PM General Prayut this morning led the Cabinet and military top officials in celebrating the 97th birthday of Prem at Si Sao Thewes residence.

“I think Thai people understand what ‘Tu’ is doing,” Prem said, calling Prayut by his nickname “You [Prayut] shouldn’t pay much attention to critics. You should rather focus on your intentions for the country. If they want to talk, let them be. Don’t get headaches because of them.”

People should understand that the Prayut-led government is meant to serve people, solve poverty and live well, Prem said.

“They should know that we are not doing this for honour or prestige but for our country with genuinely good intentions,” he said “We are tired of being here but we want Thai people to be happy. I wish Tu will remain as who he is.”

Prayut, in return, said that he would bring the country to reconciliation. “This will be for Thailand to have a universal, sustainable democracy with good governance,” the premier said.

Yingluck told supporters, via her six-million-follower Facebook page, that she wanted to avoid any possible chaos caused by a third party.

“I care for everyone, be you the people or my Facebook followers. And I don’t want any instigation, which possibly could be brought by a third party, to occur. as the security authorities have always said,” Yingluck wrote.

“So, I’d like to ask that everyone who cares for me, too, not to go to the court [Friday]. Instead, I’d like everyone to wait for the news at home so to avoid the risk posed by those having ill-intention towards the country and us.”

The former PM also said she acknowledged the compassion and all good wishes of people who were aware of her suffering. However, this time they would not be in touch closely, as they had in the past, due to the strict security measures, Yingluck wrote.

This Friday, the Supreme Court is set to hand down a final verdict over the rice-pledging cases against the former prime minister, and against her commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom in a separate case.

If convicted of malfeasance and dereliction of duty, Yingluck could face an up to 10-year jail term. She could also be liable to having to pay more than Bt35 billion lost because of alleged management failure in the implementation of the rice-subsidy policy.

Thousands of supporters are expected to show up to give Yingluck moral support. Security authorities have prepared measures to deal with the large crowd while also advising them against travelling to the court.

A source said officials interviewed motorists and passengers of vans about their destinations at various checkpoints.

So far, there have not been any reports of any group being stopped from travelling by the officials.

Other sources said military officials have talked to several local red-shirt leaders in Mae Sot, Mae Ranad and Muang districts but they said they had distanced themselves from politics so they would not travel to Bangkok.

But one source said five or six red-shirt leaders had already gone to Bangkok on their own.

FROM BEING a successful business woman and the first female prime minister of Thailand to facing criminal lawsuits and having her assets frozen, it can be said Yingluck Shinawatra’s life has been quite a rollercoaster ride for the past three years.

She was among those at the top of the junta’s watch list. Immediately after the coup was successfully staged in 2014, Yingluck, a former premier and the sister and political heiress of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shina-watra, was summoned to report to the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

Like most high-profile political figures, she is prohibited from making any political moves and must seek permission if she wishes to travel abroad.

Perhaps the worst of her woes after the former prime minister lost power is having to defend herself in legal cases mounted against her, starting during the late days of her administration when large-scale street demonstrations called for her downfall.

First on the list is the rice-pledging case, in which the ex-PM is accused of negligence and malfeasance for allegedly failing to prevent corruption in implementing the scheme that subsequently incurred huge financial losses. Since 2015, when the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders accepted the case, Yingluck has attended without fail at least 26 court hearings.

If convicted, she could serve up to 10 years in jail in addition to paying compensation to the state of more than Bt35 billion. In the meantime, some of her assets, particularly saving accounts, were frozen prior to her August 1 closing statement and the delivery of her final verdict tomorrow.

Feeling distress under great pressure, the former premier of Thailand was moved to tears on a couple of occasions while being watched by millions of people across the country.

While making merit at a Bangkok temple on her 50th birthday in June, Yingluck burst into tears during an interview and said she “hoped to be able to make merit again next year”.

Yet, despite all the inconvenience and hardship Yingluck has suffered over the past several years, she has been allowed to largely maintain her lifestyle, so long as it did not go against the NCPO’s orders, and in particular the ban on political activities.

