Deputy Defence Minister General Chaicharn Changmongkhol said the complete and integrated list of the three armed forces, the Supreme Command and the Defence Permanent Secretariat would be reviewed for authenticity by the permanent secretariat before being sent for royal approval.

Chaicharn said the list has been completed in accordance with the regulations that it must be finalised at least 15 days before the annual military reshuffle takes effect on October 1.

Chaicharn was speaking to reporters after attending a meeting of the reshuffle committee at the Defence Ministry.

The meeting was chaired by Prayut. Other members of the reshuffle committee are Defence Permanent Secretary Gen Nat Intharacharoen, Supreme Commander Gen Pornpipat Benyasi, Army Commander-in-Chief Apirat Kongsompong, Navy Commander-in-Chief Adm Luachai Ruddit, Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Chaipruek Disyasarin, and Gen Chaiyapruek Poonsawat, director of the Secretariat Department of the Office of Defence Permanent Secretary.

Prayut was all smiles when he arrived at the Defence Ministry to chair the meeting. After the meeting at 11.30am, Prayut told reporters that everything was completed in accordance with procedures and no change was needed.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Supreme Command and Office of the Permanent Secretary for Defence Ministry sent their own lists to Prayut on August 15. Since some generals of the three armed forces will have to be moved out to work in the Supreme Command or Permanent Secretariat or vice versa, the lists have to be screened and integrated by the committee.

Chaicharn said the committee gave the final touches to the list during the meeting and it was sent to Permanent Secretariat for a final check. Prayut would later submit it for the royal command.

He said the reshuffle is based on suitability as determined by the chiefs of the armed forces.

In a press statement, the court said that the ruling will be read at 2 pm on September 18.

The opposition has alleged that Prayut was not qualified to contest the March 24 election as candidate for prime minister of the Phalang Pracharat because he was at that time an “other state official” holding the post of chief of the National Council for Peace and Order. The opposition pointed out that Article 98 prohibits “other state officials” from contesting an election.

The House speaker forwarded the complaint to the court for a final decision.

In the press statement, the court said since the case concerns a dispute over a legal technicality, the judges do not deem an inquiry necessary and will thus make known their ruling to the two sides on September 18.

The Pheu Thai held a press conference to apologise to Future Forward for causing worry to Future Forward MPs with the warning, but said the statement was made out of sincere concern.

The press conference was held by Pheu Thai secretary general Anudit Nakhonthap, Bokhin Palakula, a party strategist, chief opposition whip Suthin Klungsaeng, and Nan MP Chonlanan Srikaew.

Chonlanan said the warning was as a preemptive measure amidst concerns that the powers-that-be would have the Future Forward dissolved by the Constitutional Court.

The warning about possible dissolution stemmed from what the Pheu Thai called the “Paibul Model” and the media-sharing case against Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

Paibul has informed the Election Commission of the decision by the executive board of his People Reform Party to disband. Paibul, the only MP of his party, informed the EC that he wanted to join the ruling Phalang Pracharat Party after the dissolution. The EC was uncertain as to whether Paibul could retain his parliamentary status after the party’s dissolution because he is a party-list MP and his transfer to the Phalang Pracharat could affect the coalition leader’s list of party-list MPs and the ratio for calculating overall party-list House seats. As a result, the EC has decided to seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court on Paibul’s case.

Thanathorn was accused of holding shares in his family’s media firm when he applied to contest a House seat, a practice prohibited by the Constitution. The case is pending a hearing by the Constitutional Court.

In an earlier warning, Suthin said the Pheu Thai feared that the Constitutional Court would rule that Paibul’s MP status would be terminated and his party’s disbanding could not be stopped as he has already informed the EC.

Suthin said the outcome, the so-called Paibul Model, would see the sacrifice of one party-list House seat of the coalition in exchange for the termination of Future Forward 50 party-list MPs. Suthin did not name Future Forward directly but said “a party next door”. Suthin said he feared that the court would dissolve the Future Forward because of the case against Thanathorn, thus causing 50 party-list MPs of the party to be out of office.

But the warning infuriated Future Forward, which held a press conference to question why the Pheu Thai was talking about it. Future Forward secretary general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul said Suthin had frightened Future Forward MPs and the Pheu Thai should have focused on the opposition’s duties instead of pointing out an opportunity for the government.

