Bangkok: “Sutin” mocks the opposition, saying the first half of the censure debate was light, not to the point of sprinkling salt.

According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Sutin Khlangsaeng, MP for the Pheu Thai Party, expressed his views on the recent no-confidence debate in the House of Representatives. He criticized the opposition, led by General Prawit Wongsuwan of the Palang Pracharath Party, for presenting arguments that were abstract and lacking in concrete evidence. Sutin described the accusations as floating and groundless, pointing out that they failed to provide clear indicators of behavior or leadership issues.

Sutin acknowledged that while Mr. Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn of the Prachachon Party brought some concrete points to the debate, the emotional delivery overshadowed the substance. He suggested that without the emotional rhetoric, the content would be more compelling. Sutin noted that from the government’s perspective, there was little cause for concern based on the debate so far.

When questioned about the potential for the opposition’s arguments to escalate to a “salt-sprinkling strategy,” Sutin dismissed the possibility, stating that the opposition leader’s statements were vague and lacked behavioral indicators. He also addressed the possibility of a lawsuit against Mr. Wiroj for making references to the Shinawatra family, suggesting that if the allegations are untrue, legal action could be pursued.

Sutin further commented on the likelihood of the opposition filing a complaint with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), emphasizing the importance of following through on corruption debates with official complaints. He also touched upon the tax issue and the need to hear the Prime Minister’s response.

Regarding General Prawit’s participation in the debate, Sutin remarked that it was not particularly strong or groundbreaking, noting that Prawit seemed to be merely making headlines. He expressed skepticism about the seriousness of Prawit’s assertion that the country should not be a stage for a “trainee prime minister,” viewing it as mere rhetoric.

Sutin concluded by expressing a willingness to listen for any further elaboration from the opposition, noting the importance of distinguishing between domination and advice in political relationships. He likened the nature of the debate to a type of traditional poetry, “Lam Long,” characterized by its meandering and floating nature.