to pursue financial compensation against those implicated in
the rice-pledging scandal instead of suing them is
straightforward and fair.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, who
is in charge
of the government's legal affairs, was responding to calls the
government
should opt to file a civil suit against the suspects
implicated in the scheme by the National Anti-Corruption
Commission (NACC) instead.
Affected parties, including former prime
minister Yingluck
Shinawatra, are among the critics. Mr Wissanu argued a law
holding state officials to account for their decisions in office
has been
around for the past 19 years, and adopted in many cases.
"It is not a new legal mechanism created
to treat any particular
party in an unfair manner," the deputy premier
said.
Taking action under this administrative law, and lodging a civil
suit are
both options with advantages and disadvantages, he said.
"The committee pursuing liabilities against wrongdoers in the
"The committee pursuing liabilities against wrongdoers in the
state sector is more familiar with the liability law, having
processed more
than 5,000 such cases in the past years,
so it went for this option,"
he
said. If those affected by its decision to take action under
the liability act
believe they are being treated unfairly, they
can take their arguments to the
Administrative Court, he said.
Even if they lose the fight in a lower
administrative court, they
will still be able to appeal to the Supreme
Administrative
Court, he said.
Previous high-profile cases in which the
liability law was used
in the last 12 years include the Khlong Dan
waste water scandal,
the fire truck and boat corruption scandal, the dredger
procurement scandal and the Mor Chit bus terminal development
scandal, he said.
The government won in some cases and lost in others, he added.
The government won in some cases and lost in others, he added.
Prime
Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha received an open letter last
Wednesday from former
prime minister Yingluck, claiming
she was being treated unfairly, said Mr
Wissanu.
The government has to defend itself against her claim, or risk
being
seen as unfair after being painted by such an accusation,
Mr Wissanu said.
He said if the government doesn't address the losses incurred
He said if the government doesn't address the losses incurred
by the
rice-pledging scandal, it will be ultimately held
responsible for the losses.
Ms Yingluck on Monday posted a
statement on her Facebook page saying she had no choice but
to fight
for justice.
The
Finance Ministry order for her to pay compensation means
"judicial
power" is being prioritised over the courts, she said.
Ms Yingluck said her case -- in which a
former elected prime
minister is forced to pay financial compensation for
alleged
damage done to the state -- is the first of its kind.
She
demanded the government explain to the public how the
decision benefits the
public and how the government will ensure
the committee deciding on
compensation will act as fairly as
the courts of justice would in such a case.
Gen Prayut declined to say how much the
government was
seeking in financial compensation for the rice-pledging scandal.
When
asked why the liability law is being used over civil law,
he said the
government does not have to do what the
implicated suspects want it to do.
"I'm not saying the suspects have to
immediately pay the
compensation because of the order.
He or
she can always petition the Administrative Court if
there is evidence to prove [the order
is unjust]," said Gen Prayut.
News,General,Bangkok Post, 17 November 2015.
Even the government use the liability law with this rice
scheme
corruption case,the implicate suspect (Ms Yingluk) still
can
petition the Administrative Court.
But the loss from corruption had already clearly happen so
to
prevent the government
and Thai people to carry and absorb
the loss ,the government should find how to deal
with this case so that the suspects can not avoid
the responsibility to compensate the loss.
Sincerely Yours.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น