Paiboon, also a former member of the now-defunct National Reform Council (NRC), said the party would promote “a good guy” rather than “a dirty politician”, and the best man in his judgement wasPrayut.

“With his great contributions, Prayut is a super-giant star who is embraced by the people and no one is comparable to him,” he said.

The new party was announced after Paiboon said he realised that a large number of people favoured the general, judging from the charter referendum results. More than 61.35 per cent voted for the draft charter and 58.07 per cent approved the additional question about allowing senators to join MPs in choosing a prime minister.

“Over 16 million people found the draft charter acceptable, and for the second question, 15 million agreed to have the 250 senators join MPs in selecting a prime minister. This means that people want to see national reform in line with Prayut‘s plan and that they support the general.”

The voters who accepted both questions would be the party’s core constituency, Paiboon said, adding that in late 2014, while he was an NRC member, he had proposed that the Senate should join MPs in picking a premier.

In mid-2015, while working on a draft charter as part of a committee led by Borwornsak Uwanno, Paiboon proposed an extra question – asking if people wanted a two-year national reform period before the next election – to be included in the charter referendum.

With the “Yes” result of the recent referendum, Paiboon said he was sure that millions of people shared his ideology, wishing to see the country move forward under the new charter and have an unelected prime minister.

Under the approved draft, each party is expected to submit the names of three candidates for the premier’s post to the Election Commission (EC) before the election. If no candidate on the lists gains a majority vote in the 500-seat House of Representatives, then half of the House can call on the Parliament president to convene a Senate-House meeting to drop the candidate lists.

Then, Paiboon said, the House and the Senate would jointly select a suitable outsider to be premier as specified by the additional question approved in the referendum.

Paiboon said he did not expect any of the listed candidates would win a majority vote in the Lower House, and in the resulting deadlock his party would push for Prayut to serve a second term as premier.

He said that there were two possible scenarios if there is deadlock. First, he said, a major party likePheu Thai or the Democrat Party could cooperate with small and medium-sized parties to choosePrayut as prime minister. Second, the two major parties and a medium party could join forces to either select Prayut or another suitable outsider.

Paiboon said his party would not submit a list of candidates because he wanted to show that the party only supports Prayut.

He also insisted that it would not be a military party set up specifically to promote the general, but instead it would be a political tool for people who wanted to fight corruption.

“Previously, people who were disgusted by graft and disliked irresponsible politicians had no choices, so they selected those who were ‘least evil’. But now people will have this alternative party, which will use people’s power in Parliament to counterbalance bad politicians,” he said.

He added that the party would welcome people who shared the same ideology, and those who wanted to join should have accepted the draft and the additional question in last Sunday’s referendum. Also, he said, members should accept three key missions: reforming “dirty” politics and politicians by pushing for “a good” leader, or Prayut, to hold the top post; reforming religion; and promoting an inclusive checks-and-balances mechanism.

He said the party would send candidates to all 350 constituencies in the next election including some new faces. Admitting that there was a possibility that retired military officers would join the party, he said veteran politicians and retired officers were qualified people.

Paiboon said the party would not offer “populist” policies, adding that the charter and the 20-year national strategic plan would ease the next government’s work rather than obstructing it as many politicians fear.

“The powers-that-be will not write a plan that will bar them, because one day they could be the ones who run the country under that plan,” he said.

Paiboon said he was not the party leader, as the post had not been filled because the party had not yet been officially registered due to the junta’s ban on political activities. He added that the party would be a sort of association, in which members would be volunteers. Funds would come from activities and donations once the party is registered, he said. “We do not need financiers because the party is not an enterprise. We don’t need a large sum of money like other political parties.”

With the slogan of “Smart Party”, Paiboon said the organisation would communicate and campaign via social media, adding that all members would have to be “trendy” and come from the middle-class.

When we, the NCPO [National Council for Peace and Order], first arrived in politics, our work was divided and, yes, I helped take care of the reform work. This is partly because I had worked extensively with the civil sector and thus had experience in dealing with politics while I was at the Defence Ministry.

If you remember, the 11 prime reform agendas were from us, the Defence Ministry. We had invited people as well as politicians to talk with us to see what areas they wanted to reform before developing the proposals, which were then forwarded to the NRC (National Reform Council).

Following our meetings, we came up with the conclusion that we wished to see corruption, bureaucratic administration, and in particular politics reformed the most. However, this had something to do with the fundamental problem that we had, which was inequity – where decentralisation of power and access to resources was needed.

It was impossible for the country to move on with wealth being in the hands of a few like this. We needed redistribution of wealth so that we can get out of this trap. That’s the reason why reforming natural resources management was one of its [the junta’s] top agendas.

SO, IT [NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT REFORM) HAS BEEN PART OF THE GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA FROM THE BEGINNING. HOW DID YOU TRANSLATE THIS INTO POLICY?

To help reduce inequity via natural resources management, we have a critical challenge, which is how we can access the resources equally while using them in a sustainable manner so that we will not cause any impact on the resources that are actually part of the public domain.

So, I looked at this challenge two dimensionally and transformed them into my key policies or missions to accomplish at the ministry and to respond to the government’s intention. First, it’s about conservation as fundamentally natural resources are part of the public domain. And second, it’s about how to use it in a sustainable manner to strike a balance between conservation, sustainable uses, and last but not least, equal access to these resources or equity.

