Social scientist Chayan Vaddhanaphuti and four others met Chang Puak police on Friday for the second time, submitting documents in a bid to prove they had not violated the junta’s directive.

Chainarong Sretthachau, Chayan’s fellow academic, posted the update on Facebook.

Chayan, director of the university’s Regional Centre for Social Science and Sustainable Development, had met police last week with his colleagues to acknowledge summonses.

Since the July 15-18 International Conference on Thai Studies, at which banners were displayed reading “This was not a military camp but an academic forum”, at least four academics have been summoned.

Chayan was the latest to be called in and is accused of violating the junta’s prohibition on political gatherings and activities.

Chayan was quoted by Transborder News as saying he had not sought the military’s permission to stage the conference because it was a purely academic event and had nothing to do with politics.

He speculated that the banners displayed at the forum had prompted the police response.

He insisted there had been no political activities during the conference and he had no idea why he’d been summoned.

Chayan pointed out that he’d consulted Chiang Mai’s governor before the event and the governor had even presided at the opening.

Academics at home and abroad have urged that the charges, which they see as a threat to academic freedom and freedom of expression, be dropped.

At 10.30am on the 10th day of the waxing moon in the 10th month of the Thai lunar calendar, the building was filled with the chants of 10 monks invited from 10 temples.

Top officials such as Prayut, Cabinet members, military chiefs, bureaucratic executives and Government House staff attended the opening ceremony.

Bhakdibodin – which means “loyalty to the King” – was picked by Prayut from 20 names proposed by the Fine Arts Department to grace the new building designed to welcome prominent visitors to the country.

However, the opening had been delayed, with the construction contract signed in March last year stipulating a groundbreaking ceremony two months later and a completion date in February.

The construction was undertaken by a private contractor under the directive of the Cabinet secretariat, the Army’s Post Engineer Department and the Fine Arts Department.

Bhakdibodin is Government House’s first new building since 2001, when the Cabinet Secretariat and the Office of the National Security Council buildings were opened during the administration of former prime minister Chuan Leekpai.

Prayut and prime minister secretary-general General Wilas Aroonsri initiated the renovation and construction projects, including Bhakdibodin’s, in the Government House compound.

The building was designed with Neo-Venetian Gothic architecture to be in harmony with the Thai Khu Fah building. It was painted yellow, a colour representing the late King’s birthday, and adorned with a giant golden dome.

On the first floor of the two-storey building are three reception rooms – the main room with a capacity to host 150 people, the golden 10-person Thongthara room and the blue-and-pink eight-person Wanasiri room – all decorated with mixed portraits from the Queen’s Support Foundation.

A security source told Nation TV’s La Kwam Jing news team that a Toyota Vios and a Toyota Camry had been seen driving out of her residence at about 8pm on August 23, before returning at about 10am the following day.

However, there are conflicting theories about the escape, with some people focusing on the two Toyotas while others have said the most interesting vehicle was a police pickup that was seen leaving the house at about 9pm.

Officers said they believed Yingluck had used one of the vehicles to escape before the reading of her court verdict last Friday, as the time lapse was equivalent to the time it would take to travel to the Thai-Cambodian border, according to the source.

When the news team checked on previous reports of her assets held by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) in 2015, it found that a Toyota Vios was reported along with eight European cars.

The two cars in question would have helped her elude officers’ who were watching her as she usually rode in a van, the source said.

Isra News Agency yesterday also released a clip showing several vehicles entering and exiting the residence, including a police pickup truck on August 23, suggesting her mode of escape.

She was last seen on the morning of August 23 giving alms to monks and visiting a hotel with her entourage.

The news agency reported that Yingluck returned home on August 23 at around 2pm. About 20 trips were recorded of vehicles entering and exiting the house, including a Toyota Fortuner, a Honda Civic, an Isuzu pickup and a Nissan March. The report said the Fortuner belonged to Pinthongta Shinawatra, daughter of Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra.

It is believed that Yingluck escaped on August 23 as no one has reported seeing her the following day.

National police chief Chakthip Chaijinda refused to comment on the report, saying he had already assigned his deputy, Pol General Srivara Rangsibhramanakul, to handle the case.

Meanwhile, top officials, including Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, were silent on the issue and the Foreign Ministry said it was still in the dark regarding Yingluck’s whereabouts.

Foreign MinistryForeign Minister Don Pramudwinai said her location was still a mystery. He added that when Thai authorities know Yingluck’s location, they will ask for cooperation from the country where she is located. “However, as of now, we don’t know,” Don told reporters.

He added that the ministry had already contacted countries that Yingluck was reported to have fled to. There have been many unconfirmed reports prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has been in self-imposed exile for years. Another possibility is the United Kingdom, where she reportedly plans to seek asylum.

EX-COMMERCE minister Boonsong Teriyapirom’s legal team is planning to seek a review of the Supreme Court’s 42-year jail term verdict after a second bail request was denied.

The High Court said there was no reason to change an earlier judgement on Boonsong’s request for a temporary release.

