Wissanu reasoned that the British ruling was made in connection with ADE 651 bomb detectors, but Thai state agencies had mostly bought GT200 bomb detectors and Alpha 6 narcotics detectors. He said that though these three devices were produced by different companies, they were all linked.

He also said there was a chance that Thailand would not have to file a separate lawsuit if the one filed with British courts was a class action. “If it was a class-action suit, Thailand might benefit from the ruling.”

He said that so far none of the involved Thai agencies had obtained a copy of the UK court ruling, adding that he would have Thai prosecutors seek a copy of the ruling from their British counterparts or from other countries that had bought the bogus devices.

Seventeen Thai agencies bought 1,400 devices worth Bt1.2 billion.

Wissanu said investigation in connection with the procurement of the devices focused on allegations of corruption, collusion in the bidding and irregularities as the devices were bought at highly inflated prices.

“Wrongdoers in these cases were mostly state officials,” he said.

The private sector or sales agents and producers of the devices also face investigation for deceiving officials into buying them.

“But if the state officials knew that the sales agents were cheating, but still colluded with them, then they would be charged with conspiring in fraud,” Wissanu said.

He explained that Thai state agencies had asked the United Kingdom to name Thailand as a damaged party in the suit, but the UK was hesitant because under Thai law such offenders could face a death sentence.

As for filing a separate lawsuit, Wissanu said he was consulting officials specialising in foreign litigation to see if it was worth taking that route.

“We have to take everything into account, the legal fees, the lawyers’ fees and whether we would have to share the compensation with other countries. We have to see what we will get if we win the suit. If it is worth it, then we will go ahead, otherwise we will let it go,” he said.

DEMOCRAT PARTY leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday urged Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha not to be too sceptical about politicians after what he called the PM’s “suspicious” reaction to a politician who offered political solutions for the country.

“You can see Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha reacted with suspicion as he felt there could be hidden motives [behind such proposals]. We want to create trust in society. Even though politicians were part of the problems in the past, not every politician is evil. After all, our country cannot avoid having representation as a ruling system,” Abhisit said.

He was referring to Prayut‘s reaction to Pheu Thai Party politician Sudarat Keyuraphan’s proposal on Monday that she would discuss solutions for the country with veteran politicians and present their conclusions to the government.

Asked if he supported Sudarat’s proposal, Abhisit said that since the matter had been politicised, talks between politicians and Prayut would be useless. “It is of no use to create tension, if politicians are perceived as creating political issues or causing scepticism and widening gaps. Talk would be useful if it benefited society and reduced gaps between the political and other sectors.”

The PM on Tuesday responded to Sudarat’s proposal that politicians who wanted to stage any political movements should undergo judicial procedures before planning discussions with the government.

Abhisit was speaking while a team from the National Reform Steering Assembly, led by NRSA vice president Alongkorn Ponlaboot, met with him to report the assembly’s reform progress and seek the Democrats’ opinion on reforms.

Abhisit questioned the NRSA members on how the country was going to be reformed. “We have never heard what the principles of reform are. The words ‘stability’, ‘prosperity’ and ‘sustainability’ are goals but not principles. Reform will not be accomplished without public participation and support from political parties. Political parties must truly represent the people,” Abhisit said.

Over the past two years, the Cabinet and the National Legislative Assembly passed 170 bills, Abhisit said. “Most laws that are passed stress giving more power to permanent state officials and setting up new state agencies. This goes against reform principles,” he said.

He said he felt the NRSA was not totally in charge of the reform direction. “Though the NRSA’s responsibility is to implement reform, it is only a person who is not behind the wheel but next to the driver who can guide the driver who may or may not believe the NRSA,” he said. He said the most important thing was the country’s top law, and he preferred the charter draft written by the former Constitution Drafting Committee led by Borwornsak Uwanno.

“I support especially police reform that separates investigation from the Police Department. It is much clearer than the present charter [draft], which, compared with the 1997 and 2007 charters, is a step back in terms of people’s rights and liberties,” he said.

“A former National Reform Council member told me that the council could only present reform plans and it is up to the people in power to pick what plans they want and call it reform,” he said.

Abhisit called on the government to allow political parties to hold meetings in order to reform themselves.

The NRSA team also had talks with key figures of the Pheu Thai Party including Somchai Wongsawat, Chaturon Chaisang and others to report the assembly’s reform progress and seek the party’s opinion on reforms.

Paiboon refused to confirm that the fourth batch included officials involved in the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s Bt39-million New Year light show scandal.

He said he suspected that the centre was working on the alleged corruption in the City Hall’s light show.

A source said the scandal was not in the fourth list submitted to the PM.

Chart-udom Titthasiri, chairman of the Monitoring and Auditing Committee on Fiscal Expenditures, quoted an international anti-corruption agency, which he did not identify, as saying that corruption problems in Thailand have dropped remarkably, with bribery complaints falling by half over 15 years.

The country has enjoyed the best image in terms of transparency in 10 years.

Chart-udom was delivering the report to a meeting chaired by Prayut to tackle corruption.

Prayong Preeyajit, secretary-general of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission, reported to the meeting that the organisation had received 551 complaints about irregularities related to therice-pledging scheme over the past three to four years

A PACC-appointed committee is investigating o47 issues, while 504 other issues are at a preliminary investigation stage are initially being investigated.

