In a surprising twist of legal and political fate, former Commerce Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong, who had been under the microscope for nearly a decade over a contentious rice sale to Indonesia, finally saw his name cleared. The journey of Kittiratt, a man once clouded by allegations, took a brighter turn this year as he was acquitted by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions. This long-standing case, investigated by the diligent eyes of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), had gripped the attention of many since its resurfacing in 2021.
The drama unfolded when the indictment claimed that Kittiratt was privy to — and complicit in — the favoritism shown towards Siam Indica, a prominent rice exporter chosen by the Public Warehouse Organisation (PWO) to supply a whopping 300,000 tonnes of milled rice to Indonesia’s Bulog, a leading food procurement agency. Back in the buzzing month of August 2011, this deal was sealed with a lucrative $559 per tonne price tag. Words circulated that Kittiratt turned a blind eye to ensuring that the sale adhered to the stringent laws, as alleged in the indictment.
However, much to the relief of Kittiratt and his supporters, the Supreme Court found shelter in their ruling that Kittiratt was not neglectful of his duties. Interpretation of courtroom strategies illuminated that his deputy, Phum Sarapol, shouldered the responsibilities of handling the intricate details of this rice saga. This critical piece of information tipped the scales of justice in Kittiratt’s favor, distancing him from accusations of misconduct.
The original NACC probe painted a picture of both Siam Indica and a rival firm, Nakhon Sawan Kha Kao, diving into the bidding arena in December 2011. But Nakhon Sawan Kha Kao floundered to meet bidding criteria, conveniently lifting Siam Indica to the victor’s podium uncontested. The victorious contractor was signed on to supply the initial 100,000 tonnes as expected, yet an eyebrow-raising contract clause emerged. This clause paved the way for Siam Indica to up its game, providing an additional 200,000 tonnes, without a single competitive bid in sight. The NACC viewed this as stepping into murky waters of malpractice, claiming it was a blatant disregard for fair tender practices aimed at pocketing illegal gains
Unfazed by the swirling controversy, Attorney-General Phairach Pornsomboonsiri penned a decisive order last week, opting not to challenge the court’s judgment. This decision to stand down was relayed to the NACC, although whispers suggest that the commission hoped for an appeal. While the lawyer’s camp rests easy, the NACC remains tight-lipped, leaving many to wonder if it has any tricks left up its sleeve.
With the past slowly receding into the background, Kittiratt’s future seems just as eventful. Recently, his name has been tossed into the ring as a potential candidate for the prestigious role of chairman for the Bank of Thailand’s board. This nomination has tickled the nerves of critics, wary of political strings pulling behind the scenes. The selection saga, marked by two possible postponements, is set to continue with the committee reconvening on the 11th of November. Whether Kittiratt’s recent brush with the courts will haunt him or be the balm that absolves him entirely remains up in the humid, unpredictable air of Thai politics.
I can’t believe Kittiratt got away with this! Thai politics is so corrupt.
It’s not about getting away with it. The court found him innocent. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
But how can we trust the court’s decision when political pressure is so obvious?
The judicial system’s independence is crucial, but yes, it’s difficult to ignore suspicions in such high-profile cases.
It’s naive to think Kittiratt’s future roles won’t be influenced by his political past.
Exactly, the past always has a way of catching up, especially in politics.
What matters is how he performs if given the role at the Bank of Thailand. Everyone deserves a second chance.
But doesn’t his acquittal suggest that we might be judging him unfairly?
Unfair judgment or not, perception matters, especially in public roles.
It’s a relief to see Kittiratt cleared, focusing on economic growth should be our priority now.
The NACC should have pursued the appeal. Too many loose ends in this case.
Agree! Letting it go without appeal seems like letting corruption off easy.
Political figures always have scapegoats. Convenient that his deputy took the fall.
It’s plausible that the deputy was genuinely responsible. Not everything is a setup.
Kittiratt’s name will forever be tied to this scandal, even if he’s technically innocent.
This saga highlights the importance of transparency in government contracts. Seems like a lesson learned too late.
Absolutely, transparency avoids scandals and builds trust with the public.
The rice deal reflects poorly on Thailand’s procurement processes. This should be a wake-up call.
Don’t be quick to judge. We don’t have all the details. Let’s see how he performs if given responsibility.
The non-competitive bidding aspect is what bugs me the most. There’s definitely more to it.
Exactly, it seems shady not to open bids for important contracts!
Every scandal dims Thailand’s political credibility. Trust is hard to regain.
But does it really impact on global standing or is it just internal noise?
I’m just glad Kittiratt can move on now. Maybe he can contribute positively in the future.
Optimism is great, but genuine reform is needed before any contributions.
Interesting how Phairach’s decision not to appeal aligns with political optics. Strategic or just coincidence?
This case was more about power dynamics than about actual legal breaches.
Might be right. Politics often overshadows real justice.
Maybe now is the time to reform Thailand’s economic policies instead of perpetuating old scandals.
I still feel there’s hope for cleaning up politics if we focus on the right legislative changes.
Kittiratt’s yarn is one of redemption. It’ll be interesting if he manages to earn public trust going forward.
For all the skepticism, a thorough breakdown of legal and corporate governance isn’t happening quick enough.