Chonlanan said the Pheu Thai was disrespectful to the Future Forward by calling it the “party next door”.

“We apologise to the Future Forward for causing concern. We said it all in all sincerity. We didn’t want to see Future Forward destroyed because of loopholes in the law. We simply wanted to pre-empt them from doing it,” Suthin told the press conference.

The Ombudsman’s Office on Tuesday asked the Constitutional Court to determine the legality and continued viability of the government due to the prime minister giving an incomplete oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King last month.

Secretary-general Raksagecha Chaechai said the office declined to forward two other related requests to the court submitted by three prominent complainants, deeming them unqualified for consideration under its legal verification rules.

Raksagecha said the request that was accepted and forwarded to the court came from a Ramkhamhaeng University student who has “explained precisely why the public’s rights were violated when Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha omitted a key phrase from his oath, apparently inadvertently.

The phrase was “I shall uphold and observe the Constitution of Thailand in all aspects.”

Prayut and the Cabinet members attended a 9.08am rite at Government House in which a printout of the July 16 speech by His Majesty the King was handed over to them. The speech was part of the royal audience which included the swearing in of the Prime Minister and Cabinet members.

Tuesday’s rite was held in front of the King’s portrait in the Command Building. It was also attended by Cabinet secretary-general Disthat Hotrakit.

The opposition has alleged that Prayut had violated the charter by failing to complete the oath’s section on swearing to uphold the Constitution, as required by the latest charter, when he led his Cabinet members to pledge an oath of allegiance on July 16.

The opposition has submitted a motion to demand a debate on the oath controversy next month.

Asked whether the latest ceremony would affect the debate, Prayut said everybody should refrain from commenting about it.

On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam clarified that the ceremony to receive the royal speech printout is not a retaking of the oath.

The opposition maintains that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha did not strictly adhere to the constitutionally mandated wording of the oath of allegiance to the King when he was sworn in and is thus disqualified.

The chief coalition whip expects the House to debate the matter early next month.

Wissanu said he will ask the Cabinet to name a representative to respond to the opposition on the prime minister’s behalf and will advise the designated person on strategy.

Six academics and lawyers on Monday jointly filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsmen to investigate officials of the Cabinet Secretary for failing to prepare the proper wording for Prayut to read when taking the oath.

Wiwatchai Kulamart, a lecturer at Ramkhamhaeng University, said Prayut should not be blamed for someone else’s failure to provide the correct wording for the oath.

The blame rests with the Cabinet, he said.

He said Prayut’s mistake was “trivial and unintentional” and he should be allowed to take the oath again.

Padiphat Santiphada posted on his Facebook wall Sunday that he cannot afford to pay the debt in one go but will repay it in installments, as allowed by the fund, because most of his Bt8 million in assets are not cash and he has to spend his MP’s salary on political activities.

Padiphat was among four Future Forward MPs who declared debts to the Student Loan Fund. The three other MPs are Rangsimun Rome (party-list), Natcha Boonchai-insawat (Bangkok) and Phiradej Khamsamut (Chiang Rai), who owe Bt202,360, Bt35,549 and Bt83,433 respectively. Padiphat owes Bt85,667.

The four were strongly criticized on social networks for taking advantage of society by not repaying their debts in a lump sum, thus giving the fund more money to lend to other students. Critics were vocal in saying that it was unfair to poor students for MPs earning more than Bt100,000 a month to make repayments over the 15 years allowed.

In his post, Padiphat explained that he enrolled at university during a period when his family was facing economic hardship. Three siblings were studying at university at the same time, so the family decided to borrow money from the fund.

Padiphat said his debt was high when he finished his studies but was unable to repay much because his subsequent employment, as a veterinarian for wild animals and with a non-profit Christian organization, paid low salaries. He said his family had recovered financially and had been paying the installments on his behalf, adding that the full debt would be paid off in two years.

Padiphat said he got his first MP’s salary in June and spent most of it visiting constituents and covering the expenses of his team.

He said his Bt8 million in assets declared to the NACC included his parents’ house worth Bt7 million, funds invested in the stock market and the gold his wife received as a gift on their wedding day. He added he doesn’t have enough cash in hand to settle the remaining debt with the Student Loan Fund.

