DJ Keng came under heavy criticism after video clips of him aggressively backing his pick-up truck into a Toyota Yaris hit social media. He earlier issued another clip explaining that his car had been hit by the Yaris earlier and he would have been hurt if motorcycle taxi drivers nearby had not saved him.

The clips went viral quickly through several social media channels, including LINE, and were soon followed by more clips taken from nearby closed-circuit cameras showing the Yaris trying to cut lanes in the middle of traffic. The driver was then seen showing his middle finger to DJ Keng after the latter refused to give way.

At Pantip.com, Member 1353439 wrote: “Since DJ Keng’s case, I think I’ve seen fewer cases of vehicles trying to cut ahead of others. I too drive more slowly and am more forgiving. I also avoid following pick-up trucks.”

‘Maybe we need dark heroes’

A user named Kosmo responded: “I feel people cut lanes just the same, if not more because I experienced two in a single day. I used to have confrontations from time to time previously. Maybe these people think that no matter how angry the other person is, they cannot do anything because if we lose our temper we will be condemned by society. The cheat will get away with it anyway. The law cannot punish them, and even social media is on their side.”

Baby Ant wrote: “Actually we should laud people like him [DJ Keng] as no matter how hard we try, the behaviour of Thai drivers remains the same. Maybe we need dark hardcore heroes to eradicate the bad drivers.”

Member 1452018 wrote: “Pick-up truck [drivers] are violent, but less violent than those [driving] CR-V — [a driver of which] pointed a gun at another driver’s head. I also saw a Mercedes-Benz driver knocking another car’s window with a stick. [They get] more cruel every day.”

The administrator of Uay Sai Taek Haek Sai Cheek Facebook page, which has over 300,000 Likes, asked why the Thai media and the authorities were paying so much attention to a “no-name” DJ and “just a road rage” case and why top officials were even commenting on the issue. “I understand that you want to publicise the story of a liar – a liar on the front page. But hey, three days in a row?”

Pattamon Bthird Pinpetch shared the CCTV clip with the comment: “If [DJ Keng] had not lied and hadn’t driven his car into another, he would have looked really good. The case would have been the other way around.

The mistake was losing your temper. On the road, stop cutting lanes, stop getting angry and society will be much better.”

Zuganda Khatii Cinkajit posted: “It’s not just about being kind, but everybody must be disciplined and follow traffic rules.”

THE YINGLUCK Shinawatra government’s rice-pledging scheme went against the main objective of a state subsidy programme that had been implemented for three decades by offering to “buy every grain of rice,” the Supreme Court was told yesterday.

Nipon Poapongsakorn, former president of Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), said in his testimony before the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders that the scheme’s original goal was to help poor small-time rice farmers.

He said that past governments often offered to buy rice from farmers at a price lower than the market’s, but the Yingluck government bought rice at above-market prices from all groups of people in the industry.

According to Nipon, the subsidy set aside for the rice-pledging scheme during the Yingluck government’s tenure was higher than the amount allowed by the World Trade Organisation.

He spoke during the first hearing of prosecution witnesses in a case against Yingluck, who is accused of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty for failing to prevent irregularities in her government’s rice scheme. The case was filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

In response to a query from a defence lawyer, Nipon said he was unaware that a research study about the rice-pledging scheme, which the NACC had assigned to the TDRI, would be used as evidence in this case.

He insisted the TDRI was an institute that focused on research and was not an enemy of any government. “The TDRI research studies aim at developing the country and the life quality of farmers,” he told the court.

Noppadon Tippayawan, the political and security news editor of TV Channel 7, gave testimony for the defence yesterday. The witness told the court that he had heard Yingluck, while serving as prime minister, tell the media that a rice-purchase deal had been reached by her government with the Chinese government. He said that in the interview, the then commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom had corrected Yingluck by saying the deal was a sale contract, not a memorandum of understanding as stated by the PM.

Noppadon also produced a video clip of the interview between reporters and Yingluck, during which Boonsong was also present.

Yingluck also attended the court hearing yesterday. She was greeted by more than 100 supporters as she entered the court. Some supporters offered her flowers and shouted, “Fight! Fight PM!”

“The prime minister of the people. You must fight!” some of them said. Others shouted, “We love Yingluck!”

She told the media that she was confident about her case and that her legal team would do their best. Yingluck, who denies wrongdoing, faces up to a decade in jail if found guilty. “I have prepared myself. I am confident that today we will do our utmost,” she told reporters outside the court.

