Wallop Tangkananurak, a committee member, said the committee was due to review the bill tomorrow, but it was likely that further meetings would be required to settle some points. The main issue was the proposed total reset of the current NHRC, which is the prime organ for protecting human rights in the country, he said.

The bill, one of the 10 organic laws, which was passed in mid-August by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), proposes that all NHRC members be replaced.

However, the NHRC disagrees with this, resulting in the establishment of the committee to review the bill passed on Friday, following the requirements of the new charter.

The committee will comprise 11 members – five legislators, five members of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) and the incumbent chairperson of the NHRC, What Tingsamit.

What previously claimed that the attempt to remove human rights commissioners might have stemmed from the dissatisfaction of “those in power” with certain commissioners.

The CDC, however, insisted that the recruiting process for the current commissioners was not acceptable to the International Coordinating Committee for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC), which had downgraded the Thai NHRC.

The CDC stood firm on its version, which would result in the dismissal of the human rights commissioners, according to CDC spokesperson Udom Ratamarit. The stipulation, he said, would resolve the issue of acceptance by the international panel, which required that the NHRC have a more diverse group of members.

Allowing the current NHRC members to complete their term was not a solution to the downgrade, and allowing them to recontest their positions in line with the new law would only cause another chain of problems, Udom has said.

Udom said that the conflicting ideas of the CDC and the NHRC should not bring disharmony between the two, as they were just differences in perspectives.

Wallop, however, said the committee was concerned about their differences, as both sides claimed legitimacy under the standards of the Paris Principles, which set out a framework for international rights organisations.

The committee needs to consider the issue thoroughly before making a decision, he said.

The committee will have 10 days to review the bill, with an initial deadline set for September 15.

National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) president Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit said that the agency’s investigators were still working on other cases in which Yingluck and her former Cabinet members have been accused.

“We are questioning witnesses and collecting facts to make our cases complete. All of these are still continuing normally. Yingluck’s escape in the rice-pledging case certainly will not affect our work in other cases,” Watcharapol said.

He added that there was no need to summon the fugitive ex-PM for questioning, as there were other people accused along with her.

The NACC chief said his agency would turn to interrogating those people and therefore its investigation would not have to be put on hold due to Yingluck’s disappearance.

Yingluck failed to show up for her verdict reading at the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders on August 25. Authorities have failed to locate her and police have been unable to say clearly whether she has left the country.

The former prime minister is accused of negligence in a case stemming from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme. The court issued a warrant for her arrest and rescheduled the verdict reading to September 27.

Her commerce minister, Boonsong Teriyapirom, and his former deputy, Poom Sarapol, were sentenced to 42 years and 36 years in jail, respectively, for malfeasance, in connection with fraudulent deals to sell rice from state stockpiles to a company posing as an arm of the Chinese government.

Meanwhile, most respondents to an opinion survey said Yingluck opted to flee because she was afraid of being sentenced to imprisonment, and they said the government should expedite its efforts to bring her back for prosecution.

Almost 85 per cent of those surveyed said they thought the former PM was afraid she could be given a jail term and would fail to get bail, according to results of the latest Suan Dusit Poll released yesterday.

Some 76.6 per cent said it could be because she had no confidence in the justice system and was afraid that double standards could be applied.

When asked what the government should do regarding this matter, almost 83 per cent of the respondents said it should speed up the hunt to get Yingluck back for prosecution. And 70 per cent said there should be a fair judgement based on relevant facts and evidence.

The survey, by Suan Dusit University, was conducted on 1,271 people in all regions of the country between August 26 and last Friday.

In a related development, Yingluck’s niece Paetongtan Shinawatra posted on Facebook and Instagram on Friday night, saying that the unfortunate events experienced by her family proved that they are loved and had not been forgotten by the Thai people.

Paetongtan is the youngest daughter of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is Yingluck’s big brother. Her posts came after her aunt Yingluck apparently fled the country.

“I would like to thank unfortunate events that let us know how lucky we are to have a family whose members love one another and to have friends who are ready to stand by us, as well as to have people who have never forgotten us,” Paetongtan posted. “And the people understand that my father and aunt love the people and the country more than anything else.”

