The re-elected premier was in the middle of a lengthy speech about Thailand’s foreign trade, especially the exports of rice, the Kingdom’s biggest crop.

Suddenly, he realized he had forgotten the type of rice Thailand exported to Africa and hastily asked officials via microphone for help, before ending his speech abruptly, resulting in laughter erupting in the conference room.

Prayut had spent much of his speech at the TOT auditorium in Bangkok addressing the major issues that would exercise his Cabinet, including corruption in state agencies, the price of rubber, the current drought and farmers’ resulting debts.

He also touched on Thailand’s overseas investments and cooperation with other countries, the energy sector, global trade and the economic problems that have led to businesses selling less products.

Agriculture and Co-operatives Minister Chalermchai Sri-on then told colleagues he had instructed his staff to report back on steps they were taking to manage water consumption amid the drought.

He said he had told them his No 1 priority was the optimal use of water both by consumers and farmers in the short term. He had also asked officials to inspect the damage to drought-hit rice fields and provide affected farmers with due compensation.

Water tanks were already being sent to drought-hit areas, he said, while rain-making activities were being performed every day whenever the weather allowed.

Chalermchai said long-term solutions included reviving projects to boost water levels in dams.

He closed by assuring parliament that his ministerial staff had a strong team spirit, were highly motivated to overcome the problems caused by the drought and were willing to listen to constructive suggestions and ideas from wherever they came.

Prime Minister’s Office Minister Tewan Liptapanlop said the government had set aside a Bt350 million budget for the National Consumer Council to tackle consumers’ problems arising from buying products online.

These included paying for the goods but not receiving them, receiving goods that didn’t match what they had ordered and receiving items that were sub-standard. This budget was being provided on top of actions already at the disposal of the Office of the Consumer Protection Board.

Sawaeng Boonmee, secretary general of the EC, was commenting on a complaint filed by a political activist, Srisuwan Janya, against Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan.

Srisuwan had asked the EC to consider taking legal action to dissolve the leading party in the ruling coalition, Phalang Pracharat, because it had allowed itself to be influenced by an outsider by inviting Prawit to attend a seminar involving its MPs in Nakhon Ratchasima over the weekend.

Srisuwan said he had checked with EC’s online database and found that Prawit was not registered as a Phalang Pracharat member.

But Phalang Pracharat argued that Prawit had applied to become a party member on July 19, before attending the seminar.

Sawaeng said the Political Party Act required parties to update their memberships with the EC database every quarter. Sawaeng said the database has been updated to the end of June and since Prawit joined the party on July 19, the update would be done in the third quarter.

Sawaeng said the EC would inquire with Phalang Pracharat about the timing of Prawit’s membership in response to Srisuwan’s complaint.

“But membership changes do not take effect immediately because of the need for the updating in the computer database. The database was set up just to make it convenient for parties to report to the EC,” Sawaeng said.

“In case of any issue, the EC will ask a party to submit evidence of membership. Application for party membership is an internal affair of a party,” Sawaeng said.

The debate started by Wan Yubamrung, a Bangkok MP with the Pheu Thai party, on the subject of Prayut’s qualifications prompted several coalition-leader Phalang Pracharat MPs to protest that Wan’s statement was irrelevant to the policy debate.

Wan argued that the debate was relevant because Prayut should not enforce government policies as premier because he had not been qualified to become the Phalang Pracharat’s candidate for prime minister in the first place because he fell into the category of “other state authorities”.

Wan noted that the constitution prohibited state and other state authorities from becoming a prime ministerial candidate in general elections.

Wan also cited a ruling by the Supreme Court which convicted a group of coup protesters for violating state employee orders. Wan also told the meeting that a group of 110 opposition MPs has filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, asking it to disqualify Prayut as the prime minister and Prayut should therefore not be in Parliament delivering the government policy statement.

Wan was occasionally interrupted by protesting Phalang Pracharat MPs, leading Parliament President Chuan Leekpai, who was chairing the meeting, to remind Wan to adhere to government policies, instead of attacking the prime minister. Chuan also told Wan not to mention the case which is ongoing in the Constitutional Court.

