Imagine this: a hushed chamber, the tension palpable among the sea of representatives, as the fate of a potentially game-changing draft hangs in the delicate balance of parliamentary procedure. This is the dynamic scene that unfolded when Deputy House Speaker Padipat Suntiphada, wielding the gavel, hit pause on the proceedings of the day, citing a jaw-dropping twist — a lack of quorum! The assembled MPs weren’t sufficient to form a simple majority of the House. You could cut the suspense with a knife!
Now let’s set the stage. On one side of the ring were the MPs deliberating feverishly on a brand-new draft for meeting regulations. A rulebook, of sorts, for the august House of Representatives. At stake? The political leverage that could shift the power balance between the government and the opposition. The arena was charged, the battle lines drawn.
The vote? It was a landslide of 223 against 1 to dismiss the draft regulation lobbed into the ring by the fierce and formidable Move Forward party-list MP Parit Wacharasindhu. But wait, there was a catch! Padipat, a seasoned political gladiator and former ally of the Move Forward troop, declared the quorum MIA, effectively throwing the voting results out of the window. That’s right, folks, the votes cast were poised for a sequel at a later date.
Just who is this Padipat character, you wonder? He was elected the deputy House speaker, back when the Move Forward bunch was the talk of the town — the largest party after a general election that seemed to herald a new dawn. Yet, as political tides turned, and Move Forward transitioned into the opposition benches, our man Padipat chose to keep his deputy speaker hat firmly on his head, despite the party’s expectation for his resignation. This prompted Move Forward to hand him his walking papers, and he hopped over to the Fair Party, another group from the opposition aisle.
The battleground was about more than just personal ambition — it was about principles. The contentious draft regulation was accused of playing favorites with the opposition. It verged on revolutionary, proposing an opposition-sponsored bill that involved the allocation of funds, which, under current rules, would need a nod from none other than the prime minister himself. The draft dared to demand that the prime minister stand and deliver answers to the opposition leader or any five opposition MPs once a week. Audacious, some might say. Democratic accountability, others might argue.
Furthermore, the draft pushed for opposition dominance in steering key House panels, committees renowned for their roles in rooting out corruption, scrutinizing budgets, and scaffolding the parliamentary scaffold. This was power-shifting stuff!
The debate was fiery, with the ruling coalition MPs standing their ground against the draft. Move Forward’s MP Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, in a twist of strategic gameplay, called for a timeout to the voting — suggesting a pitstop at the House committee for parliamentary affairs. Counter-move by Saran Timsuwan, Pheu Thai MP, and coalition whip—denying the detour and keeping the draft on the main track.
When it came time to vote on this procedural pivot, the House aligned with the ruling coalition’s stance at 223 to 151. Padipat, ever the vigilant chair, did a roll call check right before the main event voting on the draft, finding 332 MPs nestled in their seats. Yet when the lights dimmed and the action was to unfold, only 224 votes trickled in, the majority saying nay to the draft and pushing one lonely yay to the side.
Enter the opposition, like a Greek chorus, with a crescendoing plea for annulment on the grounds that the numbers didn’t add up to a quorum. The day’s storyline etched in parliamentary history, with a reminder that in the halls of power, sometimes it’s not the votes that count but counting the voters that truly matters.
Be First to Comment