He said politicians should offer suggestions if they disapprove of the measures to deal with people awaiting punishment.

“If they have to go to jail in the future, they will think of me. I have consulted many parties but if too many people disagree with the measure, this can be ended,” he said.

He said lawmakers were trying to find legal venues that would not go against public feelings.

“For instance, people who face prosecution and confess may be released. Leaders may have to continue fighting charges. But then opponents of the measure are trying to link this measure with amnesty, and causing adverse public sentiment,” he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan had commented that this measure might cause disturbances and might not bring about reconciliation.

Seree called on opponents of the measure to have understanding and compassion for the poor who had to fight charges and shoulder the expense of going to trial.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said there were two legal options in writing such laws. First, suspension, which means a court rules the defendants are guilty and sentences them to suspended punishment. During the suspension, if the convicts commit offences again, punishment will be increased.

In the case of awaiting punishment, Wissanu said, the court would rule defendants are guilty but would not indicate sentences. In a given specific time, if convicts commit offences, they would face more punishment.

“If there were no drawbacks to Seri’s proposal, people would not have criticised his proposal. The question is the timing – why now? If this is the case, we will face the question over whether we are given an order to do it. We must care for public feelings because this issue attracts huge public interest,” he said.

He said that if the government did not care about public feelings, the issue might spark a fresh conflict.

Banthoon Setsirot, former National Reform Council member, said Seri’s proposal met with opposition because it was not well thought out. He suggested that lawmakers opt for the reconciliation proposal by the former the NRC committee.

He was delivering a public talk on “Thailand in the Post-Banharn Era: Politics, economy, clientelism in Suphan Buri and the future of the medium sized party”.

The late veteran politician’s children and followers, who had served the party since the Chart Thaiera, vowed to continue to keep up the spirit of the party that Banharn had been shaping almost all his political life.

Since his demise last month, concerns have been looming that the party might go down with its patriarch because its foundation had been profoundly laid by the charisma of Banharn.

Nikorn emphasised the party had a stable foundation since the founding of the Chart Thai Party in the 1970s. It had its own soul and it would be carried on, he said.

“Chart Thai was dissolved in 2008 and its successor Chart Thai Pattana was founded to take its place. But the spirit remains the same,” he said. “Even the present name plate is placed above the old one. Chart Thai is the foundation, spiritually and literally.”

Tuesday’s public talk was hosted by the Political Science Faculty of Chulalongkorn University to commemorate the politician who passed away last month from an acute asthma attack.

Another speaker, Yoshinori Nishizaki, a political scientist who has spent a number of years studying the influence of Banharn and his contribution to his home province Suphan Buri, said it was unlikely Banharn’s children would abandon the party and join one of the two big parties – Democrat or Pheu Thai.

“Because then they would have to start again from scratch,” the scholar said.

As a result, the next election in Suphan Buri would be intense, too. There were more players fielded in the constituency, including the Pheu Thai Party, which has become very popular and successful, as it did in 2008, Nishizaki said.

The speakers also discussed Banharn’s path towards and during his political life.

Nishizaki highlighted that Banharn was a man of paradox. He was disliked by sophisticated Bangkokians, but very much adored by the local Supan Buri people.

He was born into a well-to-do Chinese descendant merchant family. But Banharn was also a self-made millionaire, earning a fortune from successful trade and construction.

His political career started off partly because he regularly made large donations to build hospitals and schools in his hometown. In the process, he got himself into the political elite network and subsequently entered politics through the Chart Thai Party.

As a successful politician, he allocated a lot of state budget to his hometown, making him popular among local voters but at the same time was despised by people from other provinces.

Bangkokians were not very impressed either because Banharn was seen as lacking in sophistication. He was known as a prime minister who lacked appropriate manners and was notorious for involvement in corruption allegations, Nishizaki said.

He also explained that it was not only development he brought to Suphan Buri but also the self-confidence he gave to the people that explained his popularity in the province.

“Before Banharn, the local people had low self esteem because Suphan Buri was one of the most rural areas in the country,” he said. “But after all the development, the local people became very proud of their city, especially when compared to the neighbouring provinces.”

Nikorn confirmed Nishizaki’s study but added some personal elements to it. He said when Banharn left his home at 17, he made a promise to the holy figure at the city’s pillar shrine that he would give back to the province once he became rich.

The politician pointed out that Banharn was a strong man. He kept his promises and he was honest to those he respected.

He said Chart Thai Pattana’s members had learned a lot from their patriarch and looked up to him dearly.

Though Banharn has passed away, his children and aides would try to carry on the spirit of the party he had shaped by Banharn, Nikorn said.

Though the country would have a constitution in place, in Pridi’s view, that would not mean that it had a true democracy as long as those principles were missing, said Somchai.

“We still much lack a so-called ‘constitutionalism’, including the principles of freedom and freedom of expression,” he said, citing the recent sweeping enforcement by the authorities of laws to suppress people’s expression.

Siripan Noksuan Sawasdee, from Chulalongkorn University, said Pridi had strictly adhered to the concept of “people first” as the core of democracy, and anything other than this was not democratic.

