Phumtham said the party was studying legal possibilities and what other political parties had done on the issue before proceeding with the petition.

As chief of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), Prayut in mid-December issued Order No 53/2560 to amend the political party law to extend parties’ administrative deadlines, with the stated purpose of facilitating party activities, including updating and registering membership lists, which would otherwise have ended this month.

However, other conditions addressed in the new order have been seen by political parties as more of a burden than a benefit.

The two major parties, Pheu Thai and the Democrats, have both cited various reasons how the order could put them at a disadvantage ahead of the election.

Pheu Thai stated in a press briefing on December 27 that the order violated the Constitution, adding that it was “unrighteous” and a blatant use of authority without respect for the law.

The party also said the order was intended to destroy the political party system and violate the rights and freedom of party members, as well as add an unnecessary burden for those members. The order would also pave the way for the establishment of political parties that support the NCPO and its leader so that it could hold on to power, Pheu Thai said.

On Monday, the Democrat Party held a meeting of its lawyers and also decided to file a petition with the Constitutional Court via the Ombudsman’s Office.

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said Prayut’s order violated the current charter both in terms of public rights and legitimate procedures.

Yingluck applied for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa, which allows the holder to stay in the UK for a maximum of three years and four months, reports quoting unnamed sources in Pheu Thai Party said.

According to the website gov.uk, which contains information about UK government services, people from outside the European Economic Area and Switzerland may apply for Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visas if they have access to 200,000 pounds (Bt8.7 million) in investment funds.

The holders can apply to extend the visa for another two years and possibly for settlement once they have been in the UK for five years, according to the website.

There has been speculation that the former prime minister might apply for political asylum to stay in the UK after fleeing Thailand to escape imprisonment.

Yingluck, a fugitive under Thai law, has been spotted in the UK on many occasions over the past month with photos of her taken in London circulating on social media before and after the New Year holiday.

Pheu Thai confirmed yesterday that Yingluck, a key former leader of the party, was in the United Kingdom, although party members claimed they did not have any further details about her location and legal status.

Phichai Nariphathaphan, another leading figure of the previously ruling party, said Yingluck was in the UK and the recent photos circulating on social media were genuine.

“But I don’t know if she has applied for political asylum or not,” he added.

Phumtham Wechayachai, Pheu Thai’s caretaker secretary-general, said yesterday the party had not contacted Yingluck in recent months.

“We follow her news from the media. There has been more and more news [about Yingluck]. Things will get clearer soon,” he said.

Yingluck fled the country in late August, shortly before the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders was scheduled to deliver a verdict in a case against her stemming from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme.

In late September, she was sentenced to five years in jail for negligence in regards to the scheme.

Phumtham said the party was studying all legal possibilities before moving ahead with the petition. It was also studying what other political parties have done on the issue.

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, in his capacity as the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) chief, in mid-December issued order No 53/2560 to amend the political party law to extend administrative work periods for parties.

Its prime purpose was said to be to help ease time limits for parties to pursue some activities, including updating and registering their membership lists, which would otherwise have ended this month.

However, other conditions were also addressed in the new order that political parties see as being more of a burden than a relief.

Major parties, including Pheu Thai and the Democrats, have cited various reasons that could put them at a disadvantage ahead of the election.

The Pheu Thai Party said in a press briefing on December 27 that, in its view, the order went against the constitution.

The order, it added, was unrighteous and a blatant use of authority without respect to the constitution and the law. It was also seen as aiming to destroy the political party system and the rights and freedom of their members, besides adding an unnecessary burden for party members.

Pheu Thai said the order would pave the way for the establishment of political parties that support the NCPO and its leader so that it could hold on to power. It said it wished to nullify the order and would seek the Constitutional Court’s ruling on it.

On Monday, the Democrat Party held a meeting of its team of lawyers, who decided to file a petition to the Court via the Ombudsman’s Office.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the party leader, said the absence of electronic channels for existing parties to contact their members and the requirement to provide evidence to prove members’ qualifications were clear burdens on political parties and their members, thus violating the 2017 Constitution.

The requirement to report the status of party members within 30 days was an additional burden both on the parties themselves and their members, the former prime minister added.

Abhisit also pointed out that the new charter requires any legal enactment or amendment to be subject to public consultation in line with Article 77, but the junta’s order failed to meet this need.

