Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban have accused the former chief of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), Tharit Pengdit, and three officers of malfeasance of duty in accusing them in the DSI’s indictment report of murder following their roles in the crackdown.

Abhisit was prime minister at the time of the incident, while Suthep was a director of the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation.

The two plaintiffs in the case have defended the actions they took at the time, also arguing that the DSI did not in any case have the authority to indict them, as such a step was a matter for the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

They also claimed that what the DSI had reported was a distortion of what had actually taken place.

The lower courts had dropped the charge, but the Supreme Court took up the case, saying that the DSI had realised in the first place that it had no authority to indict Abhisit and Suthep, based on past actions in which it had dealt with the NACC itself.

These included the agency’s forwarding of the case to the NACC in May, 2010, which suggested that the DSI had realised that it was the NACC’s authority to investigate and indict the two, and not the agency’s, the Supreme Court said.

The court today read the charges before Tharit and the other three defendants, after which the four denied all charges against them.

Tharit’s 13 witnesses are scheduled to give testimony in eight rounds, which are set to take place in March and April next year.

Abhisit’s eight witnesses will be allowed to give testimony in five rounds in March.

The reform plans – the eventual products of the new committees – would be legally binding for the next five years, he said, adding that this was unlike the results of the work of the National Reform Council (NRC) and the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA), which did not have legal effect.

The new reform committees are therefore more significant in that they have the authority to enforce implementation of the plans, and are not just advisory panels like the NRC and NRSA, Wissanu stressed.

The establishment of the committees was also demanded by the new Constitution and the recently enacted national reform law, the deputy PM said.

Regarding national strategy, which is the master plan for reform, he said he was sure that its long-term binding nature would not be a problem, although some people thought it might run counter to developments in a rapidly changing world.

He explained that the new national strategy law stated that the strategy could be revised in accordance with changes in government policies.

Moreover, any such revision must undergo the proper process, which would include some degree of public participation, Wissanu added.

Future governments could always set a new and better goal, the deputy premier said, while the strategy committee also gave full freedom to the government of the day to use whatever means it saw fit to achieve the goal.

“For instance, if the strategy laid out that the government help the farmers. The means [of such assistance] could be anything, [such as] a pledging or subsidy scheme. They could come up with that themselves,” he insisted.

Asked whether the strategy committee would come to counterbalance any government wishing to pursue populist policies, Wissanu said that was not true and was not something that the current government had ever intended.

Populist policies would be deterred by other mechanisms, such as the new fiscal discipline law and the political party law, which would require governments to specify the source of funding before campaigning for any populist policies, he said.

The deputy PM also said that the heads of the reform committees would convene for the first time at the end of this month to set general rules and regulations, before starting working separately in their respective fields.

As none of the 11 committees, which can each have up to 14 members, has yet been filled, Wissanu said the current membership of each panel could recruit new members as they saw fit to fill the vacancies.

There are some people currently working in independent agencies that they wish to call up, but they have to wait until the individuals are out of office because commissioners from independent agencies are disqualified from taking up posts on the reform panels, he added.

Asked whether the vacant positions were being reserved for top-brass officers due to retire this October, the deputy prime minister said that was untrue.

Such military officers could take up office now if the authorities had such a plan for them to do so, he said, adding that members of the top brass were already serving as ex-officio members of the national strategy committee.

These included the plan to set up checkpoints at every gate of the Chaeng Wattana government complex, with only the main gate near the administrative court open.

On Monday, Supreme Court officials advised the media to submit in advance their car licence numbers to avoid any difficulty that the security measures could case.

A police source also said that security checkpoints would be set up in various areas across the country starting on Wednesday. Any suspicious movement would be blocked and the people involved could be detained.

But he has not yet proposed the political party bill, as its wording needed to be slightly revised, Wissanu said.

All three organic bills have passed legal deliberation and review processes by concerned bodies, including the National Legislative Assembly, as required by the charter already.

Wissanu insisted the enactment of the 10 organic laws as required by the new charter had not been delayed as feared. It was still proceeding as planned, he added.

The accused had attended the 13th International Conference on Thai Studies in Chiang Mai in July.

The event attracted thousands of Thai and foreign academics and was monitored by plainclothes security officers.

The accused held a banner that read “This is not a military camp but an academic forum” during a seminar at Chiang Mai University (CMU).

