Jatuporn Prompan, chairman of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, has been handed a one-year jail term for defaming former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva over speeches he had made in 2009.

Kobkiat said if Jutaporn was sick, the department would ensure he gets medical care, but would not take him to an outside hospital.

Jatuporn was ill while under detention in Bangkok Remand Prison related to another case, and received medical treatment until he got well.

When moved, Jatuporn should inform prison officials about his health condition so that he can get proper treatment, Kobkiat suggested.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sentenced Jatuporn to one year in prison without suspension and ordered him to publish apologies to Abhisit in newspapers for seven days.

Abhisit had filed a case in June 2009, accusing Jatuporn, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), of defaming him in front of 10,000 people through loud speakers at Wat Phai Kiew Temple in Don Muang in Bangkok on May 10. Jatuporn had called Abhisit a “tyrant” whose “hands are tainted with blood” who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people.

The Court of First Instance had rejected the case on December 27, 2012, saying that to comment was tantamount to political retaliation in a democratic system.

Abhisit took his case to the Appeal Court, which upheld the first court’s ruling and rejected his plea saying comments by Jatuporn were honestly made.

The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled the two courts.

Jatuporn  was taken to Bangkok Remand Prison on Thursday morning.

Sirichai resigned as Appeal Court president on Tuesday due to disappointment with what he suggested was unfair treatment.

Suebpong Sripongkul, a spokesman for the Office of the Courts of Justice, said the agency’s decisions and actions regarding Sirichai were in line with existing laws and regulations.

Sirichai announced his resignation as head of the Appeal Court after being demoted to an inactive position. He told a press conference that he had decided to quit after being offered the unprecedented position of adviser to the Supreme Court president, a position he said was created especially for him after he failed to get the promotion.

Previously Sirichai was the most senior candidate for the country’s highest court.

The panel instead nominated the second-most senior candidate to become the next court president and replace the current office holder who is to retire at the end of September.

In response to Sirichai’s allegation of unfair practices by the nomination subcommittee, Suebpong told a press conference at the Criminal Court building yesterday that Sirichai had been allowed to explain himself before the panel and it concluded that he was unsuitable for the top job.

He also said Sirichai had been investigated because he was accused of violating the disciplinary regulations. If the Judicial Committee had failed to set up a fact-finding team to investigate the accusation, they would be deemed to be negligent, he added.

The spokesman said the nomination panel had listened to verbal explanations by Sirichai and testimony from his witnesses, as well as looked into evidence that he had submitted. The subcommittee finally voted 19 to one to not nominate him, he added.

Suebpong said the Judicial Committee, which mainly consists of senior judges, based their decision on a suggestion by the nomination subcommittee. When Sirichai failed to be nominated, the committee’s secretary was required by law to nominate the next senior candidate.

In response to Sirichai’s claim that the post of adviser to the Supreme Court president had been created unlawfully just for him, the spokesman said the law on judicial officials empowered the Judicial Committee to create new positions with specific assignments.

“Our scrutiny has nothing to do with the court case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra. We are doing this because the government seems to be hastily selling rice from its stocks at this time,” Pheu Thai politician Yuthapong Charassathien said.

“Do not view our move as politically motivated. We are just looking for possible irregularities to protect the public interest,” he added.

Yuthapong served as deputy agriculture minister in the government led by Yingluck. He is now head of a Pheu Thai working group scrutinising the post-coup government’s sale of rice.

A lot of the rice in the government stocks was bought at prices far higher than the market price during the tenure of the Pheu Thai-led government.

The case against Yingluck, a key Pheu Thai figure, is being heard by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. A negligence charge stems from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme, which was estimated to cause more than Bt500 billion in losses to state coffers.

The court’s last hearing is scheduled for later this month and a verdict is expected within two months.

Yuthapong yesterday called on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who also serves as chairman of the National Rice Policy Committee, to order an investigation into an alleged irregularity involving the auction of government rice.

