So much so that he bought two Bt40,000 guitars that were made by a Khon Kaen University graduate student.

The exhibition hosted research and innovative products from four universities, namely Kasetsart, Mahidol, Prince of Songkla and Khon Kaen, which could be developed further for commercial or practical purposes.

Pichrawee Suraareekul, an architect graduate student, said that the handcrafted guitars are part of her undergraduate thesis at Khon Kaen University.

She said the objectives are to develop local materials with innovation, resulting in value-added modern instruments.

The process started from choosing bamboo woods, sun-drying them, boiling them in sulfur water, and coating the surface.

Her guitars also go through studio sound testing, Pichrawee added.

“My customers usually test the guitars before making decisions. The PM is one among a very few that decided to buy them at first sight,” she said. “Perhaps he liked the blends of local and modern wisdom in the guitars.”

NACC commissioner Supa Piyajitti yesterday said the commission expected to be able to deliver indictments within the next couple of months.

Yingluck and many of her Cabinet members have already been prosecuted on various charges, including negligence and corruption in the rice-pledging scheme after the military coup in 2014.

In May 2015, the NACC accused Yingluck’s Cabinet of approving Bt2-billion compensation for 1,900 victims of the 2005-2010 political protests, a number which appeared to include red-shirt and Pheu Thai supporters as well as yellow-shirt and Democrat backers.

Political struggles during the period began when the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy staged marathon street protests against Thaksin Shinawatra’s government, leading to the 2006 coup that toppled him.

An election in 2008 brought a Thaksin ally into office before judicial activists and yellow-shirt supporters again deposed the government, paving the way for Abhisit Vejjajiva to enter office, which ignited red-shirt protesters to mount their own bloody protests in 2010, when street battles claimed scores of lives.

At the time, Yingluck said she approved the compensation in accordance with recommendations from a committee for reconciliation.

The Democrat Party in 2012 expressed concern about the high cost of the compensation, whereby the families of dead victims could obtain as much as Bt7 million. There were more red-shirt than yellow-shirt victims.

The Democrats then lodged a petition with the Administrative Court to halt the plan, but the court dismissed the case saying it was not under its jurisdiction.

The NACC said yesterday that such action was negligent and caused a total of Bt1.9 billion in damages to the national treasury.

The accused group comprises Yingluck, four former deputy PMs, 19 ex-ministers and 10 former deputy ministers, excluding Chumpol Silpa-archa, Yingluck’s deputy and the former tourism and culture minister, who passed away in 2013.

Pakorn Panthu, then-director of the Department of Social Development and Welfare, was also accused as he oversaw victims’ affairs, but the NACC later dropped charges against him on the basis that he had been obligated to follow the Cabinet resolution.

Regulations and compensation rates were all newly drafted and did not comply with the law at the time, the NACC has said.

FORMER PRIME MINISTER Yingluck Shinawatra has again requested the Supreme Court to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on a legal issue involving the case against her of negligence in the management of the rice pledging case, challenging the highest court’s decision to reject her previous petition.

In her latest petition, Yingluck said it was beyond the Supreme Court’s legal authority to reject her request and pointed out that such an act was against the new Constitution, which came into effect in early April.

The Supreme Court last week rejected Yingluck’s request that it seek a Constitutional Court interpretation under the new Constitution of a clause that could affect her case.

The negligence case against the former premier stemmed from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme.

In turning down Yingluck’s request, the court had said that both the prosecution and the defence had been given sufficient opportunities to bring witnesses during the months of hearings that ended last Friday.

In her previous petition, Yingluck had pointed out that Article 235 of the new charter requires the Supreme Court to base its consideration upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

She said this contradicted the 1999 law on the court’s procedures, which required the court to mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

Yingluck’s lawyers this week filed her request again with the Supreme Court for a Constitutional Court ruling on the matter.

The highest court has accepted the petition for consideration and is expected to make its decision on August 1 when the ex-PM is scheduled to deliver her closing statement on her case.

The Supreme Court has scheduled August 25 to deliver its verdict on the negligence case against Yingluck.

