Napinthorn rebutted Itim’s claims, saying the evidence presented was one-sided and based on baseless imagination aimed at pressuring the Election Commission (EC) over the Senate collusion case. He threatened Yingship with legal action, insisting he was not foolish enough to break the law in front of 8-9 witnesses, and said the charges were unfair and arbitrarily imposed.
At 13:30 on 28 August 2026 at the Government House, Napinthorn Sri-sappang, Minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office, addressed criticism from Parit Watcharasindhu, List MP of the People’s Party and Opposition Whip, who accused him of avoiding a parliamentary question regarding the Senate collusion case. Napinthorn explained he was appointed by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Akniti Nitithanprapas to chair a subcommittee to prevent and solve flood and drought problems in the central river basins, covering five provinces: Mae Klong, Phetchaburi, Prachuap Khiri Khan, and Ratchaburi. The subcommittee included provincial governors, agricultural officers, directors from the Natural Resources and Environment Office, provincial public health doctors, representatives from the Ministries of Transport, Defense, the Budget Bureau, the Royal Irrigation Department, and other relevant local officials to prepare for flood issues expected from the upcoming September rains.
Napinthorn said he was scheduled to visit Ratchaburi Province on 27 August and had informed the Prime Minister in writing on 20 August about his official duty that day. On 22 August, he received a letter summoning committee members from the five provinces to meet in Ratchaburi. Regarding the live parliamentary question, he was informed by officials it would occur but did not know the topic, and the next day he confirmed with officials that on 27 August he had inspection duties in Ratchaburi.
Napinthorn acknowledged that answering parliamentary questions and providing explanations to the House are important duties. However, when duties coincided, he prioritized those related to solving public problems. The meeting involved representatives from all five provinces; postponing it could delay until mid-September due to his overseas commitments and might not address the approaching rainstorm in the lower central region timely. He emphasized his awareness of public responsibility and questioned the maturity of those accusing him of lacking this sense based on the incident.
Napinthorn then addressed the parliamentary question about Mr. A, stating that if there were doubts, phone calls for clarification were welcome. He invited Parit and Yingship to listen via speakerphone live right there.
Napinthorn explained the allegation that on 24 June 2024, Mr. A, a Senate candidate, met him in his office while he was Deputy Commerce Minister, and again on 25 June. It was also claimed Mr. A was asked to sign a resignation letter in advance. Napinthorn said the initial meeting was arranged by the National Agriculture Council president in mid-June 2024 to discuss agricultural issues in Ratchaburi. The meeting took place on 24 June at the Ministry of Commerce, attended by the National Agriculture Council secretary-general, director, president of the Ratchaburi Agriculture Council, and Mr. A. He also invited senior officials from the Department of Internal Trade and the Department of International Trade Promotion to discuss solutions for agricultural problems.
During the discussion, Mr. A requested support as a Senate candidate, but Napinthorn immediately declined, citing laws prohibiting politicians from interfering in Senate elections, and internal party orders from Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of Bhumjaithai Party, forbidding members’ involvement. After declining, the talk returned to agricultural issues, especially problems faced by the turkey breeders’ club regarding market and sales challenges.
Napinthorn said there had been prior correspondence about the turkey breeders’ issues to the National Agriculture Council, which set up a committee to examine the matter. The meeting agreed to propose solutions to the Cabinet secretary-general, with a letter dated 13 March 2024. However, the issue was not brought before the Cabinet. Later, complainants wrote to the National Agriculture Council president to follow up, leading to coordination with Napinthorn to discuss activities to stimulate turkey consumption and market solutions. Due to overseas travel plans, a follow-up meeting was scheduled for 25 June. On that day, Mr. A and his group again requested support for his Senate candidacy, which Napinthorn again refused and asked Mr. A to leave, noting he had already explained his inability to get involved and reprimanded those who brought Mr. A back to raise the issue again.
Napinthorn addressed allegations related to the Senate election, stating these accusations lack clear supporting evidence or any documents verifying the claims. Nine senior Ministry of Commerce officials involved gave consistent testimony supporting Napinthorn’s version of events.
“I am a normal person; I’m not foolish enough to break the law in front of 8-9 witnesses. If someone asks for help or to sign something, I would not agree or do it openly before 8-9 people. These are the facts I presented to the Election Commission’s 26th panel.”
Napinthorn questioned whether Yingship Atjanont, director of iLaw, and Parit Watcharasindhu, MP of the People’s Party, have disclosed these facts or mentioned the witnesses who corroborate this account.
Regarding the 4-5 July 2024 Senate orientation at the Pullman Hotel, Napinthorn said phone signal data linking Senators and Bhumjaithai politicians at the hotel were cited. He observed that the Pullman Hotel is a public space accessible to anyone, including the lobby, coffee shop, and restaurant areas.