He added that the junta chief’s absolute power under Article 44 of the interim charter, which was used to issue the order, had become obsolete since the interim charter had been discarded following the promulgation of the 2017 Constitution.

In his opinion, the order went against the current charter both in terms of public rights and legitimate procedures.

Anon denied all charges, saying that he was merely exercising his right to freedom of expression. He was ready to request bail, he said, and he would maintain his stance to fight for human rights.

His lawyer, Somchai Homlaor, said that he observed the charges were not pressed by the Khon Kaen Provincial Court but by security officers.

Anon’s colleague, Natthasiri Bergman, also a human rights lawyer, raised a similar point, saying it should have been the court or one the judges to bring the charges, not the officers.

Even if the court had pressed the charges, Natthasiri expressed concern over its jurisdiction in the case.

Many activists showed up at the TCSD on Wednesday to show solidarity with Anon.

Anon has worked with the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), whose mission is to provide legal assistance for those prosecuted by the military-installed regime. Most were political cases involving the violation of junta orders.

However, he did not provide any further details on the matter.

Orders from the junta chief are issued via the absolute power granted under Article 44, which was first addressed in the interim charter and later secured in the 2017 Constitution.

Such orders have become laws once issued, and will remain in place unless they are legally nullified. The latest use of the power was to amend the new political party law in order to extend parties’ administrative work periods prior to an election.

Political parties have cried foul that the recent order imposes disadvantages on them instead of easing matters, ahead of a national election that is due to take place at the end of this year.

Sansern said the National Council for Peace and Order had reviewed the use of Article 44 power at its meeting today, and that Deputy Prime MInister Wissanu Krea-ngam had been assigned to revisit the original purposes for its use for the council’s members.

According to the government spokesman, there are three prime purposes for the use of Article 44.

First, it is used for “important matters”, which include reform or structural changes, national security, public safety, and rehabilitation of economic woes.

Secondly, it is used when the normal legal processes are delayed and susceptible to prompting public frustration.

Thirdly, Article 44 is used for fixing immediate problems before more sustainable measures are issued.

It would however never be used to overrule the judiciary, he added.

Prayut said yesterday that countries in the lower part of the Mekong – Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam – are “troubled” by dams being built in the upper part of Southeast Asia’s longest river.

However it remains unclear how the issue will be addressed at the summit, which is mostly aimed at advancing the newest sub-regional scheme to become a modern cooperation framework.

At the summit today, Prayut will sit with five other leaders from the Mekong basin to endorse the Five-Year Plan of Action (2018 – 2022) and the Phnom Penh Declaration.

Established in 2015, the LMC comprises China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, and aims to forge political and security cooperation, economic and sustainable development, and social, culture and people-to-people exchange.

The LMC is regarded as a forum to promote China’s influence and synergise with its Belt and Road Initiative. However, the Thai delegation wants the scheme to become an economic hub and sustainable development model through innovation and modern industries consistent with the Thailand 4.0 initiative and Eastern Economic Corridor development policies.

Thailand’s push is probably compatible with the LMC economic plan of action, as the six countries promote connectivity, including infrastructure upgrades such as railways. China is now working with countries in the region, including Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, to realise the dream of a “trans-Asean railway”.

Prayut is expected to pursue talks on the upcoming Thailand-Cambodia railway line, a part of Singapore-Kunming rail link and ultimately the Eastern Economic Corridor.

The premier said that the project has drawn to “near completion” despite suffering from several delays earlier.

Border control and trade and investment with emphasis on agricultural goods should also be discussed with Cambodia, Prayut added.

In the plan, they would promote the increase of application of global satellite navigation systems, including the Chinese Beidou system, in the Mekong countries.

In the area of economic cooperation, the six countries have plans to improve production capacity, promote cross-border trade, and build a long term, stable, sustainable and diversified financing system. The five-year action plan in the economic field also covers water resource management, agriculture, poverty reduction, forestry and environmental protection.

In the political and security field, the six countries – which have different political regimes, ranging from communist to military rule and semi-democracy – would promote dialogue and exchanges among political parties, according to the draft of the plan seen by The Nation.

Their cooperation in the security field mostly focused on non-traditional security threats such as combating drug and human trafficking, smuggling, terrorism, and trans-boundary and cybercrimes.

The action plan would also enhance cooperation in the field of disaster prevention and mitigation as well as humanitarian assistance.

On the social and culture front, the action plan would explore the establishment of the Lancang-Mekong Tourism Cities Cooperation Alliance to promote tourism and people exchange in the region.

