Prayuth Phetkhun, deputy spokesman for the Office of the Attorney-General, said that according to the relevant law governing the agency, decisions by prosecutors not to pursue cases on such grounds need to be forwarded to the attorney-general for a final decision.

“If the attorney-general agrees with the decision, the order by the prosecutor is then confirmed,” he said.

The prosecutor in charge of the case, Kirkkiat Rathnawatham, made his decision on Friday not to indict the 24 protesters on grounds that legal action against them would not benefit the public, although they were found to have violated laws.

The protesters had been charged with violating the junta ban on political gatherings of five or more people and the Public Assembly Act.

They took part in a rally earlier this year at the Pathum Wan intersection, when they called for an election to be held within this year and accused the ruling National Council for Peace and Order of attempting to stay on in power.

Supoj Khaimuk, a member of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) who previously served as president of the Constitutional Court, said that although the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) had the power to issue an organic law, such legislation must not go against the Constitution.

“The Constitution is like mother and the organic law a child. Lawmakers should avoid writing a law in a way that it ‘kills its mother’, or you will end up allowing that law to commit matricide,” Supoj said.

“I was disappointed and shocked when reading the Constitutional Court’s judgment,” he said.

In a unanimous verdict, the Constitutional Court on Friday ruled in favour of the revised Article 185 of the organic law on prevention and suppression of corruption. Before the organic law governing the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) was passed in December, the NLA had revised the original version drafted by the CDC.

The CDC version allowed NACC commissioners to remain in office only if they met the qualifications or were not disqualified by the stipulations in the Constitution.

The NLA revised the bill proposed by the CDC by waiving certain disqualifications for NACC members stipulated in the charter. As a result, all the NACC members remained in office. In February, 32 NLA members petitioned the court for a ruling on the matter.

The Constitutional Court found the NLA waiver of disqualifications was not against the charter, according to a press release from the court’s office.

Supoj said yesterday that he was worried such a verdict would become a precedent for law-drafting in the future. For him, the revised version obviously was against the legal principle by allowing people with disqualifications to remain in office.

“This, in effect, opens a loophole in the law,” he added.

“Thai contexts have been born out of variety. What comes as ‘Thainess’ today is a blend of diversity. There is no reason to stop this liberalism,” said Seksan, who was delivering a special lecture at Thammasat University’s Tha Prachan campus.

“It is impossible to stay amid our differences if we do not first take a step back to leave space for humanity to grow,” he continued. “In these differences lie the universality that connect us to each other.”

Seksan, who has largely avoided public appearances or commentaries, yesterday came out in public for a biennial lecture in tribute to late economist and former Thammasat University rector Puey Ungphakorn.

The special lecture, entitled “Thailand in Thoughts: Thoughts in Thailand”, was held as political movements and new parties emerge even as the junta government, which marks its fourth anniversary this May, has tried to smother public discourse.

Rooted in a pro-democracy background as a student activist leader in the October 1973 demonstration, Seksan however pointed out flaws in public participation that have emerged in recent years in Thailand’s democratic society.

While the established elite monopolise the use of the powerful vocabulary such as “goodness and Thainess” to justify their power and reinforce the status quo, the progressive camp has yet to set democratic roots deeply in the country since the 1932 revolution changed the nation from an absolute monarchy to a democracy, he said.

Seksan argued that politicians should have pushed forward decentralisation of power to local areas, made more genuine connections between legislation and the citizens, and bureaucratic reforms to allow more transparency.

“These would help ensure the importance of civil society, the press and public criticism in society. This will help democracy prosper even more than holding an election, the sole mechanism that politicians like to point to,” he said.

Thai-style democracy has been involved with traditionalism and patron-client systems, barring people’s access to decision-making processes, and eventually causing public dissatisfaction and hence mass politics.

“Mass politics are what make democracy much less flexible. It plants a ‘winner takes all’ perception in people regarding politics,” he said. “It could also cause anarchy and eventually make people turn to a coup.”

While there are pro-democracy, progressive blocs in Thailand, their challenges are how to interpret foreign schools of thought to fit the Thai contexts and be accepted, he said.

They are always in a race to take time and space from the conservatives, who have state mechanisms to reproduce their thoughts and keep the upper hands but are still hindered in their attempts to convey old-school nationalism and traditionalism to modern society.

“The conservative society relies on the state to boost its egoism while the state claims a reason to protect the national interest. They refer to each other,” he explained.