Pheu Thai politicians have suggested that a lot of the rice was auctioned off as animal feed although its quality was good enough for human consumption, adding that some of the purchased rice would eventually be resold for human consumption.

Yuthapong said an animal feed company that bought 14,035 tonnes of rice classified as low quality had a production capacity of only 11 tonnes a day. “Even though this company produces animal feed non-stop, around the clock, it will take them seven years to use up all the purchased raw materials,” he said.

In another case he highlighted, an animal feed factory in Ratchaburi bought almost 39,000 tonnes of “low quality” rice from the government stock. Judging from its current production capacity, the factory would take 20 years to use all the raw materials, he added.

The Pheu Thai politician claimed that photos had been sent to him anonymously to prove that the Ratchaburi animal feed factory did not store the purchased rice at its warehouse.

He also asked Prayut to issue an order for the warehouse to be examined.

Yuthapong said he would lead media today to inspect the Ratchaburi factory to determine whether the rice bought was stored there.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party politician Warong Dechgitvigrom yesterday urged the government to be strict about checking the quality of rice in its stocks before auctions.

He said that would prevent possible corruption allegations and possible irregularities by state officials.

Pattarasak Wannasaeng, who presided the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) committee vetting the bill draft, explained that the bill would not apply to cases that had ended, especially those in which defendants had fled the country and were beyond the statue of limitations.

“Any law must not be interpreted in a way damaging defendants,” Pattarasak said.

Highly debated about this critical point of the bill is one finalised case concerning ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who has lived in self-exile since the 2006 coup. However, he still has some more cases which were put on hold, and lawmakers have interpreted that these may be subject to legal proceedings under this new bill.

The junta-appointed NLA approved the bill draft amid heavy skepticism that it would be used as another legal tool against Thaksin.

The bill draft enables trials in absentia against defendants. The secretary-general of the Office of the Judiciary Athikon Intuputi disagreed with this point during the NLA deliberating session.

But Pattarasak insisted that the court would have to adhere to the law once it is enacted.

He said that if the court or defendants viewed that the bill’s stipulation on prescription might go against the charter, they could propose the matter for the Constitutional Court’s consideration.

The general public could also make a petition to ask the Ombudsman to take the matter to the Constitutional Court, he added.

“The trials in absentia will be proceeded exceptionally,” the NLA member said “There must be attempts to proceed with the cases conventionally and with the defendants’ presence before such trials are carried out. Defendants will have abundant opportunities to fight their cases. I can say that this sort of trial is fair enough.”

The military-based complaint centres were set up at Army bases nationwide on the orders of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha last Thursday. Hotline phone numbers and postal addresses were also made available to receive public complaints.

Winthai said that these new channels would act only as receiving portals. Matters may be screened for accountability purposes before being forward to anti-graft agencies including the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) and its underling, the National Anti-Corruption Administrative Centre.

Secretary-generals of these two agencies would take part in screening information received from people so as to lubricate the anti-graft system from the very start, the spokesperson said.

The Army’s complaint centres would play mostly supporting roles to those agencies, he added.

The statement was in response to an Interior Ministry internal memorandum about inviting TANC members for “talks” after their recent actions at an academic seminar in Chiang Mai, which were seen as a staged political activity against the military and the coup.

Some TANC members on Tuesday held a banner “An Academic Panel is Not a Military Barrack” during a seminar on Thai studies held at Chiang Mai University.

The act was reported in an interior ministry internal memorandum issued by the Chiang Mai governor to the interior permanent secretary. Dated July 18, it asked the junta’s security unit to invite at least three academics, including the noted political scientist Prajak Kongkirati, for a “talk” and seeking their cooperation in not staging such a political activity again.

The memo called the activity a resistance to the coup that was held by taking advantage of an academic seminar. It also named some of the activists present at the scene.

TANC replied that the activity was an exercise in freedom of expression, and not prohibited by the Constitution.

