BANGKOK, Thailand – The involvement of Thaksin Shinawatra in his daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s administration has raised concerns regarding Thailand’s economic confidence. Thaksin, a former prime minister, remains a polarizing figure due to past allegations of corruption and abuse of power. His perceived influence in the current government has led to apprehensions about potential political instability, which can adversely affect investor confidence and economic growth.
Recent developments have intensified these concerns. The dismissal of former Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin by Thailand’s Constitutional Court on ethical grounds, followed by the dissolution of the Move Forward Party despite its electoral success, has contributed to an unstable political environment. This instability hampers the government’s ability to implement necessary economic reforms, further diminishing economic confidence.
Moreover, the administration’s proposed economic policies, such as a substantial 450 billion baht ($13.4 billion) handout aimed at stimulating growth, have faced criticism for potential fiscal irresponsibility. Critics argue that such populist measures may lead to increased public debt without addressing underlying structural issues in the economy.
Opposition Prepares for Battle
The upcoming no-confidence motion challenges Thaksin’s shadow over the government and its economic direction. The opposition has signaled its intent to use the motion to scrutinize the government’s leadership and economic policies. With growing concerns over the extent of Thaksin’s influence, the debate is expected to be a major political showdown that could shape Thailand’s future governance.
However, the inclusion of Thaksin’s name in the motion has sparked controversy. Legal experts and government allies argue that as a private citizen with no official position, Thaksin should not be directly named in the censure debate. The ruling coalition and House Speaker have suggested that the motion may not be accepted unless Thaksin’s name is removed, creating a legal and procedural hurdle for the opposition.
Critics, on the other hand, insist that Thaksin’s de facto control over the government justifies his inclusion. They argue that his presence behind the scenes is shaping key policies and decisions, making it impossible to discuss the government’s failures without addressing his role. The opposition fears that removing his name would weaken their argument and allow the government to sidestep accountability.
The dispute over Thaksin’s name is not just a technicality—it underscores the deeper issue of political influence and backroom power in Thailand. If the motion is blocked on procedural grounds, it could further erode public trust in democratic institutions, reinforcing perceptions that powerful figures remain above scrutiny.
