Key Points

I wish that the decision in the case will be in accordance with the Constitution, laws,
the Rule of Law which I have never received from the NACC and the plaintiff.
I wish to deny the charges, rebut and answer 5 major accusations as follows:

1. The investigation, charge and prosecution is unfair and unlawful

I quote the saying of Professor Sanya Thammasak, former President of the Supreme
Court and former President of the Privy Council that the police is like the upstream
of justice, the public prosecutor like midstream and the court is like downstream.
The upstream must be clear and clean to make the downstream clear and clean too.
If the upstream is muddy, the downstream will also be muddy. If so, the citizens may
not receive justice.
During the NACCs stage, like an upstream, is full of suspicions because the NACC,
after only 79 days of investigation, hastily decided to file a charge against me with
only 329 pages of documentary evidence and such decision was made even
though corruption charge against others relating to rice sales was not yet been
concluded. The NACC asserts all along that the charge is not related to me.
During the pre-prosecution stage, the Attorney General was of the opinion that the
NACCs inquiry file contains incomplete grounds and further investigation is needed
into 3 issues such as 1) whether I, as the Prime Minister and Chairman of the
National Rice Committee may suspend or cancel the Rice Pledging Scheme (RPS),
2) the Cabinets policy announced to the Parliament, omission of duty issue, and 3)
corruption issue. However, the Attorney General decided to file charge against me
even though no further investigation has been conducted as proposed and such
decision had been made only one hour before I was impeached by the National
Legislative Assembly and was questioned by the public as politically motivated.
During the prosecution and trial stage, the criminal charges against me unfairly and
unlawfully contain facts and grounds not included in the NACCs inquiry file, namely,
the deterioration of rice issue and the corruption in the RPS issue, both of which
have never been investigated by the NACC and included in an inquiry file against
me. During the trial, the plaintiff suspiciously added further new evidence which has
never been heard in my case such as 1) adding Rice stock auditing report made

by the Rice Stock Auditing Sub-committee appointed after the coup by the NCPO
Chief and concluded after the filing of the charge against me. The said committee
changed the rice grading system to grade A, B and C for which no standard is set
and the Commerce Ministry has never so graded, resulting in drastic drop in value
of the rice stock, 2) suspiciously adding and citing the finding of tortious liability
several months in advance of the actual finding as if the plaintiff knew the
conclusion and uses it for the plaintiffs benefit to support the damage in the RPS.
This suspicion and unfairness is consistent with the NCPO Chiefs order and remark
made to the Fact finding Committee on Tortious Liability on May 18, 2015, in his
capacity of the Chairman of the National Rice Policy Committee, that, no need to
consider justice issue, and 3) long after the bringing of charge against me, adding
as plaintiffs new evidence, 60,000 pages of documents relating to other persons
charges of alleged corruption in Government to Government rice sale.
The making of story and unlawful adding of new evidence against me in such a way
that bringing the criminal charge against me first and find additional evidence to
submit to the court later is not only unfair but is also tantamount to leading the trial
and the public to believe that I am guilty and liable to damage despite the fact that
the criminal case has not yet been decided.
The present government exercised the executive power, as if it were the judiciary,
by unlawfully issuing an administrative order under the Tortious Liability of Officials
Act B.E. 2539 (1996) requiring me to solely pay up 35,000 million of damages. On
July18, 2017, the government exercised its special power under section 44 ordering
the seizure and total withdrawal of money from my bank accounts and such action
led the public to misunderstand me and may unfairly affect the trial.
I trust that never before has anyone implementing public policy for the benefit of the
country been unfairly treated and his own assets been seized before the criminal
case is decided. This is against the international justice principles and section 29 of
the Constitution which stipulates that A suspect or defendant in a criminal case
shall be presumed innocent, and before the passing of a final judgment convicting a
person of having committed an offence, such person shall not be treated as a
convict. No one has ever suffered as harsh and unfair fate as me.
The plaintiffs adding of more than 60,000 pages of new evidence during the trial is
not only improper but also not in the interest of justice which is the condition newly
set out as per paragraph 6 of section 235 of the present Constitution. With utmost