AFTER MONTHS of a cat and mouse game with fugitive former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the junta appears to have become disheartened in bringing her back for prosecution despite knowing she is now in London.

Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday admitted that the extradition process was “generally uneasy”.

“Could we even get the other ex-PM back? Did they send him back?” Prayut said, apparently referring to Yingluck’s fugitive brother ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been on the run abroad since 2008.

“Please don’t make this a domestic issue,” Prayut said. “Everyone, including me, expects [Yingluck] to return but this also depends on the foreign countries involved and we have no control over that.

“The police will proceed once all the evidence and verifications are received,” he said. “We have to take this one step at a time. We’re not negligent towards anyone.”

Despite Thailand having a 1912 extradition treaty in place with the UK, authorities have yet to formally request that Yingluck be sent back because they have said they were unable to identify her whereabouts since she initially stopped in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Police said she left Dubai, where she stayed after fleeing Thailand via Cambodia in August, and then went to the UK in September but no official update had been given until yesterday.

The prime minister yesterday reluctantly admitted his government knew of Yingluck’s whereabouts after learning that his foreign minister had already reported that she was now in London.

Prayut yesterday told Government House reporters that he had not received any official report on her whereabouts. However, when a reporter informed him that Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai had earlier yesterday said British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had told him in September that Yingluck was in London, the PM responded that the matter would be dealt with in according with the relevant legal process.

The prime minister also said that he had not given any special instruction to the relevant state agencies regarding the matter.

“I will not make any specific order on this case,” he said. “Everything has its own process. We can’t just do anything on our own accord. You can’t expect to me enforce laws to get [Yingluck] returned as they can’t be applied in foreign countries,” he said.

Don told reporters yesterday that Thai authorities were in touch with their British counterparts in an attempt to locate Yingluck after having learned that she was in London.

He said his ministry would cooperate with the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office now that Yingluck’s whereabouts had been confirmed. “We have communicated consistently but we have not found her,” he said.

It was the first admission from the ministry that Yingluck was in Britain, where her brother Thaksin runs a business and owns a residence.

In October, police cited Dubai authorities saying Yingluck had left UAE on September 11 and then travelled to the UK. There were no further significant updates until photos of Yingluck in London and Oxford appeared in the media last week.

Don yesterday declined to say whether Thailand would issue any objection to the British government if Yingluck applied for asylum there. “It is not the Foreign Ministry’s duty to answer that question,” he said.

He pointed out that all of Yingluck’s Thai travel documents had been revoked, so she must have entered Britain with a passport issued by another country. He added that Yingluck’s presence in Britain should not affect Thailand-UK relations.

Public prosecutors have yet to request Yingluck’s extradition from any country, Amnart Chotchai, director general of the Attorney-General’s Office’s International Affairs Department, said yesterday. He added that the agency needed to gather sufficient and correct information before submitting a request.

“We have to make sure our information is clear and legal, or the requested country may turn us down because we don’t meet their conditions,” Amnart said.

He added that Thailand has had a good record regarding extraditions, earning much credibility from the United States and European countries.

Amnart said public prosecutors had made requests for Thaksin’s extradition with about 10 European and Asian countries since he fled the country in 2008. However, he said they failed to get him because Thaksin had often left those countries before their extradition requests were served.

“Thaksin has his own jet plane so he can travel quickly,” the prosecutor said.

Thai police have asked Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organisation, to issue an arrest warrant for Yingluck, Pol Colonel Surapan Thaiprasert, deputy commander of the Royal Thai Police’s Foreign Affairs Division, said yesterday.

He said that Interpol had asked for additional evidence from Thai authorities before the requested “red notice” for Yingluck’s arrest could be issued. Interpol asked for the verdict of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in the negligence case against Yingluck. A copy of the court ruling has been sent to Interpol.

Royal Thai Police deputy spokesman Pol Colonel Krissana Pattanacharoen said yesterday that Thai police would seek assistance from their British counterparts to locate Yingluck.

He said the Thai police had used “all the existing channels” to track down the fugitive ex-PM, adding that they have made frequent contacts with Interpol units in different countries.

In a related development, Democrat Party deputy leader Nipit Intarasombat yesterday asked the government to explain to the public why authorities had been unable to bring Yingluck back for prosecution in Thailand.

