At 10:30 a.m. on May 7, 2025, during a House session chaired by Sophon Saramoon, opposition MP Sirikanya Tansukul questioned Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and Interior Minister about a proposed emergency decree authorizing the Finance Ministry to borrow 400 billion baht to address energy crisis impacts and facilitate the country's energy transition. Anutin delegated Phruet Panisnanangkul, Prime Minister's Office Minister, to respond.

Sirikanya argued that the Cabinet's approval of the 400 billion baht borrowing was rushed through as a secret agenda, making it impossible to assess the decree's actual contents. She questioned the program's vagueness, noting only 11 articles exist in what appears to be just a few pages requesting public funds. She criticized the first 200 billion baht allocation targeting 30 million people through a half-and-half welfare distribution, using 1.2 trillion baht of existing budget and adding 528 billion baht to state welfare cards.

Sirikanya highlighted contradictions in the government's 5T framework, particularly the "Target" component. She noted the first-come-first-served registration system prevents identification of genuinely distressed individuals, making the relief appear random. She acknowledged understanding the government's financial constraints but argued that fiscal discipline should be tighter during economic hardship.

Sirikanya's main concern involved the government stuffing 200 billion baht for energy transition restructuring into an urgent emergency decree. She questioned why a non-urgent project required emergency status and what percentage of the energy transition goal could realistically be achieved within one year. She argued the government reduced its original 500 billion baht request to 400 billion baht while still attempting to combine unrelated energy projects with immediate relief measures.

Listen to Another Perspective: Gong from Hive Salon Posts Commentary as JJ and Ta-Heneng Announce Relationship Status Change, Drawing Agreement in the Comments

The breakup of this popular young celebrity couple continues to be widely discussed and lamented. JJ Krishnaputra and Ta-Heneng Kanyavee have finally announced their relationship status change.

Gong from Hive Salon Responds on the Day of the Announcement

From Gong Kriset's perspective—owner of the well-known Hive Salon who is close friends with numerous celebrities, including JJ and Ta-Heneng—when checking X (Twitter) under the handle G24 @Gonghive24, Gong posted the following message on the day JJ and Ta-Heneng announced their status change:

"The future is something we can't predict. It takes time to work things out. Why should they be forced to admit something? The conclusion is that when they get back together, it will have to be a couple that already changed their status once—because of other people. Why, when they've been apart and needed time from being together for 10 years, should they not be given space to figure things out? Why can't we respect their privacy?"

Commenters Strongly Agreed with Gong's Perspective

The comments showed overwhelming agreement with Gong's viewpoint, who is a close friend of JJ and Ta-Heneng, along with various criticisms:

- You're absolutely right, P'Gong. No one should comment on things the people involved haven't spoken about themselves, because some things really do take time. 10 years means so much. What they did was so ugly—they pressured them into making a statement about something that shouldn't have required a public announcement at all. - When love is no longer just between two people, I feel sorry for both of them, P'Gong. - P'Gong is right. This is between the two of them. They're working things out. Why force them to speak? That's so cruel. I want to encourage both of them. I've been following and supporting both of them for a long time. Sending hugs. - That's true. I understand both of them. Sometimes they might not be at the point of making an announcement yet. They might be at a point of trying to understand each other. 10 years—they may have gone through situations like this before. But this time it feels like they were forced to admit it. I feel so sorry for them. And so on.

Source: G24 @Gonghive24 Fresh News Team, May 7, 2026

Bhumjaithai Party has submitted a proposal to amend the Criminal Code, allowing poor defendants unable to pay court-ordered fines to perform community service instead of serving jail time. The party believes all parliamentary factions will support the measure, which aims to address prison overcrowding.

At 11:15 AM on May 7, 2569 at Parliament, Kravee Parisananuntkul, Bhumjaithai MP for Ang Thong and opposition leader, along with other party MPs, submitted a letter to the Parliamentary President through Deputy Speaker Mallika Jirapunphanwanit proposing amendments to the Criminal Code.

The core issue addresses cases where poor people are prosecuted, courts impose fines, but defendants lack funds to pay and are jailed instead. Bhumjaithai proposes changing this practice.

Suphat Jaisamutr, a Bhumjaithai list MP and party legal representative, explained that while various criminal penalties exist—detention, imprisonment, fines, and capital punishment—the societal problem particularly affecting the poor is when courts sentence defendants but they cannot afford fines. Courts then impose detention at 500 baht per day. This creates a situation where many poor people lose their freedom through imprisonment for unpaid fines. Bhumjaithai proposes legal amendments allowing community service as an alternative to incarceration.

The party proposes amending two articles of the Criminal Code, believing all parliamentary parties will support it. If expedited, the law could pass all three readings quickly or be assigned to a special committee.

