Prayut spoke after rumours that he might swap the posts of his deputy and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan and Interior Minister General Anupong Paochinda.

Such a move might allow Prawit, in his capacity as head of Interior, to oversee the general election expected to be held next year.

Prayut said the speculation was “senseless” as there are already mechanisms overseeing election affairs, such as the Election Commission and related agencies.

Prawit said the idea is “purely imaginary” and said Prayut had never raised the possibility even once.

The deputy prime minister on Monday said he wanted to stay in his present role.

He denied knowing about a Cabinet reshuffle. “It depends on the prime minister. But personally, I would like to work as defence minister because I’m more familiar with it,” Prawit said. The defence minister added that he had not discussed the matter with the premier but he thought a reshuffle should occur following significant royal ceremonies.

The last Cabinet reshuffle under the Prayut administration took place in December, with 12 changes made.

APPEALS COURT president Sirichai Wattanayothin, who announced his resignation after being demoted to an inactive position, has urged Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to look into the nomination for the top job in the judicial branch.

Sirichai, disappointed with the recent reshuffle, said yesterday that he had resigned from his post and from the civil service after being offered the unprecedented position of “adviser to the Supreme Court president”.

The position was created specially for him after he failed to get nominated as Supreme Court president.

He said he would not take legal action against the process or the Judicial Commission but would make a plea through the media to the public and the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to witness the treatment meted out to him and decide for themselves whether it was fair.

He said he did not want to damage the judicial institution and could accept what he was facing despite the pain. But he said he felt sorry for his parents and family whose reputation might be damaged because of the scandal.

Sirichai said he could not accept the position of adviser because it was not equal to the post of president though the commission claimed that it was. He also said it was a position created just for him and it could be unlawful.

Sirichai’s bid for Supreme Court’s top position ended when the Judicial Commission ruled unanimously, 14-0, that he was not appropriate for the post.

In a press conference, he said there had been complaints against his decision to reverse three drug-dealing cases which had resulted in the defendants getting punished.

He said he had testified before the commission and insisted that he had followed legal procedures, but its decision against him remained unchanged.

Witnesses who gave evidence against him were all people who had been affected by his decisions in the past, Sirichai said, adding that he had removed several officials from office due to malfeasance.

He said that after failing to get nominated as Supreme Court president, he had tried to remain in his post as was the usual practice, but the commission offered him the unprecedented advisory position instead.

Although he gave up and resigned, Sirichai hoped that Prayut, who has special powers under the Article 44 of provisional charter, would look into the nomination process of the judicial branch.

Judges across the country |‘concerned’

The treatment meted out to him had caused concern among judges nationwide and shaken up the nomination tradition, which had long been based on seniority, Sirichai said.

Sirichai declined to say whether his situation was the result of the on-going political divide in the country and insisted that he had done his duty in a straightforward manner and he had no political ambition.

The press conference yesterday was joined by dozens of judges and judicial officials who offered pink roses and moral support for the former court president.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sirichai’s career in justice

Appeals Court president Sirichai Wattanayothin graduated from Ramkhamhaeng University’s Law Faculty and earned his Master’s degree in law from Chulalongkorn University. He also attended the Thai Bar under the Royal Partronage’s Barrister-at-Law course.

After he was recruited as a judge, Sirichai’s career grew over the years, starting from serving as a judge and a chief judge for several provincial, regional, and central courts, including Nakhon Sri Thammarat, the Civil Court, and the Appeals Court.

He also served as Court President for the Regional 5 Juvenile and Family Court, a judge and a chief judge at the Supreme Court, before taking a senior post of the fourth Vice Court President of the Supreme Court, and eventually the Appeals Court President in 2015, which is only second to the Supreme Court President.

Sirichai was also appointed to serve as an executive member for the Court of Justice’s executive committees, including the Supreme Court’s judicial commission sub-panel, the executive judicial commission, as well as the judicial commission at the Supreme Court and the Appeals Court.

While serving as a senior judge, Sirichai was appointed to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions to rule on several high profile cases. These included the malfeasance charge against former Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and four defendants over a case concerning a violent crackdown against People’s Alliance for Democracy protestors in 2008, and the negligence charge against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra over alleged corruption in the rice mortgage scheme.

While serving as Appeals Court President, he introduced a new approach to reduce cases accumulating at the court. In 2016, the Appeals Court under his lead, won the award of excellence among high courts.

