THE CASES AGAINST former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra regarding the controversial rice-pledging scheme are not comparable to that against a former central bank governor who was recently acquitted, according to lawyers familiar with both proceedings.

One difference lies in the approaches adopted by prosecutors, the lawyers said.

Comparisons between the two sets of cases were first cited by Yingluck’s lawyer NoppadonLaothong, who pointed out that both Yingluck and former Bank of Thailand governor Rerngchai Marakanond were being held accountable for damages stemming from government policies.

Noppadon also served as Rerngchai’s attorney.

However, while Rerngchai’s case proceeded through the civil courts, Yingluck will probably face administrative measures handed down by the government of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who is considering authorising the Treasury Ministry to order the former premier to pay Bt35.7 billion in compensation for huge losses resulting from the scheme.

Both Yingluck and Rerngchai were told to cover damages calculated based on profits and losses, which Noppadon opposed on the grounds that such calculations should not be applied to policy-making decisions.

Rerngchai was initially charged for Bt185 billion in damages for losses related to the central bank’s defence of the baht, which drained national foreign-exchange reserves.

But he was cleared last Wednesday by the Supreme Court, which ruled that he was not culpable of recklessness after he was charged with severe negligence under the 1996 Tort Liability Act.

The Prayut government has also filed charges against Yingluck and her government officials under the same act.

Noppadon said he planned to file a petition asking that Yingluck’s case be heard in civil court instead of facing administrative measures, given the similarity to Rerngchai’s case.

However, several public law experts have argued that the two cases are not comparable due to differences in context and detail.

Independent legal academic Chamnan Chanruang said the implications of the Tort Liability Act regarding the cases, which occurred about 15 years apart, could have serious implications.

“Noppadon should instead go for administrative court,” Chamnan said. “The court didn’t exist until 2001 while Rernchai committed [his defence of the currency] in 1997. But it is there now.”

The essence in both cases is whether the defendants were fully responsible in their actions, Chamnan said, “regardless of their then-official ranks”.

But Jade Donavanik, dean to Dhurakij Pundit University’s Faculty of Law, said the official positions mattered because they reflected how much responsibility for which accused people should be held accountable.

“Difference in ranking is significant here,” Jade said. “Yingluck’s premier position signified that she was the leader of the whole administration and policy-making process, while Rerngchai’s governor seat meant that he still needed further considerations from the then-government.”

Although the two cases both relate to governmental policy, the currency defence was an urgent and necessary action because speculators were attacking the currency during the time of the Asian financial crisis, Jade said, adding that Yingluck’s actions were planned ahead of time and continued despite mounting criticism.

“The clear difference is the rice-pledging scheme was graft-related,” the dean said. “The case involved many actors who were found to have conflicts of interests. This did not happen with Rerngchai’s scenario.”

Jade is also an adviser to the drafters of the new charter appointed by the ruling National Council for Peace and Order.

Preecha Suwannathat, former dean to Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law, said the standards derived from the two cases should not be applied to each other because of the apparent discrepancies in the facts. “A responsible court will eventually rule on this,” Preecha said. “But with this difference, Rerngchai’s prosecution should not be cited for that of Yingluck’s.”

Relatives of the victims of political violence committed by the state shared their experiences on Wednesday when they gathered to commemorate the October 6 student massacre at Thammasat University’s Tha Phrachan campus, where the shooting and lynching of protesters took place in 1976.

All agreed that the officials responsible should have been held accountable for the deadly crimes that they had committed.

The speakers at the panel discussion also agreed that everyone should be a voice and speak out about injustice to end a culture of impunity and prevent further violence by the state against the people.

Widow Lamead Boonmak, whose husband Jira Boonmak was killed in a student-led uprising on October 14, 1973, said that her family had never been officially informed of the details of his death.

She said that she wanted to seek the truth but was suppressed by fear of bringing more trouble to her family. Without her husband, Lamead had to take care of their infant baby on her own. As a young widow and a political enthusiast in 1976, Lamead said she wanted to sue the dictatorial rulers at the time, Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn and Field Marshal Prapass Charusathien.

“It’s because they should be held responsible for the murder of my husband. But I refrained when a colleague reminded me that the regime was so powerful, and I would just end up bringing more trouble to myself,” she said.

Lamead said she was relatively lucky because she was a professional nurse with a reliable monthly income. However, she said it could have been more difficult for many other relatives of the victims to lose the breadwinners of their families.

