Bangkok: Chusak Sirinil, Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, has expressed his support for former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in her ongoing legal battle concerning a compensation order of over ten billion baht related to rice sales. Chusak sympathizes with Yingluck and supports efforts to reduce the debt, arguing that assets gained from the project should be used to offset it.
According to Thai News Agency, Chusak highlighted that the Central Administrative Court’s decision to dismiss the petition to freeze Yingluck’s assets suggests that not all judicial bodies hold her accountable. However, differing opinions within the Supreme Administrative Court have left no alternative in the Thai judicial system. Chusak emphasized the importance of the legal team’s strategy, particularly since the rice in question is considered state property, adding that using it to settle the debt is justifiable.
Chusak stated that any request for a new trial will follow the usual judicial process, contingent on the court’s discretion. He expressed uncertainty regarding the current status of the order, noting confusion over whether a new order is necessary or if the existing court directives should proceed as outlined.
When asked about potential assistance from the Pheu Thai Party, Chusak clarified that while Yingluck’s legal team is handling her legal responsibilities, the party, which initiated the policy, would not oppose any supportive actions in the case.
In response to Yingluck’s comment that ten billion baht is an insurmountable amount, Chusak acknowledged the significant financial burden but noted that Yingluck remains hopeful about seeking justice.
Addressing concerns about the impact of the court’s decision on future government policies, Chusak remarked that the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions views the issue as one of political responsibility. Legal experts argue that the decision should not apply to civil cases, a distinction that complicates the matter. Chusak admitted the ruling could hinder policy-making, as past policies have not faced similar legal challenges, prompting academics to caution against future initiatives.
Chusak concluded by emphasizing that the current debate distinguishes between a policy violation and criminal negligence. He suggested that legal discussions should continue to clarify these complexities, awaiting further court determinations.