respect to the court, I am the defendant and is entitled to the trial which is in
accordance with the Constitution. I have submitted requests 3 times begging the
court to refer the issue to the Constitutional Court under section 212 of the
Constitution but all my requests have been dismissed. However, I beg the court to
grant me justice by not considering to my detriment those 60,000 pages of new
evidence added by the plaintiff.
2. The RPS is the beneficial public policy and implemented lawfully.
The RPS is a good and beneficial public policy based on sound economic
principles. The scheme is not aimed at making profit from rice farmers but, instead,
it is aimed at raising income of over 15 million rice farmer equivalent to 23% of the
country population in order to receive adequate income comparable to minimum
wage of 300 baht per day. The scheme generates economic values and return, both
at the grass-root level and macro-economic level.
The RPS was implemented in good faith, in accordance with the Constitution and
laws. Firstly, the scheme was implemented under the Directive Principles of State
Policies under section 84(8) of the Constitution B.E. 2550(2007) requiring the state
to protect and safeguard the interests of rice farmers. Secondly, the scheme was
implemented under the Cabinets policies announced to the Parliament and the
government was bound to implement as per the Constitution B.E. 2550(2007).
Thirdly, the scheme was implemented under Administration of State affairs Plan B.E.
2555-2558 and, as such, it obliged me and the Cabinet to comply. The
implementation of the RPS did not contradict the policies or cabinet resolution.

3. I have never neglected my duty and have no power to stop the RPS arbitrarily.
The steps and procedures involving the implementation of the RPS were in accordance with
the Constitution, laws, regulations and cabinet resolutions.
All parties, committee, government agencies involved were appointed and
authorized to discharge their respective duties within the authority set for them. All
parties jointly set the measures, criteria, and operating practices. The main
responsible agencies such as Office of the National Economic and Social
Development Board (ONESDB), the Budget Bureau, and the Council of State and
other operating agencies have never warned against or called upon the
discontinuation or suspension of the scheme.
The procedures and working process were set according to cabinet resolution so
that each party could check and balance the performance and discharge of their
3



respective duties. I could not order the discontinuation or ending of the scheme
arbitrarily as Constitution and laws require the government to implement the
scheme.
The RPS was managed under the principle of limited use of power. All government
agencies worked under an integrated system. The Ministry of Commerce, the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and the Ministry of Finance are key
ministries responsible for the scheme. Other participants included other
government agencies, stated-owned enterprises, the National Rice Policy
Committee and its thirteen subcommittees. Each unit at each level has its own
responsibilities and chain of command to allow proper checks and balances.
On my capacity as Chairman of the National Rice Committee, I have never
neglected my duties nor omitted to perform my duties because I have delegated my
responsibility to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Commerce Minister to act as
Chairman of the National Rice Committee and if any matter came up, it was the duty
of those persons to report to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister for consideration.
The Constitution requires the Cabinet to have collective responsibilities but the
plaintiff misunderstood that the Prime Minister has sole power and may exercise the
power as he/she deems fit. When I was the Prime Minister, ministries working with
the National Rice Committee and sub- committee have their own responsibilities
required by laws. I could not exercise my power arbitrarily to interfere, make order,
or influence the operating level for anyones interest. The current Prime Minister
should well understand the limitation and that is why special power under section 44
is needed to conduct state administration which elected government like mine never
had.
4. Not cancelling the scheme due to its benefits and no damage was caused as charged.
The RPS is beneficial and generates worthiness and value concerning the public
administration and in evaluating the value of the public project, not only the benefits
calculable in monetary term but also other benefits to the society arising from the
project must be taken into account as the public project is not for profit seeking.
However, the NACC and the plaintiff have not taken other benefits into account.
Miss Supa Piyajitti, the plaintiffs witness admitted in court that it was not the duty of
the Account Closing Sub-Committee to consider the benefits incalculable in
monetary term and indirect benefits and such duty fell on the Office of the National
Economic and Social Development Board.

