Thanakorn advised Teng to submit the no-confidence debate with dignity and not to focus more on rhetoric than facts. He dismissed sensational information that ends up creating hype rather than substantive content, expressing confidence that the government can answer every question.
On 15 Aug 2026 GMT+7, Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana, party-list MP of the Bhumjaithai Party and former Minister of Industry, commented on the statement by Nattapong Ruangpanyawut, party-list MP and leader of the People’s Party, who said they would definitely submit a no-confidence motion in the upcoming session. Thanakorn said the government, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, remains committed to serving the country and its people. Therefore, the government does not need to guess the questions as it is confident it can clarify and respond to all issues. However, the opposition should also consider whether the issues they raise truly relate to the government and how they are connected, as many past debates accused the government without clear evidence linking the government to those matters.
Regarding Nattapong’s claim that as long as the country is governed under the "blue regime," Thailand has no future, Thanakorn said that the longer time passes, the more Nattapong seems to favor the term "regime," despite Thailand having only one system: a democracy under a constitutional monarchy. The claim that the opposition has kept all documents of government mistakes to reveal in the no-confidence debate was challenged; when the time comes, they will produce the documents rather than excuse unpreparedness or missing evidence. He urged the opposition to perform their duties with dignity in parliament, focusing on facts over rhetoric, as the public gains nothing otherwise, and it merely looks like using the no-confidence debate as a political ritual.
In many past debates, some allegations were not directly related to the government but the opposition tried to link them anyway. Some issues emphasized creating hype over factual content, mixing social media information—some true, some false—into a bland concoction. If the information is insufficient and not truly beneficial to the public, it would be better not to submit a no-confidence debate at all. Nevertheless, the government will use parliamentary mechanisms to refute false claims and clarify the truth so the public will be informed.