Verbal barbs were flung around in the House yesterday as a ferocious argument broke out between the government spokesman and opposition MPs over so-called dubious financing of the red-shirt movement.
The exchange took place during a hearing by the House committee on law, justice and human rights.
Panitan appeared before the committee to testify on issues related to this dubious funding and insisted that he had neither initiated nor spread the allegations.
"The news broke because some reporters came into my office asking whether I was aware of any suspicious funds," he said.
He added that he had recalled a report from a security agency within the PM's Office reporting an unusual flow of funds into Thailand from sources overseas.
Panitan also denied linking these funds to the red shirts, saying that he did not mention any names or single out a certain "Mr S" for laundering money using the red shirts.
He said security agencies were checking the report under prescribed procedures and the government was not trying to smear the red shirts.
Though pressed by the House committee, he said he was not in the position to reveal which agency had detected these questionable funds.
In response, the opposition lawmakers in the committee hit Panitan with a barrage of questions and snide comments about him having something to hide if he could not clean with the name if the agency and its report.
Pheu Thai MP Pairoj Issaraseripong said if such a report does exist, then Panitan should not try to shield the agency responsible for it.
If there was indeed a detection of the movement of unusual funds, then Panitan and the authorities concerned should be able to provide details instead of just insinuating, he said.
In a separate testimony, Bank of Thailand's exchange control and credits chief Wachira Aromdee said the central bank had just received a request to investigate dubious funds flowing into the country.
The request came from the Department of Special Investigation and the central bank was making initial preparations, Wachira said, arguing the central bank was not in the position to shed light on the matter pending the completion of the probe.
