The petition asking that the disciplinary action be rescinded has been signed by world-renowned scholars Noam Chomsky, Johan Galtung, Perry Link, Henry Hardy and Lawrence Krauss.

It says the students’ actions were “congruent with human rights principles” and urges the university to “respect the demonstration of different opinions as well as alternative forms of expression”.

It denounces the punishment as constraining freedom of expression.

Five of the eight students were members of the school’s Student Council, including prominent activist Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, who’d served as Student Council president.

The reduction in their behaviour scores led to their dismissal from the council as being disqualified for membership.

The eight were sanctioned for failing to sit on the ground before statues of Kings Rama V and Rama VI during the ceremony, as is expected of students in a show of obeisance.

They instead remained standing and bowed to the monuments, prompting an irate lecturer to manhandle one of the students away from the scene.

University rector Bundhit Eua-Arporn later explained that a special area had been designated for students not wanting to sit on the ground to pay respect during the ceremony, but Netiwit and the other seven did not stay in the area as they’d promised to do.

The school established a committee to consider the incident and it was decided the students should be sanctioned.

Praporn, who was president of Songkhla Fishery Assoication, became unconscious and was taken to the hospital at about 7.30pm and put in the intensive care unit.

Doctors tried to restart his heart but failed. He was pronounced dead at 11pm.

His body will be moved from Songkhla Hospital to the Laem Sai Songkhla Temple at just after noon on Tuesday and the bathing rite is scheduled to be held at 2pm.

The rite will be overseen by Democrat chief adviser Chuan Leekpai.

Praporn was born on June 1, 1967. He was a three-time Songkhla MP – 2005, 2007 and 2011.

He was chairman of the Songkhla United Football Club.

POLICE yesterday confirmed they had found evidence that former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra had fled the country as pressure mounted on the government regarding the “weak” investigation into her disappearance.

Authorities would proceed with revoking her passport only after the Supreme Court rules on her case, according to deputy police chief Pol General Srivara Rangsibrahmanakul.

After Yingluck failed to appear in court last month, a second date of September 27 was set for the court to read the verdict, in which the ex-premier faces a possible 10-year jail term if convicted of criminal negligence related to her government’s previous rice-pledging scheme.

Srivara said police had found evidence in “Bangkok and upcountry” related to her disappearance on August 23. He declined to confirm whether the evidence involved a Toyota Fortuner, which was reportedly used in her escape.

Police previously had declined to confirm that Yingluck was not in Thailand.

“The investigation has made progress,” Srivara said, but he refused to disclose further details about the case.

Over the past week, police have expanded their investigation to cover vehicles and online posts to trace her movements before she disappeared ahead of the reading of the Supreme Court’s verdict on August 25.

On Friday, Srivara told a press conference there was no evidence to indicate Yingluck’s whereabouts.

“Based on investigations over the past seven days, police have not yet confirmed whether Yingluck has already fled the country or is still in Thailand, since there is no evidence either way,” Srivara said at the time.

Police had focused on a car that could have been used in the former prime minister’s escape after they denied that a police pickup truck, which had reportedly been seen driving out of the former premier’s residence on August 23, was used in the escape.

It was later reported that the police truck was from the Lat Phrao Police Station and on a regular patrol.

Details of another “suspicious” car have not been revealed.

Srivara added that he had not been pressured by senior officials, including Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan. Meanwhile, Prawit yesterday was apparently unconcerned about public sentiment regarding Yingluck’s disappearance.

“The public is no longer interested because they’re aware she’s gone,” he said.

Yingluck was last seen publicly on August 23 while she was making merit at a Bangkok temple.

Prawit however acknowledged that there had been fresh speculation about her escape regarding a convoy of vehicles that had been seen leaving her home on August 23.

He said he had nothing to add about the situation and the government had no idea where Yingluck was, but had people looking for her and that the Foreign Ministry had been in touch with Thailand’s embassies overseas.

Prawit also said that no high-ranking officials had helped Yingluck flee, as had been widely surmised.

However, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajava said he doubted the government’s effort as he had not seen much progress.

The government should be more serious about the issue because it could be affected if Yingluck has fled the country and manages to seek asylum, Abhisit said, adding that the international community would ask Thailand to explain why she had fled the country.

The government should establish whether the issue was political or criminal, or the country’s judicial system would be in jeopardy, Abhisit said.

He added that the government should explain why it had not taken action to revoke Yingluck’s passport.

Referring to his former capacity as premier of the government that revoked former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s passports, Abhisit said Yingluck’s situation met the criteria for revocation.

The criteria include an arrest warrant and prohibition of overseas trips.

Meanwhile, on a separate occasion, Nattawut Saikua, of the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), complained that the matter got thrown back and forth, going nowhere after the court refused to consider it last week.

The red shirts would now discuss the matter with legal and other relevant experts to find solutions, because everyone agreed that the culprits should be brought to justice, he said.

“Unless we get justice, we will continue to go on asking for it,” Nattawut said. “Initially, we have agreed to complain to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to scrutinise officers involved. But if it is found later that the NACC abused its power, we will sue them, too.”

