It looks likely the government and the opposition will have to slug it out in the Lower House over whether the debate on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's incomplete oath will be held behind closed doors or broadcast so the public can see it as with other parliamentary sessions.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, the government's top legal eagle, has hinted a closed a parliamentary session is permissible if the issue to be debated concerns national security or is highly sensitive, citing previous practices.
Mr Wissanu's hint prompted the seven-party opposition to hold a hush-hush meeting on Saturday to discuss the problem.
Emerging from the informal meeting, opposition leader Sompong Amornvivat, also Pheu Thai leader, told the media the opposition would demand an open debate, claiming the people want to know the truth about the prime minister's omission of an important part of the oath.
Mr Sompong also gave assurances that opposition MPs would exercise caution and would not touch on the issue of the monarchy.
Nevertheless, he said the opposition would carry on with the debate if they lose to the government in a vote about whether the debate should be held behind closed doors.
The prime minister himself has twice skipped questions in the House from the Future Forward Party to clarify the matter which it deems a violation of the constitution.
Indeed, his non-committal stance over when he might be ready for such a debate makes it appear more likely the government will opt for a closed session.
The opposition had wanted the debate to be scheduled this Friday. But this will not be possible because the prime minister was already set to meet Asean economic ministers at Government House and chair the 51st Asean Economic Ministers' Meeting.
He will also not be available on Sept 13 as he is scheduled to preside over the Samui Festival on Koh Samui in Surat Thani province. That leaves only five days for the debate date to be fixed before parliament goes into recess on Sept 19.
The government camp is fully aware the opposition will make use of an open debate to attack the prime minister, to taunt him and even to shame him in front of the people via the live broadcast.
This is a scenario the government camp, particularly the Palang Pracharath Party, will not allow to happen, given the prime minister's well-known ill temper.
To make sure it will not lose a vote on whether the debate should be held in the open, the government camp must avoid a repeating last month's mistake when it lost a vote to the opposition over parliamentary regulation changes because several government MPs were missing from the session.
The opposition, too, may face rebellion from some dissidents in the Pheu Thai Party and from the half-hearted New Economics Party whose new leader, Manoon Siwapiromrat, who was elected on Saturday to replace Mingkwan Saengsuwan, has made clear the party will not blindly follow all the opposition's decisions, particularly decisions which it considers do not benefit the public.
The new leadership of the New Economics Party, which has six MPs in the Lower House, will not be as fully committed to the cause of the opposition as it was under Mr Mingkwan.
Regardless of whether the debate is open or closed, the prime minister is duty-bound to attend to clear up this mess of his own creation.
Like the other members of the public, I would like to know why the prime minister omitted an important part of the oath -- particularly whether it was intentional or just a case of carelessness.
The issue could have been settled a long time before it became messy had the prime minister admitted his gaffe and offered an apology.
But pride and arrogance prevented him from nipping the problem in the bud.
It is unlikely the prime minister will lose his job over this controversy because no penalties are specified in the constitution or related laws.
Nor has any previous precedent been set.
Nevertheless, it should serve as a costly lesson for him to be more cautious and more respectful of the law.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.