When the lawyers team fight for Yingluk corruption on rice pledging scheme!!

On May 19,the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holder

of  Political Positions wiil make a first trial on Yingluk

corruption on rice pledging scheme.

The lawyers team will bring up the defend that rice pledging

scheme is only a public policy.They plan to fight that

 government public policy is only the policy that government

make a statement  to the parliament so that it can not be

 accused to the political party.

 

Three major topics which were attacked the rice pledging

scheme and lead to the proceeding including demotion

Yingluk Shinawatra from the prime minister and sent the

case to the Supreme Court are :

1.The hugh budget used and lost from the scheme which cause

debt obligation carry to the next generation more than 30 years.

2.Not stopping rice pledging scheme when found many

 

corruptions which cause hugh amount of loss to the nation

 

 although many  parties try to warn.

3.The rice pledging scheme caused adversity to many farmers,

the poor farmers more than 16 persons suicided.

 

The layers team plan to fight againt the three major topics already

in conclude they think :

1.It likes attack verbally stereotype in policy level and operational

level.It should be clearly separate either it was a government

responsibily or it is a project administration resolving.

2.About hugh lost 680 billion baht from rice pledging scheme

but  the Ex Prime Minister Yingluk did not stop the scheme,

the lawyers team said that the indictment is from the mind

of the thinker,who want to provide the image that Thailand

are ruin.

2.1 Which higher price in the scheme more than the market,

the lawyers team believe that the marginal price was sent

directely to the account of the farmer.

2.2 About the rice depriciation,the lawyers team thought

that the owner of the warehouse must responsible for it

not the government.

2.3 Corruptions all process of the beginning water source,

medium water source and the last water source were under

control,monitor and correct in every process.

3.About indictment that farmers sucieded from lost of the

scheme,the lawyers team will defend that it is because of

the People’s Democratic Reform Committee,not from

the failure of the government to manage the scheme.

4.The last ,the lawyers team want to ask the public that,

we must think about the favor of the farmers to society so

we must use public policy to help them.

 

In my viewpoint :

1.About the first defend, to meet the goal of rice pledging

scheme all level in the process must work cooperatively

including policy and operational to make a complete efficiency

and effectiveness goal so the thought that it should be clearly

separate either it was a government responsibility or it is a

project management resolving is wrong.Because the government

is the head of the project and should take full responsibility either

what happened.

2.About the hugh loss from the corruptions of rice pledging

 

 scheme, no one ever wanted it  to be true ,but the number

 

of loss have been calculated and it shocked all Thai people

 

that these debts will carry forward to the next generation for

30 years.If the lawyers team said that it is not ruin our

country,I think their logic must have a problem.

3.The defend about the sucieded of the farmers and push

the guilty to the PDRC,it is funny to me ,why the lawyers

team can think like that.Since the government rule the

country ,all business and affairs in the country the

government should be solve and control them.

But the facts are that Yingluk can not control anything

lead to many controversies,disorder and confusion in

the society. Combine with the fact is that ,the government

 had no budget from the rice pledging scheme to pay the

 farmers.The farmers who had so many debts but wait for

the money from the government to pay their rice can not

 

be survive and suicided themselves.

4.The last about the question of the lawyers team that we should

think about the favor of the farmer and must help them with

public policy.

I agree with these but I am not agree with the methods or ways

the lawyers team  think it is right to use to achieve it.

In my opinion,if we want to help anyone ,we must help them to

stand on their own feet and can be survive in the long run.

5.The last point from me if corruptions can do without any

guilty why do we should have the court and how can we

hope for social justice.

 

Hope for social justice and the best judge from the court to

make a unity Thais again.