Bangkok: Chusak believes the 'President of the House' has ordered the opposition to amend the motion, hoping to reduce the intensity of the conflict in the House and prevent protests from obstructing the debate.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Chusak Sirinil, Minister to the Prime Minister's Office and Deputy Leader of the Pheu Thai Party, gave an interview regarding the case of Mr. Wan Muhammad Noor Matha, President of the House of Representatives, ordering the opposition's motion to be amended. He said that according to the House meeting regulations, Section 176 states that the no-confidence motion has flaws, and the opposition should be informed. It is understood that the opposition should be informed of this, which is to be amended. The problem is the mention of outsiders' names. According to the regulations, it is prohibited in the debate, and discussion of outsiders is prohibited unless necessary. However, what is more important is the constitution, which states that mentioning outsiders who are not MPs or ministers, if the voice is broadcasted to the outside world at that time, if it is a criminal or civil offense, the speaker is not entitled to privileges and must be held responsible and may be sued.
Mr. Chusak added that in addition, outsiders who have been damaged may also request the Speaker of the House to provide an explanation. He understands that the Speaker of the House may consider that the motion is flawed and will cause problems here in order to prevent problems from arising in the debate, nip it in the bud, and cut off the problem of protests that will make the debate difficult. As for the ministers who are said to be a problem, he understands that the motion written is aimed at Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra, the Prime Minister, for neglecting and allowing the ministers to act improperly and inappropriately, and then explaining the ministers' actions in this way and that way.
Mr. Chusak continued that this would be a problem, especially if the debate included the prime minister for 5-10 minutes, with the rest being entirely about ministers. There would be protests that the motion did not include the ministers. When he was in the opposition, he remembered that the motion was written to cover both the prime minister and ministers. What he said was a general view, with no intention of obstructing or blocking the opposition at all. He understood that the no-confidence debate was an important duty of the opposition according to the constitution.