MFP seeks reconsideration of Pita’s prime ministerial candidacy

The Move Forward Party (MFP) is determined to push for a reconsideration of Pita Limjaroenrat’s renomination as a prime ministerial candidate, urging the National Assembly to handle the matter internally without involving the Constitution Court.

The scheduled Parliament meeting for prime minister (PM) selection, initially set for July 27, took an unexpected turn when Parliament President Wan Muhamad Nor Matha, also known as Wan Nor, suddenly cancelled it. This decision came in response to a complaint filed with the Constitution Court by the Ombudsman regarding the rejection of Pita’s candidacy.

The basis for Parliament’s rejection of Pita was Article Number 41 of the Regulations of the Parliamentary Assembly (2020). This article states that a previously rejected motion, such as Pita’s initial nomination, cannot be reintroduced. The Ombudsman’s intervention followed suit.

In reaction to these developments, the MFP-aligned party, Pheu Thai Party, also announced the cancellation of the eight aligned parties. They cited the lack of significant progress on tasks assigned to them by the coalition.

However, undeterred by the cancellations, the MFP proceeded with an internal meeting to strategise their next steps after Pita’s rejection during the previous meeting on July 19.

The MFP firmly opposes the idea of involving the Constitution Court, believing that the matter can be resolved within the Parliament itself. MFP Permanent Secretary Chaitawat Tulathon revealed the party’s plan to submit a motion during the upcoming Parliament meeting. This motion will request members to reconsider Pita’s rejection and propose him once again as the prime ministerial candidate.

Expressing dissent, MFP MP Rungsiman Rome disagreed with the cancellation of the Parliamentary meeting scheduled for the following day.

Rungsiman argued that the agenda contained two critical topics: the PM selection and the revision of Section 272 of the constitution, aimed at reducing the power of the senators.

In Rungsiman’s view, the Parliament president should have continued the meeting, allowing ample time for a proper debate on the constitution’s revision while simultaneously addressing the PM selection issue.