Paetongtan Shinawatra’s posts came after her aunt, former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, fled the country and failed to show up on August 25 to hear the court ruling against her in the rice-pledging case.

“I would like to thank unfortunate events that let us know how lucky we are to have a family whose members love one another and to have friends who are ready to stand by us as well as to have the people who have never forgotten us,” Paetongtan posted. “And the people understand that father and aunt love the people the and the country more than anything else.”

Paetongtan Shinawatra posted on her Facebook wall, Ing Shinawatra, and to @ingshin21 on Instagram.

POLICE HAVE expanded their investigation to cover suspicious vehicles and online posts in a bid to trace former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s movements before she disappeared ahead of the Supreme Court’s August 25 verdict reading in a dereliction case against her over her government’s rice pledging scheme.

There has been no evidence so far to show she has fled or is still within the country, deputy police chief Pol General Srivara Rangsibrahmanakul told a press conference yesterday.

Srivara said police were particularly interested in a police pickup truck reportedly seen driving out of the former premier’s residence on August 23.

Investigators learned later that it was a vehicle from the Lat Phrao Police Station, which has jurisdiction covering the area, on a regular patrol.

However, Srivara said he had ordered that the truck be checked to see whether traces of DNA other than that of the officers, could be found and, if so, to whom they belonged.

Srivara said investigators were focusing on a suspicious car that could have been involved with the former PM’s escape but he refused to give any further details.

“The investigation is progressing. We need time to investigate further,” he said.

There has been much public speculation about the police vehicle since the Isra News Agency released a video clip of the pickup driving out of Yingluck’s residence on August 23.

Srivara said yesterday that police wanted to check everything to do with the vehicle, including DNA traces, so they could be sure it had nothing to do with Yingluck’s disappearance.

The Central Investigation Bureau has also been instructed to check Yingluck’s Facebook posts in the days before she disappeared. It confirmed the authenticity of some posts from that time but it declined to disclose any details of their findings.

Srivara revealed police had found another vehicle they suspected could have been involved in Yingluck’s disappearance. They said it did not appear in the released video clip but declined to give any further details. He also said that some people thought to have been close to Yingluck had been invited to give their accounts of events on the relevant days, and their accounts had been useful.

The deputy chief said police had also received responses from Interpol officers in Cambodia, Singapore, and Dubai, who had confirmed they had no evidence of Yingluck entering these countries. The border police had not found any trace of her slipping through the borders either, he said, but added that it was possible for her to have slipped through unnoticed.

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.

“But I insist that the investigation has made some progress,” he said.

Meanwhile, Army commander-in-chief General Chalermchai Sitthisart conceded yesterday that there had been no progress in finding any evidence in Thailand’s border areas that might be relevant to the investigation.

The Army chief, in his capacity as secretary of the National Council for Peace and Order, said the junta had not abandoned their hope of finding Yingluck and he was not worried that the ongoing inquiry would cause unrest.

The issue needed time, he said, while conceding the ongoing investigation into her disappearance had encountered problems.

The case might need to be handled by officials responsible for areas within the country, he said, implying the police should take charge of it.

Asked whether the junta would just try to leave this behind, he said:

“I have a good memory of things. The Army chief has vowed to report on progress, if there is any.”

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, meanwhile, said he had not received any information that suggested progress had been made.

Udom Rathamarit, a member of the Constitution Drafting Commission, said that under the new charter, a million signatures against the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) could result in its members being removed from office for malfeasance. But such a campaign was not a proper legal procedure for the NACC to revive its case or appeal against a court ruling, he added.

His comment came after United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leader Nattawut Saikua on Thursday threatened to collect as many as 1 million signatures to endorse a petition with an elected Lower House against the NACC if the agency failed to take action regarding the case. He cited the new charter.

Section 236 of the new Constitution states that a petition supported by at least 20,000 people is required to take action against the NACC for malfeasance, in a case to be heard by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

The NACC became a target after the Supreme Court on Thursday acquitted Abhisit and Suthep of murder and attempted murder in connection with an operation by security forces to disperse anti-government demonstrators in 2010. The decision pointed out that the NACC, which turned down the case in 2015, should take charge of the matter.

