The expulsion of Deputy House Speaker Padipat Santipada from the Move Forward Party (MFP) has long been anticipated as a political tactic to ensure the post remains in the hands of its allies while the MFP assumes the fully-fledged role of the main opposition party, according to politicians and academics.
Padipat: Refused to give up role
Such remarks were made yesterday after Mr Padipat accepted the MFP's decision to expel him after he refused to step down from the post amid criticism that the opposition was trying to have its cake and eat it.
Under the charter, a party that takes on the role of opposition leader cannot occupy a speaker's post at the same time. Mr Papidat, an MP for Phitsanulok, had to resign, or another arrangement had to be made.
On Thursday night, the MFP issued a statement saying Mr Padipat insisted on remaining as deputy speaker, so the MFP decided to expel him to enable it to lead the opposition.
However, the move was widely seen as a win-win for the main opposition party as it allowed the MFP to take on the role of opposition leader and have a sympathetic deputy speaker chairing meetings in the House.
Democrat member Taenkhun Jit-issara yesterday slammed Mr Padipat's expulsion as undignified, saying it allowed the MFP, through an ally party, to keep both the deputy House speaker and opposition leader posts.
He said he was considering asking the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to look into such conduct.
Senator Seree Suwanpanont said Mr Padipat's expulsion could be considered against the charter because he was expelled -- not over a conflict, but in a tactical move to allow the MP to retain his speaker post.
He said a petition could be lodged with the Constitutional Court via the Office of the Ombudsman for a ruling.
House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha yesterday declined to get involved in the MFP's affairs when asked about criticism of the party. He also refused to discuss the call for a Constitutional Court ruling.