In June, 2013, the National Rice Committee was reported that the overall economic
and social benefits of the RPS amounts to 394,788 million Baht, which was 173,819
million Baht greater than the amount of 220,969 million Baht that allegedly claimed
as accounting losses by the Account Closing Sub-Committee.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board directly reported to
me confirming the necessity to continue the RPS until Thailand fully entered ASEAN
community in 2015.
Burapa Universitys research evaluated the RPS in 2012 and the survey by the Bank
for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives in June 2013 showed that the RSP
had created income security and satisfaction among farmers.
The research team of the KMIT, Choa Khun Taharn Ladkrabang presented the data
showing that during the production seasons under the RPS, the economy expanded
and multiplied 3.726 times and generated increased economic return of 1,088,697
million Baht which was greater than the costs of the project.
The RPS created more purchasing power and more tax could be collected.
The implementation of the RPS for the period of 5 production seasons was within the
legal framework and within the public debt ceiling as confirmed by Miss Sirasa
Kanpittaya, official from Finance Ministry testifying in court.
The implementation of the RPS was within the ceiling of the revolving fund of
500,000 million Baht as set by the Cabinet and the loan for the RPS was within the
ceiling set by the cabinet resolution in June 2013. Even the cabinet resolution of the
present government in August 2016 confirmed that the residual debts payable
under the pledging scheme of agricultural produce from the production year
2011/2012 to 2013/2014 was within the debt ceiling set by the cabinet.
In summary 1) The RPS was beneficial and generated worthiness and value. 2) The
implementation of the RPS was within the legal framework and within the public debt
ceiling and financial and fiscal discipline was maintained. 3) No government agency
proposed to me and the Cabinet that the RPS be discontinued or ended. 4)
Therefore, how could I exercise my power as Prime Minister to suspend or end the
scheme?
5. I have never performed or omitted to perform my duty illegally to cause damage to anyone
and I have never performed or omitted to perform my duty dishonestly
The NACC and the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) sent warning letters against
the RPS to my government. They had no legal duties and power to order the

executive branch to discontinue or end the implementation of public policy

announced to the Parliament.
However, I have never neglected to supervise and follow up on the policy
implementation as warned by the NACC and the OAG.
The warning and suggestions by the NACC and the OAG were based on TDRIs
research which proposed that I abolish and end the RPS and replace it by the Rice
Price Guarantee Scheme, the policy adopted by the opposition party. Such warning
and suggestions did not give me, as the Prime Minister, power to suspend or end
the scheme that was not contrary to policies or cabinet resolution.
I never ignored the warnings and suggestions by the NACC and the OAG and
passed them to all responsible parties concerned as I had no ulterior intention to
avoid or conceal any wrongdoing in order to allow corruption or cause damage and,
after learning of the warnings and suggestions, they had responsibility to address
them. No agency opposed and proposed the suspension or discontinuance of the
RPS.
I never ignored report of the Account Closing Sub-Committee and passed it on to
the National Rice Committee for their consideration.
I have duly exercised my power and duty of care as reasonably required of the
Prime Minister in such circumstances.
6. I have never neglected corruption in rice sales
The Sub-Committee on Rice Sale was specifically responsible for the sale of rice
stock and the cabinet assigned that responsibility to the Commerce Minister and
Foreign Trade Department.
Mr. Wicha Mahakun, the plaintiffs witness confirmed that I was not involved in, or
consented to any corruption relating to G to G rice sales.
The NACC did not base its charge against me on the alleged corruption relating to
G to G rice sales but, during the trial, the plaintiff unfairly, unlawfully and
unconstitutionally added 60,000 pages of new evidence from other persons inquiry
file relating to the alleged corruption involving G to G rice sales so as to implicate
me in the alleged corruption.
The Cabinet exercised due care with respect to rice sales and in November 2012
passed the resolution setting more stringent criteria and measures to prevent
corruption in rice sales. Such resolution had been passed before the no confidence
debate on the G to G rice sales issue took place in the Parliament. If I had neglected
6



