- Published: 10/10/2012 at 04:07 PM
- Writer: Online Reporters
The petitioners were not the party whose rights and liberties had allegedly been violated by the scheme, the court ruled.
Court spokesman Pimol Thampithakpong said the ruling was unanimous, with a vote of 9-0.
The petition, which sought a court injunction halting the scheme, was filed by academics and students from Thammasat University and the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida) led by Adis Israngkura na Ayutthaya, dean of Nida's School of Development Economics.
The petition said that the pledging principle required that the pledged price should be lower than the market price, to allow farmers to redeem their rice when the price goes up. Under the rice pledging scheme, the government intentionally fixed a much higher pledged price than the market price, with no intention of farmers ever redeeming their rice.
In doing so, the government was becoming the largest rice trader in the country, in competition with the private sector. It was a monopoly and therefore destroyed the trade system, affecting the rice production system and distorting market mechanisms, the petition argued.
Mr Pimol said the court had performed its duty with impartiality and without political pressure. If the petitioners wanted to petition another agency, they should first find out if it had the power to take it up for consideration, he added.
In this case the Constitution Court decided it does not have the power under Section 212 of the constitution to take the petition up for consideration. The petitioners were not parties whose rights and liberties had been violated by the implementation of the scheme, Mr Pimol said.
Earlier Wednesday, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said she would order the Commerce Ministry to hold a press conference to give details on sales of eight million tons of pledged rice in government-to-government (G-to-G) deals, including the countries which signed a memorandum of understanding, the opening of letters of credit and deliveries of the rice.
Ms Yingluck said some information in the G-to-G may be confidential, but the government would make as much as possible public to ensure a better understanding.
Asked about the alleged corruption in the implementation of the scheme, the prime minister said Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung had been assigned to investigate.
Asked if ministers in the economic team agreed with the scheme, she said they should because it is one of the government's policies.
Deputy Prime Minister for economic matters Kittiratt Na-Ranong took the same tone.
Mr Kittiratt, also the finance minister, said on Wednesday afternoon that the rice pledging scheme is a good policy, even though it was disputed by some academics.
“This programme enables an increasein the incomes of rice farmers through the government’s rice supply management mechanism.
“Rice export growth this year might be seen as having a contractionm but it can be clearly seen that this year the export prices of rice are at a historical high.
“The government’s supply management system can help to substantially raise export prices of rice on the world market,” he said.
Mr Kittiratt said legal action was being taken against those involved in the reported irregularities and corruption under the rice scheme. The government had the real intention to help rice farmers and any irregularities must be eliminated.
However, as a consequence, Thais may have to pay more for rice in the shops, he said. But it was for the betterment of poor farmers.
The government would work with farmers to help them increase rice production per rai. The Irrigation system would as much as possible to enable farmers to grow more rice crops each year, he said.
In highland areas, the farmers will be supported to grow other cash crops instead of rice, including energy plants, he said.
Share your thoughts
- Discussion 1 : 11/10/2012 at 10:24 AM
-
Disc 11 - In the latest ABAC poll 68.7% of those polled wants Thai govt to continue rice pledging scheme.
- Discussion 2 : 11/10/2012 at 09:00 AM
-
Blaming the Democrats and defending the PT D5 is for sure not the solution; I for myself do not agree with this kind of policy no matter which party is working with; our concern should be the welfare of the country benefitting everyone Thais and foreigners (who are doing business and paying taxes) alike.
- Discussion 3 : 11/10/2012 at 03:23 AM
-
This is not surprising at all. It is part of growing up as a country. Sure, the scheme is anti-free market, disrupting price mechanism, and most likely cause heavy financial loss eventually. However, in Democracy, the Majority rules, so only after the damage is done, as predicted, hopefully, enough of those in the Majority will be persuaded not to support a similar anti-free market scheme in the future. What the opposition, through the Court, can do is to make sure that all legal procedures are followed with no irregularities (corruptions). If you want Democracy, this is IT!
- Discussion 4 : 11/10/2012 at 02:25 AM
-
Whether you support this scheme or not, there are some truths that everyone must logically agree on aside from the fact that it *will* benefit farmers: One, rice quality will fall. Two, Thailand's position in the rice export market will fall. To think this won't happen is fundamentally naive. Three, economically this is not a competitive policy and places strains on the macro economy.
- Discussion 5 : 10/10/2012 at 11:34 PM
-
Disc 6 - "Do I lean toward the Dems? Yes" So you agree with my point then, But, then again you think if we are against the Dems we must be Red rather than just PTP leaning. There is a difference, be it so subtle. I thought that the Democrats, when in power, exhibited the exact same qualities that you detest in the PTP. In fact I'll go as far as to say there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. Although, when the PTP was in opposition they definitely weren't as petty as the Democrats are at present.
- Discussion 6 : 10/10/2012 at 11:13 PM
-
Ricefield
Keep coming up with arguments for the fugitive billionaire .I,m sure he really appreciates it .I,m sure he cares a lot .
- Discussion 7 : 10/10/2012 at 10:44 PM
-
Ricefield - again, you, like most of the reds, seem to think that being against the PTP/UDD automatically means you support the Democrats/PAD(I don't think you support every single action of the PTP). That is not the case. What I see with others, and know about myself, is that we are against massive corruption and poor governance. I've said that many times. Do I lean toward the Dems? Yes. But most of us you are accusing don't put on blinders and rubber stamp the actions of any one government. I certainly don't agree with the bulk of what PAD does. Unfortunately, the PTP could put out a scheme saying that every PTP politician gets a gift of one billion baht for supporting Thaksin and most of the reds on here would be defending it.
- Discussion 8 : 10/10/2012 at 09:39 PM
-
Just a quick note for all those accusing the PTP government of high spending. The Democrat government, which most of you support, incurred the highest debt of any government in Thai history. Perhaps you should chew on that for a second and ask yourself where all that money went.
- Discussion 9 : 10/10/2012 at 08:36 PM
-
I expect that the selling price will be kept secret. No government is going to buy Thai rice at the Thai government's high prices unless the foreign government politicians are given a strong "incentive". In any event, the truth about the real selling price will come out eventually. Perhaps a loss of a few hundred billion Baht is considered acceptable.
- Discussion 10 : 10/10/2012 at 08:27 PM
-
One might not agree with the “rice pledging scheme” as I do however the court’s decision is right; this is not a matter of the Constitution Court it is more a matter of common sense.
- Discussion 11 : 10/10/2012 at 07:44 PM
-
Very sad and regrettable, how much damage and debt are these people going to be allowed to inflict on Thailand? Paying anything over the market price is a waste of public money and the 1 in 10 Thais who actually file returns and pay taxes have every right to be angry and demand it stopped.
- Discussion 12 : 10/10/2012 at 07:21 PM
-
the deputy p.m to investigate the p.m said? he's in this scheme as much as her brother..
i know farmers that havn't been paid for last years crop through this scheme, they just keep telling them that the bart is coming,is on its way, must be good to be paid to vote for this lot
Bangkok Post