This resulted in the five academics and students receiving summons for allegedly gathering for a political purpose which, in the case of more than four people, is against a junta order in effect since the 2014 coup.

The accused are Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, director of CMU’s Regional Centre for Social Science and Sustainable Development, writer Pakawadee Weerapaspong, academic Chaiyapon Samniang and student activists Nontawat Machai and Teerapon Buangam.

They are due to report to Chiang Mai police on Monday, with CMU lecturers and students, tribal people and local farmers expected to be on hand for moral support.

On Sunday, 301 academics denied the legitimacy of the charges, reasoning that the banner was merely pointed out the inappropriateness of security personnel infiltrating academic seminars.

In the statement they said the charges suppressed freedom of expression, which impacted on the atmosphere of profound knowledge exchanges in society.

To repair the damage, they said the junta order banning political gatherings should be revoked.

The signatories of the statement included Thammasat University’s noted historian Charnvit Kasetsiri, Kasetsart University economics lecturer Decharut Sukkumnoed, Mahidol Univeristy political science lecturer Thaweethong Hongwiwat and the director of Chulaongkorn University’s Center for Peace and Conflict studies Surichai Wankaew.

At the seminar, titled “What are the other options if not the rice-pledging scheme?” Kittiratt insisted the rice-pledging scheme was a sound policy aimed at helping low-income farmers and their 15 million family members nationwide.

Kittiratt was speaking at the event as former premier Yingluck awaits a Supreme Court verdict on Friday about alleged negligence of official duty while overseeing the rice-pledging scheme, which prosecutors charge resulted in corruption and massive financial damage to the state. “If I could go back in time, I would have spent much less time on other works but would have focussed on explaining this [rice-pledging] scheme so as to fight the current political narrative,” he said.

According to the former finance minister, Thailand was capable of allocating financial resources to help low-income earners in both urban and rural farm areas. He quipped that the country also had financial resources to buy military hardware such as submarines, as all decisions rested with the ruling leadership.

Farmers and their families total 15 million people and account for 23 per cent of Thailand’s overall population, so the government needs to ensure that their livelihoods are improved, Kittiratt said.

The Yungluck rice-pledging policy was not the first time that such programmes, including income guarantees and related measures, had targeted farmers, he said. These approaches had been used for the past three decades and were also vulnerable to problems. For example, it was difficult to prove whether farmers actually planted rice fields if they had already successfully registered to get state compensation under an income guarantee programme.

He said the Yingluck government therefore turned to the massive rice-pledging scheme, since it required evidence of rice paddies to get state benefits under the programme.

Defending the high pledging price, Kittiratt said farmers need to be compensated significantly. Even with the high pledging price for rice offered by the government, farmers’ income was still less than that of people working in urban areas, he said. Under the pledging programme, the government paid about double the market price for rice.

Kittiratt said the National Economic and Social Development Board had sent a letter to the Yingluck government confirming that farmers’ income had improved because of the rice-pledging scheme. “The scheme was not aimed at benefits for the prime minister, as it was designed as part of the Pheu Thai party’s election campaign. When it was said the state suffered a big financial loss [due to the high pledging price], that could be called an accounting loss. But in terms of public policy, it could be said that the state revenue is just lower than the state expenditure.

“In other words, farmers get higher income from the scheme [even though the state had to set a budget to cover the price difference]. The benefit is that farmers have more income so they have purchasing power to boost the economy, and in the end the overall benefits are greater than the subsidy budget,” he said.

WHILE THE political scene after the upcoming court judgement in the case against former PM Yingluck Shinawatra may not be suddenly affected due to suppression by the junta, the verdict itself could be a reminder to future governments to not “cross the line”, say political figures and observers.

The country is anxiously holding its breath to see if chaos arises after the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders delivers its verdict on Yingluck in the rice-pledging scheme on Friday.

Pheu Thai Party former minister Chaturon Chaisang said it was hard to comment on the case since legal processes against Yingluck had not strictly followed the rule of law.

The proceedings had contained many “irregularities” due to the junta’s Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s direct order to particularly scrutinise the damage caused by the rice-pledging scheme and add evidence after the case had started, he said.

Whatever the ruling, he said it should not politically affect Yingluck and Pheu Thai any further, adding: “We have already been curbed in the political arena by existing laws, in line with the will of the powers-that-be.”

