Recap of the No-Confidence Debate on Paetongtarn's Government

A fiery debate ends with an easy win for the government

Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra easily survived the no-confidence vote in Parliament today, with 319 votes in support of the government and 162 votes against. (There were seven abstentions, three of which I believe to be the Speakership team and four from the anti-Thaksin Democrat faction). This outcome was widely expected, given the hefty majority that the government enjoys.

However, the 30 hours of debate did not leave the Paetongtarn administration unscathed. Here were some noteworthy moments.

The People’s Party goes for Thaksin’s “devil’s deal”

One of the most noteworthy speeches of the no-confidence debate was made by People’s Party MP Rangsiman Rome, who accused Paetongtarn of making a “devil’s deal” with the conservative establishment to bring her father, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, home. (As I wrote about previously, whether or not Thaksin could be brought up had been a big topic of contention in the run-up to the no-confidence debate).

I won’t summarize the entirety of Rangsiman’s 100-minute speech — the Nation described it in detail here — but this was probably the most direct and detailed attack that the People’s Party has made on the arrangements of the “grand compromise” between Pheu Thai and the conservatives so far. Rangsiman alleged that a deal had been struck between Pheu Thai and the previous Prayut government to allow Thaksin to return to Thailand without spending any meaningful time in prison, and that the Prime Minister was involved in securing this arrangement. He also detailed a litany of offenses, such as preferential treatment that Thaksin received and lack of evidence for Thaksin being critically ill.

The Prime Minister went on the attack, accusing Rangsiman of being a former anti-Thaksin yellow shirt protestor (Rangsiman denied this) and declaring that Thaksin had come out of his own volition and had been genuinely ill. She also said that she is a “daughter who loves her father and one hundred percent Daddy’s Girl.” (Yes, that is a quote). She also noted that Pheu Thai had always voted for the Future Forward and Move Forward prime ministerial candidates, but Move Forward never agreed to vote for a Pheu Thai candidate.

Bringing the murky circumstances behind Thaksin’s return back into the picture was probably a smart political play for the opposition, as the grand compromise between Thaksin and the conservatives pleased neither the Pheu Thai nor the conservative base. And most importantly, it is an issue which the government found difficulty to defend with credibility.

Prawit Wongsuwan takes up the mantle of opposition politician

Prawit became one of the most closely watched side stories of the no-confidence debate. General Prawit Wongsuwan, former coupmaker and currently the leader of the Palang Pracharath Party, has largely remained out of the public eye in recent months. Despite remaining an MP, his appearances in parliament have been infrequent. However, he showed up to give a ten minute speech criticizing the Paetongtarn government.

Prawit’s critique was interesting. He touched on a wide variety of issues, such as the economy, corruption, and the government’s handling of MoU 44 (which critics argue could lead to Thailand’s loss of territory to Cambodia). He criticized the Prime Minister for issues of personal integrity. Unexpectedly, Prawit also accused “a member of the Prime Minister’s family to meet at the Baan Chan Song Lah mansion [Thaksin Shinawatra’s residence],” hinting that Thaksin was exercising undue influence on the government. Of course, it’s worth noting that Palang Pracharath was a member of the Pheu Thai coalition until late last year, and appeared to happily acquiesce to the Baan Chan Song Lah meetings until they were unceremoniously ejected from the government.

The 79-year old former deputy prime minister appeared to breath heavily during his speech and he acknowledged his physical fragility, saying that he was no longer “as vigorous as he used to be.” Many MPs applauded his speech after he sat down, appearing to acknowledge the physical exertion required for him to give the speech. But Paetongtarn’s response was very curt: she merely said that “what the senior member said previously is untrue.” This was certainly planned: Prawit had said something similarly brief once in response to another MP when he was deputy prime minister under Prayut. Yet Paetongtarn’s response was surely a strategic mistake. Prawit’s star has been waning for a variety of reasons — he no longer controls the appointed Senate and he was filmed physically hitting a journalist last year — but even antagonistic observers gave him sympathy points for making the speech. The former election commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn blasted Paetongtarn for her “lack of maturity,” commenting that “[the Prime Minister] probably thought her comeback was witty.”

Will this speech mark a new role for Prawit, given that he has promised to contest the next election? Will Palang Pracharath now take a more actively antagonistic role vis-a-vis the government? That remains to be seen.

Other noteworthy moments

• Leader of the Opposition and People’s Party leader Nattapong Rueangpanyawut marked his first high-profile parliamentary moment by making the opening and closing speeches to the no-confidence debate. He accused the government of operating under a system where a “leader outside the system” (i.e. Thaksin) is able to lead without any form of accountability. He noted that Pheu Thai and the People’s Party had endured similar travails, facing both party dissolutions and “lawfare,” but the Prime Minister’s actions have not matched her words and she has not resolved these political issues

• Firebrand People’s Party MP Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn raised questions about whether or not Paetongtarn was evading tax (which of course the PM denied)

• Fair Party MP Kannavee Suebsaeng heavily criticized the government’s deportation of Uighurs to China; in response, Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wetchayachai called him a “big liar”

• Issues such as electricity bills, corruption, and economic failures were also raised by various opposition MPs

Overall, the no-confidence debate did what most no-confidence debates in Thailand do: call attention to various issues facing the government and raise questions about the integrity of ministers, with little real chance of unseating the prime minister. Paetongtarn will breath more easily now that she has survived the grilling.

But I will end with one note: the debate also illustrated the current absurdity of Thai parliamentary theatre, where none of the current actors appear to be wielding true power. In her response to People’s Party leader Nattaphong, Paetongtarn said: “I have been accused of being controlled by my father, but you may be controlled by someone who is not your father.” We can all make a reasonable guess of who that person is. And it serves as a reminder of how, in some ways, this no-confidence debate did not truly matter. Parliament will remain marginal to how power is wielded when both the biggest government and opposition parties are headed de jure by figures who few Thais believe to truly lead their parties.