The first no-confidence debate against Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra's government is set to take place in late March. However, the ruling Pheu Thai Party is said to be trying to restrict opposition parties from scrutinising her administration.
The opposition camp, led by the People's Party, has submitted a no-confidence motion against only Ms Paetongtarn, accusing her of being the sole person responsible for the government's failures. The premier is accused of lacking the necessary experience to lead the government and failing to address public concerns. The opposition also plans to grill the premier over the perceived mismanagement of economic policies that have resulted in Thailand's GDP growth lagging behind its Asean peers.
But the most crucial allegation is that Ms Paetongtarn allowed the excessive influence of her father, Thaksin, who is allegedly exerting behind-the-scenes control over government affairs.
The debate is tentatively scheduled to begin on March 24, yet legislators cannot agree on the days and the permitted censure topics. There are also disagreements on the regulations on its length. The opposition is demanding four to five days while government whip chief Wisut Chainarun insists on limiting it to a single day -- far shorter than past no-confidence debates, which typically lasted three days.
If that was not enough, House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha has asked the opposition to remove Thaksin's name from the motion, arguing that referencing external figures in parliamentary debates could be unfair, as they cannot defend themselves in the chamber. His intervention is surprising. The House Secretariat had previously cleared the motion as compliant with parliamentary rules.
The dispute highlights efforts by Pheu Thai and government MPs to shield both Ms Paetongtarn and her father from scrutiny. The government must recognise that suppressing parliamentary debate undermines democratic principles. If the administration is confident in its performance, it should welcome the opportunity to counter the opposition's claims in the House.
Indeed, the inclusion of external figures in no-confidence debates is not unusual. When Pheu Thai was in the opposition, it frequently referenced individuals outside of the government in censure debates. In addition, the onus falls on those MPs making accusations to ensure they do not cross legal lines, as parliamentary privilege does not protect them from defamation lawsuits.
Thaksin's influence over government policy is undeniable, with ministers frequently acting on his statements, reinforcing the perception that he wields the real power behind the scenes. Even Thaksin himself has acknowledged his deep involvement, jokingly referring to himself as Sor Tor Ror, or "one who meddles in everything".
While it is natural for a former PM to share insights, Pheu Thai cannot simultaneously benefit from Thaksin's guidance while shielding him from parliamentary scrutiny. The ruling party should display its democratic spirit by allowing an unrestricted, substantive debate. Transparency and accountability should be the cornerstone of any democratic government. If the PM and her administration have confidence in their leadership, they should embrace this no-confidence debate as an opportunity to clarify policies and dispel doubts. Attempts to limit scrutiny will only fuel speculation and erode public trust.