Bangkok: Ms. Pannika Wanich, the spokesperson for the Progressive Movement, has vocally supported the dissolution of parliament as the optimal solution in light of the political upheaval following the Constitutional Court’s order for Prime Minister Paethongtarn Shinawatra to suspend her duties. She emphasized that dissolving parliament would pave the way for elections, encouraging political figures not to fear the electoral process.
According to Thai News Agency, Ms. Pannika reflected on the historical context of prime ministerial removals by the Constitutional Court, noting that Ms. Paethongtarn is the fifth prime minister to face such action in the last two decades. She criticized the failure of the Pheu Thai Party to amend the constitution during its tenure, arguing that this oversight has led to the current political gridlock. Despite past pledges from various political parties to amend the constitution, she lamented that many opted for short-term solutions instead.
Ms. Pannika expressed skepticism about any positive turn for democracy before the court’s decision on the prime minister’s case. She mentioned that the dissolution of parliament remains an available option, supported by several political figures including Mr. Chusak Sirinil and Mr. Wisanu Krea-ngam. The spokesperson argued that dissolving parliament would allow for the re-establishment of a stable government more effectively than waiting for a new prime minister to be elected under the current circumstances.
She further dismissed the notion of appointing an outsider prime minister, suggesting that political parties should rally behind Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha if necessary. Ms. Pannika also critiqued the reluctance to dissolve parliament as a tactic to preserve political power at the expense of national interest, specifically targeting the Shinawatra family for opting to maintain their influence rather than embracing electoral accountability.
On another note, Ms. Pannika addressed the controversy surrounding a leaked audio clip involving Ms. Paethongtarn, affirming that while the court’s ethics evaluation is beyond her influence, the facts of the matter have been established by Ms. Paethongtarn’s own admission.
Regarding the Thai-Cambodian border issue, Ms. Pannika criticized the government’s handling of the situation. She highlighted the discrepancies between the Prime Minister’s declarations and the actual measures taken, such as power and internet cuts along the border. She argued that the domestic political focus has overshadowed the border issue, suggesting that a more stable government could better address these challenges.
In conclusion, Ms. Pannika reiterated her call for dissolving parliament, asserting that it would allow for the formation of a stable government capable of resolving both internal and external issues. She maintained that this approach is necessary to restore confidence in Thailand’s political system and to effectively engage with international diplomatic challenges.