Bangkok: Abhisit Vejjajiva criticized the Prime Minister and ministers for evading questions, urging the Speaker of the House to explain the necessary reasons for their absence and to comply with parliamentary regulations. He argued that otherwise, it would encourage continued avoidance of parliament. Meanwhile, Sophon revealed plans to amend parliamentary regulations after finding that some MPs were not adhering to them.

According to Thai News Agency, the House of Representatives meeting, chaired by Speaker Sophon Saram, concluded with a live interpellation by Mr. Nattapong Ruangpanyawut, a list MP and leader of the People's Party, regarding Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Anutin Charnvirakul. The Prime Minister had assigned Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport Pipat Ratchakitprakarn to respond, but Mr. Pipat was unable to do so. Therefore, he assigned Deputy Minister of Transport Siripong Angkasakulkiat to answer the question instead. Mr. Nattapong specifically requested that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport address the issue at the next meeting, particularly regarding the alleged hoarding of oil, linked to scammer groups and a wealthy businessman, "Sia T.", a friend of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport Pipat Ratchakitprakarn. He questioned how the Prime Minister would handle this, and whether there would be a double standard, given that Mr. T. is a key supplier to the Bhumjait hai Party.

This led to a response from Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, a list MP and leader of the Democrat Party. A speaker rose to protest to the Speaker in the meeting, arguing that the incident that occurred today was likely to happen frequently and repeatedly, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution or Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, which clearly intends for the Prime Minister and ministers who are being questioned to answer the questions in person, unless there is a compelling reason, in which case they must notify the Speaker in writing before or on the day of the parliamentary session and specify when they will be able to answer. Therefore, in the future, if the Prime Minister or a minister says they cannot come to answer the questions, can the Speaker inform the meeting of what the unavoidable reason is?

"The Parliament needs to know whether you truly prioritized attending an important event over answering these questions, or whether you attended a meeting that could have been postponed and therefore did not come to answer. The Speaker should even consider whether the stated reason constitutes an unavoidable necessity. And if you only stated that you had a prior appointment, the Speaker should inform the meeting about what kind of appointment, when it was, and provide evidence. This would maintain the sanctity of the Parliament. At least, if the Speaker cannot object, society will know whether it was truly that necessary."

This led Mr. Sophon to confirm that he was acting in accordance with Regulation 151, which clearly states that delegation is permissible. Past practice has also been like this in live question-and-answer sessions. The issue raised by Mr. Abhisit was a general question, and there was a time limit for answering it on another day. Therefore, if he were to strictly adhere to the regulations, those regulations would need to be amended.

Mr. Abhisit then explained that if the regulations are simply to be followed in writing but there is no oversight, it's as if there are no regulations at all. Even amending the regulations would be pointless. He was trying to find a solution so that they wouldn't have to argue about this every week. He was only asking for at least some transparency: what are the reasons? Is there evidence? Otherwise, we are just encouraging the Prime Minister and ministers to continuously evade Parliament.

Mr. Sophon stated that he had coordinated with the Secretary-General of the Parliament to contact and discuss with political parties to amend the regulations that were impractical and hindered the functioning of the Parliament. He acknowledged that MPs had not consistently followed the written regulations, leading to problems in the Speaker's decisions. However, he agreed with Mr. Abhisit that the regulations needed to be clear.

Meanwhile, Mr. Koravee Prisnanantakul, MP for Ang Thong from the Bhumjaithai Party and chairman of the government coalition's coordinating committee, rose to clarify that no one had violated any regulations or parliamentary procedures today. He asked if anyone had seen ministers avoiding parliament since the opening of the session. He stated that they were trying to ensure the scrutiny process and the legislative branch's functions were operational. He also requested the opposition to specify in advance what questions they would be asking, rather than simply stating the specifics, so that they could coordinate with the relevant ministers to provide answers. He added that this would benefit the public through the legislative process.

Meanwhile, Parit Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP from the People's Party, expressed support for Abhisit's stance regarding ministers being required to provide a letter explaining the unavoidable reason for their absence from parliamentary sessions. He emphasized that if the Prime Minister or Mr. Pipat delegated Mr. Siripong to answer, a letter must be submitted to the Speaker of the House stating the unavoidable reason for their absence. Therefore, for transparency, he urged transparency and cautioned against creating retrospective letters or appointments to avoid parliamentary suspicion about whether the Prime Minister or Mr. Pipat's inability to answer questions was unavoidable.

Mr. Parit continued his argument, stating that while the government's chief whip requested advance notice of which minister would be questioned in urgent debate, asking urgent questions concerns immediate hardship for the public and stems from the Cabinet meetings held every Tuesday. Therefore, it's difficult to know which questions will be asked before a Cabinet resolution. However, to facilitate the chief whip, he requested that advance notice be given for next week's urgent debate, specifically regarding the Prime Minister. He added that this one-week notice would allow the chief whip to coordinate, and he would observe whether the Prime Minister would answer the urgent questions in Parliament or adopt a "I'll answer when I'm free" approach, which would violate parliamentary rules, especially since the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Sophon clarified that the previous urgent questions were assigned by the Speaker to the Deputy Speaker for consideration, in accordance with the regulations. He stated that he did not know which questions were urgent or who answered them, as this is standard practice. He added that being pressed for answers and being accused of violating regulations was incorrect. Regarding coordination between the opposition and government whips, he said that was a matter for them to agree upon, and the Speaker's role was to ensure the smooth running of the meeting. He also mentioned that the letter was not something that needed to be addressed at this time.