That was where I started before rearranging the work at the ministry and dividing it into four main sub-groups, ranging from natural resources, under which forests and land are under, to water resources, environmental management, and administration.

IT SEEMS THE NCPO AND GOVERNMENT GAVE IMPORTANCE TO FOREST AND LAND PROBLEMS, AS IT IMMEDIATELY ISSUED AT LEAST TWO ORDERS TO TACKLE IT. ON YOUR SIDE, HOW HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING ON THIS?

To come up with a solution, we had to learn the situation first. You may know that our forests have long and extensively been encroached upon, but I can say that after the NCPO took office the recent results of satellite data have shown that the rate of encroachment has ceased.

People with selfishness are definitely part of the problem but we cannot blame them alone. There are actually some other factors, which have contributed to the problem. These are flaws in our regulations and concerned agencies, as well as a degree of public awareness and cooperation.

So, it needs quite a holistic approach and that’s the reason why we are developing that strategic plan under which our forests will be re-managed with clear goals set in line with the government’s strategic 20-year plan.

WHAT IS THE PLAN ABOUT?

The plan lined up strategies and measures for all natural resources plus the goals for every five years until 2035. In the past, we didn’t have such a long-term plan to guide our work direction. It’s largely about politics and cronyism. With such a framework, although it was still corrupted, we trust that they will not be able to do that much. But more importantly, they must follow it [the plan] and accomplish it as this comes with the goals they must be accountable for.

For our forests, we need to review what we want to achieve and how to get there. Forest experts have agreed that the country needs forest areas up to 49 per cent [of the country] in the next 20 years. So we have set the target. To increase the pristine forest area at present, which is around 32 per cent [of the country], we need around 25 million rai [four million hectares] more.

The main obstacle is we still have unsettled conflicts with people living in the forests. So, we have decided to reinterpret the definition [of our approach to the issue] and introduce “green areas” by including more of other types of forests, including community forests, which will be more flexible for co-living to help reduce the conflicts, as well as introduce |green zones in big cities, and forest plantations. This will result in some regulations being amended or enacted to facilitate growth, as we believe that this can help reduce disturbances in pristine forest areas we want to protect.

WHAT IS YOUR POLICY OR DIRECTION ON THIS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO CONCERNED AGENCIES?

Actually, if we look at our remaining forests, they are not to bad and still carry some hopes. But I have emphasised three main measures that I have assigned to concerned agencies. They are prevention and suppression, restoration, and public awareness encouragement. And all these three measures need to be done together.

However, you may be aware that there has been extensive work on forest suppression going on at the moment.

We have certain agencies, which are the Parks Department and the Royal Forestry Department, that are principally responsible for this. But as the work is quite tough and risky, often the authorities feel that they have wasted their time and energies. I would like to ask the public for some understanding. Imagine they arrested influential figures. Their lives could be at risk. On the other hand, if they arrested the poor, they face public denouncement. Either way is painful.

We have tried to step up measures so they can deal with the issues better. I have given a clear directive for law enforcement. The authorities from now on cannot only just enforce laws but they need to apply a sort of political science approach when dealing with the issues. The new Pracharat Pitak Pa ( People’s State for Forest Protection) has been set up to train them about this. They don’t have to arrest every one, but negotiations first can be carried out to reduce confrontations and pressure.

However, we have realised that there are influential figures out there and we have focused our law enforcement on this group. To deal with them better, we have set up sort of central suppression units, be they the Phayak Prai of the RFD, the Phaya Sua of the Parks Department, and the White Sharks of the Marine Resources Department, to step up our forest suppression efforts. They are assigned to target big fish nationwide.

But I have instructed them not to forget that we want to take our encroached forests back via legal means, not engaging in a war against any one. Some sort of combat is not necessary if negotiations help.

WHAT ABOUT STRUCTURAL REFORM FOR THE WORK – IS IT STILL NEEDED?

Some existing laws may need some amendment and we have done so to some extent. For instance, the Forestry Act that we have just amended will not let department chiefs authorise use of forest reserves any more, as we don’ believe in such a sole consideration. It will from now on fall under a committee’s authority instead. Other acts are also in the pipeline including the Wildlife Act, the National Park Acts, and so on.

Meanwhile, organisations’ work structures are also under consideration to improve performances. Some of their units may be merged to reduce work overlapping, but I cannot reveal which ones at this point as it’s quite sensitive

However, the operations and implementations in several areas have been overhauled for more effectiveness and transparency with the ultimate goal to strike a balance. For instance, we have overhauled the fee collection in several marine parks in the South, resulting in a jump in state income while we will not hesitate closing some other areas when experts tell us that they are under risk of heavy tourism

AS YOU HAVE DONE ALL THIS, ESPECIALLY YOUR STRATEGIC PLAN, HOW CAN YOU ENSURE THAT IT WILL BE CONTINUOUSLY CARRIED OUT BY THE NEXT GOVERNMENT WHEN YOU ARE GONE?

I myself have been trying to boost morale and courage my men first because if they are aware of their work and duty, I believe that they will help carry it on.

But at the end, it’s about law enactment that will result in real effect and commitment to anyone that follows, as well as public awareness so people realise that their natural resources are precious and should be preserved.