Thailand’s opposition People’s Party has filed a motion of no-confidence against Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, on the grounds that she has failed to carry out her duties and is under the undue influence of her father Thaksin Shinawatra.
Addressing the press yesterday, the head of the People’s Party, Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, said that the prime minister lacked leadership, qualifications, knowledge, and the capabilities to solve the problems facing the Thai people.
“The prime minister has let subordinates to have control over her and has let her father lead and persuade (her) and get involved in national administration,” the opposition leader said, according to the Bangkok Post.
The People’s Party has been planning the no-confidence motion for some time. The party initially intended to censure 10 ministers in addition to Paetongtarn, but reportedly revised its approach after the list of ministers leaked to the press last week. According to an “informed source” cited earlier this week by the Post, there are also concerns within the party that the government planned to attempt to shorten the five-day debate period to just two days.
However, Natthapong said yesterday that while the no-confidence motion targeted only the prime minister, its content concerned many of her ministries and coalition parties. The People’s Party has also accused Paetongtarn, who took office last year after the court-ordered dismissal of her predecessor Srettha Thavisin, of failing adequately to administer the sluggish Thai economy and of failing to “control the votes of the coalition parties.”
Under Article 151 of the Thai Constitution, a bloc of at least one-fifth of the members of the House of Representatives can bring a vote of no-confidence against any individual minister, or the cabinet as a whole. This is then followed by a general debate and a vote in which the motion requires a majority vote to pass.
The motion is unlikely to pass the 500-member House of Representatives, where Paetongtarn’s Pheu Thai-led coalition government has a comfortable 322-seat majority, but it will require the prime minister to submit herself to questioning by People’s Party lawmakers and the opposition has frequently used this tactic to grill the government. (Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who led the military coup of 2014 and served as prime minister until 2023, survived four separate no-confidence votes.) Parliamentary Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha said that the debate will begin on March 24, and continue for an as-yet undetermined duration.
Speaking to the press on Wednesday, a day after convening a meeting of coalition parties to discuss the issue, Paetongtarn said that she was unworried about a potential censure motion and that was willing to answer any questions from lawmakers. “We’ve discussed the censure debate in detail because we want this coalition to maintain its unity and stability. We will all help each other [in the debate] across all ministries,” she said.
While the People’s Party intends to address a wide range of issues, the focus on Thaksin’s influence touches on a longstanding controversy in Thai politics.
Prior to his return to Thailand in August 2023, Thaksin had spent the previous 15 years in self-exile, facing corruption charges that were brought against him shortly after his ouster in a military coup in 2006. During this period, conservative and royalist parties accused him of controlling the Pheu Thai party and its predecessors from abroad.
This is also an issue of some sensitivity for the People’s Party. Thaksin’s return was secured as part of the deal that saw the Pheu Thai party join together with a number of conservative and pro-military parties, marking a period of détente in the long-running conflict between the Thai conservative establishment and the Shinawatra political machine.
The deal was brokered after the Pheu Thai abandoned the Move Forward Party (MFP), the since-banned predecessor of the People’s Party. The MFP won a plurality of votes at the general election held in May 2023, on explicit promises of radical reform, but was prevented from forming a coalition government with Pheu Thai after the military-dominated Senate voted against its candidate for prime minister. MFP officials and members, many of whom have since joined the People’s Party, still harbor a sense of betrayal over Pheu Thai’s actions.
Since Thaksin’s return, which saw his lengthy prison term for corruption expunged, he has assumed a position of de facto leadership within Pheu Thai and has played an active role in communicating the government’s policy priorities.
The issue of Thaksin’s improper influence thus represents a rare overlap between the progressive People’s Party and the conservative side of Thai politics, and perhaps an attempt to win conservative support for its motion. Despite the détente between Thaksin and his former rivals, ultra-royalist conservatives have already filed a number of legal challenges against Paetongtarn’s administration, including one alleging that the Pheu Thai party has improperly permitted Thaksin to control the party, despite not holding a formal leadership position within it.
While the motion stands little chance of passing, it will allow the People’s Party to score some political points and buffer its own reformist gadfly credentials against Pheu Thai in advance of the anticipated showdown at the next general election.