Following the court’s decision, Nattawut said the NACC should reconsider the case and bring the two to justice.

This was especially when the agency was considering appealing against the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders’ recent verdict that Thaksin camp officials were innocent in the case related to the crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters in 2008, Nattawut said, implying that both sides should receive the same treatment.

In pursuit of justice for the victims of the 2010 crackdown, Nattawut called for the NACC to take action or the red shirts would sue them for malfeasance.

Meanwhile, the NACC are looking into the petition filed by the red shirts to revive the case against Abhisit and Suthep.

The agency could reinvestigate the case if any new evidence were to be presented, said NACC president Pol General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit yesterday.

NACC officials have been ordered to examine evidence submitted by the UDD and see whether it was new and different from that seen in 2015, Watcharapol said. It would rule whether or not to reconsider the case, he added.

In response to the UDD’s threat to petition against the agency, the NACC president said it was not pressured and would continue doing its job in accordance with the law.

Netiwit and four other student council members were sanctioned on Wednesday as a committee set up by the university concluded that they violated university regulations. Three other students were also punished for the same charge.

Each student was deducted 25 “behaviour points”, disqualifying them from serving on the student council. No more than 20 points can be deducted for student politicians to remain at their posts.

CU reasoned that the students intended to disrupt proceedings in a way that damaged the university’s image. Their actions brought “disrespect to the rest of the university community members, who highly value the oath taking ceremony to express gratitude to our founding Kings [Rama V and Rama VI]”, the committee concluded.

“They were aware that their attitudes did not go along with the tradition and they could have stayed in our specially arranged area,” CU said in a press release yesterday. “Yet, the eight students did not perform their roles as student representatives properly.”

CU also explained yesterday that this is because the students broke five articles stipulated in CU’s 1984 regulations on student discipline.

They are:

Article 4: “Students must always strictly follow all laws, rules, regulations, announcements or orders of the University or their faculty”;

Article 5: “Students must follow Thai good moral, ethical and cultural principles on all occasions”;

Article 6: “Students must maintain unity, orderliness and the University’s image and prestige”

Article 7: “Students must behave themselves gently and not behave in ways that may damage themselves, their parents, their guardians, or the University” and

Article 12: “Students must not perform any tradition or practice deemed inappropriate to Thai culture.”

Netiwit, the student council and progressive scholars challenged the investigative process, saying that it took a relatively short amount of time.

In a statement released on Thursday, the council said that it does not accept results of the probe. Netiwit and other accused students should be allowed more time to gather evidence to appeal the decision, they said.

The council also called for the committee to clarify its investigation process and results to the accused students.

Netiwit said that he planned to appeal the decision within a week, following CU’s regulations allowing sanctioned students to appeal within 30 days of an order being issued.

“Being ousted from the presidency stopped me from carrying on important projects that benefit the university and its students,” he said.

Netiwit, who is also being investigated for his attempt to organise public hearings on how entrepreneurs are treated on CU-managed property, feared that he could face probation if he loses another 15 behaviour points.

Social critic Sulak Sivaraksa who also accompanied Netiwit during the investigation as a caretaker, said that the student leader and his friends were judged unfairly even though Netiwit had stressed his loyalty to the monarchy and followed tradition.

Netiwit could not even bring his lawyer to a public hearing during the investigation, Sulak said.

The eight students were accused of “stirring up a scene” at CU’s traditional oath taking ceremony, where freshmen would line up, pay respects, and take an oath before statues of the university’s highly respected Kings. Instead of sitting down on their legs and paying obeisance to the late Kings, Netiwit and other council members stood up and bowed to them before leaving their designated spots.

The students’ action prompted assistant rector Reungwit Banjongrat to approach economic student Suphalak Bumroongkit. A widely circulated photo shows Reungwit holding the student in a headlock and dragging him out of the grass field.

CU has investigated Reungwit for alleged assault, while separately investigating the students for misbehaviour.

Reungwit’s investigation is still ongoing, while that of the students has concluded.

