The appeals committee of the court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders suspended a lower court’s June 2018 sentence of two years’ imprisonment without probation.

Instead, Surapong was given two years’ probation, but also fined Bt100,000.

The Supreme Court noted that it was the defendant’s first offence and that he had been diagnosed with lymphoma of the abdomen and throat, for which he requires continuous medical treatment.

The Office of Attorney General sued Surapong, now 66, for abuse of office after the National Anti-Corruption Commission determined that he had wrongfully issued a Thai passport to self-exiled Thaksin, who fled the country to evade arrest warrants in cases involving corruption.

Srisompbo Jitpromsri, a political scientist at the Prince of Songkla University’s Pattani campus, expressed concern over the Thai Army seeking the filing of charges by Pattani police against leaders of the opposition and academics.

On Thursday, sedition charges were pressed against 12 people, including six key opposition party leaders and academics who have been campaigning to amend the charter. The group held a seminar in Pattani on September 28. Speaking at the event Chalita Bandhuwong, a lecturer at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology Faculty of Social Sciences at Kasetsart University, called for the amendment of Section 1 and said the current Constitution could not resolve the prolonged political violence in the deep South. Section 1 states that Thailand is one and an indivisible Kingdom.

Experts say current Constitution incapable of helping resolve Thailand’s southern unrest

More than 5,000 people have been killed in 15 years of violence in the deep South provinces bordering Malaysia.

Srisompop yesterday warned that the Army charge could stir hostility. “We are a democracy, so freedom of expression and difference of opinion should be acceptable,” he said. A legal battle could drag on as other parties would counter-sue the Army, he warned. To resolve the conflict in the South, participation of all parties is needed, he pointed out. “There should be a compromise among concerned parties, then it would create better conditions for solving the southern problem, he added.

Meanwhile Adison Piengkes, a spokesman for opposition leader Sompong Amornvivat, said the Army wanted to silence people similar to its action against a pro-democracy group that had called for early election. The Criminal Court recently acquitted the pro-democracy group. He said the Pheu Thai Party is considering filing a counter-suit against the Army top-brass.

“We, however, want Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha and Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan to stop using legal tools to silence the opposition,” he added.

Seven opposition parties and academics hosted a debate on the Constitution in Pattani province in the South of Thailand on Saturday (September 28). Hundreds of people attended the event.

Chalita Bandhuwong, a lecturer at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology Faculty of Social Sciences at Kasetsart University, said that she was proud of the people in the three provinces as the majority there had rejected the 2017 Constitution. The controversial charter ignores the voice of the people while protecting only the interests of those in power, so people participation is needed for drafting a new charter, she said. The unrest in Pattani and other deep South provinces has been getting worse, she added, referring to the prolonged insurgency and military operation in the South that have claimed thousands of lives, and warned the current Constitution could not serve as a tool to resolve it.

She blamed the military’s role in the region. The Army has too much power of oversight over both military and police operations on security issues, promoting local social and cultural activities and supporting the living standards of the local people. “They have been associated with many issues,” she noted. In fact, it should not be done by the military. “To resolve the conflict, the country may not need to be a unitary state or a centralised state, so it is not unusual if Section 1 of the charter should also be changed,” she suggested. Section 1 states that Thailand is one and indivisible Kingdom.

Tawee Sodsong, president of the opposition whips, said that the junta-backed government had issued more than 400 laws, which were designed to protect the interests of a few elite group at the expense of the people. To make peace in society, understanding the issue is a pre-condition, he said. “Peace cannot be achieved with the blood of warriors, but it can be achieved with the ink of wise people,” he told the audience.

The opposition, academics, and civil society have been campaigning for amendment of the charter, as they argue that it has extended the military political power beyond the March election

Asked whether the issue has impacted Thailand’s national security, Prawit told the reporters that it had hurt the country’s image.

Meanwhile, the Future Forward Party(FWP) has made a clarification of the document which has been shared in social media. The party said on its Facebook page that US company APCO Worldwide LLC is available for the public service under US law.

The party said that:

1. The document was not leaked as some Thai media claimed. It was specified to be published in order to show transparency of democratic political activities.