A former Democrat Party MP, Warong Dechgitvigrom, a key critic of Yingluck’s project, said he was optimistic about the ruling, saying it should help create more awareness among future governments on the consequences of corrupt actions.

“Pheu Thai will portray itself as a victim as always,” Warong said. “It’s not wrong to help the poor but it is wrong to seek an advantage from policymaking. Any government, including that of the Democrat Party, has to be subjected to scrutiny.”

A key figure in the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, Weng Tochirakarn, said Yingluck’s case could discourage future governments from coming up with new policies, fearing that they could break law in the process.

What has happened to Yingluck was one example of bureaucracy usurping the role of the judiciary and politicians, Weng said.

“Yingluck declared the rice-pledging scheme in Parliament, followed it and did not touch a baht involved in the case, yet she has become a defendant,” he added.

People’s Democratic Reform Foundation President Suthep Thaugsuban, while choosing not to hypothesis about future scenarios, insisted that he believed in the standards of justice in Thai courts.

Satithorn Thananithichot, a researcher in politics at the King Prajadhipok’s Institute, believed the ruling should not affect the opinions of “political fans”. What mattered instead, said Satithorn, was how people not usually interested in politics viewed it.

“If the ruling is negative, an affected political party may use it to gain legitimacy and draw attention to itself,” Satithorn said. “But if the ruling comes out clear and fair enough, any ripple should be automatically settled.”

Independent academic Sirote Klampai-boon said he feared the legal case against Yingluck could create a precedent for politics and the judiciary in the future.

The prosecutors’ reasoning that the rice-pledging scheme lacked the support of academics or the involvement of the constitutionally independent auditor could indicate some “political irregularities” in the preparation and management of the case, Sirote said. “If this should become a legal standard, damage will be done to the judicial process.

“Meanwhile, if this standardises future politics, damage will fall upon our society,” Sirote said.

Super Poll results released yesterday showed that most people did not expect the ruling to improve the ailing political scene.

Of 1,309 people questioned nationwide from August 11-18, 49 per cent said post-ruling politics were likely to remain as bad, 54 per cent were concerned about possible upcoming conflicts, and 79 per cent said that the current authorities should take action to ensure public order.

However, business leaders did not appear to be as worried about the impact of the court verdict.

Kalin Sarasin, chairman of the Board of Trade of Thailand and Thai Chamber of Commerce, said the private sector had confidence in the outlook for the economy as the government had laid out a strategic development plan and many reform committees had been recently created to carry out reforms.

Stanley Kang, chairman of the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce in Thailand, said the public may be worried about conflict arising from the court verdict but such political events would not have much effect on the economy. Politics and the economy do not correlate strongly with each other, he said.

Government Spokesperson Lt-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd said Prayut would observe provincial water management at the Bueng Kraton reservoir, the operation of local sufficiency-economy villages, and hold discussions with 20 provincial governors, administrators and the private sector while in Nakhon Ratchasima.

Cabinet members have visited 33 Northeastern provinces since last Sunday, keeping track of policy implementation such as village fund, labour improvement in industry and the private sector, tourism in the southern areas of the Northeast, village enterprises and garbage disposal management, Sansern said.

The Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board will gather those observations for Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, he added.

Conducted during August 15-17, the poll by the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida), showed that 48.7 per cent of the 1,250 people surveyed approved of the Prayut government’s performance while citing the military leadership and ideology as key factors for their favourable impression.

Prayut personally received a high approval rating of 81.2 per cent among respondents for his leadership and ideology while 82.3 per cent of respondents were impressed by his decisiveness.

In terms of solving the country’s problems, 73.6 per cent of respondents said the Prayut government’s policies and measures had been effective, while 64.5 per cent of respondents said the government was transparent.

Besides the prime minister, respondents said they were most impressed by Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit, followed by Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Kreangam, Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatusripitak, Tourism and Sports Minister Kobkan Watanawarangkun, Interior Minister Anupong Paochinda and Social Development and Human Security Minister Adul Saengsingkaew.

Needless to say, the incident sent shock waves around the country. And in keeping with the usual knee-jerk reactions of senior Thai security officers, all sorts of off-the-mark statements were issued. Some suggested a “new generation” of fighters had emerged, while others were taken aback by the insurgents’ audacity, calling it a “new” development.

