“Rome” Counters Government Not to Limit Censure Debate Frame, Insists Dissecting 18 Ministers Requires 5 Days, Compares to “Uncle Tu” Era When Only 10 Were Targeted Yet Used 45 Hours

Today (21 October 2026) at 6:00 PM at Parliament, Mr. Rangsiman Rome, party-list MP for the People's Party, gave an interview after attending discussions with the 3-party whip regarding setting the dates and time for the censure debate, stating that there was no conclusion yet. Ms. Mallika Jirapunvanich, First Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, will schedule another discussion on this matter tomorrow. He noted that he was not a committee member but joined the talk due to a special task requiring discussion, though a conclusion between the Cabinet, government side, and opposition side could not yet be reached.

When asked if the issue stemmed from the opposition wanting to debate in early November while the government was ready next week, Mr. Rangsiman stated that the opposition's request was 5 days, but the Cabinet specified that 5 days was not possible. We have prepared for 5 days all along, and if given 5 days, we are ready immediately; however, when our time is squeezed, we need to return to discuss and adjust regarding this matter. If compared to the era of General Prayut Chan-o-cha, former Prime Minister, debating 10–11 Cabinet members used around 42–45 hours, but this time, with 18 ministers targeted for debate, it is necessary to debate comprehensively, making time compression extremely difficult because we must use time for discussion to cover every issue and all 18 ministers who face numerous allegations.

Mr. Rangsiman continued that if time is squeezed, dates must be renegotiated because usually time discussions take place well in advance, but this time there was no formal discussion from the beginning, which is one of the problems making time negotiations far from simple at present.

When asked about the Prime Minister's remark on reducing explanation time for ministers to give more to the opposition and whether that would still be insufficient, Mr. Rangsiman stated that there was currently no conclusion that the government would reduce its time, as the previous ratio was 2 to 1—for instance, if the opposition had 60 hours, the government might have 30 hours. Currently, various format possibilities are being explored; even if the government reduces time, the opposition still needs adequate time to cover all 18 ministers. Thus, if that is the case, the opposition must consult among themselves again, and MPs in the party who filed numerous debate topics must reorganize everything from scratch.

When asked if this meant the framework of Oct 27–30, 2026 had to be changed to new dates, Mr. Rangsiman stated that a 3-day timeframe was insufficient from the beginning, and it remains to be seen how much time each side gets. Even debating 24 hours a day would be impossible, so both sides must return to talk and reach a new agreement.

Regarding whether date setting aligns with various tasks of the Prime Minister, Mr. Rangsiman said this is in the process of exploring how feasible it is, and the government side must negotiate or discuss with the Cabinet to see what possibilities exist.

When asked if meeting halfway with a 4-day debate was possible, Mr. Rangsiman stated that all sides are currently trying to find middle ground, but it has not been found yet, and details regarding options or proposals cannot be disclosed at this stage. The opposition itself wants the debate to happen, but the problem lies in time, which must correspond to the fairly large number of ministers targeted this round.

As for whether tomorrow's meeting will yield a conclusion, Mr. Rangsiman noted that it must be admitted informal talks are taking place first, and whether a conclusion is reached tomorrow remains another matter to be determined.

Photo : Weeraphat Ratsameerueangrong