2. Thanathorn hired APCO Worldwide LLC to help him manage his schedule and English documents in order to contact persons and agencies during his US visit between July 12 and July 16. The hiring was in line with US law.

3. Thanathorn’s visit was not meant to harm Thailand or to organise political activities in order to discredit the country as alleged by some local media outlets. The party claimed that Thanathorn’s trip was to update the situation in Thailand and learn from the policies of other nations on economy, education, technology, and other areas which can be beneficial for the development of Thailand.

In addition, the purpose the trip was to meet individuals and institutions as it is normal for politicians to talk to ambassadors, the media, international agencies, academics, and civil society organisations. The trip was to strengthen Thailand’s relationship with other countries, said the FWP.

Nawat, a Pheu Thai Party MP for Khon Kaen, was sentenced to death on Tuesday for his role in the 2013 murder of Suchart Kotthum, chief administrator of the Khon Kaen Provincial Administrative Organisation. Nawat is in detention pending appeal, declined bail because the severity of the sentence makes him a possible flight risk.

Wissanu’s comment to reporters at Government House came after Chuan Leekpai, speaker of the House of Representatives, said the Election Commission would have to ask the Constitutional Court to consider Nawat’s MP status.

“It is normal that, when there is a dispute, someone must make a final decision,” Wissanu said while offering his personal view that Nawat must relinquish his MP’s post according to Section 98 of the Constitution.

It states that MPs ordered detained by the court must relinquish their office, regardless of the charge or whether their case has been finalised.

The Constitutional Court’s decision would simply confirm the standard, after which a by-election would be organised to replace Nawat, Wissanu said.

Suchart was shot dead in front of his home in Muang Khon Kaen on May 3, 2013. Five suspects were subsequently charged with colluding in a premeditated murder and violating the Firearms Act.

The primary court in October 2014 sentenced Pol Lt Col Somjit Kaewphrom to life in prison and Prapan Sripilai more than 37 years. Pol Sen Sgt Maj Weerasak Chamnanpol, Boonchuay Jungklang and Piyapong Meekambang were acquitted for lack of evidence.

The Appeals Court in 2016 imposed the death sentence on Somjit, ordered Prapan jailed for life, and overturned the three acquittals in favour of life sentences. All five men are appealing to the Supreme Court.

The Khon Kaen Court issued a warrant on April 3, 2018, for Nawat’s arrest for hiring others to commit murder, which led to his death sentence this week.

Prayut, who is in New York for United Nations meetings, had a short communication with Trump, at which he extended an invitation, said Narumon Pinyosinwat, spokesman at the Prime Minister’s Office.

Though no official announcement has been made about the visit, it is likely he would come during the 35th Asean Summit, to be held in Bangkok, during October 31 to November 4.

A case linking Panthongtae Shinawatra to a dubious loan from Krungthai Bank opened at the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconducts Cases on Tuesday (September 24) with testimony from a prosecution witness.

Panthongtae, son of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, pleaded not guilty, claiming that the Bt10-million KTB-issued cheque he received was part of an investment fund set up with the son of an executive at the Krisada Mahanakorn property group.

In addition to a written statement, Panthongtae said he will explain what he did with the Bt10 million in a testimony to court on September 26, vowing to be the lone testifier in the entire defence testimony sessions.

The defendant added that he had no intention to launder the money, and that the judges would understand him if they read his statement. No details about the written statement were provided by either Panthongtae or the judges.

Panthongtae is being tried for charges of money laundering and conspiring to commit money laundering, which are in violation of several articles under two money-laundering related laws as well as a violation of the Criminal Act.

The Bt10-million cheque is believed to be part of the Bt10-billion loan that Krisada Mahanakorn was allegedly illegally granted by state-run KTB at a time when Thaksin was serving as prime minister.

Several executives from the property group, including the one cited by Panthongtae as an investment partner, were slapped with a 12-year prison term each in another trial.

The first prosecution witness who testified on Tuesday was Sunthara Poltrai, an Anti-Money Laundering Office official who has been handling the Panthongtae case. In the testimony, he said he had detected financial transactions between Panthongtae and the now-jailed Krisada Mahanakorn execs despite them allegedly having no business connections.