Earlier, Rangsimun posted on his Facebook wall that he does not have enough cash to hand to settle his debt of more than Bt200,000 as a one-off payment because he has to manage his salary.

He declared that he has assets worth Bt222,623 while his outstanding debt with the Student Loan Fund is Bt202,360. Rangsimun said he has only Bt20,000 in cash while the other declared assets are interest and insurance money that will be paid in the future.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha recently instructed Cabinet members, who are also party-list MPs, to give up their seats in Parliament so other candidates can have a chance. He also said that this would ensure that the coalition, which has a very slim majority even though it comprises 19 parties, will not be beaten during votes.

Kanchana, meanwhile, said she believes the two ministers can manage their time well enough to not to have to miss House meetings.

As for the opposition’s plan to grill Prayut for his alleged failure to read the entire oath as required by the Constitution, Kanchana said she has instructed all 10 MPs of her party to attend.

The coalition whips have said a special House session will be convened in September for the debate.

The People Reform Party was dissolved after its executive board announced that it was discontinuing politics, while its leader and party-list MP Paibool Nititawan announced that he would join Phalang Pracharat to hold on to his MP status.

However, this plan was met with disagreement from the Opposition for fear that the votes received by People Reform Party will be added to Phalang Pracharat’s gained votes and this might lead to a recalculation of the number of party-list MPs the coalition leader will have at the cost of other parties.

Meanwhile, Energy Minister Sontirat Sontijirawong, secretary-general of Phalang Pracharat, said the merger has to be held off until the EC makes a decision.

As for Deputy PM General Prawit Wongsuwan’s choice as chair of the party’s strategic committee, Sontirat said the party will be able to move forward with Prawit’s help.

The NACC on Thursday posted debt and asset statements of 414 MPs that were reported to the anti-graft body as required by the constitution.

According to announcement by the NACC, 10 MPs informed the NACC that they have assets higher than Bt1 billion – nine are coalition MPs and one opposition MP. They are:

1) Natee Ratchakitprakan, Bhumjai Thai party-list MP and wife of Tourism and Sports Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakan. She informed the NACC that she has Bt4.674 billion in assets broken down as Bt71.597 billion of her own assets and Bt4.6 billion in assets belonging to her husband. The two have debts of Bt177 billion.

2) Bhumjai Thai party-list MP Anutin Charnvirakul, deputy prime minister and public health minister. He declared to the NACC that he has Bt4.248 billion of assets and debt of Bt50.255 billion. His assets include two planes worth Bt160 million and two boats worth Bt32.5 million.

3) Phalang Pracharat party-list MP Suriya Juangroongruangkit, industry minister. He announced he has assets worth Bt2.198 billion.

4) Democrat party-list MP Apichai Techa-ubol. He has assets worth Bt2.048 billion.

5) Phalang Pracharat party-list MP Nataphol Teepsuwan, education minister. He has Bt1.984 billion worth of assets.

6) Democrat party-list MP Khunying Kalaya Sophonpanich, deputy education minister. She has assets worth Bt1.784 billion.

7) Bhumjai Thai party-list MP Supamas Issaraphakdee. She has Bt1.6 billion worth of assets.

8) Kittisak Kanasawat, Mahasarakham MP of opposition Pheu Thai Party. He has assets worth Bt1.529 billion.

9) Democrat party-list MP Korn Chatikavanij. He has assets worth Bt1.09 billion worth of assets.

10) Chart Pattana party-list MP Thewan Liptapanlop. He declared he has Bt1.03 billion worth of assets.

Phisanu Polthee, Bhumjai Thai MP from Pathum Thani, declared that he has only Bt5,064 in his Kasikorn bank account as his only assets. He declared that he stays with his mother and he is borrowing a car from his friend to use.

Another interesting declaration was made by Thammanas Phromphao, deputy agriculture minister and Phalang Prachrat’s MP for Phayao. He declared the assets of two wives and became the first political officer holder to declare assets of more than one wife. The new anti-graft law requires political office holders to declare assets of spouses with whom they have not registered marriage legally as well.

Thammanas declared that he and two wives have assets worth Bt859 million and debt of Bt79.26 million. His own assets are Bt644.92 million worth, his first wife, Arisara Phromphao has B189.95 million worth of assets and his second wife, Thanaporn Sriwilart has assets worth Bt63.68 million.