Wissanu say only endorsement from F

Wissanu say only endorsement from Finance minister needed to seek compensation over rice scheme
PRIME MINISTER Prayut Chan-o-cha did not need to ink an administrative order to have ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra pay compensation for losses over the rice pledging scheme as only an endorsement of the Finance Minister was needed, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday.
Wissanu was speaking after Yingluck's lawyer argued that the PM's move to issue an administrative order to make Yingluck pay compensation might be deemed abuse of authority and motivated by politics.
Wissanu said legal specialists met half a month ago and resolved that the PM did not need to endorse the administrative order in the latter half of the legal procedures to make Yingluck pay compensation for damages incurred in the rice subsidy scheme.
"Article 5 of the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 stipulates that when state officials who committed a wrongful act are not under the jurisdiction of any agency, the Finance Ministry will be in charge of the case. Yingluck is not under the jurisdiction of any ministry, so her case will be under the responsibility of the Finance Ministry, Wissanu said.
Wissanu defended against criticism that legal specialists were resorting to a legal tactic to prevent Prayut from being sued for abuse of power.
"We are not trying to protect the PM. Look into the law. The PM co-signs with the ministers in charge of the case only in the first half of the procedure and not the latter half. If General Prayut must sign but he fails to do so, then the order will be invalid. The PM has announced that if there is anything wrong, he will take responsibility,'' Wissanu said.
Wissanu said the PM himself was taken by surprise when he learned he needed not to sign any more documentation.
He added that the government would continue with its decision to issue the administrative order in Yingluck's case because if the government does not take action before the two-year statute of limitations expires, the National Anti-Corruption Commission would sue the government and make it pay the compensation for the losses over the rice subsidy.
Norawit Lalaeng dismissed a statement made by Wissanu that the government had no alternative but to take recourse under the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 because Yingluck committed gross negligence over her handling of the rice pledging scheme.
He cited that the Charter Organic Law on Anti-Corruption Act 1999 did not specify which law must be applied to seek compensation.
Norawit also said that Wissanu could not compare Yingluck's case with that of former governor of the Bank of Thailand (BoT) Rerngchai Marakanond who was accused of violating the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 for his failed defence of the baht during the 1997 financial crisis. He cited that the BoT filed a civil suit against Rerngchai with the Civil Court and did not issue an administrative order.
He said the Civil Court and the Administrative Court had ruled in 2002 that Rerngchai's case was under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and not the Administrative Court. He said Yingluck's case should be filed with the Court of Justice and not Administrative Court.
Norawit said the PM must not issue an administrative order because the rice-pledging scheme was a public policy approved by Parliament. Yingluck did not directly manage the scheme but only oversaw the policy.
He said Prayut had negatively criticised the rice pledging scheme and this left him not neutral in making decision on the case. "He should let the Courts of Justice rule. His decision to issue an administrative court order in this case may be deemed an act of malfeasance,'' he said.
Jessada Anuree, director of the Lawyers Council of Thailand's Training Office said that Yingluck was putting up a tough fight for fear of being made to pay Bt500 billion in compensation for the losses. The PM as head of the executive branch could possibly order state agencies such as the Finance Ministry to make her pay Bt500 billion. If the case was filed with the court, the PM could not order the court to make Yingluck pay Bt500 billion or the court might make her pay less, he said.
"I must say that resorting to the court of justice is more graceful because Yingluck's case is political in nature and this makes people doubt if there is any harassment,'' he said
He said that even though an administrative order was issued for this case, the defendant could seek a court ruling to revoke the order, he said.
"They (Yingluck camp) may seek political advantage by trying to portray that the government was harassing them by issuing an administrative order,'' he said.