Another victim of political violence, Metha Maskhao shared similar experiences. His brother, Apiwat, was killed in the Black May incident in 1992, in which those responsible also have never been brought to justice. Metha became an activist calling not only for compensation to be paid to the relatives of those killed or missing as a result of the incident, but he also fought for laws and regulations to be implemented stop the culture of impunity.

Unlike Lamead, he took legal action against then prime minister General Suchinda Kraprayoon and related agencies deemed responsible for the bloodshed. But it did not yield any result because those people had immunity through special laws such as martial law or an emergency decree that granted them amnesty.

Thus, Metha tried to create a norm to prevent future impunity. He tried to push for the construction of memorials so that people would not forget what had happened to the victims of violence carried out by the state. This way, he said, could put pressure on the powers that be to bring the culprits to justice.

Aside from physical violence that caused death or injury to many people, violence by the state against the people could also include the use of arbitrary powers especially in the justice system.

Romuelah Saeyeh told the story of her husband Anwar Ismail Hajiteh, who had been sentenced to 12 years in prison for alleged involvement with separatists in the deep South.

She said the incident took place in 2004 at the very beginning of a crackdown on separatists in the Southern border region.

A court found Anwar guilty based on the grounds that he had discussed the history of Pattani in a local tea shop, Romuelah said, adding that he is still in prison. Romuelah insisted that her husband was innocent. She is still fighting for justice for him.

The imposition of special laws such as an emergency decree and martial law have had wide-ranging impacts, including in 2010 when nearly 100 demonstrators were killed.

One high-profile case was that of Kamolkade Akahad, a volunteer nurse who was killed in Bangkok’s Pathum Wanaram Temple during the political unrest.

Her mother Payao Akahad said although a court ruled that her daughter had been hit by military bullets, no one had been punished because they were protected under the emergency decree in place at the time.

She said she would sue the officials responsible for her daughter’s death but would wait until the current regime steps down, adding that it was the only way to ensure the lawsuit would not be voided.

Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, a lawyer from the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) who is assisting defendants accused of political wrongdoing by the current regime, said a lack of transparency still persisted. She said in addition to providing legal services for political defendants, the TLHR also published information about arbitrary actions by the state to raise awareness.

When state authorities are protected by the law and not punished for their crimes, it is important that people do not remain silent, she said.

The Super Poll compiled people’s opinions on the allegedly lavish trip in which Prawit led his entourage to Hawaii for an informal US-Asean defence meeting, as well as the Yingluckgovernment’s ongoing rice-pledging scandal.

When asked what they thought about the controversy, 58.9 per cent said it was a political gambit aimed at attacking Prawit, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s deputy.

But 41.1 per cent of respondents said the trip’s budget was “unreasonable” and called on the country’s rulers to follow the code of conduct governing them.

Most respondents, 64.4 per cent, said they were satisfied with what they heard at Thursday’s joint press conference involving the government, the Ministry of Defence and Thai Airways International, where the parties sought to provide details the trip. But another 35.6 per cent said they were disappointed.

When asked what they perceived to be the trip’s objectives, 44.8 per cent said it related to national security, and 22.4 per cent said protecting the nation’s interests on various issues such as human trafficking, terrorism and Asean security.

Another 18.9 per cent said strengthening ties with the US, 7.2 per cent said building security cooperation and 6.7 per cent answered it was to do with travel.

Prawit’s trip came under fire due to its cost which critics said was unreasonable and the trip’s outcome ineffective because the mission was for an informal meeting and not a formal summit.

Public speculation over who attended the trip is mounting, after an unconfirmed passenger list showed “irrelevant” figures attended. The government and the Office of Auditor-General (OAG) have not disclosed the passenger list to the public.

A key figure in the Pheu Thai Party, Surapong Tovichakchaikul, yesterday called on the OAG and the junta to reveal the list with passport documentation. “The government should reveal [the list] to the public as the administration of the ruling government, under democratic rules, is obliged to be checked for transparency sake,” he said.

The poll also found 65.3 per cent of respondents would prefer the rice-pledging-scheme scandal of former premier Yingluck Shinawatra be investigated.

It would be the first such event in Asia outside Japan, Tanasak said, adding that the Japanese |had rarely held sumo competitions outside of their country.

“Thanks to Japan’s good ties with Thailand, they will bring this sport that reflects the Japanese culture here for the Thai people to watch,” Tanasak said, adding that preparations were already under way.

Tanasak, who is in charge of tourism among his other areas of responsibility, also said that Thailand and Japan had worked together in efforts to boost tourism in their respective countries.

On Friday, a group of Japanese sumo wrestlers called on Tanasak at his office inside Government House. The team was accompanied by Yuthasak Supasorn, governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand.