After Wan ended his speech, Wissanu, who supervises legal affairs, rose to explain that the government submitted a written defence to the Constitutional Court on Thursday, insisting that Prayut is not unqualified as alleged by the 110 MPs.

Wissanu noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling that convicted protesters for violating the order of the chief of the National Council for Peace and Order did not state that Prayut was a “state authority” as alleged by Wan. Instead, the ruling stated that the protesters were guilty of violating an order of a “state employee”.

“I hereby affirm that state employee is different from state authority. In a 2011 ruling on embezzlement by a temple abbot, the defence pointed out that the abbot was not a state authority so he should not be regarded a state employee.

“The court said in the ruling that an abbot is regarded as a state employee according to secular law pertaining to the monkhood but he is not a state authority under other laws. I hereby affirm that the Supreme Court’s ruling [against the protesters] did not mention that Prayut was a state authority. But the Constitutional Court will be the one to decide whether Prayut as the NCPO chief at that time was a state authority under other laws or not,” Wissanu said.

After Wissanu finished his speech, Prayut rose to explain that he respected the judicial system and accepted that the complaint against him has entered the judicial process. Prayut said he would accept any ruling on his qualifications by the Constitutional Court.

Chuan told the meeting that the debate would resume at 9.30 am today, Friday.

The Thai economy grew consistently during the past five years under the Prayut government, gaining the confidence of foreign investors who have applied for tax incentives totalling Bt800 billion so far this year, compared to an average of Bt200 billion in last five year, he said.

The previous government strived to boost Thai exports and domestic consumption, especially for lower income people through the welfare card scheme.

From only two mass transits routes five years ago, the country will have seven lines in the near further.

“Criticism of the previous government for not doing anything were totally unfair , “ he said.

Under the new policy, he said, the government will continue to drive EEC investment and develop the country’s infrastructure, as well as helping to boost the income of 30 million farmers through value-added agricultural products.

However, the current slowdown of the world economy has had a direct impact on the Thai economy, he said , adding that the country should focus on collaboration with other Asean nations and exports under free trade agreements.

The party’s secretary-general said the 35-page policy statement presented earlier by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha resembled nothing better than rushed homework, adding: “These policies can be summarized in 3 words: vague, indecisive and deceptive.”

He didn’t finish there, describing the policies as just “lists of random, unrelated issues with no focus or clear objectives whatsoever”.

Said the party list MP: “They are full of vague words like ‘development’ and ‘promotion’ but contain no steps leading to practical implementation. Some of the policies are indecisive and self-contradictory, such as the forest reclamation clause, which is listed together with the policy that promotes coexistence of people and the forest, or the guarantee of corps prices and farmers’ revenues, which clearly cannot be done simultaneously.

“The government’s policies are also deceptive, as many of the promises they made before election are not adequately met, while some are downright omitted, such as the Bt425 minimum daily wage, tax exemption for new graduates and the cancellation of compulsory military service.”

Piyabutr didn’t place the blame solely on the government, however, but said this was the nature of coalitions. “With 19 parties in the government, surely they can’t list all the promises made during election campaign in the policy statement,” he said.

The debate continued to heat up in the evening, when Saranwut Sarankate, a Pheu Thai party MP from Uttaradit, questioned the government’s failure in economic matters over the past 5 years.

He said Thailand seemed to be frozen in time while neighbouring countries like Singapore and Vietnam enjoyed the privileges of a free trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union.

He also claimed the government’s measures to boost the economy only benefited rich Thais and foreigners. These included the proposed high-speed train project connecting 3 airports in the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC), investment privileges in the EEC and welfare cards that swelled the profits of some retail giants. Meanwhile, he said, poor people couldn’t even apply for financial aid they were eligible for because they had been blacklisted by the credit bureau.

“I suggest the dissolution of the credit bureau to unshackle low-income earners,’ he said. “If that can’t be done, the government should at least consider lowering the credit requirement for government-sponsored loans to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor.”

When it was Prayut’s turn to respond, he explained that economic disparity was a common occurrence in countries with free economies and the reason the government couldn’t deliver Bt425 minimum wages as promised was because there were currently both Thai and foreign workers in the market and the wages needed to be adjusted to suit everyone.