According to the current Constitution, verdicts handed down by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders may be reviewed within 30 days, regardless of whether or not there is new evidence. Defendants and plaintiffs can lodge appeals.

In Boonsong’s case, the deadline for reviewing the verdict is September 25.

Narin Somneuk, Boonsong’s lawyer, said another bail request would be submitted to the High Court along with an appeal petition.

He said the ex-minister’s health has improved after he fell ill over the weekend following the verdict for his leading role in faking government-to-government (G-to-G) rice export deals which resulted in Bt16.9-billion damages to the state.

The bogus G-to-G deals were part of the previous Yingluck government’s rice pledging programme.

Thanakorn Waekwaree, a lawyer for Manas Soiploy, a former director-general of the Department of Foreign Trade, who is also facing a lengthy jail term along with Boonsong and others, said a bail request will also be submitted to the High Court due to his client’s health problems.

Boonsong previously posted a surety of Bt30 million for his temporary release, while Manas posted a Bt12 million surety. However, the High Court rejected the bail requests due to the lengthy jail sentences.

Narin made the first bail attempt on Friday shortly after Boonsong was sentenced to 42-years in jail but bail was denied as the court feared he could flee if released temporarily.

Boonsong was first detained at Bangkok Remand Prison then moved to Klong Prem Central Prison. He sought medical attention in jail for high blood pressure, sinusitis and allergies, Narin said.

As well as the lengthy sentence, Boonsong is also facing a civil liability lawsuit in which the government has demanded compensation of Bt1.7 billion to cover financial damages caused by the fake G-to- G deals.

RED-SHIRT leaders remained determined yesterday to take legal action against former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his ex-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban after the Supreme Court acquitted them in a case stemming from the 2010 fatal crackdown on protesters.

The top court dismissed the case on a technicality, upholding verdicts by lower courts, in the case in which Abhisit and Suthep were accused of murder and attempted murder.

The court ruled that the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) did not have jurisdiction to bring the case to court. Cases against political office holders such as Abhisit and Suthep must be filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) through the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, the verdict said.

Abhisit is the Democrat Party leader and Suthep is its former secretary-general. Both of them were present at the court for the verdict reading yesterday.

Lawyer Chokchai Angkaew, who represents families of people killed in the unrest who were acting as co-plaintiffs in the case, yesterday said the plaintiffs would petition the NACC to bring a new case against Abhisit and Suthep.

“We will cite the Supreme Court ruling urging the NACC to act. We will not give up yet. There must be an investigation by the NACC to get the culprits,” he said after learning about the verdict.

Red-shirt supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra took to the streets in Bangkok in early March 2010, weeks after the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders ordered the seizure of Bt46 billion in his assets determined to have been earned dishonestly while he was in power. The street protests against the Abhisit government continued for 10 weeks. More than 90 people were killed in the unrest and riots, including protesters, military personnel and police officers, foreign journalists and passers-by.

In 2014, the DSI brought the case against Abhisit and Suthep to the Criminal Court after public prosecutors indicted them for murder and attempted murder.

In August that year, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that cases against political office holders must be dealt with by the NACC and tried by the special division of the High Court. The Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s verdict in February 2016.

In 2015, the NACC resolved not to pursue the case against Abhisit and Suthep on the grounds that they should not be held responsible for deaths and injuries caused by armed security forces who acted in a personal capacity. The NACC also argued that its investigation had found that armed people had mingled among red-shirt protesters, so the rally did not constitute a peaceful protest and the authorities’ use of force was therefore justified.

Abhisit yesterday said he felt grateful to the justice system and expressed regret for the loss of life during the incident while maintaining that he had done his utmost to prevent such a tragedy.

The former prime minister said that after the incident, he supported independent fact-finding efforts and proper remedies for people affected. “Hopefully, Thai society will not have to experience a similar incident again,” he said.

Abhisit was also asked to comment on a petition filed last month by red-shirt leader and Pheu Thai Party politician Nattawut Saikua for the NACC to reconsider the case against him and Suthep. The Democrat leader said the issue would be decided by the NACC but he had not received any notification from the agency.

Suthep said yesterday neither he nor Abhisit had violated the law and that the operation to disperse protesters had been implemented in line with the law.

In response to the red-shirt supporters’ petition for the NACC to reconsider the case, Suthep said he was not surprised as “this group of people often focus on causing us trouble”.

He said he had provided the NACC with evidence and facts to prove his innocence, adding that the information was included in his book titled “The Testimony of Phra Suthep”, which was written while he was an ordained Buddhist monk following the 2014 coup.

NACC president Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit yesterday said agency officials were looking into the case against Abhisit and Suthep to determine whether there was any new evidence that warranted reconsideration of the case.

Meanwhile, Winyat Chatmontree, a lawyer close to families of the victims, emphasised yesterday that the case against Abhisit and Suthep had been dismissed due to a legal technicality. The court had not ruled whether or not the two men were guilty, he added.

Winyat, who is also the secretary of the volunteer human rights lawyer group Free Thai Legal Aid, said there were at least two other channels through which the case could be appealed.

