Opposition MP Accuses House Speaker of Bias in Five Key Areas
People's Party list-MP Prasit Watcharasin has publicly challenged House Speaker Soraporn Sarom on five points he says violate the Speaker's own declared duty of neutrality. The criticisms include endorsing restrictive committee rules that could shield the government from scrutiny, blocking a citizen-backed bill on the October 6 massacre, and delaying a petition to review the NACC's dismissal of a stock-manipulation case against a former minister for 155 days — far longer than a similar case handled by the previous National Assembly president.
On November 8, 2026, list-MP Prasit Watcharasin, deputy leader of the People's Party, posted on Facebook detailing five important problems regarding parliamentary work that House Speaker Soraporn Sarom should urgently review, act on, and correct.
In an open letter from Speaker Soraporn Sarom to the public on November 6, he wrote that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has a duty to Parliament and all the people, not to any political party, in order to maintain neutrality, independence, and the dignity of the legislature so it can strongly and lawfully check the executive. Prasit says he agrees with this statement but sees the Speaker currently acting in at least five ways that run counter to that principle:
1. Endorsing the House Secretariat's operating guidelines that require every committee action — such as setting agendas and summoning witnesses — to rely strictly on a full committee vote. Prasit says this hampers the flexibility and efficiency of committees, especially on urgent matters, and opens the door for government MPs, who hold a majority in committees, to vote together to block scrutiny of issues that could reflect badly on the government even when those issues fall squarely within the committee's constitutional authority under Section 129. This also lends legitimacy to the Bhumjaithai Party's proposed rule amendments coming before the House this week, which could be portrayed as aligning with the Speaker's preferred approach.
2. Blocking a citizen-backed bill to annul the legacy of the October 6 massacre, which had gathered 59,503 signatures, from entering parliamentary consideration. The Speaker ruled it fell outside the scope of bills the public can propose under Section 133(3) of the Constitution because its principles allegedly violate Chapter 3 on rights and liberties. Prasit notes the bill proposes amending criminal penalties for offenses related to freedom of expression — squarely a Chapter 3 matter — and points out that previous Speakers have allowed similar citizen-proposed bills amending other Criminal Code offenses to proceed. Admitting a bill for debate does not mean the Speaker endorses its content; it simply lets the 500 MPs deliberate and decide.
3. Sitting on a petition from opposition MPs and some senators asking the President of the National Assembly to refer the NACC's dropping of the stock-manipulation case against former Transport Minister Saksiam Chidchob to the Supreme Court for review. The petition has been pending for 155 days — about five months — since submission. By comparison, when then-Senate Speaker Mongkol Surasajja acted as National Assembly President in early 2026, he forwarded a similar petition on the Thongkham bribery case to the Supreme Court in under 41 days. Prasit adds that the Speaker has given no clear explanation for the delay.