In her latest petition, viewed by critics as a delaying tactic, Yingluck outlined five reasons why her request for a Constitutional Court ruling was valid.

She pointed out that according to Article 5 of the Constitution – the supreme law of the land – provisions of any law, rule or regulation that are contrary to or inconsistent with the charter “shall be unenforceable”.

Also, Yingluck pointed out that the Supreme Court is required under Article 212 of the new charter to forward her request to the Constitutional Court.

The clause states that if any party in a court case objects to a certain provision of law falling under Article 5, and there has been no decision by the Constitutional Court pertaining to the matter, the relevant court shall send its opinion to the Constitutional Court and seek a decision.

“The Supreme Court has no other choice but to seek a decision from the Constitutional Court. Failing to do so would mean failure to follow Article 212 of the Constitution,” Yingluck said in her latest petition.

“The highest court is not empowered by law to reject the defendant’s request. Going by the requirement under Article 212, the court cannot act in another way,” she said.

“The Constitutional Court is the only court empowered by law to accept or reject such a request. No other courts have such power.”

Yingluck’s petition also noted that the Constitutional Court issued new regulations on case procedures in late April to comply with the new charter. The judges who decided to reject her previous petition should better follow the relevant clause in the new Constitution.

“Otherwise, they may end up flouting the legal principle and be found failing to maintain neutrality as a judge,” she said.

It was a difficult decision to make for her to submit another request to the Supreme Court to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on the legal issue.

“I simply would like to appeal for mercy and justice in this case,” she concluded.

A legal expert who asked not to be named said Yingluck could also petition the Constitutional Court directly if she found that her constitutional rights or liberties were violated.

Article 213 of the new charter states, “Any person whose rights or liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are violated, has the right to submit a petition to the Constitutional Court for a decision on whether such an act is contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution.”

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said he would be in charge of security when the Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the case against Yingluck.

Thousands of the former PM’s supporters are expected to gather at the courthouse on that day. Authorities have warned of possible legal action if people are mobilised.

Prawit said the government has peacekeeping forces all over the country to take care security, but the court could also make additional requests. He said Yingluck’s supporters could come to Bangkok to give her moral support but it would be better for them to do this from their homes.

Arranging people to support her could be considered as politically motivated and this is prohibited and could risk breaching the law, he added.

Democrat Party politician Warong Dechgitvigrom said on Facebook that Yingluck and her Pheu Thai Party were like intensive care patients at the terminal stage.

“They are doing everything they can, even though that may put their supporters in trouble. Their only goal now is how to survive,” he said.

Earlier on Wednesday, General Prayut told reporters at Government House that the authorities involved, particularly the Finance Ministry, were just in the process of preparing for seizure of Yingluck’s assets. Confiscation of her assets would actually start after the authorities are allowed by court to do so, he said.

However, in her latest Twitter message, Yingluck said what Prayut said was “not true”.

“It is not true what the NCPO leader said that seizure of my asset is only in preparation,” she tweeted, referring to Prayut, who also heads the ruling junta National Council for Peace and Order.

“My bank accounts have already been confiscated and the money in the accounts have been withdrawn,” she added in his message.

The ex-PM tweeted both in Thai and English in the evening, with a link to a news report about what General Prayut said.

Last year, the Finance Ministry issued an executive order seeking a civil liability of Bt35 billion from Yingluck, as compensation for damages caused to the state stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

Prawit said the government has peacekeeping units to take care of security but the court could request additional measures if needed.

Prawit said it was possible that supporters of Yingluck could turn up in large numbers to give her moral support. He, however, added that it would be better for them to do that from home as arranging people to come to support her publicly could be considered politically motivated. This is prohibited and could risk violating the law, he added.

The government yesterday continued to try to dissuade supporters of Yingluck from gathering. Key government figures, including the prime minister himself, warned that gatherings could be deemed a contempt of court and lead to unrest or violence.

Security authorities also threatened to enforce a junta ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically.

Large numbers of Yingluck’s supporters are expected to gather in Bangkok on August 25, when the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict in the case against Yingluck.

She has been accused of criminal negligence for failing to end the project despite irregularities.

