Jirachai, who heads the fact-finding panel probing the civil liability in connection with the rice pledging scheme, said the panel found that there were grounds to the NACC’s allegations of dereliction of duty against Yingluck, related to the scheme.

Jirachai declined to pinpoint the total figure of the damages his panel has calculated, reasoning that the Prime Minister and Finance Minister have yet to approve it. His panel must also forward the total amount of damages to a panel headed by the Comptroller General Department’s director-general for consideration to consider the civil liability.

His panel started probing the issue in April last year, questioning government officials from 15 state agencies, eight people who accused Yingluck including former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, former Democrat Party MP Dr Warong Dechgitvigrom, and 15 of the accused including Yingluck and more than 20 witnesses.

He said his panel had told Yingluck to submit written testimony from additional witnesses by January 20 but she had not done that.

He said his panel investigated the case by focusing on whether or not Yingluck in her capacity as then Chairperson of the National Rice Policy Committee, strictly monitored and oversaw the policies as was her duty. His panel evaluated the amount of damage incurred to the state as a “manager and not as an accountant”. Although the country had spent a massive amount of money on pledging rice at a price of Bt15,000 per tonne, which was much higher than the market price of Bt9,000 per tonne, his panel did not regard losses from the policy as damage, he said. “The difference in the prices is considered as a benefit that the farmers received so we do not regard it as damage,” he said.

The state agencies and officials that implemented the scheme did not create damage because they were obliged to carry out the policies, he said.

He said that although the Finance Ministry’s Post-Audit Committee on losses accumulated from the rice pledging scheme included interest in the damage figure, his panel ruled out adding interest to the damage figure because the rice-pledging scheme is part of the country’s administration, carried out in the interest of the people. The scheme is not a rice trade, he added.

Jirachai insisted that his panel had been working independently and fairly without political interference.

 

The point is left to ambiguous interpretation in the charter and as the charter draft is close to wrapping-up, the government called for a meeting with the EC yesterday at Government House.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam confirmed the amendment although the details how the charter would be amended were not yet disclosed. Wissanu said he would submit the revision to Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha for consideration within the next few days, before tabling it to the Cabinet for endorsement.

Wissanu initially confirmed the referendum would be held on July 31, or within seven days plus or minus.

Campaigns in regard to the voting in the referendum would be allowed after the Constitution Drafting Commission has come up with the final version of the draft. The final version is expected in April.

The EC, led by commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, also proposed to the government over whether it should draft a bill to identify punishments on electoral wrongdoings such as throwing a party to entice voters to vote, blocking voters from voting, mobilising a large number of voters to vote. If the government agrees with the bill option, Wissanu can ask the National Legislative Assembly to draft the bill immediately, he said.

The EC also asked Wissanu about printing 16.7 million copies of the charter draft for Thai households over whether the copies should be distributed to community centres or government centres only in order to save state funds.

The EC said the fund to hold a referendum totalled Bt2.4 billion: to print 16.7 million copies of the charter draft to households amounted to Bt800 million and to state agencies Bt900 million. The total funds are Bt4.1 billion. Wissanu asked the EC to revise the proposed budget and see where it can be cut to save money.

 

The ambiguity over whether it refers to a majority of all eligible voters or only of those who actually show up for the referendum needs to be removed.

Some political critics and observers have complained that a requirement for a majority of eligible voters would be impossible to meet.

The military-led government has always insisted that the phrase meant actual voters from the beginning. If every party arrives at the same understanding, an amendment will probably not be necessary, Wissanu said yesterday.

If the Election Commission, the Constitution Drafting Commission and other organs agree today that the interim charter imposed by the military in 2014 must be amended, they would also have to discuss whether it should outline a course of action if the draft charter is rejected.

The junta’s temporary charter in its present form does not address that.

“Or we can amend the interim charter again, after the draft charter really fails in a referendum, and set out what to do next,” he said.

Each amendment would take no more than a month to complete.

No matter how the plebiscite turns out, the election will take place next year as promised by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, he said.

When exactly the referendum could be held cannot be confirmed at this point. There were many factors, including the at least 80 per cent margin of nationwide household receptions of the charter in advance of the referendum.

A version of a previous constitution could be brushed up and adopted if the current draft charter really does sink. It would not need to be put to a referendum any more, just be approved by the military’s ruling National Council for Peace and Order.

Only the Interior and Defence ministries have submitted comments on the new draft constitution. If the rest have any, they will have to turn them in to Wissanu by today.

The remarks gathered so far concerned only minor wording issues, he said. Agencies were worried that their working procedures would be affected and wanted explanations, but he did not go into details.

The comments will be forwarded to the prime minister and the CDC by the Monday due date.

Regarding the attacks on the draft charter, Wissanu said everyone had the right to speak out. The charter framers would heed the criticisms and adjust their draft as appropriate.

Prayut kept mumbling and spoke only briefly after the Cabinet’s weekly meeting yesterday, after throwing a temper tantrum and facing a backlash last week.

Usually, he meets the press after each Cabinet meeting, but yesterday he let Wissanu take to the podium. His message included “ask good questions”.

From now on, deputy prime ministers will take turns substituting for the PM at the post-meeting briefings, Wissanu said.

Ministers will also take the microphone if the meeting agenda concerned them and they had to speak to the press.

He said it was a good idea because deputy PMs and ministers have more information to share with the media than the prime minister, who could only give the big picture.

Meechai said yesterday that the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) would be another key agency working on this task, and as such the NRSA should not be overly concerned about it. The CDC would expedite those laws and chronologically pass them on to the NLA, rather than dumping all 10 organic laws at once. Meechai played down a remark that the NRSA would formally submit changes to the Senate’s indirect election to a complete appointment by the National Council for Peace and Order, saying it would only be a personal view, and he wished to see a formal document from the NRSA first.

Meanwhile, the NRSA discussed the charter content for around eight hours straight during the second day of meetings, before wrapping it up with a vote of 178 to one. The vote endorsed the gathering and synergised the views and comments made by representatives of its 12 committees to be its formal recommendations on the charter draft. They will submit it to the CDC by February 15.