Supachai Jaikasemut retorts to Abhisit Vejjajiva’s accusation that the Bhumjaithai Party has taken control of the Senate, urging not to rely on assumptions but on evidence. He points out that the Democrat Party once boycotted elections twice before crises ended in coups, asking whether that was an attempt to overthrow the government.
28 Aug 2026 GMT+7 Mr. Supachai Jaikasemut a party-list Member of Parliament and Bhumjaithai Party’s legal chief, posted on his personal Facebook to respond to Abhisit Vejjajiva, a party-list MP and leader of the Democrat Party, who questioned whether political parties have sent people to seize control of the Senate and possibly use freedoms to overthrow the government. Supachai challenged Abhisit to look back at the Democrat Party's history before accusing Bhumjaithai of Senate control. Abhisit questioned whether parties openly or covertly sent people to take over the Senate—an independent body—to protect the executive or Senate from wrongdoing and prevent oversight. He also suggested these individuals might be using freedoms to overthrow the government. This question is serious and directly implicates democracy’s foundations.
The Bhumjaithai Party therefore has the right to ask in return, before accusing other parties of controlling the Senate or even overthrowing the government, whether accusations should be based on facts and evidence or just feelings and political assumptions. If there is evidence that the Bhumjaithai Party or any individuals broke laws regarding the selection of Senators, then such evidence should be submitted through legal procedures for the Election Commission, courts, or relevant authorities to decide.
Supachai further said that as long as no final legal decision has been made, speaking as if a party has sent people to seize control of the Senate must be done with great caution, because political accusations are not legal proof. Regarding democracy, one cannot avoid revisiting history by the same standards. The Democrat Party chose to boycott two significant general elections.
First, in the 2 April 2006 election, the Democrat Party and other opposition parties boycotted and did not send candidates. Second, in the 2 February 2014 election, under Abhisit’s leadership, the Democrat Party again resolved not to send candidates amid pre-election reform movements. The image of Abhisit with a whistle became iconic nationwide. Historically, both political crises ended with military coups in 2006 and 2014.
“I do not say that the Democrat Party’s refusal to send candidates caused the coups, as that would be an overstatement. But the question worth asking is: why did the Democrat Party choose not to participate in elections twice when given the chance to let the people decide? This is a matter for reflection, especially since a party with this history now harshly accuses another party of possibly using freedoms to overthrow the government.”
Democracy does not mean that a party can claim who belongs to which Senate faction simply based on closeness, similar voting patterns, or political accusations. If someone claims a Senator is a “blue Senator” or someone sent by Bhumjaithai to seize control of the Senate, they must prove who sent whom, how, under what orders, what agreements or exchanges occurred, and which actions violated laws. The rule of law does not judge by color or political labels nor by repeated claims until society believes them; it decides based on facts, evidence, and law.
The Bhumjaithai Party does not deny Abhisit’s right to question. Abhisit has the freedom to critique, and Bhumjaithai has the freedom to ask for evidence. If evidence exists, it should be presented and proven legally. If not, political assumptions should not be declared as facts, nor should they be expanded into serious accusations such as plotting to overthrow the government.
Most importantly, if all parties are to respect democracy, the same standards must apply to everyone, including one’s own party history. Democracy is not a term to accuse others, and the rule of law is not about making accusations first then seeking evidence later. Political accusations are permissible, but claims that someone controls the Senate or intends to overthrow the government must be supported by clear evidence.