Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra must pay over 10 billion baht (approx. $305 million) in compensation for losses linked to her administration’s controversial rice pledging scheme—marking a major legal setback for the exiled leader and a defining moment in the long-running rice subsidy scandal. CNA + 4 nationthailand + 4 ABC News + 4 Wikipedia + 13 Reuters + 13 nationthailand + 13
The court partially overturned a previous verdict that had cleared Yingluck. It determined she had acted with “gross negligence”, particularly by ignoring repeated warnings issued by agencies such as the National Anti‑Corruption Commission and the State Audit Office about fraudulent G‑to‑G rice sales contracts. Reddit+3nationthailand+3nationthailand+3
Although the Finance Ministry initially demanded 35.7 billion baht ($1.1 billion), the court found that amount unjustifiably high. Instead, it ruled she should only pay half of the estimated damages, totalling ~20 billion baht, resulting in a more modest payout of 10.028 billion baht. ABC News+4nationthailand+4朝日新聞+4
Yingluck’s flagship policy—introduced in 2011—pledged to buy rice from farmers at prices roughly 50% above world market value, inflating costs and encouraging massive stockpiling. When global prices plunged due to competition from India and Vietnam, Thailand lost its position as a top exporter and was left with unsold, deteriorating rice, resulting in estimated losses of up to 170 billion baht (~$19 billion). Bangkok Wikipedia +8 AP News +8
From exile, Yingluck called the ruling unjust, maintaining she was being held liable “for a debt I did not cause”, emphasising her lack of direct involvement in operational decisions. Her legal team has vowed to appeal, citing past recovery of losses through rice sales and government funds used to offset the costs. nationthailand+11nationthailand+11AP News+11
This ruling has significant political resonance as the Pheu Thai Party, founded by her brother Thaksin Shinawatra, returns to power with his daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra serving as prime minister. The decision underscores continuing tensions between the Shinawatra political network and conservative or military-aligned institutions. AP News+7 Reuters+7www.ndtv.com+7 At a Glance
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Administrative Court, Thailand |
| Date of Ruling | May 22, 2025 |
| Original Compensation Order | 35.7 billion baht |
| Court-Imposed Payment | ~10.028 billion baht (about $305 million) |
| Reason for Liability | Severe negligence concerning G‑to‑G rice deals |
| Yingluck’s Status | Exiled in self-imposed exile since 2017 |
| Defense Stance | Claims no direct responsibility; political targeting |
The Thai court has ordered Yingluck Shinawatra to pay over 10 billion baht in damages for losses from a failed rice pledging program.
The ruling overturns a 2021 acquittal and slashes the original demanded amount from 35.7 billion to 10 billion baht, reflecting only half the assessed losses.
Yingluck rejects the verdict as politically motivated, while her legal team prepares to appeal based on losses already recouped and lack of direct operational control.
Supporters of BNP leader Ishraque Hossain continued their sit-in for the fifth consecutive day today, demanding his swift swearing-in as the mayor of Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC).
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on Monday, declaring that former presidents are entitled to partial immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. The 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, has triggered intense political and legal debate across the country.The ruling stems from charges brought against former President Donald Trump, who has faced multiple indictments related to alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election and events surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot. The Court’s decision now makes it more difficult for prosecutors to pursue charges for actions deemed as part of a president's official duties. Divided Reactions President Joe Biden responded to the ruling by calling it a “dangerous precedent” that could place future presidents above the law. “No one in America should be beyond accountability,” he said during a press conference.Republican leaders, however, welcomed the decision. House Speaker Steve Scalise stated, “This ruling upholds the constitutional separation of powers and protects the office of the presidency from political attacks.”The recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity has ignited intense debate across the United States, with sharp divisions emerging among legal experts, lawmakers, and the public. The decision, which sets new boundaries on the legal protections afforded to sitting presidents, has far-reaching implications for the balance of power and accountability in government. Supporters argue that the ruling upholds the integrity of the executive office by protecting it from politically motivated prosecutions, while critics warn that it could open the door to unchecked presidential authority. What the Ruling Means The Court ruled that while presidents do not have absolute immunity, they are shielded from criminal prosecution for actions that are “within the outer perimeter of official presidential responsibilities.” However, personal or unofficial actions remain subject to prosecution.Legal experts say the ruling could delay several of Trump’s ongoing legal cases, potentially impacting the 2024 election season, where Trump remains the leading Republican contender. As protests, press conferences, and panel discussions erupt nationwide, the ruling is expected to influence upcoming elections and reshape the legal landscape surrounding executive power for years to come. Public Response The recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity has ignited intense debate across the United States, with sharp divisions emerging among legal experts, lawmakers, and the public. The decision, which sets new boundaries on the legal protections afforded to sitting presidents, has far-reaching implications for the balance of power and accountability in government. Supporters argue that the ruling upholds the integrity of the executive office by protecting it from politically motivated prosecutions, while critics warn that it could open the door to unchecked presidential authority. As protests, press conferences, and panel discussions erupt nationwide, the ruling is expected to influence upcoming elections and reshape the legal landscape surrounding executive power for years to come.
