Thaksin Shinawatra. File photo courtesy of Bangkok Post

 

Thailand's upcoming no-confidence debate against Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra will proceed as planned after opposition parties settled on an agreement to exclude former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's name from the proceedings.

 

This development came to light following a significant meeting between government and opposition whips, attended by Parliament President Wan Muhamad Noor Matha and opposition leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut.

 

The debate, scheduled for 24th March, centres on the leadership of Ms Paetongtarn and will pass a crucial point by reworking the censure motion to avoid direct mentions of Thaksin. Mr Natthaphong confirmed this adjustment, indicating a strategic use of indirect references to allude to the influential figure during the discussion.

 

"Thaksin remains a public figure with ample opportunity to defend himself through media channels, without the need for parliamentary discourse," Mr Natthaphong remarked. He further revealed that the opposition had initially requested 30 hours for the debate as a condition for excluding Thaksin's name, a move met with resistance from government whips.

 

Final arrangements for the debate's schedule remain under discussion, with both sides set to reconvene next Wednesday. Government sources have hinted at a preference for a concise, two-day debate, allowing an additional day for the necessary confidence vote, in which the Prime Minister will field responses to opposition criticisms.

 

Parliament President Mr Wan had previously cautioned against naming outsiders, specifically concerning references to Ms Paetongtarn's father, to comply with parliamentary regulation No.176. Naming Thaksin, deemed an outsider, could breach these regulations and potentially lead to defamation lawsuits, as Mr Wan explained.

 

Interestingly, the opposition has lodged a formal objection to the imposed restriction, as reported by Arpath Sukhanunth, secretary-general of the House of Representatives. Historical precedence shows previous censure motions have avoided naming external individuals explicitly, opting for more opaque terms like "family members" or "former members."

 

Ms Paetongtarn spoke out from Government House on Thursday, acknowledging potential indirect references to her father, with names such as "that man" hinted at being likely euphemisms used within the debate context.

 

This censure motion, filed on 27th February, confronts Ms Paetongtarn over her alleged lack of leadership and purported influence from her father, Thaksin.

 

Nevertheless, she maintains readiness to address all concerns, entrusting other ministers to handle questions pertinent to their portfolios. Confident in the coalition's resilience, Ms Paetongtarn asserts that their unity will withstand the opposition's challenge, reported Bangkok Post.

 

-- 2025-03-14

 

 

Simple question WHY , like it never happened..

 

regards worgeordie

 

 

I am wondering what the opposition has in mind...... They don't give it up just like this

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

opposition parties settled on an agreement to exclude former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's name from the proceedings.

 

Exclude him!  Send him to jail !

Maybe the opposition should just refer to Taksin as The Dark Lord Voldemort..aka he who shall not be named.

They could just say, "The well-known criminal," or that former fugitive and businessman."

4 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

I am wondering what the opposition has in mind...... They don't give it up just like this

 

Freudian slip ?

Quote

Thai Opposition Agrees to Avoid Thaksin's Name in Debate

cross out all "Thaksin", use "Your Dad" instead

6 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Simple question WHY , like it never happened..

 

regards worgeordie

 

 

AFAIR, any MP in the house is protected by parliamentary privilege and can say more or less what they like without fear of civil prosecution.

 

As Thaksin is not an elected MP he would not be allowed in the house, nor would he be protected by parliamentary privilege. He would not be allowed by law to defend himself against any accusation, true of false, brought by he opposition, nor could he take any opposition MP to court, simply because they ARE protected by parliamentary privilege.

4 hours ago, watchcat said:

 

Exclude him!  Send him to jail !

ON what grounds?

 

AFAIK Thaksin has not committed any crime, alleged or real, nor has he been charged or taken to court.

 

Would you feel the same, if someone protected by parliamentary privilege, alleged that YOU had committed a crime and should be sent to jail without being allowed a defence in court?

8 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

I am wondering what the opposition has in mind...... They don't give it up just like this

 

Pita gave it up really fast after winning the election.

On 3/14/2025 at 9:05 AM, ikke1959 said:

I am wondering what the opposition has in mind...... They don't give it up just like this

 

Well the article seems to suggest they will use indirect methods, which shouldn't be too difficult.  Everyone knows who they mean. 

On 3/14/2025 at 1:26 PM, Purdey said:

They could just say, "The well-known criminal," or that former fugitive and businessman."

What about, 'The elderly Thai man who's been very poorly and is staying out of politics to spend time with his grandchildren'.

On 3/14/2025 at 2:24 PM, billd766 said:

ON what grounds?

 

AFAIK Thaksin has not committed any crime, alleged or real, nor has he been charged or taken to court.

 

Would you feel the same, if someone protected by parliamentary privilege, alleged that YOU had committed a crime and should be sent to jail without being allowed a defence in court?

I would far rather send to jail ALL the generals still hanging around who committed illegal military coups over the years, who actually DID commit crimes of treason by overthrowing legally elected governments, and who have NEVER been punished.

5 hours ago, billd766 said:

I would far rather send to jail ALL the generals still hanging around who committed illegal military coups over the years, who actually DID commit crimes of treason by overthrowing legally elected governments, and who have NEVER been punished.

Thaksin did protect the army from any responsibility for the deaths of innocent people during the Red Shirt protests in 2010, so maybe jail all of them.

6 minutes ago, kimamey said:

Thaksin did protect the army from any responsibility for the deaths of innocent people during the Red Shirt protests in 2010, so maybe jail all of them.

All kinda moot today, as this gang is rather protected. 

Even more curious as to what the blessed one might be thinking about these circumstances. 

Add another name to the list of those who cannot be named.

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

I would far rather send to jail ALL the generals still hanging around who committed illegal military coups over the years, who actually DID commit crimes of treason by overthrowing legally elected governments, and who have NEVER been punished.

 

the only time i agree with you on this subject is when it comes to sending all these generals and thaksin to jail where they all belong ...

The opposition.

Are they the good guys or the bad guys?

He is to be referred to by his preferred moniker "Big Daddy".