New Thai PM Will Face the Same Crisis of Confidence

Under common democratic practice, Ms Paetongtarn Shinawatra, leader of  Pheu Thai (PT), the largest party in the majority coalition of 11 parties, has every political right to be the new Thai prime minister. She won the premiership with a vote of 319-145, with 27 abstentions, and 2 absentees in the 493-member House of Representatives on 16 August. She won without contest from the opposition, which did not field any candidate.

Nevertheless, her sudden rise to power — though not entirely unexpected — has raised many eyebrows. Many suspect that this is part of the scheming of her influential father Thaksin behind the scenes. The two-time former prime minister is widely deemed as the actual “owner” of the PT.

Another important question is whether Paetongtarn will answer to the PT leadership and the Thai public, or to her father.

Paetongtarn, a 37-year-old mother of two, is going to face the same crisis of confidence that dogged her predecessor Srettha Thavisin. She has not been an MP or a minister in the past Srettha Administration. Her main qualification to assume the leadership post of the PT last April was, according to Thaksin, her having a mixture of his political DNA plus the toughness of her mother. 

Paetongtarn’s problem also stems from her father. Thaksin, who turned 75 last July, is a criminal convict who is serving the last six months of his one-year jail term under parole. He was scheduled to be “a free man” at the end of August. But he gained full freedom on 17 August under an annual general amnesty to celebrate the King’s birthday.  Thus he was able to take part in the ceremony on 18 August when his daughter formally received the King’s command for her to assume the premiership.

Nevertheless, having been a criminal convict, Thaksin cannot interfere with any political party or hold any public office, let alone try to install a new prime minister.

The fact that leaders of coalition parties were summoned to an urgent meeting at Thaksin’s residence just a few hours after the Constitutional Court’s ruling against Srettha could be seen as evidence of Thaksin’s unlawful interference.

Thaksin is also facing criminal prosecution in court for allegedly insulting the Privy Council, which is tantamount to violating the lese-majeste law. The hearing of his case started on 19 August. But the case is going to take months, if not years, to reach a final verdict.

Meanwhile, Thaksin’s highly visible role is continuing. On 22 August, he will have a dinner talk about “Vision for Thailand”. His high profile and political manoeuvring could, sooner or later, land the PT as well as Paetongtarn in hot water. 

The fact that leaders of coalition parties were summoned to an urgent meeting at Thaksin’s residence just a few hours after the Constitutional Court’s ruling against Srettha could be seen as evidence of Thaksin’s unlawful interference. At the meeting, Paetongtarn was absent; she was flying home from Shanghai after a study tour in China. The PT’s most senior deputy leader, Phumtham Wechayachai, was also absent; he was flying home from Kazakhstan.

The meeting at first agreed to endorse PT’s choice of Chaikasem Nitisiri to vie for the premiership. The following morning, however, a large group of PT MPs voiced their objections. They wanted their leader, Paetongtarn, to be the next PM, instead of the 75-year-old former justice minister who is not in good health.  The PT’s executive committee quickly relented.

Thaksin cannot run away from public suspicion of having some secret — and unlawful — role in the circumstances leading to the switch from Chaikasem to Paetongtarn. He is also perceived to have played a part in proposing the ministerial appointment of his lawyer Pichit Chuern-ban, which eventually led to the sacking of PM Srettha on 7 August.

Srettha has only himself to blame for his sudden political demise. On 14 August, the Constitutional Court in a 5-4 vote ruled that he lacked a high ethical standard to hold the premiership. A majority of the Court pointed out that Srettha should have known it was improper and unethical to propose the name of a lawyer with a questionable past to the King for the appointment as a minister.

The 62-year-old real estate tycoon tried in vain to defend himself with an audacious claim that his alleged  “innocent shortcoming” was due to his lack of political experience, and that he did not have any hidden agenda or self-interest.  

In June 2008, Pichit and his two assistants left behind a bag containing 2 million baht (US$58,000) of cash in a room inside the Supreme Court. The three were jailed for six months for contempt of court in what was deemed as a failed bribery attempt. The incident took place during a conflict of interest case involving Thaksin and his wife, Khunying Potjaman.

Subsequently, Pichit was delisted from the Lawyer’s Council of Thailand.  His attempts at regaining his lawyer’s licence, including a lawsuit in the Administration Court, have failed.

The Constitutional Court cited Pichit’s jail term and loss of his lawyer’s licence as evidence of his lack of “manifest integrity”.  The Court pointed out that Pichit’s past misbehaviour is well-known. At this, Srettha, too, should have known that Pichai lacked the qualifications to hold a cabinet post. The Constitutional Court, therefore, held Srettha responsible for his serious lapse of judgement.

A perplexing question now is why did Srettha take the risk. It is unbelievable that he thought highly of Pichit, whom he does not seem to know personally. The most plausible explanation is that someone very powerful — such as Thaksin — made Srettha an offer he could not refuse.  

The main argument in Srettha’s failed defence was that no one could formally gauge Pichit’s ethical standard. Only the Constitutional Court has the authority to do so. And unless and until the Constitutional Court rules on Pichit’s qualifications, Srettha was not in a position to know whether Pichit was unsuitable for appointment as a minister on his cabinet.

From the beginning of his premiership last August, Srettha had to cope with the unending “crisis of confidence”, arising chiefly from his lack of control over  PT ministers as well as ministers of other government parties.  

Therefore, Srettha has no one else to blame except himself. He had accepted the premiership even though he had no leadership role in the PT, and no say about who served in his cabinet.

Paetongtarn is going to face a similar and most probably insurmountable “crisis of confidence”. But at the least she will have her father to blame should anything go seriously wrong, again. 

2024/251