Iran and Israel traded further air attacks on Thursday as President Donald Trump kept the world guessing about whether the United States would join Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities. Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. A week of Israeli air and missile strikes against its major rival has wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command, damaged its nuclear capabilities and killed hundreds of people, while Iranian retaliatory strikes have killed two dozen civilians in Israel. Iran and Israel traded further air attacks on Thursday as President Donald Trump kept the world guessing about whether the United States would join Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities. Guardian council warns US of 'harsh response A key Iranian body warned the United States on Thursday that any intervention in support of its ally Israel would be met with a "harsh response". "The criminal American government and its stupid president must know for sure that if they make a mistake and take action against Islamic Iran, they will face a harsh response from the Islamic Republic of Iran," the Guardian Council said in a statement carried by state television. Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. A week of Israeli air and missile strikes against its major rival has wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command, damaged its nuclear capabilities and killed hundreds of people, while Iranian retaliatory strikes have killed two dozen civilians in Israel. Guardian council warns US of 'harsh response' if it intervenes. A key Iranian body warned the United States on Thursday that any intervention in support of its ally Israel would be met with a "harsh response". "The criminal American government and its stupid president must know for sure that if they make a mistake and take action against Islamic Iran, they will face a harsh response from the Islamic Republic of Iran," the Guardian Council said in a statement carried by state television.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on Monday, declaring that former presidents are entitled to partial immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. The 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, has triggered intense political and legal debate across the country. The ruling stems from charges brought against former President Donald Trump, who has faced multiple indictments related to alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election and events surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot. The Court’s decision now makes it more difficult for prosecutors to pursue charges for actions deemed as part of a president's official duties. Heatwave Grips U.S. South and Midwest, Breaking Temperature Records Data Table Price Total 1200 1200 Ata Moyda Demographic Data District Population Percentage Noakhali 31,000,00 5% Cumilla 35,000,00 5.5% Divided Reactions President Joe Biden responded to the ruling by calling it a “dangerous precedent” that could place future presidents above the law. “No one in America should be beyond accountability,” he said during a press conference. Republican leaders, however, welcomed the decision. House Speaker Steve Scalise stated, “This ruling upholds the constitutional separation of powers and protects the office of the presidency from political attacks.” What the Ruling Means The Court ruled that while presidents do not have absolute immunity, they are shielded from criminal prosecution for actions that are “within the outer perimeter of official presidential responsibilities.” However, personal or unofficial actions remain subject to prosecution. Legal experts say the ruling could delay several of Trump’s ongoing legal cases, potentially impacting the 2024 election season, where Trump remains the leading Republican contender. Public Response Protests erupted in major cities including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, with citizens expressing fears that the decision could weaken American democracy. On social media, the hashtag #NoOneAboveTheLaw trended nationwide.
Football’s rulemakers are pushing for sweeping change ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, redefining how penalties and VAR decisions are adjudicated in high-stakes matches. The centerpiece proposal: abolish penalty rebounds. Under the new rule, once a penalty kick is taken—regardless of outcome—play would end immediately. Any rebound off the keeper or post ends in a goal kick awarded to the defensive team. Proponents say this mirrors shoot-out clarity, resolves VAR encroachment retakes, and reduces contentious second-chance controversy. Talk Sport Channel In a startling revelation, the CEO of a prominent "rent-a-crowd" agency has lifted the lid on the booming U.S. protest industry, exposing how political movements, corporate interests, and influencers routinely pay to stage large-scale demonstrations. Speaking anonymously, the executive detailed how thousands of actors and extras are hired to pose as passionate activists, boosting media coverage and swaying public opinion. From climate rallies to anti-corporate marches, these manufactured protests are meticulously choreographed, with participants receiving scripts, signs, and hourly pay. The disclosure raises serious ethical questions about authenticity in civic movements and the manipulation of democratic discourse. Simultaneously, VAR’s purview may expand significantly: future iterations would allow reviews of second yellow cards and corner-kick decisions, expanding beyond current limits that restrict it to straight red incidents. These changes aim to improve fairness but raise concerns over game flow and the human dynamic on the pitch. Talksport critics, including talkSPORT pundit Alan Brazil, labeled the proposals “a load of tosh,” arguing such regulation shifts remove nuance and over-engineer natural gameplay. Another theoretical change under consideration—Arsène Wenger’s “daylight offside rule”—would require attackers to be fully separated from defenders to be ruled onside, increasing objectivity but potentially changing traditional offside dynamics. Talksport These reforms also address double-touch penalties, stipulating retakes rather than awarding goals where infringement occurs, such as the incident with Julian Álvarez in last season’s Champions League. All measures are subject to ratification by February 2026 to take effect during the World Cup. Talksport. Should these rule changes pass, they would redefine football officiating—from grassroots leagues adopting new penalty protocols to elite matches experiencing altered stoppage patterns and VAR triggers.The potential implications are vast: strategic behavior, coach tactics during penalty sequences, and player conduct under intensified replay scrutiny could all shift. With the World Cup on the horizon, football’s global governing body may soon pivot action from debate to implementation.