or omitted to prevent corruption or damage as accused, why should the Cabinet

and I adopted such stringent criteria well before the debate during which the
corruption relating to G to G rice sales was just brought up?
After the debate in November, 2012, I ordered the Commerce Minister to appoint
fact finding committee to investigate G to G rice sales issues raised in the debate
but the finding was not concluded and the Commerce Ministry did not report any
official wrongfully involved in the G to G rice sales. Moreover, the NACC just
concluded their investigation and could only name officials wrongfully involved in
the G to G rice sales in January, 2015, almost a year after I had left office.
The selling of rice stock was the operating steps to be taken by the Foreign Trade
Department and the Commerce Ministry and every government follows usual
practices. Those agencies were responsible for the selling method and contract
documentation and when the sales were made, the Commerce Minister should
inform the Cabinet. But after the no confidence debate, no report of G to G sales
was submitted to the Cabinet and me.
I reshuffled and replaced the Commerce Minister with the new one to allow
investigation and stop any suspicious action during the NACCs inquiry. This
showed that I did not have ulterior intention to conceal information relating to G to G
rice sales and that I have never given consent to anyone to be involved in rice sale
corruption as charged.
Mr. Niwatthamrong, the new Commerce Minister, took various strict measures as
ordered by the Cabinet and I such as, signing the MOU with the Chinese
government stating intents to sell rice between G to G, increase sales through
domestic bidding, and allow G to G sales only if buyer is state enterprise 100%
owned by provincial government.
I ordered Commerce and Finance Ministers to put in place measures to check rice
sales by ordering the Customs Department to check amount of rice actually
exported at port whether it matches the amount in the sale contract and to set up
committee to check the amount of rice sold to retail outlets whether it matches the
amount sold through bidding.
I have duly exercised my power, discretion, and due care over the above matters
based on prevailing facts during the time of my tenure.
Throughout my premiership, I have never performed or omitted to perform my duty
illegally nor neglected my duty. I have never concealed any information nor avoided

being checked. I had no ulterior intention to cause damage to anyone and I did not
have dishonest intention. I had intention and determination to provide benefits for
rice farmers, to raise prices of agricultural produce to improve their livelihood which
would affect the country economy. My cabinet and I cooperated with all agencies,
including the NACC and its suggestions to the cabinet in other projects were
adopted.
In determining whether or not I have performed my duty duly, lawfully, and
adequately, the court should consider facts, legal issues, working structure, as well
as responsibilities of parties concerned at the time and surrounding circumstances
prevailing when I was Prime Minister.
I am aware that I am a victim of subtle political game. I, therefore, wish to depend on
the court, when deliberating my past actions, please kindly consider facts and
surrounding circumstances prevailing when I was Prime Minister, not the
assumption and present circumstances that have changed.
In summary 1) the RPS was the public policy aiming at helping rice farmers, not
commercial policy that made profit and loss with poor rice farmers. 2) Under the
Administration of State affairs Order, there were policy level and operating level
having their own responsibilities. Please consider my role as policy supervisor, not
operator. 3) I beg the court to make a decision relating to my performance as set out
in the NACCs inquiry file which states that I was not involved in corruption and I did
not consent to corruption. Please do not hear and admit new evidence added by the
plaintiff during trial in order to cause misunderstanding that I was involved in
corruption or I consented to corruption in G to G rice sales, as well as any attempt to
make me liable for damages of 35,000 million Baht which is consistent with the
NCPO Chiefs order in his capacity of the Chairman of the National Rice Policy
Committee that, no need to consider justice issue
As Prime Minister, I have duly performed my duty within the power under the
Constitution and laws. I have never neglected anything that cause damage to the
country and people. I have acted in good faith and never consented to any
corruption by others. I have never performed or omitted to perform my duty illegally
to cause damage to anyone and I have never performed or omitted to perform my
duty dishonestly.
I have done nothing wrong. What I have done is that I used my experience of
ordinary woman borne in the provincial area having opportunity to learn and feel

severe hardship endured by farmers which we call the spine of the nation and call
on all Thais to take care of them. I have done so under the RPS. There is proof that
during the implementation of the RPS, the rice farmers have better quality of life,
their children have opportunities to further their studies. It is the pride of my life that
once I had a chance to implement this policy for rice farmers.
I believe in the saying that the court is the last resort of the people. I beg the court
for kindness and please dismiss the charge.