While speaking to reporters at Government House, Prawit was asked him to comment on a threat by Pheu Thai chief strategist Sudarat Keyuraphan.

Sudarat has earlier claimed that she has an audio clip to back up her allegation that coalition leading Phalang Pracharat was trying to buy support from 14 Pheu Thai MPs to prop up the government’s slim majority.

MPs who betray their own party by supporting the other side in a key vote are often called “cobras” after the cobra in an Aesop story that bit and killed a farmer who helped it during a cold winter.

A group of 14 Pheu Thai MPs led by Nirand Namuangrak from Roi Et met and had a meal with two leading Phalang Pracharat members before the opposition held a debate criticising Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha on September 18. Nirand later claimed he had gone for a meal with “old friends” and that the get-together had no political significance.

Prawit laughed when reporters told him that Sudarat claimed she had an audio clip that would show that Phalang Pracharat had tried to lure the Pheu Thai MPs by offering to pay them certain benefits.

“I don’t know. You must ask Khunying Sudarat,” Prawit replied, laughing.

Asked to confirm that Phalang Pracharat did not do as was alleged, Prawit replied: “Who will pay them? Where will we get the money from? I don’t know about the trading of political interests but the Phalang Pracharat has no policy of bringing in MPs from other parties to join us.”

When asked again whether he would welcome MPs from other parties if they wanted to join Phalang Pracharat, Prawit replied, “I’ve said since yesterday that we will welcome anyone that comes.”

The Association of Thai Democrats without Borders’ president Jaran Ditapichai wrote to the United Nations on Monday (September 23) asking it to look into the government of General Prayut Chan-o-cha.

Jaran personally dropped the missive at a letterbox near the UN headquarters in New York and recorded the action with a selfie next to an anti-government sign saying: “Don’t Let Democracy Die in Thailand!”

Prayut was in New York on Monday to attend a UN meeting themed “Galvanising Multilateral Efforts for Poverty Eradication, Quality Education, Climate Change and Inclusion”.

In the letter addressed to the UN, Jaran described the administration as a military government in disguise, which has direct control over several state institutions such as the Senate, the Constitutional Court, Criminal Courts and the Election Commission. The pro-democracy association also called on the UN to seek a “Thailand Status Update on Current Political Situation”.

Meanwhile, Prayut met expat Thai supporters living in New York.

Meanwhile, Sansern argued that he had never taken sides and was ready to explain his side of the matter to any organisation tasked to probe such allegations.

The upcoming probe stems from a petition submitted to the committee by deputy department chief Jaroon Chaiyasorn, who also urged the panel to probe Sansern’s alleged lack of transparency in a Bt25-million construction project for the department’s arts and exhibition hall.

Spokesman Teeratchai Panthumas said the committee would consider whether to table this matter at a meeting later this week or to set up a sub-panel to consider it first because this case required the gathering of documentary evidence to establish whether or not such orders were issued.

As for the alleged lack of transparency in the e-bidding process of the construction project, he said the committee would collect all the facts first and discuss them in its September 26 meeting.

Sansern noted that Jaroon was within his rights to lodge a petition, but he was confident and ready to provide an explanation.

“The Public Relations Department is ready to explain various matters. If a probe did deem me corrupt, I could be punished and even jailed. But if an investigation does not find I committed any corruption, then I will be safe. Regarding whether I will counter-sue, I will discuss with related parties on how I can exercise my legal rights,” Sansern said, adding that he had served as a political official during his time at the PM’s Office, and since landing the position of department director-general, he has performed his duties as a civil servant.

“I don’t have any particular alignment towards any political party. Have you ever seen me attending any political party meeting? Have you seen the Public Relations Department publish any news attacking a political party or praising this political party? The 4,000-strong department comprises people with different political ideologies, if I had ordered my subordinates to do what I was accused of, I would have been subjected to a complaint long ago,” he said.

He added that the department’s operations weren’t “pushed forward” by him alone but by “dutiful officials”, while each project has a committee to oversee its execution.

Sansern said he had briefed Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha about the case.

The department chief also vowed to perform his duties as per the laws and regulations. Whether someone believed him or disbelieved him was a separate matter, he added.