House Speaker Sophon Denies Bias, Accuses Opposition of Obstruction
House Speaker Sophon Sarum rejected opposition accusations that he favors the government, calling the claims baseless political rhetoric that damages parliament's reputation. He detailed how he attempted to mediate a no-confidence debate schedule, only to be later accused of stalling, and warned that continued personal attacks could lead to legal action. Sophon also outlined steps to reform committee operations following complaints about excessive workloads and procedural violations.
Speaking at parliament on November 3, 2026, House Speaker Sophon Sarum addressed criticism that his leadership favors the government. Since assuming the speakership, he said, the opposition has consistently attacked him negatively — a role he understands — but their allegations lack factual basis and amount to political rhetoric designed to discredit his administrative work.
Regarding the no-confidence debate the opposition claims he delayed, Sophon explained he had clarified multiple times that the opposition failed to negotiate properly before approaching him. Despite having pressing official duties that day, he recognized the opposition's importance when they all arrived requesting he mediate with the government. He proposed a four-day debate in November or December, not necessarily the following week, and offered to facilitate if they accepted those terms.
The opposition then asked him to send a formal letter to the Cabinet, which he did per their agreement, scheduling debate from 9:00 AM to midnight over four days, with the final day ending before midnight ahead of a next-day vote. Sophon expressed disappointment that after the opposition thanked and praised him for using his presidential authority to preserve parliament's dignity, they now accuse him of stalling and serving the executive. If he truly favored the government, he noted, he could simply have packed the agenda with government-ready business immediately after the motion was filed, leaving the opposition to debate or not as they wished.
"Today they claim I delayed and served the administration — this is laughable," Sophon said. "I regret that agreements at the leadership level are being twisted incorrectly, making cooperation difficult. I want all sides to work together because I wish the best for parliament and want to protect its image in the public eye. The current criticism disappoints me further because it uses terms like 'government lackey' to drag parliament down. Must we play politics with such rhetoric merely for satisfaction?"
Sophon also addressed complaints about overlapping committee workloads burdening civil servants, with 35 standing committees plus numerous sub-committees. He has seen this problem since his ministerial days and wants greater efficiency. After allegations that some committee chairs exceeded their authority, he convened a meeting where the majority agreed to follow regulations requiring prior consultation on who to invite and what topics to consider. He has instructed parliament's legal office to clarify proper procedures to ensure smooth operations.