A number of Pheu Thai Party figures, including her former Cabinet members and leaders of the red-shirt movement, were also present at the court yesterday to offer Yingluck moral support.

A company of police officers were dispatched to the court to keep law and order.

Pheu Thai deputy spokesman Chawalit Wichayasut said that a group of 12 rice farmers from Sing Buri were among Yingluck’s supporters at the court.

Chawalit said the farmers felt grateful to Yingluck for helping them buy rice at a high price. He said the farmers told him they were now in trouble after the rice-pledging scheme was cancelled.

The trial in the Yingluck case is scheduled to last until late this year.

“Thai authorities are trying to fix the problem but it may not be easy because we are on the defensive while they keep attacking us,” Prawit said.

Hackers associated with the group Anonymous on Wednesday shut down all Courts of Justice websites in protest over the Koh Tao double-murder verdict. Courts of Justice spokesman Suebpong Sripongkul said the problem had been fixed by creating a temporary homepage for the sites and putting necessary information on them.

The websites could be accessed as normal and there was no damage to the Courts of Justice’s internal system, he said.

“We don’t have any pressure or concerns. I don’t think it [the attack] will hurt the country’s image or discredit the court’s credibility in international communities,” he said. Anonymous yesterday posted on its Facebook page that they hacked the Thai justice net to find confidential files after the attack on Thai police websites. The group claimed it now had the entire justice net database.

“Despite my attempts to ask for an explanation from the Foreign Ministry and the Consular Department, I haven’t received any clarifications so far,” said Chaturon, who had appealed to the ministry.

He accused the Foreign Ministry and its minister and permanent secretary, the Consular Affairs Department and its director-general, and National Police and its chief of wrongfully revoking his passport on August 19 of last year.

“I also appealed following the legal process but there was neither consideration nor a report in the designated time on the matter,” he said.

His passport could not be revoked as he was not a wanted person with an arrest warrant out for him, he said.

He complied with his detention by the military on May 27, 2014.

He was released temporarily 10 days later by the military court with the proviso that he not leave the country unless permitted by the court.

That is the only case now under the court’s consideration, the former deputy prime minister and education minister said.

There might be a political motive behind the cancellation of his travel papers, as he had criticised the charter-drafting process and expressed political opinions against the current authorities, he said.

The reasons raised by the Consular Affairs Department and by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha were inconsistent, he said.

He reserved the right to press criminal charges against the actors and demand compensation from them.

His case is different from that of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose two passports were allowed by the Central Administrative Court to be terminated, Chaturon said.

He has no arrest warrant issued against him and does not travel abroad, he said.

The seven executives bought rice from government stocks, supposedly to be delivered to China. However, it is alleged that the rice was circulated in the Thai market, deputy attorney-general Chutichai Sakhakorn told a press conference yesterday.

“Public prosecutors will produce evidence to the judges and the public to prove that damage was done and that there was irregularity involving the four contracts,” he said.

The deputy attorney-general identified the rice mills as Kit Thawee Yasothon, Kit Thawee Yasothon Rice, KMC Inter Rice (2002), and Chia Meng. The prosecutors also submitted with their petition 300 boxes of evidence, consisting on 2,280 files of documents containing 85,990 pages.

“The additional petition aims at showing that state authorities and private-sector executives worked together in the irregularity in a systematic way,” he said.

The additional petition was approved by Attorney-General Pongniwat Yuthaphanboriparn.

The supposed government-to-government rice deal was made between the Commerce Ministry and China’s Guangdong Stationery and Sporting Goods Imports and Exports Corp.

The public prosecutors have yet to sue seven Chinese entities and individuals involved in the allegedly phoney rice deal, as they need to collect more conclusive evidence, the senior prosecutor said.

He said the prosecutors still had time to bring the Chinese nationals involved under the Thai justice system, adding that this case’s statute of limitations was 20 years.

At the same press conference, deputy attorney-general Kitinun Thatchapramuk said the prosecutors had no concerns about the case, as they had ample time to build it against the defendants.

In a related development, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is scheduled to begin tomorrow its first hearing of witnesses in a separate case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, also in connection with the rice-pledging scheme.

Yingluck is required to show up at the trial. She has said that she will attend it.

The prosecution’s witnesses are Nipon Puapongsakorn from the Thailand Development and Research Institute and deputy auditor-general Prachak Boonyoung.