One prominent example is the frequently claimed term “good people”, which is simple yet effective with being contemporary, linking to morality, broad definitions and ideal independence from any social hierarchy.

“But with every good always comes every bad. Those regarding themselves as ‘good people’ would automatically regard others as bad and morally lower. It brings about collectivism, installing power among themselves over others,” he said.

“This is demonisation and hence dehumanisation of the others, which should actually be called real sins.”

In the Thai political context, the “good people” discourse was hugely adopted during the 2013-14 protests against the elected civilian government, and leading some to support a coup.

“The perception was that the ruling power should be in the hands of ‘good people’ only. Bad people shouldn’t have such chances,” he said.

“But people deemed as ‘bad people’ were not only the elected government but also the people who elected them,” he said. “The ‘good people’ then turned out to be the educated, upper-class people while local people with less knowledge were dismissed as ‘bad’.”

He added that the gist of democracy and freedom is not predicated on serving only the good people but instead make virtue accessible to everyone.

“Calling yourselves good people just to accumulate all the powers to your camp is just wrong by all means,” he concluded.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Bhum Jai Thai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul said they did not think there would be further delays, as had been feared by some critics of the National Council for Peace and Order.

Abhisit said that even if a Constitutional Court verdict were sought on the law on MP elections or the law on the Senate selection, he believed the court would make its ruling in time.

“I can’t say there will be no impact at all. But we can expect a slight impact,” he said. “I believe the next election will take place in February 2019.”

Anutin said he was also convinced that the election would take place as promised by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha recently.

“Whatever happens between now and February 2019, we at Bhum Jai Thai Party believe there will be an election in February 2019,” he said.

Faced with mounting pressure at home and internationally, Prayut late last month said the general election would be held “no later than” February next year. He made the latest promise after repeated delays.

Along with Pheu Thai Party’s key figure Chaturon Chaisang, Abhisit and Anutin yesterday took part in a panel discussion on “The Future of Thai Politics: Election Ahead”. The event was organised as part of the CLSA Asean Forum 2018 at the Grand Hyatt Erawan Hotel.

Chaturon told the panel discussion that Pheu Thai would never support Prayut’s return as government head after the next election.

“Pheu Thai will not support an outsider prime minister and will not form a government with a prime minister who is not elected,” he said.

The veteran politician said he was not surprised that many new political parties promised to back the NCPO chief. He added, however, that he did not think the new parties would have the potential to ensure Prayut’s return to power.

“If General Prayut really wants to come back as prime minister, he needs to find a special legal channel or do something to weaken the existing political parties. That’s rather complex. Let’s wait and see,” Chaturon said.

Abhisit was non-committal when asked if his party would join forces with Pheu Thai and Bhum Jai Thai in preventing a non-elected outsider from becoming the next prime minister. He said political parties had their own standpoint that may differ from one another.

Anutin said that he had no issue with an outsider prime minister but added that the election result would be a key factor in the matter.

Abhisit was also asked to comment on the possibility of a Democrat-Pheu Thai alliance after the election. The Democrat leader said that his party would not work with Pheu Thai as long as it remained under the influence of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

“We have fought against the Thaksin regime for the last two decades. So it’s impossible that the Democrat Party would do something that goes against our principles,” Abhisit said.

Trip to Constitutional Court

Meanwhile, although the two last organic laws necessary for the next election have already cleared the hurdle of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), there is still the possibility that some NLA members may seek a Constitutional Court verdict on whether the Senate selection bill is constitutional. A group of lawmakers is set to decide next week on how they will proceed.

The bill finally cleared the NLA on Thursday, alongside the MP election bill. That final passage was previously delayed after the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) disagreed with stipulations added by the NLA to reduce the Senate groups from the original 20 down to 10, and to require that senator candidates would come from professional associations.

The issue led to a joint committee with members of the two bodies in disagreement.

In the end, the bill was revised to keep the CDC’s original stipulation but also put the controversial clauses about the grouping and origin of the candidates in the provisional clauses.

CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan was concerned that it would be unconstitutional to have two kinds of senator candidates – those running independently and those representing a professional association. The Constitution only stated that senator candidates should be independent, the CDC argued.

Meechai reportedly recommended that the NLA seek the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the issue.

A source from within the NLA said legislators had agreed.

However, NLA member Manut Wattanakomen said that although he had argued that some clauses in the controversial bill could be unconstitutional, he had no intention of taking the case to the Constitutional Court. He said he accepted the decision agreed by majority of the Assembly.