“We might not be able to finish the job 100 per cent since there are so many problems in the sector, but I think we have made a lot of progress in accordance with the requirement,” Prayut told reporters.

An EC delegation was in Thailand from July 1 to 16 to review measures taken by the government to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Agriculture Minister Chatchai Sarikalya said earlier that the EC had suggested Thailand could do more to regulate the fishery industry, such as register fishing trawlers, to meet equilibrium of supply. They raised concerns about the use of illegal workers, illegal and substandard fishing tools, as well as insufficient monitoring systems, he said.

“Many issues of concern are relatively new, so we have to study and hire consultant to help us,” Chatchai said.

The EC put Thailand on formal notice of a yellow card in April 2015 for not taking sufficient measures to combat illegal fishing. The commission has sent delegations to Thailand to follow up the work since then, but the actions taken by Thai authorities so far are unlikely to meet conditions for a status upgrade.

“We have to get back to first stage for many works,” Prayut said, noting that only 18,000 of an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 boats have been registered.

“We have problems in every aspect, therefore we face slow progress,” he said.

The EC might not look back to the cause of the problem, but the government has to tackle it at its root cause, he said. “As we issue new laws and enforce them, there is some resistance from those who have become familiar with illegal fishing, so we need to take time to make them comply with the law,” he said.

One of the world’s biggest fish importers, the European Union has enforced the IUU Regulation since 2010. It allows access to the EU market only to fisheries products that have been certified as legal by the country concerned.

When those countries are unable to certify their products, the Commission starts a process of co-operation and assistance with them to help improve their legal frameworks. The milestones of this process are warnings (yellow cards), followed by green cards if issues are solved and red cards if they aren’t. Red cards lead to a trade ban.

Chatchai Promlert from the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Department has been promoted to the tole of Interior Ministry permanent secretary, while Internal Trade Department chief, Nantawan Sakuntanak has been promoted to be the Commerce Ministry’s permanent secretary.

Pasu Loharachun, the Industrial Promotion Department chief, meanwhile, has been promoted to take the permanent secretayr post at the Industry Ministry.

Deputy director of the National Intelligence Agency, Chukiat Malineerat, has also been promoted to the director post.

The party threatened to bring the issue to the attention of international human-rights organisations as well as to the prime minister, asking him to forward the bill to the Constitutional Court to look into its constitutionality.

The party raised three points that it objects to, the first being that the draft law’s provision for a court proceeding without defendants being present went against a universal principle concerning fundamental human rights, as it was deemed to violate defendants’ right for justice.

Second, Pheu Thai said in its statement, the wavier of the statute of limitations under this law would contradict a conventional principle of justice.

It would also allow partiality in case proceedings and enforcement, as witnesses or evidence could be incomplete over time and become selective if no statute of limitations were set, the party said.

Lastly, the new law as drafted would be applied retroactively, and its enactment would therefore have retroactive effects on those still defending cases in court.

This, the party argued, would violate the rule of law.

The new draft bill on court procedures against political office holders was passed last week by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) despite concerns over emerging challenges to the rule of law and human rights.

NLA lawmakers have defended the bill’s content, saying it was appropriate, considering changes and the complexity of corruption that has developed over time.

They claim that they have addressed a sufficient degree of rights protection for political office holders to defend themselves via their lawyers if they are absent from court.

The waiver of the statute of limitations, meanwhile, has been introduced to give fair treatment to the public as well as to the state, both of which face losses resulting from corruption, lawmakers also argue.

Moreover, they reason, the provision for court proceedings to be applied retroactively could mean that more cases continue to the end of the judicial process, especially those that are put on hold.

Election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said the EC had, however, decided not to touch upon the highly controversial point concerning the total reset of the current commission as addressed in the new law, as this would lead people to think that it was fighting for the personal interests of EC members.

If the EC office is unable to find any legal channels for questioning the constitutionality of other aspects of the bill, it is instructed to report back to an EC meeting later, he explained.

One of the two legal aspects being examined concerns the removal from the draft law of an EC member’s authority to suspend elections if fraud is found, as the new charter clearly addresses the matter otherwise, Somchai said.

The other aspect deemed to violate the Constitution concerns the removal from the draft bill of the EC’s authority to organise local elections, despite the fact that the new charter gives that power to the electoral agency.

While any EC member also has the right to file their own petition to the Constitutional Court, the EC meeting has not yet addressed that issue, Somchai said, adding that he himself had not yet made up his mind about that either.

