Bangkok: Bowornsak Uwanno, Deputy Prime Minister, addressed the ongoing debate regarding the Prime Minister’s power to dissolve Parliament in the context of a no-confidence motion. Bowornsak clarified that despite the submission of a no-confidence motion by the opposition, the Prime Minister retains the authority to dissolve Parliament until the motion is thoroughly reviewed, placed on the agenda, and officially notified to the Prime Minister. He emphasized the importance of adhering to established procedures and warned the House Speaker to maintain consistent interpretations in line with past practices.

According to Thai News Agency, the controversy arose when House Speaker Wan Muhammad Noor Matha commented that a no-confidence motion would prevent the Prime Minister from dissolving Parliament. Bowornsak countered this by referencing the practices during the government of former Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, where a no-confidence motion deemed invalid was not included by the Speaker. He pointed out that House rules mandate a review of the motion and notification to the proposer within seven days if defects are found. Only after this process is completed can the motion be placed on the agenda as an urgent matter and the Prime Minister notified.

Bowornsak highlighted that the Constitution’s Section 151, paragraph 2, stipulates that Parliament cannot be dissolved after a motion is proposed unless it is withdrawn or fails to secure more than half the votes cast. This is intended to balance the powers between the House of Representatives and the executive branch. The current issue lies in the interpretation of when the no-confidence motion effectively prohibits the dissolution of Parliament. He argued for a comprehensive reading of the relevant constitutional paragraph, asserting that the prohibition only applies once the motion is correctly submitted and the Prime Minister is notified in accordance with meeting regulations.

Bowornsak stressed that failure to adhere to this process could lead to violations of parliamentary regulations by the Speaker of the House. He underscored that the prohibition against dissolving Parliament begins only after the accuracy of the motion is verified and the Prime Minister is informed, rather than from the date of the motion’s submission. Bowornsak warned that relying on incomplete motions could undermine the power to dissolve Parliament and disrupt the parliamentary system. He urged the Speaker to continue upholding the principles that have been consistently followed and expressed concerns over any deviations from established interpretations.