Yingluck has been accused of criminal negligence for failing to end her government’s rice-pledging scheme despite irregularities. The court has set August 25 as the date to deliver a final verdict on the case, with August 1 set as the date for her to make a statement ahead of the ruling.

Large numbers of Yingluck’s supporters are expected to gather in Bangkok on August 25, and the police have projected a similar gathering on August 1.

Deputy national police chief Srivara Ransibrahmanakul said the situation is under control and there is no need of special law enforcement, such as the use of Article 44.

He said the police have followed up certain groups and found there has not been much movement so far, except on social media.

During the meeting on Wednesday, police decided to enforce the Korakot 52 plan during the statement. The plan provides the police with steps to be taken to control the crowd in the event of unrest, to ensure security at the court

NACC commissioner Supa Piyajitti said on Wednesday that the NACC was investigating the case and should be able to deliver the indictment in the next couple of months.

In May 2015, the NACC accused Yingluck’s Cabinet of approving Bt2 billion in compensation for the victims of 2005-2010 political protests. The accused group comprises Yingluck, four former deputy PMs, 19 ex-ministers and 10 ex-deputy ministers.

Approved in 2011, the compensation was allocated from the central reserved budget to be used in case of emergency and necessity.

The NACC said that the regulations and compensation rates were newly drafted and did not follow the Budget Procedure Act.

Such wrongful negligence caused damage to the national treasury reserves, it said.

Among the two prominent candidates were Gen Wallop Raksanor, the Defence Ministry’s director of policy and planning bureau, and Somkiat Sripasert, current NSC deputy secretary-general.

The name of the successful candidate will not be announced until the Cabinet approves the selection next Tuesday.

The winner will replace current NSC secretary-general Gen Thawip Netniyom, who is due to retire this September.

Wednesday’s meeting was chaired by Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, who refused to speak about the new appointment.

Thawip said after the meeting that the successful candidate will be proposed by Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwan.

“It’s my responsibility to nominate a candidate. The deputy [Prawit] then takes all candidacies in consideration, and a commander’s decision is final,” said Thawip.

The successful candidate was chosen after discussion, not voting, Thawip added. “All opinions went in the same direction so there was no need to vote,” he said.

As well as the candidacy, the meeting’s agenda also covered a surveillance camera system, national cyber security strategic draft, counter-terrorism strategic draft and intelligence system reform.

She said she wished that her brother, who is on the run from several criminal cases, would survive all of his ordeals.

“Today is your birthday, brother. I don’t have anything to give apart from asking the sacred things to protect you to be safe and to have good health.

“Most of all, I wish you, brother, to be happy because you have passed through a lot of things. I wish all that happened to you will end happily. I love you,” Yingluck posted.

Natthathida Meewangpla, who is also known as “Waen”, 39, was detained by police as she walked out of prison after being granted bail in the case relating to a bombing at the Criminal Court in Bangkok’s Ratchadapisek area.

The lese majeste charge was brought against her by Colonel Wijan Joddaeng, director of the law and human rights department of the Internal Security Operations Command, in March 2015. The allegation was based on the grounds that Natthathida had sent text messages deemed insulting to the monarchy to several chat groups via the LINE messaging app.

A police source said yesterday that during questioning, Natthathida had said the incident had taken place a long time ago and she had forgotten about it.

Natthathida has been in prison for nearly two-and-a-half years after she was arrested for allegedly being involved in the court bombing case, facing charges of terrorism, membership in an unlawful secret society, unlawful possession of military weapons and attempted murder. She was also accused of transferring money to the bombers in the case.

With the help of lawyers and friends, she was freed on bail on Monday to fight the case but immediately rearrested.

Natthathida said she had not known that the messages she had sent in 2015 violated Section 112 of the Criminal Code dealing with lese majeste and did not remember the details.

The messages had been widely shared and forwarded previously, she said.

A police source said she would be tried in a military court.

At the time of the 2010 crackdown, Natthathida was a nursing volunteer in the same tent as six people who were killed at the temple.Red-shirt protesters have accused the military of intentionally shooting into the temple where medical volunteers were helping injured protesters.