Kravee stated this law is important to Bhumjaithai as it affects citizens' lives. Yesterday (May 6) at Parliament, during discussion of a justice matter, fellow members raised concerns about prison overcrowding. This law will address that issue.

At 10:55 a.m. on May 7, 2025, at Don Muang Royal Thai Air Force Base, Chaiyavat Junthirapongse, Secretary to the Interior Ministry's Permanent Secretary, discussed the Civil Service Ethics Committee's majority ruling that found the transfer orders for former Interior Minister Bhumidharm Wechayachai and Permanent Secretary Arrasit Samphanrat to positions as Interior Ministry Inspectors to be unlawful. Chaiyavat expressed gratitude to the ethics committee for providing justice after he was subjected to an unlawful transfer order. He announced he would proceed with legal action after consulting with his legal team on how to pursue justice and protect his reputation in accordance with proper legal procedures.

When asked whether he would pursue legal action alone or jointly with Nurcha Kosasiwilai, Director of the Public Administration Department and former Director of the Local Government Promotion Department, Chaiyavat indicated he would need to consult with him, as both received transfer orders of the same nature.

Regarding the ethics committee's finding that the transfer was made for purposes other than the benefit of the civil service, Chaiyavat explained that the transfer occurred shortly after Bhumidharm took office and despite their team receiving new policy directives without taking any action yet. He contended that this violated proper civil service procedures and procedures.

A 10-wheel truck swerved to avoid a pedestrian who suddenly crossed in front, then crashed into a roadside tree with tremendous force, causing an electrical short and massive fire that consumed the vehicle. The driver miraculously escaped, but the pedestrian who crossed the road vanished from the scene.

On May 7, 2025, police sergeant Sutheep Chaidharm, head of Sala Daeng subdistrict patrol, received a report of the 10-wheel truck losing control and colliding with a roadside tree with subsequent fire on Highway 3481 near the canal bridge in Sala Daeng area, Bang Nam Priao district, Chachoengsao province. He rushed to the scene with the local subdistrict fire truck.

Upon arrival, authorities found the truck's cab engulfed in intense flames, wedged against the tree. Firefighters coordinated water spraying operations that took approximately 15 minutes to successfully control the fire. No occupants were injured inside the vehicle because the driver had managed to escape beforehand, though the truck's cab sustained severe damage.

According to witness statements, 54-year-old driver Tanapat (surname withheld) explained that he was driving back from Samut Prakan province to his sister's home in Bang Nam Priao. As he descended from the canal bridge, he spotted a pedestrian crossing the road directly ahead. He swerved the truck to the left to avoid impact, but couldn't control the vehicle, which then plunged off the road and crashed into a tree. The collision caused an electrical short in the fuse box behind the cab, sparking a massive fire. Although Tanapat attempted to extinguish it with an onboard fire extinguisher, the flames spread too rapidly, forcing him to escape and alert police to dispatch firefighting units. The pedestrian who crossed the road could not be found at the scene after the incident subsided.

Tanapat has since contacted his insurance company for damage assessment and provided additional information to Bang Nam Priao police station to determine the exact cause of the accident.

On May 7, 2569, at the Civil Service Commission office, Commission Chairman Worawit Sukboon announced the findings of the Ethics and Integrity Commission investigation. According to media reports from July 2568, the Interior Minister proposed transferring two directors-general to inspector-general positions, citing administrative necessity. The two affected officials—Nareecha Kosasivailaichai, Director-General of the Department of Local Administration, and Chaiyavat Junthiraphong, Director-General of the Department of Internal Administration—filed complaints with the Ethics Commission on August 6 and 14, 2568.

The Commission voted 6-1, with members finding that the Permanent Secretary of Interior proposed the transfers just four days after the minister announced his policy directives on July 4, 2568. The Cabinet approved the transfers on July 8—less than a week later—leaving no reasonable timeframe for the two officials to implement the assigned policies before their reassignment. According to Ministry Order 2704/2568, dated September 3, 2568, the officials were appointed as inspector-generals, over one month after receiving the policy mandate.

Particularly problematic is the case of Chaiyavat, who would have less than one month remaining before mandatory retirement, making it impossible to effectively drive policy implementation regarding drug suppression issues. While the Interior Minister and Permanent Secretary possess legal authority to make such transfers, they must exercise that authority lawfully.

Chairman Worawit stated the transfers demonstrate hasty action concealing undisclosed purposes beyond genuine administrative necessity. Although the reassignments maintain equivalent salary and position allowances, the job responsibilities differ significantly between director-general and inspector-general roles. Inspector-general positions lack human resources management, asset management, and budgeting responsibilities—core functions of director-general posts. The reassignments essentially converted their roles to oversight and advisory positions rather than operational leadership positions.