Bangkok: “Natthaphong” plans to file a lawsuit in the future if the Prime Minister cannot explain or defend himself. Nattapong admits it is difficult to assess the results of the removal of the “PM” from the censure debate stage but will continue to file a lawsuit in the future if he cannot explain or defend himself. He suggests keeping an eye on the voting scores to reflect whether “Paethongtarn” can control the government’s votes or not. He believes that the censure debate framework is still flexible. He explained that he changed from “Thaksin” to “family member” to be more open. He admitted that it may involve “Yingluck”.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Nattapong Ruangpanyawut, MP, party-list leader of the Prachachon Party, as the leader of the opposition in the House of Representatives, reiterated his stance that he wanted the no-confidence debate to proceed smoothly and reach a conclusion on the time frame and rules for deducting time between each other, such as protests, each party’s time should be deducted so as not to consume the other party’s time. Now, what is expected is that the whips of the 3 parties will find a common conclusion.
As for the government’s 23-hour deadline for the opposition, Mr. Nattapong believes that it can still be adjusted with flexibility. Equally important is setting a timeframe that should maximize the efficiency of the meeting, such as not ending too late. The person who answers questions, such as the Prime Minister, may not be able to answer effectively if the last day ends near midnight. The Prime Minister may not be able to gather all the points, and the people at home may not be able to listen to everything. Therefore, if the government is open and debates straightforwardly, the people listening at home must understand the news as much as possible, and the common principle is that this debate will be of the greatest benefit to the people.
Mr. Nattapong also mentioned the reason for amending the motion from the name of Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra to the word family member, saying that it allows for a wider discussion. The theme or name of the debate is the country-exchange deal, in which we see that the Pheu Thai Party is exchanging the country’s benefits for the benefits of family members, which is more open to discussion.
As for the House Speaker opening the door to using the word ‘SorTor.’, Mr. Nattapong said that on the actual day, there will still be a variety of words, but the word ‘family member’ that was included is written in the motion, which is an official word and is quite appropriate.
The debate will also mention other members of the Shinawatra family, such as Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra. Mr. Nattapong said that it is possible, but it is based on the fact that the formation of the government and the implementation of the government’s policies do not put the interests of the people of the country as the main focus, but rather the interests of the family.
When asked how much information would be discussed in depth, Mr. Nattapong said that there were many pieces of information that were deep and some that had never been disclosed to the media before. He confirmed that the public would receive the greatest benefit.
When asked if the Prime Minister’s guilt would lead to the dissolution of the House or resignation, Mr. Nattapong said that it would be difficult to see the results of the resolution to remove the Prime Minister immediately. However, the information disclosed in the debate in the House of Representatives is believed to be used as evidence to file a lawsuit and be used in the impeachment process in the future if the Prime Minister cannot clearly explain or defend the accusation.
When asked about the division of time among the opposition parties, especially the Palang Pracharath Party, where party leader Prawit Wongsuwan will be the debater, Mr. Nattapong said that for the time of the opposition parties, there will be a division, in which the Palang Pracharath Party has expressed its position to debate, but it is an internal matter as to who will be allocated to debate.
As for the votes of the no-confidence debate, will it reflect anything about the government? Mr. Nattapong said that the number of things to vote will reflect an important part of how stable the government is. Therefore, every vote to approve Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra as Prime Minister will be something that everyone can keep an eye on and assess whether Ms. Paethongtarn will be able to control the government’s voice or not.
As for the part that the government said that cracks in the coalition parties will be seen, Mr. Natthaphong said that the operations of the legislative branch, whether it is the amendment of the constitution or various draft laws, cannot move forward. When the coalition government is suspended and the Pheu Thai Party is not taken, it must also retreat. Many things that have come out have shown the disagreements of the government. This no-confidence debate will make society see that the government’s problem is really this. Therefore, when asking questions in the no-confidence debate, we have to see whether the Prime Minister can answer and explain or whether he can assign other ministers to explain. He believes that the atmosphere of the debate will make this point more visible.
When asked about the black-chinned tilapia mob, the fish trap at Government House was compared to the image of the Prime Minister taking his children for a walk on the lawn in front of the Thai Khu Fah building, did it reflect anything? Mr. Nattapong said that the prime minister, the leader of the country, what is important is to express his awareness of the feelings and problems of the people. He did not comment on what the prime minister would do, but what he wanted to tell the prime minister was that the people were suffering. Every step the prime minister took affected the people’s feelings.
When asked about the case where Mr. Wirote Lakkhanaadisorn, a party-list MP for the Prachachon Party, was criticized for not knowing the appropriate time and place after criticizing the Prime Minister, Mr. Nattapong said that it was something that MPs might express anger on behalf of the people. The use of words or expressing feelings might happen at work, but Mr. Wirote’s actions probably wanted to show that he was a representative of the people and was aware of the people’s problems.
When asked again about the Pheu Thai Party’s criticism that the no-confidence debate was a way of exploiting the parliamentary stage for political gain, Mr. Nattapong said that he did not want to analyze it to that extent. He would rather wait and see the debate to see what facts are presented.