Somchai Homlaor, a prominent human rights lawyer, said the bill was subjected to the principles of two UN conventions – the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Thailand ratified in 2007, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which the country signed in 2012 but has not ratified.

The government’s move was triggered by recommendations concerning torture and enforced disappearance that Thailand received from the UN’s Universal Periodic Review session in Geneva in May, he said.

Civic groups and private organisations were involved in the bill’s drafting, which was mainly overseen by Justice Ministry’s Rights and Liberties Protection Department.

Pokpong Srisanit, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, said the bill extends the definition of torture and forced disappearance victims.

Victims include not only those who are directly tortured but also their relatives, he said.

The bill empowers a committee, jointly run by the civil sector and the government, to get involved in investigations.

It also stipulates that torture and enforced disappearance cases will be heard by the Criminal Court, not military tribunals.

The bill is aimed at state authorities who commit an offence and importantly the offender’s superiors.

The crime, according to the bill, carries a maximum life in prison sentence and Bt1 million fine if it causes the victims’ death.

Section 17 of the bill bans detention in a “safe house” or hidden place, he added.

Sam Zarifi, director for Asia-Pacific at the International Commission of Jurists, pointed out that the bill combined laws against torture and enforced disappearance.

The government’s attempt to promulgate such a law earns the country the status of being the regional leader in human rights.

However, the bill should not set a 20-year statute of limitation, Zarifi said, adding that the bill fails to address practices to ensure that Thailand would not send torture survivors back to dangerous areas.

The problems for torture cases are the passive victims who are “small” people and do not want to take legal action against the offending officers, he said.

Angkhana Neelapaijit, a member of the National Human Rights Commission, suggested all parties should raise people’s awareness of enforced disappearance and torture crimes in a bid to turn the passive victims into active victims.

The bill is now pending for the National Legislative Assembly’s consideration and would take at least three months before approval, said Nongporn Roongpetchwongse, deputy director-general of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department.

David Engstorms, a social worker involved with the rehabilitation of violence survivals, also asked the government to develop rehabilitation and healing services for survivors, which Thailand has still failed to tackle.

Following complaints by several groups, the Office of the Ombudsmen asked the court to rule whether the second clause of Article 61 violated Article 4 of the interim charter that guarantees freedom of expression.

The second clause of Article 61 prohibits the spread of “false”, “rude”, “inciting” or “intimidating” messages concerning the referendum and the charter.

Critics said the vague prohibition would restrict the people’s freedom of expression.

Agencies concerned have defended the article, saying it is necessary to prevent chaos and disorder.

Prayut said politicians who wanted to stage any political movements should undergo judicial procedures before planning any discussions with the government.

Observers believe that Prayut was referring to the Pheu Thai Party, whose de facto leader former PM Thaksin Shinawatra has been living in exile to escape a two-year sentence for abuse of power.

“Do they conform to justice procedures? They must start from there before talking to me. I cannot hold talks with violators of the law,” Prayut said.

When asked if he would block talks among politicians, Prayut said he knew politicians had been in contact with one another. “They meet in parties and at their homes,” he said.

When asked for a comment on Sudarat’s claim that if the new charter is promulgated, the existing political camp would be dissolved because new parties must be registered, Prayut said the matter was his own business. “I use my powers with honest intentions, to make the country safe and to make people happy,” he said.

When asked to confirm whether dissolving political camps was possible, Prayut cut reporters short by saying, “It’s my business. I’m not saying if it’s possible or not.”

Sudarat issued her statement at a public talk titled “How the Draft Constitution Will Direct the Government” at Mahidol University.

Referring to Sudarat’s move to hold talks among politicians, Deputy PM Prawit Wongsuwan said no political gatherings of five or more people were allowed.

Asked if he had close ties with Sudarat, Prawit abruptly denied it.

Asked if he wanted to go into politics, Prawit said, “I say every day that I will not set up a political party.”

Sudarat said that if the new charter makes it through, then the system of checks and balances would be absent and political parties would not be able to compete based on policies because a “superboard” would restrict them.

Prawit, however, denied that the junta had initiated the idea of a “superboard” to control politicians.

National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) spokesman Colonel Winthai Suvari said he had no confirmation of political talks being held by veteran politicians recently, saying each person had his or her own way of communicating. “But we have to look at many factors and details to see if it is legal or not,” he said.

Meanwhile, National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) vice president Alongkorn Ponlaboot yesterday rejected as groundless reports that he will lobby the two major political parties to backPrayut or his deputy Prawit to become the new prime minister in exchange for amnesty.

“This rumour has no basis in fact and shakes public confidence in the NRSA. We meet political parties to create cooperation and understanding to steer the country’s national reform that has been planned for a month now. No lobbying is being done to set up a national [unity] government as rumoured. The assembly has never crossed the line of reform duties,” he said.

He also insisted that the NRSA was politically neutral, adding: “If we create public doubt, we will not be trusted. We are ready to invite smaller political parties to help with national reform.”

Alongkorn welcomed Sudarat’s offer to act as coordinator for political parties to help find solutions for Thailand. “It is good that politicians cooperate and find solutions for the country, but the NRSA will not get involved,” he said.