Speaker Urges Evidence-Based No-Confidence Debate, Warns Against Insults
House Speaker Sohpan Sararum urged that the upcoming no-confidence debate be based on evidence, warning against insults and bullying, and said the public is tired of parliamentary quarrels. He said the debate schedule will be decided after discussions among government, opposition, and parliamentary whips, likely this week. Sohpan also stressed that any accusations in the debate, including those concerning the Senate caucus case, must relate to the current government and be backed by proof.
House Speaker Sohpan Sararum said the no-confidence debate should be based on evidence, warned against false accusations and bullying, and urged constructive discourse, saying the public is tired of parliamentary quarrels. He noted that any debate on the Senate caucus case must be linked to the current government.
On October 19, 2026, at Parliament, Sohpan said the government's proposal for a three-day no-confidence debate from October 27-29 with a vote on October 30 is each side's opinion, while the opposition wants five days. After the Cabinet submits the start date to Parliament, the house will convene a meeting of the three party whips to discuss how many days the debate will last, considering readiness and opinions of all three sides, and must respect each other's views on the opposition's needs and the Cabinet's stance. He added that a debate involving 18 individuals is not new; it has occurred before in full. The actual dates are likely to be set this week.
He said he has assigned Ms. Mallika Jirapanduwanich, the first deputy house speaker, responsible for this matter, to arrange meetings with the three sides, though he has not yet seen the letter as of today (October 19). If he sees it, he will schedule the meeting, wanting it done quickly so both government and opposition can prepare, including the presiding officer.
When asked about the proposed schedule for next week, Sohpan said he truly does not know yet, urging them to agree as soon as possible so a framework can be set, depending on negotiations.
When asked whether the opposition's motion allows debate on any topic, Sohpan said a no-confidence debate is an accusation that the Cabinet or a minister has not performed duties according to law, such as corruption, and it is the Cabinet's duty to refute the allegations. He believes there will be no disorder if all sides follow parliamentary rules and the intent of the no-confidence debate.
He said it is a serious accusation, but seriousness is not insults, because insults cannot be explained. However, an accusation of corruption or cheating must be backed by evidence; when accusing someone of cheating, evidence must be shown, and the Cabinet must also present evidence to rebut.
He added that whether the accusation sticks does not depend on harsh language or credibility; it depends on evidence. The same applies to the defense. If we want a truly constructive parliament, both sides should make straightforward accusations, not false insults, which the public does not want to see in parliament. He said wherever he goes, people complain that they are tired of hearing nothing but bickering.
Therefore, if accusations are made with reason, according to principle—whatever corruption—they will be credible, and the person explaining has a duty to clarify, not to increase accusations against the other side. If all sides behave politely in the debate's substance, polite language that is reasoned and sensible is better than vulgar language, insults, or bullying, which could yield better results and gain more public support than those kinds of remarks.
"Because I believe that in society, people with a sense of justice are many; using violence may win over some, but only a minority. I do not want to see images of quarrels over trivial matters. We want to see politics move forward, and we must build public trust," Sohpan said.
When asked about the Senate caucus case in the opposition's accusations, Sohpan said it must be considered who is being accused, what involvement they have, what topic is being debated, what the issue is, because the matter has already been concluded by the agency responsible for it, and according to the accusation, it must pertain to something that occurred in the current government.
Thus, this time we must examine what the debate is about, whether it is allowed under the rules, which must focus on work in the current government, but the personal attribute follows a person from birth to death. If we look to the past without