As for foreign trade, he said the government was pushing for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which would significantly lift the country’s exports.

Don’t blame the government

“I wouldn’t say the economy is bad throughout the country,” said Prayut. “Sure, retail and SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] may experience decreasing sales but that’s because people tend to go shopping online more nowadays.

“Every business has to adjust its strategy to fit the changes in the modern market and technology. It’s not fair to blame the government for your own lack of adaptability.”

As for some people’s inability to borrow money, Prayut said the government had already tried lowering the requirements but this had only resulted in increasing the number of people defaulting on their loans.

Lastly, he reassured that all the government’s projects would have transparent bidding processes and that anyone could participated if qualified. Therefore it was not true that the government sought to provide benefits to certain group of rich individuals, as alleged by Saranwut.

A good word for the government then came from Pharadorn Prissanananthakul, a Bhumjaithai party MP from Angthong, who supported its policy of guaranteeing farmers’ income. He did, however, suggest adding a “profit-sharing” scheme to this plan. This would entail pooling all the profits from selling each type of crop, and then sharing them among growers, processors and sellers.

“Such a profit-sharing scheme has proved to be successful with sugarcane, so we should be able to adapt it to other major crops like rice and tapioca as well,” he said. “In the past, it has only been rice farmers who have suffered from plummeting prices, not the millers and sellers. This signals an unfair risk split between the three parties.”

Natural Resources and Environment MinisterVarawut Silpa-archa defended the government in relation to its forest reclamation policy, saying it was intended to punish capitalists and entrepreneurs who trespassed in the forests for commercial gains.

Meanwhile, the policy related to people co-existing with the forests aimed to provide poor people with land that they could farm without surrendering permanent ownership under the regulations stated in the National Land Policy. Until now that policy has allotted 500,000 rai of land to people living near denuded forests to prevent further trespassing and promote forest rehabilitation. as well as natural resources conservation.

Last speaker on day one was Commerce Minister Jurin Laksanawisit, who tried to explain the ambiguity of the crops price guarantee and farmers’ income guarantee earlier questioned by Piyabutr.

“The government is focused only on guaranteeing farmers’ revenue,” he said. “As intervening in the pricing mechanism is against WTO [World Trade Organisation] regulations.

“This policy aims to provide farmers with appropriate financial aid in the event of plummeting crops prices but the government will only pay the difference from normal prices. Crops eligible for such a revenue guarantee program are rice, rubber, tapioca, oil palm and corn.”

Jurin added that the government was looking to add a “contract farming” plan into its policy. This would pair growers and buyers, with an agreed price set in advance. This way, he said, farmers’ revenue would be guaranteed while buyers could also rest assured that they would not run short of high-quality raw materials.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the court said that according to the amended law regulating the court, which has been in force since March last year, criticism of the court should be done in an honest manner, with no use of expletives or sarcastic or vengeful language. This provision also refers to comments made on the Internet or in social media, the court said.

Anyone violating this clause could be regarded as acting in contempt of court. The violation carries a maximum imprisonment of one month, a fine of no more than Bt50,000, or both.

“The provision on contempt of court aims at ensuring justice to the concerned parties. The court will enforce this law as much as it is necessary in order to ensure justice in an efficient and fair manner,” the statement said.

The statement was issued after the website of the opposition Future Forward Party published a court order for certain executive members of the party, including leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and secretary general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, to submit their written statement within 15 days in connection with a petition filed with the court that accused them of attempting to overthrow the country’s democratic system with the King as head of state.

The post on Future Forward’s website attracted many posts critical of the court. It was also clear that many of these posts were from the party’s supporters. A lot of the comments harshly attacked the court with foul language.

The group submitted the proposal addressed to House Speaker Chuan Leepai on Thursday.

The proposal seeks equality for men and women who undergo sex change, in terms of their name title, legal rights as married couples, marital status, military conscription and imprisonment in the correct cell based on their new sex.

The Life Inspired for Transsexuals Foundation is leading a campaign to collect at least 10,000 signatures in support of the proposed law.