The Bt21-million cost of a chartered flight to take Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan and his entourage to a security conference in Hawaii is still the talk of the town. The controversy began when former reporter Whee Mati found a document on the Government House website that detailed costs for the trip and posted it online. The high figure raised eyebrows, as well as questions and comparisons to flights abroad taken by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and former premier Yingluck Shinawatra.

The temperature rose mid-week when Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong was barred from entering the country. Thanks to Skype, though, he was able to address an audience gathered at Chulalongkorn University to mark the 40th anniversary of the Thammasat student massacre on October 6, 1976. The anniversary brought more calls for justice for the murdered victims, since no perpetrator has ever been prosecuted.

The online atmosphere quickly regressed to the divisiveness we saw prior to the 2014 coup, as polarised sides hurled criticism and insults at each other.

Here’s a sampling of what was said.

“Dear Whistleblowers, if you hate cheating and corruption, you have to condemn and examine all similar cases without bias,” wrote Drama-addict.

Viriya Satien suggested Thailand follow China’s example in dealing with graft and said the premier should prove his determination to promote transparency, starting with the people close to him. Others warned against “assuming” that the Bt21-million government flight constituted corruption.

Once the passenger list was leaked online, observers noticed it included the names of his close friends, including a TV journalist, prompting the journalist to insist on Facebook that she remained in Thailand and even appeared on TV live on Friday.

The Yud Dudcharit [Stop Mincing] Thailand Facebook page on which the passenger list was published now faces possible legal action by Thai Airways International.

Prawit’s trip was from Thursday to Sunday.

User @lokklom complained that having officials attend a two-day conference wasn’t worth the high cost of the chartered flight. The price “sounds a lot more reasonable if they’d gone to Europe for 8-9 days like Yingluck did”.

Critics posted pictures suggesting that Prawit was “rewarding” his friends with a jaunt to Hawaii, but his defenders pointed out that the pictures showed other Asian defence ministers who attended the conference.

The news about Joshua Wong on Wednesday was initially confusing, as to whether he’d actually arrived in Thailand, was detained, deported, or whether his deportation was a response to a request from Beijing.

Decharut Sukkumnoed wrote, “I never thought Thailand would become this barbaric. He only came to deliver a speech but was deported. When did we lose out sovereignty?”

Jirayudh Sinthuphan: “Last time they would not allow the Dalai Lama in the country. Understandable. This time it’s just a student. Perhaps they know a student can do more than political leaders.”

Wannasingh Prasertkul: “It’s all around the world now, such great PR. This confirms why we have to talk about October 6 every year.”

Yingluck said the authorities should instead seek damages through a civil court to ensure fairness in line with international standards.

An administrative order has been considered for the ex-prime minister to pay Bt35 billion in compensation to cover 20 per cent of the estimated “losses” from the allegedly corruption-plagued programme.

“I would like the government to base its decision on facts and logic. To use an administrative order is like making a judgement on your own. In fact, this case should go to a civil court,” Yingluck told reporters.

“I have not received any administrative order and I still hope the government will not use an administrative order against me.”

She was speaking at the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, where she attended the fourth hearing of defence witnesses in a case of negligence against her stemming from the troubled subsidy programme.

Yingluck arrived at the court to loud cheers from her supporters gathered outside. They gave her flowers and shouted: “Keep fighting, PM Pu. We love you.” Pu is her nickname.

She was accompanied to the court by her lawyers and key figures from her Pheu Thai Party.

Yingluck said she had instructed her lawyers to study the Supreme Court verdict on Wednesday that acquitted former Bank of Thailand governor Rerngchai Marakanond, in order to compare it to her case.

She said that according to the court’s verdict, Rerngchai had made decisions in line with his duties and it was possible for financial damages to occur.

She added that government policies should not be assessed in terms of profit or loss.

The ex-PM also noted that she had appealed to a number of state agencies seeking fairness in the legal proceedings against her but she had not received any responses.

Yingluck’s lawyer Noppadon Laothong, who had represented Rerngchai, said on Thursday that instead of “taking a shortcut” by seeking civil damages against the former prime minister, the government should take the case to the Civil Court as was done in Rerngchai’s case.

“Yingluck should not be held responsible for damages resulting from policy decisions,” he said.

Norawit Langla, another lawyer for Yingluck, said yesterday that the court verdict in Rerngchai’s case could be used as a precedent for similar cases in the future, including Yingluck’s.

