Four bills concerned directy with the election were priorities, and the NLA would try to get them ready as soon as possible, following the roadmap to democracy, Surachai said.

Two of the bills – those governing the EC and regulating political parties – had already passed the NLA, he said. Two others concerning the recruitment of Senators and the members of the House of Representatives were currently being studied by the NLA.

He also addressed the organic bill on legal procedures against political office holders, which critics suspect is targeting certain figures, especially former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Surachai insisted that it covered all ongoing cases in court and did not target anybody in particular.

The CDC said enactment of the bill must take into consideration another organic law concerning reforms required by the new charter. This was so that it could meet the spirit of the charter to make political parties more accountable and participatory.

The CDC pointed out that the primary voting system – in which party members vote to select MP candidates at branch level – could be open to fraud. As there were no anti-fraud mechanisms in place, this could run against the intention of the new charter to eliminate all forms of corruption.

It also said that listing party leaders as the first party-list MPs would limit their chances to contest constituencies, thus removing their political rights and violating the charter.

Also, it said that insisting parties have no fewer than 50 members in areas without branches or representatives before primary voting could be held was equivalent to cutting the chances of parties without so many members. This would affect the charter’s principle of making all voices meaningful in elections.

The CDC said that the bill might promote inequality between major and small political parties since not all of them could afford to set up branches and hold primary elections. This would potentially violate the charter by creating partiality.

The law review committee will comprise 11 members from the NLA, the CDC, and the Election Commission. It has 15 days to revise the bill to be in line with the Constitution before submitting it to the NLA. The law will be dropped if two-thirds of the NLA vote against it.

After he was recruited as a judge, Sirichai’s career grew over the years, starting from serving as a judge and a chief judge for several provincial, regional, and central courts, including Nakhon Sri Thammarat, the Civil Court, and the Appeals Court.

He also served as Court President for the Regional 5 Juvenile and Family Court, a judge and a chief judge at the Supreme Court, before taking a senior post of the fourth Vice Court President of the Supreme Court, and eventually the Appeals Court President in 2015, which is only second to the Supreme Court President.

Sirichai was also appointed to serve as an executive member for the Court of Justice’s executive committees, including the Supreme Court’s judicial commission sub-panel, the executive judicial commission, as well as the judicial commission at the Supreme Court and the Appeals Court.

While serving as a senior judge, Sirichai was appointed to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions to rule on several high profile cases. These included the malfeasance charge against former Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and four defendants over a case concerning a violent crackdown against People’s Alliance for Democracy protestors in 2008, and the negligence charge against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra over alleged corruption in the rice mortgage scheme.

While serving as Appeals Court President, he introduced a new approach to reduce cases accumulating at the court. In 2016, the Appeals Court under his lead, won the award of excellence among high courts.

PRIME MINISTER General Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday said all Thai citizens have to take responsibility if the reconciliation plan fails.

In response to key red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan calling for the junta to take responsibility for any failure in the reconciliation plan, Prayut said he alone could not force everyone to reconcile with others. “We are just a facilitator. Reconciliation requires the cooperation of all stakeholders, factions, politicians and political groups. I think they agreed well [with the aspects],” Prayut said at his weekly press briefing .

The military-organised social contract draft is going through the last nationwide forum this week and is expected to be publicised and accepted by political figures and civil sectors soon.

The forum in Bangkok on Monday was shunned by key politicians as well as the People’s Democratic Reform Foundation, the Democrat-spin-off group led by Suthep Thaugsuban.

Only red-shirt head Jatuporn was present at the meeting.

The agreement is said to contain 10 aspects related to national development from politics, inequality, the law and justice process, and the economy, to the junta-hyped reform and strategies.

Among the aspects, Prayut stressed unlawful demonstration as the most important point in the plan.

He urged that no “unlawful” demonstration should ever occur again once reconciliation bears fruit. “The future government will have to stop protests from happening anymore,” Prayut said. “The charter, the assembly bill, they all have been in place. Can people violate them?”

The junta is also known to enforce its order prohibiting political assembly of five people or more. Having been in effect since the 2014 coup, the order has not only barred political parties from holding meetings but it has also been used against civilians whose movement was deemed to question the junta’s action.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said that his party would cooperate with principles raised in the agreement but it should be worked on further to make it more practical.

The Democrat Party was represented by its ex-MP Thana Cheerawanit during a public forum session. Abhisit had gone to provide opinions on the agreement.

Abhisit said he had yet to see additional comments from Prayut on the agreement, as he had not received the agreement draft yet.

Deputy PM and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan said that the agreement would still have to go through further amendments and reviews. “But overall feedback is good,” he said. In a related development, Prayut revealed that 527,956 people have so far submitted their answers to his “four questions” on the election and the next government.

