Opposition Rejects 3-Day Limit for No-Confidence Debate

Before the no-confidence debate against the Anutin government even opens, the government and opposition are already locked in a dispute over the timeframe. The Pheu Thai-led government seeks to cap the debate at 3+1 days, while the opposition Pheu Thai and Democrat parties stand firm on 5+1 days to examine the Prime Minister and all 18 ministers. The government's rationale: a special Cabinet meeting on October 26 and the Prime Minister's foreign engagements on October 30-31 leave only October 27-29 for debate, with a vote on October 30. The opposition rejects this. Opposition leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut insists the government should not impose a schedule without negotiating with the opposition, pointing out that previous debates targeting only six ministers still consumed four full days before a vote the following day. He also presses the Prime Minister to clear his calendar to show the administration takes parliamentary scrutiny seriously. Meanwhile, MP Rangsiman Rome asserts five days fits the number of ministers and opposition speakers, and that the attempt to compress the debate to three days may signal government unease. Democrat MP Satit Wongnongtaey also opposes the three-day limit, arguing no government worldwide sets the timeline for its own oversight. He notes, however, that a three-day debate does not necessarily mean the government fears scrutiny, just as five days does not guarantee the opposition has damning evidence. The crucial point is that the censure stage must allow the opposition sufficient time to present evidence and the government full opportunity to respond. If the three-party whip meeting cannot agree, one option is postponing the debate to November after the Prime Minister completes his overseas duties, giving the opposition a full five days and ministers time to address every issue without haste. There remain two full months before the parliamentary session ends on December 22. A censure debate is not a contest over who speaks more; it is a forum where the public expects the truth. The opposition must substantiate allegations with concrete evidence, and the government must answer questions clearly — not trade political rhetoric. Without real facts and clear explanations, whether the debate lasts three days or five, it merely wastes parliamentary time. The people still get no answers.