One channel was via the NACC, he said, adding that although the agency had dismissed the petition in 2015, there had not been an investigation. If the victims’ families had any doubts, they could submit evidence and ask the NACC to take action, the lawyer said.

Such a complaint could be made against all officers involved in the deadly operation, including the former prime minister and Suthep, he said. The massacre at Pathum Wanaram Temple, in which government officers have already been proven to have caused deaths, could be a particular issue, he said, citing a 2013 court ruling.

“[The families] could take legal action against those on-duty officers for malfeasance and then extend the results to find out who were the commanders, from bottom to top,” Winyat told The Nation.

Another means would be through the court of justice, the lawyer said.

Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn said he respected the court’s decision yesterday, adding that the NACC should explain itself why it had rejected the case.

Weng said the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) had lodged a petition with the NACC, asking for a review of the case, particularly because it had been proven that government officers were responsible for the deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram.

Besides the court ruling, the UDD may also present to the NACC the recent case against Somchai Wongsawat and other officials, who had been sued for using tear gas against demonstrators, Weng said. Security personnel using bullets against civilians should receive the same treatment and be brought to trial, he said.

Netiwit and four other members of the Student Council – Suphalak Bumroongkit, Thornthep Maneecharoen, Thatthep Ruangprapaikijseree and Shinawatra Ngamlamai – lost their seats on the grounds that their behaviour points were each deducted by 25 points, causing them to be disqualified, according to the university’s regulations.

Netiwit did not accept the decision, however, and wrote on Facebook: “Ultimately, we are still fighting together to appeal this order to CU.”

Isra News Agency released the clip, eliciting rumours that Yingluck could have been in the van.

Yingluck failed to show up to hear the verdict regarding her alleged negligence in her government’s rice-pledging scheme at the Supreme Court last Friday (August 25).

On August 23, she was last seen in the morning giving alms to monks and in the afternoon visiting a hotel with her entourage.

The online news agency reported that Yingluck had returned home on August 23 at around 2pm. From that time, several vehicles entered and exited her house included a Toyota Fortuner, a Honda Civic, an Isuzu pickup and a Nissan March.

The report said the Fortuner belonged to Pinthongta Shinawatra, the daughter of Yingluck’s brother Thaksin Shinawatra.

However, the most interesting vehicle was a police van seen leaving the house at about 9pm.

It is believed that she may have escaped on August 23 because no one has reported seeing her the following day.

When asked about the van, the national police chief on Thursday refused to comment on the report, saying he had already assigned his deputy, Pol General Srivara Rangsibhramanakul, to handle the case.

Fugitive Yingluck’s location still a mystery, says Foreign MinistryForeign Minister Don Pramudwinai. He said that when Thai authorities know Yingluck’s location, they will ask for cooperation from the country concerned.

“However as of now, we don’t know,” Don told reporters.

He added that the ministry has already contacted some countries that Yingluck is reported to have fled to.

There are many unconfirmed reports of Yingluck’s escape route and destination. One popular destination is Dubai in the United Arab Emirates where her brother, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, has been in self-imposed exile for years.

Another possibility is London, where she reportedly plans to seek asylum.

Don said the ministry has not yet been contacted by other authorities concerning Yingluck’s whereabouts as they have their own processes.

The lawyers on Wednesday evening filed a request with the Supreme Court’’ Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to temporarily release Boonsong. The court had not ruled on the request as of press time.

Boonsong’s lawyer Narin Somnuek made the first bail attempt last Friday shortly after Boonsong was sentenced to a 42-year jail term. The court turned down bail, reasoning that Boonsong was a high flight risk if released on bail, given his lengthy sentence.

The former government minister was first detained at Bangkok Remand Prison after being convicted, then moved to Klong Prem Central Prison. He has a history of high blood pressure, and suffers from Boon chronic sinusitis and allergies. He has had to visit prison doctors, said Narin.

Narin is expecting to visit Boonsong this afternoon.

Boonsong, who received the harshest sentence among those sentenced, was convicted for his leadership role in creating four fake government-to-government rice export deals.

The scam resulted in Bt16-billion of financial damage to the state. He is also subject to making reparations worth around Bt1.7 billion.

Prior to his sentence, Boonsong said that he planned to seek bail and appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days after the verdict as allowed by the 2017 constitution as well as seeking for bail granting.

The Supreme Court upheld decisions of the Criminal Court and Appeals Court that the Department of Special Investigation had no authority to initiate an investigation against the two officials or to file suit against them.

The court said that, since Abhist and Suthep ordered the crackdown in their capacities as top-ranking ministers, the investigation would have had to be initiated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The DSI had the attorney general file the lawsuit, accusing them of murder, attempted murder and premeditated murder stemming from the order for the military and police to crack down on anti-government protesters on May 15, 2010.

On June 10, 2014, Abhisit and Suthep responded by asking the Criminal Court to consider whether the DSI had the authority to initiate legal action against them. That court ruled on August 28 they did not and rejected the lawsuit.

On February 17 last year, the Appeals Court upheld the Criminal Court’s decision to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the defendants did not order the crackdowns as private individuals, but rather as the government leaders.