Legal Affairs Chair Challenges Rival Party's Committee Appointment
People's Party MP Rangsiman Rome, chair of the House Legal Affairs Committee, has challenged the appointment of a Bhumjaithai Party MP to a seat originally allocated to Pheu Thai, citing procedural violations during a November 5 meeting. The House Secretariat could not confirm the appointee's status, and no vote was held on competing nominations. Rome has formally requested the House President to rule on the matter and clarify whether the committee has 14 or 15 members.
"Rome" criticizes the Legal Affairs Committee's approval of an appointment after discovering that "Kamkai," a Bhumjaithai Party MP, was inserted into a seat originally allocated to the Pheu Thai Party.
At 2:15 p.m. on November 11, 2026, at Parliament, Rangsiman Rome, a party-list MP for the People's Party and chair of the House Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Human Rights, along with fellow People's Party party-list MP Romdon Panjor, a committee member, briefed reporters on the committee meeting. The main agenda was to examine whether the appointment made on November 5 to fill a vacancy on the Legal Affairs Committee complied with the law. Several issues arose:
1. Information emerged that Kamkai Udomphim, a Bhumjaithai MP from Maha Sarakham, was nominated at 1:30 p.m. for a seat that was originally a Pheu Thai Party quota. The meeting chair at the time did not announce whether this was an additional nomination or a replacement. This raised the question of whether the nomination was lawful, and the Secretariat of the House could not confirm whether Ms. Kamkai held committee member status during the 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. window. The Secretariat merely insisted that the committee must have 15 members total.
"In plain language, that means no one knew who the person was during that period, but the seat was already waiting. That interpretation does not align with the regulations, because in practice, when determining who sits on a committee, you must base it on who was nominated — you cannot nominate a vacant position and then claim the vacancy itself is a committee member," Mr. Rangsiman said.
2. The status of Athikan Kaewkrua, a Bhumjaithai MP from Udon Thani, also came under scrutiny. On that day, Bhumjaithai MPs requested to amend the list of nominees for the vacant post, and Deputy House Speaker Mallika Chiraphanwanit permitted it. However, both the permission and the nomination occurred without asking whether any members objected or whether any competing nominations existed — no questions were asked at all.
Reviewing House Rules Sections 88 and 91 reveals procedural problems. This quota was originally Pheu Thai's, and any change in proportional representation must be checked against the regulations.
Although the committee reached no formal resolution today, the controversy prompted Mr. Rangsiman, in his capacity as chair, to write to the House President seeking a ruling on whether Ms. Kamkai or Mr. Athikan is the legitimate appointee. He will attach video of the nomination and request that the House President interpret the rules.
"We have the power to interpret, but the authority to issue binding rulings on regulations belongs to the House. We cannot definitively say today whether the Legal Affairs Committee has 14 or 15 members. I must emphasize again: if they had not rushed and had followed normal procedure according to the agenda, this problem would not have arisen," Mr. Rangsiman said.
He added that a committee with a full agenda received no appointment, while one not on the agenda was appointed without careful consideration of the nomination and name changes, creating more problems. If Mr. Athikan is indeed a committee member, the situation remains unresolved.