Secondly, the memo wrongly noted that Prajak Kongkirati took part of the activity, while in fact he had not been at the scene, the statement read.

More importantly, the TANC had always been open and active in fighting for freedom of expression on many occasions. It did not take advantage of the seminar as accused in the memo, the network said.

It emphasised that its movement has been conducted with non-violence, insisting on freedom of expression and academic freedom.

The academic network had exercised its rights to demand that the junta respect freedom of expression and academic freedom and hasten the return of power to the people, the statement read.

The government should tolerate such activities and not accuse activists of holding political movements to delay of the return to democracy, it added.

TANC members also said if they were to be summoned, they were willing to explain the situation to the government as they had strong faith in civil rights.

At its meeting on Tuesday, the NRSA voted 125-1, with nine abstentions, to approve the report proposed by the committee on legal and justice system reform for the adoption of visual and audio recording systems in all courts.

In the report, the committee said it hoped that the measure would ensure fairness and enhance efficiency in the delivery of justice to the people.

Committee chairman Khemchai Chutiwong told the meeting that the current process of transcribing court proceedings could miss points made in witnesses’ statements, which may result in limited information being brought before the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court to consider later.

He said that audio and visual recordings would enable judges to obtain all available facts, while helping ensure transparency in the courtrooms and making it easier for court clerks to efficiently classify and keep records of all proceedings.

Many NRSA members voiced their support for the recommendation, although some noted that care must be taken to ensure the confidentiality of all information.

Legal proceedings under this new law would not be applied to such cases where the defendants had fled the country to avoid penalties, or they would become retroactive and be against the rule of law, Meechai stressed.

Meechai said the bill’s content was drafted without the aim of targeting any person. It was based on universal principles, he insisted, adding that he had no idea why Pheu Thai would make a plea to international rights organisations regarding the proposed law.

The bill, among 10 organic laws required by the new charter, has become highly controversial as it would enable the court to proceed with cases that had been put on hold after defendants fled the country.

Its provisional clause underlines the point, suggesting that any ongoing cases would proceed according to this new law.

In addition, the statue of limitations would not be counted if the defendant fled the country, meaning cases would be subject to legal proceedings without time limits.

The bill does address cases where final court rulings had been made before the defendant left the country, but lawmakers debate whether penalties put on hold because of the defendant’s absence could be retroactive.

Meechai, as a principal drafter of the bill, ruled this out.

The report notes that Thailand has strength in the areas of tourism and culture, but weak in governmental performance.

Poerland notes that the “ones to watch” category means that the country’s performance on soft power is positive enough for it to be close to the top 30. This year, Thailand is ranked 36th.

“While the country continues to grapple with political unrest, its soft power assets have been growing from strength to strength,” the report said.

It added that Thailand is “one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, and the second-highest ranking Southeast Asian nation on our index”.

Thai cuisine, culture and warm hospitality also played a role in attracting international attention, the report said.

While Thailand has been promoting its innovative and tech-savvy economy through the Thailand 4.0 initiative, the US-based report suggests otherwise.

Government performance and digital sub-indices, it said, “are clear signs that the country should develop those areas to improve its soft power assets”.

This included an expectation of a smooth transition of power after next year’s election, which should give the Kingdom the space to promote cultural production, and increase investment in digital infrastructure and public diplomacy.

The leading soft power this year was France, followed by Canada, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom.

“Despite major terrorist attacks and the rise of far-right nationalist populism, the internationalist, business-friendly party of Emmanuel Macron has been handed a large mandate to lead France forward after a period of political and social unrest,” the report said.

The US was downgraded from first position in last year’s report because global public opinion about the country had soured since president Donald Trump took office.

Four Asian countries made it into the Soft Power 30 –- Japan, Singapore, South Korea and China, with all of them except Singapore improving their ranking on the previous year.China, which ranked 25th, was said to have a better outlook on globalisation and environmentalism.