In the forthcoming no-confidence debate, the opposition People’s Party has omitted Thaksin Shinawatra’s formal name from its motion, replacing it with an indirect reference after concerns were raised regarding a violation of parliamentary regulations. 

The opposition People’s Party on 17 March (Monday) decided to omit the name of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra from its no-confidence motion, which is scheduled to take place on 24 March. In the motion, he will be referred to only as “a family member.”

The inclusion of Thaksin’s name in the motion was opposed by House Speaker Wan Muhammad Noor Matha and MPs from the ruling Pheu Thai Party on the grounds that naming outside individuals in a no-confidence motion violates the Constitution and parliamentary regulations.

The opposition party filed the no-confidence motion against PM Paetongtarn on 27 February. A part of the motion stated that “Paetongtarn lacks leadership, maturity, and competence in state administration, and she willingly allows Thaksin Shinawatra to influence and manipulate her”.

In response to the motion, the House Speaker insisted that the People’s Party must be cautious when mentioning an outside person’s name in a no-confidence debate. He said in the past, no-confidence motions have never explicitly mentioned an outside person’s name. Alternative references have been used instead.

He also raised concerns that if a lawsuit is filed, not only would the opposition party’s MPs be sued, but also the House speaker himself, as the one allowing such motion to be discussed in parliament.

The House Speaker later gave the opposition party an ultimatum that Thaksin’s name must be removed from its no-confidence motion before 17 March. Otherwise, the motion would not be allowed to proceed as planned. He said an alternative name could be anything to avoid directly mentioning the outside individual’s name.

Meanwhile, Deputy PM Prasert Jantararuangthong reiterated that a no-confidence motion differs from other motions, where those outside parliament can be mentioned, as it is a motion to accuse others, and can only specify individual ministers or the entire Cabinet, not outside individuals.

He added that including the names of outside individuals in the motion is improper, as they do not have the opportunity to defend themselves.

MP Natthaphong Ruangpanyawut, leader of the People’s Party, initially took a firm stance against removing Thaksin’s name from the Party’s motion.

“A debate that mentions individuals outside parliament can be conducted if necessary. We must avoid referring to them without a reason. In cases where MPs’ discussion involves an outside individual and causes damage, the responsibility falls solely on the MP, not the House Speaker,” said the Party’s leader.

It was not until 13 March that the opposition backed down and decided to find another alternative wording to replace Thaksin’s formal name.

Meanwhile, an interview with Thaksin showed that he took the opposition Party’s move to target him as a strategy to gain more votes for the general election in the next two years.

“I'm not an MP, not a minister. What is the point of doing this? Or is it to discredit me for the next election? There are still two years left, so let's stay calm. Don’t rush into an election or campaign yet”, said Thaksin.

What do Thai laws and regulations state regarding debate in parliament?

The 2017 Constitution and 2019 Rules of Parliamentary Procedure explicitly stipulate the procedures regarding parliamentary debates and no-confidence debates, as well as parliamentary privilege.

Typically, parliamentarians are subjected to privilege when they mention other members or the incumbent PM and cabinet members, but the situation may differ when it comes to mentioning outside individuals’ names.

According to Section 124 of the 2017 Constitution, any statements of fact or opinion by members are privileged. However, such privilege does not extend to a member whose words are broadcast or if such words constitute criminal or civil offences against others who are not the members or Ministers.

Section 69 of the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure states that a debate shall not unnecessarily mention the names of a member or any person.

Meanwhile, Section 178 states that if any documents or materials introduced in a debate cause damage to individuals who are not the PM, a Minister, or a member or violate the ethical code, the member who presents such documents shall be liable for any consequences.

It is noteworthy that this part of Section 178 of the current Rules is not found in earlier versions. The 2019 regulation is considered the first regulation which warns the members about mentioning outside individuals in a no-confidence debate.

However, the law and regulations do not prohibit the members from mentioning outside individuals in a no-confidence debate. Instead, these regulations establish clear responsibility of speakers whose words target those outside parliament. Members will not be granted immunity if they face criminal or civil charges brought against them by outside individuals.

In other words, mentioning outside individuals is allowed as long as it does not harm others or violate ethical standards.

In addition, both the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure do not straightforwardly prohibit members from mentioning the ‘names’ of outside individuals.