Provinces with the highest submission were Khon Kaen, Nakhon Ratchasima and Ubon Ratchathani. The lowest totals came from Samut Sakhon, Phetchaburi and Phrae. Launched in early June, the campaign has been run countrywide at Dhamrongthamma complaint centres.

The Interior Ministry collects all the answers every 10 days, categorising them and forwards them to the PM’s Office.

Prayut spoke after rumours that he might swap the posts of his deputy and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan and Interior Minister General Anupong Paochinda.

Such a move might allow Prawit, in his capacity as head of Interior, to oversee the general election expected to be held next year.

Prayut said the speculation was “senseless” as there are already mechanisms overseeing election affairs, such as the Election Commission and related agencies.

Prawit said the idea is “purely imaginary” and said Prayut had never raised the possibility even once.

The deputy prime minister on Monday said he wanted to stay in his present role.

He denied knowing about a Cabinet reshuffle. “It depends on the prime minister. But personally, I would like to work as defence minister because I’m more familiar with it,” Prawit said. The defence minister added that he had not discussed the matter with the premier but he thought a reshuffle should occur following significant royal ceremonies.

The last Cabinet reshuffle under the Prayut administration took place in December, with 12 changes made.

APPEALS COURT president Sirichai Wattanayothin, who announced his resignation after being demoted to an inactive position, has urged Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to look into the nomination for the top job in the judicial branch.

Sirichai, disappointed with the recent reshuffle, said yesterday that he had resigned from his post and from the civil service after being offered the unprecedented position of “adviser to the Supreme Court president”.

The position was created specially for him after he failed to get nominated as Supreme Court president.

He said he would not take legal action against the process or the Judicial Commission but would make a plea through the media to the public and the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to witness the treatment meted out to him and decide for themselves whether it was fair.

He said he did not want to damage the judicial institution and could accept what he was facing despite the pain. But he said he felt sorry for his parents and family whose reputation might be damaged because of the scandal.

Sirichai said he could not accept the position of adviser because it was not equal to the post of president though the commission claimed that it was. He also said it was a position created just for him and it could be unlawful.

Sirichai’s bid for Supreme Court’s top position ended when the Judicial Commission ruled unanimously, 14-0, that he was not appropriate for the post.

In a press conference, he said there had been complaints against his decision to reverse three drug-dealing cases which had resulted in the defendants getting punished.

He said he had testified before the commission and insisted that he had followed legal procedures, but its decision against him remained unchanged.

Witnesses who gave evidence against him were all people who had been affected by his decisions in the past, Sirichai said, adding that he had removed several officials from office due to malfeasance.

He said that after failing to get nominated as Supreme Court president, he had tried to remain in his post as was the usual practice, but the commission offered him the unprecedented advisory position instead.

Although he gave up and resigned, Sirichai hoped that Prayut, who has special powers under the Article 44 of provisional charter, would look into the nomination process of the judicial branch.

Judges across the country |‘concerned’

The treatment meted out to him had caused concern among judges nationwide and shaken up the nomination tradition, which had long been based on seniority, Sirichai said.

Sirichai declined to say whether his situation was the result of the on-going political divide in the country and insisted that he had done his duty in a straightforward manner and he had no political ambition.

The press conference yesterday was joined by dozens of judges and judicial officials who offered pink roses and moral support for the former court president.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sirichai’s career in justice

Appeals Court president Sirichai Wattanayothin graduated from Ramkhamhaeng University’s Law Faculty and earned his Master’s degree in law from Chulalongkorn University. He also attended the Thai Bar under the Royal Partronage’s Barrister-at-Law course.

After he was recruited as a judge, Sirichai’s career grew over the years, starting from serving as a judge and a chief judge for several provincial, regional, and central courts, including Nakhon Sri Thammarat, the Civil Court, and the Appeals Court.

He also served as Court President for the Regional 5 Juvenile and Family Court, a judge and a chief judge at the Supreme Court, before taking a senior post of the fourth Vice Court President of the Supreme Court, and eventually the Appeals Court President in 2015, which is only second to the Supreme Court President.

Sirichai was also appointed to serve as an executive member for the Court of Justice’s executive committees, including the Supreme Court’s judicial commission sub-panel, the executive judicial commission, as well as the judicial commission at the Supreme Court and the Appeals Court.

While serving as a senior judge, Sirichai was appointed to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions to rule on several high profile cases. These included the malfeasance charge against former Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and four defendants over a case concerning a violent crackdown against People’s Alliance for Democracy protestors in 2008, and the negligence charge against former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra over alleged corruption in the rice mortgage scheme.

