The opposition has accused the government of monopolising political power, exploiting public funds and failing to address economic pressures and flooding ahead of a proposed censure debate.
Speaking in parliament on Monday, People’s Party (PP) leader and list MP Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut said a general debate without a vote under Section 152 of the constitution was one option available to the opposition.
However, the government should respect parliamentary procedures, including no-confidence debates under Section 151, committee hearings and question time, he said.
He criticised Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul for using visits to parliament mainly to greet MPs instead of taking his place in the chamber to answer questions.
“Even though we have made it clear that we are ready whenever the PM and the cabinet are, we still have yet to see them demonstrate a sense of responsibility towards parliament,” he said.
The PP regarded Section 152 as one of the available scrutiny mechanisms. Whether to seek such a debate would depend on the political situation, he said.
PP list MP and deputy leader Parit Wacharasindhu said the opposition was ready for a no-confidence debate under Section 151, with evidence, arguments and speaking time prepared.
Mr Parit said it would focus on the government’s monopolisation of power, exploitation of public funds and day-to-day handling of national issues.
These included alleged attempts to manipulate Senate elections and weaken checks and balances.
A second focus would be suspected budget irregularities and corruption, including fraud in local government recruitment examinations.
The debate would also cover economic hardship and crises such as energy costs and flooding, which the government had failed to anticipate and therefore dealt with only as they arose, he said.
Mr Parit declined to disclose individual MPs’ debate topics, saying early disclosure could allow evidence to be concealed or interfered with.
He said discussions had also been held with the opposition Klatham Party and an understanding reached that cabinet ministers must be scrutinised, as in a censure debate. Klatham may receive a smaller time quota because it was not a signatory to the censure motion.