First of all, no one doubts the boldness and audacity of the operation. But what was relatively “new” on this occasion was that the insurgents combined hostage taking and car stealing.

Over the past 16 months, there have been four incidents of insurgents stealing vehicles and using them as car bombs the same day. The most recent one was the Big C car bomb in May this year that injured scores of onlookers who paid for their curiosity despite prior warnings in the form of a “smaller bomb” by the insurgents.

In February 2016, seven policemen were injured in a car-bomb attack near the Border Patrol Police base in Pattani’s Tambon Rusamilae. A Honda Jazz was stolen from the same district that day.

In August 2016, an ambulance van was stolen from a tambon in Pattani and hours later used as a car bomb at the Southern View Hotel.

And in April 2016, three suspects carjacked a pickup truck, packed it with explosives and forced its owner to drive it into the heart of Yala while holding his wife as hostage. The plan fell apart as the driver abandoned the bomb-laden vehicle and ran for help. The insurgents didn’t go through with the threat and released the wife unharmed.

Deputy Defence Minister Udomdej Sitabutr blamed the August 16 operation on Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), one of the long-standing separatist movement that controls virtually all the combatants on the ground. He added that security lapses in the far South permitted insurgents to carry out attacks against government troops.

Army chief General Chalermchai Sitthisad dubbed the insurgents involved in the August 16 operation as a “new generation” of militants lured by money and under the control of Abdulloh Waemanor, an exiled headmaster of an Islamic boarding school, who Thai authorities believe controls the military wing of the BRN.

But if the Thai military intelligence is to be believed, then all Patani Malay combatants act under Waemanor’s directive. One has to wonder about the merit of his statement.

Thai Army sources said Chalermchai wants to put Waemanor in the spotlight to pressure him to endorse the ongoing peace dialogue between Bangkok and MARA Patani, an umbrella organisation made up of various long-standing Patani Malay separatist movements.

Sadly, the military thinks it is only dealing with disgruntled Malays with guns and conveniently overlooks the historical root causes of the conflict.

The insurgents behind the August 16 operation were “new” only because they were not on the blacklist of any of the security agencies in the far South. Authorities quickly learned this reality when they were unable to match the faces of the suspects with anybody in their files.

And so when the top brass in Bangkok demanded some answers about the identity of these young men in black who were driving around in seven stolen vehicles, the officers at the operational level conveniently referred to them as “new faces”.

Although the act of stealing cars and using them as car bombs is not new, the militants’ August 16 operation by itself was a disaster.

Each of the six vehicles stolen from the dealer was driven by one suspect. The first vehicle, a Toyota Vigo, was packed with explosives and set off on a Highway 418 in the vicinity of Pattani’s Nong Chik district, targeting a moving military vehicle. Four soldiers from a medical unit suffered minor injures.

The second vehicle, a Mitsubish Triton, ran out of petrol and was abandoned in Songkhla’s Thepa district, not far from the original crime scene, while the third pickup truck, an Isuzu Dmax, was abandoned in Pattani’s Tambon Klong Maning.

The fourth vehicle, a Dmax, was abandoned in a rubber plantation in Pattani’s Khok Pho district and the fifth, also an Isuzu Dmax, packed with a home-made bomb, crashed through a security checkpoint. But the vehicle was eventually hunted down and the suspected insurgent killed in a gunfight with the police in Nong Chik.

The sixth vehicle, an Isuzu Cab, was used as a car bomb in an attack on police homes in Pattani’s Mayo district. The seventh vehicle, a Mazda, was also and was left abandoned in Tambon Chanae in Songkhla’s Sabayoi district, with three gallons of petrol inside. It was this vehicle that transported the four from the auto dealer to a nearby wooded area where they were supposed to be executed.

The first victim was shot in the head and later died in hospital. The second survived a shot to the shoulder while the other two wrestled their way out and succeeded in escaping from the gunman.

In the end, only two of the six vehicles were turned into car bombs. The rest were abandoned, possibly because of the quick reaction by the authorities, who had been alerted to the robbery by the escaped hostages.

Perhaps the insurgents had aimed too high, hence their failure to pull off more car bomb attacks. Perhaps our top brass were too panicky and tried too hard to sound like they were on top of things.

DON PATHAN is a consultant and member of the Patani Forum (www.pataniforum.com), a civil society organisation dedicated to promoting critical discussion on the insurgency in Thailand’s Malay-speaking South.