The ministry’s Comptroller-General’s Department played a key role in probing the civil-liability case against Yingluck. A fact-finding panel was set up by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and chaired by Jirachai Moontongroy, deputy permanent secretary to the PM’s Office.

The Jirachai panel’s report indicates that Yingluck was negligent and should be held accountable for significant financial damage even though farmers benefited from the rice-pledging scheme during her tenure.

Jirachai pointed to three major mistakes in the rice-pledging scheme. First, the policy allowed farmers to pledge their rice with no limits on the quantity at a price much higher than being offered by the market. Second, there were fake government-to-government rice deals. Third, the Yingluck government failed to call a halt to the scheme despite repeated warnings from the anti-graft agency.

The report said the previous government spent a total of Bt990 billion on the farmer-subsidy programme until May 2014. After it was found that the state lost a total of Bt510 billion in the scheme, which saw rice purchased from farmers for up to Bt15,000 a tonne, well over the prevailing market price of only Bt9,000 at that time.

The programme was widely popular among farmers, resulting in an expansion of rice-farming areas and output, but the government could only sell a small amount of rice, resulting in heavy losses as well as other costs, including expenses for storage.

Sources said Yingluck in her capacity as prime minister and chairwoman of the National Rice Policy Committee was found to be careless in executing the policy, thus causing damage to the state.

However, the panel said it was unfair to hold her accountable for the entire Bt510 billion in losses since farmers also gained from the huge difference between market and pledging prices.

The report said every government that imposes price-support policies for agricultural products faces losses, so it was necessary to deduct operating costs, interest rates, plus farmers’ benefits.

“In this case, we found that the actual damage caused by negligence is around Bt250 billion,” said a source, adding that the report shows Yingluck did not try adequately to prevent the damage to the state, even though there were written warnings from the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Office of the Auditor-General, the Finance Ministry and academics while the government was executing the policy.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party’s deputy secretary-general Chavalit Vichayasut said the justice process on the rice-pledging case accusing Yingluck of wrongdoing was not yet complete. So, officials should exercise caution on the latest report concerning civil liability.

The civil-liability case is separate from the criminal case that is still under consideration by the Supreme Court on the criminal offence of political office holders.

Chavalit said there should be neither judgement nor opinion on this case prior to the Supreme Court’s verdict.

Nuttawut Saikuar, a leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, which was allied with the Yingluck government, said the rice scheme was implemented in a way that benefited farmers the most in history, so allegations of wrongdoing by the former PM while implementing this policy was doubtful.

He said the Prayut government’s rubber-price scheme was similar and there would be state losses from buying rubber sheets from planters at a price higher than the prevailing market price.

The Premier later told the meeting that people may or may not understand his recent bouts of anger, but he had been trying his best to curb his emotional expressions.

“Soldiers are hot tempered, but once addressed, we are always ready to improve [our responses],” he said.

PM Prayut has lost his temper in public while giving press interviews on a number of occasions, and last Tuesday’s outburst exceeded the level of his previous anger.

“The prime minister asked me to convey to media and [others] that he regretted his outburst on Tuesday,” Sansern said. He was also worried [about public sentiment], but we should understand that he is working under pressure due to high expectations of the people.”

One of the prime minister’s New Year resolutions was to try to be a “good guy” – at least in the eyes of the mass media – by avoiding hot-tempered exchanges with critical reporters.

That resolution appeared to have been broken when the PM – described by reporters as “furious” – was asked about the draft charter and the election road map at Tuesday’s press briefing.

The students also explain to the people about reform content in the charter draft.

Questions raised by the public would be answered during the programme “Decipher the Charter”.

The students have been doing the fieldwork for two months and are following the regulations on a public referendum, he said. “We know what we are doing. They are not going to stand in front of polling booths on the voting date. We just want the people to exercise their voting right as much as possible regardless of whether they want to vote No, or Yes,” he said. Isoc would also seek cooperation from local leaders like kamnans and village heads to explain the significance and impact of the charter draft on the people.

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.