The exposure of budget funding for a cyber war against southern peace activists by the army needs clear answers from Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, a banned Future Forward Party MP said on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha on Wednesday morning responded only by denying having a policy to use social media against his critics.
"I have no policy on this. I, myself, have been attacked [on social media]," he said in response to questions as he arrived at parliament.
Gen Prayut's remarks run counter to an allegation by former FFP MP Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn.
In the parliament on Tuesday night, during the censure debate, he called on the prime minister to take responsibility for approving budget funding for an Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) cyber operation against activists, politicians and academics working for peace in the far South.
He said Isoc's witch-hunt was causing rifts in society.
Mr Wiroj showed copied documents detailing the operations, including "news" posted on www.pulony.blogspot.com, and mentioned other Facebook accounts.
He said on Wednesday that Gen Prayut needed to clear up two questions.
"The bottom line is that people are waiting for the answers," he tweeted on Wednesday.
Gen Prayut needed to make it clear whether taxpayers' money was being used to target these people, and whether security authorities had been ordered to carry out this non-military task, he said.
The prime minister is chairman of Isoc, the security agency at the centre of the claim raised on the floor by the FFP MP on the second day of the no-confidence debate.
The pulony.blogspot site claims to tell the truth about the southern border provinces.
One of its stories, posted on Nov 11, 2019, attacked human rights activist Angkhana Neelapaijit and Prachachart Party leader Wan Muhamad Nor Matha, alleging they colluded to escalate the insurgency situation in the southernmost region to gain international attention.
Ms Angkhana wrote on her Facebook page on Wednesday that Mr Wiroj had exposed who was behind the scenes in misleading the public about the work of human rights activists,