The latest twist in the saga of former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s legal battle is poised to take center stage as her adept legal team gears up to petition the Administrative Court for a significant yet strategic delay in a hefty order laid down by the Finance Ministry. The demand? A staggering 10 billion baht that looms large over Yingluck, a cost born from the contentious rice-pledging scheme during her tenure. Aiming to turn the tide, the team, led by the diligent Norawit Lalaeng, is rallying all forces to secure a retrial based on compelling fresh evidence that could drastically change the narrative.
In the heart of the bustling legal preparations, Mr. Norawit conveyed an unexpected revelation. He painted an intriguing picture of accounts still whispering of vast quantities of rice—an astounding 18.5 million tonnes—sitting idle in warehouses post the military intervention on that fateful May 22, 2014. That day, the winds of change swept away Yingluck’s government as the political climate shifted, shaking the very foundations of her administration’s ambitious rice initiative.
Unsurprisingly, the exact financial fruits of this monumental rice sale endeavor are still shrouded in bureaucratic mystique. However, Norawit holds onto an optimistic view, suggesting that the eventual tally could dwarf the imposing 10-billion-baht sum currently hanging over Yingluck’s head. This financial revelation, once confirmed and revealed to the public, might just be the game-changer the former prime minister needs.
Initially, the Finance Ministry threw down the gauntlet demanding a rather astronomical figure—35.7 billion baht—as recompense for the losses they assert were incurred through Yingluck’s championed program. Yet the Supreme Administrative Court, on another consequential May day, ruled that this goliath sum required some trimming down, landing on a mere fraction: 10 billion baht. A definitive moment, but far from a conclusion.
Determined to challenge this ruling with fresh vigor, Mr. Norawit divulges plans to present a compelling petition. His team is capitalizing on a new arsenal of evidence, notably including robust revenue records. What appears as potential immunity from financial duress could stem from the proceeds of the extensive sale of rice—an ample 18.9 million tonnes—under the current regime’s watch. Norawit suggests that if these sales hit a lucrative stride at 25 baht per kilogram, they could effortlessly amass a whopping 250 billion baht.
Should the court entertain and accept the petition, it might very well force the Finance Ministry’s hand into postponing the enforcement of this compensation order. The pebbles of justice seem poised for another toss into the pond, stirring up potential ripples ready to shift the surface of this case yet again.
Yet in the corridors of power, Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira maintains a stoic demeanor. As whispers of committees convening and details assembling reach his ears, he seems unfazed by Yingluck’s calculated moves to counteract the looming enforcement. In his evenly measured manner, Minister Pichai opted to await insights from his finance permanent secretary, seemingly comfortable in the calm before the storm.
As the legal clock ticks toward the brink of a 90-day deadline, the anticipation builds. Will this dramatic danse macabre between the powers of governance and an embattled former premier reach a revelatory resolution? For those following this enthralling narrative, all eyes are keenly fixed on the forthcoming chapters of this riveting legal tale.
This legal battle seems like a classic example of political vendetta. The financial figures are just pawns in a bigger game.
But isn’t it possible that the 35.7 billion baht was indeed mismanaged under Yingluck’s scheme? Political motives can’t erase potential corruption.
I agree corruption can’t be overlooked, but why target Yingluck specifically? There might be more behind this than just rice.
If Yingluck’s evidence proves substantial, they should at least suspend the enforcement. A fair trial with all facts presented sounds imperative.
This ‘fresh evidence’ seems too conveniently timed, don’t you think? Why wasn’t it presented earlier?
Sometimes new information emerges over time. But I admit, the timing is suspicious.
The court should base its judgment on facts, not political leanings. Let’s hope the evidence is genuinely impartial.
Sounds like the Finance Ministry is just protecting its interests, but at what cost to justice?
Absolutely, but they have a responsibility to the taxpayers too. Balancing both sides is no easy feat.
I can’t believe they reduced the amount from 35.7 billion to 10 billion! How does that even happen?
Maybe the initial figure was inflated to justify the smear campaign against her. These tactics aren’t unheard of.
Or maybe they just realized earlier projections were incorrect. Mistakes happen, especially with numbers like these.
This is nothing but drama, played out for the public’s entertainment. Justice needs to be swifter.
Agreed, but the complexity of law often slows things down. Eager for a quick resolution can sacrifice thoroughness.
These 18.9 million tonnes of rice could literally feed the nation for years. Mismanagement on such a scale is unacceptable.
Or it could bring in billions of baht if sold right. The key is efficiency, not just managing quantities.
Both sides are clinging to their own narratives, but ultimately, the rice records will reveal who’s bluffing.
Too much bureaucracy can muddy such a straightforward issue: did the scheme lose money or not?
Exactly. Transparency and accountability are crucial to moving forward.
So much money at stake and yet we see so little accountability. What a mess!
Hopefully, this saga teaches future governments the importance of checks and balances in mega projects.
If this isn’t resolved soon, it could set a dangerous precedent for how financial accountability is handled in Thailand.
Yingluck should face the consequences of her administration’s actions if they were truly negligent.
Isn’t the Finance Ministry’s job to collect, not to play politics? They should focus on facts only.
It’s more political theater than legal battle now. Both parties need to be grounded in the legal facts if they want a real conclusion.
True, but legal facts get muddled when there’s so much political bias involved. We need objectivity in the courtroom.