Censure debate kicks off today
Sutin bullish despite dissolution of FFP
Despite the censure debate against Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and five cabinet ministers kicking off today without key speakers from the now-dissolved Future Forward Party, the session will be no less interesting, according to opposition chief whip Sutin Klungsang.
Mr Sutin, a Pheu Thai MP for Maha Sarakham, said the Pheu Thai Party will take the lead in the three-day debate against the six target ministers while speakers from the dissolved FFP, the third-largest political party in the House, will be led by list-MP Pita Limjaroenrat.
Among the ex-FFP MPs who will miss the censure debate are former FFP secretary-general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul and spokeswoman Pannika Wanich who yesterday held a talk titled “Outside-Parliament Censure Debate” as a curtain-raiser.
The FFP was dissolved on Friday by the Constitutional Court over the 191.2 million baht loan it took from former party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. The 16 executives were slapped with a 10-year ban from politics although it was announced on Friday the former executives would continue to work under the banner of the “Future Forward Movement”.
Stithorn Thananithichote, director of the Research and Development Office at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, said while the opposition camp may be weakened, the key player will still be the Pheu Thai Party.
He said Mr Pita is likely to receive full support from the Future Forward heavyweights working outside parliament, noting that the parallel debate outside parliament is also new and interesting.
“On the Future Forward part, the debate may be less lively because the party was just disbanded. But if they can connect with those working outside, they may create something new,” he said.
On the government’s part, he said that besides Gen Prayut, Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda is likely to face an intensive grilling from the opposition for allegedly causing conflicts of interest in the ministry.
According to the academic, the Democrat Party is likely to be lobbied hard by the coalition to toe the line when casting their votes. He noted the Democrat MPs are expected to be approached individually by key Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) members.
“The government wants every target minister to get an equal vote of confidence. This is to avoid an early cabinet reshuffle,” he said.
Suchart Chomklin, a PPRP MP for Chon Buri, said the party MPs have been warned that attendance is mandatory for every session of the debate but he admitted it may not be possible to ensure each minister receives equal levels of support in the votes to conclude the debate.
“We are the coalition government and we are undivided. But it’s really difficult to give everyone the same number of votes. We’ll try to keep the difference small, around 5-6 votes,” he said.
Wirach Ratanasate, the chief government whip, said he will hold talks with small coalition partners to ask them to toe the government line after some indicated they will not vote for the “grey ministers” over whom doubts linger.
“I have no particular concerns for any minister because the allegations are nothing new,” he said.
He also expressed confidence that Gen Prayut will be able to keep his temper in check.
Democrat deputy leader Ongart Klampaiboon said the party will have to listen to the opposition’s information before it decides how to vote because the censure debate is part of the checksand-balances mechanism.
He noted that even though none of the Democrat ministers have been targeted in the debate, they are ready to defend themselves if allegations arise.
House speaker Chuan Leekpai said he has asked parliament officials to inspect the voting machines to make sure there are no technical glitches. He said he will make sure the opposition parties and the cabinet ministers receive their fair share of time.
The debate is scheduled to begin in the afternoon with Pheu Thai and opposition leader Sompong Amornvivat delivering an opening statement and outlining the charges against the prime minister and the five ministers.
Pheu Thai MP for Maha Sarakham Yutthapong Charasathien will then spend two hours going into the details of those charges before giving the floor to Mr Pita who will spend one hour addressing the House. Mr Sutin will speak next in his capacity of the chief opposition whip.
According to list-MP from the dissolved FFP Picharn Chaopattanwong, a war room will be set up to coordinate with the outside parliament team. The MPs from the dissolved FFP will take turns grilling the ministers with Gen Prayut as the prime target on the second day.
The government wants every target minister to get equal votes of confidence. This is to avoid an early cabinet reshuffle. STITHORN THANANITHICHOTE
DIRECTOR OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE AT KING PRAJADHIPOK’S INSTITUTE
It was one of those dark days in Thai political history when the Constitutional Court decided to condemn the Future Forward Party (FFP) to premature death for the crime of receiving a 191.2 million baht loan from its leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
The court’s decision was a moment of joy for haters of the party just as it was a moment of sadness and anger for the party’s supporters.
For its critics, justice was done by the court, but for the party’s supporters, it was yet another act of injustice by a tool of the junta.
With emotions running high in the immediate aftermath of the court’s decision, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s online appeal to Thais to respect the court’s judgement and for FFP’s supporters to explore other mechanisms to check the government’s performance just added fuel to the fire.
It was shortsighted and untimely. How could he expect the party’s followers to respect the court’s decision after the court has just condemned their beloved party to death? No wonder he quickly deleted his online comment or it would have stirred up more unrest.
The court has done its job to the letter of the law, apparently, with no regard for the impact of its decision on the six million of people who voted for the party in the March 24 elections last year.
Like it or not, the court has deepened the political divide between the young generation which wants to see structural changes in society and the conservative generation which wants to maintain the status quo.
The old colour politics between the pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin camps is fading as their remaining core leaders await the court’s mercy for previous offences committed in the name of democracy which have now been proven as futile because the real beneficiaries are those currently in power and will not let go of it for many years to come.
The judiciary should not be surprised if the young generation is viewing them — rightly or wrongly — with extreme distrust that they are being used as a tool of the powers-that-be to eliminate its real or perceived enemies.
The court’s decision has made it clear that the vaguely-worded clause in the organic law on political parties intends that parties cannot legally accept loans.
So, we will have to wait and see how the Election Commission (EC) deals with the many other parties which also took loans to fund their political activities.
And whether the EC will proceed with its unfinished mission to finish off Mr Thanathorn and his executive committee by taking them to the Criminal Court over the loan controversy as threatened by the publicity-seeking crusader Srisuwan Janya who appears dissatisfied with the 10-year banishment from politics against Mr Thanathorn and the executive committee members delivered by the court, and presumably wants to see them sent into prison.
The 10-year ban from politics is a long period of time.
Although Mr Thanathorn and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, the former party secretary-general, have vowed to carry on their activities outside parliament under the umbrella of Khana Anakhot Mai, it remains to be seen whether they have the resolve to carry on without being demoralised and losing their patience.
Imagine a boxer who is shadowboxing day in, day out without having a chance to actually fight in the ring for the next 10 years. It will be a tormenting experience for the two firebrand politicians. Hence, moral support to keep alive their fighting spirit is essential.
In hindsight, one disturbing question which arises is whether society is open to a new party which dares to think and do things out of the box, which wants to see structural change for the better of society?
Or it is happy with the status quo, with the elite class monopolising control and reaping most of the fruits of development?
‘‘
We will have to wait and see how the Election Commission deals with the many other parties which also took loans to fund their political activities.