Pornpetch said that, as the NLA president, he would forward the petition to the Court on Thursday or Friday for a ruling. The NLA would have to inform Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha of the need to delay sending him the law for his submission for royal endorsement, he said.

Pornpetch said he has no idea how long the court deliberation would take, but that constitution-related cases take about one month to resolve.

NLA member Taweesak Sootakawatin said his fellow legislators wished the court to rule on a single point regarding waiving qualifications prohibited under the charter.

The NLA recently passed the organic law governing the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), with a change to waive qualifications prohibited under the charter. The Constitution Drafting Commission had drafted the law to allow the NACC commissioners to remain in office if they met qualifications addressed in the charter.

NACC President Pol General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit said he is not worried about the petition by the NLA members and if the Court invited him to explain the issue, he would cooperate.

Watcharapol, and some other NACC commissioners have had their qualifications questioned when they were compared to the qualifications addressed in the charter. Though they either lacked qualifications or had qualifications that are prohibited under the charter, they were able to remain in their posts due to the NLA’s law waiving the requirements.

Watcharapol is known to have close ties to Deputy PM General Prawit Wongsuwan, previously serving as a deputy secretary general of the PM’s Office, attached to Prawit.

The four have been identified after Prawit submitted a letter explaining his perspective on the matter to the NACC. The NACC has said it wished to learn further details about his possession of the watches and relationships with the four individuals.

Prawit on Tuesday pledged to resign if he was found guilty. The general also said he had borrowed the watches from friends and had already returned them all.

Watcharapol said the officials would investigate legal aspects regarding the deputy PM’s claim and inform the NACC of their findings.

Anti-graft buster and former senator Rosana Tositrakul, has meanwhile called on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to apply the same standard as when he removed government officials suspected to be involved with corruption to pave the way for investigations.

Rosana cited Prayut’s early reasoning in removing them. If the issues were deemed critical or they people were in positions of high rank, there was a need to first remove to pave the way for proper investigations. This, Rosana said, should also be applied to the case of Prawit.

The scandal arose after Prawit was seen wearing a very expensive Richard Mille watch during a photo session with the new Cabinet. Netizens, including Facebook page, CSI LA have reviewed media photos of Prawit and, as of Wednesday, the page estimated that he had worn 25 luxury watches. The total price, based on market value, stands estimated at more than Bt30 million – far higher than Prawit’s estimated income during his past three years in office.

Taweesak Sukawatin, spokesman for the committee, dismissed the report on Thursday.

The 2017 charter says the next general election must take place within 150 days of four organic laws being promulgated – laws on the Election Commission, political parties, MP elections, and the structure of the Senate.

If enforcement of the MP bill is delayed 90 days, the election would then have to take place within 240 days of its enforcement.

The delay would prevent the election being held in November as junta leaders have promised.

The Isra News Agency reported that the committee, meeting in secret on Tuesday, had agreed to amend Article 2 of the bill, which stipulates when enforcement of the law begins.

The article says enforcement commences one day after the law is published in the Royal Gazette, but the committee’s amendment pushes enforcement back to 90 days after promulgation, the agency said.

Taweesak insisted the committee didn’t even discuss the matter, and reiterated that the current draft bill would be enforced one day after publication in the Royal Gazette.

He said the committee would meet tomorrow (January 19) to finalise the draft and then submit it to the National Legislative Assembly for further deliberation and second and third readings next week.

THE BALL is now in the court of the national anti-graft agency as calls grew yesterday for it to take decisive and transparent action over the luxury-watch scandal involving Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan.

Government critics remain unconvinced by Prawit’s claim that the many luxury watches he has been photographed wearing in recent years actually belonged to his friends.

Mana Nimitmongkol, secretary general of the Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand, yesterday called on the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to bring Prawit’s case to the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases.

In an article published on the Isra News website, Mana said he believed the court would “make all the facts known”.

He called on the NACC to conduct in-depth investigations into the controversy to determine the real owners of the watches, and refer the case to public prosecutors for further legal action if any wrongdoing was suspected.

Mana said Prawit’s unconvincing claim had made “it seem the government’s responsibility and consciousness has completely gone in the eye of the public”.