Manut also said he believed the NLA would not do so as it would inevitably affect the road map to the election.

Another NLA member, Jate Siratharanon, said the assembly had never discussed petitioning the Constitutional Court. But since Meechai had raised the issue, the NLA whip would consider the issue next week, he said.

Jate said he did not personally think the bill needed the court ruling.

According to the charter, one-tenth of the NLA members could petition the Constitutional Court over the organic bills.

If the Senate selection bill is brought to the Court, the election could be further delayed beyond February of next year.

The passing of the last two bills yesterday also painted a clearer picture of the road to the election now scheduled for next year.

The bills will now be forwarded to the prime minister to seek royal endorsement. The election, under the new Constitution, must take place within 150 days after the laws come into effect.

The MP election bill was passed with 211 votes for, none against and seven abstentions, while the Senate bill was passed 202 to one with 13 abstentions.

The NLA earlier passed both bills in three readings but the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), exercising its constitutional rights, had called for revisions.

The legislators subsequently agreed to amend the bills.

Among the changes in the MP election bill are: A ban on any entertainment as part of the election campaign; balloting scheduled from 8am to 5pm; and a ban on people failing to vote from holding positions in the government sector.

In the Senate selection bill, legislators retained controversial clauses such as the division of senators into 10 groups in the provisional clauses. The 10 groups are: 1 public administration and security; 2 law and justice; 3 education and public health; 4 agriculture and fisheries; 5 freelancers and labourers; 6 environment, real estates, science, and technology; 7 SMEs; 8 women, the elderly, those with special needs, and racial groups; 9 art and culture; and 10 others.

They will elect within their own groups during the first five years after the first election under the new Constitution.

However, during that period, the Constitution states that 200 of the 250 senators will be chosen by the National Council for Peace and Order. Only 50 senators will be selected using the method laid out in the organic bill.

Only after the transition period will the permanent clause be implemented. The senators will be divided into 20 groups and successful candidates will come from a cross-election.

Some critics, such as the civil society group iLaw, have questioned whether the groups will truly and inclusively represent the people.

Some groups include overlapping groups of people, iLaw said. For example, the first and the second groups were all bureaucrats, it argued.

ILaw questioned whether it was appropriate for all groups to share the same number of seats while some, such as agriculturists, outnumbered other professions.

At the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on Wednesday described Thailand as still suffering from restrictions on freedom of expression, opinion and assembly.

“I continue to receive reports of judicial harassment and intimidation against human rights defenders, journalists, politicians and civil society activists for legitimately expressing their opinions on political and social matters,” Zeid said in an oral update.

Zeid said he welcomed as progress the government’s decision to mainstream human rights as part of the Thailand 4.0 scheme.

The scheme was also raised by Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai, who also attended the session in Geneva. Human rights had been designated as a national agenda item “for the first-time ever” last November as vital to achieving sustainable development, Don said.

While addressing the importance of freedom of expression, Don insisted that it must be “exercised with respect to the rights and reputations of others”.

Meanwhile, Deputy PM and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan yesterday reiterated that the ban against gatherings is still in effect for political parties and they are not yet allowed to discuss political issues.

Prawit was commenting on the recent online comments of 39-year-old billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, who has vowed to set up an alternative political party along with progressive law lecturer Piyabutr Saengkanokkul.

Deputy PM Wissanu Krea-ngam said on Wednesday that the junta is considering whether Thanathorn’s social media communications, from a Facebook live interview to trending Twitter hashtags, might “cross the line” and trigger government action.

Also yesterday, 50 protesters turned themselves in to the police and denied all charges filed against them following their participation in a February 10 assembly in which they demanded that the junta government proceed with the promised election this year.

They were charged with violating the junta’s ban on political gatherings and the public assembly bill. The seven protest leaders were also charged with instigating public disturbances.

After being interrogated at Bangkok’s Nang Loeng Police Station, they were all released after being told to meet police again on the morning of March 27 at the station to hear whether public prosecutors will indict them.

Only the summoned protesters, their family members and lawyers were allowed inside the police station. Other people, including friends, reporters and the protest leaders who had previously met with police, were prevented from entering. Some activists were also involved in an exchange with junior police officers blocking them from entering the police station, and a non-commissioned policeman on duty told them that they were acting on orders from their supervisors.