Two months after the coup, she managed to get permission from the ruling junta to travel with her son Supasek Amornchat to Europe, where they joined the celebration of her billionaire brother Thaksin’s 65th birthday in France. She was also allowed to travel with her son for the second time that year to Japan and China in October and November.

Once the rice-pledging case was in the courts, Yingluck’s travel was restricted to the Kingdom. She was not allowed to accept a 2015 invitation from the European Parliament to exchange views on the political situation in Thailand. The NCPO may have lifted the international travel ban, but it remained part of the terms she had to commit to after the Supreme Court agreed to release her on Bt30 million bail.

There was not much she could do, given all the restrictions. Yingluck resorted to using social media every now and again to communicate with supporters. Sometimes the platform was used to send low-key political messages and announcements, not only to her six million followers, but also to the powers that be. On other occasions, she has shared her activities and lifestyle on social media.

Unable to participate openly in national affairs, the former PM found an avocation as an amateur vegetable grower. She at least twice opened her house for guests and served them salad straight from her organic vegetable garden. Once was a briefing session last year with international media regarding the rice case. Another was two months ago when she celebrated achieving six million Facebook followers, making her the most popular Thai politician on the Internet.

When she is free from tending the vegetable garden, Yingluck has taken time to tour the country. She is often seen travelling with her teenage son, and sometimes with unwanted officers who she wasn’t aware of initially, making merit at Buddhist temples, doing charity work, and meeting with supporters throughout Thailand.

During last year’s rice crisis, when the price per kilogram hit lower than the price of a pack of instant noodles, Yingluck did not tell farmers to go grow something else or go sell their yields on Mars. She instead jumped in, bought rice from poor farmers, and helped sell it in a Bangkok mall. The 10 tonnes of rice Yingluck purchased was sold out in about an hour.

Yingluck may have been able to lead an almost normal life without having been detained or summoned for an “attitude adjustment” as experienced by other politicians and activists. But she is not off the roller coaster yet. And one of the steepest hills she’ll climb on this ride is the final verdict on the rice-pledging issue to be delivered tomorrow.

Meanwhile, in a thinly veiled threat to Yingluck supporters, the junta reminded people that the Public Assembly Act had been in effect since August 13 and that violators would be prosecuted.

In a Facebook post yesterday, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) suggested ways in which people could offer support to the ex-prime minister without violating the law, and also outlined offences under the law.

Royal Thai Police deputy chief Pol General Srivara Rangsibrahmanakul yesterday said he had assured Supreme Court judges that police were fully prepared for the event. He added that the court was particularly concerned about security and the image of the court. “I told the court that police are 100-per-cent ready,” he said, adding that between 80 and 90 more security cameras would be installed inside the court’s compound, in addition to more than 100 “mobile cameras”.

Earlier yesterday, Srivara had a 90-minute meeting with Supreme Court representatives and commanders of crowd-control units to discuss preparations for the verdict day.

Srivara said he did not have any information pointing to a possible untoward incident, adding that authorities had closely monitored people with a history of political extremism.

“I believe there will be no problems. But there could be some traffic congestion in the area,” he said.

He also urged Yingluck supporters gathering at the court to remain in the area designated for them and to follow instructions from on-duty officials. He warned that those who ignored instructions to disperse would be arrested for violating the public-demonstration law.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday said his government did not want to use force, enforce the law or even get involved in the case. When he was asked if he had any concerns over the matter, Prayut said people should take care of each other and should think for themselves to decide if they could influence or change a court verdict.

The high court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict tomorrow in the case in which Yingluck is accused of negligence – a charge stemming from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme. On the same day, the court is also scheduled to issue a ruling in a related case against Yingluck’s former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, his ex-deputy Poom Sarapol and 26 others accused of involvement in allegedly fraudulent deals to sell rice from state stockpiles to the Chinese government.

Authorities and politicians from Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party have said they expected thousands of her supporters to gather at the court, although the estimates differ widely from a little over 1,000 to a few thousand by government officials to at least 10,000 by Pheu Thai politicians and red-shirt leaders.

An area of about 1,600 square metres outside the court has been reserved for Yingluck supporters, and the area is expected to accommodate some 4,800 people.