While serving as Appeals Court President, he introduced a new approach to reduce cases accumulating at the court. In 2016, the Appeals Court under his lead, won the award of excellence among high courts.

“We might not be able to finish the job 100 per cent since there are so many problems in the sector, but I think we have made a lot of progress in accordance with the requirement,” Prayut told reporters.

An EC delegation was in Thailand from July 1 to 16 to review measures taken by the government to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Agriculture Minister Chatchai Sarikalya said earlier that the EC had suggested Thailand could do more to regulate the fishery industry, such as register fishing trawlers, to meet equilibrium of supply. They raised concerns about the use of illegal workers, illegal and substandard fishing tools, as well as insufficient monitoring systems, he said.

“Many issues of concern are relatively new, so we have to study and hire consultant to help us,” Chatchai said.

The EC put Thailand on formal notice of a yellow card in April 2015 for not taking sufficient measures to combat illegal fishing. The commission has sent delegations to Thailand to follow up the work since then, but the actions taken by Thai authorities so far are unlikely to meet conditions for a status upgrade.

“We have to get back to first stage for many works,” Prayut said, noting that only 18,000 of an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 boats have been registered.

“We have problems in every aspect, therefore we face slow progress,” he said.

The EC might not look back to the cause of the problem, but the government has to tackle it at its root cause, he said. “As we issue new laws and enforce them, there is some resistance from those who have become familiar with illegal fishing, so we need to take time to make them comply with the law,” he said.

One of the world’s biggest fish importers, the European Union has enforced the IUU Regulation since 2010. It allows access to the EU market only to fisheries products that have been certified as legal by the country concerned.

When those countries are unable to certify their products, the Commission starts a process of co-operation and assistance with them to help improve their legal frameworks. The milestones of this process are warnings (yellow cards), followed by green cards if issues are solved and red cards if they aren’t. Red cards lead to a trade ban.

Chatchai Promlert from the Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Department has been promoted to the tole of Interior Ministry permanent secretary, while Internal Trade Department chief, Nantawan Sakuntanak has been promoted to be the Commerce Ministry’s permanent secretary.

Pasu Loharachun, the Industrial Promotion Department chief, meanwhile, has been promoted to take the permanent secretayr post at the Industry Ministry.

Deputy director of the National Intelligence Agency, Chukiat Malineerat, has also been promoted to the director post.

The party threatened to bring the issue to the attention of international human-rights organisations as well as to the prime minister, asking him to forward the bill to the Constitutional Court to look into its constitutionality.

The party raised three points that it objects to, the first being that the draft law’s provision for a court proceeding without defendants being present went against a universal principle concerning fundamental human rights, as it was deemed to violate defendants’ right for justice.

Second, Pheu Thai said in its statement, the wavier of the statute of limitations under this law would contradict a conventional principle of justice.

It would also allow partiality in case proceedings and enforcement, as witnesses or evidence could be incomplete over time and become selective if no statute of limitations were set, the party said.

Lastly, the new law as drafted would be applied retroactively, and its enactment would therefore have retroactive effects on those still defending cases in court.

This, the party argued, would violate the rule of law.

The new draft bill on court procedures against political office holders was passed last week by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) despite concerns over emerging challenges to the rule of law and human rights.

NLA lawmakers have defended the bill’s content, saying it was appropriate, considering changes and the complexity of corruption that has developed over time.

They claim that they have addressed a sufficient degree of rights protection for political office holders to defend themselves via their lawyers if they are absent from court.

The waiver of the statute of limitations, meanwhile, has been introduced to give fair treatment to the public as well as to the state, both of which face losses resulting from corruption, lawmakers also argue.

Moreover, they reason, the provision for court proceedings to be applied retroactively could mean that more cases continue to the end of the judicial process, especially those that are put on hold.

Election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said the EC had, however, decided not to touch upon the highly controversial point concerning the total reset of the current commission as addressed in the new law, as this would lead people to think that it was fighting for the personal interests of EC members.

If the EC office is unable to find any legal channels for questioning the constitutionality of other aspects of the bill, it is instructed to report back to an EC meeting later, he explained.

One of the two legal aspects being examined concerns the removal from the draft law of an EC member’s authority to suspend elections if fraud is found, as the new charter clearly addresses the matter otherwise, Somchai said.

The other aspect deemed to violate the Constitution concerns the removal from the draft bill of the EC’s authority to organise local elections, despite the fact that the new charter gives that power to the electoral agency.

While any EC member also has the right to file their own petition to the Constitutional Court, the EC meeting has not yet addressed that issue, Somchai said, adding that he himself had not yet made up his mind about that either.