Amidst a bevy of rose-bearing supporters gathered outside the hallowed halls of Thailand’s Supreme Court in 2017, former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra once delivered an earnest closing statement in the rice-pledging trial. Her supporters’ presence was more than just a floral affair—it was a testament to a divisive yet fervently loyal following. Fast forward to the current date, May 26, 2025, where the saga of Yingluck’s rice-pledging scheme is still unfolding with an air of uncertainty and political intrigue.
The Administrative Court has been placed in the crossfire, grappling with a hefty compensation order aimed at Yingluck. However, in a recent statement, the court has signaled that it stands impotent against the backdrop of demands for a 10 billion baht recompense for the allegedly failed rice-pledging scheme. The crisis of jurisdiction, it seems, pervades the court’s corridors, leaving the task to more authoritative entities.
This financial conundrum was triggered by the Finance Ministry’s order that initially slapped Yingluck with a staggering 35.7 billion baht liability. As the ministry wielded its power, the administrative gears churned, branding the order as authoritative—demanding payment sans courtroom melodrama. This procedure essentially grants the power to seize or auction assets without needing to obtain prior court permission.
However, Yingluck, with her partner Anusorn Amornchat by her side, is not one to take such orders lying down. Accusations of unlawfulness against the administrative decree led to a courtroom tussle, with the couple fervidly seeking annulment of the edict. They contended that the order tiptoed into unlawful territories, leaving the court to determine whether its own gavel should shatter the order or merely chisel away at parts.
The ruling from May 22 was a moment of both relief and convolution. The Supreme Administrative Court unraveled parts of the disputed order, tearing asunder the Ministry of Finance’s demand for Yingluck to reach into her wallet. Yet, it refrained from handing down any punishment to remunerate the nine named defendants, including PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the Ministry of Finance itself, and the Legal Execution Department.
What emerged was a peculiar blend of confirmation and reservation. The court’s decision stripped away only sections of the financial demand, and stopped just short of compelling Yingluck to shell out compensation to her erstwhile opponents. Instead, the nine defendants were left with homework—issuing a new order that aligned with the judicial resolution.
It’s a legal twist worthy of a complex, ongoing saga. The Judicial orbit continues to spin, leaving Thailand abuzz with conjecture, discussions over legal jurisdiction, and politically charged tea-shop debates. As the curtains twirl and political spotlights shift, Yingluck Shinawatra’s narrative plays out in the hearts of her supporters, akin to the enduring aroma of the roses once clutched tightly in 2017.
Yingluck deserved every bit of that compensation order. Her government bungled the rice scheme and left farmers devastated.
That’s not fair. The scheme was meant to help farmers and get them a fair price. It’s the execution that failed, not the intention.
Intentions don’t count if the results harm people, Chakrit. More foresight was needed.
Both sides have valid points, but punishing Yingluck without any court permission seems extreme.
The court decision was just a political move. Everyone knows it’s a farce.
What makes you say that, Ploy? There was a thorough investigation.
TruthSeeker, you can’t ignore the influence of politics in Thai judiciary. It’s all part of the bigger game.
I agree with Ploy, there’s too much political influence here.
What about the farmers caught in this political crossfire? They are the real victims of this mess.
It’s ironic how Yingluck’s case keeps dragging on while people suffer. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Totally agree, Cathy. It’s like the system is stuck in time, just like in 2017.
And people have the audacity to call it a democracy.
This issue shows the complexity of balancing accountability and political motivation. It’s not black and white.
Exactly, Kevin. People should understand there’s more than meets the eye here.
Thai politics never fails to entertain! Another chapter in the Yingluck saga.
Can’t help but feel Yingluck’s being used as a scapegoat to divert attention from current issues.
That’s a leap, GrowRich. The rice scheme was an issue that needed addressing.
Still, Tony, the way it’s handled reeks of scapegoating.
I wonder how this will affect Yingluck’s legacy in the long run.
Legacy is tricky. She’s seen as a hero to some, a villain to others. Time will tell.
The idea that a single court can handle such overlapping jurisdictions is absurd.
Yingluck should have fought harder back in 2017. Maybe we wouldn’t be here now.
Hindsight is 20/20, Ann. I’m sure she did what she thought was best at the time.
Let’s not forget the ideological conflict behind these court rulings.
The legal entanglements here are mind-boggling. It’s almost like a soap opera.
Justice needs to pave the way forward for Thailand. Stalling won’t help.
Justice is subjective depending on whom you support, Nisa.
Wonder when Thailand will heal from such divisive politics?
The decision seems more complex than the article portrays. A lot of unseen pressures surely!
At the end of the day, Yingluck is just another pawn in this relentless game.