Thai Ruling Coalition Leaders' Dinner on Sept 6 to Exclude Cabinet Reshuffle, No-Confidence Debate Talks

Thai Labor Minister Chulaphan Amornvivat, who also serves as the leader of the Pheu Thai Party, has confirmed that the upcoming dinner meeting for ruling coalition leaders, scheduled for September 6, will not include discussions on cabinet reshuffling or the opposition's no-confidence debate. Amornvivat emphasized that the government is a coalition effort, with all parties working for the benefit of the people, and there are no internal stability issues due to continuous communication and coordination. He cited the mobile cabinet meeting in Songkhla province as an example of effective collaboration. The dinner meeting is intended to provide a more relaxed environment for coalition leaders to converse, moving beyond formal meeting settings. This opportunity will allow deputy ministers, who may not have frequent direct interaction with the Prime Minister, to voice concerns, discuss work obstacles, or propose initiatives, thereby facilitating smoother government operations. Furthermore, Amornvivat revealed that the invitation extends beyond cabinet members to include members of parliament. He highlighted the necessity of parliamentary support for government activities, such as legislation and policy implementation, and thus the importance of fostering dialogue between the executive and legislative branches. When questioned if the inclusion of MPs was a preparation for the no-confidence debate, Amornvivat denied this, stating that the government is prepared to answer questions according to parliamentary procedures, depending on the issues raised by the opposition. Regarding the potential for allegations of vote rigging in the Senate election to be a topic in the no-confidence debate, Amornvivat stated that he must perform his duties as part of the coalition government while also fulfilling his role as an MP to oversee government operations. He stressed the importance of carefully reviewing new evidence and information before making decisions, all within the framework of democratic processes. Amornvivat reiterated that the Pheu Thai Party had previously pushed the issue of Senate election rigging to its conclusion and submitted it to relevant agencies and independent organizations for investigation. Therefore, he believes it is now crucial to trust the investigative mechanisms, as the matter is no longer within the party's or MPs' direct purview. "Whatever the outcome, if it is in your favor, you will say you agree, but if it is not, you will say it is incorrect. If we speak like this, the country cannot move forward. We must adhere to the framework and process, and accept the results to move forward," he stated. Addressing concerns that the Pheu Thai Party's stance might affect public confidence, given perceptions that the party may possess more information about the alleged rigging than others, Amornvivat asserted that the party holds no special or secret information. All data has entered the investigation process of relevant agencies, and therefore, the party has no undisclosed information. He emphasized the need to let the investigation proceed. On calls for the Pheu Thai Party to vote for the no-confidence motion if the opposition brings up the Senate rigging issue, Amornvivat said the party is open to listening to all opinions but has not yet had direct discussions on this matter. Regarding the voting stance of Pheu Thai MPs, Amornvivat indicated that no specific guideline has been set yet. However, he believes there will be no issues as party members discuss matters based on shared principles and work as a team, making a split in voting unlikely. Concurrently, Amornvivat commented on rumors of a cabinet reshuffle within the Pheu Thai Party, stating that no such discussions have taken place. He believes that all Pheu Thai ministers are working diligently and advancing policies to deliver benefits to the public. Amornvivat views the performance of Pheu Thai ministers as being on track to achieve their goals. He also noted that the government has only been in office for approximately four months, suggesting that ministers should be given time to prove their capabilities in problem-solving and meeting public demands before any personnel changes are considered. Source: INN News