MFP warned of legal implications ahead of general debate

[webfact]

 

A general debate has been scheduled for April 3 and 4, with a cautionary note to the opposition that they may face legal consequences if issues related to the ex-premier, Thaksin Shinawatra, are raised.

 

This debate doesn’t require a censure vote under Section 152 of the constitution and will span over two days, revealed Wisut Chainarun, the chief government whip. It is foreseen that the opposition will be allocated nearly 30 hours for the debate.

 

The decision to set these dates came after the opposition filed a motion for the debate on Wednesday. The opposition, largely steered by the Move Forward Party (MFP), is critical of the government’s failure to deliver on its promise to execute core policies announced in Parliament over six months ago.

 

Wisut expressed appreciation for the general debate as a tool for ensuring accountability. The executive branch, he confirmed, is ready to address all questions without the need to designate a team of debaters to protect the Cabinet ministers. He anticipates a smooth debate provided the opposition refrains from involving individuals not part of the Parliament.

This statement was in response to queries about the possibility of issues related to Thaksin being broached. Thaksin has been under fire for the parole he recently received from the Ministry of Justice, and the ministry’s decision to keep the convicted ex-leader in hospital detention rather than prison before his early release.

 

Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin previously asserted that Thaksin’s discharge was in compliance with the law and denied any interference to expedite his early release.

 

Wisut emphasised the boundaries of the general debate. As per parliament’s regulations, any reference made during the debate to a third person not linked to the debate targets could lead to legal prosecution. This, he believes, would be unjust to anyone mentioned but not present in the chamber to defend themselves, reported Bangkok Post.

 

Moreover, parliamentary immunity does not cover the act of mentioning a third person during a debate, said Wisut.

“I’m afraid the debater will have to face the music alone.”

 

by Mitch Connor

Photo courtesy of Visuth Chainaroon Facebook page

 

Source: The Thaiger 2024-03-15

 

- Discover how Cigna Insurance can protect you with a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment. For more information on expat health insurance click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe
 

[dinsdale]

4 minutes ago, webfact said:

A general debate has been scheduled for April 3 and 4, with a cautionary note to the opposition that they may face legal consequences if issues related to the ex-premier, Thaksin Shinawatra, are raised.

No need for now. PT coalation has more than enough targets on their backs. The Thaksin sham can wait.

[smedly]

41 minutes ago, webfact said:

This, he believes, would be unjust to anyone mentioned but not present in the chamber to defend themselves, reported Bangkok Post.

it is the actions of goverment and ministries of said government that are under scrutiny not Thaksin himself, this is complete ##, of course they have a right to question as they represent the interests of the people and should hold the government to account - that is why they are there

Edited March 15 by smedly

[ikke1959]

Who cares MFP will be disbanned... That is for sure already and we all know that Thaksin is the PM but he speaks through Setthra.... Thailand the land of " shut your mouth" Democracy without free speech not even in a general debate.. Time to get rid of this Government

[jonclark]

One would think questioning the governments handling of this case is perfectly acceptable given that the government overseas the department of corrections and after 120 days of hospital treatment  the director General of the department of corrections notified the Justice minsister of Taksins continued hospitalization. I assume the justice minister can defend himself in parliament? Not about taksin, it's about the government handling of the case. 

[hotchilli]

18 hours ago, webfact said:

A general debate has been scheduled for April 3 and 4, with a cautionary note to the opposition that they may face legal consequences if issues related to the ex-premier, Thaksin Shinawatra, are raised.

Freedom of speech indeed....  absolutely disgusting 

so the debate cannot ask the questions regarding Thaksins hospital incarceration, or why Srettha felt compelled to make a home visit to a convict on parole [forget the ex-PM status] or why the incumbent PM should dine with the same person in CM ???

 

[Thingamabob]

Best to hold fire for now on the Thaksin issue. The MFP is walking a tightrope and will probably be disbanded however the debate goes. Amazing to think of the MFP's success in the election compared to where they currently find themselves. Never mind, the time will come for their supporters. A combination of patience and resolve required to see them through to that point.

[bamnutsak]

18 hours ago, webfact said:

with a cautionary note to the opposition that they may face legal consequences if issues related to the ex-premier, Thaksin Shinawatra, are raised.

 

 

One person's "cautionary note" is another's "threat".

 

 

18 hours ago, webfact said:

Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin previously asserted that Thaksin’s discharge was in compliance with the law and denied any interference to expedite his early release.

 

In that case, it should be easy for "the government" to defend the actions taken. The pardon from eight years to one year seemed curious. As does the preferred treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

21 hours ago, webfact said:

a cautionary note to the opposition that they may face legal consequences if issues related to the ex-premier

So effectively the Thai Parliament (and the NLA for that matter) has become a One-Party system. How is it operating any differently than the CCP or the VCP (Vietnam Communist Party)? It seems lost that Thailand once fought against a communist insurgency guerrilla war lasting from 1965 until 1983 only to become something akin.

Such "cautionary note" would seem to damage Thailand's reputation as a democracy and deserving of defamation and/or other prosecutorial attention.