Supachai Somcharoen, the EC chairman, said the agency’s members want to prepare for the election ahead of the arrival of the new members to make the transition smoother.

He spoke following the EC’s meeting on Monday.

Besides logistics, the EC has come up with an initial schedule for the election, which is set on August 19, 2018.

Based on the MP election draft bill it drafted, the EC projects that the draft bill could be promulgated by March 2018.

The EC would then issue legislation concerning the election by April 2018, before constituency determination can take place.

By early June 2018, the EC would expect to be in a position to announce the election date, the application date for candidates and venues for the election, Supachai said.

By July 2018, the EC would expect to receive the applications from MP candidates and party-list MPs, before the election could take place one month afterwards, or around August 19, he added.

Udom Rathamarit, a member of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) who sat on the panel that vetted the bill which was passed by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) last week, said that he did not think the legislation was against the new Constitution.

He said the Courts of Justice could raise concerns with the CDC regarding the law.

The legislation was drafted by the CDC. It is among 10 organic laws needed to complement the new Constitution, which has been in effect since April 6.

Judges have expressed concerns over the clause that allows trials in the absence of fugitive defendants. Before the NLA voted 176-0 to pass the bill last Thursday, Atikom Intarabhuti, secretary-general of the Courts of Justice, who is a member of the committee vetting the draft law, said trials in absentia are against a universal principle and international practice.

Udom said that the Courts of Justice representative had raised the concern with the NLA during deliberation of the bill. “In the end, the majority of the NLA voted in support of the provision,” he said.

The relevant agencies allowed to oppose the bill – the CDC, Constitutional Court and National Anti-Corruption Commission – have no reservations with the newly passed bill, according to Udom. The Courts of Justice is not among those agencies.

A joint committee is formed when any of the relevant agencies disagree with the passed bill.

“I can’t answer now as to whether a joint committee will be set up. In my view, there is only a small chance of that,” Udom said.

Another member of the CDC, Atchaporn Charujinda said yesterday that as the Office of the Courts of Justice is not allowed to oppose the newly passed bill, the agency might seek a review through the CDC so that its request is forwarded to the NLA.

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader and Pheu Thai Party politician, was the only well-known political figure present at the event held at the First Army Area command in Bangkok.

President of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), Jatuporn yesterday expressed support for the scheme and promised not to stand in the way of the reconciliation-building effort.

Key politicians from the country’s largest political parties – Pheu Thai and Democrat – did not show up. As well, no representatives from the political-turned-charity group People’s Democratic Reform Foundation (PDRF) participated in the symposium.

The reconciliation scheme and the harmony pact are among this year’s top political agendas presented by the junta-backed national strategy, reform and reconciliation preparation committee, also known by its Thai abbreviation of Por Yor Por.

While many people have doubts, Jatuporn yesterday said he believed the latest reconciliation attempt was different.

He said that he believed the scheme would come to fruition. He noted that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha had twice cited His Majesty the King, who had said he wished the country be filled with love, happiness, and safety – and the PM called on the people to harmonise.

As a leader of a key opposition group, Jatuporn said that he would give it his full cooperation, but the task of carrying out the reconciliation scheme was the responsibility of the prime minister. “If national harmony is not achieved, we will have to come back to this point again,” the UDD president said. He extended moral support to the government, wishing them success in bringing about national reconciliation.

The symposium yesterday was joined by more than 300 people from the central region. Among them were politicians, political activists and workers from non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Representing the opinion-processing committee, Pol General Apisak Sombat Charoennont presented the draft of the so-called social contract, with 10 points encouraging all Thais to comply.

The points were answers to the 11 questions posed in the reconciliation that concerned conflicts of the past and the future steps to bringing national unity.

The pact called on all Thais to respect the results of a fair election, to exercise rights and freedoms with responsibility, to be vigilant of frauds, and to support the reform and national strategy.

Similar sessions will be held in other regions until Thursday at the regional Army commands, to introduce the draft of the harmony pact and gather final opinions before submitting it to the Por Yor Por.

Central government and local government officials also attended the meeting, in which an understanding was also reached on the draft bills of the EC and political parties as well as the EC regulation draft on provincial election inspectors.

For election preparations, the discussion included making voting easier for the elderly and handicapped, online candidacy, voter registrations, the uses of smart card readers in polling booths and online voting.

Also discussed was the uses of mobile applications to facilitate election procedures, the use of risk management programs in the process, the use of newly-designed ballot boxes and the appointment of provincial election inspectors.