Srisuwan Janya

Srisuwan Janya, secretary-general of the Association for the Protection of the Thai Constitution, also said in a Facebook message that Prawit’s excuse was unconvincing.

The whistle-blower said such expensive wristwatches were normally customised to the wearer’s wrist size and their owners would not allow others to wear them and taint them with sweat and body odour.

Srisuwan also said that if Prawit insisted on his claim, the NACC should summon all of the supposed owners to make sure that the watches were customised for them.

If they are the true owners, they should be able to wear the watches comfortably, he added.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party yesterday asked Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha whether he really was convinced by Prawit’s explanation regarding the luxury watches.

Anusorn Iamsa-ard

Anusorn Iamsa-ard, caretaker spokesman for the former ruling party, said such an explanation was “not beyond expectations” but he wondered whether the public would believe what Prawit had said.

“This issue could adversely affect the government. When he hears about this explanation, does General Prayut Chan-o-cha, the prime minister and National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) head, find it acceptable? Does he have friends who can lend him so many watches?” Anusorn said.

Prawit has been spotted wearing as many as 24 expensive watches since the junta came to power in May 2014, many of them valued at millions of baht. He submitted a written explanation to the NACC but it has not been disclosed to the public.

Faced with mounting pressure, Prawit on Tuesday told the media that he had borrowed all the watches from his friends and already returned them all. He also pledged to resign if the NACC found him guilty.

Abhisit Vejjajiva

Meanwhile, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday reiterated his call for the government to deal with the wristwatch controversy with transparency and good governance. He said that Prayut should set a political standard.

The former prime minister said in his government some Cabinet members resigned following scandals involving their ministries, even though they were later found to be innocent.

He called on Prawit to step down to prevent the scandal from undermining the government, but this call was described by Prayut as “political discourse” and an attempt to gain a political advantage. Abhisit also said he was simply concerned about the government’s image.

“I want to see a clear explanation to the public. If suspicions remain and this is allowed to continue, the government will end up lacking confidence and support from the public,” he said. “At least the prime minister and General Prawit should talk and find out what to do to prevent this issue from impacting the government’s credibility,” Abhisit added.

In a related development, the NCPO said it would not summon Srisuwan for “attitude adjustment” despite his recent political activities.

NCPO spokesman Maj-General Piyapong Klinphan said yesterday that Srisuwan had not committed any wrongdoing but he added that the NCPO was monitoring Srisuwan’s actions.

“They are currently problems,” Prayut wrote in the 12-page handwritten piece. “They want to return all laws and orders to how they were before. Some dishonest civil servants have also joined them.”

Prayut also underlined the need to build “Thai Niyom” or “Thai-ism democracy”, which by his definition “has to be acceptable to all sides with mutual goals for sustainable peace based on honest and fair elections for a government with good governance”.

“Don’t force me or the NCPO to fight with anyone,” he went on. “I want Thai people who want ‘Thai-ism democracy’ and shared ideology to bring about solutions.

“No one can come to distort this. There are still people with ill-intent attempting to do so,” he wrote.

Prayut urged the Cabinet to promote the upcoming election, including engaging as many young eligible voters as possible to cast their votes. “The 18-year-old young bloods, whether they like politics or not, should come out and vote,” he said.

He also warned that the activities of ministers and high-ranking officials would affect their tri-monthly evaluation, starting this April, which would consequently affect a reshuffle decision at the end of the fiscal year in October.

Key destinations like Mae Sariang and Pai should have proper infrastructure developed first in the northern border province, which receives three Nok Air flights a week, Prayut said during his visit there yesterday.

Transport Minister Arkhom Termpittayapaisith said yesterday that Nok Air expected to operate up to four flights a week from Chiang Mai to Mae Hong Son. Direct flights from Bangkok to Mae Hong Son have also been discussed although currently considered impractical by airline operators.

The airport in Pai district should also be opened for smaller planes.

He said provincial railway transport in the province would also be studied based on feasibility, he said.

