“Theng Natthapong” urges “Anutin” to clarify the truth to the public regarding the rejection of four financial bills, including removing snooker and billiards from the gambling list, pointing out that this cuts parliamentary opportunities and undermines efforts to improve citizens' quality of life.
On 21 Sep 2026 GMT+7 at the Parliament Building, the People's Party held a press conference on the 13th Shadow Cabinet meeting. Natthapong Ruangpanyawut, opposition leader and head of the People's Party, questioned the Prime Minister’s refusal to approve at least four financial bills in the past week. These include: 1. An amendment to the Gambling Act proposed by Non Paisanlimjaroenkij, MP for Nonthaburi from the People's Party, primarily to remove snooker and billiards from the gambling list to promote youth development toward becoming professional athletes.
2. An amendment to the Act on Decentralization Planning and Procedures for Local Administrative Organizations, proposed by Phetcharat Maichomphu, MP for Chiang Mai from the People's Party, aiming to increase local powers in public service provision, set minimum standards, and create new revenue sources through loans, bonds issuance, and fee collection.
3. An amendment to the Labor Protection Act, proposed by Sia Champathong, party-list MP from the People's Party, focusing on adjusting the minimum wage calculation formula and improving care for public sector workers.
4. The Promotion of Creative Culture Act (THACCA), proposed by Jiraporn Sindhupr, MP for Roi Et from the Pheu Thai Party.
These bills were consequently prevented from entering the House of Representatives' consideration process. Natthapong said he believes all four bills benefit the people's quality of life. However, the Prime Minister’s response to the gambling bill rejection—saying “the matter has not yet arrived”—contradicts the signed official ruling already issued. Meanwhile, the Department of Local Administration later clarified it has no objection to the removal, and is currently revising the Gambling Act of 1935 (B.E. 2478). This raises doubts whether the Prime Minister thoroughly reviewed the contents before disapproving all four bills.
Natthapong concluded that the Prime Minister must clearly explain the facts to the public, since signing without knowledge of the details reflects neglect of executive duties. Moreover, the disapproval reduces the House of Representatives' chance to consider laws that could improve citizens’ quality of life and unlock their potential, which is deeply regrettable.