Forty-three of the demonstrators met investigators at Bangkok’s Nang Loeng Police Station yesterday while the seven protest leaders had already reported themselves after being summoned by police.

After being interrogated, they were all released after being told to meet police again on the morning of March 27 at the station, when the suspects will hear whether public prosecutors will indict them.

The protesters gathered near Democracy Monument on February 10 to demand that a general election be held in November, as had been promised by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha.

They were charged with violating a junta ban on political gatherings and the law on public assembly. The seven protest leaders are also charged with instigating public disturbances.

Police later summoned them to meet case investigators at Nang Loeng Police Station, which has jurisdiction over the protest area.

Some of the protest leaders were present yesterday at the police station to offer moral support to the demonstrators summoned by police, including Sirawith Sereethiwat, Rangsiman Rome and Chonthicha Jangrew.

However, only the summoned protesters, their family members and lawyers were allowed inside the police station. Other people, including friends, reporters and the protest leaders who had met with police previously, were prevented from entering.

Some activists were also involved in an exchange with junior police officers blocking them from entering the police station, and a non-commissioned policeman on duty told them that they were acting on orders from their supervisors.

Forty-three of the demonstrators met investigators at Bangkok’s Nang Loeng Police Station yesterday while the seven protest leaders had already reported themselves after being summoned by police.

After being interrogated, they were all released after being told to meet police again on the morning of March 27 at the station, when the suspects will hear whether public prosecutors will indict them.

The protesters gathered near Democracy Monument on February 10 to demand that a general election be held in November, as had been promised by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha.

They were charged with violating a junta ban on political gatherings and the law on public assembly. The seven protest leaders are also charged with instigating public disturbances.

Police later summoned them to meet case investigators at Nang Loeng Police Station, which has jurisdiction over the protest area.

Some of the protest leaders were present yesterday at the police station to offer moral support to the demonstrators summoned by police, including Sirawith Sereethiwat, Rangsiman Rome and Chonthicha Jangrew.

However, only the summoned protesters, their family members and lawyers were allowed inside the police station. Other people, including friends, reporters and the protest leaders who had met with police previously, were prevented from entering.

Some activists were also involved in an exchange with junior police officers blocking them from entering the police station, and a non-commissioned policeman on duty told them that they were acting on orders from their supervisors.

FUGITIVE FORMER prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has decided not to fight a legal battle regarding a telecoms concession case against him because he disagreed with a new law that allowed trials in absentia, one of his lawyers said yesterday.

Lawyer Veeparat Srichaiya said he had learned from a person close to Thaksin that the former prime minister disagreed with the legal amendment allowing cases against politicians to be tried in the absence of the defendants.

“That law has a retroactive effect, which is against international legal principles. We oppose all forms of injustice,” he said.

Thaksin’s lawyer added that his government’s policy, which converted fees for state telecommunications concessions into excise taxes for concessionaire telecom operators, did not cause damage to the state and the companies involved did not gain from the policy.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders on Tuesday started a trial in the case under a new law on criminal procedures relating to cases against politicians.

The new law allows trials in absentia against politicians that were suspended because the defendants fled the country.

Under the old law, legal cases against Thaksin were suspended pending his arrest, but under the new law passed last year, the court can try cases in the absence of fugitive politicians three months after an arrest warrant is issued following their escape.

Thaksin, 69, was sued by public prosecutors in 2008 on charges of malfeasance, dereliction of duty and violating the anti-corruption law. He fled the country in the same year and has since lived in self-imposed exile overseas.

His government’s decision to allow companies with telecoms concessions to pay excise taxes instead of concession fees had allegedly lost revenue of Bt66 billion for relevant state agencies.

The policy executed by Thaksin’s government also allegedly benefited his family business at that time, Shin Corp, one of the telecoms firms affected by the policy.

The court on Tuesday also issued an arrest warrant for Thaksin after neither he nor his lawyer was present in court and he did not appoint anyone to act on his behalf.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam yesterday said if Thaksin did not appoint a lawyer to fight the case, the court would have no choice but to continue the trial unilaterally.

“You can’t help it. The court adopts the inquisitorial system,” Wissanu said.

Thailand’s ordinary courts usually adopted the accusatorial system.

He added that the judges might sometimes cross-examine prosecution witnesses, but defence lawyers would certainly do it better in the defendant’s interest.

“It is best to appoint your own lawyer. At least he can observe the trial,” said Wissanu, who is in charge of the government’s legal affairs.