Akkaradej emphasized that the government has never obstructed the no-confidence debate, countering Satit's claim by saying, "Don't take credit for the good and blame others for the bad." He urged Satit to tell the complete truth and not shift blame for the failed negotiations after the opposition walked out.
26 Oct 2026 GMT+7 Mr. Akkaradej Wongpitakroj MP for Ratchaburi from the Bhumjaithai Party, serving as government whip, commented on the case involving Mr. Satit Wongnongtoey List MP from the Democrat Party, who gave an interview about the no-confidence debate scheduling, stating that if the debate cannot be held before the session ends, it might violate the constitution. Akkaradej said the government whip has continuously coordinated with the opposition to reach a consensus on the debate timing, affirming there was no obstruction of government scrutiny.
Akkaradej continued that during negotiations, the opposition proposed a 5-day debate framework, while the government tried to find a compromise and accepted a 4+1 day framework. Ultimately, no agreement was reached during the talks. If the opposition had been less confrontational and accepted the proposal, the matter would have been resolved. However, when the opposition whip walked out, it was akin to ending negotiations. As time passed, the Speaker had to set the parliamentary agenda for this week as usual. Yet, accusations arose claiming the government obstructed the debate and even suggesting constitutional or serious ethical violations. He questioned how the public is supposed to understand this.
"Failed negotiations are one matter, but turning unresolved talks into accusations that the government obstructed the process is another issue that must be distinguished. Don't play the game of taking credit for the good and blaming others for the bad, then let the public believe the government blocked scrutiny when the facts show continuous coordination and a clear sequence of events."
Akkaradej also said not to appear politically righteous by demanding others respect the rules while ignoring facts and procedures themselves. If accusing the government of obstructing the debate, they should clearly specify where the obstruction occurred. The government has consistently tried to negotiate solutions, but it was the opposition that refused to compromise or consider the greater good.
"Do not prioritize your own demands and then blame the other side when you don’t get your way. Failure to reach an agreement does not mean anyone intentionally obstructed the process, and government scrutiny should not be misused as a political tool to create misleading narratives."