PM Candidates Participate in First Debate
A debate dominated by national security and grey capital
In past election cycles I have not spent too much time watching or thinking about the debates. For one, there are simply too many; every channel seems to want to schedule a debate of their own. And because there are so many parties, every channel ends up inviting the leader of virtually every party that stands a reasonable chance of winning a seat in parliament. These debates thus usually feel more like declarations of political stances than real clashes of policy ideas. But the debate held by Thai Rath on December 23rd was the first of this election cycle, which could possibly give it some outsized media attention, and so I thought it would be worth a watch.
Two notable absences: Bhumjaithai and Kla Tham both declined to send any candidates. Anutin appears set to skip all debates, but we’ll have to wait and see if Bhumjaithai is willing to send its other PM candidates (there is a delay in their candidate announcement, suggesting this is still not settled).
Here are some of my observations on noteworthy points of the debate.
Abhisit says the Democrats will not join a coalition that includes Kla Tham
The section of the debate that gathered the most attention came when the party leaders were asked if there were any parties that they would be unwilling to partner with in forming a coalition. Many of the party leaders replied that they would not partner with “grey” parties and ministers, but declined to go into the specifics. Pirapan Salirathavibhaga, leader of the United Thai Nation Party, said that he would not join a coalition with any party with “policies that affect the main institution of the nation,” while Sudarat Keyuraphan, leader of the Thai Sang Thai Party, said that she would not partner with “parties that do not keep their word.” The most notable statement came from Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, who explicitly stated that the Democrats are “unable to be in the same government as the Kla Tham Party.” (Earlier yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Thammanat Promphao had confirmed that he would be the party’s sole candidate for prime minister, saying “Everyone knows the owner of the party is me.”)
As the only leader to boldly rule out a specific party, it was a statement that was bound to create headlines. We’ll have to wait and see whether or not it will increase the Democrats’ popularity, however. It is possible that some disaffected former Democrat voters will once decline to vote for Abhisit; some conservative voters have long believed that Abhisit is too idealistic. They may see statements like these as condemning the Democrats to certain opposition status. It also evokes Abhisit’s 2019 pledge not to support then-prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, which the Democrats then backtracked on, forcing Abhisit’s resignation as an MP.
But there is also a vast difference between declining to support Prayut Chan-o-cha and refusing to join a coalition with Thammanat. The move seems calculated to draw a contrast between the Democrats and Bhumjaithai (Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul appointed Thammanat as deputy prime minister and has delegated several important responsibilities to him over the past few weeks) in order to win over wavering former Democrats who are still skeptical of Bhumjaithai. It may also be designed to win back some ex-Democrats who abandoned the party in favor of Move Forward in 2023 (it is notable that he was willing to go further than Natthaphong Rueangpanyawut, who declined to name a specific party).
National security and grey capital dominates the debate
The debate felt like a preview of the election campaign, with conversations around national security and “grey capital” taking up most of the airtime.
Pheu Thai PM candidate Yodchanan Wongsawat argued that the Thai-Cambodia conflict erupted because Pheu Thai was cracking down on scammers at the border, although Abhisit said that the government has been a follower rather than a leader on these crackdowns. (“Why did we have to wait for a Chinese minister to come and command the crackdown?”)
When the candidates were asked whether they wanted to legalize casinos, no one raised their hand, although Yodchanan felt the need to defend Pheu Thai’s previous proposal on entertainment complexes as a revenue generation strategy.
Some of the proposals were certainly more hardline than what we have heard in previous elections. Pirapan pledged to execute scammers, while Economic Party leader Rangsi Kittiyansap also promised the death penalty for both “givers and receivers” of corruption. Thai Kao Mai leader Suchatvee Suwansawat echoed this stance.
Many of the candidates also proposed ending MOU 43 and MOU 44 and building a barrier around the Thai-Cambodian border. At one point Pirapan and Abhisit got into a back and forth, with Pirapan calling for an end to both agreements but Abhisit urging caution over the matter. Natthaphong was similarly cautious.
There was some discussion of economic issues and other constitutional issues. (A question was asked about whether the candidates would support an amnesty for those convicted of violating Section 112, and Natthaphong was the only candidate to support this proposal).
Will this be the tone of this election: one where the border and scam centers will take up most of the oxygen? I believe that some parties like Pheu Thai will try to change the national conversation to focus more on bread and butter issues. But it suits many other parties perfectly well to focus on national security and grey capital. The political atmosphere is hawkish, and political parties are quickly adjusting to this environment.