The politician said that he believed Yingluck had already been granted political asylum because she did not seem to be worried about appearing publicly.

“Her arrest will be difficult if she already gets asylum status,” he said.

THE NEW conflict of interest bill for state officers will prohibit the receipt of gifts as well as abuse or misuse of state resources and power, with penalties of up to five years in jail.

An opinion-gathering session yesterday also heard that the bill, which is being scrutinised by legislators, will be imposed not only on state officials but also on their parents, siblings, biological or adopted children, sons- and daughters-in law and grandchildren.

Participants at the session expressed concern that the strict law could draw superfluous complaints and unnecessarily put officials into difficult predicaments. One participant, who claimed to be an official from the Ministry of Public Health, said that officials could easily get into trouble should they receive gifts or kindness from friends or relatives.

Implying the law was impractical, he said individuals had more than one role.

While they served in the public sector, they could also be ordinary people who had personal and social lives where it might be common to receive kindness from friends, he said.

Air Chief Marshal Weerawit Kongsak, a key legislator in the bill-vetting committee, however, said that government officials would have to report to their superiors if the receipt of gifts risked a conflict of interest.

The same procedure should be adopted in cases involving close family members of officials, Weerawit added.

He said the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the enforcer of the bill, would issue guidelines for implementation of the rules and this should not be too difficult in real practice.

The bill also prohibits abuse or misuse of state resources and power for personal benefits, a point that legislators yesterday admitted was “tricky”.

Just last week the Ministry of Public Health issued a ban under its permanent secretary’s office on the use of state offices’ electricity to recharge staff members’ personal mobile phones, creating collateral damage to the bill.

Staff noted that many of them use their phones for work as well as private matters.

Hence, the legislators said it would depend on each office how it dealt with regulations. But the overall rule was that state resources should be used for the public interest, not personal gain.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha said it was unnecessary to amend the present anti-graft regulation to raise the ceiling on the value of gifts that state officials can accept.

The premier said he had instructed concerned agencies, including the NACC, not to amend its regulation on this matter as he considered there was no need to do so.

If gifts have a value beyond the current Bt3,000 cap, there is a guideline that they should be reported and given to the offices of the person who receive them.

The issue emerged shortly after Prayut’s recent trip to the lower North, during which he bought three expensive Bangkaew dogs and said he would give them to his ministers. He later retracted the statement after a complaint was filed against him in regard to the Bt3,000 cap.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam then revealed that the NACC was considering amending the regulations in order to raise the ceiling. This drew strong criticism before the NACC stepped back, saying that the matter required consultation with concerned parties.

Wissanu later said that if the NACC would not amend the regulation, the matter could be addressed in other laws, including the conflict of interest prevention bill.

The PM said he had instructed concerned agencies, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), not to amend the regulation as he considered there was no need to do so.

If gifts to officials have a value beyond the current Bt3,000 cap, there is a guideline that they should be reported and given to the offices of those who receive them.

The issue emerged shortly after Prayut’s recent trip to the lower North, during which he bought three pricey Bangkaew dogs and said he would give them to his ministers.

He later retracted the statement after a complaint was filed against him in regard to the NACC cap of Bt3,000 per gift.

Deputy PM Wissanu Krea-ngam was then among the first to reveal that the NACC was considering amending the regulation in order to raise the ceiling.

This drew strong criticism before the NACC stepped back, saying that the matter required consultation with concerned parties first.

Wissanu later said that if the NACC would not amend the regulation, the matter could also be addressed in other laws, including the conflicts of interest prevention bill, which is currently being scrutinised in Parliament.

Prayut had earlier remained non-committal on whether or not he would take up such a position after the national poll, prompting speculation over him seeking to cling on to power.

The process would depend on what the organic laws say, and people should not be overly worried about it, he said on Tuesday.

People have singled him out and are focusing on him without looking around for whether there are other people who would also be competent, he added.

The premier said he would therefore urge people not to link him with the matter, but rather lend support to those persons who volunteer to serve the country in the future, and to be selective when voting.

He declined to comment on whether an outsider PM’s work would go smoothly, stressing that he would rather focus on what happens today.

Prayut also urged people to help by considering whether what his government had been doing should be continued in the future.

He said that today he was a person of the people, and could do everything they wished him to.

The PM earlier announced that he was no longer a soldier, but a former soldier who had now turned himself into a politician – a statement which suggested to many that he was now preparing himself to formally enter politics.