Hundreds of crowd-control police have been dispatched to the court, many of them reinforcements from the provinces. A number of plainclothes police detectives will also mingle with the crowd to monitor the situation, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Some police officers stationed inside the court’s compound will carry communications radios that can be used to take photos.

Meanwhile, politicians from Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party yesterday criticised what they described as government overreaction in attempting to block her supporters from coming to Bangkok. Former MP Amnuay Klangpha said he did not expect Yingluck supporters to cause any trouble or unrest.

Yingluck yesterday offered alms to monks at her house in the morning and also hosted a meal for monks from a nearby temple. She later went to Wat Rakhang Kositaram, where she offered daily necessities to monks and released fish as to make merit.

Yingluck cannot do the job even if she is acquitted in the negligence case stemming from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme. The post-coup National Legislative Assembly in 2015 impeached her for causing a massive loss in implementing the policy, effectively banning her from politics for five years.

Pheu Thai’s general secretary Phumtham Wechayachai said the party had not discussed new leadership as it first had to assess the political situation and public demand. When the junta’s ban on political activities is lifted, Pheu Thai would focus on setting proper policies and party structure before finding a new leader who would fit those requirements, he added.

Phumtham did not confirm or rule out speculation that the party’s next leader would not come from the Shinawatra family.

“Our party has many capable people with experience in running the country who are qualified in many areas. It is too early to say who the party will choose to become its leader. We still have enough time, so we do not have to make hasty decisions, as the political situation is changing all the time,” he said in a Facebook message posted on August 14.

Without Yingluck, Pheu Thai now has two strong contenders to become the next leader – former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat and veteran politician Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan – who both have strengths and weaknesses.

Whoever the new Pheu Thai leader will be, the most important quality they need to have is the blessing from the Shinawatra clan’s patriarch and matriarch – former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his former wife Khunying Pojaman Na Pombejra. Viewed as the “real owners” of Pheu Thai, both have retained much influence in the party despite not holding official posts in its executive board.

Somchai was recently acquitted by the Supreme Court in the case stemming from the fatal 2008 crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters under his short-lived government’s tenure.

Sudarat, formerly a public health minister, won the green light from Thaksin and Pojaman. And thanks to their blessing, undercurrents against her within the party subsided. However, with his acquittal, Somchai has become another strong contender.

A Pheu Thai source said Sudarat was not the favourite among many of her party colleagues.

“Not everyone in the party wants Sudarat to become the party leader. They have to stay silent because the party owners back this person. Now that Somchai has been cleared, he is capable of being another choice to become the party leader,” the source said.

Somchai is married to Thaksin’s younger sister Yaowapha and is considered part of the Shinawatra clan. That is why he was strongly opposed by the yellow shirts when he became prime minister in 2008 and headed a coalition led by the People Power Party, which was considered a Thaksin proxy.

Sudarat is not a member of the clan but she has won the blessing of “big boss” Thaksin due to her proven loyalty, good image, strong political background, and large support base in Bangkok.

Somchai’s status as a key Shinawatra clan member has won him more respect from other Pheu Thai colleagues compared to Sudarat. But this “quality” is more likely to attract strong opposition from people who are against the so-called Thaksin regime and view Somchai as just a Thaksin proxy.

While leading his short-lived administration from September to December 2008, Somchai could not enter Government House, which had been seized by yellow-shirt protesters.

The Shinawatras, who have influence over Pheu Thai, will need to consider carefully whether to choose Thaksin’s brother-in-law or an outsider to become the next party leader.

By favouring Somchai, they may revive a bitter confrontation with opponents of the “Thaksin regime”. If national reconciliation is taken into consideration, Sudarat seems to be a better choice. She has an advantage over Somchai in that she is not part of the Shinawatra clan and has no history of involvement in any political violence.

Sudarat may appear to be a good choice for national unity. But her rise to become Pheu Thai’s next leader may put its unity at risk as she fails to command respect from many party colleagues, particularly those from the provinces who view her as being aloof.

AN EAGERLY awaited verdict in the case of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra tomorrow could determine the future of Thai politics.