The red shirts would wait until the NACC decided whether to take up the case before proceeding, he said.

The Supreme Court last week dismissed the charges against Abhisit and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban in the case related to the bloody crackdown in 2010.

The court reasoned that it was not within its jurisdiction to rule on the case involving malfeasance that was brought by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). Rather, it should have been in the political office holders’ court and investigated by the NACC, the three criminal courts have said.

Abhisit explained yesterday on the news programme “Tong Tham”, broadcast on the Bluesky channel, that he exercised his power in a way that resulted in casualties and he accepted that it had to be scrutinised. But the NACC had already dismissed the case, citing the operation was legitimate, he said.

The issue, however, became politicised after the change of administrations, he said. The DSI took the matter into its hands, taking it to the criminal courts, he said.

In addition, Abhisit said he had to accept being called a “blood-stained-hand murderer” by some people who were misled by false information and others with political agendas

The committee’s chairman, Anek Laothammathat, said the plan will take about three months to draft before being submitted to the national strategy committee to consider.

He said previous studies and recommendations by the National Reform Council and the National Reform Steering Assembly will be reviewed along with other elements, including those of the junta, as part of the process.

He said the plan will be thorough and will not be wasteful.

“The public is no longer interested because they’re aware she’s gone,” he said on Monday.

Yingluck failed to show up in court on August 25 to hear the verdict on charges of malfeasance while in office regarding the rice-pledging scheme. She was last seen publicly on August 23 while she was making merit at a Bangkok temple.

Prawit acknowledged there was fresh speculation about her apparent escape from justice following revelations about specific vehicles in a convoy leaving her home that same day.

But he said he had nothing to add about the situation.

He said the government had no idea where Yingluck was, but it had people looking for her.

He said the Foreign Ministry had been in touch with Thailand’s embassies overseas on the matter.

Prawit insisted that no high-ranking officials had helped Yingluck flee, as has been widely surmised.

The students were sanctioned for “making a scene” during CU’s oath-taking ceremony on August 3, when they bowed before statues of Rama V and Rama VI instead of paying obeisance like the other students.

The students had left the area designated for students to pay respects to the late Kings.

This prompted assistant rector Reungwit Banjongrat to forcefully remove one of the students from the scene.

A widely circulated photo shows him holding fourth-year student Suphalak Bumroongkitthe in a headlock and dragging him away.

Netiwit, who had been president of the student council, said that he planned to appeal against the decision. He had his head shaved in protest.

Chaithawat Thaiyong, president of the CU Education Alumni Association, said that the punishment should result in the university maintaining its good image, traditions and good order so it remained a role model for society.

On Monday afternoon, the association plans to submit a letter in support of CU’s decision.

“The oath-taking ceremony is voluntary for students to participate in. The activity also does not actually involve sophomore students,” he said in possible reference to Netiwit. “The executives have to make this clear.”

CU Engineer Alumni president Saran Rangkhasiri sent a letter to CU rector Bundhit Eua-arporn in support to the decision.

THE JUNTA’S swift enforcement of the Criminal Code’s Article 116 on sedition will not only curb freedom of expression but also hinder the military government’s stated effort to develop Thai politics, panellists at a Thai Journalists Association (TJA) forum said yesterday.

Article 116 carries a penalty of up to seven years in jail for those who advocate force to change national laws or the government, instigate conflict or encourage people to violate  laws.

Since the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) came to power in 2014, some 24 cases involving 66 people have been filed for alleged violations under the article. Almost 20 cases involve accusations of criticising the junta-controlled NCPO, while the rest involved alleged criticism of the junta-drafted charter and the monarchy.

Although the article has long been in effect, the NCPO quickly broadened its application to apply to trivial matters, said Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch. These included the posting of online photos related to the Pheu Thai Party’s distribution of red bowls to legal observers and student activists during last year’s referendum campaign.

The article has also been applied against people who post online content that differs from the junta’s opinions, Sunai said.

For example, Pravit Rojanaphruk, a journalist with Khaosod English Rojanaphruk, and Watana Muangsook, a former Pheu Thai minister, were charged with violating the article after posting Facebook updates questioning the justice process in the junta era.

These actions have been noticed by the international community, which have expressed concern, Sunai said, given that the article could be interpreted broadly and punish defendants harshly.

The NCPO should also reverse its orders seeking “cooperation” from media outlets to not distribute information deemed to be critical of national security matters, the junta or the monarchy, he said.

The TJA’s advisor Chakrit Permpoon compared the enforcement of Article 116 to the pressures people faced during the Cold War era, a time when people were guarded in what they said in case it could be misinterpreted as favouring communism.

The way that Article 116 was being applied by the junta had turned it into a political tool, serving those in power, he said. This ran contrary to the right to freedom of expression and press freedom guaranteed in Thailand’s constitution.

Wirat Kalayasiri, head of the Democrat Party’s legal team, agreed it would be hard for prosecutors to prove that those accused of breaking the law instigated actual conflict. Still, the article was being used by the junta authority to suppress what they see as biased media, Wirat said.

