The no-confidence debate on March 24-25, the first against the Pheu Thai-led government since it came to power in September 2023, has exposed weaknesses on both political camps, according to academics.
At least four issues remain to be addressed by the government and while these controversies may stoke political tension, they are unlikely to generate enough momentum to trigger street protests.
An intense showdown is expected in the next censure debate and if the opposition extends its scrutiny beyond the prime minister to include cabinet ministers, a cabinet reshuffle could be on the cards.
Valid concerns lack evidence
The censure motion solely targeted Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, also leader of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, who was accused of lacking the ability to govern, evading taxes, and allowing her father, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, to exert political influence.
Ms Paetongtarn sailed through the motion with 319 votes of support against 162 votes of no-confidence, with seven abstentions.
Olarn Thinbangtieo, a political science lecturer at Burapha University, said that in the broad picture the government left several questions unanswered and only economic ministers did a good job providing data-based explanations.
Following the debate the opposition is likely to follow up on four key issues which have raised valid concerns, he said.
They cover alleged tax evasion, the legality of the land plot where the Shinawatra family’s luxury hotel in Nakhon Ratchasima is located, Thaksin’s prolonged stay at the Police General Hospital (PGH) and military’s information operations.
Mr Olarn criticised Ms Paetongtarn’s response regarding alleged tax evasion, saying it was deliberate to deflect the allegation. The opposition is likely to gather further evidence in order to ask the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to launch an inquiry, he noted.
“Paying tax is a civic duty and how much one pays is irrelevant. The point is whether taxes are paid in full compliance with the law,” Mr Olarn said, referring to the prime minister’s answer that she paid more tax than many of her generation.
On Friday, the People’s Party (PP) MPs led by deputy leader Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn submitted a letter to the Revenue Department asking it to examine the premier’s use of promissory notes (PN) to buy shares and determine whether it was an act of tax evasion.
They alleged that using promissory notes without specified repayment terms or interest rates could be seen as an attempt to bypass the 5% gift tax.
Another petition was lodged with the Department of Land (DoL) to examine the issuance of land documents for “Thames Valley Khao Yai”, the luxury hotel owned by the Shinawatra family in Nakhon Ratchasima.
The opposition argued the plot housing the luxury hotel, which was part of the Lam Takhong self-help settlement, is in a watershed area where land documents cannot be issued.
No mass protests
Mr Olarn said political activists have attempted to use some of these issues to justify street protests, but such efforts are unlikely to gain traction even after the debate.
“Taking to the streets is a distant scenario because people don’t think it’s a solution and it will only culminate in a coup. It should be decided by the ballot in the next elections,” he said.
Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, said the issues raised during the debate are not pressing enough to ignite mass protests.
This could be because the government has been in office for only a short time and the opposition has no new evidence to support the alleged misconduct beyond what is already known to the public, he said.
In terms of debating skills, he said the government MPs were outperformed by the PP team particularly when it involved parliament regulations, adding the government has work to do to improve in these areas before future censure debates.
Tougher scrutiny ahead
Mr Stithorn said other coalition parties were not affected by the debate and were there to be a cabinet shake-up, it would be limited to the ruling Pheu Thai Party.
However, he warned political tensions could surface if future debate over the entire cabinet.
Mr Stithorn said each ministry will face an intense scrutiny, with its performance to be evaluated by data and the outcomes of policy implementation.
“Given the time since taking office, policies will be judged on actual results rather than promises. In the lead-up to the next election, each party will be forced to defend its record, which could strain relationships within the ruling coalition,” he said.
Mr Olarn, meanwhile, said much of the opposition’s debate revolved around issues already known to the public and suggested it should avoid coining new words that could overshadow the substance of their arguments.
“And in the next debate the opposition should scrutinise the entire cabinet instead of the prime minister alone because as several ministries have underperformed,” said Mr Olarn.
Opposition underperforms
Pheu Thai MP Sutin Klungsang criticised the no-confidence debate for falling below the required standard and lacking the depth and intensity to justify a censure motion.
The only notable issues raised were the prime minister’s alleged tax evasion and the land controversy in Khao Yai, both of which were addressed by relevant agencies, he said.
The rest of the accusations, particularly claims of a secret deal affecting national interests, lacked evidence and were pure speculation made compelling by the language used in the debate, he said.
Mr Sutin agreed that the censure debate was a political necessity for the PP, as failing to make a case against the government would have reflected poorly on their work in opposition.
This also helped explain why they lacked the materials to back allegations they had no choice but to make.
The Pheu Thai veteran said Ms Paetongtarn handled the debate well and performed better than expected at communicating information in a confident manner, despite some mistakes such as jokingly mocking Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) leader Gen Prawit Wongsuwon.
A political necessity
Pol Maj Gen Supisarn Bhakdinarinath, a deputy leader of the PP, said the no-confidence debate is a political necessity in terms of responsibility and timing and admitted that the government had a slight advantage.
“This is the only opportunity for a no-confidence debate this year, yet the prime minister has only been in office for six months, so it is quite a struggle to gather solid evidence,” he said.
Pol Maj Gen Supisarn, however, gave the prime minister a low score for her responses, saying she tried to evade questions rather than providing straightforward answers.
Given the overwhelming support she received, he said the government managed its political bargaining and interest well, but he anticipated a power play within the ruling coalition.
A faction led by Capt Thamanat Prompow, chief adviser of the Kla Dharma Party, may push for a deputy ministerial position as the Pheu Thai Party has a reputation for rotating positions every six months to keep its line-up fresh, he said.
Regarding the tax and land controversies surrounding the prime minister, Pol Maj Gen Supisarn said they could lead to an ethics investigation but are unlikely to result in criminal charges.