Napinthorn explained that during that period, the unfinished Bhumjaithai Party office used the Pullman Hotel as a gathering place for socializing and discussions. For important matters, a small meeting room seating up to 10 people could be reserved. Claims that about 100 Senators gathered would require a large conference room.
“Having phone signals of Bhumjaithai MPs at the Pullman Hotel—do you have evidence they were inside the meeting room itself?”
Napinthorn confirmed he was not at the Pullman Hotel on 4-5 July 2024, as he was on official duty in Germany. He has travel authorization letters submitted to Commerce Minister Phumtham Vejchayai, and passport entry-exit records showing departure from Thailand on 28 June 2024 and return on 8 July 2024. He has already provided these documents to the EC’s 26th panel.
“This is clear evidence. So how can charges be made? This shows the 26th panel arbitrarily imposed charges.”
Napinthorn said he believes all 229 accused individuals have clear evidence to defend themselves. However, there is pressure to prosecute all 229 simultaneously with only one side’s evidence presented, which could harm the accused. Evidence favorable to them is withheld. While the EC’s thorough individual case reviews of over 400 cases are appropriate, political pressure to indict all 229 based on one-sided evidence is, politically, “dirty politics.”
Napinthorn continued that this pressure is unfair because only one side’s evidence is revealed, and evidence favorable to the accused is withheld. Pressuring the EC to indict all 229 with such one-sided evidence is inappropriate and constitutes dirty political tactics. He emphasized that the EC is an independent body functioning like police, prosecutors, and courts. Before election certification, it can issue red cards; afterward, it investigates and recommends cases to court.
Napinthorn noted that the EC’s standard differs slightly from police and prosecutors, who require proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases. The EC uses a lower standard—reasonable grounds to believe an offense occurred, relying on about 60% of the evidence. Accusing the EC of bias because a few Senators appointed some members is baseless and slanders society. Political factions using these issues to pressure the EC are engaging in improper, dirty politics.
Napinthorn said case files are confidential, so when only damaging points are disclosed, the EC cannot respond or clarify. Such one-sided revelations should not happen. While he has information and can speak, he refrains to preserve the EC’s independence. Claiming his innocence publicly could pressure the EC. However, since Parit, Opposition Whip, spoke publicly, Napinthorn feels compelled to respond and invites Parit or Yingship to ask any questions, promising to answer all.
Napinthorn added there is a new claim that from 21-27 July 2024, Senators gathered at the Pullman Hotel, and the Prime Minister was seen there, supported by phone signals. He questioned if this alone is sufficient evidence, noting the Prime Minister frequently visits the hotel and likely cannot recall specific dates. Whether Senators were present is unknown to him, but assuming the Prime Minister was in a meeting room with Senators is baseless imagination meant to malign. He urged society to consider all aspects fairly and allow those working, the EC, and the accused to speak.
Napinthorn said Parit claimed 4-5 Senate candidates visited the Ministry of Commerce and phone signals were tracked, asking if Napinthorn met them. He answered he did not. He questioned the reasonableness of such claims given the Ministry employs thousands. Linking the candidates or Senators to the Ministry is unfounded imagination. Regarding alleged financial channels, payers may explain whom they paid and why. But the payer is merely an acquaintance or former representative of a Bhumjaithai politician. Such facts do not suffice to accuse that politician of paying for wrongdoing. He urged society to think carefully for fairness.
“I have tried to remain silent because I submitted all information to the EC. But when the 26th investigative panel concluded I was guilty, it’s okay. I still believe in the seven EC members’ reasoning and the justice process, but I do not trust the 26th panel. Based on the evidence I provided, I do not believe the 26th panel treated me fairly,” said Napinthorn.
Napinthorn added he has filed a complaint against Yingship Atjanont at Thonglor Police Station because Yingship claimed that Mr. A met him with two civil servants witnessing. He questioned why Yingship did not state that the two civil servants were present in the room and saw the entire event. Selectively quoting to the public is not for public benefit but biased defamation. He said, “See you in court. I have filed complaints for all cases you mentioned and will sue some personally.”
Napinthorn reaffirmed his commitment to work and said those accusing him should be more mature. As an MP, they should disclose all evidence, not just parts. If there are over 90,000 pages of documents, they should open everything. The accused have substantial exculpatory evidence, so why reveal only one side?
When asked about Yingship’s statement that if the government side tells the truth, he would apologize, Napinthorn said he has already told the truth today. Whether Yingship follows through is his choice; Napinthorn does not force anyone. Everyone must be responsible for their words. He pointed at the interviewer and said, “See you.”
“I have given my phone number. If you have questions, ask me. I will answer those relevant to me. But if you ask about others, I cannot answer because I do not know the facts in the EC files. Society must ensure fairness,” said Napinthorn.