“Relevant agencies will consider whether some of the orders could be turned into bills,” he said. “But some will remain in place to settle things during this abnormal [political] situation.”

Wissanu’s remarks came after he presided over a meeting where officials brainstormed on laws to be drafted ahead of the new constitution’s promulgation next month.

They also looked over more than 400 orders and announcements issued by the military’s ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), discussing which should be dropped and which should be turned into permanent laws.

But Wissanu said half of them should be defunct already as they had been enforced, for instance those that transferred or suspended officials.

Article 44 granted sweeping power to Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha in his capacity as leader of the NCPO to issue a broad range of orders that did not require approval from any other party before being enforced.

Critics have argued that the article is abusive to checks and balances of power and also a huge burden to Prayut himself.

The meeting also resolved to prioritise the drafting of 59 organic laws, excluding those related to politics and the parliamentary system, which were stipulated by the Constitution Drafting Commission.

They also considered 30 ||potential laws that could be issued without the need to wait for promulgation of the constitution.

The Justice Ministry will be in charge of tracking all drafting processes, Wissanu said.

The government is also rushing to consider draft laws in preparation for the 20-year national strategy and national reforms submitted by the National Reform Steering Assembly to be proposed to the attorney-general, he added.

The two laws stipulate the official positions to be responsible for drafting the strategy and reform plans.

Meanwhile, Wissanu also explained the reasons behind last week’s order, enacted under Article 44, appointing Government Spokesman Lt-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd as acting director-general of the Public Relations Department.

He said the government wanted to assign its spokesmen to oversee the department in order to align it better with the government’s agendas. But normal regulations do not allow the prime minister to appoint a military officer to a civilian position, so Article 44 was needed.

Pakpoom said Thai authorities determined that Wong would be a threat to security, so he was deported to his origin country.

Thai authorities on Wednesday denied entry to the pro-democracy activist at the request of China. He had been invited to speak at an event to mark the 40th anniversary of the Thammasat University massacre. However, Wong on Thursday joined a talk titled “Politics of the Young Generation” via Skype at Chulalongkorn University.

Deputy police commissioner General Srivara Ransibrahmanakulhas said there was no threat to security in Wong’s Skype talk as he only talked about the democracy movement in Hong Kong.

“We did not take legal action against him or the institute that hosted the event,” Srivara said.

However, the OAG refused to make a determination as to whether a chartered flight with 38 delegates for an international security meeting was appropriate or not.

Pisit said his agency would submit its finding regarding the Hawaii trip to the State Audit Commission on Monday in order to avoid possible criticism that it had hurriedly jumped to conclusion.

The auditor-general said in his press conference that after a week-long investigation, the OAG found the Bt21-million trip on a Boeing 747-400 for the informal meeting of the defence ministers from the United States and Asean countries to be in line with normal practice and regulation.

Critics said the chartered flight was “overly expensive” and unnecessary.

“The delegation went there on behalf of the nation. Many responsible officials were there to explain the country’s current situation. The national-security mission and our image are invaluable.”

The auditor-general considered the chartered flight used for the trip reasonable because the 38 passengers had to fly together as a team for a national-security mission.

He said that if the national carrier Thai Airways International (THAI) had booked regular flights for each delegate, the cost would have been up to Bt500,000 per each and the flight duration would have been 16 to 33 hours (in case of transit flights), rather than 11 hours for the chartered flight.

Pisit refused to disclose the passenger list, arguing that they were national-security officials whose names should not be publicised.

He reiterated that in the verified list, the delegation did not include two executives from an agricultural conglomerate and an anchor for the Army-run Channel 5 whose names appeared in an unconfirmed list leaked early this week.

He said the charter flight’s estimated cost of almost Bt21 million was set by the national carrier, plus a 120-per -cent profit. He said the quoted estimate was a median of the carrier’s normal market prices for chartered flights.

However, THAI has not yet calculated the actual expenses for the charter. According to the airline, it will take two months to finalise the bill.

Meanwhile, Prawit yesterday responded to former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s call for a clear explanation from the government about the Hawaii trip. He said that he had made all the necessary explanation.

“Please tell Yingluck to come to me and I will explain to her personally,” he told reporters.

Prawit, who is also a deputy prime minister in conjunction with his Defence portfolio, also dismissed an allegation by ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra that the government was persecuting his younger sister.

In a related development, National Anti-Corruption Commission chairman Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit said yesterday that his agency was not going to interfere with the matter, as it was being investigated by another agency.

He had been asked if the anti-graft agency would probe the alleged irregularity involving Prawit’s Hawaii trip.