During a meeting with local residents, Prayut defended his trip to the area, saying it was not meant as political campaigning for the junta-led government ahead of the upcoming general election.

“I come here as a brother of yours. I don’t come here for political purposes,” Prayut told the locals.

“I just want to meet you as you are like my family. And that’s also the feeling of all my deputies and ministers,” the PM said in his speech.

The one-day trip to Mae Hong Son was Prayut’s first field visit in 2018. Last year, he had made several visits to the provinces, where approvals for multi-billion-baht development projects were made during mobile Cabinet meetings.

The prime minister has insisted that it is a way to keep in touch with local people and authorities. However, critics viewed it as an attempt by Prayut to politically gain the upper hand while the ruling junta maintained its ban on political activities.

Prayut yesterday also tried to clarify his term “Thai Niyom”, or “Thai-ism”, that he had used last week to define Thai democracy.

While the idea was perceived as an attempt to introduce a new kind of democracy, Prayut explained that “Thai Niyom” is actually a “top-down steering administration” that should correspond to all people’s needs.

“We have to stick to Pracharat, reconciliation and agreement of truth to realise this Thai Niyom”, Prayut said, addressing the three agendas of his government.

While the Pracharat scheme is meant to convey cooperation among government, private and civil society sectors, reconciliation is supposed to be created among all sides, including political elements, through the military-formulated “agreement of truth”.

The 85-year-old scholar was charged in Military Court with lese majeste and violating the computer crime law after he questioned the story of King Naresuan’s elephant battle more than four centuries ago.

After investigations lasting more than three years, military prosecutors decided to drop the lawsuit because of insufficient evidence, according to his lawyer.

Another charge against Sulak for allegedly breaking the Computer Crime Act in connection with the same incident was also dropped. That charge was filed because his speech was reported on the Internet and social media.

Sulak said he did not know the real reason behind the decision to drop the case against him, but added that it had been made without any conditions. 

“Previously they asked me to shut my mouth, but I can’t. I’m dying to speak the truth. Human beings must have freedom of expression,” he said, adding that he had previously submitted an appeal to HM the King asking for royal mercy in the case. During an academic seminar at Thammasat University on October 5, 2014, the radical conservative intellectual questioned the historical accuracy of conventional depictions of the elephant battle.

The duel, in which the Siamese King Naresuan is said to have been victorious over Burmese Crown Prince Mingyi Swa more than 400 years ago, is often regarded in mainstream Thai historical accounts as a momentous victory that freed Ayutthaya from Burmese rule.

King Naresuan the Great ruled Ayutthaya from 1590 to 1605. His reign is regarded as a great period for the Ayutthaya kingdom’s power in the region as he is recorded as having defeated many neighbouring kingdoms.

The story is also deeply entrenched in Thai military culture as the Royal Thai Armed Forces Day is premised on the said elephant battle victory, which is related to have occurred in January 1593. The lese majeste law, according to Article 112 of the Penal Code, reads: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to 15 years.”

In practice, the law has protected people in office and had never previously been applied to the ancient kings.

THE Pheu Thai Party yesterday filed a petition with the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman asking for a ruling on the constitutionality of the junta order on the political parties organic law.

The Democrat Party also plans to file a petition next week with the Ombudsman and is currently working on a draft, the party’s legal expert Virat Kalayasiri said.

Both parties were challenging the junta order that set a new timetable for political parties and administrative procedures to prepare themselves ahead of the next election.

The organic law on political parties specified 60 to 180-day deadlines for parties to complete administrative affairs, such as updating their membership registration records and setting up provincial branches. But because the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) refused to lift its ban on politics, parties claimed they had been unable to begin work.

Deadlines had almost expired when the junta issued its controversial order. 

Aside from laying out the new timetables for the parties, it also required members to reconfirm their membership with parties as well as submit papers verifying their qualifications.

In a press conference yesterday, Phumtham Wechayachai, Pheu Thai’s acting secretary-general, read a statement arguing that the order had constitutional issues and alleging it infringed on the political rights and freedom of party members.

First, the order issued by NCPO chief Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha using his absolute powers under Article 44 failed to meet conditions set in the interim charter and was therefore unconstitutional, the Pheu Thai statement said.