Seri Suwanpanon, a member of justice process reform committee appointed by the government, said that in practice the Article was merely being used to maintain national security in the Kingdom, which has suffered a long decade of political conflict.

“Ultimately, I believe that the accused won’t be punished but may be irked,” Seri said. “Still, the Article should be enacted cautiously and reasonably without infringing people’s rights in line with a democratic regime.”

Of 1,219 people nationwide, 67 per cent thought that prosecution for corruption must be applied equally to everyone, and 56 per cent said that politicians and state powers should not interfere in the justice process.

Around 54 per cent said that recent cases have drawn public attention because many defendants were public figures, and almost 52 per cent said that the cases are a warning to future politicians not to participate in graft.

The poll, entitled “What do people think about recent prominent cases”, was conducted from August 29 to September 2.

The issuance of an arrest warrant against fugitive former PM Yingluck Shinawatra particularly caught the attention of most of those surveyed, at 84 per cent.

Almost 71 per cent were aware of the imprisonment of TV personality Sorayuth Suthassanachinda, almost 70 per cent had followed the 42-year jail sentence for ex-commerce minister Boongsong Teriyapirom and more than 54 per cent had paid attention to the 36-year imprisonment of Boonsong’s ex-deputy, Poom Sarapol.

Poom and Boonsong were sentenced on August 25 for faking a government-to-government rice deal as part of Yingluck’s rice-pledging scheme.

Asked how these cases reflect Thai society, 64 per cent said that Thai politics are doomed and should be heavily reformed, 60 per cent said that corruption occurs in every circle, 57 per cent said that corruption laws should be reinforced so that there are no loopholes, 47 per cent said that authority had been wrongly exercised and 44 per cent see political polarisation continuing.

Asked what they learnt from these prosecutions, almost 69 per cent said that the wrongdoings should be prosecuted, 62 per cent said that administration of government should be honest, and 59 per cent said that a corruption problems still exist in Thailand.

Around 54 per cent said that morality should be taught to younger generations and 49 per cent said that all sides should be urged to keep eyes open for possible corruption.

The committee convened a day after the initial meeting of all 11 newly appointed reform committees on August 30 and it addressed issues of immediate concern as well as laying the framework that will point to future reform in one of the country’s most critical areas: natural resources and environmental management.

According to an internal note received by The Nation, the committee, comprising noted reformers as well as environmental experts in various fields, addressed the importance of natural resources and the environment as being fundamental to social and economic security.

However, these problems have long accumulated, partly due to human activities. The government, it noted, has been trying to reform the country in all areas by coming up with various plans and bodies to push the work forward, including the National Reform Council and National Reform Steering Assembly, the NRC’s successor, which are now defunct. The committee was established to continue the work. It would follow up and review what has been done and the results already achieved, while proposing what needs to be done further to complete the task, the meeting was told.

The meeting decided to divide the work into six sub-areas so that they would be thoroughly taken care of. They are: land resources (land, mining, forests and wildlife), marine and coastal resources, water resources, biodiversity, environmental quality, and environmental management.

“Our goal is to manage our natural resources and the environment to be more sustainable and effective to support the country’s sustainable development and security,” the meeting noted.

The challenge now was how to reach that goal, especially when the committee has to take into account the work done by previous bodies.

Buntoon Srethasirote, a freshly recruited member of the committee, told The Nation that the new act clearly addressed how the future work would be linked to what had already been done.

As a former member of the NRC, and now a member of the sub-panel on structural reforms under the supreme body for reform, reconciliation and national strategy, chaired by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, Buntoon sees this first link very well.

He said several members of the 11 committees have worked in the reform sector before and they have been recruited again to help complete the task. Nearly half of the 11 members of his committee are ex-reformers.

But more critically, the work will be linked by its content, he said.

The new act clearly stipulates that before the reform committees start working, they must take into account previous work, including studies and recommendations of various reform bodies, in their new five-year reform master plans. That means that what is left to be done will be continued, and what still needs to be done will be begun, Buntoon explained.

For instance, the defunct NRC and NRSA had been pushing reforms in the forest sector by amending related laws, including the National Parks Act, to allow more co-existence and harmony between forests and people.

These proposals are still with the government, and the new environmental reform committee would push them forward until they become law, he said. But the environment also needs good governance and management. This is the area that the committee has suggested needs work, as the two former bodies had hardly touched on it, he said. What would be seen in the future are thorough reform plans that would be implemented and assessed, something beyond what has been done but becomes possible because of what has been lined up in the new act.

“It’s something that we will see in the five years from now – not just plans but implementations, assessments and reviews,” said Buntoon.

Asked which issues in this sector needed to be tackled first and fast, Buntoon said there were critical issues in all six sub-areas. However, forest issues seemed to be among the most important, and conflicts between people and forest officials that have long existed remain unresolved.

Former chief of the Royal Forestry Department and former permanent secretary of the Agriculture Ministry, Theerapat Prayurasiddhi, is reportedly responsible for reform work in this area, along with a noted forestry academic, Assistant Professor Khanchai Duangsathaporn of Kasetsart University’s Forestry Faculty, who drafted key law |amendments, including the National Parks Act.