The PM said he had consulted with the government legal team that enacted the 1996 liability bill and they had told him that enforcing the order did not contravene the intention of the law.
“It is what has to be done,” Prayut said. “The legal experts all said it was not against the law. So, if they [Yingluck and her Cabinet members] have any explanations, they can provide them to the Court, not the media.”
He was only doing his job in carrying out the legal process; the action against Yingluck was not a personal initiative, the PM stressed.
A decision had already been made to make the former PM pay compensation, so his job was complete.
Prayut asked everyone to wait for the end result and not stir up any more conflict that would trouble the country.
Yingluck had the right to appeal in the Administrative Court, he said. If that failed, she could lodge a petition to alleviate the liability following the due process provided, he said.
Prayut said he never judged whether implementation of the subsidy policy was right or wrong. But because the programme incurred such huge losses to the state, people had to face their responsibility in court, the PM said.
Last week, the Finance Ministry issued an order for Yingluck to pay Bt35.7 billion in compensation within 30 days for the losses caused by Pheu Thai’s flagship |policy.
This spurred critics to express concern that the move would scare off future governments from pursuing policies that help farmers and the people.
The rice scheme was part of Pheu Thai’s election campaign in 2011. Under the scheme, farmers could pledge their rice to the government for Bt15,000 per tonne – twice the then market price. But, it was later probed by the National Anti Corruption Commission, which said the scheme was |plagued with graft and that |state authorities overseeing the scheme – including Yingluck –were derelict in their duty of |oversight.