Second, the order requiring members to confirm their membership was equivalent to nullifying all of the current membership, affecting their rights, it said.

As the confirmation of membership required a number of official documents, which had to be sought from at least 14 state bureaux, it added a burden for party members and limited rights and freedom, Pheu Thai said.

The fact that new members did not have to undergo the same process meant the order violated equal protections specified by the new Constitution, it added.

Phumtham said the petition would be filed in the name of the party with both the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman. Pheu Thai members would also individually petition the Constitutional Court for infringements of political rights, he added. 

Pheu Thai core leader Noppadol Patama criticised the NCPO for refusing to lift the political ban and instead issuing an order that had “only led to more problems”.

The former foreign minister said the NCPO’s stated justification for maintaining the ban – that there was still a risk of social unrest – was baseless. Most parties were not satisfied with the NCPO’s solution and wanted to seek a Constitutional Court decision on the matter, he added.

Parties should be allowed to work, visit voters to understand their needs and come up with policies addressing those needs, Noppadol said, arguing that the political ban should be lifted.

Pheu Thai legal expert Chusak Sirinin admitted that if the Constitutional Court ruled the order was legitimate, it would still be very challenging for parties to comply because the timeframe imposed was limited for updating registrations, collecting membership fees and setting up new branches.

The order should be revoked, he said, adding that the party was determined to face up to hardship.

In a related development, Democrat Party deputy spokesman Rames Rattanachaweng said the party would not directly petition the Constitutional Court because the Constitution was clear about filing complaints with the Ombudsman.

Ultimately the Democrat petition would still reach the Constitutional Court, he said.

Key arguments against junta move

Pheu Thai Party’s two arguments about the unconstitutionality of the NCPO’s chief’s order

1. Procedural aspect: The exercise of Article 44 (secured under the new charter’s Article 265) to issue the order did not meet conditions set by the interim charter, because:

– The organic law on political parties had undergone a legislative process as prescribed by the Constitution. The junta order to overturn it thus overruled the constitutional legislation.

– The NCPO has no authority above the Constitution.

2. Aspects concerning content: The NCPO chief’s order goes against the Constitution, because:

– Legislation of organic laws falls under the authority of parliament as prescribed by the Constitution. The exercise of the Article 44 is thus an act without authorisation by the charter.

– The order, which could result in cancellation of membership of party members, is a limitation of rights and its retroactive effect is against the rule of law.

– Requiring members to confirm their membership and show their qualification gives them a burden and is a limitation of rights.

– New members would not have to go through the same process. This is against the [concept of] equality protected by the Constitution.

Abhisit said the allegations were a political bullying tactic, and those who made claims against him should be held responsible for their actions.

The NACC, he said, dismissed his complaint when it was first heard but now that the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter, the agency should be in a position to review the complaint again.

Abhisit said those in power should not abuse it for political gains but wield it with fairness. This, he said, could help improve politics and the country’s democracy. The Supreme Court ruled against the former defence minister’s order to discharge Abhisit from the Army. The Pheu Thai Party’s ACM Sukumpol had signed the order in 2012 dismissing Abhisit from the Army, but the court revoked the order saying it was unlawful.

Abhisit was not serving in the Army at the time; in fact he had not been a serving officer since leaving the Army 23 years ago. The order, with its retroactive effect, was therefore unlawful and deemed to be a violation of Abhisit’s rights, his lawyer said yesterday.

Some Democrat party members claimed that it was part of a plot to keep Abhisit out of politics.

Taweesak Suthakavatin, one of the members, said the group would file the petition on behalf of the group, not the NLA. They would like to gain clarity on the issue so that the work of the National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) would not be problematic in the future.

However, it’s up to the Court to deliberate and rule on the case, he said.

The NACC law, which was recently passed by the NLA, is controversial because it allows current NACC commissioners to remain in office even though some of them have qualifications that are prohibited under the new charter.

The Constitution Drafting Commission, which drafted the original bill that was amended by the NLA, earlier voiced concern on the issue, saying waiving the prohibition is equivalent to waiving the charter.