s cases, Prayut denied that his government had “bullied” the ex-premier as alleged by Yingluck in a Facebook post. Prayut said his government would be violating Article 157 of the Criminal Code if there were malfeasance in cases against her.
Prayut’s response followed Saturday’s decision by a committee pursuing civil liability lawsuits that Yingluck would have to pay Bt35.7 billion in compensation to the state to cover heavy losses from her government’s rice-pledging scheme, covering two production seasons, due to the ex-premier’s failure to stop those losses after repeated warnings. Prayut said the action was consistent with evidence and measures taken by the anti-graft body and the final ruling would be made by the courts since the government’s role was to bring this case to court before its statute of limitations expired in February next year.
Based on the Liability for Wrongful Act of Officials Act 1996, the government cannot intervene in the judiciary’s decisions.
“Is this wrong? Or do you think these cases don’t need to go to [the judicial] process at all?” he said. “Bring legal evidence here and we can talk. People are getting confused now.”
In the civil-liability case, Yingluck is facing a compensation lawsuit of Bt35 billion, representing 20 per cent of the Bt178 billion in losses shouldered by the state as a result of the rice-pledging scheme for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 production seasons.
The statement said: “Pheu Thai Party deems such action is an abuse of authority, discriminates and creates unfairness to the accused due to the following reasons . The ricepledging case has been filed with the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions and is awaiting a court ruling. “If the court rules that the defendants are in the wrong, then civil liability lawsuits may be filed against them. It is inappropriate for leaders to lead society into making conclusions before the court has announced its ruling.
“The rice-pledging scheme was the government’s policy to provide agricultural subsidies to support farmers who form a large and vulnerable sector of the Thai populace. The aim was to assist the farmers as a whole.”