Bangkok: Mr. Nattapong Ruangpanyawut, the leader of the opposition in the House of Representatives and head of the Prachachon Party, has expressed confidence in the People's Party's votes while admitting he cannot control opposition voices. He stated there is no mechanism to force alignment within the opposition, highlighting his reliance on the People's Party to maintain a united front against the prime minister.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Nattapong, in an interview prior to the crucial vote, mentioned that he had not given any special instructions to his party members but was assured of their collective decision to vote no confidence in the prime minister. He emphasized that it was the responsibility of individual party leaders to manage their members' votes, noting that the government's explanations during the recent debate did not fully address the opposition's concerns.
Responding to questions about potential support for the prime minister from certain opposition factions, Mr. Nattapong reaffirmed his confidence in the People's Party's stance. He stressed that each opposition leader is tasked with controlling their party members and that the opposition's role is distinct from the government's, thus preventing any interference with other parties.
Mr. Nattapong also addressed concerns about post-debate retaliation, expressing readiness to continue investigations into issues such as tax evasion and the Khao Yai hotel controversy. He criticized the use of legal loopholes by the prime minister and highlighted ongoing questions around land title deeds and business licenses.
When asked about the potential for retaliation from former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Mr. Nattapong dismissed fears, stating he was not worried and was more interested in observing any actions Thaksin might take. He noted that the debate had raised questions about Thaksin's past privileges and the prime minister's awareness of his father's status.
Mr. Nattapong concluded by addressing the "devil deal" debate, describing it as a critique of societal elites who exploit their power for personal gain, neglecting the broader public interest. He contrasted the current debate's new revelations, such as the Information Operations (IO) protest, with previous debates, highlighting the need for military reform as a continued point of contention.