There are three major scenarios possible regarding the fate of Yingluck, who is charged with negligence stemming from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders could find her guilty and sentence her to a prison term; she could be found guilty and given a suspended sentence; or she could be found not guilty.

Before “judgment day”, political observers are eager to see if Yingluck will follow the lead of her big brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who fled the country before the same court in 2008 sentenced him in absentia to two years in jail for abuse of power.

Yingluck could either opt to escape or wait until August 25 to hear the court’s verdict.

If she thinks she will be found guilty and opts for the first choice, it would be a point of no return for her. She would be on the run for the rest of her life, as Thaksin has been, living in self-exile overseas for almost 10 years now.

A second choice – facing the verdict although it might be “guilty” – would not be the end of the world for Yingluck, as she would still have an opportunity to fight on.

If the verdict is against her, the ex-PM still has the right to appeal within 30 days, according to the current Constitution. And some legal experts have pointed out that the timetable could be extended.

An appeal would help her buy more time for freedom and the court might eventually uphold the verdict or reduce the penalty.

However, any imprisonment of Yingluck would not be good for the image of the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). Her imprisonment would make her a more sympathetic figure and could elevate her to the status of a “democracy icon” – similar to Myanmar’s former opposition leader and Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who spent 15 years under house arrest under her country’s military dictatorship.

“The NCPO would prefer that Yingluck flee the country rather than face the verdict. If she escapes, she will fall into the junta’s trap,” a political observer said on condition of anonymity.

A guilty verdict, however, would not be good for reconciliation efforts and it could be used by Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party to draw sympathy and support ahead of the general election scheduled for next year. The party could emerge victorious, winning more than half the 500 seats in the House of Representatives.

If she is found guilty and given a suspended jail term, it would be a compromise option that could maintain the momentum of reconciliation.

Such a verdict could help ease political tension and buy time for Yingluck.

Whatever the verdict, pressure would be eased as both the prosecution and defence would be likely to appeal.

By appealing a guilty verdict, Yingluck would run the risk of being sent to jail and foregoing her suspended sentence, although there is also the possibility the court would dismiss the case against her.

However, even a suspended jail term could become a stigma for Yingluck’s political career and her enemies could take advantage to undermine her popularity.

The third scenario – in which Yingluck is acquitted – would be the worst-case scenario for the NCPO, but the best one for Yingluck and her Pheu Thai Party. However, some political observers view this scenario as the least likely.

If the court dismisses the case, pressure from the anti-Thaksin camp will mount on the NCPO while it will be highlighted by the Pheu Thai in the run-up to the next general election.

For many critics, that scenario would make the NCPO’s May 2014 coup a “waste of time”, so the anti-Thaksin camp would pressure the junta and public prosecutors to appeal the acquittal. As a result, reconciliation attempts would go nowhere.

Apart from the criminal implications, a guilty verdict would put more weight on authorities’ civil action against Yingluck seeking damages of Bt35 billion in connection with losses from the rice-pledging scheme.

Yingluck faces an administrative order for her to pay compensation for losses, but she recently petitioned the Administrative Court seeking a revocation of the order. An acquittal in the negligence case would also give the former prime minister an edge in her request for the administrative order to be revoked.

Some legal experts have said an acquittal would not mean the Administrative Court would necessarily grant Yingluck’s request, as judges would still need to look into the details of her innocence or whether there was an intention to cause damage.

This action has been playing out separately to, but simultaneously with, the criminal charges the former prime minister faces related to her alleged gross negligence in the rice-pledging scheme.

In the rice-pledging case, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders will hand down in its verdict on tomorrow.

But Yingluck’s legal battle won’t end there, as she has also to prove her case against a Finance Ministry order demanding a huge amount of compensation from her.

The Finance Ministry last October demanded that she pay the state a compensation of Bt35.7billion – 20 per cent of the rice-pledging cost of Bt 178.6 billion during crop years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Yingluck has objected to the government move, arguing that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and Finance Minister Apisak Tantivorawong have no authority to issue an order to seize her assets.

She has argued that her government reported its rice price-support policy to the then-parliament. Therefore, the rice policy had happened under the scope of the constitution that holds the government politically accountable, not her personally responsible.