The present draft’s transitory period, she said, was deemed to be quite far away from Pridi’s definition of democracy, as it would instead promote “elitist democracy” via the newly proposed system of total selection of the Senate.

Prinya Tevanaruemitkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, said Pridi knew well the weakness of the Thai-style parliamentary system, and had tried to tie the House of Representatives up with the people by freeing MPs from political party membership.

However, the 1974 constitution did otherwise, becoming the turning point from Pridi’s idea in a move that has contributed to the present problem of political party domination over MPs, Prinya explained.

The current regime had been trying to tackle this issue, but the approach proposed apparently has resulted in further political complications with the newly proposed selected Senate having power to jointly choose a prime minister, the lecturer added.

“I’m worried,” said Prinya. “What we will see is a weak mixture of middle-sized political parties, apparently dominated by the largest so-called ‘senator’ party. The point is that the military [which would appoint the senators] would become a stakeholder in the new political landscape, and this would become an issue. To successfully bring back true democracy, we should not justify other regimes in any way.”

The names with Thai addresses in the latest release of data can be found on http://www.offshoreleaks.icij.org.

Earlier, the Anti-Money Laundering Organisation (AMLO) said that there were 16 unnamed Thai former politicians and businessmen on the list and that their financial activities were being investigated to see if they had violated the anti-money laundering law.

In addition, Finance Minister Apisak Tantivorawong said some Thai businessmen choose to keep their funds overseas in order to avoid paying hefty income taxes.

However, the anti-graft agency has called on the Revenue Department to follow up on the tax records of the individuals and firms named in the Panama papers.

AMLO said only money-laundering activities would be investigated, since not all offshore investments and companies are illegal.

It is understood that many businessmen use offshore firms to avoid paying large or redundant taxes, which is legitimate because many countries accept them as asset-management practices.

According to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which published the online searchable database on Monday, there are nearly 214,000 offshore entities created in 21 jurisdictions around the world, from Nevada to Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands.

ICIJ said it is publishing the information in public interest, but it refuses to disclose raw documents or personal information en masse.

Though the huge database has information about company owners, proxies and intermediaries in these secret jurisdictions, it doesn’t reveal bank accounts, email exchanges or financial transactions.

So far, investigation has exposed the secret offshore holdings of 12 world leaders, over 128 other politicians and scores of fraudsters, drug traffickers and other criminals, according to ICIJ.

Earlier, the prime minister of Iceland had to resign under pressure due to the British Virgin Islands company he co-owned with his wife, while other world leaders such as the UK prime minister had to explain their secret holdings before the British parliament.

According to experts, the Panama Papers underscore the fundamental injustices and inequalities created by the offshore system.

The officials seized Sirawith’s computer at Patnaree’s residence after she surrendered to face lese majeste charges on Friday.

“I can’t accept such statements. She wrote it without thinking, but you accuse me of harassing her,” Prayut said furiously before members of the media.

“I insist that this government and I will never accept insults against the monarchy,” he told reporters.

The PM was countering earlier comments by Patnaree’s lawyer, who said the mother was being charged solely because she had acknowledged the monarchy-insulting messages sent to her by Sirwith’s arrested friend, Burin Intin, by replying with “Ja” – a casual, friendly equivalent to “okay”.

The premier appeared upset after the lawyer’s social-media messages went viral.

The messages have led to some members of the public blaming the government, accusing it of unfairly taking action against Patnaree.

Meanwhile, the Bangkok Military Court yesterday granted bail to eight suspects charged with violating Article 116 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Act.

The eight, who were charged for allegedly mocking the junta leader on Facebook are Nattika Worathaiwit, Noppakao Kongsuwan, Worawit Saksamutnant, Yothin Mangkang-sanga, Thanawat Buranasiri, Supachai Saibut, Harit Mahathon and Kannasit Tangbunthina.

They were released on bail after Crime Suppression Division investigators sought the court’s approval to further hold them in a second round of detention for 12 days from May 11-22.

Nattika and Harit also face lese majeste charges. The eight were dressed in prisoner uniforms and handcuffed and chained at the feet.

Winyat Chatmontri, a lawyer for the eight suspects, said he had sought their release on bail of Bt200,000.

None of them had confessed to the charges, he added.

A group of people turned up at the military court to provide moral support for the eight.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said yesterday that the military junta should drop sedition and other criminal charges against the eight for mocking the prime minister on Facebook.

The Facebook page shows memes and doctored photos of Prayut, who chairs the ruling National Council for Peace and Order, along with satirical quotes.

HRW said the charges against| the Facebook users were part of |the junta’s systematic repression |of peaceful dissent and criticism since the military coup in May|2014.

“Slapping people with sedition charges for political satire on Facebook shows that no political discussion is safe in Thailand anymore,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at HRW.

“General Prayut doesn’t seem to realise that attempts to scare his online critics into silence only invite further mockery by those seeking an end to government repression,” he added.

HRW reported that the junta had alleged that the Thai-language Facebook page, which categorised itself as a “comedian” site, was created with funding from the son of deposed prime ministerThaksin Shinawatra to ridicule and discredit Prayut and the government.

The government provided no evidence to back its claims of sponsorship, but alleged the Facebookpage had generated dissent and unruly behaviour among Thai people, the human rights body said.