Palang Pracharath Party leader Gen Prawit Wongsuwon, unmistakable in his signature blue attire, waved to reporters as he arrived at his party’s headquarters on the bustling morning of 29 August 2024, surrounded by a cadre of fellow party heavyweights. (Photo: Varuth Hirunyatheb)
The drama revolving around Gen Prawit Wongsuwon’s parliament attendance has taken a new twist. House secretary-general Arpath Sukhanunth chimed in, affirming that Gen Prawit had indeed submitted leave requests properly and had them approved by none other than Deputy House Speaker Pichet Chuamuangphan.
This revelation aimed to clear the air after Prompong Nopparit, former spokesman for the Pheu Thai Party, raised concerns about Gen Prawit’s recurring absence from parliamentary meetings. Prompong’s allegations hinted at a dereliction of constitutional and ethical duty by Gen Prawit, who is a party-list MP.
Arpath elaborated on the leave request policy, noting that MPs have the leeway to submit requests up to seven days retroactively. “Every time, Gen Prawit submitted his leave request, and it was duly signed off by Deputy House Speaker Pichet, who has been assigned by House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha to handle MPs’ leave requests,” Arpath confirmed. “[By properly following the procedures] Gen Prawit is not considered to have skipped the meetings,” he asserted.
The constitutional rules are pretty clear: MPs can’t skip more than a quarter of the sessions (30 days out of 120) within a given parliamentary session. Should they exceed this threshold, they risk severe penalties. The House secretary-general also emphasized that the petition against Gen Prawit would go through the standard parliamentary procedures.
Arpath added that MPs’ attendance records are a matter of public interest and can be accessed through the House’s information office or its website. However, he clarified that the reasons for MPs’ absences would remain private.
Chief government whip Wisuth Chainarun, eager to uphold accountability, declared his intention to request a comprehensive review of all MPs’ attendance records by the House Speaker next week. “This matter isn’t politically motivated. MPs must do their job, and being absent from meetings is not living up to their professional ethics,” Wisuth proclaimed.
He was adamant that the scrutiny will not be limited to Gen Prawit alone. “MPs must fulfill their responsibilities, and being absent from meetings does not reflect their professional ethics. This isn’t a campaign season,” Wisuth insisted.
In an interesting twist, Gen Prawit skipped the House meeting on September 19. Instead, he opted to join some party MPs in Nong Khai, where they were busy distributing relief supplies to flood victims. Perhaps a calculated move to juxtapose his parliamentary absences with acts of public service?
As the plot thickens, this scenario uncovers a fascinating blend of politics, responsibility, and public perception, while reaffirming the need for accountability at the highest levels of governance.
Gen Prawit skipping so many sessions is outrageous! He’s clearly neglecting his duties.
But he did submit leave requests, and they were approved. It’s not like he just ditched work.
Yeah, but the real question is why he needed so much time off in the first place.
Exactly! MPs have responsibilities. It’s not enough to just fill out forms to get out of work.
You do realize MPs have other duties too, right? Maybe he was working on those.
Using public service as an excuse is shady. Why not make it to parliament AND help flood victims?
Because MPs are human too, with limited time and energy. It’s about prioritizing.
He could have attended the meetings and delegated the relief work. Leadership is about delegation.
Exactly, Julie! Leadership means balancing duties. Missing parliament isn’t responsible.
Leave requests or not, MPs should be there to debate and vote. Otherwise, what’s the point of having them?
That’s true, but sometimes the rules allow for flexibility. We don’t know all the details.
Flexibility can lead to exploitation. We need transparency on why MPs are absent.
So as long as MPs follow the procedures, they can miss as many sessions as they want?
It’s not about as many as they want, but up to a certain limit. Still, it seems like a loophole.
Shouldn’t the focus be on what MPs achieve rather than their physical presence? Results matter more.
True, outcomes matter. But healthy democracy requires active debate and oversight, which demands attendance.
A balance of both seems necessary. Absences should be scrutinized but not vilified automatically.
Fair point. We shouldn’t lose sight of substance while ensuring procedural integrity.
If an MP’s absences are public, then we can see if they’re overstepping boundaries. Keep transparency!
Anyone think that Prompong Nopparit is just playing politics here? Feels like a smear campaign.
Politics is always a factor, but that doesn’t absolve Gen Prawit if he’s neglecting his duties.
Sure, but let’s not ignore that this could be politically motivated. Let’s get all the facts first.
The rule allowing retroactive leave requests up to seven days seems ripe for abuse.
Agreed. That’s a lot of wiggle room. Stricter rules might ensure better accountability.
Exactly, Hannah. Stricter rules would force MPs to take their attendance more seriously.
Public service is important, but missing parliamentary duties for it sends the wrong message about priorities.
I disagree. Prioritizing urgent public needs can be more impactful than a single parliamentary session.
But Phil, the point is consistent absences. Missing repeatedly versus once or twice is different.
True, there’s a balance. Consistent absences are worrying, but context matters.
Gen Prawit doing public service during a crisis is commendable, but we need transparency on overall attendance.
Yes, let’s see the data. How often has he actually missed sessions and why?
More transparency is always good. Keeps politicians accountable.
Absolutely! Transparency builds trust.
Frankly, these attendance rules seem archaic. The real focus should be on results and integrity.
Updating the rules may help, but we’d need a system that ensures MPs are performing their duties efficiently.
Can we really trust the word of the Deputy House Speaker who’s approving these leaves? Seems like conflict of interest.
Sometimes, filling out forms isn’t enough. MPs need to physically show up and debate or vote.
I think MPs should get graded on their performance and public service. Grades made public would ensure accountability.