Yollada Suannok, president of the Transsexual Association of Thailand, and Jern Jern Boonsoongnern, a well-known singer and leading LGBT figure, led the group to hand their letter in at TOT Auditorium, which is serving as a temporary venue for Parliament meetings.

Yollada, who is still referred to as Mr, said the proposed law will bring Thailand to a higher level of rights and freedom for LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex) people.

“Let the world see that Thailand is among the leaders when it comes to the rights and freedom for LGBTQI people,” she said.

Tankhun Jitt-itsara, a member of the House speaker’s staff, accepted the letter on Chuan’s behalf, saying that the House speaker welcomed suggestions on new laws as well as complaints regarding the legislator.

He also said this new law proposed by the group would affect the lives of many transsexuals who have long been seeking legal rights to suit their new gender.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha delivered his government’s policies to the parliament today, followed by a debate session in which key opposition leaders criticised the economic policies for lack of clarity, especially on how the government would fund the proposed projects.

“The government has only given a general outline of their policies without disclosing sufficient details to members of parliament, on agriculture in particular,” said Pheu Thai Party leader Sompong Amornwiwat.

On agricultural policy, Prayut stated that the government would guarantee income for farmers as well as implementing appropriate measures to stabilise the prices of agricultural produce.

Sompong questioned how the government would guarantee farmers’ income, criticising it for not releasing enough details of the budget plans.

He also recommended that the government should first reduce the level of household debt before inject money into the economy to stimulate spending.

“The level of household debt is currently at its highest level. If the government rushes to inject capital into the economy through welfare cards and other welfare policies, low-income earners will likely save the money to pay off their debt instead of spending it, contrary to the government’s intention of stimulating the grass root economy,” he said.

Prachachat Party leader Wan Muhammad Nor Matha added: “The economic policies lack substance and details. Their vagueness will not boost investors’ confidence in Thailand as it has no clear time frames for implementation, especially on urgent issues such as agricultural prices, income guarantee and economic stimulus measures.”

Korn Chatikavanij, a Democrat party member and former Finance Minister stated that the government should clarify the details of their economic policies towards the goal of economic sustainability.

Prayut also stated that the government will continue to maintain a high standard of financial discipline, undergo tax restructuring to expand its tax base and increase the efficiency of its tax collection system.

Secretary-General for the Future Forward Party Piyabutr Saengkanokkul commented: “The government’s promise on financial discipline and tax reform lacks transparency and clarity, especially when it plans to spend a large amount of capital in agriculture to stimulate growth and compensate farmers.”

The prime minister should explain how the government intends to maintain the level of financial discipline and identify the winners and losers of the new tax system, he said

Prachachat Party leader and one of its party-list MPs, Wan Muhammad Noor Matha, said on Thursday (July 25) that General Prayut, then commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Army, had announced on the day he staged the coup — May 22, 2014 — that he had planned the power seizure three years earlier.

“I was there on that day. General Prayut said he would seize power if the government did not resign. He pointed his finger at us and told us not to fight him because he had tanks and weapons,” Wan Muhammad Noor told a parliamentary debate on the new government’s policy statement at the TOT Auditorium.

“Do you still remember your last sentence? You said, ‘I planned this for over three years’. This annoyed me. That meant your preparations began in 2011, when there was no incident,” he said, pointing to the prime minister.

“Your argument was that the country was in chaos and had problems so you staged the coup. I just wondered what kind of preparations you made to make those happen,” Wan Muhammad Noor said.

A former speaker of the House of Representatives, Wan Noor was referring to a meeting of politicians and protest leaders from opposite camps hosted by the Army at Army Club in May 2014, supposedly aimed at settling their differences. The meeting was held after months of street protests against the government of Pheu Thai Party’s Yingluck Shinawatra.

Wan also said on Thursday that he did not believe the Prayut-led government would be successful in implementing its policy of adhering to a democratic system with the King as head of state.

“It’s because General Prayut came to power by staging a coup and ruled the country for five years. Also, he abolished a constitution. I don’t think a person who does not believe in democracy will be able to offer democracy to anyone. It is like that saying: ‘Ivory does not grow out of a dog’s mouth’,” the opposition MP said.