She has also cited a previous legal case in which former central bank governor Rerngchai Marakanond was charged by the Bank of Thailand (BOT) in 2001 over his alleged responsibility for exhausting the country’s foreign exchange reserves defending the value of the baht during the 1997 financial crisis. The BOT filed a case in court, demanding compensation of Bt187 billion from Rerngchai, but the then government did not issue a ministry order as the current junta government has done in the case of Yingluck.

Yingluck lost her first battle trying to block the ministry move.

In December last year, she brought her case to the Administrative Court challenging the ministry order.

Before the ministry proceeded to ask legal-execution officials to freeze her assets, Yingluck filed a case against Prayut, the Finance Minister and senior officials, asking for court injunctions. But in April this year, the Administrative Court dismissed her petition by ruling that the Finance Ministry had not yet taken any action to freeze her assets.

Two months later, the ministry started the asset-seizure process against Yingluck, and so far it has confiscated financial assets from seven bank accounts owned by her.

In July, Yingluck again filed a case in court asking for an injunction demanding that the Finance Ministry end the freeze on her assets. For its part, the ministry this month also sent related information of its actions against Yingluck to the court.

It is expected to take about two weeks from now before the Administrative Court makes a decision.

Legal experts have suggested that even if the Supreme Court acquits Yingluck in the criminal trial, it will not automatically help her win her case against Prayut and the Finance Ministry. Under the civil liability law, the Finance Ministry still has the right to freeze her assets unless the Administrative Court rules that she is not required to pay any compensation.

Police have estimated that thousands of people may show up to provide moral support to former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is due to hear her final verdict regarding to a case stemming from the rice-pledging scheme.

The infographic clarified what types of gatherings are both allowed and prohibited under the Bill. It also said what damage such gatherings and protests could cause the country.

Courts are also banned for such protests unless a specific area is prepared specifically for them.

Other prohibited areas include the Palace compounds, the Parliament and Government Houses.

Assemblies must also not be arranged in ways to interrupt the operation of the government, airports, ports, transportation stations, hospitals, schools, religious places, embassies, international organisations and other areas as declared by minister.

Enacted in 2015, the bill came in place amid concerns that it would curb public freedom of expression. A junta order has banned political gatherings of five or more people since the 2014 coup.

In a letter submitted to Criminal Court Chief Justice Supat Sutthimanas, Watana said officers threatened his lawyer Narinpong Jinapak by saying, “At most, we will shoot you in the mouth,” in front of other lawyers at the court on Monday.

The act should be deemed an abuse of power and inappropriate behaviour, Watana said.

The petition was made because the alleged action happened in the court, the former minister added.

“The TCSD has created a conflict with me. How can they ensure that my rights and freedoms are protected properly?” he asked.

Narinpong, who also chairs the Lawyers’ Association of Thailand, said the association would also submit a petition to the chief justice, objecting to lawyers being threatened in court.

On Monday, Watana appealed against the TCSD’s request for the court to detain him until September 1 on charges of breaching the Computer Crime Act and the Penal Code’s Article 116 on sedition.

The charges were brought against him after he criticised on Facebook the removal of the 1932 Siamese Revolution plaque at the Royal Plaza in April.

Plea for detention without bail

The TCSD argued that Watana should be detained without bail because interrogations were ongoing and given his allegedly severe wrongdoing.

While waiting for the court’s decision on Monday, Watana broadcast a five-minute Facebook Live clip, which resulted in him facing another charge for contempt of court. He was sentenced to a month in jail, suspended for a year, and fined Bt500.

He was also temporarily released on Bt200,000 bail for the sedition charge.

He said the TCSD officers’ threatening manner should be considered as more severe than his Facebook Live broadcast.

Watana also said he planned to again appeal the court’s decision on his detention, arguing that he had always reported himself to the court on scheduled dates, lived in a fixed residence and never meddled with evidence.

The appeal would have to be made before September 1, the last day of his detention period.

Watana is among Pheu Thai figures who have said they will provide moral support on Friday to former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra at the Supreme Court, where she will hear the final verdict in her long-running trial for negligence in relation to her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

Authorities have not banned the public from appearing at the court but warned that people must not cause conflicts or create a scene.