Pheu Thai Party caretaker deputy secretary-general Chavalit Wichay-asut said the Prayut government risked being accused of political harassment if it insisted on issuing an administrative order.
He warned the government not to violate the European Parliament's resolution o

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

Wissanu Say only endorsement from Finance Minister Needed to Seek Compensation over Rice Scheme
PRIME Minister Prayut Chan-o-Cha did not Need to Ink an administrative Order to have ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra pay Compensation for losses over the Rice pledging Scheme as only an endorsement. of the Finance Minister was Needed, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-Ngam said Yesterday.
Wissanu was Speaking after Yingluck's Lawyer argued that the PM's Move to Issue an administrative Order to Make Yingluck pay Compensation might be Deemed abuse of Authority and motivated by politics.
Wissanu. said Legal specialists met Half a month ago and Resolved that the PM did not Need to endorse the administrative Order in the latter Half of the Legal procedures to Make Yingluck pay Compensation for damages incurred in the Rice subsidy Scheme.
"Article 5 of the Liability of. Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 stipulates that when state officials who committed a wrongful act are not under the jurisdiction of any agency, the Finance Ministry will be in charge of the case. Yingluck is not under the jurisdiction of any Ministry, so Her Case Will be under the Responsibility of the Finance Ministry, said Wissanu.
Wissanu defended against criticism that Legal specialists were resorting to a tactic to Prevent Legal Prayut from being sued for abuse of Power.
"We are not trying to protect the PM. Look into the law. The PM co-signs with the ministers in charge of the case only in the first half of the procedure and not the latter half. If General Prayut must sign but he fails. to do so, then the Order Will be invalid. The PM has announced that if there is anything Wrong, He Will take Responsibility, '' Wissanu said.
Wissanu said the PM himself was taken by Surprise when He learned He Needed not to Sign any. more Documentation.
He added that the Government would Continue with ITS decision to Issue the administrative Order in Yingluck's Case because if the Government does not take Action before the Two-year statute of limitations expires, the National Anti-Corruption Commission would Sue the Government and. Make it pay the Compensation for the losses over the Rice subsidy.
Norawit Lalaeng dismissed a statement Made by Wissanu that the Government had no alternative but to take recourse under the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996th because Yingluck committed gross negligence over Her Handling of. the Rice pledging Scheme.
He cited that the Charter Organic Law on Anti-Corruption Act 1999 did not Specify which Law must be Applied to Seek Compensation.
Norawit also said that Wissanu could not compare Yingluck's Case with that of Former Governor of the Bank of Thailand. (BoT) Rerngchai Marakanond who was accused of violating the Liability of Wrongful Act of State Official 1996 for his failed defence of the baht during the 1997 financial crisis. He cited that the BoT Filed a Civil Suit against Rerngchai with the Civil Court and did not Issue an administrative Order.
He said the Civil Court and the Administrative Court had ruled in two thousand and two that Rerngchai's Case was under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and not. the Administrative Court. He said Yingluck's Case should be Filed with the Court of Justice and Administrative Court not.
Norawit said the PM must not Issue an administrative Order because the Rice-pledging Scheme was a Public Policy Approved by Parliament. Yingluck did not directly Manage the Scheme but only oversaw the Policy.
He said Prayut had negatively criticized the pledging Rice Scheme and this left Him not in Neutral Making the decision on Case. "He should Let the Courts of Justice Rule. His decision to Issue an administrative Court Order in this Case May be Deemed an Act of Malfeasance, '' He said.
Jessada Anuree, Director of the Lawyers Council of Thailand's Training Office said that Yingluck was. putting up a tough fight for fear of being made ​​to pay Bt500 billion in compensation for the losses. The PM as head of the executive branch could possibly order state agencies such as the Finance Ministry to make her pay Bt500 billion. If the case was filed. with the Court, the PM could not Order the Court to Make Yingluck pay Bt500 billion or the Court might Make Her pay Less, He said.
"I must Say that resorting to the Court of Justice is more Graceful because Yingluck's Case is Political in nature. and this Makes people doubt if there is any Harassment, '' He said
He said that even though an administrative Order was issued for this Case, the defendant could Seek a Court ruling to revoke the Order, He said.
"They (Yingluck Camp). May Seek Political Advantage by trying to portray that the Government was harassing them by Issuing an administrative Order, '' He said. Pheu Thai Party Caretaker Deputy secretary-general Chavalit Wichay-Asut said the Prayut Government risked being accused of Political Harassment if it insisted. on Issuing an administrative Order. He warned the Government not to violate the European Parliament's resolution o.