CU has said that the probe of the assistant rector’s behaviour should be wrapped up soon. Students are set to provide testimony to the inquiry next Monday. The student council, however, has expressed concerns about the process of the alleged assault case, they said.

As a result of breaking these rules, Netiwit and his colleagues have had their behaviour points deducted by 25 points. Since Netiwit and four others had served in the CU student council, they were removed from those posts.

CU explained on Friday that this is because the students broke five articles stipulated in CU’s 1984 regulations on student discipline.

They are:

Article 4: “Students must always strictly follow all laws, rules, regulations, announcements or orders of the University or their faculty”;

Article 5: “Students must follow Thai good moral, ethical and cultural principles on all occasions”;

Article 6: “Students must maintain unity, orderliness and the University’s image and prestige”

Article 7: “Students must behave themselves gently and not behave in ways that may damage themselves, their parents, their guardians, or the University” and

Article 12: “Students must not perform any tradition or practice deemed inappropriate to Thai culture.”

The eight students were accused of creating a disturbance at CU’s traditional oath-taking ceremony on August 3. Instead of sitting on the ground and paying their respects like all other students, they chose to walk away from their positions spots, and stood and bowed before statues of the late King Rama V and VI.

Their conduct sparked controversy as one lecturer was then pictured head locking and dragging one of the standing students out of the area.

The CU determined that the eight students’ actions amounted to misconduct.

Netiwit and the Student Council said that CU’s inquiry had itself been unjust, leaving little room for the students to justify their actions.

Organisers said they were there to communicate with the spirits of their dead children after the Supreme Court recently rejected the related case against the then-prime minister; Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy; Suthep Thaugsuban who were accused of murder.

Phayaw Akkahad and Phansak Srithep, whose children were killed during the crackdown, led the activity.

Phayaw told reporters after the activity that although the criminal court cited its lack of authority to try the case, it did not rule that the accused were innocent.

She said family members could still fight for justice. The families still had doubts over how the National Anti-Corruption Commission had initially dismissed the case, Phayaw said, and now the criminal court had pointed out the investigation was the agency’s responsibility.

The families would now try to push the case back to the investigation stage, she said.

The spiritual ceremony held at the Ratchaprasong Intersection was said to be a means to contact the dead in the location where the military opened fire on protestors. The families made offerings of local food such as Northeastern spicy minced raw meat salad and sticky rice. And they used incense sticks to conjure the dead victims and tell them of the developments in the search for justice.

The activity was held to tell the spirits of the victims that their deaths would not be neglected, Phayaw said.

Phayaw, whose daughter Kamolkade Akkahad was killed in Wat Pathum Wanaram when serving as a volunteer nurse, wore the medical apron her daughter had on when forces opened fire on the protestors.

The activity took 30 minutes and was monitored by some 50 police officers, including some in plain clothes.

The agency could re-investigate the case against the former prime minister and his deputy if any new evidence was presented, said its president Pol General Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit on Friday.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed criminal charges against the two on the basis of a legal technicality. The court said the NACC and not the Department of Special Investigation should have brought the case to the court for political office holders.

The two had been accused of murder in the 2010 deadly crackdown on red-shirt protesters in which more than 90 people were killed.

Watcharapol said the NACC officials had been ordered to examine evidence submitted by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD). They will compare it with evidence seen in 2015, when the NACC decided to drop a malfeasance indictment against Abhisit and Suthep.

NACC members will evaluate whether there is new or different evidence than that raised in the past and then meet to rule on whether they should reconsider the case, Watcharapol said.

He cannot predict how long the process would take or whether or not it would be taken as an urgent case, Watcharapol said. That would depend on the evidence presented by the UDD.

The NACC would be fair and consider the presented evidence carefully, Watcharapol said.

In response to the UDD’s threat to gather a million people to sign a petition calling for the dismissal of the NACC commissioners if they did not revive the case, the NACC president said the agency did not feel pressured and would continue doing its job as prescribed by law.

It was the third time that the court heard a plaintiff testify in a sedition case against Chaturon.

Chaturon was accused of sedition following a 2013 lecture at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand.

Representatives from some European embassies and international organisations were reportedly at the court to observe the proceedings.